Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment (order 14 roc 2012)

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

ESYS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NURUL SHAZILA BTE MUHAMAD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff established a prima facie undisputed claim supported by certified payment documents, CPC and contemporaneous WhatsApp communications evidencing defendant's request for reduced variation sum and instalment payments; defendant's denials were bare, contradicted by conduct, lacked contemporaneous complaints or expert evidence to attribute defects to plaintiff, therefore no bona fide triable issues existed and summary judgment was warranted; counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was abusive, thus struck out.
10 Sept 2025

SECRET INGREDIENTS SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI FORMULA CONTINENT SDN. BHD.) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-14-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-14-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The notices were validly sent by ordinary post to the Defendant's last known address as shown in its Form C (Kuala Lumpur address) and therefore are deemed served under s.145(2) Income Tax Act 1967; the Defendant failed to notify any change of address under s.89 ITA so cannot rely on a different address; there was no error in the Sessions Court's grant of summary judgment and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
4 Sept 2025

EZYCASH RESOURCES SURINDER JIT SINGH A/L GURMIT SINGH

Citation

ND-A72NCC-48-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

ND-A72NCC-48-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defendant admitted signing and receiving funds but failed to particularize or provide documentary evidence of alleged statutory non-compliance or invalidity; general denials did not raise a triable issue, therefore Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Order 14 ROC 2012 for the claimed debt with interest and costs.
7 Jul 2025

ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain

Citation

02(i)-3-01/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-3-01/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the 42-month delivery period runs from the date of the Period of Approval, which for these SPAs is the date of the first/original approval of the Building Plans obtained within the Approval Period, not from the expiry of the Approval/Extended Approval Period nor from the date of the last amended building plan approval; the issue was a pure question of law suitable for summary judgment; any ambiguity is resolved contra proferentem against the developer; appeal dismissed and summary judgment and costs affirmed.
30 Jun 2025

DATAFM SDN BHD SHAZIMAN TRANSPORT SDN BHD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-26-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-26-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue in relation to the invoiced sums or the contractual entitlement to late payment interest; contractual terms (Exhibit C and Exhibit E) permitted the charges and interest as claimed and the plaintiff’s willingness to calculate interest from invoice delivery removed any arguable dispute; the defendant’s counterclaim for mistaken payments and refund of deposit was either estopped, an afterthought or an abuse/scandalous claim and therefore struck out; accordingly summary judgment for RM22,203.03 with interest and costs was appropriate and the count…
30 Jul 2024

MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD 1. ) DBH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) HOE TZE FOOK

Citation

WA-22NCC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the 2nd Defendant's allegation of signing blank documents unsubstantiated and inherently improbable given contemporaneous execution of other corporate documents referencing him; he failed to discharge the burden of raising a bona fide triable issue. Consequently the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the guaranteed sum and the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim was frivolous and properly struck out.
11 Apr 2023

TULANE SDN BHD MHH DYNAMIC RESOURCES

Citation

BA-12ANCC-66-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-66-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the plaintiff established delivery and entitlement to RM175,000 by contemporaneous documents and part payments; the defendant's pleaded defence and allegations of mistaken payment were unsupported, amounted to an afterthought and did not disclose any triable issue; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Mar 2023

1. ) KLK CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) KHO THEAN CHYE 3. ) CHAN KENG HOCK MODERN NOTION SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCC-143-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-143-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff produced contemporaneous written evidence (credit application signed by directors, purchase orders, invoices, delivery orders, courier notes, statement of account and the Guarantee) establishing the debt and contractual right to interest; defendants' denials were bare and unsupported, the forgery allegation lacked a police report and was inherently improbable, and the defendants were estopped from disputing the accounts by failure to query. Consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment was properly granted and should be upheld.
18 Aug 2022

Tenoil Petroleum (M) Sdn Bhd Mahendran a/l Chelladorai

Citation

BA-22NCvC-24-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-24-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The signed Settlement Agreement and contemporaneous demand established a prima facie debt of RM3,462,100.00; the defendant failed to produce contemporaneous documentary evidence to show the transaction was moneylending, a camouflage, or that the debt was settled; bare allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue, thus summary judgment was warranted and the counterclaim, being based on the same unsupportable allegations, was frivolous and struck out.
15 Aug 2022

Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri - Cawangan Guaman Lembah Klang 1. ) TMT Industry Sdn Bhd 2. ) Mo, Yu Hui 3. ) Chan, Hsun-Wei 4. ) Md Hanif bin Othman

Citation

WA-21NCVC-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-5-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because s.106(3) ITA 1967 precludes the High Court from entertaining challenges to the assessed amount in civil recovery proceedings and s.75A makes directors jointly and severally liable where the company is liable, the court was bound to enter summary judgment for the Government; merits of assessment must be pursued before the SCIT, not in the civil suit.