Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim relief

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

1. ) KUAN CHEE SIAN 2. ) JOVEEN NEOH WAN FEN 1. ) VICTOR CHIN BOON LONG 2. ) HS BIO SDN BHD 3. ) ESTEEM LEGACY SDN BHD 4. ) EMEDASIA SDN BHD 5. ) NEOGENIX LABARATOIRE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-187-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-187-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the requirements for a Mareva injunction were not satisfied, the court properly exercised its discretion to maintain preservation of RM3.4 million because the 1st Defendant voluntarily secured the funds, the amount was limited to the sum in dispute, the preservation was not coercive Mareva relief and it was proportionate to protect the integrity of any future judgment.
27 Oct 2025

MALAYSIA MARINE AND HEAVY ENGINEERING SDN BHD HAUMEA OFFSHORE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24NCvC-605-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-605-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant had substantially complied with the Clause 33 pre-arbitration requirements; the Plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, failed to show damages would be inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing arbitration to proceed; accordingly the interlocutory injunction restraining arbitration was refused and the Plaintiff's application dismissed.
2 Oct 2025

SILVERLAND CAPITAL SDN BHD WEGROW GLOBAL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-207-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-207-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Heads of Terms was found binding by part performance; the Plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide cause of action for arrears exceeding RM2.29 million; the Defendant's repudiation combined with unannounced removal of movable assets and threats to vacate established an inference of intent to obstruct execution; accordingly all three statutory limbs of s19(1)(c) were satisfied and attachment before judgment was ordered as interim preventive security.
11 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN LETCHUMY A/P RENGANATHAN REGUNATH A/L VASUDEVAN PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Kaviyarasu Kathiraian

Citation

NA-33-212-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-33-212-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order dated 27/6/2022 remains valid and binding until it is properly set aside; withdrawal of the originating summons did not terminate the consent order; the petitioner was required to apply to set aside or vary that consent order by proper procedure, and having failed to do so the petitioner's interim application was dismissed with costs.
17 Jun 2025

ONG HOCK TEK DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR PENCELAH DICADANGKAN KAISAR MAXIM SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-25-222-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-222-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that alleged illegality in granting the development order (possible contravention of KLSP 2020/KLCP 2020) and risk of irreversible changes to the land that would defeat effective relief constitute special circumstances; R2's bare averments of financial loss were unsubstantiated; balance of convenience and equity therefore favoured granting a stay of the impugned decision pending substantive determination of the judicial review; no undertaking for damages was required; stay allowed with costs in the cause.
13 Dec 2024

1. ) MALAYSIA AUTOMOTIVE, ROBOTICS AND IOT INSTITUTE 2. ) A2Z TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 1. ) DATO TS MOHAMAD MADANI BIN SAHARI 2. ) ASPIRE KNOWLEDGE SDN. BHD. 3. ) SANDOSH A/L J N ANANDAN 4. ) VASUDEVAN A/L ARUMUGAM 5. ) MUGILAN KRISHNARAJAH A/L

Citation

WA-22NCC-442-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-442-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Ex parte freezing and proprietary orders were set aside and plaintiffs' inter partes applications dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish a serious issue to be tried on fraud‑based causes of action, failed to demonstrate risk of dissipation necessary for Mareva relief, delayed unreasonably in seeking equitable relief, and there was non‑disclosure of material facts at the ex parte hearing.
20 Sept 2024

NANTHINI A/P SUBRAMANIAM ERIC STEVEN A/L MATHALAI MUTHU

Citation

AA-24F-140-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24F-140-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the welfare principle and considering the children's expressed preference, social welfare and counselling reports, and the stability and caregiving environment provided by the Respondent and his family, the presumption in favour of the mother was rebutted; sole custody, care and control was awarded to the Respondent while granting liberal and specified overnight access to the Applicant, with police assistance authorised for enforcement and each party to bear their own costs.
7 Sept 2023

Energiser Properties Sdn Bhd 1. ) GOH CHIN YANG 2. ) GOH CHIN SIANG 3. ) TEH YONG WEI 4. ) HO HEE KOK 5. ) CHONG CHOON LING 6. ) JASTACO SDN BHD 7. ) NMC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 8. ) WHC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 9. ) LOW YUAN HENG 10. ) CHEN

Citation

A-02(NCvC)(W)-106-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

A-02(NCvC)(W)-106-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

No unconditional stay granted because no special circumstances were shown; court granted a conditional stay on terms that the judgment sum plus interest and costs be paid to the respondents' solicitors as stakeholders within 14 days, failing which there shall be no stay; costs of RM3,000 to be costs in the cause.
10 May 2023

SARATBABU A/L ARUMUGAM SELVIE A/P MUNIANDY

Citation

BA-24NCvC-145-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-145-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant's caveatable interest, founded on the sale agreement, was extinguished because the applicant failed to obtain the mandatory permission from the housing authority required by clause 1(a)1.1; the agreement was therefore not enforceable, the applicant failed to take steps to pursue or appeal that refusal, no serious issue remained to be tried on the caveat application, and the balance of convenience did not justify extending or maintaining the caveat; accordingly the application to maintain/extend the caveat was dismissed with costs.
6 Apr 2023

PEMPETISYEN G E M P E T

Citation

WA-33-243-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-243-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying section 78 LRA 1976, the court found the Petitioner had financial needs but did not adequately substantiate the full MYR2,000 claim; the Respondent's denials of means were disbelieved in light of his directorships, vehicle ownership and EPF withdrawals. On balance and as an interim measure the Respondent was ordered to pay MYR1,000 monthly to the Petitioner, payable by the 7th of each month, while claims for division of assets and reimbursement were reserved for the full hearing.