Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reciprocal enforcement of judgments act 1958

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24-67-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24-67-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside registration fails because REJA confines grounds for setting aside to s.5(1) and the registering court must not re-litigate the merits of a final foreign judgment; the fact the Singapore judgment arose from gambling does not, by itself, offend Malaysian public policy where the judgment was rendered by a reciprocating superior court and the creditor was a licensed operator; forum shopping is not a recognised ground under s.5(1).
4 Mar 2026

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd Tan See Meng

Citation

WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately three years late without good reason so extension of time was not warranted; the public policy ground fails because registration of a final foreign judgment under REJA is distinct from initiating substantive proceedings to recover a gambling debt and REJA's s.5(1)(a)(v) must be applied narrowly; alleged Evidence Act non-compliance is not a ground under REJA; costs RM 5,000 awarded to judgment creditor.
24 Jan 2024

URS ELLER CHEONG KIAT WAH

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Singapore judgments satisfied statutory and procedural requirements under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 and Rules of Court Order 67; the certified documents and particulars were in order, the published Bank Negara exchange rate nearest to the judgment date could be applied (court accepted 5.5.2022 for the SGD18,344 item), and there was no proper basis to refuse registration or admit late affidavit; registration was therefore granted with specified sums, interest and costs, and with the statutory 14-day window for the defendant to apply to set aside.
19 Dec 2023

FLARE BUILDING MATERIALS LLC PEMBINAAN SPK SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2478-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2478-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the foreign (Abu Dhabi) judgment and translations were admissible and limitation was properly extended by part payments in 2021, the Plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove that the Defendant is the same legal entity as SPK–Abu Dhabi; absence of any probative evidence of identity/privity meant no cause of action against the Defendant and the Originating Summons must be dismissed.
19 Dec 2023

WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Abu Dhabi judgment was admissible as secondary evidence and the part payments constituted a fresh accrual so limitation did not bar the claim, the plaintiff failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that the defendant is the same entity as SPK–Abu Dhabi; absence of proof of privity/locus standi is fatal and therefore the originating summons must be dismissed.
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN PAE NATIONAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC BRILLIANCE INFORMATION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found prima facie evidence that petitioner is successor in title and an unpaid creditor, the statutory demand complied with statutory requirements and was not complied with, the winding up petition is not barred by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 because winding up is not execution and the US judgment is from a non‑reciprocating jurisdiction, and the petition was not plainly unsustainable; accordingly enclosure 5 (strike out) was dismissed and the petitioner was entitled to relief on the winding up petition as ordered.
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for the Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

Citation

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence petitioner demonstrated successor in title status and a prima facie unpaid debt evidenced by contracts, invoices and a foreign judgment; a winding up petition is not an execution of foreign judgment and REJA does not bar presentation of the petition where the foreign judgment was from a non‑reciprocating country; the statutory demand complied with statutory requirements creating a presumption of inability to pay; respondent failed to show a bona fide substantial dispute; enclosure 5 (strike out) dismissed and winding up order granted in the terms sought (paragraph 13(a),(b),(c…
28 Oct 2021

Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd (GDCL) [No. Sykt: 141671-T] 1. Schomi Engineering Bhd [No. Sykt: 111633-M] 2. Scomi Group Bhd {No. Sykt: 71212-A] 3. Dato' Mohd Shahrom bin Mohamad [No. K/P: 521015-06-5223] 4. Sammy Tse Kwok Fai [No. Passport: 53

Citation

22NCVC-137-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-137-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the court had jurisdiction under Order 23 because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Malaysia, the court exercised its discretion against ordering security: the plaintiff's claim was arguable and not to be decided at interlocutory stage, the plaintiff had not been shown to be impecunious to the point of denying justice, and reciprocal enforcement under REJA 1958 meant defendants had adequate means to enforce any judgment in India.
RAJU JAYARAMAN KERPAYA V ASSOCIATED ASIAN SECURITIES (PTE) LTD (DALAM PENYELESAIAN)

Citation

RAJU JAYARAMAN KERPAYA V ASSOCIATED ASIAN SECURITIES (PTE) LTD (DALAM PENYELESAIAN)
Court

Malaysian court

Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Order 67 (failure to draw and serve Form 145 order stating the period to apply to set aside, failure to serve and endorse notice of registration and to file affidavit of service) amounted to a clear and serious breach that rendered issuance of the bankruptcy notice premature and void; therefore the appeal was dismissed and the order setting aside the bankruptcy notice was confirmed.