1. ) TAN HOCK SENG 2. ) VICTOR TAN HAN FUNG Wong Lian Soon

1. ) TAN HOCK SENG 2. ) VICTOR TAN HAN FUNG Wong Lian Soon

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly held Annex 9 was an abuse of process: Order 92 r4 cannot be used as a shortcut to obtain substantive mandatory relief before trial where procedural mechanisms exist; the earlier MS03 judgment is not relevant or binding under ss40–43 Evidence Act 1950 for the substantive relief sought; and there was no misdirection or manifest injustice warranting appellate interference. Costs RM3000 awarded to respondent.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant; Defendant in Sessions Court: Tan Hock Seng; Appellant; Defendant in Sessions Court: Victor Tan Han Fung; Defendant; Third Defendant in Sessions Court: Vanessa Tan Yee Jueen; Respondent; Plaintiff in Sessions Court: Wong Lian Soon
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2026
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Dismissal of an Order 92(4) Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 20.6.2025 upheld
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Inherent Jurisdiction, Mandatory Injunction, Stay of Proceedings, Res Judicata, Admissibility of Prior Judgments
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Injunctions Civil Litigation Abuse of Process Inherent Jurisdiction Mandatory Injunction Stay of Proceedings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Hock Seng

Appellant; Defendant in Sessions Court

Victor Tan Han Fung

Appellant; Defendant in Sessions Court

Vanessa Tan Yee Jueen

Defendant; Third Defendant in Sessions Court

Wong Lian Soon

Respondent; Plaintiff in Sessions Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Dismissal of an Order 92(4) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Order 92 rule 4 application (Annex 9) was an abuse of process and not a valid exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Order 92 rule 4 KKM 2012 can be used to obtain mandatory injunctions (payment orders, stay, striking out) before trial
  3. 3 Whether the earlier case MS03 is relevant or binding under sections 40–43 Evidence Act 1950 to support relief in Annex 9

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly held Annex 9 was an abuse of process: Order 92 r4 cannot be used as a shortcut to obtain substantive mandatory relief before trial where procedural mechanisms exist; the earlier MS03 judgment is not relevant or binding under ss40–43 Evidence Act 1950 for the substantive relief sought; and there was no misdirection or manifest injustice warranting appellate interference. Costs RM3000 awarded to respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 20.6.2025 upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of Sessions Court dated 20.6.2025 rejecting Annex 9 under Order 92 rule 4 KKM 2012 is upheld