Malaysian judgments
Written judgments and grounds of judgment from the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Sessions Court and Magistrates Court.
10415 indexed court decisions
DA-21NCvC-10-07/2025
High Court of Malaysia7 April 2027
notis permohonan defendan-defendan untuk membatalkan writ dan pernyataan tuntutan plaintif-plaintif menurut Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012
BA-24NCvC-2591-11/2025
High Court of Malaysia13 January 2026
This is the Plaintiff’s application for a Fortuna injunction to restrain the Defendant from presenting a winding up petition against the Plaintiff. The application arises from a statutory notice dated 15 October 2025 issued by the Defendant pursuant to sections 465(1)(e) and 466 of the Companies Act 2016 demanding payment of RM1,882,466.72. The Plaintiff’s application was dismissed with costs
JA-B52NCC-65-03/2024
Sessions Court of Malaysia21 May 2026
Plaintif memplidkan bahawa wang-wang yang diberikan kepada Defendan Pertama merupakan wang pinjaman dan perlu dikembalikan semula. -- Defendan Pertama menafikan wang-wang tersebut dipinjamkan oleh Plaintif sebaliknya ianya diberikan secara sukarela atas dasar hubungan istimewa di antara kedua-duanya. Plaintif menyatakan terdapat perjanjian pinjaman wang dengan merujuk kepada Dokumen P21 (Lampiran B muka surat 125) yang menunjukkan wang-wang yang dikatakan telah diberikan kepada Defendan Pertama. Namun begitu, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa P21 tidak mengandungi terma-terma penawaran dan penerimaan ataupun pengakuan daripada Defendan bahawa wang-wang berjumlah RM355,500.00 tersebut merupakan wang pinjaman dan perlu dikembalikan semula kepada Plaintif, Disebabkan ketiadaaan Perjanjian Pinjaman di antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Pertama serta tiada keterangan sokongan daripada saksi-saksi, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Plaintif gagal membuktikan wang yang diberikan kepada Defendan Pertama adalah merupakan wang pinjaman
WA-22NCC-428-07/2025
High Court of Malaysia25 February 2026
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out — Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 Rule 19(1) — Discretionary power — Plaintiffs being trade creditors bringing personal claims in fraud, breach of duties, and asset dissipation against corporate directors and controllers — Defendants applying to strike out Statement of Claim on grounds that claim was impermissibly anchored on liquidators' reports and public examination transcripts under Section 503 of the Companies Act 2016 — Whether reference to Section 503 winding-up materials rendered the claim an abuse of process or legally unsustainable — Distinction between existence of a recognizable cause of action and forensic admissibility or weight of evidence at trial — Corporate veil and doctrine of reflective loss as applied to creditors — Whether the claim raised serious, fact-sensitive triable issues unsuitable for summary disposal — Principles in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd applied — Applications dismissed
JA-22IP-1-01/2026
High Court of Malaysia15 June 2026
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunction — Application under Order 29 rules 1 and 2 Rules of Court 2012 — Partnership dispute involving limited liability partnership — Dispute concerning operational management, financial administration and trademark rights — Whether serious question to be tried established — Whether damages adequate remedy — Balance of convenience — Preservation of status quo — Whether interlocutory relief substantially overlaps with substantive final relief pleaded in Statement of Claim — Whether injunction would effectively determine substantive rights prior to trial — Judicial restraint in contested commercial disputes — Preliminary objections — Procedural irregularities — Order 1A and Order 2 Rules of Court 2012 — Overriding interest of justice — Specific Relief Act 1950 sections 50, 51 and 53 — American Cyanamid principles — Commercial and managerial disputes unsuitable for final determination solely on affidavit evidence
WA-22NCC-845-12/2025
High Court of Malaysia17 March 2026
Lanjutan Masa – permohonan lewat – sehari sebelum pendengaran – samaada Mahkamah patut mempertimbangkan permohonan perlanjutan masa. Ketidakhadiran Peguam – Peguam tidak hadir pada hari pendengaran – tiada maklumbalas setelah percubaan untuk menghubungi peguam – samaada ketidakhadiran Peguam– terjumlah kepada kegagalan melaksanakan perintah Mahkamah – samaada ianya boleh menyebabkan Mahkamah membatalkan permohonan. Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Amalan dan Etiket) 1978 – samaada peguam telah melanggar tugasan profesionalnya – dengan tidak menghadirkan diri – tiada peguam dilantik untuk menyebut bagi pihaknya yang tidak dapat hadir
JA-22NCC-25-04/2026
High Court of Malaysia30 April 2026
Injunction – Ex parte ad interim injunction – Setting aside – Local authority – Jurisdiction – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s 29 – Specific Relief Act 1950, s 54(d) – Contractual dispute – Car park management agreement – Interim mandatory injunction – Whether injunction could be granted against local authority – Substantial unresolved jurisdictional issue – Ex parte order set aside – Liberty to proceed inter partes – Rules of Court 2012
BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025
High Court of Malaysia24 April 2026
