Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unless order

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

SELVARAJAN A/L VEERIAH 1. ) BANGSAR AMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 2. ) KARTHIGASU A/L K. RATNASINGAM 3. ) FOO JIA-HOU 4. ) ANG LING LING 5. ) ADRIAN HO TUCK DJI 6. ) RUBAN SATKUNA NATHAN 7. ) PLANET GARDENS SDN BHD 8. ) LIEW TZE HANN 9. ) ISA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-777-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff had established residence in Melbourne since 2005, thus ordering security for costs of RM50,000 per affected defendant group was appropriate; the plaintiff failed to furnish the ordered security and failed to attend hearings, and accordingly the court validly struck out the plaintiff's writ and struck out the pending application pursuant to the Unless order and its case management powers under Order 34 r.6 Rules of Court 2012.
16 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM WEI JIA 2. ) LIM WOOI TEE MENTOR PUBLISHING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-1727-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-1727-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant's unexplained and deliberate non-compliance with the Court's peremptory pre-trial directions (unless order), together with failure to seek extension or provide timely affidavit, justified invocation of Order 34 r.2(3); the Defendant's late unauthorised affidavit was disregarded and the Plaintiffs' application in K.45 is allowed with costs.
17 Nov 2025

BIMAL PILLAI WU KHAI WOON

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-725-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-725-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendants failed to comply with clear PTCM directions to file witness statements by the deadline, gave no adequate explanation or sought extension, and their conduct prejudiced the plaintiff; exercising discretion under Order 34 r.2(3) the court struck out the defendants' defence in the counterclaim, allowed the plaintiff's counterclaim and awarded costs of RM4,000.
12 Nov 2025

1. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Vertex Blue Consulting Sdn Bhd

Citation

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

A default declaratory judgment entered solely on the basis of non‑compliance with an 'unless' order is irregular where there is no evidential basis for the court to exercise its discretion; therefore the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments were set aside and the matter remitted for trial so the merits can be examined with evidence.
12 Nov 2025

1. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penyiaran Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Vertex Blue Consulting Sdn Bhd

Citation

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-4-02/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The interlocutory unless order was a specific pre-trial discovery direction that was self-executing on non-compliance and is legally distinct from summary judgment; therefore the trial judge was bound to give effect to the interlocutory judge's unless order and entering judgment for non-compliance did not contravene Order 73 ROC or s.42 GPA because those provisions governing summary judgment do not apply to specific discovery orders enforced by an unless sanction.
6 Nov 2025

CHAN SIEW KIAT LEE JUNG PENG

Citation

BA-12ANCC-20-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-20-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court mischaracterised the 25 March 2022 direction as a peremptory 'unless' order, applied the wrong legal test by importing Hytec jurisprudence, relied on non-affidavit internal minutes to infer notice, failed to require positive affidavit evidence rebutting the Appellant's claim of lack of notice, and thus erred in dismissing the setting-aside application; the Order for Non-Attendance was set aside and the matter remitted for hearing on the merits.
18 Jul 2025

TETUAN JUBLIN TAN & TEY 1. ) WONG SEK ER 2. ) TEY POH CHOON 3. ) HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to comply with clear pre-trial filing directions under Order 34 for approximately ten months without a satisfactory explanation; under Order 34 and supporting authorities an unless/self-executing order permits the court to strike out non-compliant proceedings; therefore the amended writ and amended statement of claim are struck out to prevent undue delay in the administration of justice.
16 Jul 2025

TAN TUAN SING 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 2. ) COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-150-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-150-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court entered judgment against the Appellant and allowed the Respondent’s claim because the Appellant and its solicitors wilfully and unjustifiably failed to comply with mandatory pre-trial case management directions and an express unless order under Order 34 ROC 2012; such non-compliance justified the sanctions ordered, and the bankruptcy of the second defendant did not excuse the Appellant’s default.
15 Jul 2025

SOON HER SING INDUSTRIES (M) SDN. BHD. M & R FORWARDING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-204-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-204-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the Defendant’s Defence and entered judgment for the Plaintiff because the Defendant failed to comply with clear pre-trial directions and an existing Unless Order, offered no reasonable or uncontrollable excuse for the non-compliance, caused unjustifiable delay, and therefore the prescribed sanction under Order 34 r.1 and applicable common law principles was appropriate; costs were awarded.
5 May 2025

KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD CHEN FEI LI

Citation

WA-23CY-28-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-28-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to comply with a peremptory pre-trial "unless order" without a sufficient or credible explanation; authorities establish that such non-compliance permits dismissal; accordingly the defendant's application to dismiss (Lampiran 51) is allowed and costs are awarded to the defendant.