Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tripartite agreement

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2025

GREATSHIP GLOBAL OFFSHORE SERVICES PTE LTD 1. ) VANTAGE MARINE & LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) AZIZUL AZMA BIN AB MALIK 3. ) ESWARAN A/L PANJARATNAM 4. ) WONG CHENG PERNG 5. ) MARGRATE TAMBANUN 6. ) MUHAMMAD SABRI BIN AB GHANI 7. ) SKOSV SDN BHD

Citation

WA-27NCC-12-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-12-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SKOSV's separate Acknowledgement and Confirmation constituted agreement to be bound by the Payment Procedure in Addendum No.4; SKOSV knowingly withheld notification of End User receipts and entered a Set-Off (Hibiscus Addendum No.1) that deprived funds intended for Greatship, such conduct amounted to direct interference and inducement of breach and imposed a constructive trust and fiduciary duties on SKOSV; conversely, evidence did not show the Vantage Directors acted outside their corporate capacities or with predominant intention to injure Greatship, therefore conspiracy and trustee claims…
5 Jul 2024

PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD BS SHEET PILES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-31-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-31-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The minutes did not demonstrate an agreement that MRCB would assume the debt or that the Appellant was discharged; the arrangement was a common payment routing proposal by the Appellant and there was no tripartite agreement or assignment of debt to MRCB, therefore the Appellant remained liable and summary judgment for the Respondent was proper.
19 Jan 2024

DOMINION PARK SDN. BHD. 1. ) GABUNGAN KOPERASI PERUMAHAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

BA-24NCvC-133-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-133-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the Second Defendant, not being a party to the original joint‑venture agreement, was not legally obliged to sign a tripartite agreement on terms it had not conclusively agreed to; the reliefs sought would improperly require the court to impose contractual terms on the State and the matter of realization of Plaintiff's rights must be pursued against the First Defendant under existing contractual and judgment remedies.
14 Sept 2021

Dato' Khor Wooi Chen METRO SUPPLIES MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Tripartite Agreement did not impose liability on D2 for RPGT or for the RM1,000,000 difference where the respondent sold the property to a third party before the five-year repurchase period; the respondent's premature sale frustrated the TA and limited D2's liabilities. D2 remained liable under the TA as guarantor/indemnifier for rental arrears only for the period the lease subsisted (limited to 15 months), and the High Court orders were set aside except for awards on insurance and rental loss of RM600,000; interest at 5% was ma…
26 Nov 2020

BENTARA GEMILANG INDUSTRIES SDN BHD TSR BINA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-232-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-232-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Supply Contract between plaintiff and defendant was a valid, binding contract; plaintiff delivered and defendant accepted the goods and remains indebted; the Side Letter and Appendix 9 did not create a binding obligation on SPYTL to pay (clauses were discretionary and there is no privity enabling plaintiff to enforce against SPYTL); defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue to defeat the O.14 application; summary judgment was therefore properly granted for the plaintiff.
28 Nov 2018

BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 576189-W) 1. TEAMWARE HARDWARE SDN. BHD. (Co No.: 1140996H) 2. MACVILLA SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 599978-A)

Citation

BA-11BNCVC-14-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCVC-14-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Rules of Court do not empower striking out a notice of appeal under O 18 r 19(1) and O 92 r 4; an unendorsed duplicate notice served within 14 days complies with O 55 rr 2 and 3(4) read with O 3 rr 2 and 4; any erroneous prayer in the notice was an irregularity curable under O 2 r 1; on the merits the Magistrate erred in finding Bumimetro liable because the two letters established a tripartite novation under s 63 Contracts Act whereby Macvilla assumed the liability and must indemnify Bumimetro, and the adverse inference under s 114(g) Evidence Act as to Macvilla f…

Malaysia Case Law

GREATSHIP GLOBAL OFFSHORE SERVICES PTE LTD 1. ) VANTAGE MARINE & LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) AZIZUL AZMA BIN AB MALIK 3. ) ESWARAN A/L PANJARATNAM 4. ) WONG CHENG PERNG 5. ) MARGRATE TAMBANUN 6. ) MUHAMMAD SABRI BIN AB GHANI 7. ) SKOSV SDN BHD

PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD BS SHEET PILES SDN BHD

DOMINION PARK SDN. BHD. 1. ) GABUNGAN KOPERASI PERUMAHAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Dato' Khor Wooi Chen METRO SUPPLIES MARKETING SDN BHD

BENTARA GEMILANG INDUSTRIES SDN BHD TSR BINA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 576189-W) 1. TEAMWARE HARDWARE SDN. BHD. (Co No.: 1140996H) 2. MACVILLA SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 599978-A)