Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidated damages

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

SOONG MENG SERVICE SDN. BHD. SEJATI ELIT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BD-B52-8-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-B52-8-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Clause 25 (force majeure) could not be relied upon because the developer failed to give the prompt written notice required by the clause; clause 19.1’s LAD provision was subject to the purchaser having paid all instalments and the purchaser had not paid the outstanding RM169,850 before filing so the LAD claim was premature; parties’ conduct demonstrated the 24‑month completion term was not treated as operative by them; on balance neither party proved its case and both the original claim and counterclaim were dismissed with costs to be borne respectively.
13 Mar 2026

ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) NG KENG KHOON 2. ) TANG LEE WEN

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: appellant failed to demonstrate bona fide triable issues supported by precise, material evidence; the SPA plainly fixed the contract price (RM648,000) and LAD formula; plaintiffs' LAD calculation, with statutory exclusion of 167 days under s 35 Akta 829, produced an ascertainable sum RM269,674.52; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was proper and is upheld.
5 Mar 2026

1. ) PUGALESWARAN THAVAR A/L ALAGUPANDI 2. ) MOHD AKMAL IYAZI BIN SAIDIN 3. ) NURAYUNI BINTI PAUZI 4. ) MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BIN ROHAIZAD 5. ) TENGKU SAIFUL HASNY BIN TENGKU ABDULLAH 6. ) AZLIZA BINTI MOHD SARIF 7. ) KAMARUL FADZLI BIN KAMALUDDI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-703-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-703-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the JID was regularly obtained because the Defendant failed to enter appearance within the prescribed 14 days. The Plaintiffs' claims are mainly liquidated demands and therefore appropriate for a JID. The Defendant failed to prove a bona fide defence or produce evidence of any lawful extension by the Controller; assertions about deeds of assignment and settlement offers lacked proof. Under Clause 30 SPA the Defendant was obliged to rectify defects and only upon failure may Plaintiffs claim and deduct defect deposit; evidence showed Defendant failed to rectify. No special circu…
5 Feb 2026

MAGESWARAN A/L NADARAJAH 1. ) SARASVATHY A/P ANTHONY DASS 2. ) LAKSHMANAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: OTP is a bona fide option/sale contract and its liquidated damages clause is pre-agreed compensation, not 'interest' under the Moneylenders Act 1951; Appellant's loans were interest-free personal loans and he is not an unlicensed moneylender; Session Court erred in relying on hearsay evidence of D1 and in applying presumptions under s.10A Act 400; consequentially the Session Court judgment is set aside and Appellant awarded principal amounts, contractual sums and interest at 5% p.a., with costs.
30 Jan 2026

RAKAN SETIA HOUSING SDN. BHD. 1. ) MUHAMMAD FAHMI BIN IBRAHIM SAWAL 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

Citation

WA-25-367-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-367-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving the RM50,000 payment and the 1 March 2023 letter constituted full and final settlement of LAD; the Tribunal’s factual finding to that effect was not irrational; the Tribunal reasonably accounted for the COVID-19 Act exclusion in its LAD computation; no error of law was established and the judicial review application is dismissed.
13 Jan 2026

Airnovate Sales & Services Sdn Bhd Golden Age Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

KF-A52NCvC-13-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KF-A52NCvC-13-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant bore responsibility for the delay because initial and material delays were within Defendant's control; the 14-day period after the architect's notice is part of the delay by operation of clause 21(2); Defendant had no meritorious defence, therefore summary judgment was proper and Plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of RM120,246.58 and interest as claimed.
5 Jan 2026

OASIS TEAM SDN BHD 1. ) STAR LABS BIOSCIENCE SDN BHD 2. ) P'ng Aik Fong

Citation

BA-22NCC-137-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-137-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendants materially breached the Business Agreement by denying access and permitting unauthorised use, failed to remedy breaches within the 14-day period under Clause 7.3 causing automatic termination; the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to refund RM500,000 and the agreed RM2,000,000 liquidated damages under Clause 7.3 and Section 75 Contracts Act 1950; the Defendants’ contempt and failure to purge deprived them of the right to be heard, leaving the Plaintiff's evidence unrebutted.
8 Dec 2025

LEE BRIAN JEFFREY AIRASIA BERHAD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-31-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-31-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court affirmed that respondent substantially performed training obligations (MPL, type rating endorsements and in-house training), the RM100,000 bonded sum is a valid genuine pre-estimate of loss enforceable under s75 Contracts Act, the appellant breached the bond and gave insufficient notice entitling respondent to RM11,806.45 salary in lieu, the counterclaim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, and there was no basis for adverse inference or reversal for failure to cross-examine; accordingly the Sessions Court award of RM111,806.45 with interest and costs stands.
24 Nov 2025

NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the setting‑aside application because the plaintiff failed to prove any ground under s37: the Arbitrator considered and addressed the contested issues, made findings of fact and law within her mandate, and no breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy was shown; consequently, the Award met formal requirements under s38 and was ordered registered and enforced as a High Court judgment.
24 Nov 2025

GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove any of the narrow statutory grounds in s37: the arbitrator considered the parties' submissions and evidence, made fact-based credibility determinations (including that plaintiff waived strict notice requirements and that plaintiff's expert lacked independence), and resolved contract interpretation and causation questions within her jurisdiction; therefore the setting aside application was dismissed and the Award registered and enforced under s38 as formal requirements were met.