Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural irregularity

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

CHANDRA A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) Sambath Rao A/l Perumal 2. ) Katigesu A/l Sinnapan 3. ) Rasa Selvan A/l Karuppiah 4. ) Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Selangor

Citation

BA-23NCvC-8-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-8-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The expulsions and removals were nullities because the Management Committee failed to follow the mandatory disciplinary procedure (Article 5) and disregarded the Registrar's finding that the first expulsion was irregular; consequence is reinstatement to membership and office, appointment of defendant 2 during the period is void, and defendants 1-3 are jointly liable for general damages and costs for wrongful repeated expulsions executed in bad faith.
7 Nov 2025

BANDARI SIMMA REALTY SDN BHD 1. ) Ravichanthiran A/l Ganesan 2. ) XXXX BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Subramaniam A/L Paidathally

Citation

22NCVC-197-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-197-11/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the misnaming of the applicant was a technical/typographical error that could be cured under the Rules; because no substantial prejudice to the respondent was shown and the identity of the party seeking committal was clear from the record, the court exercised its discretion to allow correction and dismissed the application to set aside without costs.
19 Sept 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN LEGASI SENADA SDN BHD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SANJAY BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-29NCC-1040-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-1040-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because documentary evidence (email threads and case management minutes) showed the creditor's attendance and the SAR had granted an extension to file the Affidavit in Reply, the solicitor was impliedly authorised to depose the affidavit, and any alleged procedural irregularities did not cause substantial injustice and are cured by section 131 IA 1967.
24 Jul 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN INNOSEVEN SDN BHD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah

Citation

WA-29NCC-569-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-569-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under the Insolvency Act and Rules the personal service requirement applies to the creditor's petition only and there is no requirement to serve the Affidavit Verifying Petition on the debtor; therefore non-service of the AVP is not a ground to set aside the bankruptcy petition. The court also held the appellant could not raise issues on appeal that were not before the Senior Assistant Registrar and dismissed the appeal with costs.
26 Sept 2022

DHARMENDRA KUMAR A/L RAGHAVAN MURUGAN A/L PONNUSAMY PENCELAH Majlis Peguam

Citation

KA-17D-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-17D-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the disciplinary process was vitiated by denial of fair hearing: the committee proceeded without the appellant despite reasonable, documented requests for adjournment and available alternative dates within the four‑month window; a disciplinary finding reached in the appellant's absence could not meet the required standard of proof and thus the Board's order, the committee's report and appointment were set aside, the fine ordered returned and costs awarded.
24 Aug 2022

1. ) NORLIDAH BINTI ABD. HAMID (membawa tindakan ini sebagai ibu yang sah kepada Si Mati FIRDAUS BIN MAT NASIR bagi tuntutan di bawah Seksyen 7 dan 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956) 2. ) MAT NASIR BIN MAT SAID (membawa tindakan ini sebagai b

Citation

TG-A53KJ-37-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TG-A53KJ-37-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to issue a third party notice was allowed because the notice and supporting affidavit met the substance and form required by Order 16 r.2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; the technical omission of citing the specific rule did not render the application irregular under the overriding objective principles (Order 1A and Order 2), and the defendant demonstrated a prima facie claim of negligence against the proposed third parties (parents) sufficient to justify leave; alleged delay was not fatal because third party claims are separate and may be tried with or separately from the main a…
28 Jul 2022

1. ) LOKMAN BIN DATO' MOHD KAMAL TEH 2. ) MUSTAKIM BIN DATO' MOHD KAMAL TEH 1. ) WONG CHEE YEP 2. ) LOKE HSIAO LI 3. ) KAM MA AUTO CHANNEL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-131-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-131-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 37 is not applicable to an assessment ordered by a Sessions Court judge; even if applicable the time requirements are not strictly mandatory such that non-compliance alone would void the proceedings; procedural non-compliance here was at most irregular and did not occasion substantial miscarriage of justice, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
26 Jul 2022

PEMPETISYEN HOO SIE YIN (P) CHEN CHEE WAH @ CHEN LOONG HENG

Citation

33-342-07/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

33-342-07/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because it was procedurally defective in ways that caused prejudice and could not be cured, it failed to invoke the correct statutory basis to vary a consent order that required mutual consent for sale, and the affidavit evidence did not establish necessity or expediency for a court‑ordered sale; accordingly there was no basis to order sale and the application was dismissed with costs.
14 Jul 2022

HAJA MOHAIDEEN BIN ZULKIFLEE 1. ) NAR TRADING TRADERS SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHD NASRI BIN ABDUL RAHIM

Citation

PA-A72NCvC-423-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-A72NCvC-423-08/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application was dismissed because its intitulement cited a non-existent or incorrect provision (Aturan 43 Kaedah 13) in the Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, rendering the application irregular; the defendants failed to apply to amend the intitulement despite being put on notice, therefore the court refused the application to set aside the default judgments and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
9 Jun 2021

PENDAKWARAYA TRANSCOASTAL SDN BHD

Citation

BL-44-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-44-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time under Section 310 CrPC was granted because the applicant reasonably relied on the magistrate's order and court notation that appeared to include both case numbers; the filing error was attributable to the court's recordation and did not produce unjustifiable prejudice that would bar relief, therefore leave to file an appeal out of time for BL-87-4490-09/2017 is warranted.