Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vesting order

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

W&L Hardware Trading Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

PA-24NCvC-330-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-330-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove special circumstances relating to enforcement of the judgment; the risk of loss arising from execution is compensable by damages given the commercial nature of the land; prior determinations and the Vesting Order obtained in favour of the plaintiff and the delay by the defendant undermine the claimed special circumstances; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
19 Jun 2025

SKS FOAM (M) SDN BHD (dalam penggulungan) SKS INTEGRATED GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant repeatedly pursued variations of the same grounds to set aside a Vesting Order that had become final and binding; appeals and available remedies were exhausted and the continued, reflexive filings and appeals were aimed at obstructing liquidation and enforcement, meeting the standard of habitual and persistent vexatious litigation under paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; accordingly Enclosure 1 is allowed, Enclosure 6 dismissed, and restraining orders with specified limits and costs are appropriate.
17 Dec 2024

MOHD HAFIZUDDIN BIN MOHD KHAR 1. ) Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ) 2. ) AMBANK (M) BERHAD 3. ) Tan Siew Hoon 4. ) Ong Keng Hoe [Kedua-duanya Adalah Rakan Kongsi Dalam Nama Dan Gaya Teong Seng Enterprise] 5. ) PUSPAKOM SDN BHD

Citation

AA-12ANCC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12ANCC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The vesting order of 19 February 2019 transferred all rights and liabilities under the hire purchase account to Aiqon Amanah such that Ambank (M) Berhad ceased to be the proper party; therefore the Sessions Court correctly struck out the appellant's claim against Ambank under Order 14A and Order 33 Rules 2 and 5; with the main action dismissed there was no operative liability against Ambank to sustain indemnity-based third-party proceedings and those were correctly struck out.
17 Dec 2024

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ) 2. ) Tan Siew Hoon 3. ) Ong Keng Hoe [Kedua-duanya Adalah Rakan Kongsi Dalam Nama Dan Gaya Teong Seng Enterprise] 4. ) PUSPAKOM SDN BHD

Citation

AA-12ANCC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12ANCC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The vesting order effectively transferred all rights, liabilities and pending proceedings arising from the hire‑purchase agreement to Aiqon Amanah, making Ambank no longer the proper party; therefore the Sessions Court correctly struck out the appellant's claim under Order 14A and Order 33 Rule 2 and 5; consequentially the third‑party notices were unsustainable and properly dismissed as there was no liability against Ambank to support indemnity claims.
31 Jan 2024

TAN NYOK CHIN PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1560-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1560-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Collector correctly adjudicated ad valorem duty: the Deed of Settlement/renunciation and the subsequent Form 14A operated such that the beneficiaries' renunciation to the Plaintiff constituted a voluntary inter vivos disposition (gift) of beneficial interests; Form 14A effects the legal transfer of title and is the instrument chargeable under Item 66(c) read with Item 32(a) and s16(1), therefore ad valorem duty of RM20,800 was properly imposed.
19 Jan 2024

CIMB BANK BERHAD 1. ) QUICKPACK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

Citation

BA-24NCvC-493-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-493-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Land Administrator erred in finding Form 16D was irregular because service by A.R. registered post and on known directors complied with section 431(1)(b)(ii); the vesting order was valid and did not defeat the Plaintiff's standing (vesting under BAFIA/FSA takes effect notwithstanding registration); statutory requirements for Form 16D/Form 16H and notice periods were satisfied (including post‑2017 amendment); therefore there was no cause to the contrary to refuse an order for sale and the Plaintiff's requests were allowed while the First Defendant's strike‑out application wa…
3 Jan 2024

DATUK SERI MAGLIN DENNIS D'CRUZ KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA PENCELAH DICADANGKAN 1. ) Tan Sri Datuk Seri M. Kayveas 2. ) Kayveas Holdings Sdn Bhd 3. ) Bintang Iradat (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCC-250-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-250-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Proposed Interveners lacked any surviving legal interest after the final determination of Suit 326 and the court was functus officio with respect to the Plaintiff’s enforcement action; permitting intervention would improperly reopen concluded litigation and amount to a backdoor appeal, therefore the intervention application is dismissed.
12 Dec 2023

XORIX SDN BHD 1. ) SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) ANDREW HENG 3. ) KUMARAKURU A/L JAI PRAKASH KRISHNAN 4. ) AZAHARIE SIMAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-633-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-633-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to grant the ad interim injunction to preserve the status quo pending the inter partes hearing because the plaintiff demonstrated a real risk of irreparable commercial prejudice, provided an undertaking for damages, and preservation was consistent with the court's statutory powers under s.25(2) and the Schedule; delay by the creditor in enforcing judgments reduced any claim of irreparable harm to the defendants.
12 Dec 2023

XORIX SDN BHD 1. ) SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) ANDREW HENG 3. ) KUMARAKURU A/L JAI PRAKASH KRISHNAN 4. ) AZAHARIE SIMAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-633-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-633-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to grant ad interim injunctions to preserve the status quo because the plaintiff demonstrated a real risk of irreparable commercial prejudice from the disputed appointment of receivers and managers, offered an undertaking as to damages to address respondent prejudice, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the business pending inter partes resolution.
14 Feb 2023

MOHAMAD FAIZ BIN BAHKRI & 24 OTHERS AGA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-28PW-6-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-28PW-6-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused leave because the Applicants’ pleaded claim was essentially for LAD which lies against the company in liquidation and not the liquidator personally; following Federal Court authority (Machang Indah), the liquidators acted within statutory duties as agents in selling the units and Applicants failed to show a prima facie case of misfeasance or personal liability against the liquidator.