Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie contempt

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2025

1. ) HONSIN APPAREL SDN BHD 2. ) HIQ MEDIA (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) SOUTH MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BERHAD 2. ) BINA MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD 3. ) LEOW THANG FONG 4. ) DATO' DR. ABDULLAH BIN SEPIEN 5. ) LATIFAH BINTI ABDUL LATIFF 6. ) DATO' ZAINUDDI

Citation

WA-24NCC-269-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-269-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time to file the setting aside application was granted because the delay was bona fide and caused by genuine procedural uncertainty; the ex parte leave dated 26.1.2024 was set aside because a clear prima facie case of contempt was not established in light of prompt appellate action and a subsequent stay, and because personal service was not effected nor was there a lawful dispensation for service as required in committal proceedings.
2 Sept 2024

J&E ADVANCE TECH SDN BHD MOHAMED AZMIN BIN ALI

Citation

WA-23NCvC-24-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-24-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt or fraud on the Court; the filing, withdrawal or replacement of witness statements and the filing of an additional bundle of documents, without prima facie evidence that the contents are false or fabricated, does not constitute contempt; unsworn witness statements are not evidence; the application was premature and is dismissed with costs.
4 Oct 2023

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt because the Stay Order did not expressly prohibit applying for, presenting or registering an extension of the Prohibitory Order; the Court had clarified the Plaintiff may apply to extend the PO and registration is the procedural method by which an extension takes effect; the alleged misconduct was not particularized within the Statement as required; and by the time of hearing the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Defendant’s appeal making the committal application inappropriate. Accordingly leave was refused and the application…
26 Oct 2022

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence committal proceedings was granted because the November 2021 Order was effectively served on the defendant, she knew the terms of the Order, the Order's obligations were clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of contempt based on the defendant's non-compliance.
27 Apr 2021

PNL Capital Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors Ong Shin Joe Liew Chia Soon & Ors

Citation

WA-22NCC-623-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-623-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant had locus standi but failed to demonstrate a prima facie wilful breach of the consent judgment because the phone was seized by the police (a supervening event beyond respondents' control) and paragraph 3 of the consent judgment did not require plaintiffs to return the phone to the applicant; concurrent proceedings to set aside the consent judgment rendered the committal application premature, therefore leave was refused.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) HONSIN APPAREL SDN BHD 2. ) HIQ MEDIA (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) SOUTH MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BERHAD 2. ) BINA MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD 3. ) LEOW THANG FONG 4. ) DATO' DR. ABDULLAH BIN SEPIEN 5. ) LATIFAH BINTI ABDUL LATIFF 6. ) DATO' ZAINUDDI

J&E ADVANCE TECH SDN BHD MOHAMED AZMIN BIN ALI

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PNL Capital Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors Ong Shin Joe Liew Chia Soon & Ors