Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Slip rule (order 20 r11)

Legal area

Court

4 Apr 2024

Sukhidir bin Kemat Premium Proaktif Sendirian Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCvC-239-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-239-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend the sealed judgment was dismissed because the sealed judgment precisely reflected the pleaded prayers and contained no clerical mistake; the amendments sought were substantive, not correctable under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction, and the court is functus officio after issuing a sealed judgment; allowing amendment while an appeal is pending would be unjust.
6 May 2021

Dee Eng Seng Lim Soon Seng

Citation

AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held it possessed jurisdiction under its inherent powers and Rules of Court (Order 45 r.6 read with Order 42 r.6) to allow an application to prescribe time in a consent judgment as a procedural, ancillary measure under the liberty to apply doctrine; the SAR-approved order of 3.9.2020 contained a mistake/was inoperable until directions dated 30.9.2020 were complied with and the plaintiff's application to vary the order (Enclosure 50) is allowed in part; stay of execution is justified until the prescribed directions are complied with.