Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of statutory notice

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

CHOP LEE HUAT CERMIN & ALUMINIUM SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-1-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove GOM was the principal to OBC for s30 purposes, failed to satisfy section 30(5) that money was due or payable by the principal to the contractor (GOM produced IPC No.62 showing payments made), and failed to properly serve the Section 30 notice as required by the contract and statute; consequently the statutory prerequisites to invoke section 30 CIPAA were not met.
9 Jan 2025

SHAPADU MARINE PTE LTD HIJAYU MARINE SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-469-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-469-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The debt arose from a consent judgment that incorporated the settlement agreement and remained valid and enforceable; the Plaintiff failed to produce the written request for the 21-day grace and paid the second milestone eight days late, thereby breaching the contract and triggering the acceleration clause restoring the Original Outstanding Sum; because the judgment was not set aside or stayed there was no bona fide dispute and no basis for a Fortuna injunction; service defects did not prejudice the Plaintiff; injunction refused and ad interim injunction discharged.
8 Jan 2024

HSIN NGIE INDUSTRY SDN BHD PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH PONTIAN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-1020-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-1020-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material non‑compliance by the Defendant with the mandatory procedural provisions of the National Land Code 1965—specifically failure to prove valid service of Form 6A on the registered proprietor, serious discrepancies between signed orders and gazetted notices, and failure to publish and register copies as required by s130(2)/s433—rendered the forfeiture ineffective and unlawful; accordingly the Form 6A, Form 8A and related caveat are set aside and the Plaintiff's ownership declared.
21 Dec 2023

WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 3. ) YW YANG WEI PILING

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2142-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2142-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted an extension of time under s38(4) LAA 1960 because the State Authority conceded it served Form LC late (more than seven months after the award); that conceded late service constituted a special circumstance justifying enlargement of the six‑week period, and the presence of Plaintiff’s representatives at the inquiry did not negate the statutory requirement of service or the effect of late service.
28 Sept 2022

PEMPETISYEN BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA KOMPLEKS PANDAN SAFARI LAGOON PARADISE BOULEVARD SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was allowed because the judgment debt was valid and unsatisfied, the statutory notice was properly served, the Respondent failed to demonstrate solvency or a bona fide dispute over the debt, and therefore was deemed insolvent so that the just and equitable ground under s465(1)(e) was established for winding up.
28 Sept 2022

PEMPETISYEN R. Shanti for the Petitioner [Messrs Ze Yi & Kee] Hong Kai Sheng and Loo Man Keith for the Respondent [Messrs Peter Ling & Van Geyzel

Citation

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the petitioner held an unsatisfied, valid judgment for RM7,282,071.71 and proved service of the statutory notice which expired without payment, and because the respondent failed to prove a bona fide dispute or its solvency, the court found it just and equitable to wind up the respondent under section 465(1)(e) of the Companies Act 2016.
28 Sept 2022

PEMPETISYEN R. Shanti for the Petitioner [Messrs Ze Yi & Kee] Hong Kai Sheng and Loo Man Keith for the Respondent [Messrs Peter Ling & Van Geyzel

Citation

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-248-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the prior judgment was valid and unsatisfied, the statutory notice was properly served at the respondent's registered address, the respondent failed to prove solvency or show a bona fide dispute about the debt, and therefore the respondent was deemed insolvent and a winding up order under section 465(1)(e) was warranted.
15 Feb 2022

ZETA LETRIK SDN BHD JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-193-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-193-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the request was valid; Defendant failed to serve the mandatory s30(2) notice to the contractor and did not discharge its evidential burden to prove no money was due or payable as at receipt; therefore under s30(3) CIPAA the Defendant was compelled to pay the adjudicated sum of RM6,160,776.36 to the Plaintiff. 'Adjudicated amount' does not include interest or adjudication costs in this context.
12 Feb 2020

Easy Vista Sdn Bhd Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1212-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1212-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the s.11 First Schedule notice was validly served on the deceased owner’s widow/occupier, no objection was lodged and the administrators participated in the PTD inquiry to protect estate interests; the omission of a fixed date in the notice stating a date would be fixed was not fatal in the absence of any objection; the appellant repeatedly sought the compensation award rather than challenging the notice or order and is estopped by its conduct; accordingly the respondent’s entry was lawful under s.11 and there was no trespass; appeal dismissed.