Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out applications

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) JANNY CHEAH TAN HOO ENG

Citation

A-05-202-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-05-202-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Extension of time was granted because the original appeal records were filed within the prescribed period, the cross-filing was a bona fide clerical error promptly remedied, the respondent had accepted the original records, and the Federal Court affirmed the civil nature of the proceedings and correctness of the procedure; accordingly the corrected records were regularized and the striking out motions failed.
9 Apr 2025

ABDUL MAJID BIN MOHD YUSOFF 1. ) BTS BUILDTRADE SUPPLY SDN. BHD 2. ) LEOW LI HWA

Citation

WA-23NCvC-69-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-69-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's application was dismissed because the supporting affidavit failed to provide any cogent explanation for the substantial and late amendments (including adding a new defendant), which would prejudice the defendants and necessitate vacating imminent trial dates; under Hong Leong the court must refuse late amendments lacking adequate explanation to preserve case management and timely disposal.
7 Mar 2025

NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

Citation

02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The minority held the appeals should be dismissed and the Court of Appeal decision affirmed because the respondent's allegations of fabrication, perjury, intimidation and conspiracy raised serious issues discovered during/after the earlier trial that are not plainly unsustainable; witness immunity is not absolute and does not protect fabrication/procurement of false evidence; the tort of malicious prosecution can apply to civil proceedings in Malaysia; therefore the claims must be determined at full trial rather than struck out summarily.
5 Mar 2025

1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WON

Citation

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The challenge to the 48-month completion period is time-barred because a cause of action attacking valid contractual clauses accrued on execution of the SPAs per Obata-Ambak; therefore LAD based solely on the 36→48 month difference cannot be recovered unless delay extends beyond the valid 48 months. However, the legality and effect of the Controller's wholesale exemption for the Private Lease Scheme raise substantial questions of law (potential conflict with HDA, NLC, STA, SMA and Loh Tina precedent) that cannot be resolved on a striking out application and require trial (or a contested O14A)…
22 Jan 2025

1. ) NG CHIK VOON 2. ) TAN SWEE HOE 3. ) KOAY KUAN KING 4. ) CHENG TEN SIONG 1. ) STRONGHOLD CYCLES SDN BHD 2. ) DIDI RESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) DIDI AUTOMOTIVE SDN BHD 4. ) DIDI MOTORCYCLES SDN BHD 5. ) DIDI LIFESTYLE PTE LTD 6. ) GB MOTORS RE

Citation

BA-24NCC-120-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-120-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Originating Summons must be struck out because the Plaintiffs are majority shareholders in control and can obtain adequate remedies via existing proceedings (Suit 75) and other legal remedies; the complaints amount to corporate wrongs subject to the proper plaintiff rule and the rule against reflective loss; maintaining both suits was unnecessary and constituted abuse of process; accordingly strike‑out granted and costs awarded.
28 Mar 2022

NURUL SHAFIKA BINTI ABDULLAH (970415-07-5774) 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 2. ) Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG

Citation

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the interlocutory application to strike out (Lampiran 21) was inappropriate because the issues raised were not plainly frivolous or incapable of being resolved only at a substantive hearing; the grant of leave was not a final determination (not functus officio or res judicata) and the matters required full substantive adjudication, therefore Lampiran 21 was to be dismissed and the substantive hearing (Lampiran 12) should proceed; subsequent withdrawal by the applicant rendered the applications academic and the court cancelled both Lampiran 12 and Lampiran 21 without c…

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) JANNY CHEAH TAN HOO ENG

ABDUL MAJID BIN MOHD YUSOFF 1. ) BTS BUILDTRADE SUPPLY SDN. BHD 2. ) LEOW LI HWA

NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WON

1. ) NG CHIK VOON 2. ) TAN SWEE HOE 3. ) KOAY KUAN KING 4. ) CHENG TEN SIONG 1. ) STRONGHOLD CYCLES SDN BHD 2. ) DIDI RESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) DIDI AUTOMOTIVE SDN BHD 4. ) DIDI MOTORCYCLES SDN BHD 5. ) DIDI LIFESTYLE PTE LTD 6. ) GB MOTORS RE

NURUL SHAFIKA BINTI ABDULLAH (970415-07-5774) 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 2. ) Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG