DJEN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD v PROTON EDAR SDN. BHD.

ka-22ncvc-50-10-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 January 2026 • KA-22NCvC-50-10/2022 • 37 min read

21 cases cited (0 SG, 21 foreign)

Outcome

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed in its entirety with costs.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ka-22ncvc-50-10-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Contract Law — Termination — Dealership Agreement — Express contractual right to terminate for poor performance during the COVID-19 pandemic — Estoppel by signature. Evidence — Adverse Inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 — Withholding of audited financial accounts in damages claim. Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Unpleaded technical defences and 'trial by ambush'. Covid 19 Act - Applicability Damages _ Unproven -- Whether Entitle to Nominal Damages

Practice Areas

Contract Evidence

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (5)

Meg Nacha Zahir & Co. Firm Shearne Delamore Firm Megalai V Raman Counsel Plaintiff SY Liew Counsel Defendant Yiew De Quan Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

DJEN ENTERPRISE Sdn Bhd Plaintiff PROTON EDAR Sdn Bhd Defendant

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)

Cases Cited (21)

UK (2)

[1934] 2 KB 394 [1971] 3 All ER 690

MY (19)

[1972] 1 MLJ 171 [1990] 2 CLJ 635 [1995] 3 MLJ 331 [2004] 1 MLJ 411 [2004] MLJU 758 [2006] 1 MLJ 117 [2007] 1 CLJ 611 [2008] 5 MLJ 157 [2009] 2 MLJ 546 [2012] 3 MLJ 1 [2014] 4 MLJ 619 [2016] 1 MLJ 709 [2017] MLJU 412 [2021] MLJU 1698 [2022] 3 MLJ 699 [2022] MLJU 1137 [2022] MLJU 2541 [2024] 6 MLJ 326 [2026] 1 MLJ 172

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-22ncvc-50-10-2022)