Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nuisance

Legal area

Court

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.
18 Nov 2025

NOREDA BINTI MOHD NOOR 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN DUTARIA CONDOMINIUM 2. ) Ooi Joe Earn (Bagi Guaman Wa-a53-10-02/2025) 3. ) Roselina Selvanee (Bagi Guaman Wa-a53-8-01/2025)

Citation

WA-A52-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the plaintiff's documented history of repeated litigations, withdrawal of counsel due to unpaid fees, inability to pay solicitors' fees, and absence of credible evidence of ability to satisfy a costs order, the court exercised its discretion under Order 23 to require security for costs; the requested RM80,000 was reduced to a reasonable and proportionate sum of RM50,000 having regard to the consolidation of three suits and the circumstances of the case.
24 Sept 2025

Yeo Eng Lam Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL)

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1973-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1973-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons, though imperfectly cited, did not render the court without jurisdiction because the defect was procedural; however, the Plaintiff failed the necessity threshold under Order 24 r.7A as the Defendant and the nature of the complaint were known and the documents sought were not essential to identify a cause of action, meaning the application was an impermissible fishing expedition and must be dismissed.
18 Sept 2025

HOTEL 77 SDN BHD 1. ) PADUAN EKSKLUSIF SDN BHD 2. ) RAR ALAM BINA SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12B-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case because the critical report ID7 was not admitted as evidence (appellant did not call its maker or show reasonable efforts under s73A), adverse inference under s114(g) favored respondents, therefore trial judge's finding of no proven negligence was not plainly wrong and the appeal must be dismissed.
11 Aug 2025

HEIWA SANGYO SDN BHD 1. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNISAMY 2. ) MOHD BAHAROM BIN SAID 3. ) MUHD LUQMAN NULHAKIM BIN MOHD ZULKAPLI 4. ) INDKOM HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-506-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-506-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Plaintiff was the lawful tenant/occupier of Lot 1 (1-1-2022 to 31-12-2024) and that Defendants 1–3 unlawfully entered and interfered with Plaintiff’s business at the premises on specified dates (notably 5–12 December 2023), constituting trespass/nuisance; Plaintiff proved loss sufficient to award RM50,000 against Defendant 1 and costs of RM10,000 (subject to taxation); other claims were dismissed.
29 Jul 2025

YEOH THIAM SOON Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya

Citation

BA-25-28-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-28-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the Notice under s87(2) on the Applicant's solicitors did not comply with the mandatory modes of service in s120 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974; that procedural impropriety vitiated the Notice and warranted judicial intervention by quashing the Notice by certiorari.
8 Jul 2025

1. ) Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mazawati Osman 3. ) Low Koe Sei 4. ) Koh Mei Leng 5. ) Abdul Malek Bin Ahmad Zaini 6. ) Haironi Binti Raffaiee 7. ) Chong Sun Chan 8. ) Tong Yap Lan 9. ) Syarifah Aliza Binti Syed Azauddin 10. ) Juraimi Azaha

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1172-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1172-07/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's factual findings that the evidence linking the defendants' backfilling and RC wall to the flooding and structural damage was speculative and that substantial surface runoff from MRR2 and actions by third parties (JKR/TEGAS) materially contributed to the floods were not plainly wrong; plaintiffs failed to prove on balance of probabilities that defendants breached a duty of care or committed actionable nuisance or statutory breaches, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the High Court order is affirmed.
17 Mar 2025

SS MOTOR CENTURY SDN BHD 1. ) WAWASAN SINAR GEMILANG SDN BHD 2. ) KUA JUINN ONN 3. ) KUA JIUNN YEE 4. ) KUA GUAN CHAI 5. ) PHUN BOOI MOOI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-642-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-642-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the pleaded facts showed only a landlord–tenant relationship without employer–employee, agency or control over the tenant's business or machinery; accordingly vicarious liability could not attach and the claims were unsustainable on their face, permitting strike out under O.18 r.19(1) (also found to be frivolous/abusive).
4 Dec 2024

HO NYET FOONG LB LAND SDN BHD

Citation

C-02(IM)-1957-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

C-02(IM)-1957-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court interlocutory injunction because there was no serious question to be tried on nuisance given the orchard's long established use and lack of prior complaints and inspections showing no unlawful activity; any loss alleged by respondent was pure economic loss for which damages would be adequate; and the balance of convenience favoured the appellant because an injunction would risk irreversible damage to the orchard and crop if spraying were restrained.
10 Sept 2024

Ng Chiang Chong Heap Lee Chan Trading Company Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-12A-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found plaintiff failed to show a bona fide and serious issue to be tried: CCTV evidence did not substantiate alleged ongoing unlawful conduct, defendant as family member and shareholder had legitimate basis to enter premises, and plaintiff's nearly year-long delay in seeking relief was unreasonable; balance of convenience and adequacy of damages did not favor injunction. Therefore the Sessions Court injunction was wrongly granted and is set aside; appeal allowed with no order as to costs.