Syed Muhammad Hafiz Bin Syed Ahmad YTS ARCHITECTURE SDN BHD

Syed Muhammad Hafiz Bin Syed Ahmad YTS ARCHITECTURE SDN BHD

Extension of time refused because the 48‑day delay was substantial, the defendant's explanation attributing delay to former solicitors was not a cogent reason under established precedent, the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious appeal and had shown lackadaisical conduct at trial, and the court must protect the timetable and oppose prejudice to the respondent.

Citation
BA-12BNCC-23-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Syed Muhammad Hafiz bin Syed Ahmad; Respondent/plaintiff: YTS Architecture Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Case Number
BA-12BNCC-23-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court (civil) / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (post Trial Interlocutory)
Outcome
Enclosure 3 dismissed; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal, Solicitor Negligence, Affidavit by Solicitor, Trial Conduct, Loan Repayment
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Legal Profession/ethics Extension of Time Appeal Solicitor Negligence Affidavit by Solicitor Trial Conduct +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Muhammad Hafiz bin Syed Ahmad

Appellant/defendant

YTS Architecture Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court (civil) / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (post Trial Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to file notice of appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether delay caused by former solicitor is a sufficient reason
  3. 3 Whether the appellant demonstrated a meritorious appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the 48‑day delay was substantial, the defendant's explanation attributing delay to former solicitors was not a cogent reason under established precedent, the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious appeal and had shown lackadaisical conduct at trial, and the court must protect the timetable and oppose prejudice to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 3 dismissed; application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Enclosure 3 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent in the sum of RM 2,000.00