Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT LAW – BROKER AND AGENT’S COMMISSION – COMMSSION OR BROKERAGE AGREEMENT

Brokerage contract or commonly known as commission agreement allows referral, agent or broker to earn a commission based on sales amount received by the principal.

How does commission agreement work?

  • A commission agreement is a conditional contract. The broker or agent is entitled to his commission or brokerage fee when the event, upon which his entitlement arises, has occurred. For examples when the sales are completed between the principal and the third party or when the principal received payments from third party.
  • Remuneration of the broker or agent typically takes the form of a commission, being a percentage of the value of the transaction the agent is to bring about for the principal.
  • When the event occurred, the principal is bound by the contract to pay the agreed sum stated in the commission or brokerage agreement.

How is the agreed sum calculated?

  • Agreed sum is usually calculated based on a formula provided in the agreement.
  • A multiplier or multiplicant basis is commonly stated in the agreement. For example, 10% of the principal total sales to the third party or 10% of the payment received by the principal from the total sales to the third party.

What if the principal refused to provide evidence, details or documents pertaining to the sales or payment received?

  • The broker or agent may take out a discovery application against the principal or third party.
  • Alternatively, if there is risk documents or evidence may be destroyed to defeat the broker’s or agent’s claim for commission, an Anton Pillar Order can be sought from the court against the principal or third party.
  • Is the broker or agent required to prove losses arising from principal’s breach or refusal to pay commission earned?
  • No. A commission agreement entails claim for payment of a debt and NOT claim for damages for breach of contract.
  • A commission agreement provides for definite sum of money fixed by the agreement in return for performance of a specified obligation. This is also known in law as the “occurrence of some specified event or condition”.
  • The rule on damages do not apply to claim for a debt. There is no need for the broker or agent to prove actual loss suffered as a result of the principal’s breach. The principle of law on remoteness of damage or mitigation of loss does not apply to contract of commission.
  • (Case in Point: Lim Beng Kuan v Helms Geomarine Sdn Bhd [2023] 9 MLJ 155 and Ng Chin Tai (trading in the name and style of Lean Seh Fishery) & Anor v Ananda Kumar a/l Krishnan [2020] 1 MLJ 16)
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami