Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment / order 14

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2024

DATIN NAZNEEN BINTI ABDULLAH ABDUL MUNAF BIN SULTAN ABDUL KADIR

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-174-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-174-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied the procedural and evidential prerequisites for summary judgment under Order 14; defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing a real, triable defence. Limitation did not bar the claim because the last payment of RM150,000 on 26.05.2017 restarted the limitation period under s26 and the writ filed on 25.04.2023 was within six years. Allegations of coercion were unsubstantiated, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and conduct and constituted a desperate afterthought. Summary judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding debt with specifie…
25 Aug 2022

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Adnan Bin Yaakob

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-32-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-32-02/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 requirements and proved defendant had been given a show-cause opportunity and had admitted the material omission; contemporaneous documents (board minutes and directors' responsibility statement signed by defendant) established individual responsibility; defendant failed to raise any triable issue; therefore the Order 14 application was properly granted and costs awarded to plaintiff.
2 Dec 2021

HARCOS ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 138593-X) 1. NORIAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550917-10-5856) 2. SARAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 601208-10-6116) 3. ROSSIDAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 630608-10-7700) 4. MOHD ARIS BIN AHMAT (NO. K/P: 560913-

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-114-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-114-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant established entitlement to immediate refund of the RM200,000 deposit because the condition precedents were not fulfilled, the 5th Respondent held the sum as stakeholder and breached an unqualified undertaking by releasing the funds; there was no bona fide defence or real triable issue preventing summary judgment on that part of the claim, so judgment was entered for the deposit with interest and costs.
13 Jan 2021

1. KHADIJAH BINTI RAZALI 2. MUSLIADI BIN MUSA PNSB ACMAR SDN BHD

Citation

A52NCVC-456-09-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

A52NCVC-456-09-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the Schedule H SPA is statutory and the developer became immediately liable for liquidated damages when the completion deadline passed; the defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable defence or that any rebate altered the contractual purchase price; the Covid-19 Act was inapplicable to these proceedings; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was granted for the plaintiffs for RM105,909.04, with interest at 5% per annum from the date of the writ until full settlement and costs, defendant to pay costs of RM3,000 to plaintiffs.

Malaysia Case Law

DATIN NAZNEEN BINTI ABDULLAH ABDUL MUNAF BIN SULTAN ABDUL KADIR

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Adnan Bin Yaakob

HARCOS ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 138593-X) 1. NORIAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550917-10-5856) 2. SARAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 601208-10-6116) 3. ROSSIDAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 630608-10-7700) 4. MOHD ARIS BIN AHMAT (NO. K/P: 560913-

1. KHADIJAH BINTI RAZALI 2. MUSLIADI BIN MUSA PNSB ACMAR SDN BHD