Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplication of proceedings

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2025

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. )

Citation

JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held prosecution was commenced within one calendar month because written consent to prosecute was obtained on 8.4.2025 and the request for summons/issuance and the court's taking cognizance occurred on 9.4.2025; therefore section 80(5) was not breached. The court construed sections 57(1),(2) and 57(3) together and found s.57(3) creates an offence (failure to comply with conditions imposed under s.57) so seizure under s.80(1) was valid. The omission to strike out irrelevant sections in the seizure notice was not fatal as the company had knowledge of the basis for seizure. JPJ's separate…
2 Sept 2025

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. )

Citation

JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JK-89-3-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held prosecution for purposes of s80(5) was instituted within one calendar month because written consent to prosecute was obtained on 8.4.2025 and summons/filing/take-cognisance occurred on 9.4.2025, therefore s80(5) was not breached; s57(1)/(2) grant power to impose licence conditions and breach of those conditions as provided in s57(3) constitutes an offence for purposes of s80(1) so seizure was lawful; the omission to excise irrelevant sections in the seizure notice was not fatal given the surrounding documentary evidence (weighing ticket, permit) and the applicant's awareness of bas…
19 Sept 2024

JET VALET SDN BHD 1. ) LUKMAN HAKIM BIN MOHD ZAKI 2. ) NORZALINA BINTI HARON

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-474-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-474-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applicant failed to prove the existence of special circumstances to justify a stay under Order 92 r.4. The Sessions Court and Industrial Court proceedings involve different causes of action and remedies, the Industrial Court matter is at a nascent stage, and the application amounted to an attempt to delay; therefore the stay was refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
17 Sept 2021

1. SIVA KUMAR A/L JEYAPALAN (No. K/P: 711229-10-6235) 2. AMMSA PROPERTY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1272577-X) FIRWAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 108654-T)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application (Kandungan 153) dismissed. Court held injunction was inappropriate and academic because complaint to the Board had already been made and the Board alone determines whether to proceed; the court will not restrain a statutory disciplinary body or prevent lodging of complaints to it; the Board proceedings are different in nature and public interest, would not necessarily prejudice the High Court proceedings, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal of the injunction.

Malaysia Case Law

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. )

JIAN HOONG QUAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN 2. )

JET VALET SDN BHD 1. ) LUKMAN HAKIM BIN MOHD ZAKI 2. ) NORZALINA BINTI HARON

1. SIVA KUMAR A/L JEYAPALAN (No. K/P: 711229-10-6235) 2. AMMSA PROPERTY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1272577-X) FIRWAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 108654-T)