Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and amendment

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZAILANI 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI KEDAH 5. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)

Citation

KA-25-22-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-25-22-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where dismissal followed a proved Syariah criminal conviction the proviso to Article 135(2) and Regulation 33(1) dispense with a separate disciplinary hearing; the Disciplinary Board lawfully considered the court report, service record and head of department recommendation and acted within statutory powers; there was no procedural impropriety, no double jeopardy, no breach of duty of candour, and no Wednesbury unreasonableness—therefore the judicial review fails and is dismissed with costs.
30 Sept 2025

1. ) RATHA KRISHNAN 2. ) RAVENDRAM A/L DAVID JOSEPH 3. ) VASUGI A/P DAVID JOSEPH 4. ) RAGAVAN A/L DAVID JOSEPH 5. ) VASANTHARA DEVI A/P DAVID JOSEPH 6. ) GHETHALETCHIMI A/P DAVID JOSEPH TAN LAY ENG

Citation

KA-22NCvC-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to plead the PAA-based claim and to prove fraud or breach of trust; contemporaneous documents (Consent Letters, Order for Sale, settlement evidence, Land Administrator hearing note and Transfer Order) demonstrate the Deceased purchased the land through statutory sale processes, thereby acquiring an indefeasible title under the National Land Code which vested the compensation in him; plaintiffs did not rebut the presumption of regularity and failed to call the Land Administrator, so the claim is dismissed.
15 May 2025

M9 COMPLETE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai M7 Complete Technology Sdn Bhd) 1. ) KUM MENG WEI 2. ) SOLUMIE BINTI ODIAH 3. ) ARSHAD BIN ASRI 4. ) MILLIE JUSTINES BAHARUM

Citation

WA-22NCC-60-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-60-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of evidence the Plaintiff paid the agreed consideration for both 20% blocks as evidenced by contemporaneous documentation and admissions; the profit guarantee in the SHA is binding on the Defendants and the shortfalls for 2018–2020 as apportioned to Plaintiff's 40% shareholding total RM4,457,934.40, for which the Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
12 Nov 2024

KRUSHNA CUMAR ADCHARA 1. ) SANKAR ANNAMALAI A/L RAMANATHAN 2. ) RAMANATHAN A/L RMA ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR 3. ) RCS KHIDMAT SDN.BHD PIHAK TERKILAN MATHEW PHILIP A/L PHILIP KOSHY

Citation

WA-22NCC-277-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-277-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim failed to plead any cause of action or relief against the 1st Defendant beyond a passing reference; no facts were pleaded to justify piercing the corporate veil or imposing personal liability; plaintiff cannot enlarge the claim by reply; therefore on a prima facie reading the claim against the 1st Defendant was obviously unsustainable and was struck out under Order 18 r 19.
18 Jul 2024

VIJAYAN A/L S. CHINNASAMI 1. ) ADVANCED OPTRONICS DEVICES (ASIA) CO. LIMITED 2. ) LU, BRIAN LONG 3. ) GENTRY LOH GUO XIONG 4. ) YUNG SIEW PENG 5. ) CHAY YIN HO 6. ) MOHD HAZMIL BIN ABU BAKAR 7. ) ADVANCED OPTRONIC DEVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-1684-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-1684-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the MOU was subject to contract and the SSA was not executed by AODA, that AODA's due diligence disclosed substantial liabilities leading to AODA's settlement of NEC's claims and a consequent settlement arrangement under which shares were transferred; the judge was not plainly wrong in finding no binding contract in terms of the MOU/SSA, rejected misrepresentation and solicitor-retainer claims, and dismissed the appellant's claims and appeal.
24 Mar 2023

MALAYSIA BUILDING SOCIETY BERHAD 1. ) KAMUJA BULLION RESOURCES SDN BHD 2. ) KAMUJA CORPORATION SDN BHD 3. ) SUBHI BIN HAJI BAI 4. ) NABILAH BINTI SANUSI PIHAK TERKILAN SC CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-116-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-116-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the interim injunction because the Receiver & Manager’s appointment under a valid Debenture was unchallenged and the injunction would interfere with the receiver’s duties; damages were adequate and there was inordinate delay and lack of bona fides by the applicant. The court granted summary judgment for the lender because the Certificate of Indebtedness and contractual documentation established a prima facie entitlement and the defendants failed to raise any bona fide triable issues (allegations of fraud and mismanagement were vague, unparticularised and unsupported).
16 Mar 2023

Sinas Teknik Sdn Bhd Tetuan Foo Hiap Siong & Co.

Citation

BA-12B-69-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-69-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed in part because the Statement of Claim did not plead liability for invoices issued to other group companies nor plead particulars to lift the corporate veil or allege fraud; the trial judge erred in awarding sums for unpleaded invoices and in lifting the corporate veil. Only the invoiced amounts for services rendered to Sinas Teknik Sdn Bhd as pleaded are recoverable, totaling RM79,371.70; interest and trial scale costs to be adjusted and appeal costs RM7,000 awarded to the appellant.
29 Mar 2021

Tan Mei Yean Gooi Soo Hwa

Citation

PA-22NCvC-65-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-65-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was dismissed because the defects in pleadings were curable by amendment, the plaintiff had applied to amend to attach the original Facebook post and translations, and several contested points (applicability of s4, privacy/nuisance, exemplary/aggravated damages) raised questions of fact or law properly resolved at trial rather than summarily struck out.
4 Feb 2021

TECH ART SDN BHD METROPOLITAN BUMI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-10-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-10-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove liability for vehicle costs and the GFA claim insofar as those claims departed from the pleaded causes of action and relied on unpleaded collateral documents; insurance claim partially allowed for proven quantum only; Defendant established counterclaim that contract sum was reduced to RM63,018,535.83 by nominations to NSCs and proved amounts due (including payments made by Defendant to NSCs) so counterclaim of RM6,838,927.08 succeeded; Clause C.2 construed as 'pay‑when‑paid' (timing) not a condition precedent, so counterclaim not premature; set‑off allowed producing…