Malaysia Case Law

30 Jan 2026

SUTIMAN BIN WAGIMIN AMRIII PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-116-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-22NCvC-116-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Development Agreement dated 23.1.2019 is declared void for breach of its fundamental condition precedent because the defendant commenced development works before obtaining required planning approval; plaintiff has locus standi; claims of misrepresentation and undue influence fail (plaintiff admitted no misrepresentation and failed to prove undue influence); neither party proved compensable losses so no damages awarded; defendant's counterclaims and claim for specific performance fail because defendant cannot benefit from its own breach.

• Voidable contract
• Misrepresentation
• Undue influence
• Condition precedent
• Planning permission
• Res judicata

7 Jun 2022

TEH AUN YANG (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI PEMILIK TUNGGAL DENGAN NAMA FOO YUAN FOOD COURT) 1. ) WAN CHOW SENG 2. ) YAP CHENG HEE 3. ) YAP KIM KEE & SONS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCC-145-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-12ANCC-145-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellant's claim against the 3rd Respondent disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the 3rd Respondent was a stranger to the Sub-Tenancy and Main Tenancy agreements so privity prevents rescission/restitution, and there is no established duty of care to impose liability for the alleged acts of the 1st and 2nd Respondents; striking out under Order 18 r19 ROC was therefore appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.

• Striking out under order 18 rule 19 roc
• Duty of care
• Privity of contract
• Joinder/misjoinder
• Rescission
• Voidable contract

FERNANDAZ HOLDING SDN. BHD. & YANG LAIN LWN. SHARANI HOLDINGS (M) SDN. BHD. & YANG LAIN

Citation

FERNANDAZ HOLDING SDN. BHD. & YANG LAIN LWN. SHARANI HOLDINGS (M) SDN. BHD. & YANG LAIN

Court

Malaysian court

Court held Regulation 12(1) applied to the sale agreements for condominium apartments and the extension to 48 months contravened Schedule E which limits completion to 24 months; the contracts were therefore voidable and, given the developer's failure and the rescission between defendant 1 and defendant 2, the plaintiffs' agreements were rescinded. Defendant 2 was not a developer as defined by s.3 because there was no evidence it made payments or financed the project; claims against defendant 2 were dismissed. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs against defendant 1 with costs.

• Developer regulations
• Rescission of contract
• Voidable contract
• Form requirements for sale agreements
• Joinder of parties