Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bankruptcy

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2025

1. ) GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) GOLDEN PLUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN PLUS (BVI) PTE LTD 4. ) SRI SERDANG SDN BHD 5. ) PARADIZE BAZAAR SDN BHD 6. ) VENICE HEIGHTS SDN BHD 7. ) HANPOPULAR SDN BHD 8. ) YANFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A stay of execution was granted in respect of specified parts of the judgment because the applicant demonstrated special circumstances: (1) enforcement would likely lead to the applicant's bankruptcy and thereby render his appeal nugatory in practical terms given his advanced age and the personal nature of the allegations; (2) multi-jurisdictional and multi-currency aspects and non-reciprocating foreign plaintiffs create legitimate obstacles to recovery; and (3) requiring payment into stakeholder accounts was not viable given the applicant's demonstrated incapacity to pay. The balance of just…
16 Jul 2025

1. ) GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) GOLDEN PLUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN PLUS (BVI) PTE LTD 4. ) SRI SERDANG SDN BHD 5. ) PARADIZE BAZAAR SDN BHD 6. ) VENICE HEIGHTS SDN BHD 7. ) HANPOPULAR SDN BHD 8. ) YANFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The cumulative facts — D7's advanced age, registered disability, manifest inability to pay, immediate risk of bankruptcy rendering the appeal nugatory, and legitimate concerns about recoverability given winding-up proceedings and multiple jurisdictions — constitute special circumstances; balancing the hardship, a limited stay of execution of monetary components (minutes 4–11 and costs order) pending final determination of the appeal is warranted while injunctive orders remain in force.
22 May 2025

TETUAN ASIAH & HISAM MOHD SHAHFARIZAN BIN MOHD ARIF

Citation

BA-12B-89-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-89-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Sessions Court erred in principle by failing to properly verify and assess the respondent's financial capacity under s.4 Debtors Act 1957 and by over-relying on uncorroborated testimony amid allegations of undisclosed assets; appellate intervention was therefore justified and the instalment order was varied from RM1,000 to RM10,000 per month, with enforcement to proceed subject to insolvency law; no costs were ordered due to the respondent's undischarged bankruptcy.
14 Mar 2024

Tang Wei Lam Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn Bhd

Citation

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied the preliminary and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment by producing undisputed accounting records and acknowledgements; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on the facts or law (bankruptcy status and alleged informal agreement/ delay did not displace the obligation to repay). Consequently summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and the application for security for costs was dismissed.
4 Oct 2023

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Mohd Helmy Azrai Bin Yaacob 3. ) NORDIANA WAHIDAH BINTI YAACOB

Citation

22NCC-444-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-444-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to enforce the summary judgment is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory reasons to explain the delay in enforcement as required by Order 46 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012; in absence of such reasons the court could not exercise its discretion to grant leave.
26 Jul 2021

1. ) 1. CHONG SING LENG [NRIC NO: 580305-08-5345] 2. ) 2. MUN CHOOI PENG (P) [NRIC NO: 621118-10-7578] 1. ) 1. LIQUIDATOR ON BEHALF OF JUTA VILA (M) SDN BHD [Company No. 229400-W (under winding up)] 2. ) 2. LEE WAN LUNG [NRIC NO: 730920-07-

Citation

AA-24NCVC-131-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCVC-131-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Even if Public Bank held an equitable interest by assignment, that interest was in substance a security/mortgage which Public Bank failed to enforce within the statutory and equitable period; repeated notices of the plaintiffs' claim from 2003 and long failure to act (including failure to disclose or value security in insolvency proceedings and inaction for some 17 years) meant Public Bank's claim was barred by limitation, laches and acquiescence; the DGI's conduct waived any service irregularity and retrospective sanction was appropriate, so the application to set aside the 2016 Order was di…
25 Feb 2021

[TIMBALAN ] LOKE CHEE MIN

Citation

WA-62K-161-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-161-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted the guilty pleas, applied s171A CPC to convict on six AMLA counts and take six other AMLA counts into consideration, and sentenced the defendant to two years' imprisonment to run concurrently for the six counts with fines of RM5,000,000 for each count (default 6 months' imprisonment); the custodial sentence was ordered to commence after the expiry of the defendant's existing Kajang sentence, reflecting consideration of statutory limits, mitigation and public interest.
12 Nov 2020

CIMB BANK BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 197201001799 (134910-P)] (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Southern Bank Berhad) 1. ROEBUCK DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) [No. Syarikat: 198501005587 (138028-W)] 2. TIARA DESARU RESIDENCES SDN. BHD. [No. S

Citation

JA-22NCvC-43-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-43-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because leave to amend was improperly combined with a particulars application and no particulars of the proposed amendment were provided; the application was delayed and amounted to a fishing expedition seeking evidential material rather than preventing surprise; disclosure of the third‑party purchaser's personal data would contravene PDPA s8; and joining the purchaser would unduly complicate and delay the trial.
13 Jul 2020

TAN BON KIAT 1. LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 2. GAVIN LOW PENG KUANG 3. GOH PENG FEN [Kesemua beramal sebagai rakan kongsi di Tetuan Lau Kok Guan, Liana & Kuan]

Citation

JA-22-NCVC-92-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22-NCVC-92-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff's bankruptcy did not by itself bar an order for security for costs; having considered all circumstances the defendants provided reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs and demonstrated a prima facie defence, therefore under Order 23 r1(1)(b) the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of MYR30,000 within 30 days (reducing the defendants' claim for MYR70,000).
11 Feb 2020

TAN BON KIAT (NO.K/P: 480521-01-5685) 1. KESEMUA PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG MENDUDUKI PARCEL NO: A-G-6, Unit 3-OG-A, PELITA INDAH KONDOMINIUM, GERAN NO: 80001, LOT NO.22553, DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU 2. KANG HOCK HIN (NO. K/P: 540412-01-5653)

Citation

JA-24NCVC-544-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCVC-544-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons for vacant possession was dismissed because the Court was bound by earlier judgments declaring Defendant No.2 the beneficial owner, the plaintiff is an adjudged bankrupt so the Director General of Insolvency is the proper beneficial owner/trustee, and Order 89 is inappropriate where triable issues and competing rights exist; therefore plaintiff lacks locus standi to bring Order 89 proceedings.