P
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
Organisation 5 cases
About Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 5 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to February 2026. Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd appeared as defendant in 2 cases, appellant in 1 case, non party in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (4), Court of Appeal (1).
How many court cases involve Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd?
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd appears in 5 published judgments from February 2025 to February 2026. Most commonly as defendant (2 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd appeared?
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (4 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (1 cases), totaling 5 judgments.
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; 1 (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 - 1 (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); 1 (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?; 1 (5) if the court can consider the 1st Defendant’s Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) in this case - 1 (6) whether the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) had failed to comply with Clause 8.1; and 1 (7) if the 1st Defendant’s Termination (Agreement) was invalid . 1 Given the facts and circumstances of this case whereby the Defendants had duly informed the counsel for the Plaintiff of the factual matrix yet unfortunately the Plaintiff proceeded with this application without evidence, the Defendants are entitled to costs. I award RM5,000 to the 1st Defendant, RM5,000 to the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants, and RM5,000 to the 3rd Defendant (per law firm appointed in the case for the Defendants). The trial is to resume. 1
Appellant (1)
Defendant (2)
wa-22ncvc-971-12-2019 MYHC
Yong Har Leng v 1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Helmy Haja Mydin 3. ) Dr Chang Chew Ming 4. ) Nurses At Home Sdn Bhd
16 November 2025
wa-22ncvc-168-03-2022 MYHC
Sankar A/l M K Samy (Menyaman Sebagai Pentadbir Estet Sankar S/o M K Samy, Si Mati) v 1. ) Ramsay Sime Darby Health Care Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Liew Chee Khoon 3. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 4. ) Dr Sanjiv Joshi Hari Chand 5. ) Dr Ernest Ng Wee Onn
20 February 2025