Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Writ of distress

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2025

GAN GEOK DUAN MANOJAYAN A/L RAJAMANI

Citation

BA-76-50-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-76-50-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The writ of distress was properly issued under s.5 of the Distress Act 1951; the defendant's substantive grounds based on absence of a written tenancy were unreasonable given the evidence of an agreed tenancy and the defendant's contribution to its informality; the defendant's late filing of a replying affidavit was an abuse of process and was expunged; accordingly both applications to set aside the writ and to suspend execution were dismissed with costs.
10 Jul 2025

MADRAS JEWELLER SDN. BHD. OWAIS AZAD BIN JAMIL

Citation

WA-A74-754-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A74-754-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The ex‑parte warrant of distress was set aside because the Applicant failed to disclose material facts in the supporting affidavit and there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Respondent was the tenant; wrongful distress resulted and the matter must proceed as writ/summons for oral evidence, with affidavits treated as pleadings.
12 Jun 2025

REN BIOMED SDN BHD EUMAXCO HOLDING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-193-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-193-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court materially misdirected itself by failing to consider credible affidavit and documentary evidence raising triable issues about the existence of a tenancy; reliance solely on a signed tenancy agreement was insufficient where its legal effect was seriously challenged, therefore the Sessions Court order and the writ of distress must be set aside.
29 Apr 2024

GAMUDA LAND (KEMUNING) SDN BHD BUTTON AND WHEEL SDN BHD

Citation

BL-A54-20-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A54-20-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Writs were valid and regular: the lease defined ‘rent’ to include service, promotion and other charges recoverable by distress; plaintiff lawfully obtained writs and lawfully sought vacant possession under the Specific Relief Act and lease terms; alleged excesses by the bailiff (locking premises, seizure issues) do not render the writs defective and the proper remedy against excess is a separate action for wrongful distress requiring proof of malice; consignment/delivery notes alone do not discharge defendant’s burden to prove third‑party ownership; low bailiff valuation does not invalidate t…
6 Dec 2023

Finfixer Marketing Sdn Bhd Caroline Bintang Kanyan

Citation

WA-A74-1195-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A74-1195-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The written PJB and GSOBB, supported by secondary evidence and the title registration (5.4.2022), were conclusive under s91 Evidence Act: the tenancy and buy‑back option periods ran from registration and expired 4.4.2023, therefore occupation was rent‑free for the disputed period and no rent arrears existed; because a writ of distress under s5 Distress Act presupposes unpaid rent, the application for a writ of distress failed and must be dismissed; additionally the applicant failed to disclose material documents and the application exhibited lack of good faith, justifying costs against the ap…
16 Aug 2023

1. ) AIDA RATINI BINTI MANSOR 2. ) RAZA ALI MUHAMMAD NAZIR 1. ) SUNGEI WANG PLAZA SDN BHD 2. ) SUNGEI WANG HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-24-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-24-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the alleged rent increase was unilateral and not agreed by the tenant, the respondents had no right to obtain an ex‑parte writ of distress for the increased sum; further, there is no statutory or procedural basis to grant a lock‑up order in an ex‑parte writ of distress under the Distress Act 1951 or Order 75 r3, therefore the Sessions Court's distress and lock‑up order was set aside and the appeal allowed with costs.
16 Aug 2023

1. ) AIDA RATINI BINTI MANSOR 2. ) RAZA ALI MUHAMMAD NAZIR 1. ) SUNGEI WANG PLAZA SDN BHD 2. ) SUNGEI WANG HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-24-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-24-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is allowed because distress based on a unilateral rent increase not agreed by the tenant is impermissible and a writ of distress obtained on that basis is irregular; further, there is no statutory or procedural power to order locking up of premises under the Distress Act or Rules of Court, therefore the Sessions Court's ex‑parte distress and lock‑up orders were set aside and costs were awarded to the appellants.
15 May 2023

RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD YONGNAM ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

JA-56-9-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-56-9-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was dismissed: the Sessions Court found the bailiff's execution was regular and carried out within statutory authority; the items challenged were prima facie movable and not proven to be fixtures; the defendant failed to prove exemption under s.8(d) because the premises were not operating in the ordinary course; the defendant failed to prove third‑party ownership with sufficient evidence and failed to itemise contested goods, thus relief under s.16 was not justified; applicant ordered to pay costs RM5,000.00.
12 Jul 2022

BSG JAYAONE VENTURE SDN BHD 1. ) BINA TETAP TIARA SDN BHD 2. ) WONG WAI HON 3. ) MOHD BADRULHISAM BIN KAHAR 4. ) CHUAH YEN NIH 5. ) LOW LAI HUAT 6. ) LOO WEY HONG 7. ) LUK TECK HUA 8. ) RISING F&B (SUBANG) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-137-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-137-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application is dismissed because the plaintiff's pleaded facts, accepted as true for this stage, disclose a prima facie sustainable cause of action and raise the exception in s107(3) (knowing excess of authority) such that factual disputes and statutory compliance issues cannot be resolved without a full trial.
23 May 2022

NICETRADE SUPPLIES SDN. BHD. GENTON SDN. BHD.

Citation

AB-A74-13-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-A74-13-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The Magistrate set aside the writ distress to the extent it sought 12 months arrears because on the evidence the alleged tenancy had expired on 31.5.2015 and no subsisting landlord-tenant relationship existed to support distress; further, claims beyond limitation and questions of title must be determined by the High Court so the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to grant possession or determine ownership; accordingly parts of the defendant's application were allowed and other prayers dismissed or recorded as consent where applicable.