Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantum meruit

Legal area

Court

8 May 2026

1. ) TEY SUI KIAT 2. ) TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN BHD () 1. ) Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok 2. ) Sin Hai Estate Berhad (dalam likuidasi) 3. ) Sing Lian Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) 4. ) Lim Jit Kim & Lim Tian Jee 5. ) Tan Yian Ping 6. ) Lim Ah Sang 7. ) Ta

Citation

M-02(IM)-1665-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

M-02(IM)-1665-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Winding Up Court's earlier decision refusing to ratify the appointment/payment was final and, by application of issue estoppel, barred the liquidator's subsequent claim for fees relating to the period covered by that decision; subsequent documentary evidence relating to a different company's liquidation was irrelevant to these appeals; the High Court decisions were set aside and the matter remitted to the Winding Up Court for redetermination of the liquidator's fees for the limited claimable period after the liquidator complied with the security requirement (from 21.2.2012…
8 May 2026

Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok 1. ) Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan 2. ) Tey Liong Seng 3. ) Tey Sui Kiat 4. ) SIN HAI ESTATE BERHAD 5. ) SING LIAN SDN BHD 6. ) TEY BOON GIOW & SONS SDN. BHD

Citation

M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the earlier Winding Up Court decision refusing ratification/payment to the liquidator’s agent, final by absence of appeal, operated as issue estoppel to bar the liquidator’s subsequent claim for fees relating to the period involving the agent (7.9.2012–14.12.2015); the subsequent evidence proffered (relating to a different company’s liquidation) was irrelevant; the High Court decisions were set aside and the matter remitted to the Winding Up Court to redetermine a fair and reasonable remuneration for the limited claimable period (21.2.2012–7.9.2012) applying the establishe…
13 Apr 2026

International Shipcare Sdn Bhd 1. ) Sabenajadi Sdn Bhd 2. ) Petronas Dagangan Berhad 3. ) Mohd Amin Bin Mohd Shukor

Citation

WA-22NCC-867-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-867-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants is plainly unsustainable because there is no contractual nexus between Plaintiff and D2/D3 and the 2nd Defendant fully discharged its contractual obligations by paying the 1st Defendant the entire agreed sum; consequently there is no unjust enrichment or juristic gap to remedy under Section 71, promissory estoppel and fraud are insufficiently particularised, and the 3rd Defendant acted in his representative capacity so no personal liability is pleaded; therefore the pleadings against D2 and D3 are struck out.
3 Apr 2026

1. ) TAN CHERK YIK 2. ) TAN KIM TIONG SIN YAP EXCAVATING & BUILDING WORKS

Citation

JA-12BNCC-11-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-11-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the 27.08.2019 agreement was admissible and binding as it was executed in counterparts and exchanged by email (s62 Evidence Act) and properly admitted under the court's discretion (s73A(2)(b)); the trial judge's factual finding that the plaintiff completed works at Felda Pasir Raja was not plainly wrong given the direct, consistent testimony of the site manager and the defendants' failure to produce payment evidence or call key witnesses; the Ayer Hitam claim failed because the material facts supporting a separate oral contract were not pleaded and the plaintiff could not…
3 Dec 2025

AZLINA BINTI AHMAD 1. ) RHB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) RHB ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT BERHAD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings were within the range of reasonable conclusions: the appellant's pleaded activities fell within CMSA‑regulated activities and she lacked required registration/licence so illegality barred enforcement; there was no proved binding agreement or contemporaneous commitment to pay introducer fees; causation was not established that her efforts were the effective cause of the mandates; and no evidence supported industry rates or quantum meruit. The trial judge was not plainly wrong.
25 Nov 2025

MOHAMAD RAFIUDDIN BIN ZAKARIA 1. ) NURUL IZZAH BINTI ANDAH 2. ) SAHID BIN ABDUL HAMEID

Citation

JF-A72NCvC-12-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JF-A72NCvC-12-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that he paid the deposit, monthly instalments and taxes; documentary Part A admissions and witness admissions corroborated payments; payments to the bank and authorities discharged Defendant 1's liabilities and conferred a financial benefit on Defendant 1; under s71 Contracts Act 1950 defendant(s) must make restitution to avoid unjust enrichment; accordingly defendants are liable to repay RM90,280 plus interest and costs.
21 Nov 2025

GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA 4. ) Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-180-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-180-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because Appellant lacked privity with the Government; Appellant had a contractual relationship with AFSB and was paid pursuant thereto, therefore Section 71/quantum meruit did not apply against the Respondents; discrimination claim failed as the dispute was governed by private contract law and no intelligible justification for state discrimination was shown; misfeasance claim failed for lack of evidence of bad faith, targeted malice or reckless indifference by the Fourth Respondent; Fifth and Sixth Respondents lacked authority to approve the claimed rate increases under Act 6…
3 Oct 2025

KENWINGSTON SDN. BHD. INGCA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BC-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the defendant was not unjustly enriched: contemporaneous certification and proof of payments established that the defendant had paid the intermediary contractor in full for the certified works including the FRP water tanks, and permitting recovery under Section 71 would compel double payment and improperly reallocate contractual risk; absence of privity does not bar s.71 claims but liability requires actual enrichment of the defendant which was not shown here.
19 Aug 2025

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PROPNEX REALTY SDN BHD

Citation

W-04(NCvC)(W)-362-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-04(NCvC)(W)-362-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that rule 92(1) of the VAEA Rules 1986 did not bar formation of an estate agency contract; on the facts Propnex's conduct, written fee communications and facilitation of introductions and site visits established an estate agency contract and that Propnex was the effective cause of the sale; accordingly the High Court's quantum meruit order was set aside and SME Bank was ordered to pay the contractual fee of RM819,000.
19 Aug 2025

PROPNEX REALTY SDN BHD SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

W-04(NCvC)(W)-355-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-04(NCvC)(W)-355-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that non-compliance with VAEA Rules r 92(1) does not negate formation of an estate agency contract; on the facts Propnex by conduct and communications created an agency relationship and was the effective cause of the sale, entitling it to the agreed 3% fee of RM819,000, while SST was not recoverable as it was not specified.