Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of documents

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

Citation

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the issue of service of invoices had been decided finally in the substantive suit and therefore could not form the basis of fresh committal proceedings (res judicata / finality of litigation); the committal was premature and an abuse of process under Order 18 r.19; judicial management s.410 did not bar committal per se but was irrelevant because the underlying issue was final; costs awarded on party‑and‑party basis, not indemnity.
23 Sept 2025

VICTOR GOH LOW WEE FOOK

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-35-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-35-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Amended Statement of Claim was filed and served before pleadings were deemed closed (22-5-2025) and thus valid under Order 20 Rule 3; the application under Order 20 Rule 4 (Enclosure 10) failed on substantive grounds because, even if considered, the amendments would have been allowed at the early stage; the Sessions Court Judge properly exercised discretion, so the appeal is dismissed with costs.
25 Jun 2025

NEW CHIUN FONG (BERNIAGA ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA NEW RECON MOTORSPORTS) 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) ROSLIZA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 3. ) MOHAMED YASEEN BIN JALALUDIN

Citation

JA-25-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-10-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the judicial review and set aside the Tribunal awards because the Tribunal proceeded without proper service on the legally responsible party (documents were served on JLA, a distinct entity, not NRM, contrary to reg 15(2)), failed to satisfy itself of valid service before hearing (breach of reg 21(3)), amended the award without notice (breach of reg 25A(3)), and relied on uncorroborated claimant evidence without establishing agency between JLA and NRM; additionally the claimant had disposed of the goods and lost certain statutory remedies, so the awards were illegal, pr…
6 Jun 2025

Dharmendra Kumar A/l Raghavan SEVANASPARAN A/L MANIKAM PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Citation

PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because DC failed to produce prima facie proof of valid service under s.138(2) LPA and failed to comply with mandatory time limits, causing a denial of the appellant’s right to be heard; therefore the DB decision of 21.3.2025 (two-year suspension and RM50,000 fine) was unlawful and is set aside with direction for reinvestigation and rehearing by a new DC panel.
18 Dec 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) CHENG YONG PIN 2. ) BAN CHUN HUNG 3. ) HI PEI SHAN PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN NG MEI YOONG

Citation

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The debtor's notice (12.10.2024) and supporting affidavit (6.11.2024) were dismissed because the notice was not served the mandatory three days before the hearing (service on 14.10.2024 gave only two days) and the notice failed to specify the statements in the petition disputed as required by Rule 116/Form 45; additionally, issues raised in the affidavit were previously decided and are barred by res judicata.
9 Dec 2024

HAVONA HOTEL SDN BHD 1. ) OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD 2. ) YAP SING LEE 3. ) YAP SENG MAW PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

JA-22NCvC-27-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-27-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The MOS constituted a valid binding agreement; plaintiff proved compliance and continuous readiness to complete; plaintiff met Order 81 preliminary requirements; defendant failed to demonstrate any specific triable issue that would necessitate a trial (non-receipt defence and claims of outstanding sums were unsupported); letters were proved served and the developer is obliged to supply information, undertakings and execute necessary documents to effect surrender; accordingly summary judgment was entered granting the reliefs claimed in Enclosure 7(a),(b) and (f) and exemplary damages were allo…
18 Oct 2024

MERCEDES-BENZ SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. PAUL RAJ A/L DAVIS

Citation

BC-A52NCC-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-A52NCC-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the Plaintiff complied with the statutory requirements of Section 4(1) and Section 5(1) of the Hire Purchase Act 1967 (Defendant admitted receiving and signing the written statement and the agreement was served by registered post), the Defendant had used the vehicle and made payments and failed to raise any triable issue; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the Plaintiff for the specified outstanding amount with interest and costs.
5 Mar 2024

PEMPETISYEN OPTIMUS ENGINEERING SDN BHD NTSJ CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-421-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-421-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition is allowed because the petitioner proved valid service of the statutory notice at the respondent's registered address and by photographic evidence, the respondent's denial was unsupported, and an application to set aside the adjudication decision does not constitute a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds to defeat a winding up petition; accordingly the respondent failed to pay the adjudicated sum and the winding up petition succeeds.
19 Jan 2024

TAN KEE FATT THIROUBATHAY A/P KADIRAPAN

Citation

CB-11BNCvC-2-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-11BNCvC-2-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to establish compliance with the mandatory service provisions within the time limit; the failed email did not satisfy Aturan 63A kaedah 17 requirements and the service was to be assessed under Aturan 62; no cogent justification existed to extend time under Aturan 3 kaedah 5 because extension would prejudice the respondent; accordingly the appellant's application for validation/extension was dismissed and the respondent's application to set aside the defective notice of appeal was allowed with costs, rendering the notice of appeal invalid.
30 Jun 2022

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 1. ) MENTAKAB STAR MALL SDN BHD (Dalam Penerimaan) 2. ) PHENG YIN HUAH 3. ) PHENG CHIN KIAT 4. ) SISTEM DUTA SDN BHD 5. ) Chan Siew Mei

Citation

CB-22NCC-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCC-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff because the certificate of indebtedness was not properly or evidentially challenged and no bona fide triable defence was demonstrated; the defendants' counterclaims did not plead material facts sufficient to disclose a cause of action and were therefore struck out under Order 18 r.19 KKM 2012; the security for costs application was withdrawn and dismissed.