Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

1. ) LIU JIAN XI 2. ) WU HAI YUN 3. ) FEI GUANNV 4. ) DUAN SUJUAN 5. ) HE QIUEN 6. ) CHEN SHIKAI 7. ) LIU ZHIWEI 8. ) ZHANG QI 9. ) YANG XIJUN 10. ) LIU SIQI 11. ) YANG QIAN 12. ) CHEN NANQIANG 13. ) LI YONGJUN 14. ) LU XIN 15. ) HU CHENGRO

Citation

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer/consolidation application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to identify specific common live issues, overlap of evidence or transactions satisfying Order 4 r 1(1), judicial familiarity alone does not constitute special reason and transfer within same division/building is inexpedient given scale (54 plaintiffs, 17 defendants) causing unfair disruption; security for costs permitted because threshold under Order 23 r 1(1) is met (all plaintiffs ordinarily resident abroad), plaintiffs failed to disclose financial means or show that security would stifle a bona fide claim, and cumulativ…
31 Mar 2026

1. ) LIU JIAN XI 2. ) WU HAI YUN 3. ) FEI GUANNV 4. ) DUAN SUJUAN 5. ) HE QIUEN 6. ) CHEN SHIKAI 7. ) LIU ZHIWEI 8. ) ZHANG QI 9. ) YANG XIJUN 10. ) LIU SIQI 11. ) YANG QIAN 12. ) CHEN NANQIANG 13. ) LI YONGJUN 14. ) LU XIN 15. ) HU CHENGRO

Citation

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer/consolidation application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a live common question of law or fact, failed to show special reason to transfer within same division/building, and transfer would be inexpedient and unfair given the case scale; security for costs orders granted because threshold under Order 23 r 1(1)(a) is met (all plaintiffs ordinarily resident abroad), plaintiffs provided no evidence of solvency or assets in jurisdiction, and cumulative circumstances justify security; quantum reduced from RM500,000 requested to RM100,000 per application as proportionate.
5 Feb 2026

OREZON ENGINEERING SDN BHD RADICARE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-88-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-88-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to file the further affidavit was refused because the defendant failed to explain the delay adequately, the documents were in its possession and could have been produced earlier, they were not shown to be necessary or decisive for defeating summary judgment, and admitting them would cause prejudice and undermine case management; change of solicitors does not justify reopening the evidential record.
27 Jan 2026

GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCC-23-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-23-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Court has power under Aturan 24 KKM 2012 to order third‑party disclosure, the Defendan failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements of direct relevance/necessity, evidence of possession/custody/power, and appropriate timing; the application was filed late, risked unfairness and was oppressive in scope and therefore the Court exercised its discretion to refuse the application.
11 Nov 2025

1. ) UMAR BIN ALI BASHAH @ ALI BASHAH 2. ) TETUAN LOGHAN LAW OFFICE 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN. BHD. 3. ) HADRONS CONSULTING SDN. BHD. 4. ) TETUAN ABRAHAM OOI & PARTNERS (CJ 23.12.21) PIHAK KETIGA TETUAN DAIM & GAMA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-575-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because this Court had ordered by way of Encl. 244 that all proceedings in the main claim and counterclaim were stayed pending disposal of specified appeals, the interlocutory application (Encl. 246) to recuse the judge and expunge paragraph 38 was impermissible in the circumstances and was struck off; the Plaintiffs' preliminary objection succeeded and each party bears their own costs.
10 Nov 2025

P. THIAGARAJAN A/L PAVADAI 1. ) PASUPATHY A/L GOPALSAMY (BERDAGANG SEBAGAI THISAIGAL TV) 2. ) SENGGUTUAN A/L VEERAN

Citation

WA-23CY-6-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-6-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 20 r 5 and Order 1A to allow only those amendments that were clerical and not prejudicial given the late stage, but refused amendments that would materially affect the defendant's ability to defend (adding the word 'not', including transcripts/translations annexed post-trial, and changing caste spelling) because the application was filed at trial's close without cogent explanation and would cause uncompensable prejudice; accordingly the writ and statement of claim were amended in part (full name/IC and brand wording added; typographical 'case' to…
4 Nov 2025

1. ) HAN ON SDN BHD 2. ) ACONMAN SDN BHD 1. ) EAS AIR-CONDITIONING SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) Wong Kok Khoon

Citation

WA-22NCvC-276-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-276-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend (Encl 102) dismissed because it was filed late without cogent explanation, amounted to a tactical manoeuvre that materially changed the character of the suit by adding new equitable and tortious causes (estoppel, conspiracy, expanded fraud), and caused prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.
24 Sept 2025

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SRI KAYANGAN 1. ) SAIFUL AZLI BIN MOKHTAR 2. ) NORASIKIN BINTI OTHMAN

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-793-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-793-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendants failed to file witness statements by the court-ordered deadline, did not seek an extension, offered unreasonable explanations, and thereby prejudiced the plaintiff; exercising discretion under Order 34 r.2(3) ROC 2012 the court struck out the defence and counterclaim and entered judgment for the plaintiff with costs of RM5,000.
17 Sept 2025

TROPICAL PROFILE (M) SDN BHD CANTILEVER BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN. BHD. BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-11-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-11-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was granted because the application was made at an early stage after remittal, was bona fide, the proposed amendments arose from the same facts as the original claim and therefore fell within O20 R5(5), no uncompensable prejudice was shown and the defendant could reassess its case; amendment allowed with costs awarded to defendant.
10 Sept 2025

KPJ SELANGOR SPECIALIST HOSPITAL 1. ) ZUBAIDAH BINTI ZULKIFLI 2. ) Rajes A/p Mariappan - Pertama 3. ) Kuna - Kedua 4. ) Dr. Mohamad Aznan Bin Shuhaili - Ketiga 5. ) Dr. Khairul Azman Bin Ibrahim - Keempat BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK TAWFEEK BADJENID

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-24-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-24-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Encl. 60 (stay application) was struck out because D3 failed to demonstrate special circumstances; the balance of convenience and justice favored denying the stay as granting it would unduly prejudice other parties and delay the proceedings; the proper course is to proceed with trial and require D3 to pursue the setting aside of the JID (Encl.53) first.