Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 53 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2025

Koh Lay Seong & Sons Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-142-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-142-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because there was no decision made by the Respondent to be quashed; the Applicant's letter did not amount to a deemed rejection or decision and no clear omission or refusal to act was established, hence no arguable case for certiorari and the application was frivolous and vexatious.
18 Jul 2023

1. ) TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN ZAINAL 2. ) DATUK MUSTAFHA BIN ABD RAZAK 3. ) DATUK RAHIM BIN YUNUS 1. ) LEMBAGA PENGARAH BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) MENTERI PEMBANGUNAN USAHAWAN DAN KOPERASI 3. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 4. ) K

Citation

W-01(A)-127-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-127-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the Minister's decision rejecting termination of Act 202 was communicated on 16.4.2019, the applicants filed out of time and failed to show good reason for an extension; additionally the Minister's decision under s31 is a discretionary policy decision entrusted to the executive and thus non-justiciable, so the High Court correctly denied leave and the Court of Appeal affirms that decision.
17 May 2023

1. ) MOHAMMAD SHAKRY BIN YAACOB 2. ) NILA KESUMA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 1. ) ROHANA BINTI HASAN 2. ) KETUA PENDAFTAR MAHKAMAH SYARIAH PAHANG 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

Citation

CA-25-7-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-25-7-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Civil High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or set aside decisions of the Syariah High Court and Syariah Court of Appeal in respect of matters within Syariah jurisdiction (here, division of matrimonial assets), and the Syariah courts' orders in the present context do not amount to decisions of a public authority amenable to judicial review under Order 53; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed with costs.
13 Dec 2022

NORASLINDA BINTI MOHAMED ISMAIL UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Citation

JA-25-15-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-15-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications for leave were dismissed because the court found the dispute to be a private contractual matter between the applicants and UTM lacking the requisite public law element, the applicants failed to establish an arguable case for judicial review, and the use of Order 53 was misconceived and constituted an abuse of process.
21 Feb 2022

CHEN, WEN-CHIN 1. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI 2. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to establish good reason to extend time under Order 53 r 3(6)/(7); the impugned decisions by R1 and administrative reply by R2 were not final or amenable to judicial review because a statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax exists; no very exceptional circumstances, jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice were shown; therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the application for extension of time and leave was dismissed with costs.
29 Apr 2021

1. Loo Chuan Li (P) (No. K/P: 880816-01-5252) 2. Mah Shee How (No. K/P: 830805-01-5449) Bayou Management Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 64670-K)

Citation

JA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time was refused because applicants were 21 days late in filing the mandatory O.53 r.3(2) statement, failed to demonstrate a 'good reason' for the delay (solicitor was able to take instructions and file other documents during the period), and the mandatory timelines and requirements under Order 53 must be enforced; therefore discretion to extend time was not properly exercised in applicants' favor.
24 Mar 2021

DETIK HARTAMAS SDN BHD KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

WA-25-528-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-528-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment application was dismissed because it did not contain any prayer for extension of time; the applicant failed to account for the delay and the proposed amendment was out of time and not a new matter under Order 53 r7; Order 1A cannot cure the mandatory requirements of Order 53 r3(6); accordingly the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the out‑of‑time amendment and refused to enlarge the reliefs after leave had been granted.
29 Nov 2020

CHRISTOPHER CHUNG CHUN KIT (kanak-kanak yang memohon melalui Chung Siew Fei-Bapa kandung) 1.PEGUAM NEGARA 2.KETUA PENDAFTARAN KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN MALAYSIA

Citation

KA-32-2-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-32-2-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the applicant failed to follow the proper mode — no leave obtained under Order 53 and the matter was premature as no decision had been made by the registration authority; the applicant also failed to exhaust the alternative administrative remedy under Article 15A and therefore did not satisfy the cumulative prerequisites for mandamus under s44 SRA.
27 Aug 2020

Yahaya bin Wahi Tan Sri Dr Khair bin Mohamad Yusof (Dinamakan Diatas Kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran) dan 3 lagi

Citation

AB - 25 - 5 - 11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 25 - 5 - 11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal to the Court of Appeal is premature and statutorily barred because the High Court's grant of certiorari did not finally dispose of the parties' rights while assessment of damages (emoluments/back pay) remained pending; therefore section 67(1) Act 91 does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal until a final order including damages is made and the High Court is not functus officio until that final determination.