Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal procedure

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

AHMAD MAHADI BIN MOHAMAD PUSPAKOM SDN BHD

Citation

JA-16-14-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-16-14-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Total failure to serve Notices of Appeal within the mandatory period, the eleven‑month delay in filing and serving Records of Appeal without any extension application, and the use of the wrong mode of appeal (Order 55 instead of Order 55A) are fundamental, incurable procedural defects that render the appeals incompetent and justify striking them out; Order 1A/Order 2 Rule 1 cannot cure deliberate systemic non‑compliance; costs awarded to respondent.
1 Dec 2025

UNIGAYA PROTECTIONS SYSTEMS SDN BHD MOHD AZIZOL BIN ISMAIL

Citation

BA-16-37-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-37-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 77 Employment Act 1955 requires appeals to follow the civil appeal procedure from a Sessions Court (Order 55). The appellant filed the notice of appeal four days late without adequate excuse, had sufficient time to file before engaging counsel, and the delay would prejudice the respondent and delay the process; therefore the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the extension application.
18 Dec 2024

RAHMAT BIN LING MOHD AJMAL BIN ABDUL JAMIL

Citation

CA-12B-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-12B-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where trial judge's written grounds were not produced and the judge had retired, the High Court proceeded with a rehearing on the trial record; given the trial record (witness notes, investigator's statements, photographs and diagram) established the respondent was wholly responsible for the accident, the trial court's apportionment (appellant 75% respondent 25%) was unsupported and was set aside and replaced with a finding that the respondent is 100% liable. Remittance for retrial was inappropriate due to excessive delay causing prejudice.
4 Jan 2024

SALEH BIN NANYAN

Citation

RA-42JSKS-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-42JSKS-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to exercise its discretion under s.310 KPJ because the new counsel had received the grounds on 12/7/2023 and had sufficient time to file the petition within 14 days; the 40‑day delay to 4/9/2023 was inordinate, unsupported by satisfactory or compelling reasons, caused by negligence or counsel's failure, and incompetence of counsel is not a lawful excuse, therefore the appeal was deemed withdrawn under s.307(9) and the motion for extension was dismissed.
28 Aug 2023

JOSEPH A/L IRUTHAYAM (beramal sebagai milikan tunggal atas nama dan gaya Tetuan Joseph Iruthayam & Co) Chang Yoon Foo

Citation

WA-24NCC-757-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-757-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Originating Summons is dismissed because it amounts to an impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process, is barred by res judicata, fails to produce fresh evidence sufficient to impeach prior judgments or establish fraud, and the proper remedy was an appeal to the Court of Appeal; therefore the Court will not set aside the Sessions Court summary judgment or the High Court dismissal.
21 Aug 2023

Ching Suet Yeen Lee Hock Teong

Citation

B-02(IM)-721-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)-721-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The decree nisi having been made absolute and the appellant having had and withdrawn her appellate remedy, the Court of Appeal held the decree is final and cannot be rescinded by invoking Rule 44 DMPR 1980 or s.61(2)(b) LRA absent illegality, fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction; the injunction claim failed for lack of particulars and evidence.
6 Aug 2023

MICHAEL LIEW

Citation

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-278-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was subject to a valid police supervision order and breached the curfew by being outside his registered residence between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am; the offence is one of strict liability so self‑induced intoxication is not a defence under s85 Penal Code and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction under Section 15(2)(f) APJ 1959 was therefore justified and the appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment commencing from date of conviction.
12 Apr 2023

wa-29pb-302-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

wa-29pb-302-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-29pb-302-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time refused because the notice of appeal was filed 10 days late, the application for extension was brought about six months after the deadline, and the respondent failed to give a satisfactory explanation amounting to extraneous circumstances; application dismissed with no order as to costs.
24 Mar 2023

SKYFIELD DESIGN & BUILD SDN BHD HL CAPITAL VENTURE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-130-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-130-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the defendant was duly and repeatedly notified of the assessment trial, its absence was deliberate, the application to set aside was filed out of time without justification, the assessment was conducted in open court lawfully under O37 r4(b) ROC, and the balance of justice did not favour granting relief or extending time.
13 Jan 2023

NADUSHALIAN A/L LETCHUMANAN OFFIMO MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

CB-16-5-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-16-5-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for extension of time dismissed. Court found appellants provided no sufficient justification for exceeding the statutory/time table deadline; absence of notes of evidence or grounds does not prevent filing the record under the applicable rules and appellants, represented by counsel, should have filed within the prescribed period or sought leave earlier. Rule 55A KKM 2012 governs appeals under s77 Employment Act and the one-month filing rule applies.