Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2025

CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

Citation

22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside was dismissed because the Defendant filed the application after an inordinate and unjustified delay amounting to abuse of process and because the consent judgment was perfected, rendering the court functus officio and the matter res judicata; alleged breaches did not justify setting aside the consent judgment.
18 Mar 2024

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Poh Yang Hong

Citation

WA-29NCC-373-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-373-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Bankruptcy Notice was set aside and the creditor's appeal against that set-aside was dismissed, there was no live bankruptcy proceeding; therefore the SAR's earlier order granting leave to issue the Bankruptcy Notice was rendered academic and is set aside, and the debtor's appeal is allowed with costs.
5 Aug 2022

XXXX XXXX

Citation

BA-23NCVC-9-04/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCVC-9-04/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant, through its representative, made definitive representations in the signed Salient Terms (including a commitment to purchase shares and set off redemption sums) which were false or made without intention to perform and that the plaintiffs reasonably relied on those representations to enter the consent judgment; accordingly the consent judgment dated 17.10.2013 was set aside and plaintiffs' claim allowed.
28 Jan 2020

PALPANAVAN A/L ARUNASALAM 1.ANWARUL HAQ BIN AHMAD 2.HJ M RASHEED BIN HJ HASSAN 3.HARIS FAIZAL BIN MOHD NOR

Citation

JA-24NCVC-329-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCVC-329-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the consent judgment is dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving frustration, illegality or any other limited ground that would justify setting aside a perfected consent judgment; the alleged Ministry policy did not establish unforeseeable, non-self‑induced illegality rendering performance impossible and the Court will not set aside the consent order absent clear proof; costs awarded to defendants.

Malaysia Case Law

CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Poh Yang Hong

XXXX XXXX

PALPANAVAN A/L ARUNASALAM 1.ANWARUL HAQ BIN AHMAD 2.HJ M RASHEED BIN HJ HASSAN 3.HARIS FAIZAL BIN MOHD NOR