Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion of originating summons to writ

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2026

LEE CHEE HOE ECK DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

PA-24NCC-25-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCC-25-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found substantial and genuine disputes of material fact (notably alleged misrepresentation about completion of the Works and suppression of documents) that cannot be satisfactorily resolved on affidavit evidence; accordingly, under Order 28 Rule 8 ROC 2012 the originating summons must be converted to a writ action to permit oral evidence and cross-examination and the Defendant's application to convert is allowed.
17 Oct 2025

HARTANAH BUNGA SDN BHD MARINA BINTI MOHAMED

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1200-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1200-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There exist serious, material disputes of fact central to the claim and defence that cannot be fairly resolved on affidavit evidence alone; therefore the court properly exercised its discretion under Order 28 rule 8 ROC 2012 to convert the Originating Summons into a Writ so that viva voce evidence, cross-examination and discovery may occur to facilitate truth‑finding and justice.
22 Sept 2025

1. ) HATIJAH BINTI IBRAHIM 2. ) DIYANA BINTI NORDIN 3. ) HALIMA BINTI IBRAHIM 4. ) SALASIAH BINTI IBRAHIM 5. ) MOHD SHAWAL BIN IBRAHIM 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak 2. ) TANIA RAHMAWATI BINTI YUSOF 3. ) MD ZIN BIN HAMID PENTADBIR HARTA

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2579-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2579-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there are genuine disputed facts about ownership of the building and contributors to its construction (which determine entitlement to compensation), the matter is not suitable for decision on affidavits by originating summons; the court exercised its discretion under Order 28 Rule 8(1) to convert the originating summons into a writ and ordered plaintiffs to file a statement of claim and defendants to file pleadings so the disputes can be resolved with oral evidence.
8 Sept 2025

ANSON ANG 1. ) LOO KAISIN 2. ) BUSINESS PIXEL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-94-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-94-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendants failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden to show bona fide disputes of fact or documentary evidence requiring a trial; the Deed is a written contract whose interpretation is a question of law determinable on its terms; absent admissible evidence of any valid variation or subsequent event, conversion to a writ was unwarranted and the application to convert was dismissed.
28 Jul 2025

EE SOON GUAN SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

Citation

WA-24NCC-202-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-202-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there are substantial, material disputes of fact (family agreement on liabilities, alleged fraudulent removal of director and contested appointments, and disputed validity of the Power of Attorney) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence in an Originating Summons; accordingly conversion to a writ was not ordered at this stage and the Originating Summons was struck out with liberty to file a fresh writ action and costs subject to allocatur.
8 Apr 2025

NG CHOONG WEI 1. ) KCK DAFU CONGEE SDN. BHD. 2. ) KCK RESTAURANTS HOLDING SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEE CHEE KHEONG 4. ) KCK AGLP SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCC-93-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-93-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conversion application was dismissed because the court concluded that the disputed factual issues could be adequately addressed by cross-examination of the existing deponents and by permitting a proposed non-party witness to file an affidavit; given Order 88’s requirement for Companies Act matters to be commenced by originating summons, the court will only convert to a writ when necessary for just disposal, which was not shown here.
21 Jan 2025

Adam Primus Varghese Bin Abdullah KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-455-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-455-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conversion was unjustified because the defendant failed to identify specific substantial factual disputes that could not be resolved by the extensive contemporaneous documentary record and cross-examination of affidavit deponents under Order 38 Rule 2; the court can assess the reasonableness of hours and the RM800 composite rate on the affidavits and documents without a full trial.
15 Jan 2025

TEE SEONG BOON TAN CHOON NAN

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3366-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3366-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The competing sale agreements created a substantial dispute of fact and the registered owners, who could resolve the competing claims, were not joined; therefore the matter was inappropriate for determination by originating summons and must proceed by writ; the originating summons was dismissed with costs.
14 Jan 2025

GLENN WILLIAM ONEILL CHANG AI NEE

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3302-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3302-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No substantial dispute of fact existed because the defendant admitted the written agreements and delay in payment; the alleged oral agreement could not displace the clear written terms due to Section 91 Evidence Act 1950; therefore oral evidence was unnecessary and the application to convert the originating summons to a writ was dismissed.
9 Jan 2025

LIEW MOONG JU 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @ NG TING MIEW 3. ) Ng Jin Yeong

Citation

WA-24NCC-194-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-194-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed conversion because the plaintiff established material, substantial conflicts in affidavit evidence and pleas of fraud concerning alleged misuse of company funds, and the plaintiff needs to subpoena witnesses who did not affirm affidavits; under Order 28 r 8 ROC 2012 and binding authority (Ting Ling Kiew), these factors warrant continuation as if begun by writ rather than summary disposal by originating summons.