Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exercise of judicial discretion

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

1. ) LIU JIAN XI 2. ) WU HAI YUN 3. ) FEI GUANNV 4. ) DUAN SUJUAN 5. ) HE QIUEN 6. ) CHEN SHIKAI 7. ) LIU ZHIWEI 8. ) ZHANG QI 9. ) YANG XIJUN 10. ) LIU SIQI 11. ) YANG QIAN 12. ) CHEN NANQIANG 13. ) LI YONGJUN 14. ) LU XIN 15. ) HU CHENGRO

Citation

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-779-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer/consolidation dismissed because plaintiffs failed to show special reason or sufficient overlap; intra-court transfer raises high bar and is unjust given scale (54 plaintiffs, 17 defendants); security for costs ordered because threshold met (foreign residence), plaintiffs failed to disclose financial position or show stifling, and cumulative factors made security just, but original requested quantum excessive so court fixed RM100,000 per application.
19 Dec 2025

HABIBUL 'AJMI BIN MANGAAR PENCELAH 1. ) MUHAMMAD MUNIR BIN MANGGAR 2. ) KAMISAH BINTI ABAS 3. ) MUHAMMAD MANNAN BIN MANGGAR 4. ) SITI MUNIRAH BINTI MANGGAR 5. ) MUHAMMAD OMAR FAROUK BIN MANGGAR 6. ) MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MANGGAR 7. ) MUHAMMAD F

Citation

MA-24NCvC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

MA-24NCvC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s.43 and s.44 of the PAA, finding no serious misconduct, accepting the administrator's explanations and interim measures, and fixed commission at 3% (below the statutory maximum) and allowed reimbursement of administration costs subject to prior disclosure, because the administrator had acted to preserve beneficiaries' interests and had offered to provide accounts.
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.
28 Feb 2024

PALANIANDY A/L SADAYAN 1. ) REGU A/L VEDY KAUNDAN 2. ) MANI ARASI A/P CHANDRAN

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-133-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-133-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing a further adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to attend, the defendants' readiness to proceed, and the appellant's conduct which pointed to deliberate absence; the judgment was given after a hearing on merits and therefore the proper remedy was appeal rather than setting aside under Order 35 r 2; additionally, procedural breaches (late service of record) and lack of strong prospects of success warranted dismissal of the appeals with costs.
7 Jul 2023

1. ) DATO' WONG FONG LENG 2. ) LI MEDICAL SDN. BHD. 1. ) Pendaftar Syarikat, Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia 2. ) LIM BOON PING

Citation

WA-24NCC-659-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-659-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to demonstrate the company was carrying on business at the time of striking off or that reinstatement was just; applicant's own conduct contributed to non-compliance (refusal to sign 2017 accounts) and reinstatement would be unjust and prejudicial; court therefore exercised its discretion under s.555 to refuse reinstatement and dismissed the originating summons with costs to the defendants.
23 May 2023

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

Citation

J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal allowed the Defendant’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s security for costs order because the learned Judicial Commissioner legally erred by failing to consider relevant matters—specifically the Defendant’s arbitration claim, its bona fides and prospects of success—which are material to an order for security for costs; therefore the exercise of discretion was wrong and the arbitral proceedings shall continue; costs RM5,000 awarded to Defendant.
27 Jul 2020

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 264979) SG PRESTIGE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 1030875-K)

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-145-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-145-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was properly refused because the proposed amendments would change the substance and character of the original Defence, the facts underlying them were known when the original Defence was filed, the defendant failed to provide a cogent and acceptable explanation for the 21‑month delay (change of solicitors was insufficient), the application exhibited indicia of tactical manoeuvre, and the Sessions Court Judge exercised her discretion lawfully; appeal dismissed.
27 Jul 2020

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD SKY ACRES SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-143-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-143-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original defence, the Defendant failed to provide a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the 21‑month delay (change of solicitors was not an acceptable excuse), the timing indicated a tactical manoeuvre to resist summary judgment, and the Sessions Court Judge exercised her discretion lawfully with resulting prejudice to the Plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs.