Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of judgment

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

1. ) DEVAN A/L KENKARGARO 2. ) SARATHA A/P KENKARGARO 1. ) MOHAMMAD NASHAFIQ BIN NASARUDIN 2. ) HARIZAN BIN ROSLAN 3. ) JSW TRANSPORT AGENCY

Citation

JA-12B-38-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-38-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The cross-appeal was incompetent because it attempted to challenge substantive findings and quantum that were not within the scope of the appellant's notice of appeal; therefore the cross-appeal is struck out as an abuse of process, primarily under Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(d), and also falls under limbs (a)-(c). The temporal delay was rendered academic once incompetence was established.
12 Dec 2025

1. ) DEVAN A/L KENKARGARO 2. ) SARATHA A/P KENKARGARO 1. ) MOHAMMAD NASHAFIQ BIN NASARUDIN 2. ) HARIZAN BIN ROSLAN 3. ) JSW TRANSPORT AGENCY

Citation

JA-12B-38-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-38-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A notice of cross-appeal that seeks to challenge substantive findings not opened by the appellant's appeal is legally incompetent and constitutes abuse of process; such a cross-appeal is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) (and also attracts limbs (a)-(c)), rendering any extension of time application academic. Costs awarded in cause.
17 Oct 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

JA-22NCVC-27-02/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-27-02/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend the substituted judgment was dismissed because the issue of Defendant 1's liability to pay jointly with Technochase Sdn Bhd had been finally decided on the merits and on appeal, and is therefore barred by res judicata and estoppel; permitting the amendment would constitute an abuse of process and undermine finality of judgment.
14 May 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

Citation

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The chamber application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed: the High Court judgment relied upon was final for bankruptcy purposes despite a pending leave application; the minor under‑calculation of RM33.57 did not mislead or prejudice the debtor and was curable under section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967; and the debtor failed to prove solvency. Costs of RM1,000 were awarded to the judgment creditors subject to allocatur.
29 Sept 2023

ABDUL KADIR BIN HAJI SHEIKH FADZIR 1. ) MENARA JUTAMAS SDN BHD 2. ) AMCORP GLOBAL LIMITED (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI TEE LAND LIMITED)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-361-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-361-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim is barred by res judicata because the issues concerning the guarantee and indemnity, including beneficiary identity and entitlement to enforce, were raised or could and should have been raised in Suit 99 and subsequent appeals; the plaintiff failed to particularise any actual positive fraud as required by s 44 Evidence Act 1950; the action is an abuse of process and plainly and obviously unsustainable, therefore it is struck out.
21 Aug 2023

Ching Suet Yeen Lee Hock Teong

Citation

B-02(IM)-721-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)-721-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The decree nisi having been made absolute and the appellant having had and withdrawn her appellate remedy, the Court of Appeal held the decree is final and cannot be rescinded by invoking Rule 44 DMPR 1980 or s.61(2)(b) LRA absent illegality, fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction; the injunction claim failed for lack of particulars and evidence.
21 Oct 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) DATUK SERI MAGLIN DENNIS D'CRUZ 2. ) DATUK SUBRAYAN A/L SELLAPPAN 3. ) DATO DR LOGA BALA MOHAN A/L JAGANATHAN 4. ) DATO ELAYPPEN A/L MUTHUSAMY 5. ) DATUK MOHAN A/L A KANDASAMY 6. ) DATUK TIONG YAP CHOON 7. ) SATHI

Citation

WA-29NCC-761-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-761-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The sealed High Court judgment was final at the time the bankruptcy notices were issued; the Judgment Debtors failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements (s3(2)(ii) IA and rule 93 IR) by not filing the requisite affidavit/notice within seven days and did not particularise any quantified counterclaim or set‑off; because the debtors are jointly and severally liable the creditors were entitled to issue separate bankruptcy notices against each debtor for the full judgment sum and the applications to set aside or stay the notices are dismissed.
22 Apr 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN EVEREST WEB SDN. BHD. PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHAN WAI FONG

Citation

WA-29NCC-1945-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-1945-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the underlying judgment remains valid and unsatisfied, the judgment debtor is jointly and severally liable under section 44 of the Contracts Act 1950 as interpreted by Federal Court authority, the creditor is not a secured creditor because the assets in issue belong to a third party, and the High Court will not go behind the judgment in these bankruptcy proceedings.
11 Mar 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Chai Ko Thing and Jolyn Ch’ng Wi Fern for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Lee Ong & Partners (Petaling Jaya)] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Tan Chun Ming and Fong Peng Huei for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs J

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The substituted service applications and resulting substituted service orders were valid and complied with the applicable procedural rules; the creditor made reasonable attempts to serve; the underlying default judgment was valid and enforceable and the sums claimed were liquidated and exceeded the statutory threshold; the debtor failed to dispute the bankruptcy notice within the statutory period and thus committed an act of bankruptcy; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
27 Aug 2020

Paari Perumal & K. Kulasekar for the Judgment Debtor/Appellant [Messrs K. Kulasekar & Associate] Reeve Lim Chun Loong for the Judgment Creditor /Respondent [Messrs Lim, Wong & Co]

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the affidavit under Rule 93 did not plead any counterclaim/set-off as required and is to be treated as if no affidavit was filed; the High Court judgment is final under the Bozson test and enforceable; the audit report and costs were reasonably incurred and recoverable under para 1(c) of the judgment; the Judgment Creditor is entitled to claim RM451,000 for the generators under para 1(g); and there was no evidential set-off for the RM70,000 costs and RM2,800 allocatur fee.