Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside ex parte order

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad GULA PERAK BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI)

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCC)-493-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCC)-493-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals: the ex parte leave to convene the scheme creditors' meeting was not made bona fide and amounted to an abuse of process; the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the August 2022 Order and in sanctioning the Scheme because proofs of debt were improperly admitted, the votes of an interested related‑party (the guarantor) distorted the statutory 75% threshold, the scheme was unreasonable and aimed at collateral relief (releasing the guarantor), and the sanctioning judgment failed proper reasoning. Consequently the August 2022 Order, the March 2023 Orde…
30 Oct 2025

PRAGASH A/L SAVARIMUTHU KAVITA A/P NADARAJAN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-306-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-306-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff failed to prove valid service of the Sessions Court judgment and registered the Prohibitory Order prematurely without serving the Defendant or the chargee; these procedural defects constituted sufficient cause under Order 47 r.6(k) ROC 2012 to set aside the ex parte order and the registered Prohibitory Order, and the Defendant's application was not time‑barred because valid service had not occurred to start the 30‑day period.
28 Apr 2025

1. ) Abdul Rahman bin Usof 2. ) Raman bin Jantan 3. ) Kamariah binti Jantan 4. ) Anrian bin Andi Lala 5. ) Kamsiah binti Amat 6. ) Jasni bin Amat 7. ) Azamain bin Amat 8. ) Zanizah binti Amat 9. ) Suranti @ Lili binti Amat 10. ) Suranti a/p

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2583-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2583-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Impugned ex‑parte Order dated 20 June 2023 in OS No.1904 and its amended version are set aside because the Respondent, as trustee, acted with a serious lack of probity and in breach of fiduciary duties by planning to appoint an exclusive agent and agree to payments (circa RM7.624m and high commissions) that would deplete trust assets; ex‑parte relief obtained in that context must be set aside and future sales must proceed by transparent public auction or open tender under professional supervision to protect beneficiaries.
6 Dec 2024

Lee Rodger Meiklejohn 1. ) Ranjeet Singh Sidhu 2. ) Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir 3. ) Gurmeet Kaur A/P Gurcharan Singh 4. ) G&P Solutions Sdn Bhd 5. ) Rothchilds Capital (I) Sdn Bhd 6. ) G&P Resources Sdn. Bhd. 7. ) Manibalan

Citation

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that although the plaintiff established a good arguable case of fraudulent misappropriation (supported by contemporaneous documents and admissions), he failed to adduce solid, contemporary evidence of a real risk that the defendants would dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement; therefore the essential second element for a Mareva injunction was not met and the Mareva applications were dismissed, while the court also found the ex parte order was properly granted and thus applications to set aside the ad interim order failed.
10 May 2023

TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN. BHD. KIDE INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCC-41-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-41-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found plaintiff proved irreparable harm but failed to establish that the respondent had no chance of success because the statutory demand relied on CIPAA adjudication awards and the plaintiff's own communications constituted an acknowledgment/proposal to settle; accordingly the ex parte Fortuna injunction was set aside and the substantive originating summons dismissed with costs.
14 Apr 2021

CYEN RESOURCES SDN ACI CHEMICALS ASIA INC (KOREA)

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-14-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-14-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to grant the injunctions because the defendant presented documents that constituted a complying presentation under the LC and UCP600, the LC is a primary payment instrument not a performance bond so the unconscionability test does not apply, and the plaintiff failed to prove fraud; the setting-aside of the ex‑parte order also failed because alleged non‑disclosures were not materially decisive.
30 Dec 2020

As per exchange of email dated 30th December 2020. PENCELAH As per exchange of email dated 30th December 2020.

Citation

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-28JM-14-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-28JM-14-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the creditor to intervene and set aside the Judicial Management Order because the Applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure in the ex parte JM application (notably concealment of a prior judgment and surreptitious filing to avoid creditors), the intervener was the largest disclosed creditor whose claim was unchallenged and therefore could block any proposal under s.412(2), and granting the JM's requested extension would be futile; the Applicant's affidavit in reply was however deemed properly served.
4 Sept 2020

1. ) Datuk Wong Rhen Yen and Gary Ng Cheng Yip for the Applicant Liquidator in enclosure 25 [Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong] 2. ) Farah Suhada and Meneeba Ubaidi for the Applicant in Enclosure 15 [Messrs Zul Rafique & Partners] LAIN-LAIN 1. ) Ahm

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-28JM-9-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-28JM-9-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that notice requirements under the Companies Act and Rules were satisfied, the intervener failed to show the Company acted mala fide or that the JM Order was obtained in vain, the intervener's late default notice undermined its challenge, approval of a JM proposal depends on 75% by value of creditors present and voting (s 425(2)) rather than the fact the intervener holds 45% of total debt, and that an extension of the JM period for six months was justified by COVID restrictions and the need to allow the JM to prepare a meaningful statement of proposal; therefore leave to interv…