Malaysia Case Law

31 Mar 2026

Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 1. ) MUHAMAD NOBIDI BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) HARISAH BINTI OSMAN

Citation

TA-A52M-172-11/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court

Sessions Court

Case number

TA-A52M-172-11/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application for leave was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden under Order 46 r.3: the supporting affidavit and exhibits did not adequately state the original and outstanding amounts with clear payment dates, did not provide sufficient reasons for the nearly two-year delay after the six-year limitation expired, and the plaintiff's conduct (waiting for intermittent payments and failing to pursue execution) caused prejudice especially to the guarantor; on the balance of probabilities leave was refused.

• Leave to issue writ
• Order 46 r.2 and r.3
• Limitation six years
• Judgment enforcement
• Service of process
• Guarantee/ surety

24 Oct 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Lee Kwi Chu

Citation

JA-29NCC-133-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-29NCC-133-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court rejected the debtor's objections and held the default judgment remained valid and enforceable as it had not been set aside; any calculation understatement was a formal defect curable by section 131 and did not cause substantial injustice especially as the proven debt exceeded the statutory threshold; the s.5(3)(b) application was regular and properly served; and once the principal company was wound up with proof of debt filed and no further execution remedies available, the creditor lawfully proceeded against the guarantor, so the petition stands.

• Bankruptcy petition
• Service of process
• Judgment enforcement
• Section 5(3)(b) insolvency act 1967
• Section 131 bankruptcy act 1967

12 Jun 2025

MIMS CAREER SDN BHD 1. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 2. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY 4. ) AL-JEFFRY AZRAYL BIN ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 5. ) NATASHA SHEREEN BINTI ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH 6. ) SANTHY

Citation

WA-22NCC-833-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-833-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was, in substance, a post-judgment Mareva injunction aimed at preserving assets for enforcement of an existing registered arbitral award and thus procedurally required to be brought and tested as post-judgment relief in the court of original judgment; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and current risk of dissipation (no transfers after registration and material delay in bringing the application), the balance of convenience and multiplicity of proceedings weighed against relief, and Mareva relief against the 4th Defendant was disproportionate given his passive recipien…

• Mareva injunction
• Constructive trust
• Fraudulent disposition
• Judgment enforcement
• Discovery and tracing
• Interlocutory relief

4 Oct 2023

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Mohd Helmy Azrai Bin Yaacob 3. ) NORDIANA WAHIDAH BINTI YAACOB

Citation

22NCC-444-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

22NCC-444-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to enforce the summary judgment is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory reasons to explain the delay in enforcement as required by Order 46 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012; in absence of such reasons the court could not exercise its discretion to grant leave.

• Summary judgment
• Leave to enforce
• Limitation
• Judgment enforcement
• Sale of charged property
• Bankruptcy

27 Mar 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Pegawai Pendakwa PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Shaharuz Zaman Bin Noordin (No. K/P 560801085805) T/A Tadika Mesra Qaseh

Citation

AA-56J-33-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court

Sessions Court

Case number

AA-56J-33-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The judgment debtor admitted liability and failed to prove an inability to pay or provide corroborating financial evidence; the court found he had benefited from a business operated by his son under his name; therefore, under s75 Employment Act 1955 the Director General's order is enforceable and a reasonable instalment order of RM3,000 per month was appropriate to satisfy the RM34,273.79 award, with acceleration on default.

• Judgment enforcement
• Judgment debtor summons
• Instalment orders
• Wage claims
• Director general's order

24 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN William Soon Yi-Bin for the Petitioner [Messrs Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis] Jason Ong for the Respondent [Messrs Ong & Associates (Penang)]

Citation

WA-28NCC-764-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-28NCC-764-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the respondent's evidence (photographs, alleged letter, and absence of independent reports) insufficient to establish a bona fide dispute; the RM10,000 payment did not reduce the judgment debt below the statutory threshold; non‑payment of the statutory demand triggered the presumption of inability to pay and, absent evidence of solvency, justified granting the winding up order.

• Winding up petition
• Statutory notice of demand
• Commercial insolvency
• Judgment enforcement
• Hire purchase debt

WANGSINI SDN BHD V

Citation

WANGSINI SDN BHD V

Court

Malaysian court

The petition was dismissed: the sanctioned s.176 scheme bound the petitioner and limited its entitlement to the deposit refund under the scheme; the statutory demand was fatally defective because it included interest barred by Limitation Act s.6(3); the debt was bona fide disputed and the petition was oppressive and an abuse of process, therefore the statutory prerequisites for winding‑up under s.218 were not satisfied.

• Scheme of arrangement (s.176)
• Statutory demand (s.218)
• Locus standi (s.217)
• Limitation act s.6(3)
• Abuse of process
• Leave to execute (o.46 r.2)