Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

1. ) PUNG IT TEONG 2. ) TAN YEE TING CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the Sessions Court was plainly wrong: rescission relief could not be granted without joinder of the Bank and Achwell given the assignment and title implications; the misrepresentation pleadings lacked required particularity and failed on the evidential elements (many alleged statements were future promises or were not addressed to Plaintiffs); the action was time‑barred under the Limitation Act; and Plaintiffs' conduct amounted to affirmation/afterthought. These constitute sufficient legal and factual bases to affirm the low…
23 Feb 2026

SYED MOHAMAD BIN SYED DRUS 1. ) AMISAH BINTI MAT SALIM 2. ) AMISAH & CO 3. ) ZULFIKRI BIN MOHAMAD

Citation

TA-B53KP-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53KP-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove that the solicitors misapplied or misappropriated client funds or were professionally negligent; many payments were proven to relate to other projects or made on instructions of the partnership (Defendant Third), the Plaintiff benefited from registration and sales, certain claims were estopped or extinguished by settlement/acknowledgement documents and/or barred by limitation, and therefore the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
9 Jan 2026

BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD. 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was not plainly wrong: a constructive trust arose by operation of equity to protect plaintiffs who had paid substantial sums, taken possession and had subsisting SPAs; non-payment of the entire balance did not bar equitable relief; laches and limitation were not established against the plaintiffs; appellants' reliance on Official Receiver/bank consent did not defeat plaintiffs' equitable rights, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.
9 Jan 2026

LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-468-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-468-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court was not plainly wrong: the SPAs remained subsisting, plaintiffs had paid deposits, taken possession and lodged caveat, a constructive trust arises in equity despite non-payment of the balance to prevent unjust enrichment, laches and limitation defences were inapplicable as pleaded, and therefore the High Court's declarations and orders (including entitlement to specific performance upon payment of RM314,800) were upheld; appeals and cross-appeals dismissed.
8 Jan 2026

LIM AI LING VENUS ASSETS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-556-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-556-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that by effect of the amendment to s.68(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (effective 1 October 2022) appeals to the Court of Appeal are statutorily barred where the High Court dismissed any application to strike out a writ or pleading; accordingly the defendant's appeals against the High Court's dismissal of their strike out applications were incompetent and not maintainable and must be dismissed/struck out.
19 Dec 2025

1. ) THURAISINGAM A/L PITCHAY MARIE 2. ) PUSPOM A/P PITCHAY MARIE CHEAH EWE HUAT

Citation

PA-11BNCvC-5-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11BNCvC-5-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Magistrate: the plaintiff, as registered proprietor registered on 28.6.2016, holds an indefeasible title under Section 340 NLC; prior proceedings did not operate as res judicata because they involved different parties, were enforcement or procedural dismissals or did not reach a full trial on merits; the defendants occupied the premises without consent or payment after tenancy expiry and after transfer and therefore were trespassers; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to immediate vacant possession and to general damages for trespass (subject to assessment); app…
18 Dec 2025

LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SU’OT TEBARI @ SALI TEBARI [SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 3 OF HIS SIBLINGS]

Citation

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-672-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-672-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the disputed lots were cultivated and in continuous occupation prior to 1.1.1958; contemporaneous aerial photographs (1948,1958) materially contradicted oral history and showed majority of alleged areas remained primary forest; Map M was admissible only for identification and lacked probative weight absent proper ground correlation or qualified mapper; settlement procedure evidence established Settlement Orders and eventual alienation/lease; accordingly High Court finding of NCR was unsupported and set aside; LCDA's title to alienated…
18 Dec 2025

1. ) SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND & SURVEY, LIMBANG DIVISION 2. ) STATE GOVERNMENT OF SARAWAK SU’OT TEBARI @ SALI TEBARI [SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 3 OF HIS SIBLINGS]

Citation

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-671-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-671-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his family possessed NCR over the disputed lots: aerial photographs from 1948 and 1958 materially contradicted plaintiff's oral history; Map 'M' was admissible only for identification and plaintiff failed to correlate it to on-ground survey; plaintiff's credibility was undermined by inconsistent evidence about the Mengkalap Settlement Exercise and lack of corroborative evidence. Consequently the High Court's finding that NCR existed was set aside, Appeals 671 and 672 allowed, Appeal 654 dismissed.
15 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM KHAI MUN 2. ) CHONG PEI DECK 1. ) WONG KWAI WAH 2. ) PANG HONG CHENG 3. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was struck out and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed because plaintiffs failed to join Punca Jaya Sdn Bhd, a necessary and interested party whose presence was material to the declaratory relief sought; that failure was fatal to plaintiffs’ cause of action and, coupled with material factual disputes as to competing purchases (multiple ownership), justified dismissal under the court’s procedural rules.
9 Dec 2025

Roslee Bin Jaafar & 43 Lagi 1. ) AFTER IMAGE SDN BHD 2. ) MAJLIS DAERAH TANAH MERAH 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA 4. ) PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI KELANTAN 5. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiffs' statement of claim fails to plead facts establishing that the Second Defendant caused or contributed to the alleged trespass or nuisance; alternatively, even if a cause of action existed, claims against the Second Defendant are time‑barred under s2(a) Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 as applied by s124 Local Government Act 1976; accordingly the strike out under Order 18 r19 is justified and the writ and statement of claim are struck out against the Second Defendant.