Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of appeal

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2026

GOH SHU WEI NOORANI BINTI MOHAMAD ISMAIL

Citation

BA-12BNCC-17-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-17-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Notice of Appeal was filed and served out of the mandatory 14‑day period and the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory, prompt and documented explanation for the delay; the procedural breach caused prejudice and could not be cured; accordingly the respondent's strike out application succeeded and the appellant's application for abridgement/extension of time was dismissed with costs.
13 May 2025

BALARAMAN A/L GOVENDAN LIU PEI DONG

Citation

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-18-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to provide a reasonable and evidential explanation for the one‑month delay in filing the extension application, failed to produce contemporaneous evidence of incapacity or reasonable steps taken to notify the appellant, did not personally affirm the supporting affidavit, and did not demonstrate prima facie prospects of success or address prejudice to the respondent; exercise of discretion therefore not warranted.
14 Mar 2025

Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) MAHADEVAN A/L K SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1855-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1855-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Delay of at least nine months was inordinate and inexcusable; the solicitor's mistake in filing and failing to refile the extension application does not constitute sufficient grounds to grant an extension of time; therefore the Originating Summons for extension of time is dismissed with costs.
6 Nov 2024

Anthony Raj A/L Ayakaram Joseph Yap Tian Tion

Citation

WA-12ANCC-72-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-72-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Dismissal of the application was warranted because the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory and timely explanation for the nine‑month delay; the judgment had been properly extracted and served on the appellant's solicitors and the appellant had personal notice via a Bankruptcy Notice referencing the judgment; solicitor misconduct or bankruptcy of the former solicitor did not absolve the appellant from complying with time limits and no sufficient evidence of non‑notification or overriding merits was shown to justify extension.
3 Mar 2024

RISDA FLEET SDN BHD 1. ) MD ASRUL BIN ABD HAMID 2. ) MOHAMAD EZAM BIN MOHAMAD 3. ) MOHD YUSRI BIN HAMIN 4. ) Mohamad Edzuan Bin Idris

Citation

JB-24-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the extension because the delay of 428 days was inordinate; plaintiff failed to give good and cogent reasons for the delay; plaintiff did not name or serve the 2nd–4th respondents and could have amended the title instead of withdrawing; plaintiff failed to disclose merits or produce supporting documents (including the Labour Court award); granting such a long extension would prejudice employee respondents. Therefore discretion to extend time was not exercised in plaintiff's favour and the application was dismissed with costs.
15 Dec 2023

Techware Enterprise Sdn Bhd Tan Yang Tee

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-25-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-25-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's delay was excessive, explanations were not cogent, and granting an extension would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff that cannot be compensated by costs; accordingly the extension of time is refused, the notice of appeal is incompetent and struck out, and the stay of execution is dismissed.
6 Aug 2023

C.E.L Construction Sdn Bhd Toh Wai Ming Berniaga atas nama dan gaya Zitseng Interior Decorator

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-73-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-73-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time because the appellant failed to provide a reasonable and detailed explanation for the 40-day delay, failed to demonstrate a prima facie meritorious appeal beyond the mere existence of issues and documents at the Sessions Court, and grant would prejudice the respondent; therefore the application to extend time was dismissed with costs.
27 Apr 2023

Rosli Bin Almanzur Mohamd Ridzwan Bin Kithur Mohamed Sebagai Wakil Diri Kithur Mohamed Bin Mohd Idris (No. K/p: 581226-71-5075)

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Multiple, mandatory procedural breaches by appellant — failure to serve the NOA, failure to file and serve a compliant ROA (including Notes of Evidence) within time, failure to apply in writing for NOP and GOJ within time, and absence of evidence validating claimed email service (which is ineffective without a practice direction) — were incurable and prejudicial; no application to regularise was made; therefore the appeal was defective and must be struck out.
9 Mar 2023

CHONG CHIN KOK KONG KURNIA INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

WA-A53KJ-445-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A53KJ-445-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court will prepare the reasons of judgment only after the High Court grants the application for extension of time to file the notice of appeal because the notice was filed out of time.
16 Jan 2023

[Pegawai Pendakwa] Fadziman Bin Fauzi

Citation

AA-41LB(A)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-41LB(A)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was struck out because the Notice of Appeal was directed against a non-existent order (wrong date) and, despite written notice of that fundamental defect, the prosecution failed to promptly regularise the appeal or make a formal application under section 310 CPC with supporting affidavit; this failure warranted refusal to exercise the court's discretion and justified striking out the appeal.