Judgment after trial
6 cases · March 2025 to August 2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Liability — Insurance claims by the insureds for loss and damage arising from a fire incident — Whether the insureds entitled to claims extended on indemnity basis — Whether the fire was accidental and deliberately caused — Whether the Plaintiff in breach of the Insurance Policy which restricted the storage and to exclude liability of the insurer — The National Fire Protection Association 921: Guides for Fire and Explosion Investigations — Examination of scientific component by the experts — Examination of “Multiple Seats of Fire” Theory — Whether there is full room involvement — Whether the low-level burnings may cause separate fires — Expert’s failure to support their narrative of incendiary fire ignited in the absence of evidence of any accelerant at the identified multiple seats of fire — The Court’s found that the fire was accidental and not deliberately caused — The assessment or measurements available for verification of the volume of oils is based very much on estimation and unsupported data. The Warranty has not thus not been breached by the Plaintiff. 3 Claim for payment under an Indemnity Agreement — Counterclaim — Allegation of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation — Allegation of criminal intimidation — Nature of the threat adduced in evidence was insufficient to establish criminal intimidation — No element of coercion established — Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950 — Section 503 of the Penal Code (Act 574) 1 Claims for balance purchase price of shares under Shares Purchase Agreement — Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim outstanding payments despite receiving a full and final settlement of due amounts — Plaintiff fails to discharge her evidential burden — Allegation of forgery was not proven — Part B of Bundle of Documents where its authenticity was not in dispute — neither police report was lodged by the Plaintiff nor amendments to the pleadings was made — whether an agreement without consideration is void — whether contracting parties agree to vary the terms of an initial agreement — variation of the terms of payment on the time of payment and as to the payee. The Plaintiff’s contention that the variations made to the terms of the SPA were void was rejected. Claims dismissed with costs. 1 Contractual disputes under the Service Agreement (“SA”) to provide software development services — Claims for outstanding sums — The Defendant’s witness was not privy to the communication between the Defendant and the Plaintiff at the material times — Evidence unrebutted will be sufficient to discharge the legal burden needed to meet the cause of action. The Defendant led no evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimonies — Nowhere in the SA did it state that the website was for gambling or an online casino gaming platform that would be operated from Malaysia, Section 24 — Contracts Act 1950. Court ordered the outstanding sums to be paid with the interest thereon by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 1
Liability — Insurance claims by the insureds for loss and damage arising from a fire incident — Whether the insureds entitled to claims extended on indemnity basis — Whether the fire was accidental and deliberately caused — Whether the Plaintiff in breach of the Insurance Policy which restricted the storage and to exclude liability of the insurer — The National Fire Protection Association 921: Guides for Fire and Explosion Investigations — Examination of scientific component by the experts — Examination of “Multiple Seats of Fire” Theory — Whether there is full room involvement — Whether the low-level burnings may cause separate fires — Expert’s failure to support their narrative of incendiary fire ignited in the absence of evidence of any accelerant at the identified multiple seats of fire — The Court’s found that the fire was accidental and not deliberately caused — The assessment or measurements available for verification of the volume of oils is based very much on estimation and unsupported data. The Warranty has not thus not been breached by the Plaintiff. 3 cases
wa-22ncc-329-08-2018 SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG
13 March 2025
wa-22ncc-330-08-2018 SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG
13 March 2025
wa-22ncc-542-11-2018 SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
13 March 2025
Claim for payment under an Indemnity Agreement — Counterclaim — Allegation of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation — Allegation of criminal intimidation — Nature of the threat adduced in evidence was insufficient to establish criminal intimidation — No element of coercion established — Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950 — Section 503 of the Penal Code (Act 574) 1 case
Contractual disputes under the Service Agreement (“SA”) to provide software development services — Claims for outstanding sums — The Defendant’s witness was not privy to the communication between the Defendant and the Plaintiff at the material times — Evidence unrebutted will be sufficient to discharge the legal burden needed to meet the cause of action. The Defendant led no evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimonies — Nowhere in the SA did it state that the website was for gambling or an online casino gaming platform that would be operated from Malaysia, Section 24 — Contracts Act 1950. Court ordered the outstanding sums to be paid with the interest thereon by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Cases
ba-22ncvc-239-06-2023
USAHA BAHAGIA TIMBER SDN. BHD. v TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR BIN TUAN YUSUF
27 August 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-22-01-2023
SARALEANA NATTAYA BINTI AZMI v TECHNA-X BERHAD
15 April 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-126-03-2023
SURIA LABS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v BAI YANG INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LIMITED
24 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-329-08-2018
SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG
13 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-330-08-2018
SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG
13 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-542-11-2018
SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
13 March 2025
MYHC