Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre‑trial case management

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM WEI JIA 2. ) LIM WOOI TEE MENTOR PUBLISHING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-1727-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-1727-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant's unexplained and deliberate non-compliance with the Court's peremptory pre-trial directions (unless order), together with failure to seek extension or provide timely affidavit, justified invocation of Order 34 r.2(3); the Defendant's late unauthorised affidavit was disregarded and the Plaintiffs' application in K.45 is allowed with costs.
1 Dec 2025

1. ) HO SZE KEEN 2. ) TOH OOI PENG 3. ) SURIA FIRST HOLDINGS SDN BHD ARA HILL JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Citation

BA-22NCvC-464-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-464-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and statement of claim were dismissed because plaintiffs, despite repeated directions and ample time, failed to file essential pre-trial documents and their counsel offered no reasonable or affidavit‑supported explanation; under Order 34 the court is empowered to dismiss actions for such non‑compliance and no application to set aside the order was made at the High Court as required by Order 32 r 5.
3 Nov 2025

Surrealist Communities (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) Potensi Mestika Construction Sdn Bhd 2. ) Lai Chor Kheong 3. ) Lai Tuck Ken

Citation

WA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to amend was dismissed because it was made at a very late stage (two and a half years after filing and less than one month before trial) without any cogent explanation for the delay; allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendants and disrupt scheduled trials contrary to the case management objectives articulated in Hong Leong Finance v Low Thiam Hoe.
7 Oct 2025

DATO' DR LEE AIK HENG 1. ) JONATHAN TAN BOON SIANG 2. ) GLOBAL VISION LOGISTICS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-23NCvC-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because Suit 16 and Suit 18 arise from different causes of action, seek different reliefs and do not involve the same parties or common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance; additionally the plaintiff filed the consolidation application after pre‑trial matters were completed causing unacceptable delay and prejudice to parties in Suit 16.
13 Aug 2025

UTHAYAKUMARI A/P KARUNAKARAN 1. ) CHOON SHEE CHIEN 2. ) CHOON SHEE FOONG

Citation

BA-12A-57-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-57-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Reinstatement was refused because the appellant's non-appearance formed part of a pattern of pre-trial non-compliance, and reinstatement would extinguish the respondent's absolute limitation defence under s.7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 causing irremediable prejudice; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the struck-out action remains so.
21 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN KONG WAN LOOI 1. ) ONG POO LEE 2. ) CHEN VIN CI

Citation

JA-33-534-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-534-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellant's solicitors flagrantly failed to comply with mandatory pre-trial directions and an unless order, offering no cogent justification; established authorities permit striking out for such contumelious non-compliance and consequently the Court struck out Enclosure 1 and allowed R1's Cross Petition with the specified orders.
18 Jul 2025

TETUAN JUBLIN TAN & TEY 1. ) WONG SEK ER 2. ) TEY POH CHOON 3. ) HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to comply with clear pre-trial filing directions under Order 34 for approximately ten months without a satisfactory explanation; under Order 34 and supporting authorities an unless/self-executing order permits the court to strike out non-compliant proceedings; therefore the amended writ and amended statement of claim are struck out to prevent undue delay in the administration of justice.
14 Jul 2025

WONG SIAH KUAN 1. ) LOW JEN HAE 2. ) Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCvC-301-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-301-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the setting aside application was filed within the 30-day period under Order 42 r13, the High Court properly exercised its powers under Order 34 to strike out the plaintiff's claim for repeated non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions; accordingly the application to set aside the strike-out was dismissed.
19 Jun 2025

ADVANCED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-554-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-554-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application refused because Defendant filed the amendment well beyond a court-ordered timetable without justification, the amendment was a tactical manoeuvre inconsistent with the pleaded Defence and raised facts the Defendant knew earlier, supporting affidavits relied on hearsay and lacked personal knowledge, and the balance of prejudice favoured the Plaintiff; costs awarded to Plaintiff RM3,000 subject to allocatur.
14 May 2025

Haziq Hakimi Bin Hussin 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor 2. ) TETO ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12A-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the trial judge: the amendment applications were filed at a very late stage without adequate explanation, amounted to an afterthought that would change the pleaded version of events and risk prejudicing case management; accordingly leave to amend was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.