Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Committal proceedings

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2025

IBC TOURS CORPORATION (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD GO & AWAY TRAVEL TOURISM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-301-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-301-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the interlocutory order on the material before the court; the evidence showed inadvertence and prompt remedial steps by the defendant and its solicitors, therefore leave to commence committal proceedings under Order 52 r3 was refused and the application dismissed with costs.
31 Oct 2025

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

Citation

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the committal action as premature and an abuse of process because the core factual issue (service of invoices) was already finally determined in the substantive suit (20.8.2024) and remains subject to appeal; finality/res judicata bars relitigation of the same facts in committal proceedings. Although s.410 moratorium does not automatically bar committal (criminal/quasi-criminal jurisdiction retained), it was unnecessary to resolve that bar because the committal was founded on an issue already finally adjudicated. Costs awarded on party-and-party basis (RM3,000 per successf…
8 Oct 2025

1. ) Chong Chee Wai 2. ) Chong Chee Seong [menyaman sebagai pentadbir-pentadbir bersama dan waris-waris bagi hartapusaka Chong Kiw @ Chiong Yen Wah (No. K/P: 460110-10-5143)] 3. ) Kwan Mai Han 4. ) Chong Chee Khoon [menyaman sebagai waris-w

Citation

BA-22NCvC-456-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-456-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the court accepted the principle that it is not invariably functus officio for purely administrative additions such as a penal endorsement, the application was dismissed because the settled draft and sealed judgment did not contain any penal notice or demonstrate an intention to include it during drafting, no party sought its insertion at the drafting stage, and it would be unfair and impermissible to amend the final judgment while appeals were pending; accordingly leave to endorse penal notice was refused and the application dismissed without an order as to costs.
30 Sept 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

BA-22NCVC-431-07/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-431-07/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court refused leave because the sole operative order for contempt was the Court of Appeal order dated 7 October 2020, that order was not personally served on the Defendant with a penal notice, the penal notice on an earlier High Court order cannot revive deleted terms, and the alleged acts concern temple-management paragraphs which the Court of Appeal had removed; consequently the strict requirements of Order 52 were not met.
11 Aug 2025

1. ) Mutiara Securities Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) Rayan Sanjev Barr Kumarakulasinghe 3. ) Santhi R. Mahendra Rajah Steven Gregory

Citation

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiffs failed to discharge the high burden required to commit the defendant for contempt at the interlocutory stage given defects and disputes over service, timing and clarity of the injunction terms and the defendant provided satisfactory explanations; therefore the committal application (Kand.36) is dismissed and the defendant's application (Kand.73) is allowed, with costs to be paid by the plaintiffs.
1 Aug 2025

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA GURNEY PARAGON RESIDENTIAL 1. ) HUNZA PROPERTIES (GURNEY) SDN BHD 2. ) HUNZA PROPERTIES (PENANG) SDN BHD 3. ) BEACHFRONT SERVICES SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG

Citation

PA-22NCvC-247-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-247-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to set aside the Leave Order because Defendants demonstrated a prima facie case of contempt: Plaintiff's issuance of Form 5A and related communications amounted to conduct that interfered with the administration of justice and was contrary to the judgment and grounds of judgment; Defendants complied with Order 52 leave requirements and a penal indorsement on the sealed judgment was not a precondition to the Order 52 committal leave.
30 Jul 2025

TAN CHONG YEN 1. ) NA WEE JERN 2. ) TETUAN WEE JERN & PARTNERS

Citation

WA-A53-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A53-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendants, having been served with the consent judgment and subsequent reminders and having failed deliberately and without bona fide effort to comply with the payment terms (including presentation of a post-dated cheque which could not be honoured), committed contempt of court; procedural prerequisites under Order 52 were met and a committal order sentencing the defendants to one week imprisonment is justified as proportionate and deterrent.
28 Jul 2025

SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd Chan Siew Mei (Penyelesai Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd)

Citation

WA-28PW-235-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-235-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that paragraph 1(a) of the Court of Appeal stay order unambiguously stayed all proceedings and prohibited further steps; the Respondent filed the Impugned Motion during the period of the stay and pressed it at case management, establishing a prima facie case of willful disobedience of the stay order; accordingly the Winding-Up Court granted leave to commence committal proceedings (prayer 1 of Encl 1) and awarded costs of RM15,000 subject to allocatur.
23 Jul 2025

Andrew Gregory Sewell Low Huei Ying

Citation

WA-24F-245-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-245-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 52 governs committal leave and the Plaintiff's Order 52 statement met the required particularity; Order 29 requirements were inapplicable; service on the Defendant's solicitors was justifiable in the factual context; the Defendant wilfully breached the Consent Order by enrolling the child during the Plaintiff's access times and was therefore in contempt; appropriate relief was to dismiss the set aside application, allow the committal application, reprimand the Defendant and award costs to the Plaintiff, with no further sanction given her parental status.
23 Jul 2025

LOW HUEI YING ANDREW GREGORY SEWELL

Citation

WA-24F-216-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-216-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 52 is the governing framework for committal leave; the defendant's Order 52 statement sufficiently particularised breaches, service on the plaintiff's solicitors was justifiable and not prejudicial, and the plaintiff's unilateral enrollment of the child in school that curtailed the defendant's court-ordered access constituted a deliberate, wilful breach of the consent order amounting to contempt. The application to set aside was dismissed and the committal application was allowed; sanction limited to a formal reprimand and costs given mitigating considerations (motherhood).