Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appealability of interlocutory orders

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2025

KUMARESAN A/L THURAIRAJU 1. ) LEE YONG WUN, PAULINE 2. ) LEE YUNG-WAI, JOSHUA

Citation

CA-B52NCvC-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-B52NCvC-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application for summary judgment (Lampiran 19) was dismissed because the first defendant raised bona fide triable issues—denial of the claimed admission, dispute as to quantum, evidence of substantial payments, and challenge to whether invoices constituted final bills—such that summary judgment was inappropriate and the matters require full trial and, if necessary, taxation of costs.
19 May 2025

1. ) ANAS HAFIZIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) MUHAMAD ASLAM BIN OSMAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN DAHAMID

Citation

K-06A-13-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

K-06A-13-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the High Court's order of 30 July 2024 that removed PW1's statutory protection was a definitive act that destroyed the witness's protection rights and thus constituted an appealable decision; the Court found the trial judge erred in revisiting and discharging the earlier in camera protection order without sufficient basis and reinstated the 20 February 2024 protection order under SOSMA s14 and the Witness Protection Act s20, allowing the prosecution's appeal and dismissing respondents' preliminary objections.
27 Feb 2025

RAJADEVAN A/L VAMADEVAN 1. ) MOHD NIZAM BIN SAIDON 2. ) NURUL HAILA HANIM BINTI HARIF

Citation

KD-A72-6-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KD-A72-6-09/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application was dismissed because the original counsel lacked a valid practising certificate under the LPA, and representation by an unlicensed advocate cannot lawfully be cured by appearance of a licensed proxy; this unauthorized representation rendered the proceedings irregular and dismissal was justified, with the further procedural bar that a pending related appeal must be resolved by the High Court before reconsideration.
21 Jan 2025

ORIENTAL STEEL PIPE SDN BHD UNITED SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-21-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-21-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court's order allowing the amendment was a non-final interlocutory decision and therefore not appealable under the statutory definition of 'decision' read with the Courts of Judicature Act and the Federal Court precedent in Asia Pacific Higher Learning; alternatively, even if appealable, the Sessions Court correctly exercised its discretion and any prejudice was remediable by costs.
10 Jan 2025

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai AmTrustee Berhad) (sebagai pemegang amanah untuk Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) TASHIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JB-37J-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-37J-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR’s refusal to grant an oral order for production of bank statements was correct because the Judgment Creditor failed to follow the mandatory Order 48 Rules of Court 2012 procedure for examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor; the JDS was not validly commenced under Order 48 and, being an interlocutory procedural ruling, the SAR’s decision is not appealable; accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the SAR’s exercise of discretion is upheld.
7 Nov 2024

MOHD SALLEH BIN MEERASHA

Citation

M-06A-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

M-06A-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is incompetent and dismissed because the High Court's order amending the charge and calling the accused to enter defence at the close of prosecution is interlocutory and not a final 'decision' within the meaning of s3 and s50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; the proper course is remittance to the High Court to hear the defence and make a final determination.
3 Sept 2024

1. ) UP UTARA SDN. BHD. 2. ) RINI MARIA BINTI RAMLI SERI TERATAI KLASIK SDN. BHD.

Citation

RA-22NCvC-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-22NCvC-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal against the order refusing the plaintiffs' application is non‑appealable under amended s68(1)(f); independently, the High Court validly exercised its discretion under Order 34 to dismiss the plaintiffs' entire writ for deliberate and unjustified failure to comply with pre‑trial directions, so the appeals lack merit and are dismissed.
17 Apr 2024

Kok Kon Sang CIMB BANK BERHAD (dahulunya Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd)

Citation

BA-22NCC-112-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-112-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the balance of justice and expediency tests the court held that a stay was justified because proceeding to trial while the Order 14A appeal (which could terminate the action) was pending would risk wasting time and resources and potentially render proceedings nugatory; accordingly the stay of proceedings was granted and costs ordered to be costs in the cause, notwithstanding ongoing uncertainty about the appealability of dismissal of Order 14A under s68(1)(e).
27 Oct 2023

CHAN KOK MING

Citation

A-05-201-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-05-201-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Although interlocutory orders are ordinarily not appealable, the Court exercised its discretion to hear the appeal as an exceptional case; the High Court had insufficiently considered the appellant's business necessity and the lack of evidence of flight risk, and therefore the High Court's order setting aside the Sessions Court's temporary passport release was set aside and the appeal allowed subject to specified documentary conditions and return dates for the passport.
17 Nov 2022

1. ) DAMIEN THAMAN DIVEAN 2. ) LIM TECK WYN 1. ) MAJLIS EKSEKUTIF NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN (EXCO) 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 3. ) YCH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 4. ) RESTU MANTAP SDN. BHD. PENCELAH 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negara C

Citation

BA-25-57-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-57-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

An ad interim stay granted pending an inter parte stay application is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of parties' rights; under s3 and s67 CJA and relevant precedent such an interim order is not appealable, so the intervener's appeal against the ad interim stay is not maintainable and must await the inter parte hearing where the intervener may oppose the stay.