Two real decisions from today's Court Update. Nine calls to make. You get the facts exactly as the courts had them, then you decide. No trick questions. Every answer is drawn straight from the judgment, and every explanation tells you why the losing argument looked good on paper.
How it works
Read the facts, then commit to an answer. You cannot change it.
Each case has a twist. The first question is rarely the whole story.
Five rapid fire propositions at the end. True or false.
Any word with a dotted line is a term you can tap for a plain English definition.
Tip: on a keyboard, press 1, 2 or 3 to answer.
Case One of Two
B-02(NCvC)(W)-1047-07/2023
Merchant Synergy Sdn Bhd v Cempaka Johan Sdn Bhd
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya · 5 August 2026
Supang Lian JCA, Mohd Firuz bin Jaffril JCA, Dean Wayne Daly JCA
The Brief
A subcontractor builds 1,324 bungalows for a main contractor. The work is spread across 59 separate Letters of Award, total value RM138,425,932.46.
The subcontractor sues for RM9,210,013.04 in unpaid progress claims. Its evidence is a run of monthly Progress Claim and Payment Statements, each one stamped "Verified and Confirmed" and signed by the main contractor's director.
The High Court treats those statements as an account stated, allows the claim in full and dismisses the main contractor's counterclaim.
One detail sits in the background. Every one of the 59 Letters of Award says that the power to certify belongs to the Project Architect.
The director signed. The contract said only the architect could certify. Who wins on appeal?
Think about what the signature can and cannot carry.
Appeal allowed on this point
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's decision allowing the RM9,210,013.04 claim. The panel held the trial judge erred in finding that the director had ostensible authority to sign the progress payment claims, the extension of time applications, the certificates of making good defects and the completion certificates. Under each of the 59 Letters of Award, only the Project Architect could do that.
Two further findings sank it. The director's capacity related to sales and did not extend to running the project or the accounts. And there was no judicial appreciation of how he came to sign at all, given that the documents were handed to him by the subcontractor's own director, who happened to be his partner in another company.
Why the losing argument looked good
It is a real principle that a director's admission can bind a company, and section 18(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 was squarely in play. The answer is that authority is read out of the contract first. A signature cannot certify what the contract gave someone else the power to certify.
The Twist
Same case, second half
The main contractor has just won the point on authority. Its own counterclaim asked for RM11,858,769.00 for rectification of defects and RM14,946,320.00 in liquidated ascertained damages. The High Court had dismissed it.
At trial its case had these features. Its sole witness could not produce a single receipt from any third party rectification contractor. No consultant and no contractor was called. The delay figures came from a computer generated document, and the witness did not know who entered the data for 2014 to 2016. The judge found the witness lacked credibility.
Having won on authority, does the counterclaim get revived?
The certificates it relied on were signed by the same director.
Counterclaim stays dismissed
The panel affirmed the dismissal. It said so expressly despite finding that the judge had wrongly relied on the certificates signed by the director. The dismissal rested on findings that had nothing to do with those documents. No receipts. No witnesses called. A computer generated record with no certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950, plus a break in the chain of evidence. The delay in the completion certificates was caused by the main contractor's own failure to provide external infrastructure approvals.
The final result was an appeal allowed in part, with costs of RM30,000.00 to the appellant here and below, subject to allocatur.
The exam point
Appellate courts are slow to disturb findings of fact and will not touch a credibility finding made with the audio visual advantage of trial, unless the judge was plainly wrong. Winning a point of law does not repair an evidential case that was never built.
Case Two of Two
WA-22M-1817-12/2024
Koperasi Serbaguna Iman Malaysia Berhad v Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad & Ors
High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, Commercial Division
Grounds of judgment released 6 August 2026
The Brief
A cooperative wants nine people committed for contempt. The nine are the defendant bank's board of directors. None of them is a party to the suit.
The alleged contempt is that they approved the filing of a fresh originating summons by the bank, to enforce a Deed of Assignment, while the cooperative's own action to set aside an earlier judgment was still pending.
Leave to commence committal is granted ex parte.
The papers are never handed to any of the nine. They are served on the bank's solicitors under an order for substituted service. That firm acts for the bank.
Service on the company's lawyers, none on the nine directors. Does the committal survive?
Order 52 rules 2B and 4(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 use the word "shall".
Leave set aside · Committal dismissed
The court held the rules are mandatory because they use "shall", and no attempt whatsoever had been made to serve the nine personally. The cooperative went straight to substituted service through the firm.
The bank and its board are two distinct legal entities. The firm had never been appointed to represent the directors and never admitted that it did, so the effect of the order was that a firm was in substance made to accept cause papers for people who were not its clients. Because committal carries implications for personal liberty, substituted service should not be granted arbitrarily and without strong and reasonable grounds. The court contrasted an earlier case where substituted service was allowed on evidence that the respondent was evading service. On that ground alone, the leave fell away.
Costs of RM10,000.00 to each of the nine, subject to allocatur.
Why the losing argument looked good
The cooperative did have a court order permitting substituted service, so on its face service was regular. The answer is that an irregular route to an order does not cure the order. The court looked at how the substituted service order came to be made, and found the precondition for making it had never been satisfied.
The Twist
Suppose service had been good
The court did not stop at service. It went on to consider the merits anyway. The complaint was that the bank filed a fresh originating summons to enforce its rights under a Deed of Assignment over Ar Rahnu business proceeds, while other proceedings were live.
Two facts are worth holding on to. The cooperative was free to oppose that summons and would have been heard on it. And the cooperative never applied to strike the summons out.
On the merits, was contempt made out?
The test invoked was wanton destruction of the subject matter with intent to impede a fair trial.
Contempt not established
The court found the bank had come to court to have its rights under the Deed of Assignment heard, and that this was not wanton destruction of the subject matter of the trial. There was an express finding of no malice. Success on the summons was never guaranteed and would be decided after a hearing. The cooperative could have opposed it, and could have applied to strike it out, and did neither.
Contempt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The practical point
Contempt is a poor answer to a filing you do not like. If the other side files something it should not have, the direct route is an application to strike out. Reaching for committal puts you to the criminal standard on a quasi criminal application, against individuals, with strict service rules waiting at the door.
Rapid Round
Proposition 1 of 5
Your Judgment
0/9
Takeaway one
A signature carries only the authority that sits behind it. Where a contract names who may certify, that is who certifies, whatever the letterhead says.
Takeaway two
Winning a point of law does not rescue an evidential case. No receipts, no witnesses and no section 90A certificate will sink a counterclaim whatever else you win.
Takeaway three
Committal is quasi criminal. Serve the individual, and show the court you tried before you ask to serve someone else instead.
Takeaway four
A company and its board are distinct legal entities. Its solicitors are not automatically their solicitors.
Sources
Grounds of judgment, Court of Appeal Malaysia, Civil Appeal No. B-02(NCvC)(W)-1047-07/2023, dated 5 August 2026.
Alasan Penghakiman, High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division), Suit No. WA-22M-1817-12/2024, released 6 August 2026. That judgment is in Bahasa Malaysia and the summaries here are translations of the court's reasoning.
Jurisdiction: Malaysia. This is a summary of two decisions for general information and study. It is not legal advice.
Court Update · 7 August 2026
Draft · Requires Niamh or Mathew's approval before publishing