Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alternative remedies

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2025

1. ) Dato' Jitendra Chhotalal Doshi 2. ) KIRON CHHOTALAL DOSHI 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak 3. ) MALAYSIA RAIL LINK SDN BHD PENCELAH China Communications Construction (ECRL) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-25-52-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-52-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave dismissed because the challenge to the land area stated in the Form D was premature: Form D is provisional ('anggaran') and not a final decision on area; the appropriate forum is the Land Administrator's inquiry and award (Form G); applicants failed to disclose an arguable case at leave stage and alternative statutory remedies were available.
9 Dec 2024

THE KAMPONG KUANTAN RUBBER COMPANY BERHAD 1. ) Pegawai Kewangan Negeri Kelantan 2. ) Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai

Citation

DA-25-4-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-25-4-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because it was filed beyond the mandatory three‑month limitation (or, alternatively, beyond three months from payment), the Applicant failed to show it was adversely affected by Respondent 2 after intitulement was amended to the Land Administrator, and the prerequisites for mandamus were not established given the existence of alternative remedies against the proper party.
6 Dec 2021

Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

W-01(A)-513-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-513-10/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Section 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 is intra vires the Federal Constitution; the appellant was required to exhaust the statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners under s99(1) because the issues raised involve factual assessment (whether the land was stock in trade) properly determined by SCIT; absent exceptional circumstances the judicial review was inappropriate, therefore the appeal is dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.
19 Jul 2021

Muhibbah Engineering (M) Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

W-01(A)-349-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-349-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's dismissal of leave and held that the Appellant had met the low threshold for leave by raising an arguable case of error of law/excess of jurisdiction; the question of alternative remedies and whether exceptional circumstances exist must be determined at the substantive hearing, therefore the JR application is to proceed to full hearing.
10 May 2021

OOI CHIENG SIM KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

WA-25-20-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-20-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory appeal under section 99 ITA 1967; the disputes raised are factual (capital statement) and properly ventilated before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, making the judicial review premature and an abuse of process.
28 Feb 2021

TROPICAL LAND PROPERTY SDN BHD KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

JA- 25-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA- 25-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the application was not frivolous given existing High Court authorities supporting deductibility and the applicant was demonstrably adversely affected; an interim stay was granted because special circumstances (significant liabilities and cash flow impact) justified preserving the status quo until disposal of the judicial review.
14 Aug 2020

Melody Park Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to apply for certiorari was dismissed because applicants failed to demonstrate an error of law or lack of jurisdiction in issuing notices under s.4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967; the disputes over whether gains were income or subject to RPGT involve questions of fact and merits properly to be determined by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and The Peak did not establish a legitimate expectation arising from its 'without prejudice' undertaking.
19 Jun 2020

Tan Sri Dato' Paduka (Dr) Ting Pek Khiing Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi

Citation

WA-29NCC-3872-12-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-3872-12-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Mandamus was refused because s33A vests a discretion in the DGI (no mandatory duty to issue a discharge certificate), the plaintiff had not satisfied the statutory conditions in s33C (target contributions and statutory accounting) and there existed alternative statutory remedies under the Insolvency Act 1967; therefore the conditions of s44 Specific Relief Act were not cumulatively met.
26 Dec 2019

Lau Jick Ing 1. Lim Heng Sean @ Eddie Lim 2. Cemerlang Utara Sdn Bhd

Citation

24NCC-632-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

24NCC-632-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the first defendant's winding-up notice was an abuse of process and an afterthought issued for a collateral purpose to deprive the company of commissions from Sutera Matra; the proposed petition had no real prospect of success and would cause irreparable harm to the 2nd Defendant as a going concern, therefore a fortuna injunction was justified and granted.
9 Jul 2019

ONG KEH KEONG LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM-PEGUAM

Citation

B-02(A)-1397-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

B-02(A)-1397-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the judicial review was premature and constituted an abuse of process because the Disciplinary Board had not made a final order; the applicant was obliged to make representations under section 103D(4) and exhaust the statutory disciplinary and appellate procedures (including appeal under s103E) before seeking judicial review; accordingly the High Court's striking out was correct and the appeal was dismissed.