Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside default judgment

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2026

1. ) LEE LI HEONG 2. ) LIEW VOON FEI 1. ) LOKE KOH LIM 2. ) OR HAN LIM 3. ) CHONG PEI YI

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-973-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-973-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found service on Defendants Two and Three was properly effected (A.R. receipts matched addresses filed by defendants and were independent third party records), therefore the default judgment was regularly obtained; defendants failed to produce any affidavit disclosing a meritorious defence or supportive evidence (including no police report for alleged forgery); accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
14 Apr 2026

KHAIRUL HISHAM BIN KHASHIM 1. ) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL)

Citation

WA-B53-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B53-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court allowed the Lampiran 39 application and set aside the default judgment because defendants demonstrated that their counsel's non-attendance was caused by chronic, incapacitating depression constituting an extraordinary circumstance/flagrant incompetency; defendants also disclosed a prima facie meritorious defence (contributory negligence); accordingly, under Order 35 the judgment obtained in absence was properly set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice.
9 Apr 2026

SIM CHON SIANG YU CHEE HONG @ LOOI CHEE HONG

Citation

WA-23CY-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The default judgment was regularly obtained by valid substituted service; defendant's non-receipt allegation was not a satisfactory explanation; delay in applying was significant and unexplained; the draft defence did not demonstrate a bona fide triable issue; balancing all factors the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the judgment and dismissed the application with costs RM3,000.
25 Feb 2026

PESTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CHINA CO., LTD PESTECH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-530-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-530-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Writ and Statement of Claim were validly served and the JIDA was regularly obtained; the Defendant failed to enter appearance within the prescribed period, failed to explain the delay in applying to set aside, and did not disclose a bona fide prima facie defence (the Proposed Defence was a sham); therefore the application to set aside the JIDA was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
13 Jan 2026

LAMAN KEJORA SDN BHD 1. ) NBI MUTIARA RESOURCES 2. ) RIZAL BIN NGAH

Citation

TA-A52NCvC-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52NCvC-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Service by AR registered post to the defendants' last known address, evidenced by returned acknowledgement cards, established proper service; defendants failed to provide a credible explanation for the two‑year delay or rebut the prima facie proof of service and did not disclose any non‑sham meritorious defence on affidavit; accordingly the exercise of discretion to set aside the default judgment was refused and the application dismissed with costs of RM2500.
9 Jan 2026

BUMI WANGSA SENDIRIAN BERHAD 1. ) HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD 2. ) TEY POH CHOON

Citation

WA-B52NCC-1115-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCC-1115-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was dismissed because it was filed 8 days late beyond the 30‑day period under Order 42 r.13, the defendants failed to show special circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the proposed defence did not disclose merit or triable issues; the recorded JID was regular and the RM200,000 payment constituted an acknowledgement of indebtedness.
9 Dec 2025

CHUBB Insurance Malaysia Berhad 1. ) IXIS CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHAMED SABRI BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) ADNAN BIN ABU SAMAH 4. ) ROZAIDI BIN RAMLI 5. ) KHAIRIL MUZAMIL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 6. ) ABD RAHMAN BIN ABD KARIM PIHAK TERKILAN CIMB ISLAMIC

Citation

BH-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BH-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The default judgments (JID 1, JID 2 and JID 3) were obtained regularly; defendants did not disclose any meritorious defence because the letters of undertaking gave plaintiff absolute discretion to pay under the bond and defendants could pursue any remedy against the Principal/JKR; defendants failed to provide any material justification for delay in filing the application (notably D1/D2) and did not seek an extension of time—therefore the application to set aside (Lampiran 35) is dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
27 Nov 2025

XXXX ARIFFIN BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

22NCVC-400-08/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-400-08/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The substituted service order was valid and the default judgment of 25.2.2015 was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for over ten years delay and failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence (did not deny receipt of deposit, provided no particulars of alleged fraud, and took no action against solicitors alleged to have acted improperly); therefore extension of time and setting aside of the default judgment are refused and the interlocutory application is dismissed with costs.
11 Nov 2025

TAN CHEE LEONG 1. ) TAN CHOON BEE 2. ) LIM AH CHUAN 3. ) Tan Aik Huat 4. ) TAN YIEN CHING

Citation

BD-B52NCC-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-B52NCC-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Substituted service was validly ordered and properly effected, the default judgments were therefore regularly obtained; the application was filed approximately nine months after the judgments without seeking extension or permission; defendants failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence and relied on bare denials or unparticularised assertions; accordingly the application to set aside is dismissed and the default judgments are upheld.
4 Nov 2025

AUNG HLAING WIN 1. ) XUANDE MINING SDN BHD 2. ) STEPHEN LIM SIN CHYE

Citation

JA-22NCvC-71-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-71-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to show any reasonable or evidential excuse for their delay, their defence filed after judgment was a bare, evasive statement that did not disclose any triable issue, the application to set aside was not promptly filed (almost three months delay) and allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff; accordingly the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the regularly obtained default judgment and dismissed the application with costs of RM3,000.