Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for PUSAT KHIDMAT PEMBANGUNAN USAHAWAN YAPEIM SDN BHD vs PEH LIAN HWA & ORS...
PUSAT KHIDMAT PEMBANGUNAN USAHAWAN YAPEIM SDN BHD vs PEH LIAN HWA & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya (2025)
: The court held that the doctrine of frustration of contract does not apply where the failure to perform is self-induced. In this case, the appellant''''s inability to secure funding was due to the cancellation of promised funds from the Ministry of Finance, which the court found to be self-induced. As a result, the appellant could not claim frustration or a refund of the deposit, affirming that a party cannot succeed in their claim when their own actions or inducement led to the failure to perform contractual obligations.Checking relevance for COMMON GROUND TTDI SDN BHD vs KEN TTDI SDN BHD;COMMON GROUND WORKS SDN BHD & ORS...COMMON GROUND TTDI SDN BHD vs KEN TTDI SDN BHD;COMMON GROUND WORKS SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2021)
: In the case of Q2 Engineering Sdn Bhd v. PJI-LFGC (Vietnam) Ltd & Ors [2013] 8 MLJ 157, the High Court held that for the tort of inducing a breach of contract to apply, the alleged inducer must be a ''''stranger'''' to the contract. Parties who are the decision-makers, controlling minds, or alter egos of the party alleged to have breached the contract cannot be considered strangers. This is because such individuals are agents of the company, and their acts are treated as the acts of the company itself. Therefore, if a party is the director, shareholder, or alter ego of the contracting party, they cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of contract, as their actions are not independent of the company''''s actions. This principle prevents automatic liability of directors, shareholders, parent companies, or subsidiaries in every case of corporate breach, which is not the law. This directly supports the legal principle that a party cannot succeed in a claim based on inducement of breach if they themselves are not a stranger to the contract and are instead part of the same corporate structure.Checking relevance for UNTUNG vs PP...Checking relevance for SABAH ELECTRCITY SDN BHD vs ARL POWER SDN BHD (ENCLS 15 24 & 35)...
SABAH ELECTRCITY SDN BHD vs ARL POWER SDN BHD (ENCLS 15 24 & 35) - High Court Sabah & Sarawak Kota Kinabalu (2021)
: The doctrine of estoppel bars a party from asserting a claim due to their own conduct, including inaction or acquiescence. In First Count Sdn Bhd v. Wang Yew Logging & Plantation Sdn Bhd, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming a higher contract fee because it had continued to perform the contract under reduced rates for over five years without protest, despite having the right to insist on the original terms. The court found it would be unjust and unconscionable to allow the plaintiff to later claim a breach after having accepted the reduced payments and even reduced its own operational costs in reliance on the new arrangement. Similarly, in Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd & Ors v. Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor, the first respondent was estopped from advancing claims based on prior breaches because it had remained silent during the 2003 restructuring and had induced the appellants to act to their detriment, thereby waiving its right to complain. These cases establish that a party may be barred from pursuing a claim if their own actions—such as continued performance without objection, silence, or inducement—make it unconscionable to later assert rights.Checking relevance for LEE KONG HOOI & ORS vs SAZEAN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR...LEE KONG HOOI & ORS vs SAZEAN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR - High Court Malaya Shah Alam (2024)
: In Dato'''' Yap Peng Eng & Ors v. Public Bank Bhd & Ors [1997] 3 MLJ 484, the Court of Appeal held that a party cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration as a defence if the frustrating event was self-induced. The court emphasized that self-induced frustration is not recognized by law, citing Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v. Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154 and Maritime National Fish Ltd v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524. In this case, the appellants failed to apply for Bank Negara Malaysia''''s consent as required by the Order, which rendered any frustration self-induced and therefore legally invalid. Thus, the appellants could not succeed in their claim due to their own failure to comply with a contractual precondition.Checking relevance for LEE KONG HOOI & ORS vs SAZEAN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR...LEE KONG HOOI & ORS vs SAZEAN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR - High Court Malaya Shah Alam (2024)
: In Dato'''' Yap Peng Eng & Ors v. Public Bank Bhd & Ors [1997] 3 MLJ 484, the Court of Appeal held that a party cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration as a defence if the frustrating event was self-induced. The court emphasized that self-induced frustration is not recognized by law, citing Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v. Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154 and Maritime National Fish Ltd v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524. In this case, the appellants failed to apply for consent from Bank Negara Malaysia as required by the Order, which rendered any frustration self-induced and therefore legally invalid. Thus, the appellants were unable to claim frustration due to their own failure to take necessary steps, demonstrating that a party cannot succeed in a claim when the basis for the claim arises from their own actions or omissions.
