Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay application

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

PEMPETISYEN GEO HILL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD PESAT BUMI SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) LEONG POH HONG 2. ) JUN YIN CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) GEO METAL SDN BHD 4. ) Rangkai Bintang (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-468-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the petition was founded on CIPAA adjudication decisions which are treated as indisputable under binding Court of Appeal authority, the outstanding sum is not disputable in winding up proceedings and the petitioner is therefore entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order; the stay application is dismissed.
23 Oct 2025

WEGROW GLOBAL SDN BHD 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGARAH KASTAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-302-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-302-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, the balance of convenience and public interest favoured refusal of the stay, no special circumstances were established, and the travel ban was lawfully imposed under statutory powers; therefore the interlocutory stay application was dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff satisfied the three core requirements for Anton Piller relief—strong prima facie case based on forensic evidence and circumstantial links, serious potential irreparable harm from misuse of core confidential materials, and a real possibility of destruction or concealment of electronic evidence—there was no material nondisclosure and execution complied with safeguards; accordingly the Anton Piller Order is to be maintained and applications to set aside or stay are dismissed.
24 Jun 2025

PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR XXXX

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's order compelling the Registrar of Titles to transfer and register the subject land to Semantan Estate was set aside because the sealed 29.12.2009 order did not direct transfer, Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or exercise the implied liberty to apply for a consequential transfer at the material time, and retention of a beneficial interest alone does not confer a right to registration; accordingly the s417 transfer was unjustified and must be set aside.
21 Jan 2025

PEMPETISYEN LLC INFRA SDN BHD VKPT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-878-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-878-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Bound by Court of Appeal authority (Bludream), the adjudication decision produced an indisputable debt for the purposes of the winding up petition; VKPT did not establish a genuine substantial dispute that would negate that status; accordingly the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order and the application to stay the petition was dismissed.
19 Aug 2024

HSL GROUND ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 2. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 3. ) TRITERRA METROPOLIS SDN BHD 4. ) ANEKA JARINGAN HOLDINGS BERHAD 5. ) CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD PENCELAH QINGJIAN HOLD

Citation

WA-37G-206-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-37G-206-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found sufficient evidence (CLOA, Notice of Assignment, payment arrangement and completion certificate) to establish that Qingjian was the beneficial owner of the monies (express trust or in the alternative a constructive trust), and therefore the garnished sums belonged to Qingjian; although payments by Triterra to the Judgment Creditor discharged Triterra, the sums paid must be refunded and/or paid to Qingjian.
19 Aug 2024

HSL GROUND ENGINEERING SDN BHD CIVIL TECH RESOURCES SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 2. ) UNiTED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 3. ) TRITERRA METROPOLIS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-37G-57-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-37G-57-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court held that the arrangement (CLOA and notice of assignment) established either an express trust or, alternatively, a constructive trust such that the monies due under the main contract were held by Triterra on trust for Qingjian; accordingly the monies garnished belonged to Qingjian. Although Triterra's subsequent payment to the Judgment Creditor discharged Triterra's liability, the sums paid must be refunded and/or paid to Qingjian. The appeal was therefore allowed and sums paid to the JC were ordered to be returned to Qingjian.
11 Oct 2023

SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH 1. ) MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) Nazura Dilnasheen Zaman Khan 3. ) SKN EQUITIES & ASSETS BERHAD 4. ) SKN Equities & Assets Berhad 5. ) Jason Wil

Citation

WA-28PW-527-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-527-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to terminate or permanently stay winding-up dismissed because applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of section 493 CA 2016: debts were not discharged, the pledged sum did not extinguish liabilities, directors had not complied with statutory duties, there was evidence of questionable dealings warranting investigation, and the application was motivated to frustrate liquidator's inquiries.
11 Aug 2023

ANGSANA TUNAS SDN BHD INSTANT OPTION RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-235-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-235-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

IO failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice and did not show the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the adjudicator lawfully applied the Amended PAM Contract and had power under CIPAA to award interest on costs; no clear and unequivocal error or justice reason existed to warrant a stay; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed.
11 Apr 2023

ANCUBIC CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CEDY THIRD CONTRACTING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-157-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the Payment Claim provided sufficient basic information under s 5(2) CIPAA and the adjudicator had competency jurisdiction to decide the disputed items; the adjudication decision was not rendered void by the withholding/payment deposit procedure and delivery of the AD on 1.8.2022 was within the statutory framework; the adjudicator's appointment was valid despite unsigned request and s 26 treated procedural irregularity as not invalidating jurisdiction; there was no breach of natural justice. Therefore the Setting Aside and Stay Application was dismissed and the Enforcement Applicat…