Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of notice of appeal

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-19-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-19-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal may strike out an appeal under its inherent power to prevent abuse of process where a notice of appeal cannot be served and there is no realistic prospect of hearing; the Court may subsequently reinstate such an appeal under its inherent power to prevent injustice (r 105 RCA read with r 1A RCA) when the appellant subsequently traces the respondent; upon reinstatement the Court has statutory discretion under s 56A CJA to issue a warrant and to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal; warrants issued by the Court are presumed regular under s 114(e) Evidence Act and challen…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that it may strike out appeals under its inherent power to prevent abuse of process where notice cannot be served and there is no prospect of hearing; it may later reinstate those appeals under its inherent power to prevent injustice read with r1A when the respondent is subsequently traced; once reinstated the Court had discretion under s56A CJA to issue a warrant and to grant bail to a respondent arrested under that warrant; s114(e) EA gives a rebuttable presumption of regularity to the issuance of the warrant; applying these principles the Court reinstated the eight appeals,…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that it may strike out a PP appeal when notice cannot be served and no reasonable prospect of hearing exists to prevent abuse of process (r105 RCA); the Court may reinstate a struck-out appeal when the respondent is later traced to prevent injustice (r105 read with r1A RCA); once reinstated the appeal is 'an appeal presented against an acquittal' and the Court has discretion under s56A CJA to issue a warrant and to remand or admit to bail; s114(e) EA creates a rebuttable presumption of regularity of the warrant; exercising its discretion under s56A the Court granted bail of RM7…
26 Nov 2024

PLATINUM PROSPERITY SDN. BHD. HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT HOLDING SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12B-91-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-91-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to prove 'sufficient reason' for absence and failed in professional duty to monitor court case management/EFS; late service of Notice of Appeal and failure to seek extension or timely inform court/respondent compounded the deficiency; therefore court refused to exercise discretion to restore appeal and dismissed application with costs.
7 Feb 2024

AT Engineering Solution Sdn Bhd Rank Electronics Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure to serve the Notice of Appeal on the respondent within the prescribed time under Order 55 r.3(4) is a fundamental, jurisdictional defect that renders the appeal incompetent and incurable; Order 55 r.13 does not empower the court to cure non-service of the Notice of Appeal; the appeal is therefore struck out.
3 Aug 2022

LAI NAM FOO HEALTHCON SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-23-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-23-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appeal was dismissed. The Notice of Appeal was served late and the appellant made no attempt to regularise the defect, exposing the appeal to being struck out; on the merits the Sessions Court findings were not plainly wrong: plaintiff proved it gave specific instructions and supplied sufficient materials, the defendant failed to deliver 20,000 gowns by the contractual due date causing plaintiff to engage a third party at higher cost, the defendant's anticipatory breach and 'work after paid' defences failed, and the plaintiff's claimed losses were established. The High Court therefore uph…
5 Jul 2022

1. ) TMT INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 2. ) XXXX 3. ) MD LEON FUAT METAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12ANCC-52-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-52-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Notice of Appeal was not served within the mandatory 14-day period under Order 55 Rule 5(2) ROC 2012; service and filing requirements are read together and non-service renders the appeal incompetent and incurable; absent cogent reasons the court will not grant an extension of time to file the Record of Appeal, therefore the Respondent's application to set aside the Notice of Appeal is allowed and the Appellants' application for extension is dismissed.
9 Jun 2022

1. ) SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD 2. ) PERBADANAN SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN JOHOR (SSI) 1. ) TOH HWEE LENG (ZHUO HUILING) 2. ) TEO SWEE HENG FREDERICK 3. ) WONG KIM HAUR 4. ) DAVION WONG SIN PHIEN (WANG XINGBIN) 5. ) YEO CHOON HIN MELVIN (YAO CUNXUN M

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for extension of time to file the ROA dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the five-month delay, failed to comply with directions and representations made to court, and failed to demonstrate any arguable case or defence; exercise of discretion refused and costs awarded to respondents.
17 Jul 2020

Rohman Norhakim bin Abd Aziz [Seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui bapanya Abdul Aziz bin Yatiman sebagai wakil litigasi beliau] 1. ) Ismail bin Mohd Yusak 2. ) Liberty Insurance Berhad [No. Sykt: 16688-K]

Citation

12B-49-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

12B-49-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because delay of six months was inordinate, applicant failed to provide good and substantial reasons (no affidavit or explanation from former solicitor), and failed to demonstrate that the appeal had some chance of success; absence of proven prejudice to respondent did not outweigh the first three factors, so discretion was refused.
10 Feb 2020

1. AZUAN BIN ADNAN 2. 99 SPEEDMART SDN BHD 1. TEOW SOO HONG (Menuntut Bagi Dirinya Sendiri Sebagai Isteri Yang Sah Serta Orang Tanggungan Kepada Tan Sun Seng, Simati) 2. TAN KOK ENG (Membawa Tuntutan Sebagai Anak Yang Sah Simati Dalam Kapas

Citation

BA-12B-124-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-124-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The duplicate notice of appeal was not validly served within the 14‑day period because service by email was not shown to be an agreed mode of service and O.55 r 3(4) requires strict compliance; consequently the appeal was incompetent and was struck out, and the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time because of delay, absence of satisfactory explanation and prejudice given the decision followed a full trial.