Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory appeals

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2025

1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD QM PRINT SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) Tetuan Malis & Khoo

Citation

02(i)-6-03/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-6-03/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 68(1)(f) CJA must be read harmoniously with sections 3 and 67 CJA: dismissals of striking-out applications are non-appealable where they are rulings made 'in the course of' proceedings that do not finally dispose of parties' rights (eg where further oral evidence is required). However, where a dismissal finally disposes of a party's substantive or ancillary rights (jurisdictional threshold, locus, res judicata, state immunity or other self-standing rights), the dismissal constitutes an appealable 'decision'. Applying that test the Federal Court held both appellants had vested rights t…
27 May 2025

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE

Citation

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The wording of section 68(1)(f) CJA 1964 is clear and limited to situations where the High Court dismisses an application to strike out a writ or pleading under Order 18 r19 ROC 2012; it does not extend to refusals of applications under Order 14A or Order 33. Applications under Order 14A/33 that raise legal issues capable of finally disposing of parties' rights (eg res judicata, Section 6A Limitation Act) remain appealable; accordingly, the respondent's motion to strike out this appeal under s68(1)(f) is without merit and should be dismissed with costs (minority view).
19 May 2025

1. ) MOHD RAZIN BIN RAZALI 2. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN AHMAD ZAKI

Citation

K-06A-14-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

K-06A-14-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the High Court's revocation of the prior in-camera protection order amounted to a final, appealable decision in the circumstances because it conclusively removed statutory protection and materially affected PW1's rights and safety; on the merits the Court found the identity of PW1 had not been effectively disclosed and reinstated the original in-camera protection order under SOSMA s14 and Witness Protection Act s20, setting aside the High Court order of 30 July 2024 and dismissing respondents' preliminary objections.
13 Mar 2025

WINARTA BIN LALUSAH 1. ) JOHN DOE 2. ) RASIDAH BINTI SAUD

Citation

KD-A53KJ-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KD-A53KJ-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

At the advanced stage of trial after the Plaintiff had closed its case, the Defendant's application to amend the statement of defence was properly dismissed because it was not made in good faith, was prejudicial to the Plaintiff, contradicted prior admissions, and would amount to an abuse of process; further, the appeal based on this interlocutory application was not maintainable under the amended appealability limits in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
2 Feb 2024

AZINAL SDN. BHD. 1. ) XXXX 2. ) SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-360-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-360-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The preliminary objection was allowed and Appeal W-02(IM)-360-03/2023 was struck out because section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964 (as inserted by Act 1661) renders decisions of the High Court dismissing applications to strike out writs or pleadings non-appealable; the amendment, read purposively and in light of Parliament's stated objective to curb interlocutory appeals, applies to decisions given after the amendment's effective date (1.10.2022), thereby making this appeal incompetent.
19 Oct 2023

1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD QM PRINT SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-936-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-936-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The amended s68(1)(f) CJA 1964 applies to bar appeals from High Court dismissals of strike‑out applications where the High Court decision was delivered after the amendment's commencement; Parliament intended the cut‑off to be the date of the decision to limit interlocutory appeals and the Notice of Appeal was therefore defective and the appeal is non‑appealable.
4 Apr 2023

CHANDRASEGARAN A/L VEERYAH THURGAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12ANCC-14-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCC-14-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court on re-hearing allowed the appeal and set aside the Sessions Court judgment in default; under the amended s68(1)(g) CJA such a High Court decision allowing setting aside of a default judgment is non-appealable to the Court of Appeal, and on the merits the High Court found the defendant disclosed a prima facie defence and had filed the Notice of Appeal within time.
10 Nov 2022

1. ) Setiausaha, Lembaga Wakaf Hindu Negeri Pulau Pinang (telah dikeluarkan) 2. ) Pengerusi, Pertubuhan Kebajikan, Kebudayaan dan Sosial Kaum India Pulau Pinang Lim Kok Seng

Citation

PA-12A-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because appeals from subordinate courts to the High Court are by way of re-hearing, the High Court's allowance of the defendants' appeal effectively dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment; under amended s68(1)(e) CJA such a dismissal precludes any further appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the plaintiff's single notice of appeal combining multiple decisions was procedurally defective and therefore the appeal must be struck out.
5 Oct 2022

GOBINATH A/L SINNAYA

Citation

W-05-14-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-14-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's refusal of bail is an interlocutory ruling that does not finally dispose of the appellants' rights; therefore it is not a "decision" under s3 Courts of Judicature Act and is not appealable under s50, so the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
1 Jun 2022

DIAN FATT (MELAKA) SDN BHD SOUTHERN BUILDERS (J) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22C-5-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22C-5-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay order is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties within the meaning of s 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964; accordingly the appeal against that ruling is incompetent and not maintainable, and the appropriate remedies are to apply to set aside or vary the stay or to await final determination at trial.