Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of proceedings

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2026

Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd 1. ) Dato' Seri Suresh Emmanuel Abishegam 2. ) Dato' Ahmad Johari bin Tun Abdul Razak 3. ) Ajaib Hari Dass 4. ) Dato' Abd Latiff bin Ahmad 5. ) Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram 6. ) Azian binti Abdul Aziz 7. ) Nautical

Citation

WA-22NCC-151-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-151-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A former director who possessed the requisite capacity at the date leave was granted may continue statutory derivative proceedings properly commenced in the name of the company despite subsequently ceasing to be a director; no sufficient special circumstances existed to justify a stay or to subordinate this advanced trial to the setting-aside application, so the stay was refused and the trial ordered to continue.
12 Mar 2026

Kerajaan Malaysia MAJU JAYA PASARANA SDN BHD

Citation

CB-21C-1-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-21C-1-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendant’s stay application was dismissed because the claims to be referred to arbitration were time‑barred by the Limitation Act (the certificate dated 30.08.2019 crystallised a six‑year limitation expiring 30.08.2025) rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative for that dispute; the Perakuan Kos Penamatan is a conclusive certificate absent fraud or manifest error and the defendant failed to timely invoke arbitration to challenge it; granting a stay would be futile and prejudicial.
12 Feb 2026

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) Irfan Asfaar Bin Abdullah(dahulunya Nagarajan A/l Renganathan) 2. ) JEEVANATHAN A/L MANIKAM

Citation

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances: they had actively participated in the fixation proceedings (filing multiple affidavits and proposing a higher reserve), the stay was filed after those steps and therefore amounted to abuse of process, the High Court Order for Sale had been regularly obtained and remained unchallenged for over 450 days (precluding approbation and reprobation), and the plaintiff could compensate if necessary; accordingly the stay was set aside and costs awarded.
6 Feb 2026

KEG SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) IKANO JOHOR JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22C-31-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-31-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There exists a binding arbitration agreement in Clauses 20.4-20.6 of the FIDIC Conditions complying with s9 AA 2005; the defendant applied for a stay before taking steps in the proceedings; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed (impecuniosity and alleged bias do not meet the narrow statutory exceptions); accordingly a mandatory stay under s10(1) AA 2005 is ordered and the dispute is referred to arbitration.
30 Jan 2026

Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Negeri Pahang (PKPP) NADA RIMBA SDN BHD

Citation

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Disputes concerning removal of a private caveat under s.327 National Land Code are statutory, fall within an exclusive legislative scheme and are not capable of determination by arbitration; accordingly the arbitration clause is inoperative with respect to the relief sought and the mandatory stay under s.10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 does not apply, therefore the defendant's stay application is dismissed.
5 Jan 2026

1. ) TAN HOCK SENG 2. ) VICTOR TAN HAN FUNG Wong Lian Soon

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-19-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly held Annex 9 was an abuse of process: Order 92 r4 cannot be used as a shortcut to obtain substantive mandatory relief before trial where procedural mechanisms exist; the earlier MS03 judgment is not relevant or binding under ss40–43 Evidence Act 1950 for the substantive relief sought; and there was no misdirection or manifest injustice warranting appellate interference. Costs RM3000 awarded to respondent.
2 Jan 2026

See Hong Cheen @ See Hong Chen 1. ) CHEE CHI NYEN 2. ) CHEE CHI VUI 3. ) CHEE CHI SENG 4. ) CHEE CHI VUN 5. ) LEE HYEN YAN 6. ) ANCHOR WAYS SDN. BHD. 7. ) ANGKASA TEKAD SDN. BHD. 8. ) ARENA USAHAJAYA SDN. BHD. 9. ) ASAS TUNAI SDN. BHD. 10.

Citation

WA-22NCC-344-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-344-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Kuala Lumpur suit was struck out because it was a later, duplicative action lacking any territorial or factual nexus to Kuala Lumpur; jurisdiction under s.23 CJA 1964 lay with the Kota Kinabalu High Court and the Kuala Lumpur filing amounted to abuse of process/forum shopping warranting summary disposal under Order 18 r.19 ROC 2012.
18 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the winding up petition was founded on unpaid statutory demand derived from CIPAA adjudication decisions which are indisputable under Bludream, the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order; consequently the applications to stay or dismiss the petition were academic and were dismissed.
18 Dec 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because CIPAA adjudication decisions are binding and indisputable for winding‑up purposes (per Bludream), and the respondent failed to pay the undisputed sum demanded in the statutory demand, the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding‑up order; therefore the winding‑up petition is granted and the opposing creditors' application to stay/dismiss is dismissed as academic.
21 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the petition was founded on CIPAA adjudication decisions which are, as a matter of precedent, indisputable for winding up purposes, the petitioner was entitled to a winding up order and the application for a stay was properly dismissed.