Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary relief

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

Tan Bun Teet 1. ) Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pahang 2. ) Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan 3. ) Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd 4. ) Lynas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

C-01(A)-288-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

C-01(A)-288-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the judicial review application was not filed promptly and exceeded the three‑month outer limit under Order 53 r 3(6); additionally, on statutory construction the PDF for WLP did not qualify as a "major national infrastructure" or as "toxic waste disposal" triggering mandatory NPPC referral because radioactive waste is regulated separately under AELA 1984 and the development complied with the Kuantan Local Plan 2035; even if errors existed, discretionary relief to quash would be refused given EIA and AELB approvals, completed construction and overriding public…
1 Dec 2025

JMB SERDANG PERDANA 5 BLOK C GREEN CRESCENT RESOURCES SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN PENGURUSAN AIR SELANGOR SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-76-169-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-76-169-07/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court refused the application for an absolute garnishee order because the funds held by the utility were statutory security deposits held as trust/contingent sums under the Water Services Act 2006 and related regulations, not debts due or accruing due capable of attachment under Order 49 KKM 2012; the court also exercised its discretion to refuse an absolute garnishee order to prevent inequity and prejudice to third‑party beneficiaries, and held that a previous absolute order in a different matter was not binding precedent.
28 Jan 2025

1. ) S. SELVARAJA A/L SANGARA PILLAI 2. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L M. SANGARAPILLAI 1. ) XXXX 2. ) JAYA CHENDRACUMAR KUMARI A/P SINGOVAN

Citation

22NCVC-227-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-227-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient, persuasive reasons explaining the delay within the six‑year period following the 18.12.2013 judgment; therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave to issue execution and dismissed the application with costs.
19 Jan 2024

1. ) XXXX 2. ) Mohd Noor Amin Bin Mohd Noor Khan 3. ) Mohamed Shihab Bin Kunhi Mohamed XXXX

Citation

WA-24NCC-155-04/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-155-04/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court distinguished Pacific Sanctuary because here the Settlement Agreement was an arrangement expressly provided for within the Consent Judgment (prayer 8) which preserved the Defendant’s right to enforce on default; evidence of negotiations, partial payments and indulgences demonstrated cogent grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion under Order 46 Rule 2 ROC 2012 and therefore leave to enforce was granted.
29 Aug 2023

1. ) HARUN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) AMINUDDIN BIN SHAFEI 3. ) KALSUM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) DAUD BIN ABDULLAH 5. ) HALIMAH BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) SALMAH BINTI ABDULLAH 7. ) LIJAH BINTI AHMAD 8. ) IDRIS BIN ABDULLAH 9. ) MARIAM BINTI ABDULLAH 10. ) MAIMU

Citation

CA-21NCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-21NCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time (Lampiran 27) was dismissed because there was an excessive and unjustified delay of five months beyond the stipulated deadline, the plaintiffs failed to provide cogent and reasonable explanations for the delay, and the delay prejudiced the defendants; accordingly the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and ordered costs.
28 Aug 2023

MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA 1. ) MICHAEL JOSEPH CARVALHO 2. ) MAGDALENE ANNE CARVALHO

Citation

02(f)-5-02/2023(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-5-02/2023(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Paragraph (2)(b) of the Bar Council Guidelines is inconsistent with and therefore ultra vires subsections (8) and (9) of section 80 of the Legal Profession Act 1976; the Bar Council may make procedural rules but not substantive restrictions that exclude claims arising from dishonest acts by advocates and solicitors practicing in partnerships; claimants may apply to the Compensation Fund for such losses and the Council must consider applications in accordance with s80.
5 May 2023

Kasturi a/p Subramaniam 1. ) Abdullah Bin Saad 2. ) Man Seng Fatt Enterprise 3. ) Mohd Azroy Bin Mohd Hapidzi 4. ) Global Premium Transports Sdn Bhd

Citation

AA-A53KJ-187-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-187-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to reinstate was dismissed because it was brought about twenty months after the strike out with an unsatisfactory explanation; solicitor negligence is not a valid basis for reinstatement and the plaintiff is bound by her solicitor's acts; the prospect of time‑bar and asserted merits do not justify exercising the court's discretion to revive the suit.
17 Jul 2020

Rohman Norhakim bin Abd Aziz [Seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui bapanya Abdul Aziz bin Yatiman sebagai wakil litigasi beliau] 1. ) Ismail bin Mohd Yusak 2. ) Liberty Insurance Berhad [No. Sykt: 16688-K]

Citation

12B-49-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

12B-49-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because delay of six months was inordinate, applicant failed to provide good and substantial reasons (no affidavit or explanation from former solicitor), and failed to demonstrate that the appeal had some chance of success; absence of proven prejudice to respondent did not outweigh the first three factors, so discretion was refused.
6 May 2020

ARIF SHAM BIN MOHD NOR 1. MOHD RUZAIDIE BIN MOHD SIDIK 2. ROHIM BIN JAAFAR

Citation

DA-12A-9-04/2018 & DA-12B-22-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12A-9-04/2018 & DA-12B-22-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the notice of application failed to comply with Form 57 by not stating sufficient particulars, the affidavit did not sufficiently particularise or demonstrate meritorious grounds to justify setting aside the order, and solicitor oversight does not constitute adequate material to exercise the court's discretion under O 34 r 6 ROC.