Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory relief

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

VICTUS PROJECT SDN BHD PROJEK PERMATA SDN BHD

Citation

BH-A52C-1-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BH-A52C-1-06/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The counterclaim by the Defendant disclosed a reasonable cause of action based on express contractual clauses and pleaded particulars sufficient to survive strike-out; defects alleged by the Plaintiff (calculation of LAD, dates, particulars) were curable by amendment and did not render the counterclaim so defective as to warrant striking out. Conversely, the Plaintiff's defence to the counterclaim consisted of bare denials without material facts and therefore failed to disclose a defence and was struck out. Affidavits cannot cure pleading defects; weak prospects at trial are not a ground for…
3 Sept 2025

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) TEBRAU BAY CONSTRUCTIONS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ISKANDAR WATERFRONT CITY BERHAD 3. ) TEBRAU BAY SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI KPRJ NUSANTARA SDN BHD) PIHAK KETIGA PEMBINAAN HAMID ABD RAHMAN SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. )

Citation

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-149-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because an adequate and specific remedy exists under O.16 r.5 for a third party's failure to file a defence; permitting the applicant's requested order would create a remedy not provided by the Rules and risk delaying the main action contrary to the overriding objective and case management provisions; the applicant was not prejudiced as the fourth party had been joined and had entered an appearance and the applicant retains statutory remedies including seeking contribution or indemnity after trial or applying for judgment in default under O.16 r.5.
12 Jun 2025

MIMS CAREER SDN BHD 1. ) ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 2. ) SHARINA BINTI MOHAMED SULTAN 3. ) MARY ELIZABETH A/P S. SANDANASAMY 4. ) AL-JEFFRY AZRAYL BIN ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH ABDULLAH 5. ) NATASHA SHEREEN BINTI ARMAND MIKHAYL YEOH 6. ) SANTHY

Citation

WA-22NCC-833-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-833-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was, in substance, a post-judgment Mareva injunction aimed at preserving assets for enforcement of an existing registered arbitral award and thus procedurally required to be brought and tested as post-judgment relief in the court of original judgment; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and current risk of dissipation (no transfers after registration and material delay in bringing the application), the balance of convenience and multiplicity of proceedings weighed against relief, and Mareva relief against the 4th Defendant was disproportionate given his passive recipien…
19 Feb 2025

1. ) CHOW CHEE WAH 2. ) MOHD DHIYAUDDIN ASSIDDIQ BIN MOHD ZAID 3. ) WILLIAM TEH YEW HOUNG 4. ) DENISE TEOH SHYN YONG XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-244-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-244-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to amend was dismissed because the legal questions and the formula for calculating liquidated damages had already been decided under Order 14A (Lampiran 60), rendering the proposed amendment unnecessary; permitting amendment would cause prejudice and multiplicity of pleadings and was made late, contrary to the requirement that interlocutory applications be made promptly, therefore refusal with costs was warranted.
14 Nov 2024

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Federal Court remitted the entire action to the High Court for full trial and did not decide the formulated legal questions; therefore the Court is bound to proceed with full trial on all issues (including those involving the 3rd Defendant) and the interlocutory strike-out application under Order 18 r19 is barred and must be dismissed; any disputes about the re-survey and plans are to be determined at trial or by statutory appeal under the National Land Code.
1 Aug 2024

WH ELECTRICAL MARKETING (M) SDN BHD KENWINGSTON SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-308-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-308-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the facts that the winding up petitions were instituted for a collateral purpose — to frustrate an application for preservation of assets and to impede the joint trial of related suits — and therefore constituted an abuse of process permitting the court to strike out or stay those petitions.
9 May 2024

1. ) MEGA FOREST PLANTATION MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) MEGAFORES NURSERY SDN. BHD. (Dalam Penggulungan) 3. ) MEGA-FORESTINDAH PAYA SDN. BHD. 4. ) MEGA-FORESTERNAK SDN. BHD. 5. ) MEGAFOREST IDEAL FEED SDN. BHD. 6. ) MEGA FOREST PLANTATION SDN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s580A Companies Act 2016 and Order 23 rule 1 and found the application for security for costs by the 4th and 5th defendants had no merit: the affidavits and SSM searches did not justify ordering security, the application risked penalising plaintiffs and denying access to justice, and there was no sufficient justification to order RM300,000 or any security. Accordingly the application was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
3 Aug 2023

ATE SOLUTION SDN. BHD. PHARN KAI YEE

Citation

BB-B52NCC-69-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCC-69-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant's application was allowed because the disputed documents were owned by the defendant or her sole proprietorship and were obtained without her permission; plaintiff failed to explain how the documents were obtained or to follow the proper discovery/interrogatory procedures, and the court exercised its discretion under Rule 92(4) to prevent prejudice and abuse of process while noting that admissibility of illegally obtained evidence does not obviate the need for correct procedural routes and does not guarantee weight at trial.
14 Jun 2023

1. ) COSMO-OMEGA SDN BHD 2. ) BILLION TRIUMPH SDN BHD 3. ) LIP AH CHUN 4. ) LOO MUN WAI 5. ) LOO MUN KEONG 6. ) LOO MUN SOON 7. ) CHEN WAI KOUNG 8. ) CHEN WAI LOAN 9. ) CHIN WEI SENG 10. ) CHIN WAI HENG 1. ) MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-340-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-340-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 24 to grant discovery in part: it found that specific categories of documents relating to the 30 units belonging to the plaintiffs were relevant and necessary for a fair trial and that defendants had identified and could produce documents in their possession; broader categories were refused where defendants showed lack of possession, relevance or where production would be unnecessary or oppressive; Land Acquisition Act did not negate the need for disclosure at interlocutory stage.
7 Mar 2023

M.E.B TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) PETROTECHNIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-42-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-42-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to satisfy the high threshold required to impugn the beneficiary's call on the bank guarantee; the Demands complied with the express terms of the BG which is a demand guarantee payable on written demand, the alleged grievances are contractual disputes for arbitration and do not amount to unconscionability or fraud; balance of convenience and Plaintiff's weak finances further disentitled injunction; therefore the originating summons is dismissed.