Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural delay

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2025

CATURAN DINAMIK SDN BHD Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

Citation

BA-15-259-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-259-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend Form N requires the Applicant to show sufficient reasons, supported by affidavit, and to act with promptness; an inordinate delay (here over two years since inquiry and over one year after filing in Court) that disrupts timely hearing and disposal and is insufficiently explained warrants refusal of leave; accordingly Enclosure 20 was disallowed.
18 Mar 2024

RAJASEKARAN A/L SOUNDARAPANDY P. THIAGARAJAN A/L PAVADAI

Citation

BL-22NCvC-5-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-5-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court applied the Yamaha criteria and Hong Leong principles and held that the proposed additions to paragraphs 7, 9 and new paragraph 23 introduced a new cause of action and were pleaded after unreasonable delay without adequate explanation or bona fide justification; those specific amendments were dismissed with costs, while other unopposed additions were allowed.
14 Nov 2022

Mohd Fuad bin Yahya 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and gathered witness statements with convenient speed given the circumstances and scope of the inquiry, and the Deputy Minister's grounds and statement of facts sufficiently evidenced the applicant's involvement with a substantial body of persons as defined in Selva Vinayagam; therefore the detention complied with statutory and constitutional preconditions and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
20 Sept 2022

YAP CHUNG CHONG 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS SELANGOR 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-69-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-69-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the 37‑day interval was justified by COVID‑19 disruptions and officer commitments and constituted conduct with all convenient speed; the factual allegations describing courier activity and receipt of supplies supported inference of involvement with a substantial body satisfying the Act's preamble; and reporting to the Deputy OCPD in the OCPD's temporary absence was valid; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
7 Mar 2022

Chan Kek Sing 1. ) Chia Bik Ngin @ Chia Bin Ngin 2. ) Chia Kai Choong 3. ) Penduduk-Penduduk Yang menduduki Rumah-Rumah Yang Dibina Diatas Tanah PN 116980, Lot 10758 Seksyen 8, Bandar Semenyih, Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor 4. ) Pendu

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1689-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1689-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte summary possession order dated 6.2.2020 was set aside because the defendants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and, more critically, affidavit evidence demonstrated a bona fide overlap in adjoining land titles caused by a survey error giving rise to triable issues; Order 89 summary procedure is inappropriate where such triable issues exist and the defendants are not mere trespassers.
12 Jan 2022

MUHAMMAD KHAIRUL BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (NO. K/P: 830422-03-5709) 1. PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

NO: DA-25-6-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NO: DA-25-6-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court granted extension of time and leave because applicant provided credible explanation for delay supported by an affidavit from his solicitor admitting erroneous advice, the delay was not due to applicant's indolence, the matter raised an arguable case affecting fundamental rights (termination akin to dismissal engaging Article 5(1)), and justice required permitting substantive review.
14 Jul 2021

ANITA BINTI CHE ABDUL RAHMAN KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI, PUSAT PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN PUTRAJAYA

Citation

25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

25-17-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to establish procedural non-compliance: the investigating officer and inquiry officer provided satisfactory, fact-specific explanations for the timing of the report and inquiry such that any delay was not inordinate; there is no positive evidence the applicant requested counsel and was unreasonably denied access; and absent procedural breach the court will not overturn the Deputy Minister's satisfaction under the Special Preventive Act. Therefore the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
10 Jul 2020

SYED ZAMBERI BIN AHMAD (NO. K/P : 721223-04-5143) (Berniaga Di Atas Nama Dan Gaya Imaniah Trans Services) (No. Perniagaan : 002379003 – X) PINK CAB PREMIER (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 891174 – V)

Citation

BA-22NCC-120-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-120-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application denied in part because it was made after close of pleadings with no satisfactory explanation for the delay and because most proposed questions were incriminatory or a fishing expedition; only interrogatories 3, 5, 7 and 8 were allowed as they were relevant and not prejudicial, and the Defendant failed to show the remaining questions would reduce issues, shorten the trial or save costs.
8 Dec 2019

LIMTON ENGINEERING AND TRADING SDN BHD YEE MOK ENTERPRISE (Mendakwa sebagai satu firma)

Citation

DA-12B-10-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-10-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate an arguable case (notably by omitting the amended statement of claim), so the court would not exercise its discretion to extend time.
CAPECO MARITIME & 3 ORS V PEMILIK KAPAL "BLUEBELL SUSANNAH"

Citation

CAPECO MARITIME & 3 ORS V PEMILIK KAPAL "BLUEBELL SUSANNAH"
Court

Malaysian court

Amendment was allowed because entering an unconditional appearance did not permanently bar the defendant from raising the contested jurisdictional/scope issue as a defence at trial, the proposed counterclaim was pleaded bona fide, there was no undue delay or prejudice to the plaintiffs and the issue had not been previously and finally determined, so the matter must be decided at trial.