Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural non‑compliance

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2023

PEMPETISYEN C H A N 1. ) S H A N 2. ) XXXX 3. ) K H A N PIHAK KETIGA A L I R

Citation

WA-33-546-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-546-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Procedural non-compliance with the Divorce Rules was irregular but not prejudicial and did not justify dismissal; there was a material change in circumstances (children no longer resident and deterioration of vehicle) to vary ancillary relief limited to pragmatic adjustments: driver employment must comply with Employment Act and normal working hours (overtime to be arranged and paid by Petitioner), Respondent may provide a temporary replacement vehicle of any model when the Mercedes-Benz breaks down until repaired, and the Respondent remains responsible for providing a full-time domestic help…
10 Mar 2023

HASSAN BIN MURAT

Citation

RA-44-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-44-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to exercise its discretion under section 310 KTJ because the petitioner failed to file the proper Petition within the statutory 14-day period, the delay resulted from the prosecuting officer's negligence and incompetence in preparing and verifying the e-Filed document, the applicant did not rebut the respondent's affidavit, and permitting filing out of time would prejudice the accused and defeat the requirement of strict compliance with statutory procedure.
23 Jan 2022

AHMAD BURHAN BIN MD NASIR (No. KP: 850306-03-5873) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS DAERAH KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN DARUL NAIM 3. KETUA POLIS KELANTAN DARUL NAIM 4. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-25-6-07/2000 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-25-6-07/2000 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SDO's reference to 'Bandar Kota Bharu' did not identify a legally recognised area with clear demarcation; the Respondents failed to ensure the Applicant understood the perimeters, constituting a serious procedural non-compliance of s.7(1) read with s.11A(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985; procedural non-compliance is a valid ground for judicial review despite ouster clauses, therefore the restriction order is quashed.
18 Nov 2021

1. PUNITHAN A/L GANASAN 2. HEMARAJ A/L A SHANMUHAM 3. WONG SUI KHENG 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM JOHOR 3. PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK MACHANG KELANTAN 4. KETU

Citation

WA-44-137-05/2021; WA-44-140-05/2021; WA-44-151-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-137-05/2021; WA-44-140-05/2021; WA-44-151-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Majority of grounds challenged either concerned pre‑detention investigatory irregularities or discretionary acts of the Advisory/Appeal Board and therefore were academic or non‑justiciable once the Minister validly made a detention order under s6(1); no procedural non‑compliance affecting the legality of the detention was established, so habeas corpus relief is refused in line with binding Federal Court authority.
30 Jul 2021

Goh Leong Yong 1. ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan 2. Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur 3. Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 4. Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is dismissed. The habeas corpus application directed at the s.4(1)(a) remand was academic because that order had lapsed and custody was then governed by a valid s.4(2)(a) remand; there was no procedural non-compliance in either s.4(1)(a) or s.4(2)(a) detentions; section 4 POCA is constitutional and within Parliament’s powers under the Federal Constitution; the Minister’s inclusion of unlawful gaming in the POCA schedule was within delegated powers and consistent with POCA’s purpose; allegations of mala fides were not established.
6 Jul 2021

LAIN-LAIN 1. ) 1. EASA BIN MOHD NOOR 2. JAMALUDDIN BIN HASSAN 3. RUKIAH BINTI MAHMOOD 4. YAHYA BIN ABDUL RAUF … PENTADBIR-PENTADBIR 2. ) ZOLFAKAR BIN HAJI OSMAN MOHD TOWFIKE BIN OSMAN … PENSITASI

Citation

18/1957 (LAMPIRAN 134) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

LAMPIRAN 134
Case number

18/1957 (LAMPIRAN 134) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to cancel the citation was dismissed because the dispute is a contested probate matter that raises substantial factual and legal issues unsuitable for summary disposal under Order 18 r 19; procedural defects identified did not constitute irremediable injustice warranting striking out and the proper course was to consolidate the proceedings with the existing substantive suit for full hearing.
10 Jun 2021

1. SIM NGEE SEN 2. SIM YEOK CHENG 3. A HWA 1. TALENT TEAM SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 515554-W) 2. MESSRS SIDEK TEOH WONG DENNIS (sued as a law firm)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-136-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-136-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was partly allowed: the Appellants are entitled to liquidated ascertained damages calculated from the date of payment of the booking fee in line with the Federal Court decision in PJD Regency, while the Sessions Court's factual findings that vacant possession was validly given and that the architect issued the common property certificate were not shown to be perverse or legally erroneous and are maintained; continuation against the 2nd Respondent was an abuse and dismissed.
1 Jan 1900

NAMACHIVAYAM SELVARAJA (PASPORT INDIA NO: Z1807604) NARAYANASAMY A/L KRISHNAN (NO. K/P: 520126-07-5569)

Citation

PA-12ANCC-13-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCC-13-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court exercised its discretion not to strike out the appeal for procedural non-compliance because the omissions caused no prejudice and could be cured; on the merits the Court held the defendant deliberately and consciously absented from the trial on 4 April 2018, the trial judge properly proceeded and accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence, and therefore the application to set aside the judgment after trial lacked merit; appeal dismissed with costs RM4,000 (subject to 4% allocator).
ABDUL RAZAK BIN BAHARUDIN V KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

ABDUL RAZAK BIN BAHARUDIN V KETUA POLIS NEGARA
Court

Malaysian court

Section 8B of the ISA validly ousts judicial review of acts or decisions by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister under the ISA except on questions of compliance with procedural requirements; therefore detention orders under s.8 may only be challenged for procedural non-compliance and not for mala fide or merits; s.8B does not extend to police detention under s.73 which remains challengeable on appropriate grounds.