Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of judgment

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2025

1. ) MUHAMMAD NAFIS BIN JOHARI (sebagai orang ketidakupayaan yang mendakwa melalui wakil litigasi JOHARI BIN SAAD) 2. ) SAUDAH BINTI DIN 1. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN ROMLI 2. ) ROMLI BIN HARSH

Citation

KA-B53KJ-25-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-B53KJ-25-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application is allowed because the costs element in the sealed judgment (RM80,000) contravened the maximum statutory scale under Order 59 r.23 KKM 2012 (maximum RM40,000 for judgments exceeding RM500,000); this is an error of law warranting variation under Order 42 r.13 KKM 2012.
18 Oct 2024

KHOO SUE KHEK 1. ) TAN CHOON SENG 2. ) TAN TIAN HOCK

Citation

BA-22NCvC-30-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-30-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found that special circumstances existed—principally the plaintiff's applications to vary the judgment, practical difficulties and omissions concerning the joint stakeholder account, and the need to preserve the status quo pending appeals—and therefore granted a stay of execution pending disposal of the appeals.
12 May 2023

GANAD MEDIA SDN BHD BIG TREE OUTDOOR SDN BHD

Citation

W-03(IM)-5-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)-5-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed in part: plaintiff entitled to damages only for periods when it held valid TOL (1.7.2002–31.12.2005 and 2011–2013); MAL-TEL contracts were admissible and used to compute damages for 2011–2013; damages for 2002–2005 were assessed based on defendant’s judicial admission of RM250,000 per annum; total damages awarded RM2,244,000 with interest at 5% per annum from 26.12.2003 until full settlement and costs awarded to appellant; the High Court Judge erred to the extent he excluded SAR’s jurisdiction to assess entitlement after 1.1.2006 and erred in substituting SAR’s quantification w…
1 Jun 2021

MOHD HAZLIN BIN MUSA MD ALI BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

JA-22NCvC-90-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-90-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was allowed and the suit struck out because the plaintiff lacked capacity to commence the proceedings (having acted only as attorney without letters of administration), the consent judgment was final and binding and could not be varied after an inordinate delay without prompt application under Order 42 r.13, the allegations of fraud were unsubstantiated, and the claim was therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process barred by res judicata.
3 Nov 2020

Gurmit Singh for the Plaintiff [Messrs Sharif & Khoo] 1. ) P. Jeyakumar and Normadiah binti Mohammad for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants [Messrs Zahir Jeya & Zainal] 2. ) Jessica Chong Ee Min for the 1st and 4th Defendants [Messrs Lim Kian Leong

Citation

SUIT NO. D-22-306-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

SUIT NO. D-22-306-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent judgment was perfected and did not contain a penal notice; the court lacks jurisdiction to vary its terms or read words into it absent mutual consent or established exceptions; Order 45 Rule 6(2) does not authorize endorsement of a penal notice into a consent judgment where none was agreed; the proper course is enforcement by other execution remedies. Accordingly the application to endorse a penal notice is dismissed with costs.
21 Aug 2020

MIDF Amanah Ventures Sdn Bhd Lim Thiam Chye

Citation

WA-22NCC-439-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-439-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the Enc.65 orders as a legitimate exercise of the court's equitable jurisdiction to 'work out' and enforce a decree for specific performance: depositing the share certificate and executed transfer in escrow and requiring payment of RM9,835,349.00 by banker's draft within a specified period are proper mechanisms to give practical effect to the original order and do not amount to an unlawful variation of the judgment or underlying contract.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) MUHAMMAD NAFIS BIN JOHARI (sebagai orang ketidakupayaan yang mendakwa melalui wakil litigasi JOHARI BIN SAAD) 2. ) SAUDAH BINTI DIN 1. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN ROMLI 2. ) ROMLI BIN HARSH

KHOO SUE KHEK 1. ) TAN CHOON SENG 2. ) TAN TIAN HOCK

GANAD MEDIA SDN BHD BIG TREE OUTDOOR SDN BHD

MOHD HAZLIN BIN MUSA MD ALI BIN ABDULLAH

Gurmit Singh for the Plaintiff [Messrs Sharif & Khoo] 1. ) P. Jeyakumar and Normadiah binti Mohammad for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants [Messrs Zahir Jeya & Zainal] 2. ) Jessica Chong Ee Min for the 1st and 4th Defendants [Messrs Lim Kian Leong

MIDF Amanah Ventures Sdn Bhd Lim Thiam Chye