Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary disposal under order 14a

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2025

1. ) NG ANNIE 2. ) NG GUAT KEOW 3. ) LUCY NG 4. ) NG MEE THIAM 1. ) Ng Joo Mok Sebagai Pentadbir Tunggal De Bonis Non Bagi Estet Ng Swee Long (Si Mati) 2. ) NG JOO MOK 3. ) PRESTASI JUTA SDN BHD 4. ) HOW LAI PENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-476-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-476-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CCLC was disqualified because it had acted for D2 in the SSEA, had been paid in D2's personal capacity and a CCLC solicitor is central to disputed, material facts and likely to be a witness, engaging LPPE Rules 5 and 28; conversely, the Plaintiffs' O.14A application was dismissed because material facts are disputed (whether D2 purchased shares personally or on behalf of remaining beneficiaries), the evidential record shows payments and communications supporting those disputes, and the issues are intertwined with factual enquiries and a counterclaim, making summary legal determination inapprop…
20 Jan 2025

ALUXCARE WELLNESS SDN BHD WATSON'S PERSONAL CARE STORES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-414-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-414-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant's first acceptable offer was not made within the contractual three‑month option period and the parties never agreed the new rent; there is no implied duty to reach agreement on rent or to continue negotiations after option expiry; plaintiff was not estopped by its 31.01.2024 email; defendant held over without plaintiff's consent and is therefore liable to pay double rent / mesne profits from 01.05.2024 until vacant possession is delivered to plaintiff.
27 Aug 2024

ESTHER CHEW LEE LIAN MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-308-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-308-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the defendant's Order 14A application because the pleadings and affidavits disclosed significant and contested issues of primary fact (existence, cause and remediation of piping defects, prior communications, and factual dispute over settlement and acceptance of vacant possession) making summary determination inappropriate; the dispute must proceed to full trial; costs in the cause.
6 Feb 2024

GELIGA UNIK SDN BHD AMIR MUKMIN HASSANI BIN HASSAN

Citation

DA-22NCvC-26-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-26-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary disposal under Order 14A/Order 33 was dismissed because there are disputed material facts interwoven with issues of law — specifically the actual date of grant, whether the Registrar had knowledge of an effective caveat at the time of grant, and whether Plaintiff or Defendant is entitled to administer the estate — which require a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examination; summary determination on affidavit evidence alone would be inappropriate.
21 Oct 2022

SABARUDDIN BIN AHMAD 1. ) SYED IBRAHIM A/L N M A ABDUL SUKKOOR 2. ) IMRAN HILMY 3. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD

Citation

PA-23NCvC-12-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-12-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the words in the article were capable of referring to the plaintiff (legal issue) but whether reasonable persons who know the plaintiff would conclude the article referred to him is a factual issue that must be decided at a full trial; because the legal and factual issues are interwoven, the application under Order 14A to dismiss the claim was refused.
5 Jan 2022

LISTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD CHE SOM BINTI SYED RASTAN

Citation

PA-12A-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA permitted forfeiture only of the Non-Refundable Sum; the Further Sum was refundable. The defendant retained the Further Sum without justification and was unjustly enriched. Estoppel and the defendant's prior conduct (attempt to return the Further Sum) precluded forfeiture; res judicata did not bar the distinct unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly the Order 14A summary determination in favour of the plaintiff was correct and the Sessions Court's dismissal and striking out were set aside; judgment for RM151,198.46 entered with interest.
30 Mar 2021

CDO RESOURCES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 754707-A) …. PLAINTIFF MIDF AMANAH INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (COMPANY NO: 23878-X) … DEFENDANT

Citation

WA-22NCC-11-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-11-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found there was a clear agreement for a RM5,000,000 extension fee accepted by the plaintiff; the defendant's redemption statement issued under clause 18.4 was final and conclusive; RM2,000,000 was not disbursed by defendant; plaintiff paid the certified redemption sum without objection and is estopped from reclaiming RM5,000,000 or claiming RM2,000,000; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.
12 Jan 2021

RYAN KOH YUE LOONG & KOH TECK LOONG & TAN GUAT LIAN KOH SHING YEE & CHEONG LAI SIN

Citation

WA-22ncvc-649-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22ncvc-649-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the defendants' case fundamentally relied on expert opinion whose admissibility, conformity with Order 40A and the expert's qualifications required testing at trial; plaintiffs would call rebuttal experts and the issues thus were not suitable for final determination on paper under Order 14A.