Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14a summary disposal

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

KL PETROGAS SDN BHD (DI BAWAH PENERIMAAN) 1. ) SA PUNCAK MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) LOH YOOK MUN 3. ) ELISSA KWAN RU HUI 4. ) KWAN YU WEN 5. ) LIM AIK TEONG 6. ) MOHD RUSLI BIN NGAH

Citation

WA-22M-787-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-787-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Pre-Factoring-i Facility was, in substance, unlicensed moneylending because advances were made prior to creation of specific receivables, repayment was full recourse, security included a general debenture, and profit was time-based akin to interest; therefore those portions are unenforceable under s.15 MLA. However, the Factoring-i Facility (purchase of existing invoices) was genuine factoring and enforceable. Despite unenforceability of the loan provisions, restitution of principal is permitted to prevent unjust enrichment; the pleadings against the non-executive directors disclosed argu…
18 Sept 2025

DAMAI 1516 HOMEOWNERS BERHAD LIM KIM LOONG

Citation

BA-A72NCvC-1524-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A72NCvC-1524-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the guarded community scheme and related DMC were unlawful and unenforceable because Plaintif lacked required registration/authority and failed to obtain MBSA approvals and comply with guidelines; consequently service charges levied were unlawful and refundable under Section 66 Contract Act 1950; the Plaintif's main claim was struck out under Order 14A and the defendant's counterclaim was ordered for trial; costs awarded to defendant RM2000.
17 Sept 2024

EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD 1. ) ITHMAAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD 2. ) ITHMAAR BANK B.S.C. 3. ) MAA GROUP BERHAD 4. ) TUNKU DATO' YAACOB KHYRA 5. ) TURIYA BERHAD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-441-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-441-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellant failed to discharge the evidential and legal burden: key witness absence and lack of expert valuation meant no case of undervalue; the 2nd Defendant lawfully exercised custodial/enforcement rights under the Share Charge and Custodian Agreement; Bursa rules compliance and Securities Commission findings defeated statutory securities claims; prior interlocutory rulings and appeal outcomes raised res judicata; accordingly there was no basis to disturb the High Court judgment and both appeals were dismissed with costs.
11 Sept 2024

HASHIM BANI BIN AB HAMID CHEVRON MALAYSIA LIMITED

Citation

DA-22NCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application under Order 14A is dismissed because material factual disputes exist as to contractual responsibility and causation for the underground tank leak and contamination which cannot be resolved without a full trial; some issues raised are also already determined by earlier interlocutory judgment engaging res judicata, thus the Order 14A criteria are not met and summary final disposal is inappropriate.
30 Jul 2024

YISHUN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) TAN SHEW KONG 2. ) CHONG SEE HEONG 3. ) CHUAH CHONG NGEE

Citation

JA-22NCvC-13-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-13-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court struck out the plaintiff's claim (allowed Defendants' Lampiran 9) because the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action: the fraud allegation was pleaded without required particulars, the dividend distribution occurred before any binding judgment and therefore, on the pleadings, did not demonstrate an intent to defeat that later judgment, and the plaintiff did not plead or establish status as a contingent creditor under s.540. Consequently the corporate veil could not be pierced and personal liability of directors was not established; the plaintiff's Or…
4 Dec 2023

Teoh Teik Ooi [ Identity Card No.: 550519075233 ] AMMETLIFE INSURANCE BERHAD [ Company No.: 15743-P ]

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-39-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant lacked locus standi and cause of action to pursue the MRTA policy because the policy was not listed as an asset of the deceased in the Form E schedule and the policy was held for AmBank as policyholder, therefore the claim could be dismissed under Order 14A as a question of law decided without full trial.
25 Aug 2023

IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BHD CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-176-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-176-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On undisputed documents and pleadings the SPA obligated the vendor to provide the basic infrastructure including water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lots and to deliver vacant possession upon completion; the vendor failed to complete and obtain statutory handover/acceptance such that permanent water supply was not available as pleaded; material facts were sufficiently undisputed to permit disposal under Order 14A; therefore the vendor breached Clauses 10 and 13 and is liable to liquidated damages calculated per the SPA formula and interest and costs as awarded.
31 May 2023

MOHD ZAIRUL IZHAM BIN MOHD ZARUDIN & 143 LAGI YANG LAIN SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-172-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-172-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the legal question was suitable for summary determination under Order 14A. The defendant had obtained and incorporated an extension to 48 months before the plaintiffs signed their SPAs; the plaintiffs signed and were bound by the amended clause. On the facts and documents before the court the extension was effective as between the parties and there was no breach by the defendant; consequently the LAD claims failed and the action was dismissed.
6 Mar 2023

GOH CHOON WHEY (Berniaga di atas nama dan gaya SIN WHEY TECH MOTOR TRADING (No Syarikat 199703037561/JM0259319-X) 1. ) KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) TEKAD URUS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-68-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-68-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where a court has declared a compulsory acquisition invalid and there is no successful appeal, the original registered owner retains equitable ownership and a tenant who remains in possession is estopped under s.116 Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title; accordingly the Sessions Court was correct to determine the issues under Order 14A and the respondents are entitled to recover outstanding rentals and interest.
26 Aug 2021

1. INTERPLEX HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. INTERPLEX SDN BHD 3. ITN RESOURCES SDN BHD 4. DAN 1 LAGI 1. TOSHIBA ELEVATOR AND BUILDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION 2. MS ELEVATOR SDN BHD 3. MS ELEVATOR ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

22NCC-694-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-694-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary disposal was dismissed because the status and effect of the Side Letter could not be resolved by document construction alone; the factual matrix surrounding the Side Letter was material and required examination, so the questions were not suitable for final determination under Order 14A ROC.