Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of statutory notice (form 16d)

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD ALWIN RAJASURYA A/L G ANTHONY

Citation

WA-24FC-1531-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24FC-1531-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff had established the statutory preconditions (valid loan, registered charge, default, service of Form 16D, outstanding indebtedness) and the Defendant failed to establish any legal or evidential basis amounting to "cause to the contrary" under s.256(3) NLC; mere ongoing negotiations do not displace the statutory entitlement, therefore the Plaintiff’s application for an order for sale was allowed and costs awarded.
9 Oct 2025

MBSB BANK BERHAD WARDAH PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24MFC-189-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-189-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiff proved proper service and satisfied statutory prerequisites; foreclosure under Section 256 is an in rem remedy independent of the in personam setting-aside application; the Mareva injunction bound the parent company only and did not legally prevent enforcement of the Defendant's charged property by the secured creditor; accordingly no cause to the contrary was established and an order for sale was required under Section 256(3) NLC.
4 Aug 2025

Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) LANGKASUKA LAND SDN BHD

Citation

KA-24FC-10-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24FC-10-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court allowed both applications: Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving a 'cause to the contrary' under s256(3) NLC; service of Form 16D by prepaid registered post to the address in the charge satisfied statutory requirements and the s431(2) presumption; economic hardship and speculative funding proposals do not negate the chargee's statutory right to an Order for Sale; accordingly Order for Sale granted with specified sale terms and costs.
19 Jan 2024

CIMB BANK BERHAD 1. ) QUICKPACK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

Citation

BA-24NCvC-493-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-493-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Land Administrator erred in finding Form 16D was irregular because service by A.R. registered post and on known directors complied with section 431(1)(b)(ii); the vesting order was valid and did not defeat the Plaintiff's standing (vesting under BAFIA/FSA takes effect notwithstanding registration); statutory requirements for Form 16D/Form 16H and notice periods were satisfied (including post‑2017 amendment); therefore there was no cause to the contrary to refuse an order for sale and the Plaintiff's requests were allowed while the First Defendant's strike‑out application wa…

Malaysia Case Law

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD ALWIN RAJASURYA A/L G ANTHONY

MBSB BANK BERHAD WARDAH PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) LANGKASUKA LAND SDN BHD

CIMB BANK BERHAD 1. ) QUICKPACK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat