Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of contract

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2026

SIN YAP EXCAVATING & BUILDING WORKS 1. ) TAN KIM TIONG 2. ) TAN CHERK YIK

Citation

JA-12BNCC-12-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-12-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court on Pasir Raja because the agreement was validly executed in counterpart and exchanged by email (primary evidence), the trial judge permissibly admitted the agreement under s.73A discretion, and the site manager's direct, audiovisual-assessed evidence that Plaintif performed and completed the works was credible such that the finding of completion was not plainly wrong; the Ayer Hitam claim failed because the alleged oral contract and quantum meruit were not pleaded and therefore could not be adjudicated. Costs for the appeals were fixed at RM8,000 each…
19 Aug 2025

PAUL RAJ A/L DAVIS MERCEDES-BENZ SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12ANCC-25-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-25-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Session Court: the Respondent complied with the Hire Purchase Act (s4(1)(a) and s5(1)), the appellant failed to demonstrate arguable triable issues or bona fide defence, and the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; therefore summary judgment and striking out were correctly ordered and the appeal is dismissed with costs RM5000.
26 Jun 2024

BINTAI GEMILANG PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SDN. BHD MAGNALOGIC SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-460-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-460-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment was refused because it involved a total replacement of the original defence with one of an inconsistent character (alleging sham and illegality) was not shown to be bona fide, and would cause prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs; therefore the Amendment Application was dismissed.
31 Jan 2024

JEMAIN BIN SAKAT 1. ) MOHD SAHRUL NIZAM 2. ) AHMAD GULAM AB GHAFAR 3. ) WAGIMIN NGABEN

Citation

BJ-A72NCvC-21-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-A72NCvC-21-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities Plaintiff failed to prove the agreements were intended as business capital or contained sufficiently certain terms; contemporaneous bank documents and lack of supporting witness (bank officer) undermined Plaintiff's case; agreements were void for uncertainty under s30 Contract Act 1950; claim therefore dismissed.
1 Mar 2023

1. ) WONG YONG FOOK 2. ) WONG HONG HWA COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed all three appeals: the Sessions Court was right to refuse to strike out the plaintiff's claim because the claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable; the amount actually paid plus the promotional rebate exceeded 10% of the purchase price so the HDR complaint failed on the facts, and even if HDR breach existed that would not automatically void the SPA; defendants failed to raise triable issues to resist summary judgment for specific performance; the counterclaim was not plainly and obviously sustainable and was properly struck out.
29 Jan 2023

DELTA CORP SHIPPING PTE LTD 1. ) MICHAEL LWEE WAN THOO 2. ) MOHAMMED NOBAB KHAN 3. ) AAA SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL (M) SDN BHD 4. ) CENTRAL CONTROL INTEGRATED SERVICES SDN BHD 5. ) SYNC CONGLOMERATE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCC-74-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-74-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for stay was dismissed because the court found the arbitration clause to be null and void and incapable of being performed: the 5th defendant had been dissolved when the Fixture Recap was entered (voiding the contract as to that party) and there was no operative dispute to be referred to arbitration, therefore s.10 did not mandate a stay.
11 Oct 2022

BLUE OCEAN TRANSFORMATION SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PELAWAT SEKOLAH TUNAS BAKTI TELUK AIR TAWAR, BUTTERWORTH (STBTAT) 2. ) PENGETUA SEKOLAH TUNAS BAKTI TELUK AIR TAWAR, BUTTERWORTH 3. ) Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) 4. ) Kerajaa

Citation

PB-B52NCvC-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-B52NCvC-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the written agreement, appointment letter and proposal were void for uncertainty under s.30 Contract Act 1950 because essential terms (site, scope, specifications, pricing and payment schedule, authority to bind federal assets) were not sufficiently certain; accordingly defendants did not commit actionable breach, plaintiff failed to prove actual loss causally attributable to any breach under s.74 and privity/statutory constraints precluded liability by certain defendants; claim dismissed and no costs order was made.
6 Feb 2022

MOHD AZRIL BIN MD GHAZALI JOHOR PORT BERHAD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-9-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-9-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Letter of Offer and the Marine Pilot Training and Bond Agreement were valid and enforceable, the Defendant breached the Agreement by resigning before the six-year bond period, and pursuant to clause 5.4 the Defendant is liable to pay RM100,000 as liquidated damages; the Defendant's counter-claim failed and the Sessions Court judgment was upheld.
16 Mar 2021

Abd Ghani Golamdin 1. ) UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA 2. ) UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Uniutama Management Sdn Bhd) 3. ) UNIUTAMA SOLUTION SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai R & D Serindit Com UUM Sdn Bhd)

Citation

01(f)-18-07/2020(K) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-18-07/2020(K) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the existence, authenticity and contents of exhibit P22 or that the second and third respondents authorised or approved it; absence of board resolutions and contemporaneous approvals, together with conduct of witnesses, rendered P22 an afterthought with no probative value; the Turquand rule did not apply as the appellant was an insider; admissibility under Evidence Act did not bar challenge to existence; therefore the High Court's factual findings were not perverse and dismissal was affirmed.
14 Aug 2020

1. Al Sharhan Sdn Bhd 2. Ismail bin Ali Edipro Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-12BNCC-23-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-23-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court concluded on the totality of evidence that the written agreement, read as a whole, was ambiguous and more consistent with an obligation to supply and install the pilot plant than an outright transfer or sale of the formula; the Plaintiff failed to prove that disclosure of the formula to SPAN was a contractual condition or that SPAN approval was sought or withheld as a result of the Defendants' conduct; the Sessions Court had insufficiently appreciated evidence and erred in awarding RM137,561.90 and granting the declaration; ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafti…