Full trial
40 cases · October 2023 to May 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 23
9 24
19 25
11 26
2023–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
claim by individual Plaintiffs against the same Defendant for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Consolidated Suits. The Defendant counterclaims against individual Plaintiffs for loss incurred. 3 Plaintiff's claim based on alleged slanderous and defamatory statements made by Defendant. Whether publication proven and whether defamatory; defendant produced no witnesses — whether court should make adverse inference based on Sec 114(g) of evidence act. 1 contractual claim for agreed Reimbursable Cost upon early termination of Gas Supply Agreement: 1 Plaintiff VP at defendant bank on successive fixed term contracts; claimed transfer a demotion and therefore constructive dismissal. 1 Judge had audio-visual advantage of witnesses 1 Whether the defendants had made fraudulent misrepresentations and conspired to defraud the plaintiff by inducing the plaintiff into investing in a company — Whether the plaintiff knew of the company’s financial position at the time of the share acquisition — Whether this is a case of fraud or merely a failed business investment — Whether the plaintiff’s action is time-barred — Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff for failing to call a listed witness 1 The defendant had appointed the plaintiff as a custodian of an investment fund — The defendant was the manager of the fund — The plaintiff resigned as trustee of the fund — Whether the plaintiff’s resignation as trustee was validly done — Whether the defendant must pay the trust monies to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to discharge its obligations to the investors — Whether the plaintiff must return the trustee fee paid by the defendant 1 - Medical negligence — liability conceded — issue of appropriate quantum of damages. 1 Claim by Plaintiff against family members and others for declaratory relief, account of profits, tracing remedies and damage exceeding RM125 million; 1 Transfer of shares by defendant to plaintiff — Whether outright gift — Whether the shares are held by plaintiff as collateral or on trust for defendant — Whether defendant breached fiduciary duties as director to plaintiff as shareholder — Whether defendant obliged to restore plaintiff’s shareholding to its original percentage of 5% — Whether minority oppression — Whether Order 40A affidavit must be filed in relation to the share valuation report 1 Claim by TNB against Defendant as registered Account holder for unpaid electricity charges. Third party claim by Defendant against JMB for indemnity. 1 Plaintiff claims that defendant advocate and solicitor was negligent and breached fiduciary duties. 1 Dispute over property — Plaintiff claims specific performance to compel defendant to transfer the property to plaintiff — Whether defendant can be absolved from his contractual obligation under the sale and purchase agreement because he purportedly did not know what he was signing — Whether defendant’s signature on the transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation — Whether plaintiff breached the terms of the agreement by failing to pay the deposit upon execution of the agreement — If so, whether the agreement was void as a result of such a breach. 1 Plaintiff claim the Sale and Purchase Agreement is a sham document or a façade to an illegal moneylending scheme — Whether the Plaintiff managed to establish the threshold for fraud and/or misrepresentation against the Defendants — Whether there is a conspiracy by Fourth Defendant to defraud the Plaintiff — Whether Fourth Defendant (conveyancing law firm) is liable for professional negligence or participation in any unlawful scheme — Whether Second Defendant is entitled to vacant possession of the said Property 1 seizure of items from premises after termination of contract by Department of Environment. Previous decision by Sessions Court that Defendant is owner of items and the same to be released to Defendant. Plaintiff now claims a return of those items or alternatively a sum of RM 21 million allegedly paid by them for those items. Defendant has counterclaim for the storage costs of the seized items. — issues are whether the Plaintiff has proven it is the owner of the seized items, whether the plaintiffs claim is barred by res judicata and whether the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim. 1 Whether oral agreement for a tenancy of 10 years — Whether defendant breached promise regarding a ten year tenancy — Whether contravene section 213(1)(a) of the National Land Code that a tenancy exceeding 3 years is deemed a lease and must be registered — Whether defendant breached section 7 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 by evicting plaintiff without a court order — Whether plaintiff failed to comply with Order 18 rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 by quantifying the claim for general damages. 1 Whether request for proposal by defendant and proposal from plaintiff constitute a binding contract — Whether the letter of offer issued by defendant to plaintiff is pre-mature — Whether the letter of offer was unlawfully revoked — Whether a document placed in Part A is representative of the truth. 1 Plaintiff sues on outstanding invoices for supply of ready mixed concrete to defendant — Defendant counterclaims for costs to remedy the construction issues arising due to the strength failure of the ready mixed concrete supplied by plaintiff — Whether plaintiff has fulfilled its contractual obligation by virtue of the prescribed Slump Test and Cube Test, for its supply of the ready mixed concrete to defendant — Or whether such obligation extend to passing the Core Test and other in-situ tests as alleged by defendant. 1 claim by Plaintiff against Defendant sub-contractor for damages/losses and LAD pursuant to termination of contract; counter claim by Defendant for work done under such contract. — Issues — whether the Defendant had failed in his obligations and the termination valid resulting in the Plaintiff incurring losses; whether the Plaintiff is entitled to LAD; whether the Defendants claim is barred by res judicata due to previous CIPAA proceedings; — Court finds the termination valid due to Defendants unsatisfactory performance whereby the Plaintiff entitled for the losses incurred in having to continue and complete the project. The Plaintiff not entitled to LAD as not proven. Defendant counter claim not barred by res judicata but Defendant has failed to prove his counter claim. — Plaintiff claim allowed in part. Defendant’s counter claim dismissed. 1 Claim by Plaintiff who rented warehouse from Defendant; — Robbery at Plaintiff’s warehouse — Plaintiff claiming losses of RM4,627,198.70 from the alleged breach of tenancy and/or negligence of Defendant’s agents; — whether there was an express or implied duty on the part of the Defendant to provide security for the premises generally and/or Plaintiff’s warehouse and whether there was vicarious liability; — Court finds that there is an implied duty on the Defendant as landlord to provide some form of security for the general premises but not for the Plaintiff’s warehouse especially since the Plaintiff had engaged their own security for their warehouse. — The Court finds the Defendant had provided adequate security for the premises and were not liable for the incident and therefore not required to indemnify the Plaintiff for their losses. — Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1
+ 18 more
claim by individual Plaintiffs against the same Defendant for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Consolidated Suits. The Defendant counterclaims against individual Plaintiffs for loss incurred. 3 cases
pa-22ncc-32-05-2023 QTMY SUCCESS ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE v NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
pa-22ncc-33-05-2023 GOH ENG PAO @ GOH ENG HOCK berniaga atas nama dan gaya SYNERGY BASE v 1. ) NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIKSIN VENTURE (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
pa-22ncc-44-07-2023 GOH TIONG HUM berniaga atas nama dan gayaMULTILINK TECH CHEM RESOURCES v NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
Plaintiff's claim based on alleged slanderous and defamatory statements made by Defendant. Whether publication proven and whether defamatory; defendant produced no witnesses — whether court should make adverse inference based on Sec 114(g) of evidence act. 1 case
contractual claim for agreed Reimbursable Cost upon early termination of Gas Supply Agreement: 1 case
Plaintiff VP at defendant bank on successive fixed term contracts; claimed transfer a demotion and therefore constructive dismissal. 1 case
Judge had audio-visual advantage of witnesses 1 case
The defendant had appointed the plaintiff as a custodian of an investment fund — The defendant was the manager of the fund — The plaintiff resigned as trustee of the fund — Whether the plaintiff’s resignation as trustee was validly done — Whether the defendant must pay the trust monies to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to discharge its obligations to the investors — Whether the plaintiff must return the trustee fee paid by the defendant 1 case
- Medical negligence — liability conceded — issue of appropriate quantum of damages. 1 case
Claim by Plaintiff against family members and others for declaratory relief, account of profits, tracing remedies and damage exceeding RM125 million; 1 case
Claim by TNB against Defendant as registered Account holder for unpaid electricity charges. Third party claim by Defendant against JMB for indemnity. 1 case
Plaintiff claims that defendant advocate and solicitor was negligent and breached fiduciary duties. 1 case
Dispute over property — Plaintiff claims specific performance to compel defendant to transfer the property to plaintiff — Whether defendant can be absolved from his contractual obligation under the sale and purchase agreement because he purportedly did not know what he was signing — Whether defendant’s signature on the transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation — Whether plaintiff breached the terms of the agreement by failing to pay the deposit upon execution of the agreement — If so, whether the agreement was void as a result of such a breach. 1 case
Plaintiff claim the Sale and Purchase Agreement is a sham document or a façade to an illegal moneylending scheme — Whether the Plaintiff managed to establish the threshold for fraud and/or misrepresentation against the Defendants — Whether there is a conspiracy by Fourth Defendant to defraud the Plaintiff — Whether Fourth Defendant (conveyancing law firm) is liable for professional negligence or participation in any unlawful scheme — Whether Second Defendant is entitled to vacant possession of the said Property 1 case
seizure of items from premises after termination of contract by Department of Environment. Previous decision by Sessions Court that Defendant is owner of items and the same to be released to Defendant. Plaintiff now claims a return of those items or alternatively a sum of RM 21 million allegedly paid by them for those items. Defendant has counterclaim for the storage costs of the seized items. — issues are whether the Plaintiff has proven it is the owner of the seized items, whether the plaintiffs claim is barred by res judicata and whether the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim. 1 case
Whether oral agreement for a tenancy of 10 years — Whether defendant breached promise regarding a ten year tenancy — Whether contravene section 213(1)(a) of the National Land Code that a tenancy exceeding 3 years is deemed a lease and must be registered — Whether defendant breached section 7 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 by evicting plaintiff without a court order — Whether plaintiff failed to comply with Order 18 rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 by quantifying the claim for general damages. 1 case
Whether request for proposal by defendant and proposal from plaintiff constitute a binding contract — Whether the letter of offer issued by defendant to plaintiff is pre-mature — Whether the letter of offer was unlawfully revoked — Whether a document placed in Part A is representative of the truth. 1 case
Plaintiff sues on outstanding invoices for supply of ready mixed concrete to defendant — Defendant counterclaims for costs to remedy the construction issues arising due to the strength failure of the ready mixed concrete supplied by plaintiff — Whether plaintiff has fulfilled its contractual obligation by virtue of the prescribed Slump Test and Cube Test, for its supply of the ready mixed concrete to defendant — Or whether such obligation extend to passing the Core Test and other in-situ tests as alleged by defendant. 1 case
claim by Plaintiff against Defendant sub-contractor for damages/losses and LAD pursuant to termination of contract; counter claim by Defendant for work done under such contract. — Issues — whether the Defendant had failed in his obligations and the termination valid resulting in the Plaintiff incurring losses; whether the Plaintiff is entitled to LAD; whether the Defendants claim is barred by res judicata due to previous CIPAA proceedings; — Court finds the termination valid due to Defendants unsatisfactory performance whereby the Plaintiff entitled for the losses incurred in having to continue and complete the project. The Plaintiff not entitled to LAD as not proven. Defendant counter claim not barred by res judicata but Defendant has failed to prove his counter claim. — Plaintiff claim allowed in part. Defendant’s counter claim dismissed. 1 case
Claim by Plaintiff who rented warehouse from Defendant; — Robbery at Plaintiff’s warehouse — Plaintiff claiming losses of RM4,627,198.70 from the alleged breach of tenancy and/or negligence of Defendant’s agents; — whether there was an express or implied duty on the part of the Defendant to provide security for the premises generally and/or Plaintiff’s warehouse and whether there was vicarious liability; — Court finds that there is an implied duty on the Defendant as landlord to provide some form of security for the general premises but not for the Plaintiff’s warehouse especially since the Plaintiff had engaged their own security for their warehouse. — The Court finds the Defendant had provided adequate security for the premises and were not liable for the incident and therefore not required to indemnify the Plaintiff for their losses. — Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 case
