Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privity

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

GLOBAL FIBER TRENCHERS SDN. BHD. EMNES METAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52C-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52C-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Counterclaim was struck out as obviously unsustainable: s.66 Contracts Act 1950 permits restitution to prevent unjust enrichment where plaintiff performed works and incurred costs despite lack of statutory permit; defendant authorised continuation of works and accepted payment and therefore is estopped from seeking refund; lack of approval by third party Reneuco does not give defendant a cause of action due to absence of privity.
11 Feb 2026

BAHTERA OFFSHORE (M) SDN BHD 1. ) ETIQA GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD 2. ) QBE INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 3. ) GENERALI INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD (dahulunya AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD)

Citation

WA-27NCC-38-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-38-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 33 application dismissed because determination of the proposed preliminary issues would not substantially save time or costs and because numerous material facts are disputed requiring a full trial and the adducing of extrinsic evidence; thus the matter must proceed to trial.
18 Jan 2024

PESAT BUMI SDN BHD CESCON ENGINEERS SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(W)-1216-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(W)-1216-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed: respondent was entitled to challenge the genuineness and classification underlying variation orders despite not being party to PAM contract because it was not enforcing PAM terms; the consultant contract between the parties did not incorporate the PAM conclusiveness clause so statements of final account were not binding on respondent; the High Court’s factual findings that (a) certain VOs were not sufficiently proven and (b) appellant exercised its contractual discretion unreasonably were not plainly wrong and therefore should stand.
27 Sept 2023

CHANDIRASEGARAN A/L RAMASAMY PERSATUAN PENGUSAHA JURUGAYA RAMBUT INDIA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-11ANCC-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCC-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant: there was no contractual relationship or privity between the deceased/plaintiff and the 1st Defendant (no employer‑employee contract or equivalent to confer beneficiary rights under the group policy), therefore the claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous/vexatious and properly struck out; limitation against the 1st Defendant was moot.
10 Jun 2022

1. ) SEACERA GROUP BERHAD 2. ) SEACERA PROPERTIES SDN BHD 1. ) ISMAIL BIN OTHMAN 2. ) ZAIKE GLOBAL RESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) MDI ENERGY SDN BHD 4. ) SA GLORY SDN BHD 5. ) LUQY COMMUNICATION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-420-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-420-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was dismissed because plaintiffs identified genuine triable issues: the KL High Court proceedings and winding‑up order did not estop plaintiffs from litigating interest claims here (order expressly preserved plaintiffs' rights), privity between parties to invoke estoppel was not established on affidavit, entitlement to interest under the Debt Settlement Agreements was not obvious on the papers, and interlocutory recognition of creditors did not determine substantive rights; these matters require full trial and viva voce evidence.
11 May 2021

AMBANK (M) BERHAD MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was granted because the Plaintiff established a clear documentary right to a liquidated sum under an absolute assignment with proper notice; the Defendant failed to give written notice of discrepancy within the contractual period, made part payments accepting the arrangement, and did not raise specific pleaded facts or evidence sufficient to create triable issues; allegations of forgery and other irregularities were unsupported and insufficient to defeat the Order 14 application.
7 Oct 2019

RALCO PLASTIC SDN. BHD (Company NO: 178902-X) S & M EDIBLE OIL (M) SDN BHD (Company NO: 378663-X)

Citation

JA-22NCC-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the Defendant demonstrated multiple genuine triable issues — including existence of defects not ascertainable by inspection, Plaintiff admissions, disputes over the applicability and timing of the quotation, agency authority, alleged breach of implied contractual terms, and the role of Knightsbridge — making the Plaintiff's claim not plain and obvious and unsuitable for summary disposal.

Malaysia Case Law

GLOBAL FIBER TRENCHERS SDN. BHD. EMNES METAL SDN BHD

BAHTERA OFFSHORE (M) SDN BHD 1. ) ETIQA GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD 2. ) QBE INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 3. ) GENERALI INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD (dahulunya AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD)

PESAT BUMI SDN BHD CESCON ENGINEERS SDN BHD

CHANDIRASEGARAN A/L RAMASAMY PERSATUAN PENGUSAHA JURUGAYA RAMBUT INDIA MALAYSIA

1. ) SEACERA GROUP BERHAD 2. ) SEACERA PROPERTIES SDN BHD 1. ) ISMAIL BIN OTHMAN 2. ) ZAIKE GLOBAL RESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) MDI ENERGY SDN BHD 4. ) SA GLORY SDN BHD 5. ) LUQY COMMUNICATION SDN BHD

AMBANK (M) BERHAD MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD

RALCO PLASTIC SDN. BHD (Company NO: 178902-X) S & M EDIBLE OIL (M) SDN BHD (Company NO: 378663-X)