Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liberty to file afresh

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2025

ROHAYA BINTI SAID 1. ) AMAR MUSAFIR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD NIZAM BIN ABD MALEK 3. ) ABD MALEK BIN ABD RAZAK 4. ) AMAR MUSAFIR MART SDN BHD 5. ) AMAR MUSAFIR HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 6. ) MUHAMMAD NAZMI BIN ABD MALEK

Citation

KA-B52NCC-4-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-B52NCC-4-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court allowed the plaintiff's application to revive the dismissed action because the plaintiff provided a satisfactory explanation, the defendant's counsel failed to comply with court directions and did not attend, and allowing the application does not prejudice the defendant who retains the right to a full trial.
6 May 2025

1. ) TRILLION TREASURE SDN. BHD. 2. ) ASIAH FARIHAH BINTI JEFFREY 1. ) MAMMOTH EMPIRE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-205-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-205-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to file afresh and awarded costs to Defendants (RM10,000) because Plaintiffs acted in good faith, the case was not at an advanced stage, Plaintiffs remained dominus litis at that point, no interlocutory advantage had been secured by Plaintiffs, and Defendants did not demonstrate irreparable prejudice from permitting withdrawal with liberty to file afresh.
9 Jul 2024

Abdul Rashid Bin Mohamad Isa PTT INTERNATIONAL TRADING PTE. LTD.

Citation

03-2-11/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

B
Case number

03-2-11/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Because the Rule 93 setting aside application remained unheard there was no subsisting act of bankruptcy to ground the Creditor's Petition; the Registrar's declaration of an act of bankruptcy was erroneous, therefore withdrawal with leave and liberty to file afresh was appropriate and did not terminate non-existent or improperly initiated proceedings; appeal dismissed.
5 Jul 2024

TANJUNG OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) VME PROCESS SYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Citation

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Withdrawal of the counterclaim was permitted but without liberty to file afresh because defendants were unprepared despite having had years to prepare, the application was made after plaintiff had adduced its defence evidence on the counterclaim, and granting liberty would prejudice the plaintiff and risk abuse of process by allowing a second bite at the cherry.
5 Jul 2024

TANJUNG OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) VME PROCESS SYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Citation

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-40-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Withdrawal of the counterclaim was allowed only without liberty to file afresh because the defendants had been unprepared despite having filed the counterclaim years earlier, issued highly relevant F&B notice only three weeks before trial, filed to adjourn unsuccessfully, and made the withdrawal after the plaintiff had closed its case and fully disclosed its defence to the counterclaim; permitting refiling would prejudice the plaintiff and amount to an abuse of process ('second bite at the cherry').
10 Jun 2024

DR MUNIR ZAMAN 1. ) THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM IN MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM 3. ) UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA 4. ) DR. CHRISTINE THELMA ENNEW 5. ) DR. HAIDER ABBAS F. MOHAMED (ALSO KNOWN AS HAIDER ABBAS F. AL

Citation

WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the plaintiff's withdrawal and struck out the claims against the 3rd to 6th defendants, while exercising its discretion to grant the plaintiff liberty to file afresh (subject to any limitation defenses the defendants may raise); costs were disallowed because defendants had not previously objected to the joinder and should not benefit from their inaction.
6 May 2024

Lee Ngan Hoo 1. ) Insp Sarawanan A/L Panrengam 2. ) Ketua Polis daerah Dang Wangi 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 4. ) Komisioner Jeneral Penjara 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-54-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-54-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discontinuance of the suit is allowed but without liberty to file afresh and with costs to defendants because the plaintiff failed to prepare for trial despite court directions, defendants had taken preparatory steps and any fresh suit would be time-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 s.2; exercise of discretion under Order 21 r 3 ROC permits imposition of 'no liberty' term to prevent injustice and misuse.
19 Feb 2024

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) BAHARUDEN BIN ABD MAJID 3. ) TAN KENG BOON 4. ) MUHAMMAD AZRAI BIN SHAMSIR 5. ) Lim Tiong Lay 6. ) BIOWORLD WEALTH SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCVC-239-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-239-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Learned SAR erred in directing withdrawal without liberty to file afresh where the record did not show the Plaintiff's consent; the Court exercises discretion under Orders 3 r 5 and 45 r 6 and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice and therefore granted the Plaintiff leave to apply and allowed the extension of time to file the Notice of Taxation and Bill of Cost, subject to conditions including payment of costs of the application.
26 Jan 2024

PROF DATO DR RAHMAT BIN MOHAMAD Shahizad Bin Sulaiman

Citation

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiff filed notice within Order 21 r 2 ROC, the court held the discontinuance was an abuse of process because the filing had already produced a substantial advantage to the plaintiff (SUHAKAM ceased investigation under s12), prejudicing the defendant; accordingly the court was entitled to allow discontinuance but impose the term 'no liberty to file afresh' and award costs to the defendant.
9 Nov 2023

SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM PIHAK KETIGA DATO’ SRI SHAMIR KUMAR NANDY

Citation

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendant's indemnity claim against the Third Party was expressly contingent upon the Defendant being held liable to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff withdrew her claim with no liberty to file afresh, the contingency cannot arise and there is no valid reason to grant the Defendant liberty to refile the indemnity claim against the Third Party.