Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Planning permission

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

RIDUWAN BIN RAHMAT 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN

Citation

BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the First Respondent acted within its statutory powers and procedures: a local plan for the area existed (so s21 notification/hearing obligations did not arise for the Applicant), applicable state guidelines did not mandate formal social or traffic impact assessments for a place of worship, the First Respondent considered objections and valid planning judgment was exercised (not Wednesbury irrational), and the society appearing was distinct from but capable of being reconciled with the gazetted 2nd Respondent such that the Applicant's locus and procedural…
12 May 2026

Riduwan bin Rahmat 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) Loh Soo Mei

Citation

BA-25-146-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-146-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because a valid local plan was in force removing the statutory requirement to serve s21(6),(7) notices and hold hearings; social and traffic impact assessments were not mandatory for this category of development under the applicable guidelines; the First Respondent followed statutory procedures, considered objections and technical inputs (including TNB) and lawfully exercised planning discretion within statutory bounds.
30 Jan 2026

SUTIMAN BIN WAGIMIN AMRIII PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-116-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-116-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Development Agreement dated 23.1.2019 is declared void for breach of its fundamental condition precedent because the defendant commenced development works before obtaining required planning approval; plaintiff has locus standi; claims of misrepresentation and undue influence fail (plaintiff admitted no misrepresentation and failed to prove undue influence); neither party proved compensable losses so no damages awarded; defendant's counterclaims and claim for specific performance fail because defendant cannot benefit from its own breach.
26 Aug 2025

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) FONG LAI CHENG

Citation

BA-25-91-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-91-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Appeal Board acted within its statutory jurisdiction under section 23(3) of the TCPA 1976 in allowing the appeal and directing issuance of planning permission subject to conditions (including removal of additional structures); the Board's finding that a CCC existed was supported by materials before it; MBPJ had failed to place before the Board evidence on quota, safety or traffic and therefore could not rely on those matters in judicial review; undertakings and alleged deviations were either considered by the Board or not sufficiently established by MBPJ to demonstrate…
7 Aug 2025

1. ) Lok Swee Yoon 2. ) Kimwali Realty Sdn Bhd 3. ) Azizan Bin Abd Rahman 4. ) Che Mahani Binti Hassan 5. ) Turfgrass Sdn Bhd 6. ) Yeoh Chee Hun 7. ) Yee Jeng Ee 8. ) Wong Kuan Thye 9. ) Maria Chin Binti Abdullah 10. ) Tan Hock Seng 11. ) K

Citation

BA-25-45-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-45-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because Applicants failed to prove illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety or disproportionality; MPHS affirmed the existing KM-GV123 remained valid and no proven encroachment or concrete prejudice to Applicants existed; alleged harms were speculative and no automatic right to be heard arose given the applicable local plan.
19 Jun 2025

Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) UNI-SOURCE INDENTORS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-25-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appeal Board's decision was quashed because it failed to give proper effect to the mandatory layout plan requirements under the TCPA, irrationally relied on a PLANMalaysia letter that lacked authority at the material time, failed to consider relevant public interest factors and provided inadequate reasons, rendering the decision unlawful and Wednesbury-unreasonable.
10 Jun 2025

SAYAP JAYA SDN. BHD. SEJATI TROPIKA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff satisfied the contractual condition by obtaining an extension of the expired planning permission which, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, can be conditional; the JV agreement placed responsibility for securing additional technical approvals on the developer under Clause 11.1.12(d); the defendant's failure to pay the final tranche thereby constituted breach permitting termination under Clause 15.4.1 and retention under Clause 15.5.2; accordingly the plaintiff's claim succeeded and the defendant's counterclaim for specific performance failed.
5 Jun 2025

IMBUHAN GAGAH SDN BHD GC FORWARDING SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

BL-A52-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A52-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The tenancy agreement was tainted by illegality because the warehouse was developed and occupied in breach of mandatory planning and building approval requirements and land use restrictions; the plaintiff was implicated in that illegality and therefore the court will not lend its assistance to enforce the contract or award the claimed rents and damages; consequently the plaintiff's claims fail and are dismissed.
27 Jan 2025

1. ) CITRASAMA PROJEK SDN BHD 2. ) BENUA EHSAN SDN BHD 1. ) Perbadanan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 2. ) PERMODALAN NEGERI SELANGOR BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-223-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-223-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the JVAs expired on their contractual dates (23.7.2008 for JVA1 and 15.6.2010 for JVA2); plaintiffs failed to prove that any valid extension existed or that defendants repudiated or fraudulently terminated the agreements; limitation was not fatal to the claim (proceedings tolled) but plaintiffs in any event failed to prove payment of alleged expenses, entitlement to damages or proprietary interests; doctrine of legitimate expectation does not assist in private contract claims. Consequently plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs RM15,000.
5 Sept 2024

ACMELAND DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN JOHOR TENGGARA

Citation

JA-22NCvC-129-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-129-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found planning permission was a condition precedent fundamental to the JVA; plaintiff's failure to obtain that permission (and to exhaust available remedies) constituted a fundamental breach and rendered performance impossible such that defendant lawfully terminated and, alternatively, the JVA was frustrated. Plaintiff failed to prove causal loss and to strictly prove claimed special damages; under s15(2) Civil Law Act the deposit paid must be returned subject to any allowable expenses, and fairness required refund of the deposit.