Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off/counterclaim

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

PROACTIVE AHUTTERS SDN. BHD. WE EXCELLENT ALUMINIUM & GLASS SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-A52NCC-383-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCC-383-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the plaintiff established the debt by undisputed quotations, invoices and account statements which the defendant received and did not timely dispute, thereby creating an account-stated estoppel; the defendant failed to prove any legitimate set-off or counterclaim (including defective works or third-party costs) and failed to produce supporting notices or receipts; retention provisions relied on by defendant were inapplicable because the relevant work orders were not part of the contractual documents before the court; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was allowed and the defend…
24 Oct 2024

AL HIJRAH MEDIA CORPORATION YAYASAN BUDI IHSAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-114-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-114-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and produced affidavit evidence of entitlement; Defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issues supported by evidence (raised late, amounted to bare denials and inconsistent with the agreements and contemporaneous conduct), therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the outstanding contractual sum and associated interest and costs.
2 Aug 2024

BURGESS RAWSON MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. ARMANEE CONDOMINIUM JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Citation

BB-B52NCvC-17-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCvC-17-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 45 r.11 and Order 92 r.4 and found special circumstances: the defendant's meritorious counterclaim remains undecided and enforcement of the monetary judgment risks rendering the appeal nugatory and causing wider harm because the defendant is a management body whose winding-up would affect third parties. On balance of convenience and considering ability to protect plaintiff by interest, the stay application was allowed with costs in the cause.
25 Nov 2022

ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-443-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-443-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court: appellant failed to demonstrate the requisite clear error by the adjudicator or special circumstances/justice of the case to justify a stay under s.16 CIPAA; factual findings by the adjudicator are not readily reviewable and there was no material breach of natural justice or jurisdictional excess; respondent's financial capacity further negated the need for a stay given CIPAA's objective of preserving cashflow.
31 May 2022

SEATADVISOR SDN BHD PERBADANAN STADIUM MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-246-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-246-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff had established a realistic prospect of obtaining a substantial judgment at trial and satisfied the threshold for an interim payment under Order 22A r.4; the defendant, as a statutory corporation, is not barred from an O.22A application by being characterised as the 'Government' and statutory immunities (s.35/s.36) could not be resolved at interlocutory stage; exercising discretion to avoid undue hardship and having regard to dispute and risk of overpayment, the court reduced the sum sought and ordered an interim payment of RM…
26 Apr 2022

ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-2365-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-2365-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court granted a stay under s16(1)(b) CIPAA because the cumulative effect of factors—pending arbitration (initiated by respondent), a Fortuna injunction, existing enforcement steps (including writ of seizure and sale), a substantial counterclaim and set-off exceeding the adjudicated sum, and material doubts about the respondent's true ability to repay—constituted special circumstances and justified exercising judicial discretion to stay enforcement pending final arbitration determination.
11 Mar 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Chai Ko Thing and Jolyn Ch’ng Wi Fern for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Lee Ong & Partners (Petaling Jaya)] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Tan Chun Ming and Fong Peng Huei for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs J

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The substituted service applications and resulting substituted service orders were valid and complied with the applicable procedural rules; the creditor made reasonable attempts to serve; the underlying default judgment was valid and enforceable and the sums claimed were liquidated and exceeded the statutory threshold; the debtor failed to dispute the bankruptcy notice within the statutory period and thus committed an act of bankruptcy; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2021

EXCEL CUBIC RESOURCES SDN BHD PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-55-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-55-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff's final entitlement was capped by the subcontract maximum ceiling (Clause 1.5) and the Plaintiff failed to comply with Clause 3.3 (no statutory declaration/certification) so Defendant was not in breach of Clause 3.1; the Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant caused delay and failed to apply for EoT under Clause 2.2, therefore Defendant validly imposed LAD under Clause 2.5. Result: Plaintiff awarded limited balance RM139,606.50 with 5% p.a. interest from 8.7.2020; Defendant's counterclaim for LAD RM1,089,600.00 allowed with 5% p.a. interest from 26.8.2020; no or…
30 Nov 2020

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD SMM RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-125-06/2020 & WA-24C-150-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-125-06/2020 & WA-24C-150-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by awarding SMM’s non‑certified claims for supply of workers from October 2018 to January 2019 which fell outside the Agreement completion date; that excess part (RM181,400) is severable and set aside, the remainder of the adjudication decision is valid and enforceable under s28 CIPAA; there was no material breach of natural justice warranting whole decision being set aside and the counterclaim/set‑off challenge was a merits issue not grounds to set aside.
27 Aug 2020

Paari Perumal & K. Kulasekar for the Judgment Debtor/Appellant [Messrs K. Kulasekar & Associate] Reeve Lim Chun Loong for the Judgment Creditor /Respondent [Messrs Lim, Wong & Co]

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the affidavit under Rule 93 did not plead any counterclaim/set-off as required and is to be treated as if no affidavit was filed; the High Court judgment is final under the Bozson test and enforceable; the audit report and costs were reasonably incurred and recoverable under para 1(c) of the judgment; the Judgment Creditor is entitled to claim RM451,000 for the generators under para 1(g); and there was no evidential set-off for the RM70,000 costs and RM2,800 allocatur fee.