Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to execute

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2022

WA-12AM-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-12AM-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12AM-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is allowed and the Sessions Court's grant of leave and Writ of Execution is set aside because the Respondent failed to provide the mandatory and sufficient explanation for its failure to execute the Judgment within the six‑year period (specifically failed to explain the period August–December 2021), and the short post‑lapse filing delay was held reasonable in the circumstances (COVID emergency), making the 1st‑tier explanation decisive and absent.
7 Nov 2022

CIMB BANK BERHAD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Toh Tai Lam

Citation

22NCVC-209-12/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-209-12/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and satisfactory reasons to justify leave to issue writs of execution after the six year period; the COVID-19 MCO explanation was inadequately particularised and irrelevant to the five-year window prior to MCO; the Dr Shamsul Bahar decision does not apply to an application for leave to issue a writ of execution; appeal dismissed.
2 Mar 2022

1. ) GULA PERAK BERHAD 2. ) LIM SUE BENG 1. ) ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 3. ) AMFINANCE BERHAD 4. ) DBS BANK LTD 5. ) ALLIANCE MERCHANT BANK BERHAD 6. ) MALAYAN BANKIN BERHAD 7. ) MALAYSIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FINA

Citation

WA-28PW-259-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-259-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the leave could properly be granted ex parte under O.46 r.3 ROC, that delay must be assessed within the first six years after judgment and the plaintiffs had not delayed because they actively engaged in proceedings and defended the bankruptcy notice, and that no special circumstances existed to justify a stay; the late notice of change of solicitor cured any locus irregularity, therefore both applications lacked merit and were dismissed.
19 Dec 2020

CIMB Bank Berhad 1. Ginza Concrete Sdn Bhd & 4 Lagi

Citation

D9-22-2218-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

D9-22-2218-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute was refused because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in enforcing a judgment of more than six years; critical grounds relied upon by the plaintiff (inability to serve bankruptcy documents due to defendant's domicile and personal service requirements) were not pleaded in the notice or supporting affidavit and thus could not be relied upon as afterthoughts; prejudice from the escalation of the debt reinforced that leave should not be granted.
6 Oct 2020

Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad 1. Hall Delights Sdn Bhd 2. Ryzarul Anuar Bin Abdul Rahim 3. Ryzarul Azlan Bin Abdul Rahim

Citation

22-1176-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22-1176-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute was properly refused because the appellant failed to furnish sufficient and cogent reasons for repeated and lengthy delays in enforcement despite being within the statutory limitation period; being within s6(3) Limitation Act is not decisive and leave is discretionary.
21 Jul 2020

Hazrul Alis for the Appellant / 2nd Defendant Messrs Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan Raiza Zakaria for the Respondent / Plaintiff Messrs Albar & Partners

Citation

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.D8-22-999-2005 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found the Plaintiff had standing by virtue of the vesting order and long-standing dealings, the amendment to the plaintiff's name was valid and served and binding on the appellant, and active settlement negotiations between parties constituted sufficient and justifiable reasons to grant leave to execute despite the passage of time under Order 46 r2 and Limitation Act provisions.

Malaysia Case Law

WA-12AM-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CIMB BANK BERHAD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Toh Tai Lam

1. ) GULA PERAK BERHAD 2. ) LIM SUE BENG 1. ) ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 3. ) AMFINANCE BERHAD 4. ) DBS BANK LTD 5. ) ALLIANCE MERCHANT BANK BERHAD 6. ) MALAYAN BANKIN BERHAD 7. ) MALAYSIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FINA

CIMB Bank Berhad 1. Ginza Concrete Sdn Bhd & 4 Lagi

Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad 1. Hall Delights Sdn Bhd 2. Ryzarul Anuar Bin Abdul Rahim 3. Ryzarul Azlan Bin Abdul Rahim

Hazrul Alis for the Appellant / 2nd Defendant Messrs Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan Raiza Zakaria for the Respondent / Plaintiff Messrs Albar & Partners