Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Doctrine of laches

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2024

S MURUGAN A/L M SUPPURAYAN PYRAMID MEDIA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-37-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-37-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court: service of the Writ and Statement of Claim was regular by Registered Post A.R., the appellant was aware of the proceedings (including bankruptcy and settlement attempts), there was an inordinate unexplained delay invoking laches, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment was correctly dismissed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
13 Feb 2024

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Dato' Aminuddin Bin Md Desa

Citation

WA-22NCC-573-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-573-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities, circumstantial evidence (close relationship, funding trail, timing and pattern of trades, phone call proximity, joint benefit and attempts to conceal modus operandi), unrebutted by the defendant who elected not to give evidence, established that the defendant, an insider, jointly acquired PCB shares (or procured Jamal) while in possession of inside information in contravention of s188(2)(a) (alternatively s188(2)(b)) CMSA; statutory remedies under s201(5) and s360 follow.
27 Oct 2021

1. SOH POH 2. TOH CHENG CHAM (By virtue of the Power of Attorney dated 29/03/1996 and the Deed of Substitution dated 29/12/2017) 1. NORDIN BIN MD SALLEH 2. LAND ADMINISTRATOR OF KLUANG / LAND OFFICE, KLUANG 3. STATE DIRECTOR OF LAND AND MIN

Citation

JB-22NCvC-66-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-66-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove authenticity of the SPA and PA: key attesting solicitor was not produced and evidence showed inconsistencies and absence of vendor signatures on core pages; s90 presumption not available because documents lacked a 'ring of truth'; the 1st Defendant consistently denied signature and alleged forgery; limitation and laches principles bar relief in any event; registered title remains with the 1st Defendant under s340 NLC; therefore SPA and PA declared null and void, plaintiffs' claims dismissed and 1st Defendant's counterclaim allowed.
1 Sept 2021

BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (trading under the name and style of BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (Registration No.: JM0105634-U) MOHD SEHAT BIN MAHMUD

Citation

JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing leave because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons for delay beyond the six-year limitation; the unexplained delay amounted to laches and the application constituted an abuse of process; appeal dismissed with costs.
20 Aug 2021

1. MD HILMI BIN MUHAMMAD 2. SHAHRIZAL BIN SABARUDIN 3. MOHD SHAFIE BIN CHE OMAR 4. AND 13 OTHERS 1. YAYASAN AL AIM (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAYASAN KOBENA BERHAD) 2. CHE AL MAHERA BINTI CHE IBRAHIM 3. AMALIA YANTI BINTI ABD SAMAD 4. AND 6 OTHERS

Citation

22NCC-697-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-697-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs' claim failed because they pleaded the wrong meeting (challenged 2018/2019 AGMs but the contested appointments occurred at the 2017 EGM), they did not amend pleadings, documentary evidence and signed minutes confirmed the 2017 EGM and appointments, plaintiffs' witnesses were found not credible, and defendants proved on balance of probabilities by vouchers, cheques and resolutions that RM475,609.83 was advanced and remains due by the 16th plaintiff.
13 Mar 2020

Thai Kok Yoong ( ) Granstep Development Sdn Bhd ( )

Citation

BA-12A-60-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-60-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 7 of the Performance Guarantee read with Clauses 3 and 5 does not offend section 29 Contracts Act 1950 because it prescribes the period within which a demand/claim under the guarantee must be made (validity of the guarantee) rather than limiting the time to enforce contractual rights; because the plaintiff failed to make any demand within the guarantee validity period (one year after termination) no cause of action arose against the guarantor and the claim was properly struck out.

Malaysia Case Law

S MURUGAN A/L M SUPPURAYAN PYRAMID MEDIA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Dato' Aminuddin Bin Md Desa

1. SOH POH 2. TOH CHENG CHAM (By virtue of the Power of Attorney dated 29/03/1996 and the Deed of Substitution dated 29/12/2017) 1. NORDIN BIN MD SALLEH 2. LAND ADMINISTRATOR OF KLUANG / LAND OFFICE, KLUANG 3. STATE DIRECTOR OF LAND AND MIN

BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (trading under the name and style of BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (Registration No.: JM0105634-U) MOHD SEHAT BIN MAHMUD

1. MD HILMI BIN MUHAMMAD 2. SHAHRIZAL BIN SABARUDIN 3. MOHD SHAFIE BIN CHE OMAR 4. AND 13 OTHERS 1. YAYASAN AL AIM (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAYASAN KOBENA BERHAD) 2. CHE AL MAHERA BINTI CHE IBRAHIM 3. AMALIA YANTI BINTI ABD SAMAD 4. AND 6 OTHERS

Thai Kok Yoong ( ) Granstep Development Sdn Bhd ( )