Full trial
19 cases · January 2025 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
18 25
1 26
2025–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
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 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 Locus standi and ownership of the containers based on the Settlement Agreement entered between parties — Whether the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the containers — whether the defendant has any general lien over the containers and whether they entitled to claim against Plaintiff any outstanding fees and disbursement over the storage of the said containers — The court allows the Plaintiff ‘s claim and dismissed Defendant’s claim — The Plaintiff is the legal and beneficial owner of the containers, and that the Defendant has no right, interest, title or authority to hold and or detain the containers 1 Plaintiff commences claim against three Defendants seeking inter alia a declaration that the Defendants have breached a settlement agreement. 1 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 Plaintiff requested that the purported policies be cancelled and sought a refund for 50% payment of insurance policy — Defendant refused to do so claiming that the 50% payment were no longer within Defendant’s control — The court allows the Plaintiff’s claim and Defendant to pay the 50% policy premium to the Plaintiff 1 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 damages due to negligence caused by the vessel to the link bridge of plaintiff’s terminal — application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, issue of causation and compensatory nature of a claim in tort — the admissibility of the expert witness — whether the 2nd defendant its master and crews, servants, agents and or employees were negligent in the navigation and or management and or control of the 2nd defendant vessel which resulted in the collision — whether the letter of indemnity signed by the 2nd defendant amounts to an admission of liability by the 2nd defendant — the damages sustained by the link bridge directly caused by impact from the vessel colliding into it 1 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 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 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 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 The 1st defendant for breach of service agreement and an Addendum in failing to remit certain outstanding cash-on-delivery — The 2nd defendant for unjust enrichment for retaining the outstanding COD amounts — The defendants breached the contractual duties to remit the COD amounts due and owing to the Plaintiff — The 1st defendant bore the duty and obligation to ensure the delivery, including the collection of the COD amounts by its delivery service agent, the 2nd defendant, was carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of the Service Agreement and Addendum 1
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
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
The 1st defendant for breach of service agreement and an Addendum in failing to remit certain outstanding cash-on-delivery — The 2nd defendant for unjust enrichment for retaining the outstanding COD amounts — The defendants breached the contractual duties to remit the COD amounts due and owing to the Plaintiff — The 1st defendant bore the duty and obligation to ensure the delivery, including the collection of the COD amounts by its delivery service agent, the 2nd defendant, was carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of the Service Agreement and Addendum 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
wa-22ncvc-448-08-2023
Tang Siew Kooi v Teoh Ai Bin
28 January 2026
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-509-12-2023
ASMAH BINTI MAHFUL v 1. ) HASSAN BIN YUSOF 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat
9 December 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-237-05-2023
BINA MEKAR SDN BHD v MALAYSIA TRANSFORMERS MANUFACTURING SDN BHD
16 November 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-197-12-2024
1. ) LIM LEE SHENG (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya sebagai Hao Xian Wei Restaurant) 2. ) LIM LEE SHENG 3. ) LIM LEE KEAT v 1. ) BES SEAFRONT SDN. BHD. 2. ) KUNG CHEA HOONG 3. ) KHOO JIA LI 4. ) JJ FOOD PARADISE PLT 5. ) JM CAPITAL PLT 6. ) ZEON PROPERTIES GROUP SDN. BHD. 7. ) LEE TOONG LEON 8. ) SEALICIOUS FOOD CORNER SDN. BHD 9. ) YUEN YEE RING 10. ) KELVEN LEE YEN LIM 11. ) IJM LAND BHD. 12. ) EDWARD CHONG SIN KIAT 13. ) LEE CHUN FAI 14. ) DATUK LEE TECK YUEN 15. ) DATO TOH CHIN LEONG 16. ) ST...
20 October 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-165-11-2024
MUTIARA ORIENT SDN BHD v PENANG PORT SDN BHD
16 October 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncc-61-09-2024
FORTIS STAR SDN BHD v SPK ASAS SDN BHD
23 September 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-28-03-2024
CHERANG SEPADU SDN BHD v 1. ) YUSMIN FAIROS BIN YAHYA 2. ) AHMAD TARMIZI BIN ZAINON
18 September 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-12-01-2024
DSV SOLUTIONS (DC) SDN BHD v SRI BAYANAEMAS (BUTTERWORTH) SDN BHD
17 August 2025
MYHC
wa-27ncc-45-09-2023
PT TRI PERKASA EXPRESS v GREEN GLOBAL TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.
18 May 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncc-50-07-2023
Polydamic Sdn Bhd v 1. ) ASPEN GLOVE SDN BHD 2. ) ASPEN VISION GROUP SDN BHD 3. ) ASPEN VISION CITY SDN BHD
15 May 2025
MYHC
jb-22ncvc-2-01-2022
NAM AH TEE @ NAM TING KUANG v 1. ) NAM YAW SHUANG 2. ) YAP AH SEY
12 May 2025
MYHC
wa-27ncc-3-01-2024
Phoenix Motor Management LLC v Raji Priscilla
1 May 2025
MYHC
jb-22ncvc-30-11-2023
NGC ENERGY SDN BHD v 1. ) KALSOM BINTI MUHAMAD 2. ) Goo (Goh) Say Dock berniaga sebagai PUSAT PEMBEKAL GAS BUDIMAN CERGAS [Business Registration No.: JM0192279-H] 3. ) berniaga sebagai PUSAT PEMBEKAL GAS BUDIMAN CERGAS
24 April 2025
MYHC
wa-27ncc-6-02-2023
BOUSTEAD CRUISE CENTRE SDN BHD v 1. ) NIKMAT MUJUR SDN BHD 2. ) CCK PETROLEUM (LABUAN) LTD (Licensed as Labuan Commodity Trading Company)
10 April 2025
MYHC
wa-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