Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion to writ

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

SHELL MDS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) 2. ) PETROLEUM SARAWAK BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN Kerajaan Malaysia BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KERAJAAN NEGERI SARAWAK

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4367-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4367-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 17 ROC 2012 constitutes a self-contained interpleader procedure and Order 28 rule 8 does not apply to convert such proceedings into writs; alternatively, even if conversion were available, the disputes here are predominantly legal and documentary concerning statutory interpretation and contractual entitlement, adequately resolved on affidavit, so there is no necessity for oral evidence — therefore the application to convert (Enclosure 84) is dismissed and the matter remains an interpleader under Order 17.
8 Oct 2025

YAP KET ONG 1. ) NABILA BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 2. ) MIZAN GLOBAL RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24NCvC-1503-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-1503-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because there were material disputes of fact concerning compliance with the OTP which require oral evidence and cross‑examination at a full trial by writ; the caveat issue was moot after the defendant withdrew the caveat; and the damages claim is fact‑intensive and cannot be decided on affidavit in originating summons proceedings.
29 Sept 2025

Tetuan Najib Hisham Isa 1. ) Mohamed Basri bin Noor Mohamed 2. ) Nafisah binti Abdul Rahman

Citation

BA-17D-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-17D-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court accepted the contemporaneous written documents and exhibits establishing a binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and found the renegotiated fee applied on settlement; bare denials by the First Defendant were insufficient. The conversion application was an 11th-hour delay tactic and an abuse of process; therefore leave to enforce was granted against the First Defendant and the conversion application was dismissed.
17 Sept 2025

BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT (M) BERHAD TOP TRIDENT TRADERS SDN. BHD. PENCELAH TENGKU NGAH PUTRA BIN TENGKU AHMAD TAJUDDIN

Citation

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court granted a temporary stay of the Originating Summons because the central dispute in the enforcement action (whether any debt exists and the validity of the underlying judgment and settlement) is likely to be determinative and is being litigated in pending related suits; proceeding would risk irretrievable prejudice to the defendant and inconsistent findings, while the plaintiff's interests are protected by the caveat and potential damages, therefore a stay is necessary for fairness and judicial economy; conversion to a writ and consolidation were refused because the Originating Summo…
17 Sept 2025

ZULKORNAIN AHMAD MARINA BINTI MOHAMED

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1173-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1173-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiff enjoys prima facie indefeasibility of title, the defendant raised bona fide, material triable issues of fact (proxy relationship, concealment of beneficial interest, alleged matrimonial interest) that can only be resolved by oral evidence and cross‑examination; accordingly the court ordered conversion of the originating summons to a writ under Order 28 r8 Rules of Court 2012 and stayed proceedings pending completion of the conversion.
28 Jul 2025

PALOH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

Citation

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There are substantial disputes of fact (including the legitimacy of director removals/appointments, alleged family agreement on liabilities and validity of the Power of Attorney) that cannot be resolved on affidavits alone and require oral evidence and cross-examination; therefore the Originating Summons procedure is inappropriate and the appropriate remedy is to strike out the OS with liberty to file afresh (with costs subject to allocatur).
22 Mar 2023

1. ) Chan Yee Fatt 2. ) Tan Siew Choo 3. ) Gan See Hooi 4. ) Tan Siew Choo dan Gan See Hooi sebagai pemegang-pemegang amanah bagi pihak Gan Hui Sien 1. ) Pembinaan Kiwah Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Tok Hong Soon 3. ) Tok Hong Hoo

Citation

NA-24NCC-7-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-24NCC-7-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court has discretionary power under Order 28 and Order 34 to manage originating summons proceedings and to direct that the matter proceed to trial on a settled list of issues rather than by conversion to writ and pleadings; in the circumstances conversion was unnecessary and the court’s bespoke directions (including permitting cross‑examination, limiting issues and allowing specific evidence) were justified, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of RM5,000 for the late conversion application.
20 May 2021

TANG SIONG TECK 1. ) BUTTERWOTH HUP SENG TRADING SDN BHD 2. ) TANG HONG KIM 3. ) TAN SWEE GEK

Citation

PA-24NCC-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCC-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons is barred by res judicata because the earlier winding up petition involved the same parties and substantially the same cause of action and was determined (struck out) on procedure; the plaintiff should have appealed rather than refile; in any event the matter raises serious factual issues making it inappropriate to convert the matter to a writ; accordingly the defendants' strike out application is allowed and the originating summons dismissed with costs to defendants.
20 May 2021

TAN SIONG TECK 1. ) BUTTERWORTH HUP SENG TRADING SDN BHD 2. ) TANG HONG KIM 3. ) TAN SWEE GEK 4. ) TAN SWEE GOAY 5. ) TANG SWEE IM 6. ) TEOH CHEE KIANG 7. ) TANG HONG YEAN

Citation

PA-24NCC-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCC-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendants' strike out application succeeds because the current originating summons is barred by res judicata: the earlier winding up petition between the same parties on the same grounds was struck out for wrong mode of proceedings and that decision was binding; the plaintiff should have appealed and cannot refile after striking out, therefore the originating summons must be struck out and conversion to a writ is refused.
24 Oct 2019

MOHAMED ZAHID YON BIN MOHAMED FUAD (No. K/P: 790210-10-5695) 1. YAKUB BIN HUSSAINI (No. K/P: 730414-13-5859) 2. FAT BOYS RECORDS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 529600-T)

Citation

WA-24NCC-399-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-399-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held conversion of the originating summons into writ proceedings was unnecessary because Order 28 r 4 provided an adequate mechanism to order cross-examination of deponents; affidavits should not be made to stand as pleadings; Order 88 ROC applies to the Companies Act 2016 but procedural conversion would cause unnecessary delay and cost, therefore the 2nd Defendant's application was dismissed.