Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and extension of time

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

CHUBB Insurance Malaysia Berhad 1. ) IXIS CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHAMED SABRI BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) ADNAN BIN ABU SAMAH 4. ) ROZAIDI BIN RAMLI 5. ) KHAIRIL MUZAMIL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 6. ) ABD RAHMAN BIN ABD KARIM PIHAK TERKILAN CIMB ISLAMIC

Citation

BH-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BH-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The default judgments (JID 1, JID 2 and JID 3) were obtained regularly; defendants did not disclose any meritorious defence because the letters of undertaking gave plaintiff absolute discretion to pay under the bond and defendants could pursue any remedy against the Principal/JKR; defendants failed to provide any material justification for delay in filing the application (notably D1/D2) and did not seek an extension of time—therefore the application to set aside (Lampiran 35) is dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
20 May 2025

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) TUA POOK GEE 2. ) TUA POOK SIK 3. ) SAWADI PG TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because court found service of writ, statement and judgment to the address specified in the Guarantee and defendant's identification was proper so the default judgment was regularly obtained; the applicant filed the application about 4 years after service of the judgment, failed to seek extension or give a satisfactory explanation for delay contrary to procedural rule requiring promptness, and failed to file an affidavit demonstrating a meritorious defence; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse extension and to dismiss the application with costs.
28 Apr 2025

AGAN MARINE SDN BHD BERKAT OFFSHORE SOLUTION SDN BHD

Citation

NA-12ANCvC-16-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12ANCvC-16-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service by A.R. registered post to the defendant's last known address constituted prima facie valid service; defendant filed the application well outside the 30‑day period without satisfactory explanation; defendant failed to disclose any arguable defence; appeal dismissed with costs and Sessions Court decision of 5.7.2024 affirmed.
26 Feb 2025

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) TUA POOK GEE 2. ) TUA POOK SIK 3. ) SAWADI PG TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-B52NCC-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately four years after service of the default judgment without satisfactory explanation or any application for extension of time; service to the address in the Guarantee was regular so the default judgment was regularly obtained; applicant failed to establish a prima facie meritorious defence.
14 Feb 2024

PALANIANDY A/L SADAYAN AAKASH GREEN ENERGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the Court of Appeal order to file his defence within the prescribed 14 days, filed the defence one day late without obtaining leave or offering any explanation for the delay, the subsequent judgment in default was thus regularly obtained, and the appellant failed to disclose any defence on the merits in his affidavits to justify setting aside the JID.
17 Jan 2024

Resorts World At Sentosa Pte Ltd Alfie Gan Kong Tian

Citation

WA-24NCC-1028-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-1028-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application because service (including court-ordered substituted service) was valid at the defendant's last known address provided in the Credit Agreement and official records; the application was filed out of time with no cogent excuse so extension was refused; the defendant failed to particularize allegations of fraud; and the registration/enforcement of the Singapore judgment was not contrary to Malaysian public policy and the merits of the foreign judgment cannot be re-litigated in this court.
19 Dec 2023

PBH Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Y&S Ilham Jaya Sdn Bhd PIHAK KETIGA P.B.H Trading & Construction Sdn Bhd (M)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance of probabilities that Defendant's financial mismanagement and failures to pay suppliers and workers materially caused delay; Plaintiff's expert evidence and contemporaneous documents were preferred; Plaintiff proved certain incurred costs but failed to prove boom lift repair and management fees and failed to establish entitlement to LAD due to reliance on provisional contract sum, lack of notice and inclusion of period after Plaintiff took over; Defendant's counterclaim and its claim against Third Party were unproven; judgment awarded to Plaintiff in part for RM 697,030…
19 Dec 2023

PBH Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Y&S Ilham Jaya Sdn Bhd PIHAK KETIGA P.B.H Trading & Construction Sdn Bhd (M)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court preferred the Plaintiff's expert delay analysis and contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing Defendant's financial failures and responsibility for delay; accordingly Plaintiff proved breach but failed to prove certain claimed items and the LAD claim due to improper quantification, lack of notice and inclusion of period after Plaintiff took over; Defendant's counterclaim and claim against the Third Party were not proven; judgment awarded a reduced proven sum to Plaintiff with interest and costs.
13 Oct 2023

BTS CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 1. ) KONG KOK MING 2. ) LEOW LI HWA

Citation

WA-22C-56-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-56-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the defendants failed to give a reasonable explanation for a nine‑month delay in bringing the application contrary to Order 42 r 13 Rules of Court 2012, substituted service was properly effected in accordance with the SS Order, the affidavit by D2 purporting to act for D1 was a bare, unsupported averment lacking proof of authority, and the draft defence disclosed no arguable merit.
3 Jul 2023

Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held Kasugi failed to prove that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers or breached natural justice in any material way. The Arbitrator was entitled to rely on her expertise under s21(3)(b) after considering evidence and documents; alleged errors were within her jurisdiction and did not justify setting aside. Accordingly OS46 was dismissed and the Final Award (with corrections) was enforced by order in OS40, with costs awarded.