Plaintiff commences claim against three Defendants seeking inter alia a declaration that the Defendants have breached a settlement agreement. 1 case
Family dispute over properties — Parties involved in the family business — Plaintiff is the father — The 1st Defendant is the eldest son — The 2nd Defendant is the wife — The Plaintiff handed over the management of the family business and properties to the 1st Defendant in exchange for retiring from the family business and receiving a monetary contribution of love and affection — The Plaintiff transferred his properties to the Defendants, with consideration stated as love and affection — Some years later, the Plaintiff stopped receiving the monetary contribution from the 1st Defendant, prompting him to demand the return of the properties transferred to the Defendants — After a long period of silence, the Plaintiff alleges that the properties were fraudulently transferred by the Defendants — The Plaintiff claims to be unaware and has no knowledge of the transfer documents executed by him — He pleads non est factum — Whether non est factum is pleaded — The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants abused the trust he had placed in them by deceiving him into signing the transfer documents as if they were company documents — The Plaintiff asserts he never executed any documents before a lawyer — Hence, the attestation clause in the memorandum of transfer is false — Whether this amounts to an insufficient instrument of transfer under s. 340(2)(b) NLC — Whether this issue is pleaded — Or whether the Plaintiff transferred the properties voluntarily to the Defendants — And in fact, there was consideration for the transfer — There is inconsistent evidence concerning the payment of the contribution to the Plaintiff — The parties and their witnesses were not truthful about the details of the contribution — Whether the Plaintiff’s remedy lies in claiming for the contribution from the Defendants. 1 case
The claim concerns practices within the liquefied petroleum gas industry (LPG) — The Plaintiff is an LPG supplier — The Defendants are LPG distributors — The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for the wrongful detention of their gas cylinders, based on the tort of detinue — Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction for the delivery of their gas cylinders, damages for unlawful interference with the Plaintiff’s trade, and compensation for loss of profits — The Defendants counterclaim for transportation charges, storage costs, security charges, and damages in the event the interim injunction is set aside — Existence of industry practice regarding exchange and buy-back of cylinders — The industry practice was recognised in Solar Gas Sdn Bhd v NGC Energy Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 CLJ 778 — Whether, based on this industry practice, the Plaintiff has the immediate right to possession of their gas cylinders — Whether the industry practice vitiates the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for unlawful detention — Whether there was any intent on the part of the Defendants to injure the Plaintiff by interfering with their trade or business — The Defendants did not adhere to the industry practice — Whether the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to relief for the exchange and buy-back of the gas cylinders from the Defendants — Whether the Defendants have proven their counterclaim for transportation costs — Whether the Defendants are entitled to counterclaim for the storage costs and security charges, given the mechanisms of the industry practice. 1 case
significance of a warranty in the contract of marine insurance and the interpretation and scope of the warranty — the Defendant has breached the terms of the Policy when it failed and or refused to indemnify the Plaintiff for the claims submitted — the Defendant contends that they has no obligation to pay the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff has breached the warranty — the Defendant has not discharged its burden of proof that the warranty has been breached and that it is discharged from indemnifying the Plaintiff for its losses arising from the Incident. 1 case
Contractual claim — Construction works — Dispute between developer and main contractor — Termination by main contractor — Alleging non-payment of progress claims — Developer contends payment yet to be due and main contractor breached the contract — By stopping work and abandoning the site — Whether progressive claims due as at date of termination by main contractor — Whether termination by main contractor lawful — Developer claims additional cost for engaging new contractor — Whether main contractor liable for additional cost to complete the project — Whether developer entitled to the additional cost on the value of works already completed by main contractor — In addition to the additional cost on the works yet to be completed — Main contractor counter claims against developer — Balance due for value of works as at date of termination — Whether Developer admitted to balance sums due to main contractor. 1 case
