Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination clause

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

Meridian Diversified (M) Sdn Bhd Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCvC-519-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-519-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 16.3 cannot be read as an unfettered unilateral termination power that would render other termination provisions meaningless; the Defendant’s termination was wrongful. Plaintiff proved performance up to 90% and is entitled to compensation for work done: 90% of contract sum less amounts already paid (RM7,550,470). Interest at 5% p.a. from judgment and costs awarded to Plaintiff.
6 Jun 2025

KERRY LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD POMELO FASHION MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-211-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-211-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 12.1 permits either party to terminate the Service Agreement by sixty (60) days prior written notice without giving reasons, subject to express exceptions; the exceptions ('except specifically provided, as follows') refer to the special Events of Default in Clause 13 (and Clause 17 obligations) where shorter or immediate termination is justified (eg 14 working day remedy period or immediate termination on insolvency/government order). The Sessions Court's interpretation was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Mar 2025

GLENN WILLIAM ONEILL CHANG AI NEE

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3302-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3302-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Plaintiff validly terminated the SPA: the Defendant's repeated failure to pay the balance within the completion and extended periods triggered the SPA's termination clause; extensions granted by the Vendor did not prevent termination and were within the Vendor's discretion under s64 Contracts Act 1950; where time was of the essence non-adherence rendered the contract voidable under s56(1); originating summons was the correct procedure because the dispute was primarily one of construction and law.
23 May 2023

BRAND ACE SDN BHD 1. ) RAPID RAIL SDN. BHD. 2. ) PRASARANA INTEGRATED DEV. SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge evidentiary burden to prove alleged interferences or losses and failed to achieve contractual KPI; defendants validly exercised express contractual right to terminate under Clause 10.3.1; accordingly plaintiff's claim and defendants' counterclaim dismissed for want of proof.
11 Jan 2023

Strong Force (M) Sdn. Bhd. Khoo Soon Lee Realty Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BA-22C-32-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-32-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held defendant wrongfully terminated the contract: time became at large because defendant failed to give revised work program and delayed site possession; delays were caused by employer's main builders and crane breakdowns; defendant breached contract by withholding payments and failing to initiate joint valuation; accordingly plaintiff entitled to payment of PC nos.21-23 (RM304,477.89) and PC nos.26-28 (RM240,308.00), refund of retention (RM318,000.00) and refund of deposits for two condominiums (RM100,000.00) with interest; defendant's counterclaim for liquidated damages dismissed.
23 Aug 2022

LIM KUAN CHYIN CHU HOI MING

Citation

WA-12ANCC-71-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-71-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 5.03 of the Second Agreement, read as a whole, unambiguously limits remedies: specific performance is an available remedy only to the Purchaser when the Vendor breaches (Section 5.03(2)), whereas when the Purchaser breaches (Section 5.03(1)) the Vendor's remedy is termination and forfeiture of the First Sum. Therefore the Plaintiff's claims for specific performance, general damages and exemplary damages are contractually barred and the declaratory reliefs are academic; the Plaintiff lacks a valid cause of action and the appeal is allowed.
17 Mar 2022

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA MAGNA METIER SDN BHD

Citation

BA-21C-3-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21C-3-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Default Notice inadmissible and entitled to no weight because Plaintiff failed to prove posting or satisfy statutory hearsay exceptions; CNC invalid for failure to give mandatory prior notice under clause 45.1 and mis-stating beneficiary; Termination Notice invalid for failure to comply with clause 60.1 preconditions; Plaintiff affirmed the contract and failed to give required notice under s56(3), thus cannot recover LAD; Plaintiff failed to prove alleged fraud. Consequently Original Action dismissed; Counterclaim allowed and Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant RM634,452.19 plus interest and c…
7 Jan 2022

SENGJAYA GAINS (KL) SDN BHD YEO HIAP SENG TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-168-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-168-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Defendant validly terminated the distributorship agreement by exercising the contractual right under Clause 13.2; the Plaintiff's objections and reliance on Clause 2.3 were irrelevant once termination was valid; Clause 5.3(d) authorised the Defendant to set off the cash deposit and the Plaintiff failed to show it owed nothing; the plaintiff's claims were thus plainly unsustainable, frivolous or an abuse of process and were struck out.
6 May 2021

1. ) PUREMAN VENTURE SDN BHD (NO. SYKT: 1009961-W) (WA-22NCvC-282-06/2020) 2. ) PUREMAN VENTURE SDN BHD (NO. SYKT: 1009961-W) 1. ) KEDAH CEMENT SDN BHD (NO. SYKT: 56677-A) (WA-22NCvC-282-06/2020) 2. ) ASSOCIATED PAN MALAYSIA CEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-282-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-282-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Defendant validly terminated the contract under the express clause 19.2(e) exercised in its sole discretion, no applicable implied duty of good faith or reasonableness arose to render the termination unlawful, and therefore the Plaintiff's claim was plainly unsustainable and was struck out; summary judgment applications were dismissed.
4 Jan 2021

SPNB ASPIRASI SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 490479-V) CHIMONIEF SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 781379-W)

Citation

D-02(IM)(NCC)-485-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

D-02(IM)(NCC)-485-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed: the High Court erred as a matter of law by assessing and awarding damages based on construction costs and assumed termination that were not pleaded or established; assessment of quantum must be confined to pleaded heads (land costs) and comply with contractual prerequisites (including clause 3.1 of the supplementary agreement) and the compensatory principles under s74; the RM90,000,000 global award is unsustainable for those reasons.