Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to apply for judicial review

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

MAHAJOTH SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) PENCELAH DICADANGKAN BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-419-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-419-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was refused because the impugned orders were acts carried out in the course of a criminal investigation and thus not amenable to judicial review absent clear mala fides; the applicant failed to establish mala fides or that the information sought fell within the specific category in s46(1) requiring a High Court order, and s126 privilege was not automatically engaged on service of s30 orders.
27 Jan 2026

Dorbane Talha Abd Elkhalek 1. ) Peguam Negara Malaysia 2. ) Menteri Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-25-427-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-427-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to meet the threshold: his affidavit lacked material particulars and documentary proof, relied on hearsay (communication to his wife) rather than proof the decision was communicated to him, contained conflicting evidence, and did not present an arguable case fit for further consideration; permitting the application would enable a fishing expedition and misuse of process.
19 Dec 2025

MOHAMED ARIFIN SHAH BIN NAZEER ALI 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA MALAYSIA PUTRAJAYA 2. ) TUAN ABDUL RASHID BIN DAUD (Presiden Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia)

Citation

WA-25-310-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-310-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed well outside the three‑month limit without adequate good reason to justify an extension of time; the applicant failed to name the affected private party (FSSB) so the application would affect an unaided party; and the application was procedurally irregular and non‑compliant with O.53 r.3(2) RC 2012 such that the irregularities were not curable—therefore the AG's determinative objections were allowed and leave refused.
5 Nov 2025

SAUJANA TRIANGLE SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-45-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-45-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant raised substantial and arguable legal questions (interpretation of s140A(2) and (3), treatment of interest free advances as financial assistance, and retrospective effect of s140A(3C)) such that the leave threshold was met; issues concerning alternative remedies under Act 53 are matters for the substantive hearing and do not render the leave application premature. Therefore the AG's objection was dismissed and leave to apply for judicial review was granted.
15 Oct 2025

LHK PROPERTIES SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 2. ) PENGAWAL PERUMAHAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) IMPIAN EKSPRESI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-25-267-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-267-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The leave application was filed out of time under Order 53 r3(6); the applicant failed to show any entitlement to treat non‑response to its 14‑day ultimatum as a deemed decision or to demonstrate respondents' willingness to reconsider; no satisfactory explanation for extension of time was provided; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application and dismissed the leave application with costs of RM3,000 to the Attorney General's Chambers.
9 Oct 2025

SURIA FIRST HOLDINGS SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) ARA HILL JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Citation

WA-25-299-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-299-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Stay refused because applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or irreparable harm; the award was a monetary judgment that can be remedied by refund if judicial review succeeds; successful respondent entitled to enforce award; merits of the substantive judicial review are irrelevant to stay application.
19 Sept 2025

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK 1. ) Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh 2. ) KOMISIONER JENERAL PENJARA 3. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. ) LEMBAGA PENGAMPUNAN BAGI WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, LABUAN DAN PUTRAJAYA

Citation

WA-25-136-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-136-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although Order 20 r.8 may be relied upon for amendment principles, the proposed amendments would introduce substantively new allegations and a new cause of action (including an unpleaded claim for damages) after leave was granted; the applicant provided no adequate explanation for delay and the amendments would prejudice the respondents. Therefore the application to amend is dismissed and costs are in the cause.
14 Aug 2025

CHEY AH KOW 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) NG TZE SHEN

Citation

BA-25-145-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-145-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for leave dismissed because applicant failed to establish locus standi as an adversely affected person under Order 53 Rule 2(4) and failed to satisfy the two-step Sundra Rajoo threshold by adducing compelling prima facie evidence that the AG's decision to charge under s43(1) was illegal, irrational or tainted by mala fides; AG's discretion under Article 145(3) remains presumptively lawful and was properly exercised here.
24 Jun 2025

Koh Lay Seong & Sons Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-142-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-142-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because there was no decision made by the Respondent to be quashed; the Applicant's letter did not amount to a deemed rejection or decision and no clear omission or refusal to act was established, hence no arguable case for certiorari and the application was frivolous and vexatious.
12 Mar 2025

1. ) TAN THUN YANG 2. ) YAP SHWU BING 3. ) YAP THYE TI 4. ) TAN HOCK HENG 5. ) LIM CHOON WEI 6. ) MOHD FAIZRUS ANWAR BIN ROSLAN 7. ) NUR AZERA BINTI TUHAIME 8. ) NG KAR KEN 9. ) CHIN SIT YEE 10. ) KOH TECK LIANG 11. ) PER BEE GEE 12. ) HUI

Citation

WA-25-211-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-211-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed well outside the three‑month limitation in O.53 r.3(6) based on dates of the impugned decisions and amended SPAs (2018–2022); applicants did not apply for extension of time under r.3(7)-(8) nor provide good reason to extend, therefore the court had no jurisdiction to grant leave and L.12 was dismissed.