Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of proceedings pending appeal

Legal area

Court

4 Jul 2024

CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend (enclosure 95) was dismissed because it was made on the eve of trial without a cogent and reasonable explanation for lateness, the supposed mistake by counsel was not accepted as credible, and the law requires that the latest permitted amendment (enclosure 78) supersedes earlier pleadings (enclosure 30); consequently the counterclaim could not be reinstated and the oral stay was dismissed.
27 Oct 2023

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] RAGUNATHAN A/L SELVAMANI

Citation

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45B-22-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for murder under section 302 because mens rea required by section 300(c) (intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death) was not proved by adequate specific evidence; however the evidence did establish a prima facie case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a). The court therefore validly amended the charge under section 158 CPC to s304(a), called the accused to enter their defence, and properly stayed defence proceedings pending resolution of prosecution's appeals to pr…
7 Sept 2023

Hisham Bin Halim 1. ) Maya Binti Ahmad Fuaad 2. ) Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Selangor 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia 4. ) Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor 5. ) Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah

Citation

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for stay was dismissed because Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution bars the civil High Court from intervening in matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts; the court had already dismissed the judicial review for lack of jurisdiction and it would be inconsistent and prejudicial to permit a stay that interferes with Syariah proceedings.
21 Jul 2023

N. Vasantha Rajan A/L Nagarajan Wasi Harta Pusaka N. Arumugam Pillai alias N.T.S Arumugam Pillai son of Nagappa Pillai 1. ) YEOH SOON PENG 2. ) Pusparajan A/l N. Arumugam Pillai

Citation

PA-22NCVC-212-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-212-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to stay was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special circumstances: a successful Order 33 appeal would not be rendered nugatory by proceeding to trial, the risk of inconsistent outcomes was speculative and unlikely, the mere merit of an appeal does not justify a stay, and the plaintiff's purported prejudice from incurring time and costs was self‑inflicted; conversely, a stay would prejudice the defendant by further delaying trial of a 2016 suit. Accordingly, discretion to refuse stay was properly exercised and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.
20 May 2022

UNITED TRUSS SYSTEM SDN. BHD. DAYA CMT SDN. BHD.

Citation

PB-A52NCC-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-A52NCC-7-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the plaintiff had breached a prohibition order under s.368 and remained bound by the scheme order under s.366(3); those breaches constituted special circumstances and established that the defendant had raised meritorious defences such that summary judgment was inappropriate. Accordingly the court granted a stay (paragraphs (a) and (b) of Originating Summons 39) until the High Court disposes of the defendant's appeal; costs to follow the cause.
25 Oct 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Dato’ Watson Peters and Lavendran Masilamany for the Judgment Creditor [Messrs Peter Chambers (Petaling Jaya)] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Abdullah for the Judgment Debtor [Messrs Muhammad Zahir]

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2160-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2160-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeals were dismissed: the appeals were defective for non‑compliance with Form 114 and, on the merits, the BN and consequent bankruptcy proceedings were valid because the underlying judgment was final and not stayed, service on the sole proprietorship constituted service on the individual, the JD's late affidavit was not considered (thus JC's averments stood admitted), and the CP amendment to correct the date of act of bankruptcy was properly made under the court's power to amend (s93(3)) and caused no substantial injustice (s131/r282).

Malaysia Case Law

CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD.

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] RAGUNATHAN A/L SELVAMANI

Hisham Bin Halim 1. ) Maya Binti Ahmad Fuaad 2. ) Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Selangor 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia 4. ) Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor 5. ) Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah

N. Vasantha Rajan A/L Nagarajan Wasi Harta Pusaka N. Arumugam Pillai alias N.T.S Arumugam Pillai son of Nagappa Pillai 1. ) YEOH SOON PENG 2. ) Pusparajan A/l N. Arumugam Pillai

UNITED TRUSS SYSTEM SDN. BHD. DAYA CMT SDN. BHD.

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Dato’ Watson Peters and Lavendran Masilamany for the Judgment Creditor [Messrs Peter Chambers (Petaling Jaya)] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Abdullah for the Judgment Debtor [Messrs Muhammad Zahir]