Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and laches

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2026

SIM CHON SIANG YU CHEE HONG @ LOOI CHEE HONG

Citation

WA-23CY-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The default judgment was regularly obtained by valid substituted service; defendant's non-receipt allegation was not a satisfactory explanation; delay in applying was significant and unexplained; the draft defence did not demonstrate a bona fide triable issue; balancing all factors the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the judgment and dismissed the application with costs RM3,000.
26 Nov 2025

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 1. ) TRANSKON SDN. BHD. 2. ) YEE KIM MUN

Citation

WA-22M-1024-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-1024-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the application to set aside the JIDA was inordinate and unexplainedly delayed (no extension sought), the JIDA was regularly obtained and validly served per contractual mode, and the Defendants failed to establish a bona fide triable defence: alleged Shariah non-compliance does not void the contracts by operation of s281 IFSA 2013, the Certificate of Indebtedness is conclusive absent manifest error which was not demonstrated, and the contractual right of set-off was properly exercised; accordingly the JIDA stands.
25 Sept 2025

1. ) 1MALAYSIA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD 2. ) IMBD ENERGY HOLDINGS LIMITED 3. ) 1MDB ENERGY LIMITED 4. ) 1MDB ENERGY (LANGAT) LIMITED 5. ) GLOBAL DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED 1. ) LOW TAEK JHO 2. ) TAN KIM LOONG 3. ) LOW HOCK PENG 4. ) L

Citation

WA-22NCvC-330-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-330-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to show sufficient legal or factual basis to set aside the JID: service was properly effected making the JID regular, the nearly three year unexplained delay was fatal to the application, there was no fraud on the court vitiating the judgment, and tactical desire to obtain a merits judgment for foreign enforcement does not justify reopening a final judgment; accordingly the application is dismissed.
23 Sept 2025

Pengurusan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd Mines Resort Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi)

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1865-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1865-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the perfected consent judgment was dismissed because consent judgments bind parties like contracts and substantive challenges (lack of consent, illegality, breach of liquidator duties) cannot be resolved summarily on affidavit in the same proceedings; Order 42 rule 13 is inapplicable to reopen inter partes consent judgments; the defendant failed to prove lack of authority or that compliance would breach statutory duties; and delay and estoppel prevented relief; costs awarded to plaintiff.
23 Jul 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

22NCVC-520-09/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-520-09/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for leave to enforce the 31 March 2016 judgment against the second and fourth defendants was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide any plausible or satisfactory explanation for the eight years seven months delay in enforcement; plaintiff was represented by solicitors and gave no justification for pursuing winding-up of the first defendant only.
30 Jun 2025

T KANAGESWARI A/P V THIAGARAJAH 1. ) AZREEN BIN GHAZALI 2. ) KHAIRUN NISSA BINTI MOHD AZMAN

Citation

WA-A73KJ-2024-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73KJ-2024-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the applicant's delay of over one year was unjustified given early notice of the incident, the applicant's asserted interest was contingent and speculative rather than sufficiently urgent, and allowing intervention would cause real prejudice and disruption to the scheduled proceedings; on balance the court exercised its discretion to refuse intervention.
12 Mar 2025

TAI MA HEAVY MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD 1. ) CCP SHEET PILING SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) 2. ) CHEONG CHIN PAU 3. ) CHONG CHIN LOON 4. ) EU CHEE CHONG

Citation

WA-22NCC-708-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-708-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish on the required high prima facie standard that the directors engaged in fraudulent trading or dishonesty likely to succeed at trial; plaintiff's six-year delay in pursuing recovery undermined urgency; and damages were an adequate remedy, making mandatory interlocutory relief inappropriate.
21 Feb 2025

GOH SWEE POR TEE BEE CHIN

Citation

B-02(IM)-1408-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)-1408-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant's WhatsApp request on 10 December 2022 for the child's passport information was made within one month of the proposed holiday (24 December 2022) and paragraph 4.8.2 of the Revised Consent Order did not require disclosure of the holiday itinerary; the Respondent's refusal to provide the passport information therefore breached paragraph 4.8.2 and constituted contempt, warranting a financial penalty rather than imprisonment.
22 Aug 2024

BERJAYA WATERFRONT SDN. BHD. 1. ) ANCHOR PUB SDN. BHD. 2. ) NALLATHAMBI A/L N SUPPIAN 3. ) S RAMAYAH A/L N SUPPIAH

Citation

JA-22NCvC-165-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-165-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service by A.R. registered post was proper and acknowledged; the 3rd Defendant appeared earlier but failed to file a Statement of Defence and later failed to give satisfactory explanation for the 10-month delay; he did not demonstrate a prima facie meritorious defence; accordingly the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence was dismissed and the JID upheld.
10 Jul 2024

PEMPETISYEN DR. SHIVANI A/P NAGANDRAN 1. ) DR. RAJ KUMAR A/L S. MAHARAJAH 2. ) Cherry Hamdi Ramos PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN AIA BHD.

Citation

BA-33-503-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-503-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner failed to demonstrate special grounds under section 58 LRA 1976 or to justify the seven-month delay and prior knowledge of the alleged adulterer; no credible steps or evidence were shown to locate the alleged co-respondent or to prove impecuniosity; amendment is not justified given unexplained delay and prejudice can be compensated only by costs; petitioner elected exemption prayer and cannot rely on alternative; therefore application to be excused or to amend is dismissed.