Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory immunity

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2025

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE 1. ) ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD 2. ) CHOON HON LENG 3. ) RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD 4. ) MENTERI KERJA RAYA 5. ) MENTERI DALAM JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI (UNDANG-UNDANG)

Citation

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

01(i)-31-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 34(1) of CIPAA 2012, by its clear words "No action or suit shall be instituted or maintained in any court against an adjudicator or the KLRCA or its officers for any act or omission done in good faith in the performance of his or its functions under this Act," bars proceedings including judicial review against the appellant where acts or omissions are done in good faith; the provision is presumptively constitutional and its plain language must be given effect, subject to the good faith qualification set out in the section.
13 Feb 2025

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

Citation

02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-66-12/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 34(1) of CIPAA 2012, read in its plain and ordinary meaning and against the presumption of constitutionality, bars actions or suits including applications for judicial review against an adjudicator or the KLRCA in respect of acts or omissions done in good faith in performance of functions under the Act; therefore the appellant is protected by statutory immunity subject to the good faith qualification.
20 Sept 2024

POHLEH AUTO WORKSHOP SDN BHD BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-22NCC-431-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-431-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff's complaints did not amount to 'improper conduct' under the WPA 2010 (breaches of the Guideline are regulatory, not 'disciplinary offences'), the plaintiff was not a whistleblower under the Act, statutory immunity protected the defendant for acts done in good faith and no bad faith was pleaded, the plaintiff lacked locus standi and could not show the defendant caused the alleged detrimental action; accordingly the writ and statement of claim were struck out.
30 May 2024

1. ) NATTHANAN YOOCHOMSUK 2. ) BALRAJ A/L SUPPIAH 1. ) INSP. MOHD NOOR HUSRI BIN JOHARI 2. ) INSP. MOHANESWARAN A/L THIGARAJAH 3. ) ASP NORSANIZAM BIN HAJI NORDIN 4. ) ASP MUHAMMAD KHUZAIRI BIN ABD WAHAB 5. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 6.

Citation

WA-21NCvC-15-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-15-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Liability established at trial and not overturned as to the estate claim; exemplary damages cannot be awarded to an estate under s.8 CLA; on assessment the court awarded specified special, general and aggravated damages and costs, and held that subsection 33(4) GPA immunity does not protect the primary tortfeasor who did not act in good faith, thus ordering plaintiffs to first seek satisfaction of the judgment from the primary tortfeasor (second defendant) before resorting to other judgment debtors including the Government.
6 Jul 2022

SENIBONG COVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD LEMBAGA PENILAI, PENTAKSIR, EJEN HARTA TANAH DAN PENGURUS HARTA

Citation

WA-24NCvC-60-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-60-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s31A immunity did not preclude a pre-action discovery application; the Plaintiff satisfied Order 24 r 7A by showing the impugned letter in LPPEH's possession was necessary to identify the wrongdoer and to determine whether to commence defamation proceedings, the request was not a fishing expedition and public policy/statutory function objections were unsubstantiated. Accordingly pre-action discovery was granted in respect of the impugned letter only; the purported LPPEH email was not ordered because LPPEH denied its existence.
22 Mar 2021

Mohd Sofi bin Abdul Ghafar [NRIC No.: 541118-04-5207] 1. Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi 2. Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

21NCVC-27-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

21NCVC-27-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judge refused to strike out because the claim raised a novel and complex question of law—whether the Director General's powers cease upon a bankrupt's discharge—which could not be declared plainly unsustainable at interlocutory stage; section 74 did not bar non‑damages relief (declarations/directions); and the tort of misfeasance in public office contains both public and private elements so the action was not necessarily confined to judicial review, therefore the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and required a full trial.
15 Jan 2021

TEN JING ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 943955-A) 1. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 2. ) ENGKU HANIF BIN ENGKU ISMAIL 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-21NCVC-81-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-81-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 52A of AMLATFA (effective 1.9.2014) does not operate retrospectively; the seizure order dated 1.4.2013 remained in force until varied or revoked and Defendant First breached its statutory duty under s50(1) by remitting RM1,270,262.15 to the Insolvency Department; Defendants 2–4 are protected by statutory immunity under s77; accordingly Plaintiff's Order under Order 14A succeeds without full trial.
21 Sept 2020

1. ) MUSLIFAH BINTI ZULKIFLI (NO. K/P : 851228-35-5496) 2. ) NUR SURYANI BINTI MOHD. YAIBI (no. K/P : N/405) 3. ) NUR AYUNI FARHANA BINTI ABDUL HALIM INSTITUT SUKAN NEGARA

Citation

WA-12BNCVC-131-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCVC-131-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the defendant followed established selection and dismissal procedures, provided adequate warning and opportunity to improve, and the deselection was the result of procedural, multi‑party panel decisions; the plaintiffs failed on the balance of probabilities to prove mala fide or breach of the agreement and could not displace the statutory protection under section 44 Akta 729, therefore the appeal is dismissed.