Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement agreement interpretation

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2024

EE CHONG KOK 1. ) EE CHONG PANG 2. ) YIM YOKE YEE

Citation

WA-22NCvC-261-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-261-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that Defendants breached Clause 5 or otherwise prevented performance; Property No. 32 is owned by the Company so authorisation by the Company was required for dealings; Defendants had performed their obligations under the Settlement Agreement and had accommodated marketing inspections; there was no evidence of a purchaser or of defendant obstruction; specific performance is therefore not warranted. Claim dismissed with costs.
2 Jul 2024

Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab Bin Abd Ghani 1. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Noor 2. ) Dr Arul Balasingam 3. ) Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-314-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-314-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the Settlement Agreement's phrase "to the Plaintiff" in its natural and ordinary meaning referred to the plaintiff (Rashid) and not to his solicitors; the BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines constitute standards with the force of law under the Financial Services Act 2013 and insurers were obliged to comply; the High Court was plainly wrong to order payment to the solicitors' client account and to treat the Guidelines as mere non-binding guidance; consequently Appeal 314 is allowed (setting aside the order to pay solicitors' client account) and Appeal 1164 is dismiss…
2 Jul 2024

Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Noor 1. ) Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab Bin Abd Ghani 2. ) Dr Arul Balasingam 3. ) Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1164-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1164-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held Appeal 314 should be allowed and Appeal 1164 dismissed. The Settlement Agreement phrase "to the Plaintiff" in its natural and ordinary meaning required payment to the plaintiff (Rashid). The BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines are standards with the force of law under the Financial Services Act and obliged insurers to pay claimants. The High Court was plainly wrong to construe "to the Plaintiff" as including the plaintiff's solicitors and to order payment to the solicitors' client account. No solicitor's lien was effective because no bill of costs had been issued and the cheques w…
31 May 2024

Sri Esbina (M) Sdn Bhd Syarikat Aliran Sejahtera Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

Citation

WA-22C-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Settlement Agreement clause (e) was ambiguous and, construed commercially, required the Defendant to pay the minimum 30% to project consultants for Claims 30 and 31 notwithstanding bank deductions; Claim No.32 was not covered by the Settlement Agreement and the RM317,578 paid for Claim 32 belongs to the Plaintiff (Windsor performed the works); Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining those funds; Plaintiff failed to prove the missing materials claim and police reports were inadmissible for lack of maker evidence. Consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for RM994,156.32 plu…
11 Oct 2023

MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-220-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-220-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications to file further affidavits to adduce the WhatsApp recording and transcript were dismissed because the purported evidence was available at the material time, the Plaintiff's explanation for non-disclosure was not credible, admitting the evidence would be prejudicial and cause delay and would amount to re-ventilating matters that should be determined in arbitration or other proper forum; exercise of discretion requires refusal and costs to the Defendant.
11 Oct 2023

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-234-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-234-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the disputed IPCs; the Settlement Agreement did not oust CIPAA jurisdiction or supersede the LOA in a manner that deprived the Adjudicator of jurisdiction; any alleged errors were issues of merits and not jurisdictional errors warranting setting aside under s15 CIPAA; therefore the application to set aside (OS220) was dismissed and the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA (OS234) was allowed, with the Adjudication Decision enforced.
30 Sept 2021

THRIVE BUILD SDN BHD ANGSANA SETIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-26-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-26-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held Defendant breached the CSA repayment obligation and must pay bank interest as proven (RM89,230.28 after credit for excess payment); claim for final retention RM4,776,139 was premature and struck out for want of audited accounts (liberty to reinstitute); architect's LAD confirmation satisfied clause 4 and contractual LAD payable under the contracts was RM5,740,000 so Defendant must refund the difference RM2,760,000 from the provisional RM8,500,000 deduction; Defendant must pay admitted debt RM44,590.86; judgment entered for Plaintiff RM2,893,821.14 with 5% p.a. interest and costs RM…
11 Feb 2021

MERIDIAN CONTRACTS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 530788-P) BAUER (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 121194-X)

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1567-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1567-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court concluded the High Court had failed properly to appreciate the evidence; Clause 2 of the Settlement Agreement fixed the Appellant's entitlement at 32.70% and could not be unilaterally reduced by the Respondent or displaced by without‑prejudice negotiations or post‑hoc conduct; accordingly the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and judgment entered for the Appellant with interest and costs.
29 Aug 2019

CONVOBUILT SDN. BHD KPTC RESORT DEVELOPMENT BERHAD

Citation

B-02(NCVC)(W)-2023-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

B-02(NCVC)(W)-2023-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On a commercial construction of the Settlement Agreement, the 24 Redemption Units were assigned solely for the purpose of enabling the defendant to redeem charged properties; the defendant never paid the redemption sum and the charge was later discharged, rendering the purpose impossible; equity requires imposition of a constructive trust so that beneficial interest in the Redemption Units revests in the plaintiff; the background letter (ID-1) was admissible and supported this construction; the defendant's third-party Kemas Budi arrangement did not absolve it as there was no privity and no ev…