Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary objection

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

Bukit Kiara Properties Services Sdn Bhd Gunalan & Associates PIHAK KETIGA VERVE SUITS MONT' KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (VSMKMC)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-142-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-142-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide a cogent and reasonable explanation for filing the amendment at the first day of trial after a prolonged delay, the application was held to be a tactical afterthought that changed the identity of the defendant rather than a mere technical correction and would prejudice the defendant; accordingly leave to amend was refused and costs awarded.
9 May 2025

Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heights Condominium A

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-12-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-12-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Order 55 r.3(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 is mandatory; the Appellant failed to apply for the grounds of judgment within the prescribed period and did not provide a justified reason for the omission; Order 1A cannot cure an intentional or unexplained failure to comply with a mandatory rule; accordingly the preliminary objection succeeds, Enclosure 25 is dismissed with costs and the appeal is struck off as not properly before the court.
8 May 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi 2. ) Messrs. Thomas Philip

Citation

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that even if there was a technical non‑compliance with O.41 r 1(4), no substantial miscarriage of justice or prejudice was occasioned; therefore the affidavit should not be expunged and the Plaintiff's application to reject the affidavit (Encl.29) was dismissed with costs. Technical non-compliance alone is insufficient to deny admissibility of an affidavit where justice is served by admitting it.
23 Jul 2024

[ ] AFIQ AFIZI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

KA-45-22-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45-22-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court ruled defence preliminary objection to multiple charges was without merit because prosecutorial discretion permits separate charges for distinct scheduled drugs found in a sample; however at close of prosecution the court found material and unexplained discrepancies in the chain of custody and identity of exhibits (markings, dates, delivery/receipt records, newspaper wrappers, and motorcycle evidence) that created reasonable doubt as to identity and possession, thus prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case and the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to ent…
10 May 2024

HOCK SENG TRADING & CONSTRUCTION HONGLER ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-144-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-144-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, lacked locus standi to sue in the business name; therefore Originating Summons No. WA-24C-144-09/2023 was dismissed because a sole proprietor must sue in his own name trading as the business and the adjudication naming the business does not cure this defect.
24 Apr 2024

1. ) FIRDAUS KHAN BIN PARIT KHAN 2. ) ANITA AWAT RAM BINTI ABDULLAH CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

W-02(A)-475-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-475-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court exercised its discretionary power under r 93 RCA to grant the extension of time and leave to file the supplementary record of appeal containing the High Court written judgment and the memorandum of appeal because the delay was caused solely by non-availability of the High Court written judgment, no substantial miscarriage of justice to the respondent was shown under r 3A, and non-compliance with r 18(7) alone does not mandate dismissal given r18(7A), r102 and the court's duty to regard the justice of the case; the broad grounds in Aliff Syukri were held per incuriam and not binding…
11 Mar 2024

ONG TEONG KHOON ONG TIONG HWA

Citation

PA-22NCvC-43-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-43-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt at the time he commenced the suit and had not obtained the prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency as required by Insolvency Act 1967 s38(1)(a); therefore he lacked capacity to maintain the action and the suit was a nullity to be struck out in limine; the preliminary objection could be entertained despite absence of prior notice because it went to jurisdiction and there was no unfair surprise.
27 Jul 2023

Aliff Syukri Bin Kamarzaman Mohamad Syazwan Bin Shuhaimi

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-695-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-695-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that Order 18 Rule 7 is mandatory and requires the memorandum of appeal to be filed together with the record of appeal; Rule 7A is not an exception to that requirement, the appellant offered no reasonable explanation for non-filing, and therefore the appeal is to be struck out with costs.
7 Jul 2023

CHAN KOK POH [TIMBALAN ]

Citation

J-05-25-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

J-05-25-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the preliminary objection and held the High Court's affirmation of the Sessions Court order calling the appellant to enter his defence was an interlocutory ruling that did not finally dispose of the parties' rights and therefore was not a 'decision' within s3 CJA; appeals against such interlocutory rulings are incompetent and must be struck out, so the appeals were dismissed and the cases remitted to the Sessions Court for trial to continue.
22 Jun 2023

VICNASWARY A/P MUNIANDY @ MURUGIAH KETUA PENGARAH PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL

Citation

BA-16-22-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-22-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because it was filed after the 60‑day period prescribed by section 91(3) ESSA 1969 and there was no application before the court for an extension of time to regularise the late filing; notice of the preliminary objection had been given and the statutory limitation was decisive.