Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Filing of record of appeal

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

1. ) JANACOM KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) JANACON TRADING SDN BHD 3. ) JANATHANAN A/L GOVINTHA NAIR LE TOUR DU MONDE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-21-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-21-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the supporting affidavit for the extension was filed outside the 14-day period without the court's permission, the explanation for delay was solicitor error not a clerical mistake and therefore not a reasonable ground to exercise discretion to extend time, and absent a proper affidavit the court could not exercise its discretion to enlarge time or set aside the default judgment.
17 Apr 2025

SATHISKUMAR A/L SURAS seorang budak berumur bawah 18 tahun menuntut melalui ibu yang sah iaitu NIRMALADEVI A/P MAHALINGAM 1. ) ARCHANA A/P LETCHUMANAN 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

BA-11B-28-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-28-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the extension because the delay was caused by counsel's ignorance of mandatory procedural requirements (a legal error), the applicant failed to provide cogent reasons to justify relief, Order 1A could not be invoked to remedy deliberate non-compliance with mandatory rules, and therefore the application to extend time to file the Record of Appeal was dismissed with costs.
18 Jan 2023

KITARAN SUKMA SDN. BHD. 1. ) CASA BESTARI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ROYAL PAHANG POLO CLUB SDN. BHD.

Citation

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Record of Appeal and Memorandum were not filed within the time prescribed by A.55 KKM 2012 and the court had already refused the appellant's application for extension, there was no properly constituted appeal before the High Court; Order/A.18 r.19 KKM 2012 is inapplicable to cancelling an appeal, and therefore the applications (KM 47 and KM 54) were dismissed.
12 May 2022

FM MULTI SERVICES SDN BHD GUNASAGARAN A/L SELVADURAY @ RAMAN

Citation

BA-16-31-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-31-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the appointment letter (Exhibit P3) was signed by a minor who lacked capacity, rendering the purported employment contract invalid; additionally the court accepted that the Chief Justice's directive dispensed with strict filing formalities and dismissed the preliminary objection to the late record.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) JANACOM KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) JANACON TRADING SDN BHD 3. ) JANATHANAN A/L GOVINTHA NAIR LE TOUR DU MONDE SDN BHD

SATHISKUMAR A/L SURAS seorang budak berumur bawah 18 tahun menuntut melalui ibu yang sah iaitu NIRMALADEVI A/P MAHALINGAM 1. ) ARCHANA A/P LETCHUMANAN 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

KITARAN SUKMA SDN. BHD. 1. ) CASA BESTARI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ROYAL PAHANG POLO CLUB SDN. BHD.

FM MULTI SERVICES SDN BHD GUNASAGARAN A/L SELVADURAY @ RAMAN