Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appealability

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2026

PEMBANGUNAN IKRAM IKHLAS SDN BHD Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

Citation

BA-15-117-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-117-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted the Government valuer's comparable-sales adjustments (Perbandingan Sepunya) and increased the land values to RM4,000/smp for Lot 2755 and RM3,800/smp for Lot 2754; it also accepted and quantified recoverable development costs and ordered the Respondent to pay specified additional compensation with 5% p.a. interest from Form K to full settlement.
28 Nov 2025

PARTHIBAN A/L KANNIAPPAN Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO)

Citation

BA-16-35-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-35-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the mandatory 60‑day period prescribed by section 91 of Akta 4; there is no express statutory power to shorten or extend that period, rendering the appeal incompetent regardless of merits, and JRKS's application of Regulation 46 on eligibility was upheld.
5 Nov 2025

KIRANA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION DAVID ADRIAN FRANKLIN

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-94-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-94-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the defendant's counterclaim raised substantial disputed facts and legal issues that could not be resolved on affidavit and pleadings alone; because oral evidence is required to adjudicate the parties' rights, summary dismissal was inappropriate and the plaintiff's application to cancel the counterclaim was dismissed (and in such circumstances the decision is non-appealable).
23 Oct 2025

DR. GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS 1. ) DR TIKFU GEE 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because appellant, as a failed complainant, lacked locus standi and no disciplinary order was made against him so Part IV did not confer a right of appeal; additionally the saving/transitional provision meant the repeal of s31(2) did not operate retrospectively for alleged misconduct in 2015, preserving finality of the High Court decision.
12 Sept 2025

C&L PERFECTO TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) CREATIVE INOVA SDN BHD 2. ) TAN JUN WEI

Citation

BB-B52NCC-172-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCC-172-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The appeal is non‑maintainable because Section 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 bars appeals to the High Court from a Subordinate Court's dismissal of an application for summary judgment, and the summary judgment was properly refused because there were triable issues such as disputed service of the demand notice.
9 Sept 2025

1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD QM PRINT SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) Tetuan Malis & Khoo

Citation

02(i)-6-03/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-6-03/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 68(1)(f) CJA must be construed harmoniously with sections 3 and 67 CJA and read purposively: dismissals of striking‑out applications that merely defer adjudication pending further oral evidence are non‑appealable, but dismissals that finally dispose of parties' rights (jurisdictional threshold defects, res judicata, locus standi, derivative action threshold, state immunity) are appealable. Applying that test, the dismissals in MT Ventures (locus standi threshold) and Azinal (res judicata threshold) raised jurisdictional questions that finally disposed of the defendants' rights and the…
4 Jun 2025

XXXX RASIDAH BINTI RATAG

Citation

WA-41(Ors)-10-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

WA-41(Ors)-10-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The magistrate's ex parte allowance of the application to set aside the IPO breached the audi alteram partem principle because the father and the Welfare Department were not cited or heard; that procedural irregularity vitiates the magistrate's order, which is set aside, the original IPO is reinstated pending a fresh hearing where all necessary parties must be personally notified, and the matter is remitted to another magistrate for rehearing.
27 May 2025

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE

Citation

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The wording of section 68(1)(f) CJA 1964 is clear and limited to situations where the High Court dismisses an application to strike out a writ or pleading under Order 18 r19 ROC 2012; it does not extend to refusals of applications under Order 14A or Order 33. Applications under Order 14A/33 that raise legal issues capable of finally disposing of parties' rights (eg res judicata, Section 6A Limitation Act) remain appealable; accordingly, the respondent's motion to strike out this appeal under s68(1)(f) is without merit and should be dismissed with costs (minority view).
20 May 2025

LIM QIU SHI ADENLAND (DAMANSARA JAYA) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that issues under Order 33 r.2 are amenable to appellate review and that the appeal was properly before the Court; however, on review of the record and submissions no appealable error was shown in the Sessions Court Judge’s refusal of Enclosure 34, and the appeal was therefore dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.
20 Mar 2025

KP ASLI SDN. BHD. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

Citation

BA-15-129-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-129-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court maintained the Land Administrator's award because the Applicant failed to prove entitlement to higher compensation: buildings and structures were excluded from valuation as they contravened the express agricultural use condition and para 3(3A) First Schedule; severance/injurious affection claims were unmeritorious given access arrangements and lack of substantiation; disturbance/operational cost claims lacked documentary proof; consequently the Land Administrator's figures were reasonable and upheld.