Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service requirements

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2022

XXXX 1. ) 1. WAN HASSAN BIN WAN ZIN 2. ) 2. TENGKU MUHAMMAD FAKHRY PETRA IBNI KDYMM SULTAN ISMAIL PETRA 3. ) Farhanah Shishani Binti Mohamed Hanif 4. ) Syed Muhammad Imran Shaihani Bin Mohamed Hanif 5. ) 5. KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF, SURUHANJ

Citation

DA-22NCC-2-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCC-2-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying binding Court of Appeal precedent (Loh Eng Leong and Samsudin Mohamad Fauzi), the absence of a penal endorsement in the judgment was a fatal mandatory prerequisite under Order 45 r.7(4); plaintiff failed to satisfy this prerequisite and the committal application therefore must be dismissed.
28 Apr 2021

1. GANESALINGAM A/L KANAGARATNAM 2. SATHUNAVAKEY @ KANAGARATNAM SIVAJOTHY HARIKUMAR A/L THURAISINGAM

Citation

22NCC-432-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-432-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for committal dismissed because the ex‑parte Mareva order was served outside the mandatory seven‑day period and the committal application was not personally served as required, both procedural defects fatal to committal proceedings, and because the defendant subsequently filed affidavits under the inter‑partes order thereby removing any serious, real or substantial risk of prejudice.
23 Jul 2020

LAIN-LAIN 1. ) CHEW VEE LYN ... PETITIONER 2. ) DAVID MAURICIOUS VELEZ HERNANDEZ

Citation

WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent failed to plead and prove a domicile of choice in Malaysia as required by Form 2 and relevant authorities; absence of proved domicile meant the court lacked jurisdiction under LRA s48(1)(c); procedural failures on committal service did not validate the cross-petition; accordingly the cross-petition was defective, abusive of process and struck out.
13 May 2020

LOKMAN NOOR BIN ADAM (NO. K/P: 730101-01-5215) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

W-05-19-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-19-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Order 52 r.2B must be read literally as requiring a personal notice to show cause to be given before any application for leave; that requirement is satisfied by a pre‑action notice served by the putative applicant (such as MACC) and the rule does not mandate the notice to be issued by the court; the High Court correctly dismissed the appellant's application to set aside the leave and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the leave to commence committal proceedings.

Malaysia Case Law

XXXX 1. ) 1. WAN HASSAN BIN WAN ZIN 2. ) 2. TENGKU MUHAMMAD FAKHRY PETRA IBNI KDYMM SULTAN ISMAIL PETRA 3. ) Farhanah Shishani Binti Mohamed Hanif 4. ) Syed Muhammad Imran Shaihani Bin Mohamed Hanif 5. ) 5. KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF, SURUHANJ

1. GANESALINGAM A/L KANAGARATNAM 2. SATHUNAVAKEY @ KANAGARATNAM SIVAJOTHY HARIKUMAR A/L THURAISINGAM

LAIN-LAIN 1. ) CHEW VEE LYN ... PETITIONER 2. ) DAVID MAURICIOUS VELEZ HERNANDEZ

LOKMAN NOOR BIN ADAM (NO. K/P: 730101-01-5215) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR