Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice requirement

Legal area

Court

15 May 2025

1. ) DIRK JOHANN QUINTEN 2. ) SIMONE QUINTEN 3. ) WOLFGANG ALBERT DORNER 4. ) HEIDRUN GERTRUD DORNER YEOH TEEN EAM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-468-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-468-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no triable issue: the termination notice given by the plaintiffs was valid under clause 7 and was acknowledged by the defendant; the defendant's denials were insufficient or inconsistent and did not raise a triable issue; clause 7's plain meaning requires settlement of 'all dues' within one month, which includes return of trading capital and outstanding DSP and RC; accordingly the summary judgment application was allowed.
5 Aug 2021

1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia Sunissa Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-01(C)(W)-584-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-01(C)(W)-584-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Clause 44.1 of the PWD standard contract is a clear mandatory condition precedent; because the Contractor failed to give the required 30-days written notice with an estimate the Contractor's claims arising from the EOTs fall within the exclusion in Clause 44.3 and are barred; there is no valid dichotomy between losses "within" and "beyond" reasonable contemplation for the purpose of avoiding the notice requirement; the signed Certificate of Final Accounts conclusively settled accounts and barred further claims absent fraud; no waiver or estoppel operated to negate these effects.
21 Jan 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2584-08/2019 & KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2585-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2584-08/2019 & KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2585-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Company Resolution did not effect an absolute assignment under section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 because there was no evidence of express written notice to the debtors and the Resolution only authorised payments to the director as repayment of advances; accordingly Econwin retained locus standi and the Bankruptcy Notices were valid.
2 Jun 2020

HSL GROUND ENGINEERING SDN BHD CIVIL TECH RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

24c-282-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

24c-282-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant's failure to serve the mandatory s.30(2) notice disentitles it from relying on that breach to avoid payment; the Defendant's final account and backcharge evidence were unreliable and key documents were withheld so the court found monies 'due or payable' to CTSB (certified progress, retention and an undisclosed final claim) and ordered direct payment by the Defendant under s.30(3) CIPAA.
13 Jan 2020

LONG MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BIN LONG ISHAK (NRIC No.: 950906-03-5453) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-262-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-262-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure by the insurer to serve the proviso-required notice under section 96(3) RTA meant the declaratory order obtained by the insurer does not bind the third-party claimant; accordingly the claimant is entitled to enforce the Sessions Court judgment against the insurer under section 96(1) RTA without first instituting a separate recovery proceeding, provided the judgment is not stayed or overturned.
17 Sept 2019

SUNISSA SDN BHD 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-21C-7-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21C-7-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 44.1 notice requirement applies only to loss and expense that are "beyond that reasonably contemplated"; the 30-day notice in Clause 44.1 is a contractual condition precedent (enforceable) and non-compliance with Clause 44.1 (even if Clause 44.2 complied with) bars recovery under Clause 44.3; on the facts recurring preliminaries within reasonable contemplation are recoverable on a pro-rated basis (RM2,988,480.81) but head office overheads and other items not reasonably contemplated were disallowed for failure to give the Clause 44.1 notice; Certificate of Final Accounts did not bar pur…

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) DIRK JOHANN QUINTEN 2. ) SIMONE QUINTEN 3. ) WOLFGANG ALBERT DORNER 4. ) HEIDRUN GERTRUD DORNER YEOH TEEN EAM

1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia Sunissa Sdn Bhd

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor

HSL GROUND ENGINEERING SDN BHD CIVIL TECH RESOURCES SDN BHD

LONG MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BIN LONG ISHAK (NRIC No.: 950906-03-5453) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

SUNISSA SDN BHD 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA