Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compliance with rules of court

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2026

SANI EXPRESS SDN. BHD. 1. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ISMAIL 2. ) THE GOOD STORE TRADING SDN. BHD.

Citation

TB-B53KJ-5-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TB-B53KJ-5-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the delay of 78 days was substantial, the stated reason (late insurer instructions) was unsupported by documentary evidence, the defendants failed to justify or explain the delay satisfactorily, and granting the extension would prejudice the plaintiff and undermine finality; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion under Aturan 3 Kaedah 5 KKM 2012.
18 Jun 2025

DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time was refused because the application was not promptly filed, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, solicitor’s mistake and pending clarification did not justify extension, the appellant had knowledge of the delay, the subject matter of the appeal was either not within arbitration or had become academic due to ongoing arbitration, and the respondent would be prejudiced; accordingly Enclosure 3 was dismissed and the appeal struck out with costs of RM3,000 ordered.
2 Aug 2024

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL(MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-162-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudication Decision dated 2.10.2023 was not a nullity: the Payment Claim complied with CIPAA, no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction was established, and the stay pending arbitration was unjustified; however the judge found RM8,046,404.58 had already been paid by Samsung JV and ordered that amount to be deducted/severed from enforcement. Consequently applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed with costs and the enforcement application was allowed in part with directions to release stakeholder funds accordingly.
18 Jan 2023

KITARAN SUKMA SDN. BHD. 1. ) CASA BESTARI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ROYAL PAHANG POLO CLUB SDN. BHD.

Citation

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant's affidavit explanations for the delay did not constitute sufficient or acceptable reasons to justify exercise of discretion to extend the statutory 30-day period for filing the Record of Appeal; Order 1A cannot be used to rescue clear negligence or lack of vigilance. Accordingly the application to extend time is refused.
14 Apr 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Ivory Properties Group Berhad PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Lim Sok Hoon

Citation

PA-29NCC-507-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-29NCC-507-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Non-compliance with rule 90(1)(c) and the absence of a verifying affidavit served with the petition were formal defects which did not cause substantial and irremediable injustice; section 131 and rule 282 allow such defects to be validated or cured, therefore the Deputy Registrar correctly refused to set aside the notice and petition and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
28 Mar 2022

KEPONG INDUSTRIAL PARK SDN BHD LOW NG MOI

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-307-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-307-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with Order 55 rule 5(3) of the Rules of Court and failed to provide a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay; oversight and non‑receipt of grounds of judgment were inadequate excuses and prejudice to respondent outweighed any asserted minimal delay, rendering merits of appeal immaterial absent justification.
25 Oct 2020

Mohd Azrin bin Mohd Amin 1. Public Bank Berhad 2. Mahkamah Perusahaan

Citation

JA-25-10-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-10-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Chairman's decision/orders of 30.9.2019 amounted to an "award" under section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967; the applicant's challenge to those orders was therefore subject to the three‑month time limit in O.53 r.3(6) and was filed out of time; independently, the application failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (O.53 r.3(2) pleading of grounds and O.41 r.11 exhibits), so the judicial review application was defective and must be dismissed.
12 Aug 2020

Prolink Marketing Sdn Bhd C L Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-12NCVC-302-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12NCVC-302-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was an inordinate delay of approximately 151 days in filing the Record of Appeal and the appellant failed to provide strong, cogent and satisfactory reasons for that delay; because the requirement to file the Record of Appeal is mandatory under the Rules of Court 2012 and the discretion to extend time was not properly enlivened, the court refused to grant an extension and struck out the Notice of Appeal.
27 Feb 2020

CHIMONIEF SDN BHD SPNB ASPRISASI SDN BHD

Citation

DA-22NCC-7-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCC-7-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection, held the plaintiff complied with O 37 r 1(1) and that in the absence of any independent expert rebuttal the court was entitled to rely on the plaintiff's expert report albeit reduced; the court found the plaintiff's expert estimate reasonable but excessive and awarded a global sum of RM90,000,000 as damages and ordered no costs.
10 Dec 2019

1. TP Guan Heng Sdn Bhd 2. Lee Hui Khoon Loh Soo Chun

Citation

AB-12BNCVC-6-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCVC-6-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension was dismissed because the delay (7 weeks 3 days) was caused by inexcusable solicitor indolence with flimsy reasons, multiple non‑compliances with procedural requirements, absence of demonstrated merits capable of overcoming trial findings of fact, and clear prejudice to the respondent entitled to enjoy the fruits of litigation.