Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim stay

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2024

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the requested payment records were relevant, ordering discovery would improperly shift the burden of proof from the applicants to KIB and the request was overly broad amounting to a fishing expedition; accordingly the discovery application is dismissed and costs are awarded to KIB.
7 Jun 2024

1. ) NORLIAH BINTI MOHAMAD 2. ) TAN KANG HOE 3. ) GEE BOON KEE 4. ) MAISARAH ALANNA BINTI MUHAMMED FIRUZ 5. ) DIANE CHRISTINA JESUDASAN 6. ) PARNAM SINGH A/L MEHAR SINGH 7. ) GOH DOH HAU 8. ) JAYANTHI A/P BOOBALAN 9. ) ZABA BIN HASRIN 10. )

Citation

BA-25-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was held to be academic and nugatory because the ad interim stay was varied by consent to allow permitted works and subsequently discontinued after inter parte hearing where the court found the original ex parte stay lacked full and frank disclosure (notably ownership of the land) and that applicants could not adequately compensate the developer; therefore no live controversy remained and the ad interim stay was properly discontinued.
15 Mar 2024

1. ) NOR AZIZAH BINTI MOHZAN 2. ) ADRIAN FRANCIS TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-A54-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A54-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Sessions Court dismissed the transfer application because the statutory scheme vests the power to effect vertical transfers between courts of different jurisdiction in the High Court; Order 57 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 cannot displace that statutory allocation of power and must be read subject to the Acts, therefore the Sessions Court lacks jurisdiction to order the transfer and the related interim stay was academic and accordingly dismissed with costs to the defendant.
17 Nov 2022

1. ) DAMIEN THAMAN DIVEAN 2. ) LIM TECK WYN 1. ) MAJLIS EKSEKUTIF NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN (EXCO) 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 3. ) YCH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 4. ) RESTU MANTAP SDN. BHD. PENCELAH 1. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negara C

Citation

BA-25-57-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-57-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

An ad interim stay granted pending an inter parte stay application is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of parties' rights; under s3 and s67 CJA and relevant precedent such an interim order is not appealable, so the intervener's appeal against the ad interim stay is not maintainable and must await the inter parte hearing where the intervener may oppose the stay.
22 Aug 2022

MARIA CHIN BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAWIP) 3. ) JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave granted because applicant demonstrated serious and arguable questions of law: whether s229 SCPA may be invoked by a private individual and whether Syariah Courts may interpret and apply federal statutes in ways that affect fundamental liberties; civil superior courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to determine such questions and the application was not premature as the Leave Order and Notice to Show Cause immediately and adversely affected the applicant.
5 Jan 2022

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court exercised its discretionary power to grant an interim stay because special circumstances existed: the Respondent’s decision imposed a large tax and penalty liability (RM5,415,159.63) that risked causing irreparable financial harm and possible insolvency, the Applicant had made prior disclosures and RPGT payments, there was documented systemic delay in tax refunds by the IRB, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, and nothing in the ITA expressly ousted the court’s jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal under Rules of Court and inherent powers.
16 Mar 2021

Kind Action (M) Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 646416-T) Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave for judicial review was granted because the Applicant demonstrated a real and genuine interest and clear adverse effect (substantial taxes and penalties) satisfying the low threshold for leave; issues raised (nature of receipts, double taxation, time bar, and availability of domestic remedy) are matters for full ventilation at the merits stage rather than disposal at the leave stage; consequently interim relief was appropriate.
28 Feb 2021

TROPICAL LAND PROPERTY SDN BHD KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Citation

JA- 25-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA- 25-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the application was not frivolous given existing High Court authorities supporting deductibility and the applicant was demonstrably adversely affected; an interim stay was granted because special circumstances (significant liabilities and cash flow impact) justified preserving the status quo until disposal of the judicial review.