Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of judgment

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCvC-486-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-486-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order of 25 August 2022 is final and was deliberately recorded with the phrase 'costs to be taxed by the Court' which is procedural only; the Court has no jurisdiction to amend the order to impose a substantive liability on the Defendant nor to correct by slip rule because there was no clerical error; consequently the Plaintiff cannot proceed with taxation against the Defendant and the Defendant's application to strike the taxation notice succeeds.
7 Dec 2023

URBAN DOMAIN SDN. BHD. PINS OSC & MAINTENANCE SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

W-03(IM)(NCC)-69-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)(NCC)-69-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the liability period is governed by Clause 8.1.1 of the Management Agreement and the Liability Judgment (i.e. from 21.5.2007 until the expiry of the Licence Period stated in the last Work Order). The High Court erred in limiting the period by reference to PINS OSC's winding‑up because the issue was not properly raised on appeal and PINS cannot rely on the company's winding‑up to curtail its contractual liability it had already accepted on appeal; only MCMC priority payments are deductible. Consequence: the Registrar's Order is reinstated (as amended by the plaintiff) and t…
29 Apr 2019

Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja Edwin Cassian a/l Nagappan @ Marie

Citation

W-03(IM)(NCC)-97-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)(NCC)-97-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Because the consent judgment did not record 'jointly and severally' the court must enforce the judgment as written; statutory joint and several liability under s46 EPF Act 1991 cannot be imported into a consent judgment that omits those words; therefore the Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's Petition premised on enforcing the whole sum against the 2nd defendant were defective and were correctly set aside; the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

XXXX XXXX

URBAN DOMAIN SDN. BHD. PINS OSC & MAINTENANCE SERVICES SDN BHD

Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja Edwin Cassian a/l Nagappan @ Marie