Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies and damages

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

UPPAL AIMED GUARD SECURITY SDN. BHD. 1. ) NESTLE PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. 2. ) NESTLE MANUFACTURING (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-77-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-77-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The termination was unlawful because Nestlé's factual premise that the three guards lacked valid VP(TE) was not established; MyIMMS records and the Immigration Circular supported lawful presence and work pending VP(TE), Nestlé's reminders, extensions and acceptance of documents were inconsistent with an immediate irremediable breach and no Clause 8 written notice was given, therefore Nestlé was not entitled to terminate the SSA on the grounds advanced.
21 Nov 2024

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KUBANG PASU SELEKSI BAHAGIA SDN BHD

Citation

KA-22NCvC-38-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-38-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The written agreements establish a lease requiring monthly rent of RM10,000; defendant breached that obligation and validly received a termination notice for non-payment; Clause 2.0 only entitles compensation on ordinary expiry, not on termination for breach, and unjust enrichment cannot be invoked to override the parties' express contractual allocation of rights and risks; therefore plaintiff is entitled to arrears, ongoing rent, contractual late charges and costs while defendant's counterclaim fails.
21 Oct 2024

MARLIS SERVICES SDN. BHD. KUMPULAN HARTANAH KOPAMA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-57-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-57-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court concluded P2 is a sale and purchase agreement (not a lease) with instalment payment provisions; P4 validly amended payment terms; Defendant admitted non‑compliance and breached P2/P4 by failing to make required payments, therefore Plaintiff proved entitlement to recover outstanding instalments and related sums on the balance of probabilities; subletting to a third party without the owner's consent was unauthorised and void; claim for property damage was not proven and dismissed.
2 Jul 2024

Sky Blue Media Sdn Bhd Goh Sin Teck

Citation

WA-22NCC-568-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-568-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Termination was unlawful because performance of the contractual obligation to install a 60'x60' billboard was legally impossible under DBKL rules, Goh knew of and acquiesced to a compliant 60'x40' alternative and accepted benefits (waiver), Goh misrepresented his licence status which vitiates his right to terminate, and SBM proved force majeure/impossibility under the contract; Goh failed to prove any DBKL approval for 60'x60' and his counterclaim arises from his own breach and is dismissed.
4 Apr 2024

LAM WEE SIN (L) (sebagai Pentadbir Bagi Harta Pusaka Lam Chen Khiong, Si Mati) 1. ) WAKIL DIRI / PENTADBIR / WARIS KEPADA PANG HIOK, SI MATI 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KULAI

Citation

JA-24NCvC-433-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-433-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1966 power of attorney is void: it contains no express irrevocability or evidential recitation of consideration and therefore, under s.5 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949, was revoked on the donor's death; additionally the purported sale contravened the Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act's prohibition on alienation outside the statutory assignment process, rendering the purported transfer invalid. Consequently the Plaintiff, as administrator of the donor's estate, is the beneficial owner of the land in expectation of title, but the court cannot compel the Registrar to issue title because…
31 Oct 2023

YEW SEE TAK LUNO MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

BB-B52NCvC-43-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCvC-43-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

As a licensed Recognised Market Operator entrusted with custody-equivalent digital wallets, the defendant owed a duty of care (and fiduciary-like obligations in context) to the plaintiff; the defendant breached that duty by failing to detect and investigate large, rapid, suspicious transfers, by delaying protective measures and failing to report to the Securities Commission, and those breaches caused the plaintiff's loss; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief, special damages for the lost crypto, aggravated/exemplary damages, interest and costs.
30 Aug 2023

HADIN ENGINEERING SDN BHD EASTERN PRETECH (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-127-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-127-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On balance the court found the contract (confirmed by the purchase order dated 14.11.2019) referred to mild steel Grade S275 as per the original drawing; the plaintiff supplied and defendant accepted and used the 120 units, failed to return them, and repaired/used them for its benefit. Documentary evidence was admissible under statutory exceptions and plaintiff proved entitlement to RM71,100 plus storage costs and interest. Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim due to lack of supporting evidence and inconsistencies in its own records and witnesses.
30 Mar 2023

1. ) Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (Menyaman Atas Namanya Sendiri Dan Sebagai Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong, Si Mati) 2. ) Bryan Patrick Ooi Sze-yuen 3. ) Shawn Philip Ooi Sze- Yew Sime Darby Property (

Citation

BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs proved on balance that disputed signatures on certain DRFs/FFs were forged and thus those documents did not bind them; defendant failed to show reg 11(1B) HDR applied so statutory SPAs (including Schedule I) govern two sales and 'as is where is' clause cannot be enforced; Home Owners Manual cannot vary or exclude statutory SPA obligations; handwriting expert evidence is admissible but court must inspect originals and may reject expert opinion lacking originals; expert report non‑compliance with O40A affects weight not automatic exclusion; defendant liable for defects in air‑conditi…
31 Dec 2021

CTMCC ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD. YES JOST MACHINERY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-722-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-722-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The delivery on 25.08.2016 was not an effective delivery/acceptance because the parties agreed via a signed memo that the hoists were only for temporary storage pending PE and JKKP approvals, and the contract expressly required those approvals; therefore defendant breached the PO/Contract Terms and must refund RM235,320; the defendant failed to prove any separate binding contract for nine hoists and its counterclaim is dismissed.
20 Dec 2021

1. BRUCE ELWYN DAVEY (Passport No.: E1026197) 2. AMANDA JEAN PRIOR (Identity Card No.: 820921075802) BANDAR RAYA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD (Business Registration No.: 5521-A)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-478-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-478-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Brochure statements (including 'guided by Conquas') were vague sales talk and were not incorporated into the Sale and Purchase Agreement; Defendant breached Clause 29 by failing to complete rectification within 30 days but Plaintiffs failed to mitigate loss and to prove special or general damages except the consultant fee; accordingly Plaintiffs recover RM10,388 (consultant fee) plus nominal damages RM10,000 (total RM20,388); counterclaim for abuse of process dismissed and each party to bear own costs.