Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

1. ) Tan Sri Dato' Teo Chiang Kok 2. ) 1Utama City Power Sdn Bhd 3. ) Bandar Utama Capitol Sdn Bhd 4. ) Bandar Utama City Centre Sdn Bhd 1. ) Tan Sri Dato' Teo Chiang Hong 2. ) Bandar Utama City Corporation Sdn Bhd 3. ) Bandar Utama City Sd

Citation

WA-22NCC-71-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-71-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Mediation 3 was a judge‑led mediation excluded from the Mediation Act 2012, but settlement privilege is not absolute and communications from mediation are admissible to prove and enforce a concluded settlement. The Alleged Settled Issues were found to be divisible from other outstanding issues and sufficiently agreed such that their settlement is enforceable; accordingly the application in Enclosure 48 to expunge/strike out was dismissed and related limited relief and directions were granted.
24 Apr 2026

AGROW CORPORATION SDN BHD HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-145-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-145-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case supported by contemporaneous documents; defendant's defences are bare denials and afterthoughts, estoppel applies from failure to object to invoices and notices, WhatsApp communications are admissible on affidavit, and the corporate guarantee renders defendant primarily liable; therefore there are no triable issues and summary judgment is appropriate.
22 Apr 2026

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) STARFOAM & LATEX INDUSTRY SDN BHD 2. ) NG BOON TOUNG 3. ) JI KIM CHUAN 4. ) LEE TEONG PENG 5. ) DANNY TAN HOCK KEONG

Citation

WA-22NCC-845-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-845-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case supported by executed facility and guarantee agreements and a contractual certificate of indebtedness; without‑prejudice communications were inadmissible; defendants' allegations were unsupported general denials and did not raise bona fide triable issues; Defendant 5's failure to file an affidavit amounted to acceptance of Plaintiff's averments; summary judgment therefore entered for Plaintiff for RM2,113,221.83 with contractual default interest and costs on indemnity basis.
22 Apr 2026

DAICO MASTER SDN. BHD. 1. ) KOPERASI PESARA POLIS SELANGOR BERHAD 2. ) WONG YEEN HUAT

Citation

BD-B52-6-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-B52-6-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the settlement agreement was validly executed by representatives of the parties, D1 failed to adduce credible evidence of a triable defence, D1 cannot rely on internal non-compliance under the Co-operative Act to avoid obligations vis-à-vis an outsider protected by the Turquand rule, and therefore summary judgment is appropriate for the repayment sum stated in the settlement agreement with judgment interest and costs.
15 Apr 2026

AZEAN SHAFINAZ BINTI MOHAMAD DAHLAL D ONE MOTORSPORTS SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-997-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-997-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant admitted cause of delay was its own negligence and had no contractual basis to retain funds or impose a 10% abort fee; time was of the essence and plaintiff validly rescinded the voidable contract and is entitled to full restitution; facts are clear and indisputable, so no triable issues exist and summary judgment for repayment is appropriate.
10 Apr 2026

SUNSTAR RESOURCES ENTERPRISE NAZRI TILES GALLERY & HARDWARE SDN. BHD.

Citation

AJ-A72NCC-60-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCC-60-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintif satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case by contemporaneous documents (delivery orders, invoices, statements) and conduct; Defendan failed to produce evidence of any bona fide triable issue or third‑party transaction; burden therefore shifted to Defendan and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
8 Apr 2026

PKNS REAL ESTATE SDN. BHD. AZUAN BIN AHMAD (berniaga di atas nama dan gaya SWEETTI FREEZEE ENTERPRISE)

Citation

BA-A72-60-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A72-60-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal because the amount in dispute is below RM10,000 and no question of law was raised, and because a dismissal of a summary judgment application is not appealable under s.28(1)(b); consequently the Magistrate's decision dismissing the plaintiff's summary judgment application (with costs in the cause) stands and the appeal is unmaintainable.
30 Mar 2026

CELCOMDIGI MOBILE SDN BHD KHOO KAH GENG

Citation

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's contemporaneous transaction records (Exhibit A-2) established a prima facie case; defendant failed to adduce credible documentary evidence or a bona fide defence to rebut the records. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate under Order 14 r.1 for the reconciled sum of RM74,024.00 with interest at 5% p.a. from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs of RM1,500.00.
30 Mar 2026

CELCOMDIGI MOBILE SDN BHD KHOO KAH GENG

Citation

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's contemporaneous transaction records (Exhibit A-2) proved the defendant's liability for unpaid customer payments totaling RM74,024.00; the defendant failed to adduce substantive evidence to rebut those records or raise a bona fide triable issue, therefore summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs.
13 Mar 2026

SOH YIT MOI ALVIN SOH WENG YAN

Citation

CB-A72NCvC-34-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-A72NCvC-34-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff is both a registered and beneficial owner entitled to her ½ share of the sale proceeds; the release letter was only an authorization to release proceeds and did not extinguish her ownership; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue to defeat an Order 14 application, therefore summary judgment is appropriate.