Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intervention

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2025

PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) PENCELAH 1. ) WAN SAZALI BIN WAN AB GHANI (BERTINDAK DALAM KAPASITI SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA WAN AB GHANI BIN WAN YUSUF 2. ) KEH CHUAN SENG 3. ) TMH

Citation

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judge followed the Court of Appeal decision in Million Westlink and held that unsecured creditors have locus to intervene in judicial management proceedings; Rule 13 does not deprive unsecured creditors of the right to be heard, and therefore leave to intervene was granted to the Proposed Interveners.
17 Nov 2025

AFFIN BANK BERHAD 1. ) IHAA CAPITAL SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai IHAA Holding Sdn. Bhd.) 2. ) LIM PHECK JOO 3. ) GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM 4. ) WAN NASIR BIN WAN MUSTAPHA PENCELAH EVERSHINE IMPEX SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-562-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-562-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 28 was dismissed because summary judgment entered on 20.1.2025 concluded the proceedings so the court was functus officio and the Proposed Intervener could not intervene post-judgment; the proper forum for proprietary claims over the charged property is the foreclosure/order for sale proceedings or a separate in personam action, not this monetary action; the unregistered Declaration of Trust did not establish a legal interest that could defeat a registered charge; and the intervener failed to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances to justify a stay of execution.
11 Nov 2025

Tan Si Hai @ Tan Si Yen 1. ) Liow Keng Luan 2. ) Tan Shing Yi

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-134-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-134-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed that a wife has subsisting enforceable rights in the matrimonial home during the marriage under the LRA and related authorities, those rights will be directly affected by an eviction proceeding so she may intervene, and special circumstances (risk of multiplicity and conflicting decisions) justified a stay of the Sessions Court pending adjudication of the Judicial Separation petition in the Family Court; accordingly the Sessions Court's orders allowing intervention and granting a stay were rightly exercised and the appeal was dismissed.
6 Nov 2025

SARASWATHY SHIRKE DEO 1. ) AMUTHA A/P AYAWOO 2. ) CHUNG TEK WEI 3. ) SHALEENEE A/P SUBRAMANIAM 4. ) LAM GHOOI KET PENCELAH AMADESA RESORT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Citation

WA-22NCvC-366-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-366-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to demonstrate a direct legal interest affected by the impugned orders, the application was brought after judgment and appeals were filed such that the High Court was functus officio, no breach of natural justice or exceedance of jurisdiction was shown, and there were no special circumstances to justify setting aside orders or granting a stay, therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to allow intervention.
24 Sept 2025

ZURICH GENERAL INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) AMIR HAIKAL BIN KAMARUZAMAN 2. ) VICKNESWARAN A/L KALAISELVAN 3. ) KAVITHA A/P RAVI SANGKAR

Citation

JA-12A-28-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-28-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court upheld the Session Court: (1) insurer lacks the requisite legal interest to intervene in a running-down tort action where liability and quantum are the only issues; (2) insurance coverage is irrelevant to the determination of liability at this stage and must be raised by separate declaratory proceedings under s.96(3) RTA; (3) fraud allegations were not pleaded with particulars and are speculative; and (4) the appellant failed to comply with mandatory appeal filing and service timelines; intervention would cause delay and prejudice — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the lower…
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-1-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application by the proposed intervener was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to prove any proprietary interest or title in the goods or lawful occupation of the premises, lacked locus standi to challenge or intervene in the ex parte injunction obtained by the applicant, and the disputed matter between the proposed intervener and third parties (Inscorp/Rosmadi) concerned personal debt unrelated to the applicant; consequently the application to intervene was refused and costs were awarded to the applicant.
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener's application was dismissed because they failed to prove any proprietary interest or lawful possession of the goods and therefore lacked locus standi to intervene; applicant established ownership by documentary evidence and conduct, and relevant parties occupying or responsible for the premises did not seek to set aside the injunction, justifying maintenance of the ex parte order and costs to applicant.
11 Sept 2025

PRISTINE POWER SDN.BHD. Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah

Citation

BA-15-140-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-140-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

EKVE is permitted to intervene because the Scheduled Land was acquired for the EKVE project (s3(1)(b)), EKVE adduced evidence it will be ultimately liable for acquisition costs under the concession agreement (exceeding the RM360,000,000 threshold), and statutory amendments plus binding authority permit a paymaster/person with a real interest to intervene even if Form D does not specify the limb of s3 invoked.
26 Aug 2025

PNSB ACMAR SDN BHD 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 3. ) PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI SELANGOR PENCELAH PRASARANA MALAYSIA BHD

Citation

BA-25-115-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-115-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed intervener lacks the requisite legal standing and enforceable legal interest to intervene in proceedings that are confined to enforcement of a final and perfected judgment between the Applicant and governmental Respondents; res judicata and finality bar the proposed intervener's repeated attempts and the intervention application is dismissed with costs.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike‑out application because the procedural defects in the intervenors' affidavits were curable, the intervenors provided a reasonable explanation (overseas deponents and subsequent consular affirmation), no prejudice to the plaintiff was shown, and the court exercised its discretion under Order 32 r 13(2)(d), Order 1A and inherent jurisdiction (Order 92 r 4) to resolve the matter on the merits rather than on technical non‑compliance; costs awarded in the cause.