Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Further and better particulars

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2025

TELAGAMAS MOBILITY SDN BHD 1. ) STRONGHOLD CYCLES SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SWEE HOE 3. ) NG CHIK VOON 4. ) KOAY KUAN KING 5. ) CHENG TEN SIONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-87-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-87-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff wilfully disobeyed an explicit FBP Order, provided no court-ordered extension or satisfactory explanation and therefore the action must be struck out and dismissed pursuant to established authorities on self-executing orders and non-compliance.
25 Feb 2025

1. ) BHAVANASH SHARMA A/L GURCHAN SINGH SHARMA 2. ) JASMINDER KAUR CHAHAL AIA BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCC-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is incompetent and dismissed under s.28(1)(c) Courts of Judicature Act 1964; on the merits the Sessions Court did not err in allowing an extension of time and in rejecting the strike‑out for alleged incompleteness of particulars; therefore the Sessions Court judgment dismissing the strike‑out application is affirmed and costs awarded.
5 Jul 2024

TANJUNG OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) VME PROCESS SYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Citation

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Under Order 35 r3 the court refused to adjourn because the defendants' need for more time arose from their own delay in seeking particulars and complying with pre-trial directions; the prejudice claimed was self-inflicted and the wider prejudice of delaying a commercial trial outweighed the defendants' reasons, therefore it was not expedient in the interest of justice to adjourn.
11 Jun 2024

Anekakiara Realty Sdn Bhd Sri Aman Murni Sdn Bhd

Citation

AB-22NCvC-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-22NCvC-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 18 r.12 to grant the Defendant further and better particulars because the Defendant's requests were limited to basic particulars of fact (who, what, where, when, how) necessary to prepare a defence, were not impermissible requests for evidence, were made before service of the defence, and the Plaintiff did not demonstrate service of the relied documents or that the requests were abusive or fishing expeditions.
29 Jan 2024

1. ) ALFRED ARPUTHARAJ A/L DAVID PAULRAJ 2. ) RACHEL NYANAMONEY 1. ) OIB PROPERTIES (C) SDN BHD 2. ) CHONG VOON WEE

Citation

BB-B52C-15-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52C-15-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant First's application for further and better particulars/interrogatories was dismissed because the defendants had already filed full defences, the particulars sought were primarily evidential and amounted to a fishing expedition, the defendant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice or that the particulars were not within their knowledge, and the matters could be properly tested at trial; exercise of judicial discretion favoured refusal of the interlocutory order.
29 Jan 2024

KUMARAVEL A/L RAGUNADAN 1. ) OIB PROPERTIES (C) SDN BHD 2. ) CHONG VOON WEE

Citation

BB-B52C-16-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52C-16-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Pleadings filed by the plaintiff sufficiently set out the material facts; the first defendant has already filed a defence and failed to show specific prejudice or that the particulars sought are not within its knowledge; the questions sought are largely evidential and amount to a fishing expedition better suited for cross-examination at trial; accordingly the court exercises its discretion to refuse the application for further and better particulars and awards costs to the plaintiff.
10 Feb 2022

Selvaraju A/l Ponniah [Membawa Tindakan Ini Di Dalam Kapasiti Diri Sendiri Dan Sebagai Pentadbir Sah Estet Serta Sebagai Tanggungan Jothiletchumy A/p Kani Govindar, Si Mati ("Si Mati")] 1. ) Pengarah Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah 2. ) Dokt

Citation

BA-21NCvC-47-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-47-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that although the plaintiff had complied with the pre-requisite of requesting particulars by letter, many of the particulars sought (full names, IC numbers, residential/office addresses, designations) were irrelevant to the pleadings and unnecessary for trial preparation; particulars relating to treatment and duty roster can be obtained from medical records and through the discovery process as part of pre-trial case management. Accordingly the application for further and better particulars was refused.
25 Jan 2022

1. ) NIK HAMDAN BIN DAUD 2. ) BARAKAH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM BERHAD 3. ) PBJV GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) SAMLING ENERGY SDN. BHD. 2. ) UNITED POWER GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED 3. ) YAW HOLDING SDN. BHD. 4. ) SAMLING RESOURCES SDN. BHD 5. ) CHEW THEAM HOCK 6

Citation

WA-22NCC-459-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-459-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's Unless Order; the failure was inexcusable and amounted to wilful non-compliance, causing prejudice to defendants; the court struck out the pleaded paragraphs and, as a consequence, struck out the Amended Writ and ASOC as against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants; on the repleaded ASOC the remaining particulars did not disclose a cause of action against the 5th Defendant and that strike out application was also allowed; costs awarded.
25 May 2021

1. ) WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD 2. ) HL ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) 1. LEE SON HONG 2. TOO SOOI KENG 3. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD 4. DAN 2 LAGI (DENGAN TINDAKAN ASAL) 2. ) 1. WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD 2. WRP Specialty Products

Citation

22NCC-390-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-390-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the amended Statement of Claim sufficiently pleaded conspiracy to injure and dishonest assistance (elements and particulars met or inferable), allowed the amendment as bona fide, dismissed the striking out application, granted discovery because the documents sought are likely to exist, relevant and within defendants' possession, and ordered further and better particulars except those (1st category) that would impermissibly shift the plaintiff's burden to prove market value.
12 Nov 2020

CIMB BANK BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 197201001799 (134910-P)] (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Southern Bank Berhad) 1. ROEBUCK DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) [No. Syarikat: 198501005587 (138028-W)] 2. TIARA DESARU RESIDENCES SDN. BHD. [No. S

Citation

JA-22NCvC-43-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-43-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because leave to amend was improperly combined with a particulars application and no particulars of the proposed amendment were provided; the application was delayed and amounted to a fishing expedition seeking evidential material rather than preventing surprise; disclosure of the third‑party purchaser's personal data would contravene PDPA s8; and joining the purchaser would unduly complicate and delay the trial.