Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party notice

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

HASSIM BIN YAHAYA 1. ) EZS MOTORSPORT SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD ISKANDAR BIN PATHI PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Noor Ismahanum Binti Mohd Ismail 2. ) Mohamad Ismahanif Bin Mohd Ismail

Citation

AA-A72NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCvC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court set aside the third party notice against PK2 and allowed PK2's interlocutory application because the defendant's asserted claim against PK2 was not a bona fide indemnity or contribution claim suitable for third party procedure but an independent dispute (allegations of representation, knowledge and deceit) that would expand issues, cause prejudice to the plaintiff and delay the main action; therefore the appropriate course is for any claim against PK2 to be brought separately (Order 16 r6 and Order 42 r13 applied).
22 Sept 2025

1. ) SITI NURSHAFIKAH BINTI ZULKIFLI 2. ) MUHAMMAD AL-RASYIDIN BIN MAT ANAFI 1. ) MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN MOHD LOKMAN 2. ) HERN YI ANG ENTERPRISE

Citation

JA-12A-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed because section 28(1)(c) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964, as amended by the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2022, bars appeals to the High Court against subordinate court decisions dismissing applications to strike out pleadings; the amendment applies and removes the High Court's jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed in limine.
13 May 2025

NOR ILY KAREENA BINTI ROSMAN 1. ) MOHD SOLEHIN BIN MOHD RAZALI 2. ) TAJULARUS BIN BAHARI PENCELAH ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

DA-A53KJ-608-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53KJ-608-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application (Lampiran 62) to issue a third party notice was dismissed because the proposed third party had already attended court and given evidence (including cross-examination), making the application premature; allowing it would require amendment of pleadings and rehearing of evidence, causing duplication/contradiction and wasting court resources; coupled with an unreasonable delay of approximately two years without credible explanation, the application constituted an abuse of process and was refused on the balance of probabilities with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Dec 2024

KIAN HO BEARINGS (M) SDN. BHD. 1. ) WONG FOCK MANG 2. ) CHI YI AUTOMATION SDN. BHD. 3. ) CHIN YOKE KOON 4. ) WONG WAN YU 5. ) CHIN GEOK MOOI 6. ) KAI CHEE INDUSTRIAL SDN. BHD. 7. ) LAI MOON CHIEN 8. ) TEO CHEE BOON 9. ) CHENG HANG WEI 10. )

Citation

WA-22NCC-84-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-84-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The earlier Declaration only removed jurisdiction to serve third parties outside Malaysia under the Order 11 Rule 1 gateways in relation to indemnity and contribution claims; it did not preclude the Court from exercising jurisdiction under section 23(1) CJA 1964 to hear a distinct counterclaim (abuse of process and conspiracy) where at least one defendant resides in Malaysia; accordingly the application to strike out/dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction fails.
29 May 2024

GLOBAL ROYALTY TRADING SAL DATIN PADUKA SERI HAJJAH ROSMAH BINTI MANSOR PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Ketua Polis Negara 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-22NCC-164-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-164-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to issue Third Party Notices was dismissed because the Defendant failed to demonstrate any legal basis for an indemnity or contribution: there was no pleaded or established contract, statute or recognised relationship giving rise to an indemnity, and no prima facie evidence that the Proposed Third Parties were joint tortfeasors; accordingly there was no basis to join the Government or Ketua Polis Negara under Order 73 r.8 ROC 2012.
9 Nov 2023

SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM PIHAK KETIGA DATO’ SRI SHAMIR KUMAR NANDY

Citation

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendant's indemnity claim against the Third Party was expressly contingent upon the Defendant being held liable to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff withdrew her claim with no liberty to file afresh, the contingency cannot arise and there is no valid reason to grant the Defendant liberty to refile the indemnity claim against the Third Party.
10 Aug 2023

1. ) LKW PETROLEUM SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE KOK WAI LOH POON HOE

Citation

WA-12ANCC-138-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-138-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because (1) the defendants failed to apply for directions under Order 16 rule 4(1) within seven days after the third party entered appearance, enabling the third party's application under rule 4(2), and (2) the Third Party Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the third party — it is plain and obvious there is no nexus establishing entitlement to contribution or indemnity; the Sessions Court was therefore correct to set aside the third party proceedings and the decision is consistent with the prior summary judgment against the defendants.
2 Feb 2023

CARLVIN BRAN VINCENT SAM KAH LOK

Citation

JA-A53KJ-56-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-56-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because it was filed after plaintiff had closed his case and after hearings had commenced (inordinate delay constituting abuse of process), the supporting affidavit was irregular and defective as it contained contested factual assertions sworn by the solicitor rather than the defendant with direct knowledge, and the defendant had prior knowledge of the alleged oil spill such that no valid excuse for delay was shown; accordingly leave to issue the third party notice was refused and affidavit struck out.
11 Dec 2022

1. ) SAAD BIN MAHMUD 2. ) TOMINI BINTI RAKIM 3. ) XXXX 1. ) MUHAMMAD SAIDI BIN JOHAINI 2. ) BATU TIGA QUARRY SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) KELANA BIN HUSEIN 2. ) YIYIBA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A53KJ-1009-12/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-1009-12/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the stopped lorry at the slip/exit was stationary and the driver of that lorry failed to take adequate warning measures (cones/appropriate signals/notify highway patrol) and could have proceeded to a safer place; therefore the third parties (estate and associated company) were 80% negligent. The oncoming lorry driver (defendant) also failed to avoid collision in clear conditions and had available alternative lanes, thus 20% negligent. Plaintiffs proved loss of dependency and were awarded quantified damages accordingly.
14 Nov 2022

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to postpone the summary judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify delay, the protective policy of Schedule H favours expeditious resolution for purchasers, and the defendant's proposed claims against the Ministry and Government were likely time-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiffs was granted and the postponement request rejected.