Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subrogation

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2025

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 1. ) AMAZON PILLAR ENTERPRISE SDN BHD 2. ) CHAI CHEE MING 3. ) LAW SHIAU HUEY

Citation

DA-B52M-50-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-B52M-50-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application under Order 14A (K30) is dismissed because it was filed 253 days late without reasonable explanation, the case had progressed through repeated case management and been set for trial, and the central legal issue of subrogation was neither pleaded nor supported by undisputed facts (such as issuance of a subrogation notice), meaning there are factual disputes and Order 14A is unsuitable; costs awarded RM2000 to defendants.
17 Mar 2025

SS MOTOR CENTURY SDN BHD 1. ) WAWASAN SINAR GEMILANG SDN BHD 2. ) KUA JUINN ONN 3. ) KUA JIUNN YEE 4. ) KUA GUAN CHAI 5. ) PHUN BOOI MOOI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-642-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-642-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the pleaded facts showed only a landlord–tenant relationship without employer–employee, agency or control over the tenant's business or machinery; accordingly vicarious liability could not attach and the claims were unsustainable on their face, permitting strike out under O.18 r.19(1) (also found to be frivolous/abusive).
11 Oct 2024

1. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) FUJI ELECTRIC (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) FUJI LOGISTICS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) STE TRUCKING SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-127-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-127-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Insurer (First Plaintiff) had locus standi to sue by subrogation after paying the insured; the purported waiver of subrogation in a later quotation was not incorporated into the Basic Agreement because the Basic Agreement contained an entire agreement clause and the waiver was expressly rejected prior to incorporation; therefore the Second Plaintiff did not breach the contract and the First Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim; counterclaim dismissed and costs awarded to Second Plaintiff.
26 Aug 2024

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 1. ) TAN CHONG WHATT 2. ) TAN CHOR KHENG

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-1037-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-1037-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Where guarantors have contractually agreed to be treated as principal debtors and indemnifiers, statutory limitation in s.8(2A) Bankruptcy Act 1967 and protections under ss.92/94 Contracts Act 1950 do not prevent the bank from recovering post-winding-up accrued interest from those guarantors; the contractual terms (Clauses 19, 20.1 and anti-discharge provisions) determine liability and permit recovery.
6 Jun 2024

Yusmizul Hafifey Bin Yusof ( Sebagai Wakil Kepada Si Mati Jamilah Binti Jaafar ) 1. ) MUHAMAD AIDI BIN MAT SHAFEI 2. ) SHUHADA ESAH BINTI YUSUF 3. ) AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

DA-A53KJ-387-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53KJ-387-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Because the insurance policy between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 includes subrogation and control rights over appointment of counsel, Defendants 1 and 2 cannot unilaterally change solicitors; the notice of change filed by new solicitors is void and the original solicitors remain appointed, consistent with binding Court of Appeal authorities.
16 Feb 2024

1. ) GENERALI INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) TEAMWORK M&E ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. DURA GUARD FORCE & CONSULTANCY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-23NCvC-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A subrogation clause alone does not empower an insurer to sue a third party in the insurer's own name because it does not overcome the doctrine of privity; an absolute written assignment of the insured's chose in action, with notice under s.4(3) Civil Law Act 1956, is required to transfer the legal right and allow the insurer to sue in its own name.
15 May 2023

Mayland Avenue Sdn Bhd 1. ) Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd 2. ) Gas District Cooling (Putrajaya) Sdn Bhd 3. ) UTIC Services Sdn Bhd 4. ) Clear Water Resources Sdn Bhd 5. ) Clear Water Resources (KL) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-23NCvC-19-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-19-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The JID was regularly obtained by valid service at the defendant's registered office; D3 provided no satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay of 1 year 4 months to apply to set aside; D3 failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence that raises serious issues to be tried; therefore the application to set aside the JID is dismissed and costs awarded.
15 Mar 2023

AmGeneral Insurance 1. ) MUHAMMAD ARSLAN 2. ) NG KUAN WEI 3. ) MING WEI CONSTRUCTION WORKS

Citation

BL-12A-18-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12A-18-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly exercised discretion to refuse the late application to intervene: the appellant had opportunity and access to relevant documents through subrogation and multiple case management dates, the application was filed at a stage when the plaintiff had nearly closed its case and thus constituted a tactical, prejudicial and abusive delay; therefore intervention was denied and the Sessions Court decision affirmed with costs.
21 Nov 2022

HANDAL INDAH SDN. BHD. 1. ) XXXX 2. ) HENG SOCK YENG (WANG SHUXIAN)

Citation

JA-12B-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court's finding of liability against the defendants because the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong and were supported by credible witness and investigatory evidence; however the Court set aside the award for the plaintiff's vehicle loss and related interest and excess because there was no evidence MSIG had authorised or required the plaintiff to sue (no subrogation pleaded) and MSIG had already discharged the hire‑purchase, so awarding those sums would result in double recovery; costs of RM14,227 awarded to respondent were affirmed and n…
21 Nov 2022

HANDAL INDAH SDN. BHD. 1. ) XXXX 2. ) HENG SOCK YENG (WANG SHUXIAN)

Citation

JA-12B-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-30-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the trial judge's finding of liability because the trial judge's credibility assessments and investigative evidence were not plainly wrong and the defendants offered no rebuttal; however, the court set aside the damages awarded for total loss and related interest/excess because there was no evidence that the plaintiff acted on behalf of or at the instruction of her insurer (MSIG) and MSIG had already paid the hire-purchase lender, meaning the award would produce double recovery; costs of RM14,227 awarded to the respondent; no order as to appeal costs.