Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of statute

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2025

MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD AZIZ (PEGAWAI PEMERINTAH BATALION KE-5 REJIMEN RENJER DIRAJA) 2. ) PIHAK BERKUASA SIDANG PANGLIMA BRIGED KELAPAN INFANTRI MALAYSIA 3. ) PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA MAL

Citation

01(f)-29-09/2024(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-29-09/2024(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Court held that detention from 26 August 2014 to 3 July 2015 was lawful because section 96(3) AFA mandatorily remands an accused for court-martial after investigation and Rule 16(1) AFRP authorises close arrest before and during trial; no express remand order is required under s.96(3); Article 5(1) was not breached; therefore the appellant's appeal is dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision is upheld.
12 Sept 2025

C&L PERFECTO TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) CREATIVE INOVA SDN BHD 2. ) TAN JUN WEI

Citation

BB-B52NCC-172-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCC-172-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The appeal is non‑maintainable because Section 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 bars appeals to the High Court from a Subordinate Court's dismissal of an application for summary judgment, and the summary judgment was properly refused because there were triable issues such as disputed service of the demand notice.
30 May 2025

1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR REALTY SDN. BHD. 4. ) ANNE YAP SIM EE 5. ) LEONG LI NAR 6. ) M B PROPERTIES SDN BHD 7. ) YAP YONG SEONG REALTY SDN BHD 8. ) AMPLE PARAMOUNT SDN. BHD. BADAN PENGURUS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-101-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-101-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held there was a bona fide serious issue as to whether the defendant's per square feet charging method contravened s25(3) of the Strata Management Act 2013, and the balance of convenience favoured granting a mandatory interim injunction because the plaintiffs hold approximately 80% of the units; accordingly the interim mandatory injunction allowing the plaintiffs to vote and participate at AGMs pending disposal of the suit was granted.
21 May 2024

1. ) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA (MEWAKILI 434 PEMBELI/PEMUNYA PETAK PANGSAPURI PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA) 2. ) Kewira Jaya Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Barat Daya Pulau Pina

Citation

PA-25-15-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-15-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the 4th respondent could not be granted damages via amendment to the draft order because the issue of damages was not raised or considered at the trial and thus was abandoned; Order 53 remedies apply to applicants only; the stay granted on 24.4.2019 was valid and its duration should be excluded for the purpose of computing the two-year period under section 8(4) to avoid injustice, but the court would not permit the Land Administrator to recommence enquiry in a manner contrary to prior interlocutory orders; accordingly Enclosure 114 (application to insert damages clause) wa…
24 Feb 2023

SYED MOHD AZLAN BIN SAYED OMAR

Citation

BD-83D-328-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BD-83D-328-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held DDA LLPK contains no express provision unequivocally prohibiting bail for the offence under s6(7); therefore the Criminal Procedure Code (including First Schedule and section 388) applies, but after evaluating statutory scheme, evidence, related charges, propensity to reoffend, seriousness of offence and pending High Court revision, the court refused bail to the accused.
2 Aug 2022

NG KHIAN HEE [ ]

Citation

BL-41H-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-41H-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate relied on an inadequate expert report without specific findings on the expert's qualifications and comprehension of exhibit displays, and because the prosecution failed to call or offer a material eyewitness and left significant investigative gaps (missing machine, unexamined CCTV/computer, lack of translation and chain of custody issues); these deficiencies undermined proof beyond reasonable doubt, warranting quashing of conviction and acquittal. The prosecution's cross-appeal against sentence was dismissed because conviction could not be main…

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD AZIZ (PEGAWAI PEMERINTAH BATALION KE-5 REJIMEN RENJER DIRAJA) 2. ) PIHAK BERKUASA SIDANG PANGLIMA BRIGED KELAPAN INFANTRI MALAYSIA 3. ) PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA MAL

C&L PERFECTO TRADING SDN BHD 1. ) CREATIVE INOVA SDN BHD 2. ) TAN JUN WEI

1. ) CITY PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) KL LANDMARK SDN. BHD. 3. ) LEONG LI NAR REALTY SDN. BHD. 4. ) ANNE YAP SIM EE 5. ) LEONG LI NAR 6. ) M B PROPERTIES SDN BHD 7. ) YAP YONG SEONG REALTY SDN BHD 8. ) AMPLE PARAMOUNT SDN. BHD. BADAN PENGURUS

1. ) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA (MEWAKILI 434 PEMBELI/PEMUNYA PETAK PANGSAPURI PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA) 2. ) Kewira Jaya Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Barat Daya Pulau Pina

SYED MOHD AZLAN BIN SAYED OMAR

NG KHIAN HEE [ ]