Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of originating process

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

Bumi Armada Berhad Karen Nicola Lawrie

Citation

WA-22NCvC-66-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-66-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and statement of claim were cancelled because they had not been served for over four years, no permission to serve out of jurisdiction had been sought or obtained, and the Plaintiff provided no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the prolonged failure to effect service, rendering it just and proper to cancel the proceedings.
27 Aug 2025

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling 1. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 2. ) AISHAH BINTI ABDULLAH 3. ) JEHABAR ALI HUSSAIN KADER

Citation

BA-24NCvC-638-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-638-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No special circumstances were established to justify suspending the proceedings or execution; the third defendant had not appealed or applied to set aside the 13 June 2025 order, the matters relied upon are the subject of the separate suit Guaman 743, and granting a stay would prejudice the successful bidder and prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of its judgment; accordingly the application is dismissed with costs RM2,000.
22 Apr 2025

Megatech Electrical Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Liew Ching Ding (berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AC Electrical)

Citation

KF-A72NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KF-A72NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Service was properly effected: writ and statement were sent to the defendant's last known business address as per SSM search and acknowledged by AR signed by a person at that address; the defendant failed to rebut that the recipient was a representative and failed to provide evidence of an address change. The proposed defence was a bare assertion without supporting evidence and lacked merit. Therefore the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed with costs.
27 Sept 2023

Heo Joon Siong 1. ) Yap Kong Yeaw 2. ) Dato Sri Ngu Tieng Ung

Citation

BA-22NCC-151-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-151-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the default judgment was irregular due to failure to exhibit the AR card, ex debito justitiae does not automatically entitle the Second Defendant to relief; his stated defences lack merit and he failed to provide cogent reasons for delay under Order 42 r13, therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
21 Jun 2022

Shuit Wai Yee Fam Lee Ee

Citation

WA-24F-164-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-164-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte order dated 2 June 2021 was set aside because the originating summons was not served (so the Respondent had no knowledge of the proceedings) and because the Applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts; the exemption application must therefore be heard inter partes and the Respondent ordered to file an affidavit in reply.
7 Oct 2021

1. ) MOHD FARIS BIN ISMAIL (berniaga di atas nama dan gaya Greenjingga Enterprise (no pendaftaran perniagaan-201203241671 (JM0635883-P) 2. ) NURASILAH BINTI SAHIDAN 3. ) AZAHARUDDIN BIN ALAODIN FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Citation

JA-12ANCC-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCC-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service by registered post to the defendants' last known addresses in accordance with the contractual clauses was proper and created a presumption of service; the defendants failed to notify changes of address and the identity of the recipient was immaterial; the First Defendant's later email admitting the debt and proposing payments constituted an admissible admission under Evidence Act s21 and defeated any prima facie defence; therefore the judgment in default was regular and there was no arguable defence on the merits, so the appeal was dismissed.
25 Aug 2021

ONG BING HONG 1. ) CHONG WAI KUAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA

Citation

NA-17D-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-17D-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements in the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Appeal) Rules 1994 — specifically failure to serve a stamped originating motion within the prescribed period, failure to pay the RM500 deposit to obtain the appeal record and failure to file the appeal record within the statutory period — is fatal and justified dismissal of the originating motion; accordingly Lampiran 4 was allowed and Lampiran 1 dismissed with costs.
10 Jul 2020

Jeganathan a/l Paramachivain Liberty Insurance Berhad

Citation

PA-12A-9-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-9-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court was wrong to treat itself as functus officio; O28 r4(1) permits rehearing of orders made in absence. The proviso to s96(3) RTA confers a statutory right on third parties to be made parties and to contest, thus privity does not bar the appellant. Courier service to a known address is equivalent to personal/AR service and was prima facie effective; absence of proof that the appellant personally received the declaratory order meant the 30‑day period under O42 r13 had not commenced so there was no inordinate delay. The appellant disclosed a bona fide defence on the merits (titl…
27 Feb 2020

YEOH ENG CHUI 1. ) SARAWANAN A/L SHANMUGAN 2. ) ELLAMATHI A/P CHELLAPAN

Citation

WA-24NCVC-653-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-653-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the originating process and supporting affidavit by registered post to the property address, with returned A.R. card signed by a defendant's relative, was adequate and complied with the Rules; defendants had knowledge of the proceedings and delayed unreasonably in seeking to set aside the default judgment; High Court Kuala Lumpur had jurisdiction; accordingly the application to set aside the orders dated 8.6.2018 and 26.2.2019 is dismissed and those orders are upheld.