Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement negotiations

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCC-364-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-364-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute was granted because the plaintiff identified the judgment and the outstanding debt, demonstrated that the delay was caused by negotiations and part payments by the judgment debtor (sufficient reason under Order 46 rule 3), and there was no concluded settlement or evidence that superseded or extinguished the judgment; therefore the exercise of discretion favored granting leave.
29 Apr 2024

1. ) VITAL LIVING EMPIRE SDN BHD 2. ) SASHITHERAN A/L KANAGASABAPATHI 3. ) VIGNESWARAN A/L AH WALI 1. ) SATIS KUMAR 2. ) NGEOW CHOW YING (Defendant Sued as a Firm Practicing under the Firm Name & Style of Ngeow & Tan Advocates & Solicitors)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court decision to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012 because the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against D2, D3 and D4: solicitors were acting for their client D1 and not parties to the tenancy contract (privity bar), settlement negotiations were not concluded into a binding contract, and D4 was not a partner at the relevant time; therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.
12 Jan 2024

ACCORD CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD YEKON EQUIPMENT (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12AC-2-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12AC-2-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because service of the cause papers was valid under Order 62 r.4, the appellant had notice and opportunity to appear, the proposed defence lacked prima facie supporting evidence, negotiations did not create an agreement to halt proceedings, and the limitation defence was not available; accordingly the Judgment in Default remains enforceable.
2 Jan 2024

HSL BUILDERS SDN BHD MAHKOTA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie defence or any merit to set aside the default judgment, service of the cause papers was valid under Order 62 rule 4 Rules of Court 2012, negotiations did not constitute an agreement to halt proceedings, and the limitation defence was unavailable given the opportunity to appear.
10 Apr 2023

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) THO MEM GROUP SDN. BHD. 2. ) IZHAM FITRI BIN ISMAIL 3. ) KHAIRUL IZWAN BIN MUSA 4. ) MOHD HASHIM BIN MOHD JAN 5. ) ISMAIL BIN JANTAN

Citation

WA-22M-565-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-565-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Writ and Statement of Claim were duly served and the JID was regularly obtained; the defendants failed to disclose a prima facie defence and the AKPK email did not amount to an assurance to withhold legal action; therefore the application to set aside the JID was dismissed with costs.
16 Aug 2022

RHB BANK BERHAD 1. ) BOSTON METRO SDN BHD 2. ) SIVAMURTHY A/L MUNIANDY 3. ) SHANGKARI A/P SIVAMURTHY

Citation

WA-22NCC-164-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-164-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was allowed because the Defendants had defaulted, the Plaintiff had earlier rejected settlement proposals and there was no acceptance or concluded settlement; the Plaintiff's subsequent requests for documents did not create a binding settlement or a representation that it would not sue, and thus commencing the action was not premature, unconscionable, or barred by clean hands.
11 Jun 2021

1. INTERPLEX HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. INTERPLEX SDN BHD 3. ITN RESOURCES SDN BHD 4. DAN 1 LAGI 1. TOSHIBA ELEVATOR AND BUILDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION 2. MS ELEVATOR SDN BHD 3. MS ELEVATOR ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

22NCC-694-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-694-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Documents marked 'without prejudice' that contain settlement proposals and have content connected to issues in the present proceedings are protected by privilege and therefore inadmissible; the court must expunge and exclude such documents where admission would undermine public policy favoring settlement; disclosure of the documents in a separate suit by other parties did not constitute waiver by the Plaintiffs and the documents did not become public documents under s74.
21 Jul 2020

Hazrul Alis for the Appellant / 2nd Defendant Messrs Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan Raiza Zakaria for the Respondent / Plaintiff Messrs Albar & Partners

Citation

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found the Plaintiff had standing by virtue of the vesting order and long-standing dealings, the amendment to the plaintiff's name was valid and served and binding on the appellant, and active settlement negotiations between parties constituted sufficient and justifiable reasons to grant leave to execute despite the passage of time under Order 46 r2 and Limitation Act provisions.
19 Feb 2020

Pengangkutan Awam Putrajaya Travel & Tours Sdn. Bhd. Raisevest Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-12BNCVC-85-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCVC-85-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time because the applicant failed to provide reasonable and justifiable grounds: the alleged settlement negotiations were not new or compelling, the garnishment and frozen accounts occurred after the filing deadline and were therefore irrelevant, and the applicant had adequate time but failed to act; accordingly the application for extension was dismissed.