Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Contempt in the face of the court

  • 21 Nov 2025

    JENDELA KELANA SDN. BHD. 1. ) SALEHUDDIN BIN SHAMSUDDIN 2. ) SUHAILY BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 3. ) SHAHERA @ SUHAILA BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 4. ) SHAHIRUDDIN BIN SHAMSUDDIN 5. ) SUHAINI BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 6. ) SALMAH BINTI MOHD SALLEH

    Citation
    WA-22NCvC-456-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCvC-456-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Defendant One fabricated and signed letters purporting to identify the spouse of Defendant Two with a false name, knowingly used those forged documents in Court to mislead the Court, admitted the conduct on plea, and having failed to take steps to expunge the documents or tender a timely sincere apology, was rightly convicted of contempt; the appropriate sentence was five days imprisonment and a RM3,000 fine (default three months imprisonment) to vindicate the Court's authority and deter similar conduct.

    • Fabrication of documents
    • Contempt in the face of the court
    • Sentencing for contempt
    • Sincerity of apology
    • Duty to expunge false documents

  • 23 Feb 2022

    MASYITAH BINTI MD HASSAN SAKINAH BINTI SULONG

    Citation
    JA-22NCvC-162-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-22NCvC-162-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the Facebook statements were direct commentary on the recently decided trial and thus fell within contempt committed in the face of the court under A.52 k.2A(2); consequently the ex‑parte order was properly made and not set aside, the plaintiff's committal application was allowed, and the proposed contemnor was liable to punishment (fine RM8,000) and costs (RM5,000).

    • Contempt in the face of the court
    • Committal proceedings
    • Ex‑parte orders
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Sanctions
    • Costs

  • 10 Mar 2021

    MASYITAH BINTI MD HASSAN SAKINAH BINTI SULONG LAIN-LAIN PENGHINA YANG DICADANGKAN IMELDA NASREEN BINTI NASRUDDIN @ BALCHIN

    Citation
    JA-22NCVC-162-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-22NCVC-162-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Recusal was unjustified because the putative contemnor was not a party to the earlier defamation proceedings, the issues in the committal application did not involve re-litigation of the defamation findings, the real danger of bias was not demonstrated under the objective informed-observer standard, and the presiding judge had a duty to hear contempt in the face of the court.

    • Recusal
    • Real danger of bias
    • Contempt in the face of the court
    • Judicial oath
    • Judge impartiality
    • Order 52 rule 2a rules of court 2012