Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory time limits

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2026

HOW CHEE HONG 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA

Citation

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found no appealable error: the Disciplinary Board lawfully reconstituted the Disciplinary Committee and the reconstituted DC commenced its inquiry within the one‑month period required by section 103B(1) LPA; the appellant's Originating Summons was premature and an abuse of process because statutory objection and appeal mechanisms had not been exhausted and there was no established prejudice warranting interlocutory judicial intervention; consequently the High Court decision dismissing the OS was affirmed.
31 Oct 2025

KELAB PEMBINA-PEMBINA SELANGOR (SELANGOR BUILDERS' CLUB) 1. ) Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) 2. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara

Citation

WA-25-113-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-113-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant's objections were time-barred under s38A(2) Stamp Act 1949 and no extension was sought; the Applicant failed to appeal under s39(1) and did not pursue statutory revision under s78; the IRB's subsequent correspondence did not amount to reconsideration or a fresh decision to restart limitation; consequently statutory domestic remedies were unexhausted and judicial review was premature and procedurally improper.
7 Jan 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN TANG SEE MENG

Citation

JA-29NCC-287-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29NCC-287-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The debtor failed to dispute the amount within the mandatory period under s.3(2) Bankruptcy Act 1967 after valid substituted/registered-post service was effected; there is no obligation to include a statement of account in the bankruptcy notice and the court has no power to extend the statutory time limit; therefore the chamber summons to set aside the bankruptcy notice is dismissed and the debtor ordered to pay costs of RM1,000.
13 Nov 2024

Tee Kim Hock Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PIHAK TERKILAN West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-15-231-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-231-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) is not mandatory because s.38(6) expressly permits the Court to extend the period; failure by the Land Administrator to file Form O within six months does not oust jurisdiction and the Court may grant an extension to regularize the proceedings; accordingly the extension to 30.7.2018 is allowed and the strike out application dismissed.
13 Nov 2024

TEE KIM BOON Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-269-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-269-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is not mandatory to the extent of ousting the Court's jurisdiction because the statute expressly allows for extension under s.38(6) and s.38(7); the Court may therefore grant an extension to regularise a late filing of Form O where delay is not prejudicial. Consequently WCE's strike out application fails and the Applicant's extension application is allowed.
13 Nov 2024

TEE JIN TIONG Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-283-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-283-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) is not mandatory in a manner that ousts the court's jurisdiction because s.38(6) expressly permits extension of the referral period; the court therefore has power to regularize the late filing of Form O, and on the facts (short delay, no prejudice, Applicant not at fault) an extension to 30.7.2018 is granted and the strike-out application dismissed.
13 Nov 2024

TEE KIM SANG Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PIHAK TERKILAN WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-235-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-235-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) is not mandatory in the sense of ousting jurisdiction because s.38(6) permits the court to extend time where the Land Administrator failed to refer within six months; the court has jurisdiction and an extension of time to 30.7.2018 is granted to regularize the Form O filing, therefore WCE's strike-out application is dismissed.
13 Nov 2024

TEE KIM ONG Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-234-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-234-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

S.38(5) is directory rather than mandatory because s.38(6) expressly permits extension; non‑compliance by the Land Administrator does not oust the court's jurisdiction; the court may grant an extension to regularise late filing of Form O where delay is minor and causes no prejudice; accordingly WCE's strike‑out application is dismissed and the Applicant's extension application is allowed.
13 Nov 2024

TEE KIM BOON Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-269-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-269-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 38(5) of Act 486 is not mandatory in a way that ousts the court's jurisdiction because s.38(6) permits an application for extension of time; the court may grant an extension to regularize late filing of Form O and therefore WCE's strike out application fails and the Applicant's extension is allowed.
20 Dec 2022

HOW CHEE HONG 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA

Citation

WA-17D-19-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-17D-19-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the originating summons as premature and an abuse of process: the DC's dismissal of preliminary objections was not a final decision and the statutory appeal mechanism under the Legal Profession Act (s103E and s103EA) must be exhausted before the Court will entertain relief; the appointment and commencement of the DC inquiry were within statutory time (notice dated 24.7.2020 within one month of appointment), and the plaintiff suffered no prejudice warranting immediate relief.