Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of consent judgment

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2025

1. ) Mohd Noor Amin Bin Mohd Noor Khan 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Mohamed Shihab Bin Kunhi Mohamed 4. ) Daljeet Singh A/l Kapur Singh XXXX

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-143-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-143-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court: the DRA did not supersede or extinguish the consent judgment because the consent judgment specifically provided for and incorporated the DRA and expressly preserved the respondent's entitlement to enforce the judgment on default; further, the High Court did not misapply its discretion in granting leave under Order 46 r2 because the respondent demonstrated cogent reasons for delay (negotiations, indulgences and periodic payments) and the action was not statute-barred.
26 May 2025

Azman bin Hanafiah PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK

Citation

AA-25-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because there was no reviewable administrative decision by the Registrar (the issue concerned enforcement of court orders), the application was time‑barred under the jurisdictional three‑month limit in Order 53 r.3(6), and the matter was academic as the lease had expired and the land reverted to the State, rendering any order futile.
19 May 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

22NCVC-540-12/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-540-12/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for committal was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish deliberate disobedience to the consent judgment to the requisite standard, the applicant unlawfully delayed six years amounting to laches, and the consent judgment lacked the mandatory penal endorsement required to sustain committal proceedings.
16 May 2025

SIM CHENG YOUNG 1. ) 3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU 3. ) DATO HAJI CHE PEE BIN SAMSUDIN 4. ) DATUK MANIBALAN KUTTY A/L RAGAVAN

Citation

BA-22NCC-171-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-171-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its powers under section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Debtors Act 1957 after considering the oral testimony of the director and concluded there was a sufficient basis to order periodic instalments (RM25,000 monthly from June 2025) and a specified lump sum (RM1,000,000 by 31 January 2026) as realistic means for the judgment debtor to satisfy the consent judgment.
20 Mar 2025

Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (LKIM) MUSTAFFA CATERING SERVICES

Citation

BA-A71NCvC-682-08/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A71NCvC-682-08/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application for extension of time to enforce the consent judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for prolonged and repeated delays in enforcement, the enforcement period had exceeded six years without sufficient justification, and the conduct amounted to an abuse of the court's process; therefore extension was denied and no order as to costs was made.
13 Oct 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN SECURIFORCE FLEETS SDN BHD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NURNADIAH BINTI KHALID

Citation

JA-29NCC-209-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-209-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the creditor's substantive claim was not excessive because a judgment against multiple debtors imports joint and several liability (per Federal Court authority), the post-notice RM2,000 payment did not reduce the outstanding debt below the insolvency threshold, but the manner of service was irregular because personal service was not established; rather than setting aside the notice the court exercised its discretion to extend the period for personal service and permit the creditor to attempt service by appointment or apply for substituted service; the application to set as…
25 Oct 2023

Hamdan Bin Mohamed 1. ) PXCG Capital Sdn Bhd 2. ) Abdul Qayyum Bin Sahimi 3. ) Aminuddin Bin Haji Ahmad Zain

Citation

WA-22NCC-266-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-266-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 3rd Defendant signed Directors' Guarantees and Indemnities which by their clear terms made him jointly and severally liable and a principal debtor/indemnifier; his admissions, part payments, communications and the conduct of the company amounted to ratification under s.65 Companies Act 2016 and estopped him from denying receipt or liability; therefore plaintiff entitled to recover RM2,507,000 under the Consent Judgment.
11 Feb 2022

Lai Shtow Ying 1. ) Low Beng Lee 2. ) Low Ban Seng

Citation

BA-22NCvC-64-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-64-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The recorded consent judgment was binding and enforceable; the court has statutory power under Order 45 r8 and para 16 of the Schedule to s25(2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to order enforcement including sale and execution of documents on default; plaintiff's failure to respond to the Offer to Purchase amounted to non-compliance and justified ordering enforcement of clause 5(b).
29 Nov 2021

Lau Beng Lai 1. ) Chong Poh Gek 2. ) TETUAN JASNI & CO PENCELAH Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad

Citation

KA-24NCvC-626-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-626-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held both the 12/8/2014 vesting order and the 6/9/2017 amended order were regular, valid and enforceable as they were steps to implement a prior consent judgment; the plaintiff failed to plead illegality or lack of jurisdiction, so this court (of concurrent jurisdiction) could not set aside those orders; consequently the plaintiff's supplemental originating summons was dismissed.
21 Oct 2020

1. ) WANI BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) TETUAN KAMILA IBRAHIM & CO 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA HAKIM SYARIE MAHKAMAH SYARIAH WILALYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN 3. ) KETUA PENDAFTAR MAHKAMAH SYARIAH WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERS

Citation

WA-25-341-07-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-341-07-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave is dismissed because (1) the civil High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with or judicially review matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah courts as protected by Article 121(1A) and the statutory framework (Akta 505, Akta 585), and (2) the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement under Order 53 rule 3(2) (failure to file the required statement), a fatal defect that renders the leave application defective and disentitles it to further substantive consideration.