Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder of parties

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

1. ) NOINA BINTI BAHARUDDIN 2. ) ARIV ANAANDHA CHELVAM 3. ) SURINDER SINGH A/L PERTAP SINGH 4. ) HARRIS BIN ABD RAHMAN SABRI 5. ) MARGUERITE EDITH BRODIE 6. ) KOH MAYANNE 7. ) AHMAD KASHFEE BIN SHARIFUDDIN 8. ) SASIBAI A/P KIMIS 9. ) JUANIT

Citation

BA-25-32-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-32-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The joinder of the 5th and 7th Respondents was incompetent because neither had statutory roles in the preparation, inquiry or approval stages of the Draft Local Plan under Act 172; therefore the leave application as against those respondents was frivolous and vexatious and must be dismissed, while leave may proceed against the other respondents who are the proper decision‑makers.
15 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM KHAI MUN 2. ) CHONG PEI DECK 1. ) WONG KWAI WAH 2. ) PANG HONG CHENG 3. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was struck out and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed because plaintiffs failed to join Punca Jaya Sdn Bhd, a necessary and interested party whose presence was material to the declaratory relief sought; that failure was fatal to plaintiffs’ cause of action and, coupled with material factual disputes as to competing purchases (multiple ownership), justified dismissal under the court’s procedural rules.
10 Nov 2025

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) TEBRAU BAY CONSTRUCTIONS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ISKANDAR WATERFRONT CITY BERHAD 3. ) TEBRAU BAY SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI KPRJ NUSANTARA SDN BHD) PIHAK KETIGA PEMBINAAN HAMID ABD RAHMAN SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. )

Citation

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to issue a fifth‑party notice (Annexure 303) was dismissed because the fourth party had not filed any defence or pleadings enabling the court to assess liability or quantum against the proposed fifth party, and because permitting joinder at the current trial stage would prejudice the proposed fifth party and delay disposal of the main action; third‑party issues can be litigated independently if necessary.
27 Aug 2025

1. ) Hee Kee Liong 2. ) Hee Chun Keet PJS TYRE AUTO SERVICE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-354-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-354-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to add Lee Mee Ha dismissed because the asserted liability against her arose from a separate contractual dispute (misrepresentation/breach of the SPA) not germane to an originating summons seeking relief for continuing trespass by the current proprietor; therefore Lee Mee Ha was not a proper or necessary party and joinder was inappropriate.
17 Jul 2025

1. ) SING FOONG NIAP SDN BHD 2. ) SING FOONG NIAP ENGINEERING SDN BHD GEM IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Joinder and consequential amendment were permitted because Sing Foong Niap Engineering's role in effecting payments, procuring financing and redeeming the charge was directly connected to the SPA and its presence was necessary for effectual and complete adjudication; conversely, the Defendant failed to demonstrate a bona fide strong and clear case or exceptional circumstances required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction and did not show irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, therefore the injunction application was dismissed.
17 Jul 2025

1. ) SING FOONG NIAP SDN BHD 2. ) SING FOONG NIAP ENGINEERING SDN BHD GEM IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Joinder of Sing Foong Niap Engineering was permitted because its payments, financing and redemption dealings were directly connected to the SPA and its presence was necessary for effectual and complete adjudication under Order 15; consequential amendments under Order 20 were bona fide and did not change the character of the suit; the Defendant failed to demonstrate a strong and clear case or exceptional circumstances for an interlocutory mandatory injunction and the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favoured refusing the injunction.
17 Jul 2025

PERINTIS GEMILANG SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHEE BEE GAIK 2. ) CHEE SOON AUN 3. ) LIM KIM CHEW 4. ) SARINA BT JUSOH

Citation

WA-22NCvC-765-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-765-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 Rule 6 to grant leave to join the two partners because they were confirmed partners at the relevant time, s.11 Partnership Act 1961 exposes partners to joint liability for firm obligations, there was no undue delay or prejudice, and the issues of liability are triable and appropriate to resolve with the added parties.
24 Jun 2025

1. ) CHAN KAH LON 2. ) CHAN SEE MAI 1. ) CHIN JIA YEE 2. ) CHIN THIEN CHOY 3. ) GIRONA VETERINARY SDN. BHD. 4. ) SOLE BIZ SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-609-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-609-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the reliefs sought would materially affect the legal status of the wound-up company and therefore cannot be treated as a mere nominal joinder (Scalenus must be joined as plaintiff or leave obtained); and the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie conspiracy against MHH and its partners—there was no credible evidence of agreement, knowledge or motive, the technical tampering allegations were speculative without expert proof, and the application was tainted by inordinate delay and apparent bad faith.
17 Jun 2025

1. ) TECK HUAT (K.L) COMPANY SDN BHD 2. ) SUN FOODS INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED 1. ) OBH TRADING SDN. BHD. 2. ) OOI BENG HUAT FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sun Foods was a necessary and proper party because it is the manufacturer and accepted author/owner of the Mark, has direct and substantial interest in the reliefs, the joinder arises from the same factual matrix and would avoid multiplicity and inconsistent findings; defendants failed to show irremediable prejudice and there was no inordinate delay, therefore joinder under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) is justified.
13 Jun 2025

1. ) RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD 2. ) SUNWAY REIT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 3. ) SUNWAY EDUCATION GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) TROPICANA EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) TROPICANA CORPORATION BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 114 was dismissed because the proposed amendments and joinder were not bona fide, were filed after inordinate delay (approximately one and a half years), introduced entirely new causes of action and parties thereby changing the character of the suit, were procedurally irregular for not serving proposed defendants, and would cause prejudice to the defendants that could not be adequately addressed by costs under current case management principles.