Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of profits

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

PERAK INTEGRATED NETWORK SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) PINS OSC & MAINTENANCE SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) URBAN DOMAIN SDN BHD

Citation

03-6-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

03-6-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that (1) the subsequent winding up of the JV company did not limit the period for assessment of quantum and Appeals 5 and 6 are dismissed; (2) the Liability Judgment must be interpreted in its factual and contractual context so that costs and expenses incurred in generating revenue are deductible when assessing quantum — Appeal 26 is allowed in part; the Court remitted the matter to the High Court for recalculation of quantum taking into account the agreed heads of costs and the Extended License Period and ordered further expert reporting and directions.
6 Nov 2025

CATURAN DINAMIK SDN BHD Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

Citation

BA-15-259-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-259-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend Form N requires the Applicant to show sufficient reasons, supported by affidavit, and to act with promptness; an inordinate delay (here over two years since inquiry and over one year after filing in Court) that disrupts timely hearing and disposal and is insufficiently explained warrants refusal of leave; accordingly Enclosure 20 was disallowed.
31 Oct 2025

Revolusi Rancak Sdn Bhd Bukit Melita Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-275-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-275-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff was not continuously ready and willing to perform; the Consent Order did not vary the SPA’s contractual sequence; plaintiff failed to prove loss of profits or unjust enrichment because the SPA remained operative and evidential proof was speculative; defendant entitled to contractual interest at 8% p.a. for late payment but only up to the effective date of the Consent Order; plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim allowed in part with costs RM10,000.
3 Sept 2025

JEMMINGS SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD

Citation

DA-22NCvC-32-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-32-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's termination was invalid because it failed to follow the contractually required remedial procedures and issued termination while plaintiff was actively remedying progress; defendant had itself breached by failing to make agreed back-to-back payments, precluding it from relying on plaintiff's alleged breaches. Consequently plaintiff entitled to damages for loss of profits, assessed at 5% of the contract price, interest and costs.
25 Feb 2025

HASILHARTA (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) IDEAL ADVANTAGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) Vast Diversified Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-681-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-681-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims for legal fees (RM25,000 and RM80,000) and claimed loss of profits (RM1,400,000) were dismissed for lack of admissible and compelling evidence and because the Federal Court has held that legal fees are governed by the costs regime and are not generally recoverable as damages; court awarded only the costs for this assessment to plaintiff in the sum of RM5,000 and ordered interest at 5% per annum from date of this judgment to actual realisation.
5 Feb 2025

KOPERASI PERMODALAN FELDA MALAYSIA BERHAD IMEJ PARKING SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1190-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1190-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Image Parking's concession regarding the RM306,240 claim removed any entitlement to set-off and, combined with the High Court's proven counterclaim of RM189,446.37, required Image Parking to pay Koperasi Felda that sum; the High Court's methodical rejection of Image Parking's occupancy calculation and its findings on liability for certificate of fitness were correct and not plainly wrong and are therefore affirmed.
12 Dec 2024

ZENETAC GROUP SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya CLASSIC KANCIL SDN BHD) SAS LITEMETRIC JV SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove the contractual breaches alleged as basis for termination: delays were principally caused by third‑party DSR confirmations outside Plaintiff's control, no prior notices or warnings were shown, and Stop Work Orders did not establish liability or penalties on Plaintiff; accordingly termination dated 13.8.2018 was unlawful and Plaintiff was entitled to proven outstanding contract work, unlawful deductions returned, and loss of profits, while Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
30 Apr 2024

YAU ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) YAU SEE KENG 2. ) YAU LEONG SEN @ YOW LEONG FATT 3. ) ALPHA VET SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the First and Second Defendants breached fiduciary or director duties, unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff's economic interests or conspired to injure the Plaintiff; there was no admissible direct evidence or documents proving exclusive distributorships or causal link between defendants' conduct and termination of distributorships; expert loss calculations were unreliable; diminution of share value is not recoverable by the company (reflective loss); therefore the claims are dismissed and no damages awarde…
30 Apr 2024

YAU ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) YAU SEE KENG 2. ) YAU LEONG SEN @ YOW LEONG FATT 3. ) ALPHA VET SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof on balance of probabilities: it produced no decisive documentary or direct testimony from the suppliers/customers to establish exclusivity or causation linking defendants’ conduct to loss of distributorships; expert loss calculations were unreliable and premised on unproven factual assumptions; diminution in share value was non-recoverable by the company under reflective loss principle. Consequently plaintiff’s claims were dismissed and costs ordered as each party to bear their own costs.
30 Apr 2024

YAU ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) YAU SEE KENG 2. ) YAU LEONG SEN @ YOW LEONG FATT 3. ) ALPHA VET SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-334-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge its burden on the balance of probabilities: critical factual and documentary proof was absent (no distributorship agreements produced, no testimony from distributors/suppliers, insufficient evidence of misuse of confidential information), the expert loss valuation was unreliable and causation was unproven; consequently no breach of fiduciary duty or unlawful interference was established and diminution claims were barred or irrelevant under reflective loss principles, hence claim dismissed.