Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and particulars

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2025

NEWLAKE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ZENITH DELIGHT SDN BHD (D1) 2. ) KUMAR JASPAL QUAH & AISHAH (D2) 3. ) How Chee Hong (Steven) (D3) (Amber Kiew Sieh Pei) 4. ) Thian Mung Ching (D4)

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-184-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-184-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found the High Court erred by narrowing the appellant’s case to a single alleged misrepresentation and by failing to appreciate contemporaneous documents and witness evidence showing a series of misrepresentations and dissipation of funds; the facts supported that D2/D3 occupied a fiduciary position (constructive trust) in respect of monies paid which were used for purposes unrelated to the land acquisition, the SPA was voidable for fraud and rescinded, and the appellants were entitled to the reliefs in the Statement of Claim; appeal allowed and High Court decision set asi…
21 Aug 2025

1. ) IBTIHAD BINTI MUSTAFA 2. ) MOHD ZAIN BIN IDRIS 3. ) MOHAMAD MASYA'AL BIN MOHAMAD RODZI 4. ) SAUBARIAH BINTI SENAPI 1. ) CHE GON BINTI CHE SAAD 2. ) MOHAMMAD FAKHRUL RADHI BIN AHMAD 3. ) ROSNANI BINTI AHMAD 4. ) RUSALINA BINTI AHMAD 5.

Citation

KB-22NCvC-17-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-22NCvC-17-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs as registered proprietors held indefeasible title under s.340 NLC; defendants failed to plead or prove existence of a constructive trust (claims were pleaded as a direct trust at most) and thus failed the evidential burden; defendants’ claims were time-barred in any event; accordingly plaintiffs’ declaration of registered ownership is granted and defendants must deliver vacant possession within one year, but damages and declaration of trespass were refused for lack of proof.
24 Jul 2025

UNIVERSAL CITY EDUCATION SDN. BHD. U.C.I EDUCATION SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-266-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-266-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that an oral contract existed between plaintiff and defendant or that plaintiff was defendant's agent; contemporaneous documents establish relationship through Eye Knowledge, not direct privity with defendant; plaintiff failed to plead essential particulars and failed to prove requisite conditions (student tuition payments) for commission under SRA 2020; therefore no contractual or restitutionary liability of defendant for the claimed RM2,241,800 and claim is dismissed.
18 Apr 2025

RCBUMINIAGA SDN BHD SAWIT KINABALU SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-285-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-285-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because its pleadings lacked essential particulars and it failed to prove a valid contract with the named defendant; evidence established dealings were with a separate subsidiary (Borneo Samudera), there was no privity of contract with Sawit Kinabalu Sdn Bhd and no legal basis to lift the corporate veil; consequent lack of contract precluded the defendant's conditional counterclaim.
16 Jul 2024

1. ) LEONG KUM TOH 2. ) ENG WAN CHI 3. ) ENG KAI SIANG ENG LAI SEONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-377-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-377-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs met Order 14 preconditions and produced unchallenged contemporaneous evidence (bank statements, audio transcript) showing the Defendant received and admitted a RM1.5 million loan which remains unpaid; the Defendant failed to plead or adduce evidence of any substantive triable issue or lawful offset; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and entered for RM1,500,000 with interest from 28 February 2021 until judgment and costs of RM8,000.
1 Mar 2024

1. ) MOHD HAKEEM BIN HANIFF 2. ) NURUL SHAFINAZ BINTI ABDUL RASHID 1. ) DATUK BANDAR, DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) SISTEM PENYURAIAN TRAFIK KL BARAT HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) Time Dotcom Berhad

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the inaccuracies in the Statement of Claim (road name variation and description as 'large hole' rather than 'manhole') were not fatal because the evidence, admissions and documents produced at trial showed the accident, its general location and cause such that respondents were not taken by surprise; applying the variation versus radical departure test from Ang Koon Kau the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the suit and should have decided on the merits. Accordingly the plaintiffs' appeal against DBKL is allowed, DBKL's cross-appeal on quantum is dismissed, DBKL's ind…
30 Nov 2023

BUMISETIA POWER SDN BHD TAN CHIN SIEA

Citation

BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because the plaintiff sought to rely on material facts and detailed particulars (non‑contribution of capital, diversion of proceeds and LAD) that were not pleaded in the statement of claim; the Court therefore disregarded those unpleaded facts and related evidence, leaving the pleaded case unproven on the balance of probabilities. Further, even if those matters were admissible, issues already ventilated and decided in the Sandakan Suit attracted res judicata/issue estoppel considerations and the Court may not adopt findings from that judgment where appeals…
21 Jun 2023

CATHERINE CHEONG POH LIN NANOPAC (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s findings that the appellant had taken RM14,601.97 and that USD1,050 was payable, and affirmed interest at 5% and costs of RM10,000; it held evidence of authorisation could not be admitted where not pleaded and that the RM200,000 award for general and exemplary damages was excessive and could not be justified given compensatory damages were under RM20,000 and established principles requiring proportionality and restraint, therefore set aside the RM200,000 award; appeal otherwise dismissed and no order as to costs for the appeal.
17 Oct 2022

YTS ARCHITECTURE SDN BHD 1. ) OXLEY GEM SDN BHD 2. ) OXLEY HOLDINGS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 3. ) OXLEY MALAYSIA PTE LTD 4. ) CHING CHIAT KWONG 5. ) LOW SEE CHING (LIU SHIJIN)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-854-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-854-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it materially contravened Order 18 Rules 7 and 12 by pleading evidence rather than concise material facts, failing to give essential particulars (including identity of the appointing company and form of appointment), misdescribing separate corporate defendants and alleging fraud and naming third parties without particulars; these defects would prejudice and embarrass a fair trial and were incurable except by striking out with liberty to file afresh.
22 Aug 2022

GOH KEAN PENG 1. ) FONG TAT YUAN 2. ) KOK GOC POI 3. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN MANSOR 4. ) INFINIC PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-22NCvC-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The pleaded claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action in slander because only the 1st defendant was alleged to have spoken the impugned words, the plaintiff did not plead that the other defendants uttered the words nor pleaded vicarious liability; accordingly the claims against those defendants were plainly unsustainable, frivolous and an abuse of process and must be struck out.