Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substitution of parties

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2024

TAI MAY CHEAN XXXX PENCELAH 1. ) Richard Lai @ Lai Min Yin 2. ) Ong Wee Chong 3. ) SAFETY CAPITAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

22NCC-497-07/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-497-07/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to vary the GSA or the appellate Stay Order, held that the Federal Court substitution orders extend to these proceedings, and concluded that the Signed Documents must be released to Messrs Cheang & Ariff as the Respondents' solicitors under the Stay Order; the Plaintiff's attempt to retain the documents was dismissed and a one-sixth withholding of the 2nd Defendant's estate was secured by undertaking pending any challenge to the will.
24 Jan 2024

MAISSON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION NEWFIELDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-429-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-429-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 21 (application to substitute Maisson Management Corporation as plaintiff and amend all cause papers) was allowed because the amendment was bona fide, MMC consented, substitution was necessary to enable complete adjudication of the dispute given the developer's failure to convene the first AGM timely (MMC was inoperative), and the amendment caused no injustice or prejudice to the defendant that could not be compensated by costs; Court exercised powers under O.15 r.6, O.20 r.5 and O.92 r.4 RC 2012 to permit substitution.
15 Jul 2022

MT(2)-22-2109-07 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

MT(2)-22-2109-07 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

2
Case number

MT(2)-22-2109-07 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to substitute the applicant as party was allowed because the applicant, as executrix with a grant of probate, is the legal representative under s59 PAA 1959 and therefore has locus to enforce the Court of Appeal order; the High Court retains inherent jurisdiction to grant consequential orders to give effect to final judgments and is not functus officio in this context; substitution was necessary in the interests of justice to prevent the estate being deprived of the fruits of litigation.
25 May 2022

NIZAMUDDIN BIN ALI 1. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 2. ) LIM TAI MING & SONS SDN BHD

Citation

AA-A52-22-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A52-22-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court refused the plaintiff's amendment under Order 20 r.5(3) because the naming of RHB Bank Berhad (an entity separate from RHB Islamic Bank Berhad) caused reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued and thus was not a correctable genuine misnomer; consequently the defendant's application under Order 18 r.19 to strike out the claim against Defendant 1 for lack of privity was allowed. The plaintiff's amendment was dismissed with no order as to costs while the defendant's strike out application succeeded with costs awarded to Defendant 1 as recorded.
29 Aug 2021

1. MOHD RIDZUAN GUN BIN ABDULLAH 2. DEMIE LIYANA GUN BTE MOHD RIDZUAN GUN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

JB-41S-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41S-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Substitution of the deceased 1st appellant by the 2nd appellant was allowed under s.320 CPC given the fine-only sentence and interest in clearing name; on merits the High Court found the magistrate misdirected on law and facts, PW2 and PW3 were uncorroborated and in effect trespassers/assailants not accomplices implicating the appellants; appellants acted in private defence against criminal trespass and assaults, therefore convictions for affray were unsafe and were set aside with fines refunded.
18 Dec 2020

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MURUGAN

Citation

B-06B-42-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-06B-42-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Section 320 CPC applies only to appeals under Chapter XXX to the High Court and does not automatically apply to appeals to the Court of Appeal; therefore a pending criminal appeal in the Court of Appeal does not automatically abate on the appellant's death and the Court has discretion to allow substitution where the applicant demonstrates a sufficient legal pecuniary or property interest — here the widow's prospective derivative pension and related financial interests constituted sufficient legal interest to appoint her as personal representative and allow continuation of the appeal.
1 Jan 1900

HAYATI BINTI YUSSOFF KHAIRUDIN BIN ABU BAKAR

Citation

PA-11B-23-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11B-23-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the defendant had died before the commencement of the suit and the plaintiff failed to take the mandatory steps required by Order 15 Rule 6A(4) to substitute or appoint a representative for the estate, the proceedings were fatally defective; non-compliance rendered the trial and judgment null and void and estoppel did not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to correct the adjectival defendant.

Malaysia Case Law

TAI MAY CHEAN XXXX PENCELAH 1. ) Richard Lai @ Lai Min Yin 2. ) Ong Wee Chong 3. ) SAFETY CAPITAL SDN. BHD.

MAISSON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION NEWFIELDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

MT(2)-22-2109-07 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

NIZAMUDDIN BIN ALI 1. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 2. ) LIM TAI MING & SONS SDN BHD

1. MOHD RIDZUAN GUN BIN ABDULLAH 2. DEMIE LIYANA GUN BTE MOHD RIDZUAN GUN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MURUGAN

HAYATI BINTI YUSSOFF KHAIRUDIN BIN ABU BAKAR