Search the mylaw.my corpus

WA-27NCC-28-05/2024

P-Cube Aviation Pte Ltd v J & T International Logistics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

High Court of Malaysia15 June 2026

JA-12BNCvC-14-07/2024

Parameswaren A/L Perumal v Delta Zeeforce Security Services Sdn. Bhd

High Court of Malaysia23 January 2026

107. The principle of damages for breach of contract is to place the injured party in the position as if the contract had been performed (see : Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 MLJ 777). This principle is statutorily embodied in section 74 of t

WA-27NCC-44-10/2022

Tsa Industries Sdn Bhd v Pemunya dan atau Orang Lain yang Berkepentingan dalam Kapal Msr No 1 (Imo 9141742) Dari Pelabuhan Panama

High Court of Malaysia10 February 2026

9. The Kommunar (No. 3) Legislation reference 1. Section 101, 104 and 105 of the Contracts Act 1950 2. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 3. Section 24 (b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 4. Section 5 (1) of the Civil Law Act 1950 5. Sections 51 and 114 (g) of the Evidence A

BA-22NCvC-299-08/2021

Ng Sock Foon v Marimo Land Sdn Bhd

High Court of Malaysia13 February 2026

38. The Defendants relied on sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Contracts Act 1950, and on the Federal Court decision in Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu [1996] 2 MLRA i, which clarified the principles governing fraud and misrepresentation and the applicable burden of proof. As the Plainti

W-03(IM)(MUA)-2-01/2024

Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad v XXXX

Court of Appeal of Malaysia17 July 2026

156. Having concluded that the Bank's wrongful termination caused the failure of the project and that the loss of profits claimed was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties under section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950, we now turn to consider whether the learned JC erre

BA-B52NCvC-3-01/2023

Oriental Steel Pipe Sdn Bhd v United Security Services Sdn Bhd

Sessions Court of Malaysia30 June 2026

170. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's contention that the limitation of liability clause is void under section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 is without merit and is accordingly rejected.

M-02(IM)-1622-08/2022

Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok v Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan

Court of Appeal of Malaysia8 May 2026

98. Reference was made to section 17 of the Contracts Act 1950 which provides for compensation when a person lawfully does something for another, not intending it to be gratuitous, and the other person enjoys the benefit. That puts on a statutory footing the common law position l

M-02(IM)-1476-08/2022

Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok v Goh Siew Koon @ Eng Sing Kuan

Court of Appeal of Malaysia8 May 2026

98. Reference was made to section 17 of the Contracts Act 1950 which provides for compensation when a person lawfully does something for another, not intending it to be gratuitous, and the other person enjoys the benefit. That puts on a statutory footing the common law position l

WA-22NCC-628-09/2024

Tariq Hussin Bin Hj. Akhtar Husin v Ishak Bin Yeop Hamzah

High Court of Malaysia12 May 2026

23. Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Anor and another appeal [2024] 4 MLJ 749 Legislation reference 1. Private Agencies Act 1971 2. Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 3. Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 4. Kementerian Dalam Negeri Circular (Private Agency Circular No. 1

M-02(IM)-1665-09/2022

TEY SUI KIAT v Lim Aik @ Lim Yeok

Court of Appeal of Malaysia8 May 2026

98. Reference was made to section 17 of the Contracts Act 1950 which provides for compensation when a person lawfully does something for another, not intending it to be gratuitous, and the other person enjoys the benefit. That puts on a statutory footing the common law position l