Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liberty to apply

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2026

WONG TZY JIAN 1. ) WONG KEH YEN 2. ) REAL HARVEST PTE LTD 3. ) KEH YEN, NG & PARTNERS

Citation

WA-22NCC-357-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-357-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held it was not functus officio because the Order reserved liberty to apply, but dismissed the application to vary (Enclosure 56) because the applicants failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances, undue hardship or fundamental mistake justifying variation; therefore the interim injunction as sealed remains in force and costs of RM10,000 were awarded to the Plaintiff.
30 Oct 2025

TAN LIONG HUAT @ TAN SWEE HUAT 1. ) TAN HUAT HOE 2. ) TAN ZU YAN 3. ) ONG SEE FONG 4. ) NINAMAJU SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-268-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-268-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that proposed substantive variations to the recorded Consent Judgements (removing the certified practicing accountant requirement and expanding the scope to include forensic audits and extensive retrospection) would change the substance and course of the original orders and are not permitted under the liberty to apply; accordingly variation applications (Enclosures 81 and 90) were dismissed with costs RM4,000.00. The court exercised its reserved jurisdiction to make consequential ancillary orders to give effect to the valuation process: it fixed cut-off dates, limited valuation…
31 Jul 2024

PEMPETISYEN Tan Bee Geok 1. ) Thai Kim Sim 2. ) Tan Seah Lee PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Lin Woon Fui

Citation

WA-33-238-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-238-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the original order prohibited the First Respondent from dealing with 50% of specified assets only and did not authorise any third party including the bank to freeze 100% of his accounts; the effective date for freezing 50% is the date the order was granted (10 January 2024); speculative references to assets not shown to exist (eg. 'Supermax Corporation Berhad, if any') must be omitted; and the Court had jurisdiction under Order 20 r11, Order 92 r4 and the 'liberty to apply' provision to clarify and amend the order to give effect to its true intention.
9 Jul 2024

XXXX XXXX

Citation

WA-22C-5-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-5-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the escrow sum was deposited for the sole purpose of enabling the parties to commence arbitration within one month as per the Consent Judgment; no arbitration was commenced and the specified period has long elapsed, therefore the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to make a consequential order releasing the escrow to the Defendant; separately, the fresh suit CS 76 sought to vary and relitigate settled matters under the Consent Judgment, amounted to abuse of process and disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out.
9 Jul 2024

ARC PARTNERSHIP FAIRVIEW SCHOOLS BERHAD

Citation

WA-22C-76-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-76-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Consent Judgment required commencement of arbitration within one month; no arbitration was commenced by either party for nearly seven years thereby frustrating the express purpose for which the escrow was deposited; the court has inherent jurisdiction to make consequential orders to give effect to its consent judgment and is not functus officio in doing so; consequently the escrow must be released to the defendant and CS 76 is an abuse of process because it improperly seeks to vary the consent judgment and to obtain merits judgment without trial, therefore it is struck out.
18 Mar 2024

Kalai Chelvi A/p Perumal (Sebagai Orang Yang Dilantik Untuk Mewakili Harta Pusaka Krishnakumar A/l Muniandi, Simati Yang Telah Mendakwa Untuk Dirinya Sebagai Waris Dan Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Ramayee A/p Govindan (Simati)) MATHURAI A/L PARAS

Citation

BA-22NCvC-450-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-450-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court has jurisdiction under its inherent jurisdiction and the 'liberty to apply' rule to grant consequential orders to give effect to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court decisions; the SPA was affirmed as valid and enforceable by higher courts and the administrator is obliged to execute transfer documents; res judicata did not bar the consequential application.
7 Mar 2022

Choong Ruey Jiuan 1. ) Emletrik Engineering Sdn Bhd 2. ) Liew Kim Fook 3. ) Khoo Bee Hong

Citation

WA-24NCC-552-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-552-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 79 was dismissed because the defendants failed to place sufficient materials before the court to justify ordering cross‑examination of the agreed independent valuer or to alter the valuation fixed as at the agreed valuation date (31.3.2020); subsequent winding up of a third‑party debtor after the valuation date does not permit adjustment of the valuation; alleged misappropriation and set‑off claims cannot be adjudicated via the liberty clause and remain separate claims.
15 Dec 2021

1. ) Koh Cheang Yew (No. KP: 911228-07-5111) 2. ) Koh Cheang Yeong (No. KP: 940925-07-5697) 3. ) Koh Cheang Yoon (No. KP: 971119-35-5143) 1. ) Koh Chong Khye (No. KP: 550129-07-5043) 2. ) Koh Chong Poh (No. KP: 610731-07-5355) 3. ) Koh Chon

Citation

PA-22NCVC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the liberty to apply rule permitted the applicants to seek ancillary orders to give effect to the final 2020 Judgment; the 18.8.2020 document was not a formal appointment, two nominees declined essential vesting obligations and therefore could not be appointed, and the court accordingly confirmed Koh Cheang Yew as sole trustee and ordered the vesting of Lot 10199 and the 27 properties in him, rejected the contention that the 2008 Order created a separate trust, and declared K-Asia Holdings to be a bare trustee with no beneficial interest, while authorising procedural steps…
15 Dec 2021

1. ) Koh Cheang Yew (No. KP: 911228-07-5111) 2. ) Koh Cheang Yeong (No. KP: 940925-07-5697) 3. ) Koh Cheang Yoon (No. KP: 971119-35-5143) 1. ) Koh Chong Khye (No. KP: 550129-07-5043) 2. ) Koh Chong Poh (No. KP: 610731-07-5355) 3. ) Koh Chon

Citation

PA-22NCvC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the liberty to apply applied to give effect to the 2020 Judgment; the purported 18.8.2020 document did not constitute a formal appointment so the court confirmed only Koh Cheang Yew as sole trustee, ordered vesting of Lot 10199 and the 27 properties in him, authorized plaintiffs' solicitors to deal with the land registry to effect vesting, and declared K-Asia Holdings Sdn Bhd to be merely a bare trustee of the 27 properties.
6 May 2021

Dee Eng Seng Lim Soon Seng

Citation

AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held it possessed jurisdiction under its inherent powers and Rules of Court (Order 45 r.6 read with Order 42 r.6) to allow an application to prescribe time in a consent judgment as a procedural, ancillary measure under the liberty to apply doctrine; the SAR-approved order of 3.9.2020 contained a mistake/was inoperable until directions dated 30.9.2020 were complied with and the plaintiff's application to vary the order (Enclosure 50) is allowed in part; stay of execution is justified until the prescribed directions are complied with.