Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate intervention

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

1. ) FAIZATUL HASANAH BINTI HUSSAIN 2. ) MOHD AZHAR BIN MOHD KHALID FAUZIAH BINTI HUSSAIN

Citation

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to apply the law correctly: it imposed personal liability without satisfying the legal threshold to displace separate legal personality, erred in inferring fraud from subsequent non-performance, failed to establish undue influence under s16, and awarded speculative damages; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment dated 29.09.2025 was set aside.
26 Jan 2026

1. ) LIM CHOON KIT 2. ) LIM MEI HSIA 1. ) WOO ZHONG MIN 2. ) LEE PEK HUAW 3. ) WOO KWONG SHOON

Citation

BA-12B-74-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-74-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court misdirected itself in law by dismissing liability solely on a variance between pleadings and trial evidence without first determining whether the Defence was misled or prejudiced and without deciding the real dispute that was fully tried; appellate intervention is warranted to correct that legal error but not to reassess or substitute factual findings on negligence, contributory negligence or quantum.
26 Jan 2026

1. ) WOO ZHONG MIN 2. ) LEE PEK HUAW 3. ) WOO KWONG SHOON 1. ) LIM CHOON KIT 2. ) LIM MEI HSIA

Citation

BA-12B-73-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-73-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed Appeal 73 in part because the Sessions Court misdirected itself in law by dismissing liability solely on a pleading variance without determining whether the defendants were misled or prejudiced and without deciding the real dispute that was fully ventilated at trial; the intervention was limited to correcting that legal misdirection and did not reassess or substitute factual findings on negligence or quantum; Appeal 74 on quantum was dismissed for failure to show error of principle or manifest excess.
21 Jan 2026

KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD CHONG KIM LOY

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-73-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-73-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly found that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of a trust because the required certainties (intention, subject matter, objects) were not established and there was no documentary linkage of the cheques to identified suppliers; there were no substantial or compelling reasons to disturb those factual findings, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
28 Nov 2025

KAU MING HOOI GHOURY A/P KRISHNAN

Citation

PA-12B-44-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-44-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found no basis to interfere with the Sessions Court's assessment of quantum under the 'plainly wrong' standard, affirmed the Sessions Court's quantum awards, but allowed the appeal in part to reallocate liability as 100% to the Defendant because she turned across ongoing traffic while the Plaintiff was within speed limit.
19 Nov 2025

Mohd Zaid Bin Abdul Mutalib Muhamad Amirul Bin Mustaffa

Citation

PA-12B-16-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-16-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court’s factual findings that the pattern and location of damage (rear damage to plaintiff's motorcycle and front/left damage to defendant's motorcycle), corroboration by an independent eyewitness and a mechanic, and the defendant's multiple materially inconsistent versions rendered the defendant not credible; on the balance of probabilities the defendant was 100% liable; the appellate court will not disturb those findings because the trial judge was not plainly wrong.
4 Sept 2025

1. ) LIM JUN WU 2. ) YEOH HOCK KOON 1. ) TINAH BINTI OSMAN 2. ) NORFAIZAH BINTI KARIM

Citation

JA-12B-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Session Court Judge did not act on wrong principles nor misapprehend facts and therefore the quantum awards were not manifestly excessive; awards for osteoarthritis, multiple pelvic fractures and right acetabulum, cost of care (RM537,913.90) and future medical expenses were reasonable and supported by expert evidence and legal authorities; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
1 Aug 2025

MOHAMMAD ANWAR HOSSAIN KHA

Citation

BA-42LB-7-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42LB-7-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Session Court was plainly wrong to find no prima facie case; prosecution proved the accused had no lawful authority to keep the passport and had possession (keys, led officers to premises, custody and control of the passport); the prosecution was not required to call the passport holder; burden to prove lawful authority rested on the accused.
26 Jun 2025

SATIA A/L BALU

Citation

WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction was unsafe because the identification parade was irregular and suggestive, the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and was affected by intoxication, crucial CCTV footage was not produced (warranting an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950), and forensic DNA did not link the appellant to the victim; the trial judge failed to properly evaluate these matters and the defence, such that a reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged; prosecution's appeal ag…
27 May 2025

ALPHA HERITAGE (M)SDN BHD SANJUNGAN NIAGA SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12B-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: trial judge erred by failing to give proper weight to SD1's admission that Progress Claim No.7 existed and was outstanding; discrepancy between pleaded sum and exhibit did not defeat the pleaded entitlement where liability was admitted; plaintiff entitled to judgment for RM704,000 and appellate court substituted its decision, awarding costs of RM10,000.