Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

20 May 2025

BENAREL INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Pengarah Jab. Imigresen Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-410-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-410-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant did not plead a quantum meruit claim at trial and cannot introduce it on appeal; even if considered, the Appellant failed to prove the requisite elements of section 71 (the work was not done solely for the Respondents, evidence showed services were gratuitous or demonstrative, and the Respondents did not derive lasting benefit), the termination letter incorporating the earlier reservation clause precluded government liability, junior officers lacked authority to bind the Government, and the Appellant failed to prove quantum/special damages with th…
10 Jan 2025

MZP CONSTRUCTION & TRADING MAGEALA A/P THARMALINGAM

Citation

BL-B52NCC-38-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-B52NCC-38-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Mr Kathir acted as agent with actual and apparent authority for AR Mega Winner Trading; defendant, through contemporaneous business documents and a letter of 24 January 2022, unequivocally admitted indebtedness; statements of account establishing a 1% per month interest clause and the defendant's conduct established entitlement to charge interest; the defendant failed to prove that the payment of RM1,448,918.98 was a full and final settlement; accordingly the defendant owes RM626,747.91 as at 1 March 2023 and the plaintiff's claim is allowed wit…
30 Oct 2024

1. ) NURUL AZREEN BINTI SULTAN 2. ) HAK ASASI HIDUPAN LIAR MALAYSIA GLOBAL 1. ) Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara 2. ) Menteri Sumber Asli Dan Alam Sekitar

Citation

NA-21NCvC-13-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-21NCvC-13-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiffs failed to prove their claims; evidence established the attacking animals were dusky leaf monkeys (Schedule One protected), defendants undertook sequential non‑lethal measures per SOP, identified the same territorial group, and lawfully and necessarily shot seven adult monkeys under s52 Act 716; s55 was inapplicable to officers and s86(1)(f) not breached; plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs of RM10,000.
7 Oct 2024

TENGKU MUHAMAD KHAZI HAKIMI BIN KU HUSSIN 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Kelantan 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

DA-12B-57-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-57-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a pothole filled with water existed at the material time and caused the accident; therefore the Sessions Court finding that Roadcare was 100% liable and that the Government defendants were vicariously liable was incorrect. Where maintenance has been contracted to Roadcare under the concession agreement (clause 21.1), the contractor bears the risk and indemnifies the Government. The Sessions Court awards on quantum were properly assessed and are upheld.
10 Jul 2024

Budaya Delima Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-21-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-21-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court allowed the appeal because the plaintiff failed to prove, as pleaded, that the defendant had contracted to bear unlimited liability for water used by individual unit occupants; the Sessions Court failed to properly evaluate evidence and misapplied the law by attributing consumption to the defendant without proof, so the judgment against the defendant could not stand.
14 Mar 2024

HECKLER & KOCH GMBH (Syarikat Jerman, didaftarkan di Mahkamah Stuggart dibawah No - HRB 481250) ZAIKRY SANY BIN MOHD ISA berniaga sebagai MYDEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan - 201403219775)

Citation

AA-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant breached the contracts by failing to pay; repeated acknowledgements of debt and part payments constituted admissions of indebtedness; any alleged delivery delays were waived or contingent on permits and did not excuse non-payment; the asserted transfer of liability to a third party was unpleaded and unproven; accordingly plaintiff entitled to the outstanding EUR 753,473.00, interest at 5% per annum from date of filing until full payment, and costs RM10,000.00.
4 Oct 2023

1. ) NAZIF BIN RIDHWANUDDIN 2. ) RIDHWANUDDIN BIN ABD KADIR 1. ) MALATHI A/P MUNISAMY 2. ) VISVABARATHI A/P MUNISAMY 3. ) AIA GENERAL BERHAD

Citation

AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants' vehicle struck the plaintiff's motorcycle; key evidence was unreliable or hearsay (SP4, 999 call information as relayed, inconsistent police investigation and photographs, and deficiencies in IO evidence). As plaintiffs did not discharge the burden, the claim is dismissed with costs. Separately, insurer (Defendant Third) proved fraud on a balance of probabilities but the plaintiffs' substantive claim still fails for lack of proof.
23 Jun 2023

1. ) Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mazawati Osman 3. ) Low Koe Sei 4. ) Koh Mei Leng 5. ) Abdul Malek Bin Ahmad Zaini 6. ) Haironi Binti Raffaiee 7. ) Chong Sun Chan 8. ) Tong Yap Lan 9. ) Syarifah Aliza Binti Syed Azauddin 10. ) Juraimi Azaha

Citation

WA-22NCvC-655-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-655-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants' construction (including the RC wall and backfilling) caused the three flooding events and resultant damage; evidence established significant surface runoff from MRR2 and diversion works by third parties as the effective cause, plaintiffs' expert evidence was speculative and insufficient, therefore defendants are not liable and plaintiffs' claims fail.
20 Nov 2019

Yogananthy a/p A.S. Thambaiya Harta Pusaka Idris bin Osman

Citation

02(f)-25-04/2018(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-25-04/2018(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court affirmed the findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the tripartite agreement (which subsumed the 1987 statutory declaration) was a sham designed to conceal the real contracting party and to enable conflict‑of‑interest profiteering; the agreement was therefore void and unenforceable as being opposed to public policy under section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950, the appellant lacked a sustainable claim on the proven facts, and the courts below were not plainly wrong.