the claim by the Plaintiff and counterclaim by the Defendant for alleged breach of contract between both companies with both alleging to have suffered loss and damage arising from each other’s breach/conduct. Issues: a. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM 44,130.00 being the costs of scrapping of moulds and scrapping of formers at the WIP (work in progress) stage, which the Plaintiff had produced to be later delivered to the Defendant under PO 50? 1 case
Interpretation to be given to a Bulk Shipment Clause in a Marine Open Cover — whether the forms of certified surveys at both the loading and discharged ports must be by draught surveys only — whether the same or equivalent method calculation should be used at both the port of loading and discharge port — whether there was any customary practice that had prevented the same or equivalent method of survey calculation to be procured — no requirement that the survey on the Cargoes at the loading and discharge ports must be by draught survey only 1 case
Key Statutes
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 6 cases National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 3 cases Civil Law Act 1956
cited in 3 cases Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 3 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 3 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 2 cases Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 2 cases Marine Insurance Act 1906
cited in 1 case UK Sale of Goods Act 1979
cited in 1 case Malaysian Sale of Goods Act 1957
cited in 1 case Sale of Goods Act
cited in 1 case Evidence Act
cited in 1 case Stamp Act 1949 (Cap 378)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Othman Hashim & Co 3 Omar Ismail Hazman & Co. 1 Asghar 1 Koh & Teh Law Chamber 1 Tham Teoh & Partners 1 Linda Wang Su & Boo 1 Junaida Afuan & Quek 1 C.K. Yap & Partners 1 Alan Tan & Associates 1 Azmi & Associates 1 N. Nantini & Co. 1 Satha & Co 1 Sativale Mathew Arun 1 Lim Chee Wee Partnership 1 Heng 1
Top Lawyers
Cases
Page 2 of 2wa-27ncc-38-08-2022
KEJORA RESOURCES SDN. BHD. v CHUBB INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD
7 April 2025
MYHC
jb-22ncvc-32-11-2023
Boulevard Pillar Sdn Bhd v Goh Hardware & Construction Sdn Bhd
13 March 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-124-07-2023
CERAMTEC INNOVATIVE CERAMIC ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD v ICONIC MEDICARE SDN. BHD
27 February 2025
MYHC
wa-27ncc-52-11-2022
Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd v Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Berhad
6 February 2025
MYHC
wa-27ncc-42-08-2023
JADE ESERVICES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD v 1. ) RC LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) DANNY CHUA CHENG HEE (BERDAGANG SEBAGAI PEMILIK TUNGGAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA GO RUSH EXPRESS) PIHAK KETIGA RC Logistics Sdn. Bhd.
16 January 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-144-08-2023
1. ) EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD 2. ) LEOW YIN SZE v 1. ) KANG MEI SIM 2. ) EPC PACKAGING (M) SDN BHD
16 December 2024
MYHC
pa-23ncvc-8-03-2023
Daniel Lee Eng Wern v Dr. Aaron Lim Boon Keng
12 December 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-112-08-2022
MOHAMAD YAZID BIN ISMAIL v 1. ) PERKHIDMATAN WARISAN TUAH (Didakwa sebagai Firma) 2. ) Mohamed Yusoff Bin Salleh (Didakwa dalam kapasiti sebagai Rakan Kongsi/Pekongsi PERKHIDMATAN WARISAN TUAH) (No. Pendaftaran Perkongsian: 198703065431 (AS0082548-W)) 3. ) Azhaar Bin Mohamed Yusoff (Didakwa dalam kapasiti sebagai Rakan Kongsi/Pekongsi PERKHIDMATAN WARISAN TUAH) (No. Pendaftaran Perkongsian: 198703065431 (AS0082548-W))
3 December 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-22-02-2023
Aman Setia Land Sdn Bhd v Beng Choo Ventures Sdn Bhd
18 November 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncc-32-05-2023
QTMY SUCCESS ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE v NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncc-33-05-2023
GOH ENG PAO @ GOH ENG HOCK berniaga atas nama dan gaya SYNERGY BASE v 1. ) NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIKSIN VENTURE (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
MYHC
pa-22ncc-44-07-2023
GOH TIONG HUM berniaga atas nama dan gayaMULTILINK TECH CHEM RESOURCES v NBRAND (M) SDN. BHD.
24 October 2024
MYHC
ja-22ncvc-127-10-2020
KER BOON KEE v 1. ) TAN SIN HWA 2. ) TIANG NIK UNG 3. ) ANG YONG SOON
13 August 2024
MYHC
ja-22ncvc-38-03-2018
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD v ICE MAN SDN. BHD.
3 March 2024
MYHC
ja-22ncc-37-07-2020
TOH HONG HOOI v 1. ) GOH TAT CHUAN 2. ) OTOFIN POWER (JOHOR) SDN BHD
28 October 2023
MYHC