Malaysia Case Law

25 Aug 2025

SPRINGSPHERE SDN. BHD. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU

Citation

JA-15-33-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-15-33-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted assessors' adjustments to comparable sales and fixed market value for Lot 444 at RM6,135.00 per square metre; granted additional compensation of RM2,141,535.46 comprised of market value uplift for the acquired area and injurious affection to remainder of Lot 444 (5%) and Lot 1188 (10%); severance and incidental development costs were rejected due to lack of evidence and expiry/speculative nature of planning permissions.

• Eminent domain
• Compensation
• Market value
• Injurious affection
• Severance
• Valuation date

21 Jan 2021

SHARGUNA A/L SIMADARY 1. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. PENGUASA PUSAT PEMULIHAN KHAS POKOK SENA, KEDAH 3. POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-44-76-11-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

AA-44-76-11-2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that there was no procedural non-compliance: 'shall cause' in section 4A permits the PIO to cause submission via others and the report was received on 12.3.2019; the 10‑day gap in forwarding to the Board was justified and not inordinate given need to attach remand documents and because the Inquiry Officer's finding was later considered together with the report; the inquiry and report were conducted and submitted with all convenient speed; the manner and completeness of investigation are not reviewable under section 15B. Therefore the detention pursuant to the Board's order date…

• Prevention of crime act 1959
• Section 4a compliance
• Habeas corpus
• Procedural requirements
• Judicial review limits

20 Aug 2019

ABDULLAH BIN TUBON (NRIC. No.: 810211-01-5961) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGARAH KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-79-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-25-79-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s6(3) restrictions are discretionary considerations under s7(1) and do not constitute mandatory procedural requirements that must be complied with when issuing a direction to suspend a detention order; accordingly failure to specify a particular police station in Paragraph (e) did not amount to non‑compliance with any mandatory procedural requirement and the Direction remained valid.

• Judicial review
• Preventive detention
• Dangerous drugs (special preventive measures) act 1985
• Procedural requirements
• Suspension of detention orders

RE CHEAH WEE L IAM V EX PARTE ROBERT TENG LYE HOCK

Citation

RE CHEAH WEE L IAM V EX PARTE ROBERT TENG LYE HOCK

Court

Malaysian court

The affidavit filed under r.95 did not allege any counterclaim/set-off/cross-demand nor condescend to particulars of any mistaken amount; therefore it could not operate as an application to set aside under s.3(1)(i) and did not attract s.3(2)(ii); the affidavit must be treated as if not filed and the appeal is dismissed.

• Bankruptcy notice
• Setting aside
• Affidavit under rule 95
• Counterclaim/set-off/cross-demand
• Mistake in amount
• Procedural requirements

TEH HOCK SENG V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation

TEH HOCK SENG V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS

Court

Malaysian court

The Act does not prescribe any timing or procedural requirement for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's direction under s.10(2); therefore timing is not a procedural requirement subject to judicial review under s.11C(1), and the application fails.

• Judicial review
• Ouster clause
• Procedural requirements
• Reasonable time