NOR SHAH LIJAH BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) FATIN AMALIA BINTI ADNAN 2. ) NASRUL HADI BIN ADNAN

kb-12a-10-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 22 July 2025 • KB-12A-10-12/2024

Catchwords

Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS bt 1.12.2024 yang menolak permohonan Plaintif untuk meminda semula pernyataan tuntutannya. Isu sama ada rayuan ini kompeten berdasarkan seksyen 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Isu ini telahpun diputuskan dalam kes oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Kempadang Bersatu Sdn Bhd v. Perkayuan OKS NO.2 Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 MLJ 614 dan Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the Higher Learning Institute Lincoln University College) v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 2 MLJ 1; [2020] 3 CLJ 153; [2020] 2 AMR 517; [2020] 1 MLRA 683. Rayuan ditolak.

Practice Areas

Rayuan sivil terhadap keputusan HMS bt 1.12.2024 yang menolak permohonan Plaintif untuk meminda semula pernyataan tuntutannya. Isu sama ada rayuan ini kompeten berdasarkan seksyen 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Isu ini telahpun diputuskan dalam kes oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Kempadang Bersatu Sdn Bhd v. Perkayuan OKS NO.2 Sdn Bhd 2019 4 MLJ 614 dan Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd (registered owner and licensee of the Higher Learning Institute Lincoln University College) v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor 2020 2 MLJ 1; 2020 3 CLJ 153; 2020 2 AMR 517; 2020 1 MLRA 683. Rayuan ditolak.

Judges (1)

Narkunavathy Sundareson Delivered

Parties (3)

Fatin Amalia binti Adnan Respondent Nasrul Hadi bin Adnan Respondent Nor Shah Lijah binti Ahmad Appellant

Case Significance

NOR SHAH LIJAH BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) FATIN AMALIA BINTI ADNAN 2. ) NASRUL HADI B... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 22, 2025 (citation: kb-12a-10-12-2024). The case was decided by Narkunavathy Sundareson.

What was the outcome of NOR SHAH LIJAH BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) FATIN AMALIA BINTI ADNAN 2. ) NASRUL HADI B...?

NOR SHAH LIJAH BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) FATIN AMALIA BINTI ADNAN 2. ) NASRUL HADI B... is a High Court decision dated July 22, 2025. The case was heard by Narkunavathy Sundareson. See the full judgment for details.