Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdictional excess

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held Infinite's complaints were substantively merits challenges rather than valid s15 grounds: the adjudicator lawfully exercised powers under s12/s25 to request and consider clarification (CBD 3) without demonstrable prejudice to Infinite; Term 2 was raised by Infinite and its interpretation was within the adjudicator's evaluative jurisdiction not an excess of jurisdiction; no material denial of natural justice or jurisdictional overreach was established; accordingly OS20 to set aside the AD was dismissed and OS25 to enforce the AD was allowed.
10 Feb 2026

INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-20-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-20-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision because Infinite's complaints were merits-based, no material denial of natural justice was shown (documents were non-decisive, Infinite had notice and no demonstrable prejudice), and the Adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by CIPAA; the enforcement application succeeded and the adjudication decision was ordered enforced as a High Court judgment.
2 Sept 2025

M Mahalechemy A/P P Muthusamy

Citation

JA-43-34-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-43-34-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred by granting DNAA without a prosecution notice under s.254 CPC and without a finding that the charge was groundless under s.173(g) CPC; the DNAA was therefore irregular and beyond the judge's jurisdiction and must be set aside, with the trial to continue before a new trial judge.
8 Nov 2022

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-198-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-198-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court refused to grant a stay under s16 CIPAA because applicant failed to show clear error or that the adjudication was improperly procured by fraud on a balance of probabilities; alleged concealment of payments did not amount to active concealment affecting the adjudicator's consideration; evidence showed defendant retained sufficient financial capacity to repay if required; therefore no exceptional circumstances or justice of the case justified a stay and application was dismissed with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

INFINITE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD VICTORY BUILDERS SDN BHD

M Mahalechemy A/P P Muthusamy

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD GLOBAL WALL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD