Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late payment interest

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

ESYS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NURUL SHAZILA BTE MUHAMAD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the affidavits and contemporaneous documents the plaintiff proved the debt: invoices, a valid CPC, WhatsApp requests for price reduction and two part payments; the defendant's denials were bare, contradicted by contemporaneous evidence and failed to disclose a bona fide triable defence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for RM89,780.89 with interest and costs, and the defendant's counterclaim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as vexatious/abusive of process.
13 Feb 2026

ESYS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NURUL SHAZILA BTE MUHAMAD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff established a prima facie undisputed claim supported by certified payment documents, CPC and contemporaneous WhatsApp communications evidencing defendant's request for reduced variation sum and instalment payments; defendant's denials were bare, contradicted by conduct, lacked contemporaneous complaints or expert evidence to attribute defects to plaintiff, therefore no bona fide triable issues existed and summary judgment was warranted; counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was abusive, thus struck out.
27 Nov 2025

ENVILAB SDN BHD GIIB RUBBER COMPOUND SDN BHD

Citation

WA-B52NCC-1306-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCC-1306-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Invoices and delivery notes expressly stating 1.5% per month constitute part of the written contract; defendant had knowledge and did not object at material times and is estopped from denying the term; therefore there is no triable issue on principal or interest and summary judgment is warranted for the plaintiff with costs.
3 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN IVMI SDN BHD KTL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-544-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-544-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The respondent failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute on substantial grounds: the purported cross-claim was raised belatedly without cogent contemporaneous evidence and lacked bona fides; the challenge to the interest claim did not eliminate the principal debt which exceeded the statutory threshold; the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency arising from non-compliance with the statutory demand; consequently the winding-up order and appointment of the Official Receiver were properly granted and costs awarded.
30 Sept 2025

PROVENTUS BINA SDN BHD FORTIS STAR SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly admitted the computer-produced invoices and statements based on witness evidence proving production in the ordinary course; the Defendant was estopped from denying receipt of delivered goods given delivery orders and prior conduct; the 1.5% monthly late payment interest term was incorporated by the Defendant's conduct; there was no manifest error warranting appellate intervention, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is affirmed with costs.
29 Sept 2025

MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2185-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s15(d) CIPAA by allowing standalone late payment interest claims relating to Certificates 1-46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because such claims were not "payment" within s4 CIPAA and therefore outside the adjudicator's core jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application was allowed in part, the adjudication award was varied to deduct RM1,610,732.87 (with refund and interest), and the enforcement order was varied correspondingly while upholding the remainder of the adjudication dec…
29 Sept 2025

MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2178-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2178-12/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the adjudicator exceeded her jurisdiction in awarding late payment interest calculated for Certificates 1–46 where the principal amounts had already been paid because a stand-alone claim for late payment interest of that nature is not a 'payment' under s4 CIPAA; accordingly the setting-aside application is allowed in part, the adjudicated sum is reduced by RM1,610,732.87 which Setiakon must refund plus interest RM95,176.42, and enforcement is varied on the same terms.
21 Aug 2025

YANKONG STAINLESS SDN BHD 1. ) LATEX FORM SDN BHD 2. ) SARAVANA KUMAR A/L NARAYANAN 3. ) KONG MUK WENG

Citation

BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved the credit contract, delivery and acceptance of goods and that the 1.5% monthly late payment interest formed part of the agreed terms; Defendants failed to prove a binding waiver or full-and-final settlement; the personal guarantee was validly executed and not procured by legal duress; late stamping was remedied and did not invalidate the guarantee; the charged interest was simple not compound. Therefore Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed late payment interest and costs.
30 Jun 2025

DATAFM SDN BHD SHAZIMAN TRANSPORT SDN BHD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-26-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-26-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue in relation to the invoiced sums or the contractual entitlement to late payment interest; contractual terms (Exhibit C and Exhibit E) permitted the charges and interest as claimed and the plaintiff’s willingness to calculate interest from invoice delivery removed any arguable dispute; the defendant’s counterclaim for mistaken payments and refund of deposit was either estopped, an afterthought or an abuse/scandalous claim and therefore struck out; accordingly summary judgment for RM22,203.03 with interest and costs was appropriate and the count…
30 May 2025

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE 3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-574-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-574-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the claimed amounts because invoices and billing practices breached statutory allocation of share units for accessory parcels, the collective Form 20 notice was defective for not specifying amounts per parcel, the 10% interest lacked proper adoption and its calculation was inconsistent, and plaintiff misapplied payments contrary to debtor instructions; accordingly the claim is dismissed with costs.