Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rules of court compliance

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike out application because the solicitors gave a reasonable explanation for filing the solicitors' affidavit and the deponents later properly affirmed their affidavits before a consular officer; the irregularities did not cause prejudice and were either cured or within the Court's discretion to remedy under Order 32 r 13 and Order 1A RoC 2012; accordingly the affidavits were accepted and the strike out failed.
1 Jul 2025

BOND M&E SDN. BHD. GAME ON FUN PARK (SOUTHERN) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons (Enclosure 1 in OS 3) was defective for non-compliance with mandatory Rules of Court requirements (intitulement and improper combination of stay and setting aside applications), GOF failed to establish a breach of natural justice or clear error by the adjudicator on the merits, the stay threshold under s.16 CIPAA was not met, and therefore the Court dismissed OS 3 and granted enforcement of the adjudication decision in OS 214 under s.28 CIPAA.
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.
17 Apr 2025

SATHISKUMAR A/L SURAS seorang budak berumur bawah 18 tahun menuntut melalui ibu yang sah iaitu NIRMALADEVI A/P MAHALINGAM 1. ) ARCHANA A/P LETCHUMANAN 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

BA-11B-28-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-28-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the extension because the delay was caused by counsel's ignorance of mandatory procedural requirements (a legal error), the applicant failed to provide cogent reasons to justify relief, Order 1A could not be invoked to remedy deliberate non-compliance with mandatory rules, and therefore the application to extend time to file the Record of Appeal was dismissed with costs.
21 Mar 2025

MAJU HEALTHCARE SDN BHD MERCU HARAPAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-192-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-192-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Adjudication Claim was validly served at the respondent’s registered and usual business addresses under s38(b) CIPAA; the respondent had notice and opportunity to participate but chose not to, therefore no breach of natural justice occurred; defects in the affidavit were corrected and caused no prejudice, and the statutory grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were not made out; accordingly the court dismissed the set aside application and allowed enforcement of the adjudication decision.
15 Oct 2024

1. ) CRAB CAR RESOURCES 2. ) SS LOUNGE ENTERTAINMENT SIM HOOI MOY

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court did not err in striking out the appellants' defence and counterclaim because they filed pleadings approximately nine months late in breach of the mandatory provision in Order 18 r 2(1), provided no reasonable explanation or application for extension, and the delay was excessive; absent plain error by the lower court, the appellate court will not interfere.
23 Jan 2024

PONEY GARMENTS SDN BHD BAMBIKA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-571-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-571-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Originating Summons was dismissed because it was fundamentally defective for failing to specify the enabling statutory provisions for the Fortuna injunction under Order 7 Rule 2(1A) ROC; on the substantive merits the debt was not bona fide disputed on substantial grounds because the Plaintiff had performed, accepted invoices and made payments for four years and is estopped from disputing liability; the Plaintiff failed to pay the statutory demand within 21 days and is therefore deemed unable to pay its debts under s466(1)(a) CA 2016; accordingly a Fortuna injunction was not warranted and…
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.
24 Jul 2023

1. ) MUHAMMAD RUSHDAN SYAFIQ BIN RUSLAN 2. ) ZURAIDA BINTI DZUKAFLY MUHAMMAD IBNUL QAYYUM BIN MOHD WAJIHAN

Citation

DA-12B-18-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-18-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 3 r.5 to grant an extension because the delay arose from an inadvertent typographical/filing error by counsel that was discovered early, the appellant took reasonable steps and notified the court, the mistake was not deliberate or indicative of flouting court rules, and allowing the extension would not cause unfair prejudice as costs could compensate any inconvenience; therefore the application was allowed with costs to be in the cause.
18 Jul 2023

ZARINA BINTI MOHD ALI Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP)

Citation

CA-12B-1-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-12B-1-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant delayed 16 days beyond the mandatory 14-day filing period, offered no reasonable or acceptable explanation (the delay was due to solicitor error), and the relevant discretionary factors did not support granting relief; strict compliance with the procedural time limit is required.