Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

SALEH BIN IZUL 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) MR BONGSU MOTORSPORT

Citation

BA-25-7-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-7-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judicial review leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time; under O.53 r.3(6) ROC the time limit for judicial review is jurisdictional and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application absent a proper application and evidence demonstrating good cause for extension of time, therefore the Attorney General's objection was upheld and the leave application (Enclosure 1) was dismissed.
22 Apr 2026

Kerajaan Malaysia TEBRAU BAY SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI KPRJ NUSANTARA SDN. BHD.)

Citation

JA-21NCvC-13-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-13-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s.106(3) Income Tax Act 1967 prohibits the court in s.106 collection proceedings from entertaining any defence challenging the accuracy, validity or basis of the tax assessment; that question is a pure question of law determinative of the action and therefore the plaintiff's Order 14A application was allowed to strike out those defences and dispose of the need for a full trial; prior dismissal of an Order 14 did not amount to a final determination creating res judicata or issue estoppel in respect of the jurisdictional question now raised.
27 Jan 2026

AGV OFFSHORE SDN BHD BETTER POWER (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-59-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-59-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Better Power failed to establish any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice under s.15 CIPAA: the misnaming was a non-fatal misdescription where parties' identities were clear; the adjudicator acted within remit in evaluating evidence and adopting a methodology to assess quantum (an error in valuation is a merits issue, not jurisdictional); the adjudicator provided adequate reasons per s.12(4); there was no denial of procedural fairness in refusing a rejoinder; consequently the AD stood and was enforceable under s.28 CIPAA as the statutory conditions were satisfied.
27 Jan 2026

BETTER POWER SDN BHD AGV OFFSHORE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-54-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-54-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because Better Power failed to prove breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction: the misnaming of the party was a non-fatal misdescription, the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and provided adequate reasons for the 46% valuation and had considered the notices, and therefore the adjudication decision stood and was enforceable under s28 CIPAA.
16 Jan 2026

NUR NATASHA MOHAMED ZULKARNAIN 1. ) MOHD AIMAN BIN YUSOF PRIESTER 2. ) RAHMAH BINTI AHMED

Citation

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Paragraph 28(a) of the statement of claim (claim relating to betrothal/breach of promise to marry) is struck out because matters of betrothal fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts under Article 121(1A), the State List and Selangor enactments; the defamation claim disclosed the necessary elements and is prima facie triable and therefore remains; costs of RM2,000 awarded to defendants.
15 Jan 2026

WASEEM YAQOOB S/O SHEIKH MUHAMMAD YAQOOB 1. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) RTL VISAGE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1437-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1437-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Originating Summons is dismissed because this High Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside or alter paragraph (c) of a final High Court judgment of coordinate jurisdiction; absence of any affidavit in reply by the 2nd Defendant does not confer jurisdiction; inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to revisit or nullify a perfected judgment of another High Court.
8 Jan 2026

HOW CHEE HONG 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA

Citation

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found no appealable error: the Disciplinary Board lawfully reconstituted the Disciplinary Committee and the reconstituted DC commenced its inquiry within the one‑month period required by section 103B(1) LPA; the appellant's Originating Summons was premature and an abuse of process because statutory objection and appeal mechanisms had not been exhausted and there was no established prejudice warranting interlocutory judicial intervention; consequently the High Court decision dismissing the OS was affirmed.
12 Dec 2025

AZMI BIN OSMAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 6. ) Pengarah Jabatan

Citation

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under s10 the applicant's service was deemed extended to the date of conviction and under s21 his conviction disentitled him to pension; the disciplinary proceedings' non-completion was irrelevant because conviction removed entitlement and the disciplinary authority lost jurisdiction on retirement; mandamus could not compel a discretionary grant by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so judicial review failed and the application was dismissed.
12 Dec 2025

1. ) LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD 2. ) ARIVINTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) PNG SOO HOCK FRANKIE 2. ) TAN POH NOI SALLY 3. ) VERNICE EPHRAIM PNG MEI XUAN 4. ) VANEESA EPHRAIM PNG MEI LING 5. ) VALERIE EPHRAIM PNG MEI XIN

Citation

JB-24NCvC-260-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCvC-260-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Singapore State Courts validly obtained leave to serve out of jurisdiction and had sufficient nexus and serious issues to be tried; the Applicants, by failing to timely contest jurisdiction, submitted to the Singapore Courts; granting the declaratory relief sought would constitute a collateral attack on valid foreign proceedings and undermine international comity; accordingly the originating summons is dismissed with costs.
12 Dec 2025

1. ) JASA MERIN (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 2. ) JM GLOBAL 3 (LABUAN) PLC 3. ) JM GLOBAL 4 (LABUAN) PLC 1. ) PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-318-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-318-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed: the Minister's refusal dated 5.1.2021 was the operative decision and the judicial review against the Minister was time‑barred under Order 53 r.3(6); the Collector's assessments must be challenged via the statutory objection and appeal procedure under ss.38A and 39 of the Stamp Act 1949 and pursuing judicial review concurrently constituted an abuse of process; ministerial discretion under s.80 is wide and not susceptible to merits review in these proceedings.