Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Computation of time

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2025

RAHMAH BINTI ARSHAD 1. ) ABDUL MALIK BIN YUSOFF 2. ) MOHD SAZALI BIN SAAT

Citation

JA-12A-7-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-7-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the three-year limitation period in s.7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 is computed by Gregorian calendar years such that it expires one day before the same calendar date three years later; accordingly the limitation expired on 26.12.2023 and the writ filed on 27.12.2023 was time-barred, so the Sessions Court's order striking the claim was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
25 Apr 2025

MOHD SUKRI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH PERAK

Citation

BA-44-236-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-236-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found no material non-compliance: the credible evidentiary record showed detention commenced on 20.8.2023, investigating officers justified the time taken and acted with convenient speed, reports were submitted and considered, the Deputy Minister had authority to make the detention order, and an undated Form 1 did not prejudice the applicant; therefore the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and detention order upheld.
18 Dec 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

Citation

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The debtor's notice (12.10.2024) and supporting affidavit (6.11.2024) were dismissed because the notice was not served the mandatory three days before the hearing (service on 14.10.2024 gave only two days) and the notice failed to specify the statements in the petition disputed as required by Rule 116/Form 45; additionally, issues raised in the affidavit were previously decided and are barred by res judicata.
3 Jul 2024

SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD BELLWORTH DEVELOPMENTS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Bellworth failed to establish on the balance of probabilities any s37 ground that justified setting aside the Award: the one-day delay in submitting the draft award under AIAC Rule 12(2) did not warrant invalidation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction or setting aside, the CNC issue was pleaded and within the Tribunal's remit (not a 'new difference'), there was no material breach of natural justice or public policy, and remission under s37(6) was inappropriate because Bellworth did not timely request remission in its originating summons. Consequently the setting aside application was dismissed and…
18 Oct 2022

PROSPER PLUS INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 1. ) LOKE MUN HOI 2. ) LEE YEE TING

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-23-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-23-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the 1st Notices of Appeal were filed within the 14‑day period, the filing defects were technical and curable, the SAR erred in striking out the 1st appeals instead of directing steps to regularise them, and in the overriding interest of justice the Court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Court to grant an extension to regularise the appeals; accordingly the application (Enc.3) was allowed but costs were awarded against the appellant.
18 Oct 2022

PROSPER PLUS INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 1. ) LOKE MUN HOI 2. ) LEE YEE TING

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-22-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-22-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 14‑day appeal period commenced the day after the Sessions Court decision so the 1st NOAs filed on 7.4.2022 were within time; although filed at the wrong registry and in the wrong e‑filing category the registry's registration of those notices and prompt remedial steps by the appellant meant the documents were irregular but cureable; the SAR acted prematurely in striking out the 1st appeals instead of directing steps to regularise them; applying the overriding interest of justice and the court's discretion to extend time, the High Court allowed the application to regularise the appeals and…
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN YICK HOE FERROUS STEEL SDN BHD ECO SECURITY DOOR SDN BHD

Citation

JA-28NCC-148-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-148-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Statutory demand exceeding the monetary threshold was properly served, 21 days elapsed without payment, the AVP was filed in time under the Interpretation Act computation rule, the Respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of inability to pay and there was no bona fide dispute on the outstanding balance above the threshold; therefore the petition for winding up is allowed.
14 Oct 2021

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD GNASEGAR A/L G.VENGADASAMY

Citation

P-03(IM)(NCC)-79-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-03(IM)(NCC)-79-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Insolvency Rules r.284 brings the Rules of Court 2012 into play for lacunae in the Insolvency Rules; therefore Order 3 r.2(5) applies to the seven‑day computation for s3(1)(i) and excludes intervening weekly/public holidays, which pushes the act of bankruptcy date later and renders the creditor petition filed 30.05.2018 within the six‑month limit; appeal allowed.
20 Dec 2019

1. KOK ZI YAO (No. K/P: 850214-05-5279) 2. TAY KOK WEA (No. K/P: 940514-04-5039) 3. LIM ENG SIANG (No. K/P: 650904-01-5585) 1. LKT VENTURES SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1234076-V) 2. LIM CHAW WANG (No. K/P: 950418-01-8419) 3. LIM SAM MOOI (No.

Citation

WA-24NCC-327-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-327-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Computation of the 14 clear days under Companies Act s316(1) excludes the day of service and the day of the meeting; notices served/posted on 1 April 2019 for an EGM on 15 April 2019 therefore fell short of the statutory 14 clear days; statutory non‑compliance rendered the EGM and all resolutions passed thereat void and attendance could not validate the defect.
RIH SERVICES (M) SDN BHD V TANJUNG TUAN HOTEL SDN BHD

Citation

RIH SERVICES (M) SDN BHD V TANJUNG TUAN HOTEL SDN BHD
Court

Malaysian court

The day an ex parte injunction is granted is excluded when computing the 21‑day life span under O.29 r.1(2B) read with O.3 r.2(2) RHC and s.54(1)(a) Interpretation Acts; an ex parte injunction automatically lapses at the end of 21 days and cannot be extended, but the underlying application converts to and subsists as an inter partes application upon service; the court retains jurisdiction to grant an ad interim injunction on the live inter partes application and damages or costs are not automatic upon lapse of the ex parte order.