Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Venue

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA WISMA PUNCA EMAS PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN FOO CHENG CHEONG

Citation

NA-29NCC-315-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-29NCC-315-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the court found the address used was the debtor's last known address, substituted service was properly ordered and executed in accordance with the court order and authorities (notably Re Yeap), the debtor demonstrated actual knowledge by promptly filing a chamber application after advertisement, and the Seremban High Court had jurisdiction; therefore there was no defect to set aside the bankruptcy petition and the Assistant Registrar's decision was upheld.
15 Nov 2024

FHC Mining Sdn Bhd 1. ) Razali bin Yusof 2. ) Penghuni-penghuni GRN 18668 Lot 1909, Mukim Hulu Jabur, Daerah Kemaman, Negeri Terengganu

Citation

CA-B52NCvC-9-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-B52NCvC-9-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to transfer was allowed because the court was satisfied under Order 57(4) that the subject matter (disputed land), defendants' residence/place of business, material witnesses and practical considerations for execution/enforcement are located in Kemaman, making Sessions Court Kemaman the more appropriate forum; the matter does not invoke exclusive High Court land jurisdiction and transfer is in the interest of justice and convenience, with costs to follow in the cause.
19 Dec 2023

THE RED APRICOT SDN. BHD. 1. ) U LUXURY BOUTIQUE SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIRMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) MOK HOON WAI

Citation

WA-23NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to transfer the proceedings to the High Court at Penang because the cause of action and subject land are in Penang, the respondents and witnesses are based in Penang, the facts and need for a possible site visit point to Penang as the forum of convenience, and no prejudice to the appellant outweighed those considerations.
13 Jun 2021

LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 1. SIVASANKAR A/L CHELLIAH 2. AIDA BINTI HJ HASSAN (yang kedua-duanya beramal sebagai peguamcara dan peguambela dalam nama dan gaya G RAVI dan didakwa sebagai firma guaman) 3. RAVICHANTHIRAN A/L GANESAN (beramal

Citation

JA-23NCVC-10-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-23NCVC-10-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was permitted because the Sessions Court judge allowed the defendants to amend their counterclaim to MYR3.5 million making transfer to the High Court warranted, there was clear commonality of causes of action, facts, issues and parties justifying both suits being heard together, and the transfer met the convenience and fairness test under Order 57 rule 1; allegations of judge-shopping were without merit.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA WISMA PUNCA EMAS PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN FOO CHENG CHEONG

FHC Mining Sdn Bhd 1. ) Razali bin Yusof 2. ) Penghuni-penghuni GRN 18668 Lot 1909, Mukim Hulu Jabur, Daerah Kemaman, Negeri Terengganu

THE RED APRICOT SDN. BHD. 1. ) U LUXURY BOUTIQUE SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIRMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) MOK HOON WAI

LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 1. SIVASANKAR A/L CHELLIAH 2. AIDA BINTI HJ HASSAN (yang kedua-duanya beramal sebagai peguamcara dan peguambela dalam nama dan gaya G RAVI dan didakwa sebagai firma guaman) 3. RAVICHANTHIRAN A/L GANESAN (beramal