Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and delay

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

UNIQUE STEEL & HARDWARE SDN BHD EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-360-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-360-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed amendments (other than paragraph 26A) arise from the same factual substratum anchored on the DCT Insurance policy and alleged representations, do not change the character of the suit, and any prejudice is compensable by costs; paragraph 26A (breach of statutory duty) is disallowed because it fails to identify the statute, provision or material facts required to plead that cause of action.
5 Feb 2026

HASSIM BIN YAHAYA 1. ) EZS MOTORSPORT SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ISKANDAR BIN PATHI PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Noor Ismahanum Binti Mohd Ismail 2. ) Mohamad Ismahanif Bin Mohd Ismail

Citation

AA-A72NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court set aside the third party notice against PK2 and allowed PK2's interlocutory application because the defendant's asserted claim against PK2 was not a bona fide indemnity or contribution claim suitable for third party procedure but an independent dispute (allegations of representation, knowledge and deceit) that would expand issues, cause prejudice to the plaintiff and delay the main action; therefore the appropriate course is for any claim against PK2 to be brought separately (Order 16 r6 and Order 42 r13 applied).
10 Nov 2025

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) TEBRAU BAY CONSTRUCTIONS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ISKANDAR WATERFRONT CITY BERHAD 3. ) TEBRAU BAY SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI KPRJ NUSANTARA SDN BHD) PIHAK KETIGA PEMBINAAN HAMID ABD RAHMAN SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. )

Citation

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to issue a fifth‑party notice (Annexure 303) was dismissed because the fourth party had not filed any defence or pleadings enabling the court to assess liability or quantum against the proposed fifth party, and because permitting joinder at the current trial stage would prejudice the proposed fifth party and delay disposal of the main action; third‑party issues can be litigated independently if necessary.
3 Nov 2025

SANKAR A/L SUBRAMANIAM (Sebagai Orang Ketidakupayaan Yang Mendakwa Melalui Wakil Litigasi Gandi Madhi A/P Munusamy) ANUM BINTI HASSAN (Ibu saudara yang sah mendakwa sebagai seorang tanggungan dan benefisiari harta pusaka (simati) Muhammad Z

Citation

KF-B53KJ-1-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KF-B53KJ-1-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Court refused the defendant's application to admit the police report because the significant delay in filing and seeking admission would prejudice the plaintiff by forcing the recall of witnesses and prolonging a long‑running trial; the report was not necessary to resolve the issue of plaintiff's mental capacity given existing expert reports and evidence, and admission at this late stage would unfairly delay and burden the proceedings.
3 Jan 2025

RAINBOW WELLPACK SDN BHD YONG SU LING

Citation

BL-22NCvC-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused both applications: Lampiran 39 (use of the supporting affidavit) was rejected because the affidavit lacked the required translation jurat and was therefore defective under Order 41, meaning the court could not be satisfied the deponent understood the affidavit; Lampiran 33 (admission of additional document bundles) was rejected for non-compliance with case management directions and for being filed at the last minute without reasonable explanation, causing potential prejudice and undermining case management. Costs of RM3,000 were ordered for each application.
28 Nov 2024

PRETIP A/L PERUMAL HENG FOOK BOON

Citation

WA-A73KJ-1016-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73KJ-1016-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendment sought to change a material fact central to the plaintiff's claim (the identity of the liable party), thereby altering the essence of the case and introducing a new issue late in the proceedings; the defendant had misused Order 20 instead of appropriate misjoinder or substitution procedures, offered no exceptional justification for delay, and the amendment would prejudice the plaintiff and disrupt an already fixed trial date.
21 Aug 2024

EKVE SDN BHD 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH, DAERAH GOMBAK 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) PRISTINE POWER SDN BHD 5. ) CHRISTINE CHIN SIEW LIN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for discovery was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were relevant and necessary to the issues before the court, the requests were overly broad and nonspecific amounting to a fishing expedition, and the applicants’ delay in filing the application was prejudicial to the respondent; therefore discovery was not justified and was refused with costs.
15 Dec 2023

Techware Enterprise Sdn Bhd Tan Yang Tee

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-25-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-25-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's delay was excessive, explanations were not cogent, and granting an extension would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff that cannot be compensated by costs; accordingly the extension of time is refused, the notice of appeal is incompetent and struck out, and the stay of execution is dismissed.
12 Sept 2023

TAN PEK HAN TJM SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN POSCO INTERNATIONAL MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-100-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-100-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend was dismissed because it was filed and not disposed before the final case management deadline in breach of explicit court directions, causing undue prejudice and delay; the Court exercised its case management powers under Order 34 to refuse the late application and, in any event, the discretionary test under Order 20 r.5 did not favor allowing a prejudicial three‑year afterthought addition of a counterclaim.
26 Nov 2020

UE E&C SANJIA (M) SDN. BHD. [NO.SYARIKAT:1023369-T ] SUBRAMANIAM A/L M. VELOO [ NO.K/P: 550619105655 ]

Citation

JA-A72NCVC-1214-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCVC-1214-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Application to amend was dismissed and supporting affidavits struck out because defendant failed to regularize defectively sworn affidavits, the proposed amendments were mala fide/afterthoughts that introduced new facts and claims changing the character of the defence, caused prejudice to plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs, and were filed with unjustified delay after pleadings closed and trial preparation completed.