Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata and estoppel

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2024

QUEK PECK KEOW EXTRA EXCEL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24NCC(ARB)-2-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

JA-24NCC(ARB)-2-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the applicable agreement was the EEPP 2015 which did not authorize the Defendant to refer the 2018 and 2020 disputes to arbitration; the Defendant's June 2021 unilateral amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to validate arbitration of earlier disputes; consequently there was no valid arbitration agreement and the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with the arbitration and allowed the Plaintiff's originating summons with costs.
20 Mar 2024

EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN. BHD QUEK PECK KEOW (p)

Citation

JA-12A-19-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-19-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the applicable EEPP for the disciplinary proceedings and suspension was the 2011 version; the 2021 unilateral amendment (Improvised Arbitration Agreement) could not be applied retrospectively. The Appellant failed to prove the appointment of the required Disciplinary Committee or compliance with Chapter 10 EEPP; that non‑compliance amounted to denial of natural justice and rendered the disciplinary proceedings and suspension invalid. Consequently the stay applications were not made out and the Sessions Court's decision allowing the Respondent's originating summons (declari…
20 Mar 2024

EXTRA EXCEL (M) SDN. BHD QUEK PECK KEOW (p)

Citation

JA-12A-18-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-18-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the 2011 EEPP governed the disciplinary proceedings and suspension because those matters arose before the 2021 unilateral amendment; the improvised arbitration clause could not be given retrospective effect. The Appellant failed to establish entitlement to a stay under s.10 AA. Separately, the Appellant did not comply with Chapter 10 (no evidence a Disciplinary Committee was appointed) and thus denied natural justice; the Sessions Court's decision to allow the Respondent's originating summons and set aside the disciplinary proceedings and suspension was correct. Both appea…
26 Nov 2023

LINGGIU VALLEY ORANG ASLI (JAKUNS) TRUST 1. ) VIRGIN PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) Ku Azhar Bin Ku Abdul Razak 3. ) Dinesh Kanavaji A/l Kanawagi 4. ) KANAWAGI A/L SEPERUMANIAM 5. ) TETUAN KHANA & CO 6. ) RIZA MAKHZAN ARIFIN 7. ) PUTERI INTAN NURU

Citation

23NCVC-106-07/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

23NCVC-106-07/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the losses suffered by the plaintiff were indivisible and that, irrespective of absence of the words "jointly and severally" in the original JBHC Order, each defendant is jointly and severally liable; therefore the amendment under the slip rule and the court's inherent jurisdiction to reflect the court's intended effect was justified, not time-barred, not barred by res judicata, and caused no prejudice, and Enclosure 193 was allowed with costs RM2,000.
11 Apr 2023

1. ) TAN SRI DATUK SERI M. KAYVEAS 2. ) KAYVEAS HOLDINGS SDN BHD 3. ) BINTANG IRADAT (M) SDN BHD 4. ) DATUK CHANDRAKUMANAN A/L ARUMUGAM 5. ) DATO LY KIM CHEONG 1. ) DATUK SERI MAGLIN DENNIS DCRUZ 2. ) DATUK SUBRAYAN A/L SELLAPPAN 3. ) DATO

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-621-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-621-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the consent judgment dated 16.1.2019 was procured without disclosure that myPPP had been deregistered and thus was illegal and an abuse of the court's process; the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants conspired by unlawful means to transfer the shares and Wisma myPPP to Kayveas/Kayveas Holdings and are liable; section 18C did not bar court intervention because there was no valid party decision recognised by the Registrar; appeals were dismissed and the High Court orders were affirmed.
29 Nov 2022

Pook Fong Fee and Aswath Ramkrishnan [Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co.] Abdullah Az-Zubayr bin Awaluddin and Ashmadi bin Othman [Messrs Zulpadli & Edham]

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to set aside the Final Award because the respondent failed to establish any of the limited statutory grounds under ss36/39 Arbitration Act 2005: there was no demonstrable breach of natural justice, no excess of jurisdiction, and the alleged conflict of interest had been previously litigated and dismissed (res judicata/estoppel); the arbitrator had considered the evidence and issues; therefore the award is final and enforceable and recognition and enforcement are granted.
25 Nov 2021

PENTADBIR ATAU WAKIL DIRI, HARTA PUSAKA NIK HAZMAH BINTI NIK HASSAN TAN JEE TIU

Citation

DA-12BNCVC-2-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12BNCVC-2-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Filing a separate suit to obtain the same relief while an earlier proceeding on the same cause is pending on appeal, without special circumstances, is an abuse of process; the Sessions Court's decision setting aside the ex parte distress order was on the merits and the appellant failed to justify piecemeal litigation, therefore the new writ and statement are properly struck out.
21 Jul 2020

LAI KING LUNG 1. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN ANJUNG HIJAU (PPAH) 2. FOO YAU LIM

Citation

S-22NCvC-242-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

S-22NCvC-242-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found Defendant 1 produced material fresh evidence — including the plaintiff's admissions and the Disciplinary Board's findings — establishing that the PKP award was obtained by improper/unconscionable conduct (double claiming). The irregularity justified exercising the court's power to vary the PKP order rather than barring relief by delay or res judicata because the issue and evidence only surfaced in the disciplinary process. The PKP order of 25.11.2011 was varied to correct the true entitlement and restitution and costs ordered accordingly.