Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

Airnovate Sales & Services Sdn Bhd Golden Age Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

KF-A52NCvC-13-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KF-A52NCvC-13-09/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant bore responsibility for the delay because initial and material delays were within Defendant's control; the 14-day period after the architect's notice is part of the delay by operation of clause 21(2); Defendant had no meritorious defence, therefore summary judgment was proper and Plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of RM120,246.58 and interest as claimed.
14 Oct 2025

PRABAKAREN A/L MUKUNAN AMRITAKUMARI A/P SAVANDARAJAN

Citation

BA-24F-78-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24F-78-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A consent order recorded contemporaneously with the decree nisi constitutes a final and conclusive division of matrimonial assets under s76; absent clear, cogent evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or jurisdictional defect and in light of inordinate unexplained delay, the court will not set aside or reopen a consent order; parties may lawfully agree to divide assets (including pre-marital assets) by consent and the court will uphold such agreements.
12 Sept 2025

ASHRAF BIN SHAHRIR 1. ) YAP CHIEW YAN 2. ) LASRUM 3. ) METALPLAS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A73KJ-287-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73KJ-287-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to amend the defence was dismissed because the proposed amendment sought to withdraw a material admission and would change the character of the action, was made after an unexplained nine-month delay without objective supporting evidence, would cause substantive prejudice to the Plaintiff that cannot be remedied by costs, and was not made bona fide.
12 Sept 2025

1. ) Norasmuna Aili Binti Ahmad 2. ) Wan Izzah Iwana Nadjmin Binti Wan Ahmad Izuan Nor Hayati Binti Mat Yusof

Citation

CA-B52C-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-B52C-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the defendant breached the renovation contract by failing to complete works and leaving defective work and abandoning the site on 17/11/2020; plaintiffs proved costs to rectify incomplete/defective works (RM104,128.00) and proved special losses for lost revenue and running costs (RM147,142.44 broken down to RM117,430.04 and RM29,705.40); plaintiffs mitigated losses by engaging a third party; defendant's PKP defense rejected as inconsistent with evidence; claim for restitution of total sums paid (RM105,400.00) and claims for general and exemplary damages were re…
21 Jul 2025

1. ) PERSATUAN PERLINDUNGAN HAIWAN KLUANG, JOHOR 2. ) NASIR BIN A AZIZ 1. ) MAJILIS PERBANDARAN KLUANG 2. ) YANG DIPERTUA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KLUANG PENCELAH Jabatan Peguam Negara

Citation

JA-25-14-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-14-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because the material decisions or acts said to have occurred on 4.2.2025 were challenged only by a leave application filed on 7.5.2025, which exceeded the three-month limitation under A.53 Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; the evidence (videos and photos) did not establish the alleged SOP breaches or unlawful burial alive, and there was no reviewable decision attributable to 7.2.2025 that entitled the applicants to relief.
13 Jun 2025

1. ) RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD 2. ) SUNWAY REIT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 3. ) SUNWAY EDUCATION GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) TROPICANA EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) TROPICANA CORPORATION BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 114 was dismissed because the proposed amendments and joinder were not bona fide, were filed after inordinate delay (approximately one and a half years), introduced entirely new causes of action and parties thereby changing the character of the suit, were procedurally irregular for not serving proposed defendants, and would cause prejudice to the defendants that could not be adequately addressed by costs under current case management principles.
13 May 2025

TETUAN NADZARIN KUOK PUTHUCHEARY & TAN 1. ) NURO DAGANG SDN. BHD. 2. ) MUHAMAD AZMI BIN OTHMAN 3. ) MOKHTAR BIN OTHMAN

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-4758-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-4758-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The recusal application (Lampiran 141) is dismissed because (a) the application was academic as the relevant interlocutory matters and hearing dates had been vacated or decided, (b) defendants failed to demonstrate a 'real danger of bias' under the applicable test, (c) the application was filed with undue delay and (d) the magistrate's comments were routine case-management observations and not evidence of partiality; costs RM1,500 awarded to the respondent.
13 May 2025

BALARAMAN A/L GOVENDAN LIU PEI DONG

Citation

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to provide a reasonable and evidential explanation for the one‑month delay in filing the extension application, failed to produce contemporaneous evidence of incapacity or reasonable steps taken to notify the appellant, did not personally affirm the supporting affidavit, and did not demonstrate prima facie prospects of success or address prejudice to the respondent; exercise of discretion therefore not warranted.
14 Mar 2025

Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) MAHADEVAN A/L K SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1855-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1855-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Delay of at least nine months was inordinate and inexcusable; the solicitor's mistake in filing and failing to refile the extension application does not constitute sufficient grounds to grant an extension of time; therefore the Originating Summons for extension of time is dismissed with costs.
10 Dec 2024

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) YONG HONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) PT HUP SDN BHD 3. ) JOHNSON CHONG TZUNG TSEN 4. ) HO KOK SENG 5. ) TEE WEE MING 6. ) TEE WEE SING 7. ) TEO SIEW PHIN 8. ) NG MING YEE 9. ) LOW HWEE HUAT 10. ) JS VALUERS

Citation

JA-22NCVC-17-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-17-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the 14th Defendant's request to postpone post-trial written submissions because the application was filed belatedly (more than six years after close of pleadings), the trial has been unduly protracted (over seven years), there were no valid or justifiable grounds to further delay disposal, and the Order 33 application could be determined before or simultaneously with the decision on the main enclosure, so postponement was unnecessary and unjustified.