Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary objections

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2025

TRESENERGY SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN YA'AKOB 2. ) MTC ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Both preliminary objections dismissed: the Sanction was validly issued by the Official Receiver and Liquidator under s.486 CA 2016 and Part I of the Twelfth Schedule, Dato' Hafidz as contributory had authority to affirm the affidavits (Sanction copy/communication and lack of challenge by other contributory), and the Defendants waived any objection by participating in the assessment hearings and failing to raise the complaint earlier.
7 Oct 2025

KH-BASE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah

Citation

PA-24NCvC-469-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-469-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Affidavit Pembetulan was a bona fide correction of an erroneous exhibit that introduced no new facts and caused no prejudice, the Form 16D dated 12 January 2024 was duly served on the applicant at multiple addresses, and the Land Administrator complied with s262 by proceeding ex parte when satisfied summons was properly served; accordingly there was no breach of statutory duty or natural justice and the Order for Sale was valid.
24 Apr 2024

1. ) CHAM TIAN JUN 2. ) CHAN CHOO KEE 3. ) CHAN CHOON LOONG 4. ) CHAN FAH LOON 5. ) CHAN KOWNG CHENG 6. ) CHAN NGAN THAI 7. ) CHAN WAN HENG 8. ) CHEE TAI YEP 9. ) CHEN YENG KONG 10. ) CHEONG CHAU MENG 11. ) CHIANG HAN FEI 12. ) CHIANG HOI W

Citation

CA-25-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-25-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that although the Court of Appeal had already found the applicants to be 'adversely affected' for leave, on substantive review the applicants failed to show illegality, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety in the decisions to issue eviction notices or in the State's award of lease to R6 and the Land Legalisation Scheme; many applicants were squatters with no legal/equitable rights, the notices were lawful administrative actions under relevant statutes and the scheme was not tainted; therefore the judicial review applications were dismissed and reliefs denied.
3 Mar 2024

RISDA FLEET SDN BHD 1. ) MD ASRUL BIN ABD HAMID 2. ) MOHAMAD EZAM BIN MOHAMAD 3. ) MOHD YUSRI BIN HAMIN 4. ) Mohamad Edzuan Bin Idris

Citation

JB-24-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the extension because the delay of 428 days was inordinate; plaintiff failed to give good and cogent reasons for the delay; plaintiff did not name or serve the 2nd–4th respondents and could have amended the title instead of withdrawing; plaintiff failed to disclose merits or produce supporting documents (including the Labour Court award); granting such a long extension would prejudice employee respondents. Therefore discretion to extend time was not exercised in plaintiff's favour and the application was dismissed with costs.
28 Mar 2022

PERWAKILAN CEKAP SDN. BHD. 1. ) Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Tenaga Kerja Semenanjung Malaysia 2. ) PEJABAT TENAGA KERJA PELABUHAN KLANG 3. ) NUR ATIQAH BINTI JAMALUDDIN 4. ) GUNASEELAN A/L KRISHMAN 5. ) VASUDEVAN A/L VELAYUTHAM

Citation

WA-25-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the ADL's ruling was procedural and not a final decision amenable to judicial review; the factual issues of employment status and the applicability of the arbitration clause must be determined after a full inquiry under s69 of the Employment Act, and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court to continue the inquiry on the merits.
25 Oct 2020

Mohd Azrin bin Mohd Amin 1. Public Bank Berhad 2. Mahkamah Perusahaan

Citation

JA-25-10-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-10-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Chairman's decision/orders of 30.9.2019 amounted to an "award" under section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967; the applicant's challenge to those orders was therefore subject to the three‑month time limit in O.53 r.3(6) and was filed out of time; independently, the application failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (O.53 r.3(2) pleading of grounds and O.41 r.11 exhibits), so the judicial review application was defective and must be dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

TRESENERGY SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN YA'AKOB 2. ) MTC ENGINEERING SDN BHD

KH-BASE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah

1. ) CHAM TIAN JUN 2. ) CHAN CHOO KEE 3. ) CHAN CHOON LOONG 4. ) CHAN FAH LOON 5. ) CHAN KOWNG CHENG 6. ) CHAN NGAN THAI 7. ) CHAN WAN HENG 8. ) CHEE TAI YEP 9. ) CHEN YENG KONG 10. ) CHEONG CHAU MENG 11. ) CHIANG HAN FEI 12. ) CHIANG HOI W

RISDA FLEET SDN BHD 1. ) MD ASRUL BIN ABD HAMID 2. ) MOHAMAD EZAM BIN MOHAMAD 3. ) MOHD YUSRI BIN HAMIN 4. ) Mohamad Edzuan Bin Idris

PERWAKILAN CEKAP SDN. BHD. 1. ) Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Tenaga Kerja Semenanjung Malaysia 2. ) PEJABAT TENAGA KERJA PELABUHAN KLANG 3. ) NUR ATIQAH BINTI JAMALUDDIN 4. ) GUNASEELAN A/L KRISHMAN 5. ) VASUDEVAN A/L VELAYUTHAM

Mohd Azrin bin Mohd Amin 1. Public Bank Berhad 2. Mahkamah Perusahaan