Breach of contract
8 cases · April 2022 to May 2025
Case Volume by Year
3 22
5 25
2022–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Unlawful termination of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 24.03.2014 and Supplementary Agreement dated 13.09.2018 — The central issue is whether there was a valid extension of time of 30 months and this turns on whether D4 had “ostensible” authority to sign the SA which was signed and sent to the Plaintiff via WhatsApp on 29 November 2018. The SA was given to D4 at the meeting on 13 September 2018. It is clear from the evidence that D4 did take it back and discussed the issue of extension with his siblings (the other co-owners) and when he was asked to sign and return the SA, he did so via WhatsApp. D4 also encashed the Plaintiff’s cheque for RM10,000.00, which D4 claimed was a “commission”. We also note that during cross-examination, D4 was not very forthright about the payment of RM10,000.00. It is imperative to note that the sum of RM10,000.00 was not even part of the Plaintiff’s pleaded case. — the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in toto. There was nothing in the Statement of Claim by way of a plea based on “quantum meruit” or “unjust enrichment” in order for the Court to exercise its discretion to assess damages under these heads — Appeal 353 and the appeal is allowed and the High Court Order dated 29 January 2024, to the extent where it ordered the Defendants to pay RM421,113.25 to the Plaintiff and upon such payment the 25 individual titles are to be released to the Defendants, is hereby set aside. A Consequential Order that the sum of RM421,113.25 with all interest accrued thereon, presently held by the Defendants solicitors Messrs. P. Paramjothy & Co. be forthwith released to the Defendants. All 25 individuals titles i.e. for HS(M) 22601 to HS(M)22626, PT 44606 to PT44630, Mukim Tanjung Dua Belas, Daerah Kuala Langat held by Messrs. Nordin Torji & Partners as stakeholder, be released forthwith to the Defendants solicitors, Messrs. P. Paramjothy & Co. 2 Pre-incorporation contracts rule — Section 35 of the Companies Act 1965 — Estoppel — Intention to create legal relation — Letter of intent 2 Contract for the supply of machines by plaintiff to defendant– Whether any outstanding sum owing by defendant to plaintiff — Whether defendant is liable for the forfeiture of downpayment made by plaintiff to its suppliers — Whether the agreement for payment of liquidated damages by plaintiff to defendant is void — Whether defendant must return the liquidated damages payment to plaintiff — Counterclaim by defendant — Whether defendant is entitled to liquidated damages for late delivery of the machines — Whether defendant is entitled to a refund of the payments made for the machines — Whether defendant is entitled to claim ancillary supporting costs of running the factory. 1 claim for excess payment of parking rental — whether correct method of calculation used — Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license — Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space — Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 claim for excess payment of parking rental — whether correct method of calculation used — Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license — Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space — Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 -Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 Companies Act 2016, section 540, section 304 — intent to defraud creditors — fraudulent trading — doctrine of corporate personality — separate legal entity principle — lifting of the corporate veil — whether directors are liable — res judicata — good faith in contract — relational contract 1
Pre-incorporation contracts rule — Section 35 of the Companies Act 1965 — Estoppel — Intention to create legal relation — Letter of intent 2 cases
Contract for the supply of machines by plaintiff to defendant– Whether any outstanding sum owing by defendant to plaintiff — Whether defendant is liable for the forfeiture of downpayment made by plaintiff to its suppliers — Whether the agreement for payment of liquidated damages by plaintiff to defendant is void — Whether defendant must return the liquidated damages payment to plaintiff — Counterclaim by defendant — Whether defendant is entitled to liquidated damages for late delivery of the machines — Whether defendant is entitled to a refund of the payments made for the machines — Whether defendant is entitled to claim ancillary supporting costs of running the factory. 1 case
claim for excess payment of parking rental — whether correct method of calculation used — Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license — Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space — Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 case
claim for excess payment of parking rental — whether correct method of calculation used — Claim for loss of profit due to parking bays without license — Duty to obtain certificate of fitness under Factories and Machineries Act 1967 — Whether duty owner of building or company operating parking space — Section 3, Section 19, Section 21, Section 40(3), Section 50 Factories and Machineries Act 1967 -Regulation 10 of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certification of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970. 1 case
Companies Act 2016, section 540, section 304 — intent to defraud creditors — fraudulent trading — doctrine of corporate personality — separate legal entity principle — lifting of the corporate veil — whether directors are liable — res judicata — good faith in contract — relational contract 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Cases
b-02ncvcw-352-03-2024
TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v 1. ) GOH CHENG HUAT 2. ) GOH CHENG HUAY 3. ) GOH CHING CHAI 4. ) GOH CHING ENG 5. ) GOH CHING SEONG
4 May 2025
MYCOA
b-02ncvcw-353-03-2024
1. ) GOH CHENG HUAT 2. ) GOH CHENG HUAY 3. ) GOH CHING CHAI 4. ) GOH CHING ENG 5. ) GOH CHING SEONG v TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
4 May 2025
MYCOA
pa-22ncvc-49-04-2024
LATEX FORM SDN BHD v ICONIC MEDICARE SDN BHD
21 April 2025
MYHC
b-02ncvcw-1190-07-2023
KOPERASI PERMODALAN FELDA MALAYSIA BERHAD v IMEJ PARKING SDN BHD
4 February 2025
MYCOA
b-02ncvcw-1191-07-2023
IMEJ PARKING SDN BHD v KOPERASI PERMODALAN FELDA MALAYSIA BERHAD
4 February 2025
MYCOA
02f-35-04-2022b
LAI FEE AND ANOTHER v WONG YU VEE AND OTHERS
3 October 2022
MYFC
01f-32-11-2020d
DAE HANGURU INFRA SDN BHD v BALDAH TOYYIBAH (PRASARANA) KELANTAN SDN BHD
6 April 2022
MYFC
01f-33-11-2020d
DAE HANGURU INFRA SDN BHD v Perbadanan Menteri Besar Kelantan (PMBK)
6 April 2022
MYFC