Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay/laches

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2025

BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT

Citation

TA-A52M-85-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52M-85-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court refused the ex-parte application for leave because the plaintiff failed to comply with Order 46 r.3 by not providing sufficient explanation or evidence of steps taken to enforce the judgment within the six-year period, filed the application only after the six years lapsed without justifying the delay, and thus the court exercised its discretion to deny leave.
24 Oct 2025

Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) KONG SUN ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI SPECIAL LAND SDN. BHD.)

Citation

JA-21NCvC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service was not proved to comply with Order 10 and no substituted service was sought despite plaintiff's knowledge of the defendant's active address; absence of AR card or proof of receipt rendered the default judgment of 23.2.2022 irregular and therefore it must be set aside as of right; alternatively the defendant demonstrated triable issues; delay by defendant is immaterial given irregular service.
29 Apr 2025

XXXX K E N

Citation

WA-24F-212-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-212-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Counterclaim for joint guardianship and joint custody dismissed because Defendant demonstrated prolonged disengagement and lack of genuine involvement, and granting joint custody would jeopardize the child's welfare; access granted limitedly and subject to child's consent; claim for arrears dismissed due to lengthy unexplained delay and apparent strategic motive by mother; Defendant ordered to pay monthly maintenance MYR2,500 with 10% annual increment until completion of tertiary education and to contribute 30% of tertiary education costs if required.
5 Apr 2023

PEMPETISYEN Loh Siew Hong NAGAHSWARAN A/L MUNIANDY PENCELAH MAJLIS AGAMA DAN ISTIADAT MELAYU PERLIS

Citation

WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner complied with procedural requirements and established specific grounds; respondent had knowledge of and wilfully disobeyed the four court orders, delay was excused by pandemic, avoidance and imprisonment, and failure of strict personal service did not prejudice the respondent; therefore leave to commence committal was valid and committal was warranted with a fine and conditional imprisonment.
14 Sept 2022

1. ) FAHMI AIMAN BIN MD. HASRONI 2. ) FAZRUL AZRI BIN MD. HASRONI 3. ) XXXX 4. ) NORHAIZAN BINTI OMAR ISMAIL BIN SALLEH

Citation

JA-A53KJ-48-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-48-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to intervene was dismissed because the Notice of Application and supporting affidavit failed to specify the legal provision relied upon, rendering the application fundamentally defective, and because the applicant unreasonably delayed seeking intervention without satisfactory explanation; exercise of discretion refused despite applicant having a legal/pecuniary interest.
12 Sept 2022

PEMPETISYEN Eldarius Yong Zhen Jie for the Petitioner [Messrs Chellam Wong] Sara Idylla binti Isbah for the Respondent [Messrs Ahmad Rizal, Sara Idylla & Co.]

Citation

WA-28NCC-229-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-229-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner has locus to bring a petition under s465(h) and (k) but on the facts the alleged Trust Deeds and Bumiputera arrangements do not bear sufficient nexus to the company's lawful business and Petronas had knowledge without adverse finding; the petition was also commenced with abusive motive to forestall pending suits; accordingly winding up is not justified and petition is dismissed with costs.
19 Aug 2022

DHAMODARAN A/L MUNUSAMY SUMATHI A/P TAMBYRASAH

Citation

AA-B53F-7-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B53F-7-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the affidavit evidence the impugned social media postings were clearly defamatory with no reasonable explanation offered; the case fell within established exceptions to the reluctance to grant interlocutory relief in libel, so an interim injunction was necessary to preserve parties' positions pending trial and was therefore granted.
22 Jun 2022

1. ) WANG SEE SOOI 2. ) BIOCOSLAB MANUFACTURING SDN BHD TAN YON CHIA

Citation

BA-22NCvC-113-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-113-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed because plaintiffs failed to satisfy equitable prerequisites: they delayed bringing the application, failed to make full and frank disclosure, did not show a substantial question to be tried on the evidence, the restraint sought was contrary to s28 Contracts Act 1950 and unenforceable, the alleged confidential information was not shown to be owned or confidential to plaintiffs and was in part public domain, and damages were an adequate remedy with balance of convenience favouring the defendant.
26 Jan 2022

SUHAILI BIN ABDUL HALIM [NO. K/P: 710103-03-5377/A1777756] NIK ABD. RAHIM BIN ABDUL JALIL [NO. K/P: 480403-03-5001]

Citation

DA-24NCvC-228-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-228-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent judgment was valid and enforceable: it constituted a contract entered into by the parties while the plaintiff was competent to enter it; the liability was unliquidated at the time and therefore not a provable debt attracting section 8; no prior sanction was required to make the settlement binding; the applicant's substantial delay barred relief.
12 Aug 2021

1. ) NURUL ADZLIANA AINNIE BT ABDILLAH (NO K/P: 79528-07-5326) 2. ) MOHD IRWAN NIZAM BIN KHORIZAN (NO. K/P: 791221-08-6113) 3. ) NOR AZLAN BIN MD HURI (NO. K/P : 830627-08-6489) FELCRA BERHAD (NO SYARIKAT : 432483-U)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-665-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-665-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out on locus standi grounds because the asserted cause of action was on behalf of a partnership yet the action was not brought in the name of the firm or in the names of all partners; additionally Plaintiff 3 is not a lawyer and lacked standing; failure to serve a bill of costs under s124 and an inordinate seven‑year delay reinforced the basis to allow the defendant's strike‑out application (Lampiran 14) in part.