Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside default judgment

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

BINA DARULAMAN BERHAD 1. ) INDIVIDU YANG MENGENALKAN DIRI SEBAGAI THEAVARAJAN A/L GOVINDAN 2. ) INDIVIDU YANG MENGENALKAN DIRI SEBAGAI POH SIAM ENG 3. ) SEMUA PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG NAMANYA TIDAK DIKETAHUI DAN/ATAU ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DI

Citation

KB-22NCvC-28-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-22NCvC-28-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D3 lacked locus standi to apply to set aside the default judgment entered against D1 and D2; service on D1 and D2 was properly effected and the default judgment was regular; D3's asserted defence was not meritorious and D3 was not prejudiced because enforcement of possession cannot proceed until judgment is obtained against all defendants per Order 13 r.4(2); accordingly the application was dismissed with costs.
27 Feb 2025

RAJADEVAN A/L VAMADEVAN 1. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN SAIDON 2. ) NURUL HAILA HANIM BINTI HARIF

Citation

KD-A72-6-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KD-A72-6-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application was dismissed because the original counsel lacked a valid practising certificate under the LPA, and representation by an unlicensed advocate cannot lawfully be cured by appearance of a licensed proxy; this unauthorized representation rendered the proceedings irregular and dismissal was justified, with the further procedural bar that a pending related appeal must be resolved by the High Court before reconsideration.
26 Feb 2025

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) TUA POOK GEE 2. ) TUA POOK SIK 3. ) SAWADI PG TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately four years after service of the default judgment without satisfactory explanation or any application for extension of time; service to the address in the Guarantee was regular so the default judgment was regularly obtained; applicant failed to establish a prima facie meritorious defence.
28 May 2024

1. ) Sundararaju A/l Thandava Moorthi 2. ) Letchemy A/p Thavasi Murugan A/l Krishnan

Citation

AA-12ANCC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12ANCC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court judge misapplied discretion by failing to consider material facts (including the nature of the earlier adjournment and medical evidence), and the adjournment should have been granted; the mis‑citation of the Rules (Order 42 r 13 instead of Order 35) was a harmless procedural error and does not bar relief; therefore the default judgment is set aside and appeals allowed with costs.
15 May 2023

ESTY LAND SDN. BHD. 1. ) BIO ALGAE VALLEY VENTURES SDN. BHD. 2. ) Datuk Mohamed Nizam Bin Mohamed Jakel PIHAK KETIGA Dato' Mohamed Azlan Shah Bin Aziz Mohammed

Citation

CA-22NCvC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-22NCvC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because the third party failed to comply with Order 32 rule 13(2) (supporting affidavit was served out of time) and failed to present a bona fide meritorious defence (only a sham defence), therefore there were no grounds to set aside the default judgment; costs were awarded against the third party.
15 Mar 2023

Lim Cheng Fu ( Berniaga Sebagai Pemilik Tunggal Dibawah Nama Dan Gelaran "My Village Poultry Farm) (No. Pendaftaran : Ct00062494-t) HEAP YEE BROTHERS CONTRACT FARMING SDN BHD

Citation

CB-B52-4-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CB-B52-4-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because service was valid, the defendant exhibited an inordinate and unexplained delay (approximately 25 months) in applying, and the proposed defence and counterclaim were mere bare denials and lacked merit; accordingly the statutory time limit under Order 42 r.13 was not complied with and the application failed.
11 Jan 2023

UNION LAND SINGAPORE PTE LTD OK KITCHEN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-247-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-247-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service at the third party's registered office was proper under Order 62 r4 and Singapore law; the third party failed to file the application to set aside the default judgment within 30 days and did not seek an extension of time; the third party lacked a meritorious defence and did not demonstrate special circumstances to stay execution; the Sessions Court decision refusing the application was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs subject to allocatur.
27 Oct 2022

SHUMATHI A/P MUNIAPPAN ALEXANDRA CHAN XIN ZI

Citation

AA-A53KJ-46-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-46-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The default judgment was regular and the defendant failed to specify any irregularity or to demonstrate a meritorious defence on affidavit and by proposed defence; the undisputed facts show defendant entered from a minor road without stopping and plaintiff had right of way, therefore defendant is wholly liable and the application to set aside is dismissed.
26 Sept 2022

NANCY CHIN M. THARUMA RATNAM (MENGAMAL DIBAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA T.RATNAM & CO FIRMA GUAMAN)

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-535-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-535-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Application dismissed because it was not brought under the specific rule applicable to default judgment set-aside, the default judgment was regular, the defendant failed to disclose a prima facie arguable defence or produce dated medical evidence to justify the delay, and the defendant's conduct demonstrated unreasonable delay and lack of bona fides; costs awarded to plaintiff.
30 Jun 2022

YPJ PLANTATIONS SDN.BHD. MAJU CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22C-3-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22C-3-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant established triable issues — namely the plaintiff's alleged failure to fulfil the JDA condition precedent to obtain rezoning approvals and failure to refer the dispute to the agreed Dispute Panel — therefore the plaintiff's summary judgment application under O.14 must be dismissed and the matter proceeded to full trial for evidence.