Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint venture

Legal area

Court

29 Dec 2024

QAF NETWORK SDN BHD 1. ) BAHAGIAN PERANCANG EKONOMI NEGERI JOHOR 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Citation

JA-21NCvC-35-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-35-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there was no binding contract because the parties never reached consensus ad idem; the approvals and proposals were conditional and repeatedly expressed to be subject to a formal written agreement. The 13.11.2016 document amounted to ongoing negotiations/letter of intent rather than a final contract. Plaintiff proceeded at its own risk and failed to provide required technical verification for any claimed sums. Consequently Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.
5 Dec 2024

1. ) WONG JIAN ON 2. ) CHEAH LEAN MING 1. ) TAN SWEE LEONG 2. ) GO YEW KIAT 3. ) LINGKARAN EW SDN BHD 4. ) LINGKARAN KUALITI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-673-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-673-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities there was no joint venture between the parties at the inception of the Penang and Banting projects in September 2019; the relationship was contractual (rental of machines, contractor/sub-contractor) and payments were loans or rentals; a joint venture only came into existence upon the incorporation of Lingkaran EW Sdn Bhd in December 2020 and applies only to works undertaken after that incorporation (Ijok, Kepong, Cyberjaya, Rasa).
7 Nov 2023

EZWAN BIN RASUL 1. ) MOHD ARIF BIN MANSOR 2. ) ONE MINDEN SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-542-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-542-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted evidence that purchase price was RM5,500,000, rejected large swathe of defendants' expense claims for lack of admissible supporting documentation, double accounting and related‑party opacity, allowed a limited reasonable expenses sum (RM231,136.20) and after deducting total allowed expenses of RM5,031,477.90 from sale proceeds of RM9,790,000 concluded net profit RM4,758,522.10 and awarded plaintiff 50% = RM2,379,261.05 plus interest and costs.
21 Aug 2023

KGFC (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHEQUERS HOTEL SDN. BHD. 2. ) NG MEI MEI 3. ) LEE CHOON PENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-824-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-824-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the pleadings disclosed triable issues — specifically the disputed Power of Attorney arrangement and the unresolved accounting dispute concerning GTSB's alleged indebtedness — and the plaintiff failed to establish a clear and undeniable claim on the pleadings.
21 Jun 2023

CATHERINE CHEONG POH LIN NANOPAC (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s findings that the appellant had taken RM14,601.97 and that USD1,050 was payable, and affirmed interest at 5% and costs of RM10,000; it held evidence of authorisation could not be admitted where not pleaded and that the RM200,000 award for general and exemplary damages was excessive and could not be justified given compensatory damages were under RM20,000 and established principles requiring proportionality and restraint, therefore set aside the RM200,000 award; appeal otherwise dismissed and no order as to costs for the appeal.
27 Jun 2022

1. ) TEGUH KUALITI SDN BHD 2. ) ZAINODDIN BIN AZAHARI SATF EQUITY HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

DA-12ANCvC-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12ANCvC-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Order 14 prerequisites satisfied (appearance, service, compliant affidavit) and that documentary and testimonial evidence established a prima facie case of a binding joint venture and settlement agreement with variation; the burden therefore shifted to appellants who failed to demonstrate any triable issues. The judge accepted that MJBS acted for the respondent and that appellants were estopped from denying the agreements, so summary judgment was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs of RM6,000 subject to 4% allocator.
28 Nov 2021

1. BU YAW SENG 2. NG HING KIAW 1. CHIN KIM YANG 2. LIM WHA HING 3. LIM KIM SAN 4. JEBBERY LIM CHOON CHET

Citation

JB-22NCVC-76-12/2019 (ENCLOSURE 59) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 59
Case number

JB-22NCVC-76-12/2019 (ENCLOSURE 59) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under O.20 r.5 and allowed the amendment applications because the proposed amendments filled gaps and provided additional details without changing the character of the defence, no trial date had been fixed so Plaintiffs could fairly reply, and prejudice could be addressed by permitting Plaintiffs to file amended replies and by costs; therefore amendments were allowed with specified filing, service and reply deadlines and costs awarded to Plaintiffs.
23 Sept 2021

Nissei Build Asia Pte. Ltd. M.A. Intelligent Parking (M) Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors

Citation

WA-22NCC-535-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-535-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the documents in Appendices A and B exist and are in the defendants' possession, are relevant to the pleaded issues (operation, management, assets, finances and governmental dealings over Lot 43) and are necessary for a fair disposal under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012; accordingly discovery was ordered against the 1st and 4th defendants with an extended compliance period of 30 days and costs in the cause.
2 Sept 2021

LEE CHIN HOCK (PEMILIK TUNGGAL SERI NUSANTARA CONSTRUCTION) WONG SAU HOONG

Citation

BA-12ANCC-21-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-21-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There are genuine and material disputes of fact about the nature and purpose of the RM270,000 payment and the proper plaintiff which cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence or contemporaneous Whatsapp messages alone; the Defendant raised bona fide triable issues (including set-off and breach of joint venture) so summary judgment and striking out were inappropriate and the matters must proceed to trial.
22 Jul 2021

GOLDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD HARTA PRIMA REALTIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-543-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-543-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant had agreed to be a joint venture partner or to finance 90% of the land purchase; therefore the Defendant was not liable and the claim is dismissed.