Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Measure of damages

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

AKIRAN SERVICES SDN BHD KPJ PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the arbitrator acted within the scope of the arbitration and based on pleaded facts and evidence; there was no breach of natural justice or conflict with Malaysian public policy; s42 is deleted and inapplicable; accordingly the application to set aside the award is dismissed and the application to register the award is allowed, with costs awarded to the defendant.
15 Nov 2024

1. ) MUHAMMAD MAHFUZ BIN MOHAMAD YASSIM 2. ) O&G TRANSPORT (KLANG) SDN BHD HORECA FOODS (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-43-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-43-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: evidence (visual inspection, NCR and Food Act considerations) supported that all packages were rendered unfit for sale; the appropriate measure of loss is the invoiced/market value at destination including SST paid; the defendants failed to prove that further reasonable mitigation or salvage was possible, therefore the Sessions Court's award of special damages and ancillary orders was not wrong in principle or wholly unreasonable.
24 Sept 2024

EVYAP SABUN MALAYSIA SDN BHD SAMAJU KIMIA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-160-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-160-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the IPA delivered by the Defendant contained Methanol, the Defendant breached its delivery obligations under the PO/Incoterms (DDP) by providing contaminated product and failing to ensure proper carriage, the evidence (including third-party lab report) was not rebutted, res ipsa loquitur applied to permit an inference of negligence, and Plaintiff proved specific heads of loss sufficiently to award RM800,081 (direct material loss) and RM19,800 (production loss); other consequential and business losses claimed were not proven; Defendant’s claim fo…
24 Jul 2023

Rong Cheng Casket & Funeral Services Sdn Bhd Kong Sew Chu

Citation

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found a contract for funeral services was formed by the parties' conduct (offer, acceptance and consideration), there was no cogent evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment did not bar the plaintiff's claim, and therefore the plaintiff proved entitlement to the claimed sum; claim allowed.
20 Dec 2022

IFFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. RAMAMOORTHY A/L R. SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-47-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-47-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that because the letter of appointment expressly provided a one-month notice period, the Federal Court authority in Fung Keong and subsequent authorities restrict civil damages for wrongful dismissal to wages in lieu of the contractual notice period; Section 74 Contracts Act does not apply to expand damages where the contract provides a specific termination remedy. Accordingly the Sessions Court award of RM136,260 (45 months' salary) was set aside and replaced with one month's salary of RM3,028.
29 Nov 2022

YAYASAN HASANAH 1. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN MOHD NASIR 2. ) SIGMA INFO ANALYTICS DATA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-249-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-249-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the 2nd Defendant breached the contract by delivering laptops that did not conform to the purchase order specifications and were not of merchantable quality or fit for the CERDIK purpose; the Plaintiff had not accepted the delivered 1,011 units within the meaning of SOGA, validly rejected and terminated the contract; Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of RM3,239,681.30 (monies paid) with interest and costs; D2 was unjustly enriched and must refund; D1 is personally liable for deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation for knowingly or recklessly inducing the contract; D2's counterclai…
31 Mar 2022

PEARL AMRIN SDN. BHD. 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Rizam Bin Sahar

Citation

JA-22NCvC-18-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-18-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's counter-claim succeeded on quantum because the Defendant proved with credible documentary evidence (weighing slips and accounts) (i) unpaid sums for sand extracted, (ii) loss from Plaintiff's failure to meet the contractual minimum extraction, and (iii) excess extraction unaccounted for; acceptance of lesser payments did not waive the contractual obligation to meet the guaranteed minimum; deposit retained was properly set off against the awarded damages.
23 Mar 2022

1. ) CHONG NGE WEI 2. ) BELINDA YAP LI FUNG 3. ) WONG WANN SHIN 4. ) TAN LENG AUN 5. ) LOH BOON SEN 6. ) CHAN MEE YOKE 7. ) CHEW HOCK CHUAN KEMAJUAN MASTERON SDN BHD

Citation

03-1-08/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

B
Case number

03-1-08/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Clause 12 is not a stipulation falling under s75; a detailed contractor quotation for reinstatement constituted prima facie evidence of the reasonable cost to put appellants in the position as if the contract had been performed; in absence of any rebuttal evidence from the respondent the SAR's award of RM380,500 was justified and the Court restores the High Court decision awarding that sum with interest and costs.
27 Nov 2019

KEMAJUAN MASTERON SDN BHD CHONG NGE WEI & 6 LAGI

Citation

B-03(IM)-19-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-03(IM)-19-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the SAR and High Court assessment because clause 12 did not dispense with the respondents’ burden to prove actual loss; the sole contractor quotation was inadequate evidence (no acceptance, no proof works done, validity lapsed, no detail of original materials or itemised costs) and therefore the awarded RM380,500 lacked legal basis; respondents failed to discharge proof of quantum and no damages were awarded.
ONG SEOK HENG V WEE CHEONG MOTOR & HOUSING DEVELOPER SDN BHD

Citation

ONG SEOK HENG V WEE CHEONG MOTOR & HOUSING DEVELOPER SDN BHD
Court

Malaysian court

The High Court held that damages under s.18 are to be assessed in line with s.74 Contracts Act and, on the facts (no licensed housing developer and no contractual completion date), the correct date for valuation is the date of breach/the date of judgment; accordingly the Penolong Kanan Pendaftar’s assessment (award of damages and refund of deposit with interest) was correct and the appeal was dismissed.