Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to continue proceedings

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

CX GROCERY SDN BHD TENG YUE OVERSEAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

JA-28PW-30-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28PW-30-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the liquidator had unreasonably delayed or failed to act with promptitude or show a positive intention to continue the arbitration; substantial amounts were already paid to AIAC, the respondent’s counterclaim was material (over RM30m) and the applicant undertook to fund the arbitration, creating no demonstrated detriment to the estate and justifying court intervention under s486(2).
16 Jul 2025

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW YEW LIM 4. ) TEO PECK KWAN 5. ) DATO TS. HJ. MOHD ZAIDI llAMDIN dan 195 lain

Citation

WA-28JM-34-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-34-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the applicant's second JMO because the applicant failed to discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities of demonstrating a viable rescue plan and produced no documentary commitment from the alleged white knight; insolvency metrics and the prior failed JMO reinforced the absence of a real prospect. The proposed interveners' applications to intervene and to resume proceedings were dismissed because they are unsecured creditors and lack locus to oppose a JM application under Rule 13(1) CRM Rules and binding Court of Appeal authority; their applications were also…
22 Mar 2024

TAN CHING WEE & 659 YANG LAIN-LAIN GOLD MART SDN. BHD. PENCELAH 1. ) BASIL THOMAS GIMINO 2. ) CHUA SENG WAI 3. ) ALAN CHUA SENG KIAT 4. ) LEUNG FOR SANG KWONG SHING 5. ) NWE NWE WIN 6. ) SAI SOO LIN 7. ) MUN SUK KEN 8. ) MAK YONG HENG 9. )

Citation

WA-24NCC-304-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-304-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that stages 1 and 2 were properly complied with and the 80.02% majority met the statutory threshold; the Interveners fall within the defined class of unsecured scheme creditors because their claims derive from the same contractual rights and are therefore bound by the SOA; alleged procedural irregularities did not vitiate the CCM outcome; no exceptional circumstances justified granting leave to continue the Melaka Suit; accordingly the SOA was sanctioned and interveners' exclusion and leave applications were dismissed.
20 Apr 2022

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD Ong Siang Pheng PENCELAH 1. ) DATO' TS. HJ. MOHD ZAIDI IlAMDIN & & 50 LAGI 2. ) Siew Chee Kok & 88 Lagi 3. ) LEE OI KUAN PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Andrew Heng (Pengurus Kehakiman ) 2. ) Anoopal Kaur A/p Kirpal Singh (Pengu

Citation

WA-28JM-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the applicants demonstrated proprietary rights and prima facie monetary claims, both suits were at advanced stages such that determination would assist the Judicial Manager and avoid prejudice to the applicants; balancing interests did not favor denying leave, and therefore discretion to grant leave under s410(c)/s411(4)(c) was properly exercised.
20 Apr 2022

Sohan Yong-Tharumarajah and Jonathan Sidhu for the Applicant (Enclosure 23 & 27) [Messrs T Tharuma & Associates] PENCELAH 1. ) S Raven and Janice Tay Shu Hui for the 1st 89th Interveners (Enclosure 23 & 27) [Messrs S Ravevesan] 2. ) Low Eu

Citation

28JM-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

28JM-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court exercised its discretion to grant leave because the applicants demonstrated proprietary rights and prima facie monetary claims, both suits were at an advanced stage such that determination of the PMA and monetary claims would assist the Judicial Manager in restructuring and denying leave would cause prejudice to the applicants; on balance the interests of other creditors did not outweigh these considerations.
4 Oct 2021

1. ) Mahathir Abdullah for the Applicant, Saidi Bin Abang Samsudin and Zul’Azman bin Ya’akub (Proposed Interveners) in Enclosure 134 [Messrs. Mahathir] 2. ) Shim De Zhen for the Applicant Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd [Messrs. Messrs Yeoh Shim Sio

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO: WA-28JM-4-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO: WA-28JM-4-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to continue the civil suit (Enclosure 134) is refused because section 411(4)(e) provides an adequate moratorium against share transfers rendering the injunction unnecessary; the proposed interveners failed to satisfy the burden to show leave should be granted; continuation would likely prejudice urgent settlement negotiations with the Ministry of Education and impede the rehabilitative purpose of judicial management, and on balance the interests of the judicial management and creditors outweigh the private interests asserted.
6 Apr 2021

1. TOP BUILDERS CAPITAL BERHAD (Registration No. 201301043050 (1072872-D)) 2. IKHMAS JAYA SDN BHD (Registration No. 199201022513 (254017-H)) 3. IKHMAS EQUIPMENT SDN BHD (Registration No. 199901020860 (495760-W))

Citation

WA-24NCC-608-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-608-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to continue Suit 109 was refused because Seng Long’s claim was a pure monetary claim not constituting ‘exceptional circumstances’, the suit was not at an advanced stage, allowing it would give Seng Long an unfair advantage over other scheme creditors and would undermine the summary proof-of-debt and collective scheme process; Seng Long remains able to lodge a proof of debt and to appeal the decision-maker’s determination.
19 Jul 2019

LINGKARAN LUAR BUTTERWORTH (PENANG) SDN BHD 1. ) PERUNDING JURUTERA (D.A.H.) SDN BHD 2. ) DAR CONSULTANTS (U.K.) LIMITED 3. ) DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS (SHAIR & PARTNERS) (U.K.) LTD

Citation

WA-22C-31-03/2017, WA-22C-32-03/2017, WA-22C-33-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-31-03/2017, WA-22C-32-03/2017, WA-22C-33-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Stay of the winding up order pending appeal under s73 CJA 1964 rendered the liquidators' appointment inoperative for the stay period so requirement for liquidator sanction or leave did not arise; the Defendants failed to show the Suits were plainly or obviously unsustainable or an abuse of process; strike out applications dismissed with costs RM4,000 each subject to allocatur.