Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside

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(IM)(C)-558-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(C)-558-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Appellant’s call on the Performance Bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and handed over, the Appellant had derived operational revenue, and the Appellant had withheld the approved Performance Test Report to avoid issuing Provisional Acceptance; therefore injunctive relief to restrain the demand was justified and the High Court did not err in dismissing the setting‑aside application; both appeals were dismissed.
15 Apr 2025

PEMPETISYEN GONASWARI A/P THEYAGASON RAJAN A/L KRISHNAN

Citation

JA-33-413-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-413-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was allowed because the Appellant failed to comply with peremptory court directions to file an Answer by the court‑imposed deadline, the default attracted the sanction permitted by Order 34 ROC and related authorities, no cogent explanation was offered, and the proper remedy for challenging the order was an application to set aside rather than an out‑of‑time appeal; the Appellant's solicitor's failures compounded the default and justified the order.
18 Jul 2024

Ilylia Diyana Binti Kamaruzaman ENG LIAN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-157-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-157-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Notice of Application to set aside a regular default judgment was not validly served by email alone absent a practice direction; the default judgment was regular; the appellant failed to disclose a defence on the merits or exhibit a draft defence; Order 1A could not be invoked to excuse intentional non-compliance; Covid-19 statutory relief did not cover the period in issue; mesne profits were properly awarded under statute.
18 Mar 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Poh Yang Hong

Citation

WA-29NCC-373-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-373-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the bankruptcy notice void for uncertainty because the applicable BLR used to calculate interest was not specified and the judgment did not provide for compounding; therefore the Senior Assistant Registrar's order setting aside the request to issue the bankruptcy notice and the bankruptcy notice was correct and the creditor's appeal was dismissed.
3 Nov 2023

DATO' HAJI MOHD SABRI BIN MOHD NADZIR PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-439-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-439-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent judgment was valid and perfected and could not be set aside absent a demonstrated breach of natural justice or nullity; the plaintiff's fraud allegations were implausible, raised after years of acquiescence and subsequent settlement negotiations, and therefore constituted an afterthought; accordingly the claim was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r 19(1).
3 Mar 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN TAN MIN CHOONG

Citation

WA-29NCC-1047-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-1047-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the judgment debt and interest claimed in the notice were properly quantified in accordance with the final High Court Judgment and contractual terms, the debtor failed to comply with s3(2)(ii) by not lodging a timely written dispute of the amount claimed within the prescribed period (thus cannot invalidate the BN), and the creditor had complied with the leave and exhaustion requirements under s5 of the Insolvency Act 1967.
27 Aug 2020

Paari Perumal & K. Kulasekar for the Judgment Debtor/Appellant [Messrs K. Kulasekar & Associate] Reeve Lim Chun Loong for the Judgment Creditor /Respondent [Messrs Lim, Wong & Co]

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA -29NCC-2873-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the affidavit under Rule 93 did not plead any counterclaim/set-off as required and is to be treated as if no affidavit was filed; the High Court judgment is final under the Bozson test and enforceable; the audit report and costs were reasonably incurred and recoverable under para 1(c) of the judgment; the Judgment Creditor is entitled to claim RM451,000 for the generators under para 1(g); and there was no evidential set-off for the RM70,000 costs and RM2,800 allocatur fee.
21 Jul 2020

Hazrul Alis for the Appellant / 2nd Defendant Messrs Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan Raiza Zakaria for the Respondent / Plaintiff Messrs Albar & Partners

Citation

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found the Plaintiff had standing by virtue of the vesting order and long-standing dealings, the amendment to the plaintiff's name was valid and served and binding on the appellant, and active settlement negotiations between parties constituted sufficient and justifiable reasons to grant leave to execute despite the passage of time under Order 46 r2 and Limitation Act provisions.
1 Nov 2019

NCT BUILDING & CIVIL ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-64-04/2019, WA-24C-65-04/2019 & WA-24C-82-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-64-04/2019, WA-24C-65-04/2019 & WA-24C-82-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the factual matrix of the Letter of Mandate, LoA and Consortium Agreement Sinohydro was an unpaid party within s4 CIPAA and had locus to issue the payment claim; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor breach natural justice in taking into account the Performance Bond because the Performance Bond matter was raised in the pleadings (Payment Response and Adjudication Reply) and adjudication pleadings must be considered; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement was allowed.
RE CHEAH WEE L IAM V EX PARTE ROBERT TENG LYE HOCK

Citation

RE CHEAH WEE L IAM V EX PARTE ROBERT TENG LYE HOCK
Court

Malaysian court

The affidavit filed under r.95 did not allege any counterclaim/set-off/cross-demand nor condescend to particulars of any mistaken amount; therefore it could not operate as an application to set aside under s.3(1)(i) and did not attract s.3(2)(ii); the affidavit must be treated as if not filed and the appeal is dismissed.