Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 52 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

BA-22NCVC-431-07/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-431-07/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court refused leave because the sole operative order for contempt was the Court of Appeal order dated 7 October 2020, that order was not personally served on the Defendant with a penal notice, the penal notice on an earlier High Court order cannot revive deleted terms, and the alleged acts concern temple-management paragraphs which the Court of Appeal had removed; consequently the strict requirements of Order 52 were not met.
21 Feb 2025

YAP TEAK SING LAI MING CHUN @ LAI POH LIN

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-57-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-57-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte leave granted to the Plaintiff was properly set aside because the Plaintiff failed to disclose material facts occurring after the Tribunal decision—specifically independent expert findings and a High Court determination that the leak had been rectified—which vitiated the fairness of the ex parte application; under Order 52 strict disclosure and procedural compliance are required and once leave is set aside the committal application lapses, therefore the appeals are dismissed.
21 Feb 2025

YAP TEAK SING LAI MING CHUN @ LAI POH LIN

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-58-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-58-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave obtained ex parte was properly set aside due to failure to disclose material facts arising after the Tribunal decision (independent expert confirmation and High Court finding of rectification); once leave is set aside the committal application is redundant and cannot proceed; strict compliance with Order 52 is mandatory.
17 Apr 2023

LAM BOURNE RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) LAMBOURNE ESTATE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM

Citation

BL-22NCvC-22-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-22-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The committal order was affirmed because the respondent complied with the procedural requirements under Order 52, the appellant was validly served and given opportunities to comply and to show cause but failed to do so, and therefore committal for contempt was a proper exercise of the court's power to protect the administration of justice.
1 Apr 2022

1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) JANNY CHEAH 3. ) LIM CHEW LIANG TAN HOO ENG

Citation

A-05-203-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-05-203-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held the committal proceedings complained of were civil contempt (breach of High Court order) governed by Order 52 Rules of Court 2012; accordingly the appellants were entitled to proceed under Order 18 RCA 1994 with the memorandum and appeal records they filed. The applications for abridgement of time (Encl.45 in A-05-202-05/2021 and Encl.39 in A-05-203-05/2021) were struck off and the appeal records filed on 16.6.2021 were directed to be used; each party to bear their own costs.
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.
15 Aug 2019

UTHAYAKUMAR A/L PONNUSAMY 1. ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL KASSIM (PENGARAH PENJARA KAJANG) 2. INSPEKTOR PENJARA KAJANG SAJIDEH BIN SAMIN 3. INSPEKTOR PENJARA KAJANG MCKENZIE

Citation

W-05-405-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-405-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the contested High Court directions were administrative and not enforceable orders; the contempt claimed was properly classified as civil and governed by Order 52 Rules of Court 2012; the appellant's leave application was fatally defective for failing to file the mandatory supporting statement under O.52 r.3(2); reinstatement would be futile given binding appellate rulings, so the High Court's refusal to reinstate was correct.

Malaysia Case Law

XXXX XXXX

YAP TEAK SING LAI MING CHUN @ LAI POH LIN

YAP TEAK SING LAI MING CHUN @ LAI POH LIN

LAM BOURNE RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) LAMBOURNE ESTATE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM

1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) JANNY CHEAH 3. ) LIM CHEW LIANG TAN HOO ENG

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

UTHAYAKUMAR A/L PONNUSAMY 1. ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL KASSIM (PENGARAH PENJARA KAJANG) 2. INSPEKTOR PENJARA KAJANG SAJIDEH BIN SAMIN 3. INSPEKTOR PENJARA KAJANG MCKENZIE