Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave for judicial review

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

EVERGREEN FUTURE HOME BUILDERS 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) JAI BHAVANI

Citation

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the Attorney General's objection and dismissed the leave application because it was filed 93 days late beyond the three-month limit in O.53 r.3(6) and the applicant failed to establish good reason to extend time under O.53 r.3(7); the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to participate at the ex parte leave stage absent an invitation.
15 Dec 2025

1. ) SOFAZAIDA BINTI SHUKOR 2. ) SHAHRUL ZAMAN BIN ABDUL SHUKOR 3. ) HELNI BIN MOHD KAMIL PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-122-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-122-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time: time ran from the 29.3.2024 rejection letter and the applicants filed the leave application on 25.5.2025 beyond the three‑month limit under O.53 r.3(6) RC 2012; applicants could not rely on the 26.2.2025 solicitors' letter or any 'deemed decision' to restart time because the Federal Court has held that a deemed decision is not a decision within Order 53, and the applicants did not apply to extend time under O.53 r.3(7).
30 Dec 2024

Manirajah A/l Suppiah (membela rayuan ini sebagai wakil kepada Ahli Jawatankuasa the Sri Mariamman Temple Paripalana Saba, Batu Pahat (No. Pendaftaran: PPM 004-01-24041968) bagi tahun 2022/2023)) Kementerian Dalam Negeri Johor PENCELAH 1. )

Citation

JA-25-37-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-37-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the 1st Respondent demonstrated an arguable case at the low leave threshold under judicial review and granted leave to file for certiorari to challenge ROS/Registrar's registration of the New Committee Members; the Appellant/intervener lacked locus to appeal the leave decision made when not a party and intervention should be ventilated at substantive stage; the Court exercised its power under Order 53 r 3(5) ROC to grant a stay of the registration process to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending substantive determination.
15 Dec 2022

BD AGRICULTURE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-437-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-437-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Minister's omission to respond is an action/omission amenable to judicial review under O 53 r 2(4) ROC; the applicant met the low threshold for leave; the question whether s 99 displaces s 135 and whether the Minister should exercise discretion under s 127(3A) are merits issues for the substantive hearing; leave was granted and an interim stay was appropriate given the large tax quantum likely to cause irreparable harm.
13 Dec 2022

FAZLI BIN SUBOH Jabatan Peguam Negara

Citation

BA-25-42-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-42-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to adduce compelling prima facie evidence to overcome the strong presumption of legality attaching to the Public Prosecutor's decision; a police report by the applicant's wife, without more, is insufficient veracity to warrant review and the matter of factual guilt is for criminal trial.
25 May 2022

PETRONAS PENAPISAN (TERENGGANU) SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-25-150-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-150-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant satisfied the low threshold for leave by demonstrating arguable legal questions and substantial prejudice given the large disputed tax sum; existence of s99 appeal did not bar leave at the leave stage; therefore leave granted, costs in the cause and interim stay pending substantive disposal.
11 Nov 2021

Hisham bin Halim 1. Maya binti Ahmad Fuaad & 4 Lagi

Citation

WA-25-222-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-222-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment application was dismissed because the proposed amendments would alter the facts and main issues and enlarge the subject matter beyond the scope of leave granted; it was filed late at the hearing stage after seeing respondents' evidence, was not bona fide but a tactical manoeuvre causing prejudice to respondents which could not be compensated by costs.
8 Oct 2021

CHNG TEIK WEI 1. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. KETUA POLIS NEGERI TERENGGANU 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-29-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-29-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time is refused because the applicant failed to adduce material evidence showing good and satisfactory reasons for the delay; bare assertions about MCO, inability to access counsel, financial hardship and ignorance of the law are insufficient, and there was no evidence of attempts to obtain travel permits; consequently the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the leave application.
6 Jul 2021

UEM EDGENTA BERHAD KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

WA-25-195-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-195-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the applicant had established an arguable case that the respondent may have erred in law by subsuming the applicant's management services into 'investment holding' activities under s60F(2) and by disregarding the qualitative test and relevant public ruling; leave for judicial review was granted and an interim stay of the impugned notices of assessment dated 30.4.2021 for YA 2015–2018 was ordered pending the substantive determination.
16 Mar 2021

Kind Action (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 646416-T) Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave for judicial review was granted because the Applicant demonstrated a real and genuine interest and clear adverse effect (substantial taxes and penalties) satisfying the low threshold for leave; issues raised (nature of receipts, double taxation, time bar, and availability of domestic remedy) are matters for full ventilation at the merits stage rather than disposal at the leave stage; consequently interim relief was appropriate.