Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and prejudice

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

1. ) SCIB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BHD 1. ) AWANA JV SURIA SAGA SDN BHD 2. ) MBSB BANK BERHAD BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KU CHONG HONG

Citation

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was granted because the plaintiffs credibly relied on newly discovered documents obtained via MACC that were not previously in their possession, the proposed amendments arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim, there was no inordinate delay and any prejudice to defendants can be managed by case management directions and costs; consequently the amendments will advance substantive justice.
4 Nov 2025

AUNG HLAING WIN 1. ) XUANDE MINING SDN BHD 2. ) STEPHEN LIM SIN CHYE

Citation

JA-22NCvC-71-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-71-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to show any reasonable or evidential excuse for their delay, their defence filed after judgment was a bare, evasive statement that did not disclose any triable issue, the application to set aside was not promptly filed (almost three months delay) and allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff; accordingly the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the regularly obtained default judgment and dismissed the application with costs of RM3,000.
15 Oct 2025

TASEK GELUGOR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LIM YIT KIAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-742-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-742-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Deputy Registrar erred by prioritising procedural form over substance; the combined application for abridgement and to set aside the default judgment was not incompetent, the approximately 1.5 month delay was excusable, no irremediable prejudice to the Plaintiff was shown, and the Defendant disclosed an arguable defence — therefore the default judgment was set aside and leave to defend granted.
28 Jul 2025

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-141-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-141-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the proposed amendments would change the essential character of the Defence and Counterclaim, the application was not bona fide due to inordinate unexplained delay (approx. 22 months) and appeared tactical, and allowing them would cause prejudice that could not be compensated by costs; procedural defect in exhibits was cured and not decisive.
28 Jul 2025

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend is dismissed because the proposed amendments would materially change the character of the Defence and Counterclaim into a different and inconsistent suit, were filed with inordinate and unexplained delay (approx. 22 months) and not bona fide, and would cause prejudice to the opposing parties that cannot be adequately compensated by costs; in the exercise of the court's discretion justice requires refusal.
21 May 2025

THURGAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD CHANDRASEGARAN A/L VEERYAH (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI THURGAS AGENCIES)

Citation

AA-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court refused the application to amend because the plaintiff/appellant exhibited unreasonable and unexplained delay (approximately 14 years), failed to satisfy the Yamaha Motor test (application not bona fide or the prejudice not compensable and amendments risked changing the suit's character), and the proposed amendments were not plainly trivial; therefore leave to amend was denied and costs of RM2000 awarded.
19 May 2025

JOHNNY ANG 1. ) LIM LI LIAN 2. ) LIM WING WAI PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The amendment application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any cogent explanation for the late filing, the amendment would have disrupted the trial timetable and prejudiced witnesses, and the filing was a tactical manoeuvre to delay the trial; accordingly the court exercised its case management powers to refuse the amendment.
30 Apr 2025

Looi Kam Yong Chambers of Firdaus

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-31-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-31-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Learned Magistrate was not plainly wrong and correctly dismissed the amendment application: the proposed amendments were not bona fide, lacked supporting documents, changed the character of the Defence and Counterclaim and would cause prejudice not compensable by costs, and the unexplained delay of approximately 1 year 3 months was inexcusable; therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.
13 Feb 2025

VIKNESWARAN A/L NADAN 1. ) Shathiswaran A/l Nadaraja 2. ) MUNEESWARI A/P RAMAN 3. ) AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

BA-12B-41-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-41-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court has jurisdiction under Order 55 read with Order 55 r4(1)(f) and r9 to amend the Notice of Appeal; the 17‑month delay was explained by procedural history and the application was filed promptly once the adequacy issue arose, no prejudice to the third respondent was shown and the amendment was necessary to adjudicate the appeal on its true merits, therefore the application to amend is allowed and costs awarded to the third respondent.
17 Oct 2024

WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PERSEKUTUAN PENCELAH NGADENAN BIN NASIR

Citation

BA-15-106-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-106-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to file a supplementary affidavit was dismissed because land reference proceedings are governed by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and its Third Schedule; the proposed affidavit was filed after the applicant had submitted written submissions, causing prejudice and giving the intervener an unfair advantage; there was inordinate unexplained delay in seeking to file the affidavit; the affidavit would not assist the court in the land reference; and the court's inherent powers under Order 92 Rule 4 cannot be used to deprive a party of substantive rights or to override the statutory p…