Malaysia Case Law

12 Jun 2023

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) MOHD SAZALI BIN SALAMAT 2. ) KL-KUALA SELANGOR EXPRESSWAY BERHAD

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-11BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 28(1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is to be applied by reference to the adjudged sum of the subordinate court; because the adjudged sum here was RM500 (≤ RM10,000) and no question of law was properly pleaded in the Notice or Memorandum of Appeal, the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed.

• Section 28(1) courts of judicature act 1964 interpretation
• Threshold for appeals
• Question of law
• Adjudged sum versus claimed sum
• Preliminary objection

19 Dec 2022

TETUAN MANJIT & CO. KHOR OOI TIT (K.P. NO. 751214-07-5057)

Citation

PA-12A-38-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA-12A-38-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that 'getting up fees' are appealable but the relevant 'amount in dispute' under s.28 CJA is the adjudged sum decided by the subordinate court (here RM10,000 allowed); because that sum is RM10,000 or less and the notice contained no question of law, the High Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.

• Section 28 courts of judicature act 1964
• Section 68 courts of judicature act 1964
• Getting up fees
• Notice of appeal
• Question of law
• Amount in dispute threshold

10 Nov 2022

KOLEJ UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN MUHAMMAD BIN OMAR

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-72-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-11ANCvC-72-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was incompetent and dismissed because the amount in dispute (the adjudged sum) was RM3,000, below the RM10,000 threshold in s.28(1) CJA, and the appellant failed to raise any question of law (a matter of legal principle rather than application of law to facts); accordingly the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

• Section 28(1) courts of judicature act 1964
• Question of law
• Amount in dispute/value of subject-matter threshold
• Inclusion of interest and costs
• Interpretation of contractual bonus notice

14 Apr 2021

LEE LAI FATT (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) CHONG CHEW LAN (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-12A-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JB-12A-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed as incompetent because the appellant failed to show the value in dispute exceeded RM10,000 and did not formulate a question of law; therefore section 28 CJA barred the appeal and the High Court would not interfere with the Sessions Court's discretionary award of costs absent a demonstrated error of law.

• Costs assessment
• Order 59 rule 22
• Taxation of costs (order 59 rule 16)
• Section 28 courts of judicature act 1964
• Question of law
• Striking out (order 18 rule 19)

KC Chan

Citation

KC Chan

Court

Malaysian court

High Court has jurisdiction only on questions of law for awards under RM10,000; after scrutiny the court found four issues raising questions of law and decided: failure to give clause 23 notice did not bar common law claims; magistrate validly awarded compensation above initial pleaded limit because limitation was abandoned; statutory sale agreements require approved plans to be annexed and plans are deemed part of the contract (developer cannot benefit from omission); issuance of CFO does not prevent contractual or common law claims for defects. Consequently the 26 appeals were dismissed and…

• Appeal jurisdiction
• Question of law
• Breach of contract
• Defect liability
• Sale and purchase agreement
• Housing developers (control & licensing) regulations