Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and bona fides

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2025

GIIB HOLDINGS BERHAD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI GOODWAY INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES BERHAD) 1. ) WONG WENG YEW 2. ) YEE VOON HON 3. ) YEE KWEK KEONG 4. ) YAP KWEE HEONG 5. ) GLOMAXES LATEX GLOVE MANUFACTURER SDN BHD 6. ) EWE EE MAY 7. ) MICHELLE

Citation

WA-22NCC-254-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-254-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Amendment application was dismissed because it was filed late on the eve of trial without credible explanation, was not bona fide but tactical, relied on material that had been in Plaintiff's possession months earlier, proposed prolix and novel pleadings that would alter the suit's character and cause prejudice that could not be adequately compensated by costs; accordingly leave to amend was refused and costs were awarded to certain defendants.
13 Oct 2025

PEMPETISYEN Abc Def PIHAK TERKILAN Xyz PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) WILLFAST MARKETING SDN. BHD. 2. ) Lu Chiew Yit

Citation

BA-33-119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend was dismissed because there was inordinate and unexplained delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate bona fides, the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the character of the proceedings by introducing grave adultery allegations and a non-party, and the prejudice to the petitioner was substantive and not remediable by costs; the applicant therefore failed the Yamaha and Hong Leong tests.
17 Jun 2025

SHAHDANA JTL ENGINEERING LAWRENCE A/L SANDENASAMY PIHAK KETIGA ARTESIAN BORE SDN BHD

Citation

AA-A52-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A52-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court refused the application to amend the defence because there was undue delay in filing the application, no cogent or reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, the proposed amendments amounted to afterthoughts and were not bona fide, and allowing the amendments would be prejudicial and tactical; accordingly leave to amend was properly refused and costs awarded.
30 May 2025

ZAKI BIN HAJI HASSAN 1. ) A & A SOLUTIONS 2. ) NURSHARRINI BINTI SHAARI 3. ) ALIFF BIN KHAIRI 4. ) SOLEHA BINTI YAHYA

Citation

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed because it was not shown to be bona fide, it was filed with inordinate delay without reasonable explanation, it sought to introduce documents not placed before the court at trial and would cause prejudice to defendants that could not be compensated by costs; accordingly Lampiran 60 was refused and costs awarded to defendants RM3,000.
6 May 2025

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE 2. ) YONG SHANG MING 3. ) XXXX 4. ) Ir Yap Yee Hock

Citation

22NCVC-586-10/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-586-10/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for committal was dismissed because the High Court judgment was ambiguous as to specific obligations alleged to have been breached, the Plaintiff failed to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, the application was not bona fide and there was inordinate delay in enforcement; ambiguities resolved in favour of the alleged contemnors.
10 May 2022

THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED PEMUNYA DAN/ATAU PENCARTER DEMIS DAN/ATAU ORANG LAIN YANG BERKEPENTINGAN DALAM KAPAL OCEAN WINNER (IMO NO. 9242479) DARI PELABUHAN SINGAPURA PENCELAH 1. ) BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOC

Citation

WA-27NCC-52-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-52-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the 4th Intervener lacked locus standi (licence held by AWH International Logistics), it failed to obtain prior sanction of the Sheriff or Court before incurring lay-up fees, and there was inordinate delay and conduct which caused escalation of costs; accordingly the claimed lay-up fees could not be ranked as sheriff's expenses.
8 Oct 2021

AG Gill for the Applicants [Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers] PENCELAH 1. ) Pauline Koh for SME Bank [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] 2. ) Cliff Siow Juan Wen & Ahmad Naszuan bin Mohd Nasib for EXIM Bank [Messrs Zain Megat & Murad] 3. ) Ng Ying C

Citation

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-9-09/202 heard together with 0ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-10-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-9-09/202 heard together with 0ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-29VA-10-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Non‑compliance with mandatory statutory requirements concerning a nominee (registration and willingness) and failure to provide a cogent explanation for a significant delay in amending the nominee, together with inadequate particulars and lack of full and frank disclosure making the proposed scheme speculative and unviable, rendered the applications non‑curable and justified dismissal with costs.
27 Jul 2020

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 264979) SG PRESTIGE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 1030875-K)

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-146-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-146-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court Judge correctly refused leave to amend because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original defence, the 21-month delay was unjustified and indicative of a tactical manoeuvre (change of solicitors was not a satisfactory explanation), and allowing the amendments would cause prejudice to the Plaintiff not compensable by costs; the exercise of discretion was lawful and not interfered with on appeal.
27 Jul 2020

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 264979) UTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN. BHD (COMPANY NO: 202610-D)

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-144-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-144-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly refused leave to amend because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original Defence, the 21‑month delay was unjustified and likely tactical (the facts were known when the original Defence was filed and change of solicitors did not excuse the delay), and the learned judge exercised her discretion properly so appellate intervention was not warranted.
27 Jul 2020

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 264979) SG PRESTIGE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 1030875-K)

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-145-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-145-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was properly refused because the proposed amendments would change the substance and character of the original Defence, the facts underlying them were known when the original Defence was filed, the defendant failed to provide a cogent and acceptable explanation for the 21‑month delay (change of solicitors was insufficient), the application exhibited indicia of tactical manoeuvre, and the Sessions Court Judge exercised her discretion lawfully; appeal dismissed.