Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refund of deposit

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2025

Ivory Associates Sdn Bhd AST MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-6-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-6-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly interpreted the clear contractual terms establishing a minimum 25-month rental, the respondent's dismantling of the cranes pursuant to the appellant's instructions did not constitute acceptance of early termination, the respondent proved loss for the unexpired rental period and mitigation was not substantively in issue, and there was no basis for appellate intervention under the 'plainly wrong' test; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment affirmed.
24 Jul 2025

LYFEMED MEDICARE (M) SDN BHD 1. ) PROFESSIONAL LATEX SDN BHD 2. ) XALI PTE LTD 3. ) SENDOR SDN BHD 4. ) TANG KUM HOE

Citation

WA-22NCC-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Lyfemed contracted with Xali, not Professional Latex; Professional Latex dealt with Xali and acted on Xali's instructions to deduct and apply the deposit against Xali's invoices; there was no contractual, fiduciary or trust relationship between Lyfemed and Professional Latex and no unjust enrichment by Professional Latex; therefore Lyfemed's claims against Professional Latex fail and must be dismissed with costs.
19 Jun 2025

YHS RESOURCES SDN BHD DAMANSARA REALTY (PAHANG) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-737-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-737-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the unfulfilled conditions precedent and the express contractual provisions (Clause 10(c) and Clause 15(b)) whereby the Plaintiff waived rights to bring claims arising from non-fulfilment, the impugned paragraphs 40(a) and 40(c)–(o) are plainly unsustainable on their face, disclose no reasonable cause of action and constitute an abuse of process; they are therefore struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(1) ROC 2012.
19 Mar 2025

FUTURE LUB SDN BHD 1. ) TAN WEN CHEN @ LAU WEN CHEN 2. ) NG GEAK INN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-205-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-205-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court exercised its inherent power under O.92 r.4 to grant reliefs that effectuate the Court of Appeal order by ordering refund of the deposit RM125,000 and payment of the agreed liquidated damages RM125,000, and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for special damages and other reliefs outside the scope of the COA order.
10 Jul 2024

FORTUNE HALLMARK SDN BHD TWIN RIDGE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-174-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-174-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved (a) the Defendant breached obligations (expired APDL and failure to provide effective end-financiers) which impeded sales performance; (b) Plaintiff in fact achieved secured sales of 33 units as evidenced by contemporaneous documents including Defendant's own sales status and invoices; (c) Defendant waived strict compliance with Clause 4.3 and could not rely on absence of Cash Buyer Letters where preparation rested with Defendant/its solicitors; and (d) an enforceable agreement to settle by contra units was reached at the 3.12.2019 meeting…
19 Apr 2024

Hong Cin Yee 1. ) Oristana Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Ho Ka Yi

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge was plainly wrong in failing to consider pleaded admissions and contemporaneous evidence that the premises lacked a valid CCC and were subject to agricultural-use restrictions; a term requiring a valid CCC was properly implied given the commercial purpose and admissions, and because the intended industrial use would breach land-use conditions the agreement was tainted by illegality under s24 Contracts Act 1950 and National Land Code; therefore the deposit must be returned and the agent is not entitled to commission; prejudgment interest was not awarded as the claim for refund…
15 Apr 2024

TITIMAS SHIPPING & TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) EUSTACIA SOLUTIONS 2. ) FONG YEE LING 3. ) WONG KAI KANG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants' failure to name a vessel and effect performance within the agreed laycan constituted a repudiatory breach/total failure of consideration entitling Plaintiff to treat the contract and Fixture Note as terminated and recover deposits; Defendants waived reliance on the arbitration clause by participating in court proceedings without seeking a stay; the defenses raised were afterthoughts and did not present triable issues, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.
22 Nov 2022

SUNNYWARD SDN. BHD 1. ) FIREROCK PROTECTION (M) SDN. BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD FADILAH BIN ABD RAHIM 3. ) DANIEL SHAK YI LIANG 4. ) AKADEMI MEMANDU KIST SDN. BHD. 5. ) NOOR HASLINA BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) BAHRI BIN MOHAMAD ZIN 7. ) NURUL HIDAYAT BINTI

Citation

WA-23NCvC-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found defendants 1, 2 and 3 made dishonest false representations that induced the plaintiff to enter the sale agreement and that they could not or did not have reasonable grounds to believe the goods were available; the frustration defence failed as change of circumstances was not fundamental; unstamped agreement did not defeat plaintiff's claim subject to stamp duty; accordingly defendants were jointly and severally liable to refund deposit and pay damages, delay penalty, interest and costs.
27 Oct 2022

1. ) Xue Di 2. ) Xue Lianjia Hoong Ming Sie

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the trial judge's liability findings as not plainly wrong, but reduced the damages to RM139,900 because under the SPA the Vendors are only liable to refund monies received under the Agreement; additional heads awarded by the trial judge were not recoverable because they were not monies received by the Vendors, were not pleaded or proved as unjust enrichment, and some claimed items (notably stamp duties) were unsupported or recoverable by statutory refund; ancillary restitutionary orders tied to refund of the 10% deposit were affirmed.
14 Sept 2022

KUMPULAN LIZIZ SDN BHD DATO' SRI ABANG ADITAJAYA BIN HAJI ABANG ALWI

Citation

BA-22NCC-69-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-69-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied the Order 14 preconditions; contemporaneous evidence and the Defendant's admission show receipt of RM3,500,000; clause 6 of the LOU constituted an unequivocal undertaking to refund if the Project was not awarded; the Defendant failed to establish any substantive triable issue or to substantiate pleaded defences; Letter of Demand was valid; summary judgment entered for Plaintiff.