1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pantai Hospital Manjung v Suresh Kumar a/l Hariharan
w-02ncvcw-1207-07-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 22 February 2026 • W-02(NCvC)(W)-1207-07/2023 • 7 min read
Catchwords
(1) whether the plaintiff, an orthopaedic surgeon (Plaintiff), could file this suit (This Suit) against the second defendant “Pantai Hospital Manjung” (2nd Defendant), when the 2nd Defendant is not a legal entity which is recognised in law; (2) whether the “Consultant’s Agreement” dated 21.10.2013 (Agreement) between the first defendant company (1st Defendant) and Plaintiff was a “fixed term contract for services” wherein the Plaintiff was an independent contractor for the 1st Defendant and was not its employee without - (3) whether the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim in This Suit (ASOC) had pleaded a material fact that the 1st Defendant had breached a contractual duty under the Agreement to act in good faith towards the Plaintiff [Contractual Duty (Good Faith)] as required by O 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC); (4) if the ASOC did not plead the 1st Defendant’s breach of the Contractual Duty (Good Faith) [1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith)], had the Plaintiff adduced evidence of the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) at the trial of This Suit (Trial) and the admissibility of such evidence had not been objected to by the Defendants?; (5) if the court can consider the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) in this case - (6) whether the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) had failed to comply with Clause 8.1; and (7) if the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) was invalid .
Practice Areas
(1) whether the plaintiff, an orthopaedic surgeon (Plaintiff), could file this suit (This Suit) against the second defendant “Pantai Hospital Manjung” (2nd Defendant), when the 2nd Defendant is not a legal entity which is recognised in law; (2) whether the “Consultant’s Agreement” dated 21.10.2013 (Agreement) between the first defendant company (1st Defendant) and Plaintiff was a “fixed term contract for services” wherein the Plaintiff was an independent contractor for the 1st Defendant and was not its employee without - (3) whether the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim in This Suit (ASOC) had pleaded a material fact that the 1st Defendant had breached a contractual duty under the Agreement to act in good faith towards the Plaintiff Contractual Duty (Good Faith) as required by O 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC); (4) if the ASOC did not plead the 1st Defendant’s breach of the Contractual Duty (Good Faith) 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith), had the Plaintiff adduced evidence of the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) at the trial of This Suit (Trial) and the admissibility of such evidence had not been objected to by the Defendants?; (5) if the court can consider the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) in this case - (6) whether the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) had failed to comply with Clause 8.1; and (7) if the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) was invalid .
Case Significance
1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pantai Hospital Manjung v Suresh Kuma... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated February 22, 2026 (citation: w-02ncvcw-1207-07-2023). The panel comprised Azizah binti Haji Nawawi, Azizul Azmi bin Adnan and Wong Kian Kheong, with Wong Kian Kheong delivering the judgment.
Key issues: (5) if the court can consider the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) in this case -.
What was the outcome of 1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pantai Hospital Manjung v Suresh Kuma...?
1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pantai Hospital Manjung v Suresh Kuma... is a Court of Appeal decision dated February 22, 2026. The case was heard by Azizah binti Haji Nawawi. See the full judgment for details.