Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and procedural compliance

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

ANG TECK LEE STRAIGHT ENGINEERING SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

BA-28PW-106-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-28PW-106-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The liquidator's rejection of the Proof of Debt is upheld because the claimant failed to provide verifiable, contemporaneous company records or credible evidence that the company received and authorized the loan; discrepancies in bank records and refusal of discovery undermined credibility, and the delay in rejection was justified by ongoing investigations so Rule 98 did not automatically invalidate the decision.
26 Jul 2024

Rathnavel A/l Packirisamy KOPERASI NLFCS BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-561-09/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-561-09/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application (enclosure 183) was dismissed because it was grounded on the wrong procedural provision (O.44 RC 2012) where the court had ordered assessment of damages/compensation; the correct procedure for assessment following judgment/remittal is under O.37 RC 2012, and the plaintiffs had not complied with mandatory time limits nor obtained abridgement of time, so the O.44 application was both procedurally inappropriate and unduly delayed.
21 Mar 2024

1. ) DATO' SERI YONG TU SANG 2. ) KUALA IBAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) IBAI GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB BERHAD 4. ) IBAI LEASURE SDN BHD 5. ) IBAI RIA SDN BHD 6. ) IBAIMAS SDN BHD 7. ) YONG EMMY 8. ) YONG HIN SIONG 1. ) DATO' CHANG JONG YU 2. ) SINC

Citation

WA-22NCvC-166-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-166-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The subpoena (Encl 221) was set aside because the plaintiffs failed to show the applicant was a material witness or that the documents were specifically identified and necessary; the subpoena was issued late after 11 trial days without adequate explanation, causing oppression and amounting to abuse of process, thus justifying setting it aside under the Court's inherent jurisdiction and Order 92 r 4 ROC 2012.
10 Jan 2023

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tamby Raja A/L Perumal 2. ) Satiavathi A/P Kayambu

Citation

WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because it either constituted an improper re-hearing that did not comply with Rule 44 or improperly sought variation of matrimonial asset division which is final under section 76; the applicant failed to rebut the presumption she knew and consented to the signed documents and failed to satisfactorily explain an eight-month delay, therefore relief under sections 83 or 96 was not available.

Malaysia Case Law

ANG TECK LEE STRAIGHT ENGINEERING SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Rathnavel A/l Packirisamy KOPERASI NLFCS BERHAD

1. ) DATO' SERI YONG TU SANG 2. ) KUALA IBAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) IBAI GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB BERHAD 4. ) IBAI LEASURE SDN BHD 5. ) IBAI RIA SDN BHD 6. ) IBAIMAS SDN BHD 7. ) YONG EMMY 8. ) YONG HIN SIONG 1. ) DATO' CHANG JONG YU 2. ) SINC

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tamby Raja A/L Perumal 2. ) Satiavathi A/P Kayambu