Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice to show cause

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2025

NOR KAMILAH HANI BINTI JAMALUDIN TEMERLOH MUTIARA CONSTRUCTION

Citation

CB-A72NCvC-30-08/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-A72NCvC-30-08/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court set aside the leave to commence committal because the committal process was procedurally defective: the consent judgment lacked an endorsed penal notice, the judgment and penal endorsement were not personally served on the defendant/officer as required, no notice to show cause under Order 52 r.2B was served, and the defendant was unrepresented at substituted service and presented affidavits showing repairs; given these procedural failures and the plaintiff's failure to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt the defendant's application to set aside leave was allowed and the committal…
18 Dec 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

Citation

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The debtor's notice (12.10.2024) and supporting affidavit (6.11.2024) were dismissed because the notice was not served the mandatory three days before the hearing (service on 14.10.2024 gave only two days) and the notice failed to specify the statements in the petition disputed as required by Rule 116/Form 45; additionally, issues raised in the affidavit were previously decided and are barred by res judicata.
15 Dec 2023

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow 2. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi

Citation

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the ex‑parte leave orders and dismissed the plaintiff's ex‑parte committal applications because the plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants committed contempt: key evidence was inadmissible or not before the court, the plaintiff materially failed to disclose relevant facts in the ex‑parte applications, and there was no adequate proof of intent or real risk to the administration of justice from the alleged false address.
18 May 2022

1. ) Chan Eng Leong 2. ) Chong Bee Choo 1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd 3. ) Goh Kim Heong 4. ) Goh Choon Seong 5. ) Goh Kooi Cheng 6. ) Sinar Suria Forwarding & Shipping

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-548-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-548-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that O.52 r.2B does not mandate a pre-notice personally served before an ex parte leave application; the consequential documents specified in O.52 r.4(3) constitute the notice and must be considered in context. Applying that construction and the facts, the appellants had established a prima facie case for contempt against respondents 1,2,4 and 5 and a prima facie case against respondent 6 in relation to interference with company affairs, but not against the 7th respondent (freight forwarder) who acted in good faith. Enclosure 59 (committal application) is remitted to…
18 Feb 2021

TAN POH LEE TAN BOON THIEN

Citation

02(i)-45-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-45-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Order 52 Rule 2B does not mandate a separate prior notice to show cause before filing an ex parte leave application under Order 52 Rule 3; the notice contemplated in Rule 2B is the notice/documents tied to Order 52 Rule 4(3) and arises after initiation of contempt proceedings; the Court of Appeal erred in construing Rule 2B as requiring a pre-filing notice.
13 May 2020

LOKMAN NOOR BIN ADAM (NO. K/P: 730101-01-5215) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

W-05-19-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-19-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Order 52 r.2B must be read literally as requiring a personal notice to show cause to be given before any application for leave; that requirement is satisfied by a pre‑action notice served by the putative applicant (such as MACC) and the rule does not mandate the notice to be issued by the court; the High Court correctly dismissed the appellant's application to set aside the leave and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the leave to commence committal proceedings.
14 Jan 2020

Dato’ Sri Gopal Sri Ram together with Tn. Ahmad Akram Bin Gharib, Tn. Mohamad Mustaffa Bin P. Kunyalam, Cik Deepa Nair Thevaharan & Cik Nadia Mohd Izhar Public Prosecutor [Attorney General’s Chambers] Bahagian Perundangan & Pendakwaan, Putr

Citation

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: WA-44-253-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: WA-44-253-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Order 52 r2B must be complied with as a step‑by‑step preliminary procedure before an application under r3; the Notice to Show Cause under r2B may be issued by a party other than the Court (including MACC/AG/private party); omission of s13 CJA in the intitulement was not fatal because Article 126 was cited; the r3(2) statement and affidavit were sufficiently particularised and not defective; accordingly the respondent's application to set aside the ex‑parte leave was dismissed.
30 Oct 2019

TAN BOON THIEN LOW CHOW YENG (F) TAN POH LEE TAN POH HUI TAN POH YEE

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2540-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2540-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Order 52 r.2B requires mandatory personal service of a formal notice to show cause in non-face-of-court contempts before any ex parte application for leave under r.3; failure to comply with r.2B renders subsequent leave proceedings invalid and is not cured by general procedural provisions; there is no requirement under Malaysian law for prior consent or service on the Attorney General for contempt proceedings initiated by a private party in civil proceedings.