Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consolidation

Legal area

Court

1 Jul 2025

LEMON SKY ANIMATION SDN BHD 1. ) WONG CHENG FEI 2. ) FOONG KA KING 3. ) SPIKY THINGS SDN BHD 4. ) CHIN YOON SEAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the pleadings disclose a common question of law or fact relevant to both suits and that the differences are not so fundamental as to defeat consolidation; allegations of bad faith and prejudice were not established. Accordingly the Court allowed the application to transfer/consolidate (Enclosure 16) and awarded costs in the cause.
9 May 2025

GOW JIA LE AIA BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-46-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Withdrawal of the ASDCC was allowed because the Defendant elected not to pursue the amended pleading and no prejudice was shown given the pre-trial stage, but costs were ordered against the Defendant; the application to consolidate and transfer to the KL High Court was dismissed because the Defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient common questions of law or fact (notably the conspiracy allegations lacked pleaded facts and named parties) and consolidation would risk jumbling distinct evidence of each plaintiff and produce prejudice or inconsistent outcomes.
22 Apr 2025

DATIN SERI TAN BEE GEOK DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

Citation

WA-23NCvC-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where a prior order directed multiple suits be heard together but one plaintiff changed solicitors so there was no longer common representation, the change frustrated the purpose of the joint hearing; the court has power to sever to prevent injustice and to secure just, expeditious and economical disposal; accordingly Suit 31 was severed from Suit 22 and ordered to be tried separately while Suit 22 remains heard together with Suit 23; no order as to costs.
22 Apr 2025

LIN WOON FUI DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

Citation

WA-23NCvC-22-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-22-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiff in Suit 31 changed solicitors such that common legal representation between the plaintiffs no longer existed, the Court concluded the suits were no longer suitable to be heard together and severed Suit 31 from Suit 22 while ordering Suit 22 and Suit 23 to be heard together; no order as to costs.
15 May 2024

1. ) DATIN LAI LEONG PENG 2. ) KAITO GIN SDN BHD 3. ) SIERRA CHARM SDN BHD 1. ) DATO JAVERN LIM CHONG HEE 2. ) EDWARD OOI TEE HEE 3. ) LEU KOK WAI 4. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD 5. ) SCS GLOBAL ADVISORY (M) SDN BHD PENCELAH KAITO GIN HOLDINGS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-30-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-30-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to intervene and be added as a co-plaintiff was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to demonstrate a legal interest in the matters in dispute as required by Order 15 rule 6(3), was controlled by the existing plaintiff and could have been joined earlier, and because a prior decision to refuse consolidation in Suit No.48 indicated the disputes were not sufficiently connected to justify adding the intervener.
18 Mar 2024

PONNUSAMY A/L RAMASAMY KALIDAS A/L KOMARAWELO

Citation

PA-22NCvC-178-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-178-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was refused because plaintiff intentionally filed separate suits rather than seeking consolidation, Suit 178 was not ready for trial and transferring it would likely inconvenience the receiving judge and delay trials already ready in OCVC3, any alleged savings of time and costs were insubstantial, and the application was filed too late; therefore the requirements of Order 57 r.1(1) and desirability under Order 4 r.1(1) were not satisfied.
28 Aug 2023

1. ) KATIRVELL A/L NAGEICHELVAM 2. ) MARAN A/L VENGADAPATHY 1. ) Danishkumar A/l Chandra Sekera 2. ) Thanavesan A/l Ramayah 3. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-170-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-170-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissed because the mistake was not reasonably explained, there was inordinate delay, the proposed amendment would add another party and cause prejudice by undermining finality and requiring the trial court to reissue grounds; the applicant relied on an incorrect RoC provision and the discretion to amend was not appropriate in the circumstances.
27 Apr 2023

1. ) Sivasubramaniam Sivayogarajasingam 2. ) Yasimin Bin Yusoff Saumian Sivayogarajasingam

Citation

BA-22NCC-98-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-98-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court judge has statutory power under O.57 r.1 and relevant provisions to transfer a case to another High Court judge within the same territorial jurisdiction (Malaya) irrespective of branch/division/locality; consolidation is not a prerequisite to transfer; given the interrelated suits, risk of conflicting decisions and available trial schedule, transfer of NCvC10 to NCvC3 is appropriate and just.
9 Jun 2022

1. ) SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD 2. ) PERBADANAN SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN JOHOR (SSI) 1. ) TOH HWEE LENG (ZHUO HUILING) 2. ) TEO SWEE HENG FREDERICK 3. ) WONG KIM HAUR 4. ) DAVION WONG SIN PHIEN (WANG XINGBIN) 5. ) YEO CHOON HIN MELVIN (YAO CUNXUN M

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for extension of time to file the ROA dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the five-month delay, failed to comply with directions and representations made to court, and failed to demonstrate any arguable case or defence; exercise of discretion refused and costs awarded to respondents.
26 Nov 2021

TJJ BROTHER TRADING BIO ENERGY FORCE SDN BHD

Citation

BL-22 NCVC-16-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22 NCVC-16-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The transfer application was dismissed because it was brought in the wrong forum and impermissibly sought future directions and a stay contingent on disposal of the KL action, which is beyond the court’s power under para 12 Schedule Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Selising Mining; additionally the causes of action in the two suits are different so overlapping factual background did not justify transfer or consolidation; the application was an abuse of process.