Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undertaking as to damages

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

1. ) YONG YEH FONG 2. ) CHAN KWANG HAU 3. ) KEE JOO EE 4. ) TEE WEI KANG 5. ) FOO KHAR YI 6. ) CHONG SIAU XIAN 7. ) HONG TEIN HWEE 8. ) TAN ZHENG HAO 9. ) KELVIN TING CHENG TAT 10. ) YANG WEN BIN 11. ) LIEW PUA KANG 12. ) CHEN XIAO HUI 13.

Citation

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found plaintiffs have a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation supported by the defendant's messages and partial admissions; there were sufficient grounds to believe the defendant has assets (including a prior RM100,000 payment) and objective indicators of dishonesty and risk of dissipation; the undertaking and built-in procedural allowances were adequate; therefore a Mareva injunction freezing assets up to USD400,000 was justified and ordered with costs.
1 Dec 2025

1. ) TAN SRI DATO PHENG YIN HUAH 2. ) DATO PHENG CHIN KIAT 1. ) LOK PENG CHUAN (Disaman dalam kapasiti sebagai Penerima dan Pengurus Mentakab Star Mall Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penerimaan)) 2. ) JASMIN BEGUM BINTI JAFFAR KHAN (Disaman dalam kapasiti

Citation

CB-22NCC-8-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCC-8-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no bona fide serious issue to be tried because the sale was made within the receivers' contractual authority under the debenture and followed multiple failed sale attempts; alternatively, even if issues existed damages were an adequate remedy; the Plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages was inadequate; and the Plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure at the ex parte stage. Consequently, the interlocutory injunction was dismissed with costs.
16 Oct 2025

1. ) BALAMANI A/P SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) NAVARASAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 3. ) MUNIANDY A/L MANIKAM 4. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L RAJA GOPAL 5. ) JEGASILAN A/L KUNGAMBOO 6. ) PERIYASAMY A/L NARAYANASAMY 7. ) RAMAIYAH A/L KESAVAN 8. ) BALAKRISHNAN A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

BA-24NCC-106-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-106-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte injunction was set aside because the Plaintiffs failed the strict duty of full and frank disclosure (notably non‑disclosure of the controlling 2023 decision) and did not furnish a valid undertaking as to damages; additionally Plaintiffs, as co‑opted State Chairmen, lack locus standi under binding precedent so no serious triable issue exists and the AGM and subsequent removals were valid under the AoA, therefore the originating summons is dismissed.
10 Oct 2025

INFRA PURI SDN. BHD. AVENUE S2 SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-91-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-91-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to plead a cognisable cause of action for breach of confidence with necessary particulars, failed to identify which specific features of the defendant's device allegedly infringe the UI or patent and produced no credible technical comparison or probative evidence; damages were available and contemplated in the claim and the plaintiff could not give a meaningful undertaking given its adverse financial position; unexplained delay and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
9 Oct 2025

ANI ISHAAH BINTI ASLAM 1. ) Datin Marshitah Binti Mohammad (Sebagai Wakil Kepada Estet Dato’ Md Sani Bin Ahmad 2. ) MUHAMMAD ADAM MUIZZUDDIN BIN SALPUDIN 3. ) PREMIER SAVEGUARD SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-399-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-399-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the documentary record there is a bona fide serious issue to be tried as to whether an equitable transfer of 180,000 shares occurred; damages would not be an adequate remedy because interim corporate acts could cause unquantifiable and irreversible harm to Plaintiff's management, licences and business opportunities; balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo; no inordinate delay; court may dispense with a formal undertaking in this inter partes context. Accordingly interlocutory relief to preserve status quo is warranted and was granted with costs RM5,000.
6 Aug 2025

1. ) JP ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) J.P.ENGINEERING 1. ) SAGUNTHALA A/P SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) PS 2 ENTERPRISE 3. ) SSXP SPECIAL GLOBAL 4. ) Wong Jim Peng 5. ) Wong Zi Jing BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) WONG ZI JING 2. ) JP ENGINEERING & C

Citation

KB-B52NCvC-15-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-B52NCvC-15-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the affidavits and documents filed the court was satisfied plaintiffs made full and frank disclosure, established a good arguable case of misappropriation, demonstrated grounds to believe defendants have assets in Malaysia, proved a real risk of dissipation of those assets, and gave an undertaking as to damages; accordingly the Mareva-style interlocutory injunction and ancillary disclosure orders were granted and costs were awarded in the cause.
26 Mar 2025

JACK-IN PILE (M) SDN. BHD. GEOTECHNICAL ALLIANCE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22C-82-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-82-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On a prima facie and preliminary assessment the court found there is a good arguable case and bona fide serious questions about liability for payment and the existence/validity of the Purported Sub-Contract (including indicia of forgery); the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to avoid greater injustice to the Plaintiff; accordingly an ad interim injunction was warranted, granted in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of Enclosure 4, subject to the Plaintiff giving an undertaking as to damages.
21 Feb 2025

1. ) LOW HUEI YING 2. ) ERNEST MORGAN FERNAND LOW MATHY menyaman melalui ibunya dan next of friend Low Huei Ying Andrew Gregory Sewell (Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Tetuan Andrew Sewell) PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. ) MAYBA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated a bona fide serious issue and that the balance of convenience favoured granting a prohibitory interim injunction to preserve the status quo; the defendant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiffs' affidavits were false or that there was intent to obstruct justice, therefore the ad interim order was not rescinded and the committal application was dismissed.
13 Dec 2024

1. ) AWA NEW PARTS SDN BHD 2. ) YIP WAI KEAN 1. ) WINSTON CHIN WENG FAI 2. ) FONG MIN YI 3. ) KHU WENG SHEN 4. ) NG CHUN KIT 5. ) CARSTO GARAGE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCC-77-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-77-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: an undertaking given for an interim injunction supplies the basis for interlocutory assessment of damages without a prior specific order; Respondents substantially complied with Order 37 R1 by timely filing and seeking directions; Appellants are estopped from late procedural objections after agreeing procedure; the evidence supported the awarded rental, salary and vehicle loss amounts and mitigation was reasonable; there is no risk of double recovery given Respondents' undertaking. Appeal dismissed and lower court order affirmed.
25 Oct 2024

1. ) Dato' Chang Jong Yu 2. ) Iconic Bina Sdn Bhd 3. ) Laman Kejora Sdn Bhd 4. ) Permai Ikhlas Sdn Bhd 5. ) Cerah Teguh Sdn Bhd 1. ) Kuala Ibai Property Sdn Bhd 2. ) Modern Mode Sdn Bhd 3. ) Saham Terbilang Sdn Bhd 4. ) Woo Thin Choy 5. ) C

Citation

WA-22NCC-133-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-133-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 3 was dismissed because there was no serious issue to be tried as the liquidator—central to the plaintiffs' allegations—was not a party and leave to sue the liquidator was pending; additionally the balance of convenience favoured defendants due to the adverse effect on the Turnkey Project and third parties, damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages was insufficient.