Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compliance with procedural timelines

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

Citation

WA-B54-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B54-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed: the plaintiff filed the assessment application 7 days late in breach of the mandatory one-month period under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012; the explanations proffered (waiting for draft order, awaiting possible appeal, and counsel oversight) were not cogent; Aturan 1A does not rescue non-accidental or negligent failures; and the plaintiff's pleading did not seek "damages to be assessed," so the assessment procedure under Aturan 37 was inapplicable.
5 Sept 2024

VENTURE SKL SDN. BHD. GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

CA-22NCvC-36-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-22NCvC-36-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff's notices were filed within one month of the final Federal Court decision and, in any event, O.37 r.1 must be read with the overriding objective and O.34 so non‑compliance is not inevitably fatal; accordingly the plaintiff's application for extension/abridgment of time was allowed (with costs to the defendant) and the defendant's application to set aside the notices was dismissed with no order as to costs.
17 Apr 2024

LIM CHEE YONG THONG HOE KHIN

Citation

WA-12BNCC-28-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-28-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was struck out because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with mandatory timelines in Order 55 ROC, could not rely on e-mail service under Order 62 r 6(1)(cc) in the absence of a practice direction, and filed the memorandum of appeal out of time without leave and without acceptable explanation, warranting dismissal by striking out with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

VENTURE SKL SDN. BHD. GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD.

LIM CHEE YONG THONG HOE KHIN