Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

PKNS REAL ESTATE SDN. BHD. AZUAN BIN AHMAD (berniaga di atas nama dan gaya SWEETTI FREEZEE ENTERPRISE)

Citation

BA-A72-60-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A72-60-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal because the amount in dispute is below RM10,000 and no question of law was raised, and because a dismissal of a summary judgment application is not appealable under s.28(1)(b); consequently the Magistrate's decision dismissing the plaintiff's summary judgment application (with costs in the cause) stands and the appeal is unmaintainable.
20 Aug 2025

SASIKALA A/P SUPPIAH AZZA MEWAH SDN BHD

Citation

BA-16-26-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-26-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Entitlement to termination benefits is determined by the employee's continuous period of service as at the date of termination; because the Amendment was in force on the termination date (31.12.2023) the appellant was entitled to benefits calculated over the entire continuous service under Regulation 6(1)(c). The Director General erred by restricting calculation to the post-amendment period; correct calculation yields RM44,055.85 and the appeal is allowed with costs.
21 Jul 2025

LEE LAI FATT BUSONLINETICKET SDN BHD

Citation

JD-A77-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JD-A77-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because online terms and the operator's reschedule policy were sufficiently made available and were incorporated by Plaintiff's click‑through acceptance; the attempted RM10 reschedule payments were not accepted by Defendant's system and were refunded, so no loss occurred; Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to RM45 on the balance of probabilities; appeal to High Court is not a proper avenue absent a question of law. Costs RM100 awarded to Defendant.
12 Jun 2025

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] RAGUNATHAN A/L SELVAMANI

Citation

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence as a whole (eyewitness testimony placing accused at the scene engaging in assault and uncontradicted expert post‑mortem showing injuries sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death), prosecution proved the elements of murder under section 302 read with section 34 including mens rea under section 300(c); defendants' alibi and denials failed to raise reasonable doubt and they were therefore convicted and sentenced accordingly.
19 Nov 2024

CATHERINE CHEONG POH LIN NANOPAC (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-46-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-46-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court's factual findings were not vitiated by error: the appellant failed to prove RM150,000 was the full capital contribution, refused to sign incorporation documents and to perform obligations, and therefore the joint venture remained binding and the agreed liquidated damages of RM500,000 under clause 6.2 were payable; accordingly the Sessions Court decision was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
6 Sept 2021

CARSEM (M) SDN BHD FATIMAH BINTI NOORDIN

Citation

AA-12ANCVC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12ANCVC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 55 r 5(1) ROC 2012 requires appeals from Subordinate Courts to be determined by a Judge in person sitting in Chambers; a Senior Assistant Registrar is not a 'Judge' for this purpose and therefore lacked power to make any order that would finally dispose of such an appeal. The alleged SAR order of 25.3.2021 is therefore a nullity and is set aside or deemed set aside; costs are in the cause.
20 May 2021

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD

Citation

01(f)-24-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-24-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The ten questions framed and the three principal complaints (size deduction, alleged double counting for location/access/layer, and failure to adjust for development potential) were factual valuation issues or applications of valuation principles, not questions of law within the narrow exception recognized in Semenyih Jaya; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in treating them as questions of law, and its decision was set aside with the High Court award restored.
KC Chan

Citation

KC Chan
Court

Malaysian court

High Court has jurisdiction only on questions of law for awards under RM10,000; after scrutiny the court found four issues raising questions of law and decided: failure to give clause 23 notice did not bar common law claims; magistrate validly awarded compensation above initial pleaded limit because limitation was abandoned; statutory sale agreements require approved plans to be annexed and plans are deemed part of the contract (developer cannot benefit from omission); issuance of CFO does not prevent contractual or common law claims for defects. Consequently the 26 appeals were dismissed and…