Malaysia Case Law

14 Nov 2022

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to postpone the summary judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify delay, the protective policy of Schedule H favours expeditious resolution for purchasers, and the defendant's proposed claims against the Ministry and Government were likely time-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiffs was granted and the postponement request rejected.

• Summary judgment
• Joining co-defendants
• Third party notice
• Postponement of hearing
• Liquidated damages
• Limitation/public authorities protection act

20 May 2022

XXXX XXXX

Citation

21NCVC-5-01/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

21NCVC-5-01/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

2nd Defendant (land office) owed statutory and common law duties to maintain accurate register and search results; it breached those duties by allowing the creation/entry of a non‑genuine/erroneous Grant 27889 and by failing to produce critical documents, justifying an adverse inference; as a consequence the cancellation performed was wrongful and the court restored the Plaintiff as registered proprietor and ordered cancellation of the competing title; large claimed economic losses were too remote and not recoverable, but costs were awarded to Plaintiff.

• Land registration
• Cancellation of title
• Breach of statutory duty
• Duty of care
• Adverse inference for non‑production
• Reinstatement of title

BENCON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V MAJLIS PERBANDARAN PULAU PINANG & 2 ORS

Citation

BENCON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V MAJLIS PERBANDARAN PULAU PINANG & 2 ORS

Court

Malaysian court

The originating summons was dismissed because (1) the 2nd and 3rd defendants were improperly joined as they were merely advisory bodies and the first defendant is the proper and sole decision‑maker; (2) the substantive relief sought was in substance judicial review for which leave within the prescribed time was required and was not obtained; (3) the claim was time barred by the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 and barred by laches/unconscionable conduct; and (4) the Appeal Board's decision was final, so the plaintiff's attempt to relitigate amounted to cause of action and issue estoppel…

• Res judicata
• Issue estoppel
• Cause of action estoppel
• Judicial review
• Leave to apply for certiorari
• Limitation/public authorities protection act