Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside application

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2025

PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD 1. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING (GROUP) CO LTD 2. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING GROUP MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-565-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-565-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found the appellant's demand on the performance bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and was operating, the appellant deliberately withheld the approved performance test report to avoid issuing provisional acceptance and sought to recover delay damages after benefiting from operation; consequently the High Court's grant of interim injunction and refusal to set aside the ex parte order were correct and both appeals were dismissed.
9 Jul 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ZAVARCO PLC PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN RANJEET SINGH SIDHU

Citation

WA-29NCC-687-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-687-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Bankruptcy Notice was valid: it expressly quantified the judgment sum and the amounts were within the judgment; costs and allocations at issue were part and parcel of the same final judgment and did not constitute an unlawful combination of multiple judgments; therefore the SAR rightly dismissed the application to set aside and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Apr 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow 2. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi

Citation

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2nd Defendant's application (Encl. 32) was dismissed because the ad interim injunction was granted inter-partes and extended pending disposal of the main application; the Court found Encl. 32 to be an abusive, duplicative attempt to obtain a second bite after the appeal was dismissed, and therefore the application failed and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
29 Oct 2024

XXXX Muthiyah A/l Seethambaram (Melalui Pentadbir Estetnya, Ravindra A/p K. Karuppiah) PENCELAH ONG KAY HO

Citation

WA-24FC-550-06/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24FC-550-06/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the Order for Sale was a perfected final order and the High Court was functus officio; the application was filed well outside the 30‑day period and the issues raised were barred by res judicata and estoppel, constituting an abuse of process; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the Order for Sale and awarded costs against the applicant (recorded as payable by the Defendant).
25 Mar 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CIMB BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Anuar Bin Ahmad

Citation

PA-29NCC-98-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-29NCC-98-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal fails because the judgment against multiple guarantors imposed joint and several liability permitting the creditor to pursue JD alone for the full judgment sum; the amounts stated in the BN and Amended CP were accurate when filed; dividends paid by the Insolvency Department after filing do not invalidate the petition so long as the remaining debt exceeds the statutory threshold and reductions will be addressed in proof of debt proceedings; JD failed to establish counterclaim/set‑off or other grounds to go behind the judgment, therefore the SAR's decision to allow proceedings stands.
15 Aug 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN PUA HUA KEONG PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN KANAGASUNDRAM A/L RAJOO

Citation

WA-29NCC-570-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-570-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The saving provision in the Amendment Act preserves the pre-amendment RM50,000 threshold for petitions filed before 01.09.2021; the debtor failed to file any affidavit within seven days of service of the bankruptcy notice so the act of bankruptcy crystallised on expiry of that period and the creditor's petition was validly filed; the debtor failed to prove payment to the creditor's solicitors as no documentary receipt was produced — therefore both applications to set aside the bankruptcy notice and to oppose the creditor's petition are dismissed.
5 Apr 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BEYOND HALLMARK SDN. BHD. PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN YAHNASEGARAN S GOVINDASAMY

Citation

WA-29NCC-836-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-836-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR correctly dismissed the application because it was filed under revoked Bankruptcy Rules and was incurably defective; substantively, the delay and errors in delivery of post-dated cheques amounted to breach of the consent judgment entitling the creditor to commence bankruptcy proceedings; the bankruptcy notice remained valid despite alleged excessive sums because the debtor did not give the statutory notice disputing the amount, therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs.
27 Feb 2023

GD BUILDERS SDN BHD CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-215-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-215-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudicator validly exercised jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine the payment disputes (including issues touching on delay and termination) and did not deny natural justice nor act in excess of jurisdiction; accordingly the setting aside application (OS 216) failed and the adjudication decision was enforceable under s28 CIPAA; OS 216 dismissed with costs and the enforcement application (OS 202) granted in terms, making the stay application academic.
6 Jan 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SHAKIR 2. ) ROZAINI BINTI MOHD YUSOFF PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ISA AL-HUSAM BIN SHUHAIMI

Citation

WA-29NCC-812-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-812-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Federal Court authority in Edwin Cassian governs: where debts are jointly incurred and the judgment is silent, each judgment debtor may be held liable for the whole debt and a judgment creditor is entitled to proceed against any one judgment debtor for the entire judgment sum; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Bankruptcy Notice against the appellant is valid.
13 May 2022

CREATIVE REPUBLIC SDN BHD 1. ) JASMIN BIN SAMION 2. ) LYNNETTE TANG EE LYN

Citation

BA-B52NCvC-57-02/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B52NCvC-57-02/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the ex‑parte leave was valid because the plaintiff complied with Aturan 52 KKM and the papers were in order; the defendant had knowledge of the draft order and the penal warning and failed to comply, and the failure to effect earlier personal service did not prejudice the defendant. The question whether committal is appropriate for a monetary judgment with penal warning is a matter for the High Court while the defendant's appeal remains pending, so the setting aside application was dismissed and committal proceedings were deferred pending the High Court decision.