Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rectification

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2025

YEOH ENG KONG 1. ) BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN PEGAWAI KERAJAAN SDN BHD 3. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) TETUAN TOMMY THOMAS 5. ) TETUAN THANGARAJ & ASSOCIATES

Citation

WA-22NCvC-781-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-781-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff's claims were struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate issues finally determined in earlier proceedings and were founded solely on a settlement agreement which the Plaintiff failed to perform; the agreement either lapsed or did not confer a beneficial or registrable interest in PT1499, accordingly the Plaintiff has no caveatable interest and the striking‑out applications succeed with costs.
27 Aug 2025

YEOH ENG KONG 1. ) BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN PEGAWAI KERAJAAN SDN BHD 3. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) TETUAN TOMMY THOMAS 5. ) TETUAN THANGARAJ & ASSOCIATES

Citation

WA-22NCvC-781-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-781-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff's claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were dismissed because the issues had been finally determined in Suit 851 (dismissal at trial and on appeal), the Plaintiff failed to perform the conditional Settlement Agreement (subdivision within stipulated period) such that no beneficial interest in PT1499 arose, and the Registrar's omission was inconsequential to the Plaintiff's substantive claim; therefore the Court properly exercised Order 33 r.5 to dismiss as further trial would be futile.
13 Mar 2025

1. ) CHONG TECK CHOY 2. ) MS-PRINT INDUSTRY SDN BHD BINA-SAFEE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

P1 failed to prove the eye-appeal requirement because no evidence from real customers of the finished warning tape was adduced; independent evidence established prior public disclosure of substantially similar warning tapes predating the filing date (including samples from Agroplus and Electroplast Holland), and the alleged distinguishing feature (gap between squares) was immaterial; accordingly RID0342 is not new and is not registrable under the Industrial Design Act 1996, warranting rectification under section 24 and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
24 Jul 2023

Rong Cheng Casket & Funeral Services Sdn Bhd Kong Sew Chu

Citation

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found a contract for funeral services was formed by the parties' conduct (offer, acceptance and consideration), there was no cogent evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment did not bar the plaintiff's claim, and therefore the plaintiff proved entitlement to the claimed sum; claim allowed.
7 Dec 2022

1. ) KO BYOUNG SOO 2. ) HAN KYUNG JA 3. ) KO SUNG HWAN 1. ) HENG HUP METAL SDN BHD 2. ) PERFECT SLRESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) LEAD WIZARD SDN BHD 4. ) INTERCEDAR INDUSTRY (M) SDN BHD 5. ) SIA KOK CHIN 6. ) LOW HOCK SOON 7. ) Singara Velan A/L Th

Citation

WA-22NCC-616-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-616-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged Loan Conditions existed; in any event plaintiffs affirmed the SSA and SHA by conduct and performance so cannot rescind; the SHA is valid despite lack of notarisation; any breach of pre-emption occurred but plaintiffs acquiesced and are barred by laches and estoppel by convention; oppression claim not established as pleaded matters were inter-shareholder or director matters and did not amount to conduct oppressive under s346 Companies Act 2016; therefore claim dismissed with costs.
27 Jan 2022

YEOH ENG KONG 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN PEGAWAI KERAJAAN SDN BHD 2. ) BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-851-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-851-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove mutual mistake or unconscionability; objective construction and factual matrix show 'monsoon drain' referred to the existing drain on PT 1499 and 'Vacant Land' meant the portion west of that drain as marked in the Schedule; Settlement Agreement was negotiated and accepted by plaintiff (including 'as is where is' and subdivision obligations); rectification not warranted and claim dismissed.
27 Oct 2021

G-PILE SISTEM SDN BHD CMMC SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

Citation

WA-22C-86-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-86-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the Court found the formal contract (PAM Agreement) was between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant; the Second Defendant acted as project management consultant and agent with ostensible authority and paid as agent; therefore the First Defendant is liable to pay the outstanding sum and interest; the Second Defendant is not personally liable under the contract and the First Defendant is entitled to indemnity from the Second Defendant under their cooperation agreement.
22 Mar 2019

1. TAN YOKE MEE 2. TAN YET CHIN TAJUDIN BIN IBRAHIM & 5 LAGI

Citation

W-01-(NCVC)(W)-462-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-01-(NCVC)(W)-462-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the SPA was valid and not void for uncertainty because the subject property was identifiable despite clerical misdescriptions; the plaintiffs had waived any condition precedent by full payment; strata title registered in the 1st respondent's name was held by him as bare trustee for the plaintiffs; accordingly declarations and a mandatory order to vest title in the plaintiffs were granted; the negligence claim against the solicitors failed on the evidence and pleading and was dismissed.