Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 74 contracts act 1950

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2022

W-02(W)-761-05/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Citation

W-02(W)-761-05/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

W-02(W)-761-05/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that TNB was not liable to Southern Steel in contract or tort because SSB failed to prove recoverable damages and its pleaded losses were, on the evidence and law, pure economic loss not recoverable in negligence; the High Court erred in awarding tortious damages by reference to s.74 Contracts Act 1950; consequently the High Court awards and the indemnity order against UEM were set aside, and the appeals by SSB were dismissed while the claim between TNB and UEM was left for amicable resolution.
24 Mar 2021

XXXX XXXX

Citation

01(f)-29-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-29-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the 2015 order remitting assessment to the Registrar was to be conducted in accordance with Clause 27.4 which required a mutually appointed independent auditor; therefore the auditor's determination, absent proven vitiating factors such as fraud, collusion or bias, is binding and should be accepted by the court; the respondents failed to demonstrate any vitiating factors or follow procedural steps to cross-examine the auditor, so the Registrar's award was reinstated.
5 Aug 2020

GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED DATO’ SRI CHONG KET PEN

Citation

WA-22NCC-465-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-465-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Agreement was a legally binding contract, but clause 3.1(h) did not itself constitute a profit guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff; it was an obligation on the Defendant to provide a profit guarantee to the ultimate purchaser of the shares. No separate guarantee was given to the purchaser (Kingdom Seekers) as contemplated and the Plaintiff did not plead or prove nexus or loss arising from any breach; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for RM5,002,000 failed and was dismissed with costs.
HENG HANG KHIM V SINEO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

HENG HANG KHIM V SINEO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD
Court

Malaysian court

Where a housing developer failed to deliver a unit within a period made expressly time‑essence, the purchaser could validly terminate and recover compensation under s.74 Contracts Act 1950; that compensation can include refund of part purchase payments/ deposit as part of damages and the deputy registrar's award including RM63,800 was lawful and not inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's order to assess damages.

Malaysia Case Law

W-02(W)-761-05/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

XXXX XXXX

GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED DATO’ SRI CHONG KET PEN

HENG HANG KHIM V SINEO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD