Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judgment in default

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

1. ) PUGALESWARAN THAVAR A/L ALAGUPANDI 2. ) MOHD AKMAL IYAZI BIN SAIDIN 3. ) NURAYUNI BINTI PAUZI 4. ) MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BIN ROHAIZAD 5. ) TENGKU SAIFUL HASNY BIN TENGKU ABDULLAH 6. ) AZLIZA BINTI MOHD SARIF 7. ) KAMARUL FADZLI BIN KAMALUDDI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-703-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-703-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the JID was regularly obtained because the Defendant failed to enter appearance within the prescribed 14 days. The Plaintiffs' claims are mainly liquidated demands and therefore appropriate for a JID. The Defendant failed to prove a bona fide defence or produce evidence of any lawful extension by the Controller; assertions about deeds of assignment and settlement offers lacked proof. Under Clause 30 SPA the Defendant was obliged to rectify defects and only upon failure may Plaintiffs claim and deduct defect deposit; evidence showed Defendant failed to rectify. No special circu…
25 Feb 2026

GAIA PLAS SDN BHD EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-35-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-35-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed both applications because the judgment in default of appearance (JID) remained valid and enforceable, the Plaintiff produced no material to establish a genuine and substantial defence to render the Debt disputable, and a Fortuna injunction cannot be granted where the debt is undisputed; accordingly the injunctions sought were refused and costs were ordered as stated.
12 Feb 2026

1. ) VERTEX CENTRAL INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHD ALI AMIN BIN AB LATIF 3. ) MOHD AZKARI MUNIF BIN AB LATIF POSIM MARKETING SDN. BHD.

Citation

DA-12ANCC-3-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12ANCC-3-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the writ and statement of claim were sent by prepaid registered post to addresses agreed in the parties' contracts, and the contracts contained express deeming language that service is effective 'notwithstanding any proof to the contrary', the appellants were estopped from denying service despite postal tracking remarks; further, their admissions and part payments constituted an acknowledgment of debt that barred their defence on the merits. The Sessions Court's refusal to set aside the default judgment was therefore correct and is affirmed.
22 Jan 2026

BOOBALAN A/L KRISHNAN SG ENTERTAINMENT & ADVERTISING

Citation

WA-12ANCC-25-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-25-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the process server did not reasonably identify the Appellant nor show interaction that would satisfy Order 62 rule 3; leaving documents in the mailbox in the presence of a purported wife or other occupants did not constitute personal service, rendering the JID irregular and subject to being set aside ex debito justitiae.
28 Nov 2025

MOTOR INSURERS’ BEREAU OF WEST MALAYSIA 1. ) THINESH A/L MAILAN 2. ) DEVAKI A/P GANASON

Citation

JA-12A-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the originating process was duly sealed and served, the judgment in default was regular, there was no denial of natural justice or serious procedural defect, the Appellant's proposed defences under the MIB scheme lacked a real prospect of success, and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court order affirmed.
15 Oct 2025

TASEK GELUGOR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LIM YIT KIAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-742-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-742-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Deputy Registrar erred by prioritising procedural form over substance; the combined application for abridgement and to set aside the default judgment was not incompetent, the approximately 1.5 month delay was excusable, no irremediable prejudice to the Plaintiff was shown, and the Defendant disclosed an arguable defence — therefore the default judgment was set aside and leave to defend granted.
17 Sept 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN SOO CHOON LAI

Citation

WA-29NCC-911-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-911-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeals fail because the applications to set aside the Judgment‑in‑Default and the subsequent appeal were dismissed (no stay of execution), and the Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's Petition correctly claimed compound interest consistent with the Judgment‑in‑Default; therefore the debtor's simple interest calculation was misconceived and did not render the BN/CP irregular.
17 Sept 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN SOO CHOON LAI

Citation

WA-29NCC-911-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-911-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeals were dismissed because there was no stay of the judgment-in-default and the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition properly reflected compound interest as provided by the judgment-in-default; the debtor's simple-interest calculation was therefore legally incorrect.
13 Aug 2025

SIM CHENG YOUNG DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU

Citation

WA-22NCC-863-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-863-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found service was properly effected despite a typographical error corrected by affidavit of correction, the JID was regularly obtained, the JDS did not vary or extinguish the guarantor's independent liability, the Plaintiff's forbearance constituted valid consideration for the Personal Guarantee, and the Defendant disclosed no bona fide triable defence; therefore the application to set aside the JID was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
24 Jun 2025

1. ) PLOT AND PARCEL GROUP BERHAD 2. ) MOHD HAMIRUL AZAD BIN MOHD HANIFFA RAHIMAH BINTI JAAFAR

Citation

BA-12A-59-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-59-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim on the 1st and 2nd Appellants was properly effected under Rules of Court 2012 (Orders 10 and 62), so the JIDs were regular; although appellants raised triable issues amounting to a defence on the merits, their application to set aside was filed well outside the 30‑day period required by Order 42 r 13 and the delay (approximately sixteen months and prolonged inactivity after garnishment) was inordinate and unjustified, therefore the discretion to set aside was refused and the appeal dismissed with costs.