Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compliance with court orders

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2026

1. ) INNOTECH LABS SDN BHD 2. ) BGN TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) SEAMLESS X SDN BHD 2. ) YAP ZHENG LYM (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI SEAMLESS INDUSTRIES) 3. ) AMAZON WEB SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24IP-40-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24IP-40-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application in Enclosure 58 is dismissed because the 1st Defendant's extension of time is refused (delay unjustified and application out of time/incompetent), the OS Order was a regularly obtained order made after a hearing on the merits upon valid service, the defendants had actual or constructive notice (sole director/shareholder), they failed to disclose a meritorious defence, D3 has fully complied thereby making any stay academic, and setting aside would cause undue prejudice and cannot restore the status quo; accordingly rehearing is not just.
12 Nov 2025

1. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Vertex Blue Consulting Sdn Bhd

Citation

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The interlocutory unless order was a specific pre-trial discovery direction that was self-executing on non-compliance and is legally distinct from summary judgment; therefore the trial judge was bound to give effect to the interlocutory judge's unless order and entering judgment for non-compliance did not contravene Order 73 ROC or s.42 GPA because those provisions governing summary judgment do not apply to specific discovery orders enforced by an unless sanction.
21 Mar 2025

1. ) SHIN HEUNG BIO SDN BHD (dalam likuidasi) 2. ) PENYELESAI SYARIKAT SHIN HEUNG BIO SDN BHD (dalam likuidasi) MC BIO SDN BHD

Citation

BA-23NCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the preliminary legal objection (Q(A)) fails because the additional cause of action arose after Suit 662 when the Notice of Resolution came to light and therefore was not and could not have been adjudicated or merged into the prior consent judgment; however, the Defendant is bound by the ex parte Order (5.7.2017) and inter partes Order (7.9.2017) (Q(C)), as affirmed by earlier High Court decision in Suit 662 and the Court of Appeal. Issues of factual ownership (Q(B)) and breach of orders (Q(D)) were not susceptible to summary determination and must proceed to trial with wi…
20 Feb 2025

TANG BOON KOK 1. ) H'ng Bok Chuan 2. ) H'ng Hup Choong

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-39-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-39-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal, concluding the Sessions Court erred in exercising its discretion to grant a stay of proceedings pending repayment; the stay was an abuse of process because non-compliance with the prior High Court order did not justify suspending the action and the correct remedies were enforcement or striking out under Order 92 r.4 and contempt proceedings; interlocutory rulings not finally disposing rights are non-appealable under s3 and s67 CJA, rendering the cross-appeal incompetent.
29 Apr 2024

KHAS CERGAS SDN BHD (MELALUI PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS BERSAMA NG SEING LIONG DAN NG CHOON JIN) SAYYID SHAH BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-24NCvC-5791-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-5791-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The respondent has no caveatable interest capable of registration under the National Land Code; the private caveat was lodged in defiance of prior rulings and constituted an abuse of process obstructing a sale lawfully executed by receivers empowered under the debenture and Companies Act; therefore the caveat must be removed, a declaration of indefeasible title granted, an injunction against further similar caveats issued and costs awarded.
27 Mar 2024

1. ) Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Sri Selva Vinayagar Kovil 2. ) BALAKRISHNAN A/L KANNIAH 3. ) G.MADERAVARAN A/L K.GOVINDASAMY 4. ) GANESAN A/L DORAISAMY PASUPATHY 1. ) KUIL SREE SELVA VINAYAGAR RIVERSIDE ROAD KLANG 2. ) PARTHES A/L MUTHUVELU 3.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-422-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-422-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Counterclaim dismissed because plaintiffs failed to plead and prove key allegations: no pleaded or proven delay in compliance with the 14.7.2017 order, no proof of mala fide by the Registrar, lack of locus standi while the original association was deregistered (thus defendants were lawfully registered and not trespassers), and the proper remedy to challenge Registrar's administrative decision was judicial review (Order 53), not a writ; plaintiffs failed to prove loss or entitlement to accounts or exemplary damages.
14 Feb 2024

PALANIANDY A/L SADAYAN AAKASH GREEN ENERGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the Court of Appeal order to file his defence within the prescribed 14 days, filed the defence one day late without obtaining leave or offering any explanation for the delay, the subsequent judgment in default was thus regularly obtained, and the appellant failed to disclose any defence on the merits in his affidavits to justify setting aside the JID.
4 Feb 2024

COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-5-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiff failed to comply with clear peremptory unless orders to deposit RM100,000.00 each as security for costs, provided no mitigation, and had a demonstrated history and circumstances supporting enforcement, the court lawfully exercised its inherent and rule‑based powers to dismiss the proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 and to award costs; dismissal was proportionate and justified under the authorities cited.
21 Nov 2023

KANNAN A/L RAJARATNAM THEVITTHRA A/P VISWANATHAN

Citation

BA-24F-90-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24F-90-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the mandatory injunction because preserving the status quo by returning the child to the mother best served the child’s welfare under s.88 LRA 1976, there was a bona fide issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favored the mother, damages were inadequate, there was insufficient credible evidence of abuse to rebut the tender years presumption, and the AH had breached the court’s interim order.
27 Jan 2022

PERBADANAN BEKALAN AIR PULAU PINANG SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH 2. ) Peace Centre Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-15-35-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-15-35-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amended Form N contravened the express terms of the court's prior order by reintroducing struck-out paragraphs and adding matters beyond the permitted additional grounds; further, the applicant could not seek a compensation award exceeding the sum claimed at the s.12 inquiry under section 4 of the First Schedule. Therefore the application by respondent 2 to set aside the amended Form N succeeds and the applicant's related application is dismissed.