Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time is of the essence

Legal area

Court

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and had no contractual basis to retain funds or impose a 10% abort fee; time was of the essence and plaintiff validly rescinded the voidable contract and is entitled to full restitution; facts are clear and indisputable, so no triable issues exist and summary judgment for repayment is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.
30 Sept 2025

Sri Bayanaemas Realty Sdn Bhd Acasys Technology Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-380-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-380-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Joint Development Agreement and Addenda (notably Addendum IV) are contracts subject to conditions precedent (planning approvals, plot ratio increase and related regulatory consents); because those conditions precedent remained unfulfilled the defendant had not lawfully commenced development so the plaintiff's termination was unlawful; consequently plaintiff's claim was dismissed and defendant was entitled to declaratory relief and specific performance (reliefs pleaded in paragraphs 52(a) and 52(b)), with costs awarded to defendant.
30 Jul 2025

NOOR AMALIENA BINTI MOHD HAMRAAZS ABU KASSIM BIN ABD KARIM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court concluded that time was not rendered 'of the essence' by the defendant's notices because the notices sought penalty payments rather than serve as a clear 30‑day notice to make time of the essence as required by clause 21; delays were justified by external events amounting to force majeure and by failures on the part of the landowner to cooperate; the defendant failed to follow clause 21's notice and remedy procedure before termination; defendant breached clause 6.5 by dealing with the subject plots; accordingly the termination was invalid and plaintiff was entitled to a declaration…
25 Jun 2025

1. ) ROMZI SAAT BIN DIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD KHALID BIN SIDI ABDUL LATIFF 3. ) FAUZI BIN ZAKARIA 4. ) MEGAT ZAKARIA BIN MGT AHMAD BUKIT JERNEH QUARRY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-34-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-34-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant breached the Sale and Purchase Agreements by failing to obtain required approvals and commence development within the contractual period, time was of the essence, plaintiffs validly terminated the agreements and are entitled to restitution of payments, reimbursement of legal costs, interest at 5% per annum from judgment and assessment of general damages.
23 Jan 2025

EVERGREEN CORPORATE SDN BHD EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

W-02(MUA)(W)-748-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

MUA
Case number

W-02(MUA)(W)-748-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellant had not satisfied all contractual conditions precedent within the agreed one-month period; the Facility Agreement expressly conferred on EXIM Bank an absolute, time-independent right to terminate if conditions precedent remained unfulfilled and contained a non-waiver clause; there was no clear, unequivocal representation or reliance to support estoppel or waiver by conduct; therefore termination was lawful and the High Court's dismissal was correct.
7 Jan 2025

DSCAFF ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) CHEEMATRADE SDN BHD 2. ) SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCvC-535-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-535-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Time for payment under the Agreement was of the essence; the 1st Defendant breached by failing to pay as required; the Plaintiff's indulgence amounted to an extension of time under section 64 of the Contracts Act and did not create a collateral agreement or vary the contract; unreturned materials are to be treated as lost and invoiced per Appendix C; Plaintiff entitled to unpaid rentals, contractual late fees, interest at 5% p.a. and costs.
4 Oct 2024

MOHD MAZANI BIN TUGIMEN EEPS ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-616-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-616-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held Defendant did not have a caveatable interest because there was no concluded sale and purchase agreement executed by both parties giving Defendant a present equitable or registrable interest; Plaintiff validly terminated the Letter of Offer for failure to comply with the time condition; Plaintiff sold the property to a bona fide purchaser for value; on balance of convenience the caveat must be removed and Defendant's claim for specific performance dismissed; Plaintiff's claim for general damages failed for lack of loss evidence.
2 Oct 2024

IVORIA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) Yang Chin Fan 2. ) Chua Yet Nge

Citation

NA-12ANCvC-4-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12ANCvC-4-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs met the procedural and substantive prerequisites for summary judgment under Order 14 and established a prima facie case for liquidated damages; the defendant failed to discharge the shifted burden to show triable issues on the balance of probabilities because (a) the alleged third-party causes arose after the contractual delivery date and therefore did not excuse the delay; (b) the defendant produced no ministerial written approval under s35 COVID-19 Act 2020 so exclusion/extension did not apply; and (c) clause 8 did not apply because the property had its own title and was mortgage…
21 Jun 2024

PACKAGING SALES & SERVICE (M) SDN BHD KEJURUTERAAN PAKAT PERKASA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Time remained of the essence; the first extension was agreed but subsequent proposed draft extensions were not accepted by the Plaintiff so no further agreed extension existed; delays after June 2020 were not excused by COVID‑19 and were not caused by the Defendant; therefore the Defendant validly terminated under s56(1) Contracts Act 1950 and is entitled to recovery of the full deposit; the Sessions Court erred in allowing only 20% repayment.
15 Apr 2024

TITIMAS SHIPPING & TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) EUSTACIA SOLUTIONS 2. ) FONG YEE LING 3. ) WONG KAI KANG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants' failure to name a vessel and effect performance within the agreed laycan constituted a repudiatory breach/total failure of consideration entitling Plaintiff to treat the contract and Fixture Note as terminated and recover deposits; Defendants waived reliance on the arbitration clause by participating in court proceedings without seeking a stay; the defenses raised were afterthoughts and did not present triable issues, therefore summary judgment was appropriate.