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory application — Application to expunge late-filed affidavit, submissions and bundle of authorities — Principal injunction application already heard and dismissed — Whether expungement application academic — No practical purpose in further adjudication — Enclosure 105 disposed of as academic — Costs in the cause. Arbitration / Injunction — Section 11 Arbitration Act 2005 — Interim injunction pending arbitration — Ancillary procedural application tied to injunction hearing — Application overtaken by disposal of principal injunction application. Held — Enclosure 105 was ancillary to Enclosure 3 — Once Enclosure 3 was heard and dismissed, Enclosure 105 no longer served any live purpose — No merits determination made on Enclosures 94, 95 and 96
BA-24NCvC-2033-09/2025
High Court of Malaysia9 March 2026
The Plaintiff applied for pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012, seeking documents relating to the deliberations of the Jawatankuasa Pemilih 2024 Fakulti Rekabentuk dan Senibina Universiti Putra Malaysia concerning his promotion application. He argued that the documents were necessary to determine whether the committee’s decision-making process involved irregularity, bias, or improper considerations that could support a legal challenge. The Defendants opposed the application, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for pre-action discovery and was merely seeking internal committee materials in the hope of finding grounds for a future claim. The Court held that the Plaintiff had not shown the documents were necessary and that his application amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition. Since he already knew the outcome of the promotion exercise and had access to part of the records, the Court dismissed the application. Costs were awarded to the Defendants, without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to pursue substantive proceedings if grounds existed
JA-22NCvC-133-10/2023
High Court of Malaysia9 June 2026
Prosedur Sivil — Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Permohonan membatalkan Writ Saman Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda — Sama ada pliding mendedahkan kausa tindakan munasabah terhadap Defendan Pertama — Entiti korporat berasingan — Firma milikan tunggal berbeza daripada syarikat sendirian berhad — Dakwaan pecah amanah dan penyelewengan wang — Transaksi dikatakan melibatkan firma milikan tunggal Defendan Kedua — Dakwaan penyimpanan aset di premis Defendan Pertama — Ketiadaan butiran material terhadap perbuatan spesifik Defendan Pertama — Tuntutan terhadap Defendan Pertama dibatalkan — Kos RM12,000.00
WA-24NCC-35-01/2026
High Court of Malaysia25 February 2026
Companies - Winding Up - Fortuna injunction - Statutory notice under s 465(1)(e) Companies Act 2016 - Judgment in default of appearance - Pending appeal against dismissal of application to set aside - Whether debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds - Irreparable damage
KA-33JP-107-09/2021
High Court of Malaysia30 April 2026
FAMILY LAW: Children — Maintenance — Consent order — Application for variation — Downward variation and capping of educational and medical expenses — Power of court to vary consent orders — Threshold for disturbing a mutually recorded consent order — Whether exceptional circumstances existed — Meaning of "material change of circumstances" — Burden of proof on applicant — Section 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. FAMILY LAW: Children — Maintenance — Special educational needs — Child diagnosed with autism — Enrolment in specialised international school — Consensus of parents — Whether expenses were reasonable and necessary — Mitigation of costs by custodial parent — Distinguishing bare assertions of learning difficulties from verified clinical diagnoses — Section 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. FAMILY LAW: Maintenance — Retrospective variation — Accrued arrears — Whether child maintenance can be varied retrospectively and accumulated arrears written off — Accrued maintenance arrears as vested debt — Equitable jurisdiction to backdate reduction — Necessity of clean hands, genuine involuntary insolvency, and full financial disclosure — Sections 83 and 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Matrimonial proceedings — Variation of maintenance — Mandatory disclosure — Rule 63 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 — Absolute duty of applicant to make full, frank, and clear disclosure of all property, capital assets, and income streams — Non-disclosure of commercial titles and investments — Active concealment of wealth — Legal consequence of non-disclosure — Whether non-disclosure was fatal warranting immediate dismissal in limine. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Matrimonial proceedings — Variation of ancillary relief — Registrar's investigation — Rule 65 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 — Failure to schedule application for formal investigation before the Registrar — Whether bypassing the mandatory investigatory stage was fatal to the application. EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Affidavit evidence — Applications decided on affidavit — Universal rules of civil procedure — Facts to be established strictly through the sworn depositions of the parties under oath — Inadmissibility of bare denials — Impermissibility of introducing or supplementing unpled facts via subsequent written or oral submissions — "Submissions from the Bar"