Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time of the essence

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

CASA KLANG TOWER SDN. BHD. 1. ) TROPICANA PROPERTIES (KLANG) SDN. BHD. 2. ) Gan Chon Coon 3. ) Teh Kim Teck 4. ) Heng Hong Him 5. ) Wong Jut Ket 6. ) 99 NEW PROPERTY SDN BHD NO. 201901033154 PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Tetuan Jal & Lim 2. ) ROSNI FRA

Citation

BA-22NCvC-532-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-532-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The letter of offer was an agreement to negotiate requiring a formal executed SPA and fulfillment of conditions precedent; no concluded SPA existed because numerous material terms remained unresolved, the execution period expired and the offer terminated lawfully, and there was no proven conspiracy; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for specific performance failed and the 1st defendant's counter-claim was allowed.
29 Oct 2025

TOK JIANG WAI ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-46-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-46-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the plaintiff satisfied the prerequisites for summary judgment under Order 14 and had a prima facie entitlement to the contractual LAD; the defendant failed to establish any meritorious defence requiring a full trial. The Covid‑19 exclusion of 289 days was accepted and deducted. Time was not 'of the essence' so plaintiff was limited to LAD under clause 24(2). LAD is to be calculated on the contract purchase price as stated in the SPA (RM837,906.00), not on any discounted/paid price. Actual loss need not be proved to recover contractual LAD. Summary judgment was therefore e…
15 Oct 2025

1. ) KUMAR A/L PARAMESWARAN 2. ) JAYANALINI A/P R MUNIYANDI ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-318-10/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-318-10/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held s35 Covid-19 Act 2020 did not apply because contractual delivery date (6.3.2020) predated the exclusion period; plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the LAD clause calculated on the contract purchase price RM648,000; defendant failed to raise a reasonably arguable defence or triable issues, so summary judgment under Order/Rule 14 was appropriate; implied consent and need to prove actual loss were rejected as defences.
11 Apr 2025

1. ) CHONG CHUN MIN 2. ) CHEONG CHING FANG ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-358-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-358-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the defendant had no meritorious defence: s35 Covid-19 Act exclusion did not apply because the contractual delivery date (15.8.2019) predated the exclusion period; LAD must be calculated on the purchase price stated in the SPA (RM648,000.00) not on any post-contract rebate; plaintiffs were not required to prove actual loss to recover LAD under the express contractual clause; alleged implied consent, outstanding payment and financier-consent defenses were unproven and not triable issues that would defeat a summary judgment. Accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiffs was gra…
24 Mar 2025

Timberbrand Sdn Bhd PRS Forest Management (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-411-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-411-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that by conduct and acquiescence the Defendant treated the contract as continuing and thereby set time at large; the Defendant's termination on 18-2-2020 without giving notice to make time of the essence was a wrongful repudiation of a subsisting contract, entitling the Plaintiff to restitution of the sums paid (RM600,000) with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim for speculative future-rubber profits failed for lack of cogent evidence and mitigation.
6 Jan 2025

MERANTI MARSHAL SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD KUSHAIRI BIN KAMISAN 2. ) EMF ENERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-46-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-46-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the RM800,000 constituted a recoverable commission paid to the First Defendant and failed to prove any unlawful conspiracy; moreover Plaintiff materially breached fundamental contractual obligations (insufficient progress, suspension of works) thereby justifying the valid termination by the Second Defendant dated 24.02.2021; accordingly all claims are dismissed and costs awarded against Plaintiff.
14 Oct 2024

1. ) CHIN CHEE JIAN 2. ) CHIN YAN YEE ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-145-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-145-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held summary judgment was appropriate because the defendant had no meritorious defence: s35 Covid‑19 Act 2020 did not apply as the contractual delivery date (2.1.2020) predated the exclusion period; liquidated damages must be calculated on the purchase price stated in the SPA (RM648,000) not the discounted price; the SPA’s LD clause displaces a right to terminate and plaintiffs are entitled to LD without proving actual loss; therefore plaintiffs entitled to summary judgment and the claimed LD amount was justified.
7 Oct 2024

1. ) KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRIK SRI KRIS SDN BHD 2. ) SRI AYYANAREESWARAR @ SURESH A/L D.KRISHNA DMD MARINE ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-23-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-23-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because time for performance was not specified and it was unreasonable to expect completion by February 2019 given TNB approvals and bank guarantee timing; the Sessions Court was wrong to find no work performed and to order full repayment of RM250,000. The unilateral termination was invalid where time was not of the essence, and the proper course is assessment of the defendants' claim on quantum meruit for work done; matter remitted to Sessions Court for assessment; costs to appellants.
4 Oct 2024

EEPS ENGINEERING SDN BHD MOHD MAZANI BIN TUGIMEN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-696-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-696-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no concluded sale or present caveatable interest in favour of EEPS because the Letter of Offer did not culminate in a signed sale and purchase agreement binding both parties; the plaintiff validly terminated the offer in the circumstances and the defendant remained only a potential purchaser, therefore the caveat was unjustified and had to be removed and the claim for specific performance dismissed.
3 Nov 2023

1. ) WONG QUAN EE 2. ) WONG WEI EE LIEW HOI HING

Citation

CB-22NCvC-14-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-14-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The sale and purchase agreement and the supplementary agreement were contemporaneous parts of a single contract making the total purchase price RM1.6 million; the contract included a 'time is of the essence' clause; plaintiffs failed to pay the full RM1.6 million by the final extended deadline of 01.11.2020 and produced insufficient documentary evidence of any later extension or full payment; accordingly the defendant validly terminated the contract and the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance and related relief is dismissed while the defendant's counterclaim at para 110(d) is allowed.