Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Slip rule

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) H E B 2. ) H E M

Citation

S4-33-604-2000 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

S4-33-604-2000 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to backdate the Decree Absolute was dismissed because the failure to make the decree nisi absolute was substantive, not a clerical slip; sections 61 and 62 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act require positive procedural steps to make a decree absolute and prevent automatic backdating; the Court has no power under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction to create the substantive effect sought, therefore the Decree Absolute remains dated 16 January 2025.
9 Jun 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCvC-486-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-486-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order of 25 August 2022 is final and was deliberately recorded with the phrase 'costs to be taxed by the Court' which is procedural only; the Court has no jurisdiction to amend the order to impose a substantive liability on the Defendant nor to correct by slip rule because there was no clerical error; consequently the Plaintiff cannot proceed with taxation against the Defendant and the Defendant's application to strike the taxation notice succeeds.
21 Mar 2024

TAY KUAN TEA PHOON YUH JIUN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-566-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-566-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend was dismissed because Order 20 Rule 11 is confined to correcting clerical errors or accidental slips and cannot be used to add new substantive terms that would alter the allocation of proceeds established by the original judgment.
11 Jul 2021

FARIDAH BINTI MOHAMED (NRIC NO.: 600406-01-5608) (bertindak sebagai Pengarah Syarikat Ban Heng Credit (M) Sdn Bhd) TAN HUAN HIANG (NRIC NO.: 660706-01-6105)

Citation

JA-24NCVC-307-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCVC-307-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because it was filed out of time contrary to Order 42 rule 13 ROC and, on the merits, the Order is principally a monetary judgment not amenable to enforcement by committal so adding a penal notice was inappropriate; the omission of a penal notice did not permit correction under the slip rule to achieve committal enforcement.
18 Feb 2021

1. ) AHMAYUDDIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) Razmi Bin Alias SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. (yang telah membeli dan mengambil alih sebahagian daripada akaun milik Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad)

Citation

WA-22M-198-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-198-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment to the writ, statement of claim and judgment was filed by the plaintiff within the 14-day period by e-filing and registry endorsement delay did not invalidate the amendment; the defendants' 128-day delay in applying to set aside after service was unjustified and their affidavits failed to plead evidential facts to show a bona fide defence on the merits; therefore the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the applications and the appeals.
14 Jan 2021

1. ) DR JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 2. ) JEGANATHAN A/L MAHALINGAM RATNAVALE 3. ) MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE 4. ) JEYARATNAM A/P RATNAVALE 5. ) MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 6. ) PANCHANTH A/L RATNAVALE 7. ) JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (menuntut untuk

Citation

AA-24NCVC-105-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCVC-105-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that inserting the Grant Numbers was a permissible correction under the slip rule and inherent jurisdiction because the omission hindered enforcement (land office required full title details); the application to disqualify counsel was dismissed because disqualification at the late stage would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs and was not justified on the evidence; the Court is not functus officio and may seek administrative clarification without deferring legal judgment.
24 Sept 2020

MOHAMAD ZAINOL BEGUM BIN AHMAD HADJA (NO. K/P: 580502-07-5779) 1.MUMTHAJ BEGUM BINTI ABDUL RAZAK (630801-10-8350) 2. MOHAMAD MAZLAN BIN MOHAMAED MUSADIQ (NO. K/P: 930310-14-5629) 2. KUMARAGURU A/L MANOKARAN (NO. K/P: 830821-14-6027)

Citation

22NCC-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found paragraph 3 contained an omission by failing to identify the specific property subject to caveat removal; the parties' objectively ascertainable intention at the time was that the plaintiff remove the caveat existing then, which was on the first defendant's property. The omission was a slip in expression correctable under the slip rule/inherent jurisdiction, therefore the amendment to specify Hakmilik HSM 2647 Lot PT432 Jalan Ampang was allowed and the application was granted with costs RM3,000.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) H E B 2. ) H E M

XXXX XXXX

TAY KUAN TEA PHOON YUH JIUN

FARIDAH BINTI MOHAMED (NRIC NO.: 600406-01-5608) (bertindak sebagai Pengarah Syarikat Ban Heng Credit (M) Sdn Bhd) TAN HUAN HIANG (NRIC NO.: 660706-01-6105)

1. ) AHMAYUDDIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) Razmi Bin Alias SMEB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. (yang telah membeli dan mengambil alih sebahagian daripada akaun milik Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad)

1. ) DR JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 2. ) JEGANATHAN A/L MAHALINGAM RATNAVALE 3. ) MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE 4. ) JEYARATNAM A/P RATNAVALE 5. ) MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 6. ) PANCHANTH A/L RATNAVALE 7. ) JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (menuntut untuk

MOHAMAD ZAINOL BEGUM BIN AHMAD HADJA (NO. K/P: 580502-07-5779) 1.MUMTHAJ BEGUM BINTI ABDUL RAZAK (630801-10-8350) 2. MOHAMAD MAZLAN BIN MOHAMAED MUSADIQ (NO. K/P: 930310-14-5629) 2. KUMARAGURU A/L MANOKARAN (NO. K/P: 830821-14-6027)