L

Leong Wai Hong

J 36 cases

About J Leong Wai Hong

Leong Wai Hong has been involved in 36 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to October 2025. These cases are from the High Court (36 cases). Leong Wai Hong served as the delivering judge in 36 of these cases.

36

Total Cases

36

Delivered

0

Sat On (Coram)

How many cases has Leong Wai Hong been involved in?

Leong Wai Hong has been involved in 36 published judgments from January 2025 to October 2025, serving as the delivering judge in 36 of them. Cases span the High Court (36 cases).

Which court does Leong Wai Hong sit on?

Leong Wai Hong sits on the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), with 36 published judgments from January 2025 to October 2025 in the database.

Practice Areas

summary judgment application-Guarantee-In an Order 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-A court hearing an Order 14 application must take a robust approach and examine carefully to see if sufficient facts and particulars had been given by a defendant to show that there is a triable issue to justify leave to defend-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-The Certificates of Indebtedness-A certificate of indebtedness issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract which provide that the certificate is final and conclusive of the matters stated therein is final and conclusive evidence of the amount in the absence of any manifest error on the certificate; and-The plaintiff has no further obligation to produce statements of account to prove the debt in an application for summary judgment.-To challenge a certificate of Indebtedness the defendants must show:-The certificate of indebtedness was not issued in accordance with the express provisions of the contract. An instances of non-compliance would be when the certificate of indebtedness was not signed by an officer of the plaintiff as stated in the contract; or-There is a manifest error in respect of the amounts stated on the certificate of indebtedness; or-There is fraud 2 right to counsel of choice-court has an inherent power to bar counsel-administration of justice-requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public-Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978-rules 3, 4, 5, 27 and 28-Rule 4. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if professional conduct likely to be impugned-Rule 5. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if difficult to maintain professional independence-Rule 27. Advocate and solicitor not to appear where pecuniarily interested-Rule 28. Advocate and solicitor not to appear in a case where he is a witness-Under common law a lawyer can also be disqualified from acting in a case on these grounds -Conflict of interest-Possession of confidential information in a non-client relationship; and-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-To disqualify a lawyer on the ground of Conflict of interest the following two criteria must be satisfied:-There must be an established relationship of solicitor and client; and -There must be confidential information conveyed to the solicitor-Even without a formal lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer may be disqualified if he or she has received confidential information from a party expecting it would be kept private-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-For this ground there need not be an existing relationship of solicitor and client or that confidential information had been conveyed to the solicitor.-The court has an inherent power to control the right of audience and bar lawyers who has a conflict of interest, or in which he appears to have a conflict of interest such that justice would not be seen to be done. -This power does not depend on the rules of professional conduct made by the legal profession and is not limited to cases where the rules are breached. The issue is not whether or not the rule was breached. The issue is whether the fair minded reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the solicitor.-The public interest in the administration of justice requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public. The goal is not just to protect the interests of the individual litigant but even more importantly to protect public confidence in the administration of justice.-justice would not be seen to be done if-counsel took sides 2 summary judgment-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendant. It is not enough for a defendant to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-in O. 14 proceedings, a defendant’s affidavit must “condescend upon particulars” and “should, as far as possible, deal specifically with the plaintiff’s claim and affidavit, and state clearly and concisely what the defence is, and what facts are relied on to support it-mere general denial that the defendant is not indebted will not suffice -an admission is a proper acknowledgement of a debt-A court is entitled to view the totality of the evidence including the non- reply to a solicitor’s letter of demand to hold that there is no triable issue 1 illegal moneylending-Moneylenders Act 1951-The burden is on the defendant to prove this assertion of his by virtue of sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950-Burden of proof as to particular fact-question of who in law, shall bear the burden to prove forgery-alleging that his signature on the SSA was a forgery-he bore the onus of proving that the signature was a forgery-The principles on when an Appellate Court can intervene in a trial judge’s findings of fact from decided cases are as follows-The starting premise must be that as the trial judge had based his findings of fact on the evidence of the witnesses, his findings of fact should not be disturbed-It is only in the rare cases where an Appellate Court, lacking the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is justified in coming to a different conclusion from the trial judge’s findings of fact-It is well-settled law that an Appellate Court will not, generally speaking, intervene to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact unless the trial judge is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at his decision-As long as the trial judge’s findings of fact can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the Appellate Court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the Appellate Court-Unjust enrichment-In Dream Property, the Federal Court set down the principles of unjust enrichment applicable in Malaysia as follows-The defendant must have been enriched-The enrichment must be gained at the plaintiff’s expense-That the retention of the benefit by the defendant was unjust- There must be no defence available to extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability to make restitution 1 The law on specific performance of an agreement is well-settled. I need only refer to just one case-It must not be forgotten that there is here a contract for the sale of immovable property. It is the kind of obligation that statute rebuttably presumes to be incapable of being remedied by an award of monetary compensation-Court of Equity is sufficiently empowered to decree specific performance on terms-There is also precedent for decreeing specific performance and then leaving it to the defendant to later apply to have the decree vacated on the ground of impossibility of performance-It is trite law that an appellate court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. The appellate court has a duty to intervene only where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion-When it comes to agreement to buy shares the Court clearly can and should grant specific performance by virtue of section 11 (1)(c) illustration c of the Specific Relief Act 1950 1 whether the written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under section 40D of the Land Acquisition Act 1960-must be given to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers its decision-The doctrine of cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos-land owners have the rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also the air above and the ground below-the ad coelum doctrine-14 This right of ownership over land has been restricted by section 44 of the National Land Code, which provides that the landowner shall be entitled to “the exclusive use and enjoyment of so much of the column of airspace above the surface of the land, and so much of the land below the surface, as is reasonably necessary to the lawful use and enjoyment of the land”-The Federal Constitution guarantees a person to a right to property-Article 13 of the Federal Constitution-“(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law-(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”-the land acquisition process and procedure in Malaysia-must be strictly adhered to-an aggrieved party has a legal right to object to the award of the land administrator by way of a land reference to the High Court provided-Land Reference Court-40D of the LAA to be ultra vires the Federal Constitution-Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bil. 1 Tahun 2017-whether the declaration of law-Sejati has retrospective effect or is only prospectively effective from its decision-The written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under section 40D of the LAA must be made available to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers decision on the Land Reference 1 Application to intervene and be added as a defendant-Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012-The principle of overriding importance is that all necessary and proper parties, but no others, should be before the court at the same time to enable the effectual and complete determination and adjudication to be made by the court of all questions and issues between the parties which arise for decision-To this end, no action will be defeated by reason of mere mis-joinder or non-joinder of any party which is capable of being remedied and is no defence-Additionally, the court has extensive discretionary powers 1 two agreements-This agreement has an arbitration clause for arbitration-The second agreement-the parties agree “that the Courts of Malaysia shall have jurisdiction-an application for a stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration-The court’s power to stay court proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration is governed by section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA 2005”)-The defendants in order to get a stay have to prove-there is an arbitration agreement between the parties-the proceedings are in respect of a matter that is subject to the arbitration agreement-the defendants have not taken any other steps in the proceedings-the arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed-It is trite law that a dispute in relation to a contract which has no arbitration clause cannot be referred to arbitration even if this contract is related to a contract with an arbitration clause. A party asserting that an arbitration clause in an agreement applies to another but related agreement which has no arbitration clause must show that there is such incorporation on the plain wording of the said arbitration clause-the Court has a discretion under the Arbitration Ordinance 1950 not to grant a stay-mandatory effect of granting a stay once s 10 of the AA 2005 is satisfied by the defendant 1

Cases Delivered (36)

wa-22ncc-68-02-2025 MYHC

SHASHI RAJ A/L MOHAN v 1. ) DATO ROSAL AZIMIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) TETUAN SHAMSUDDIN & CO

20 October 2025

wa-22ncc-698-09-2023 MYHC

JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE

wa-22ncc-584-08-2023 MYHC

CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

wa-22ncc-78-02-2025 MYHC

KHOO YIK CHOU v 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. ) NICHOLAS FUNG WIN JUAN

wa-22ncc-692-09-2023 MYHC

KIRANA EMAS SDN BHD v TUNG KOK SING

9 September 2025

wa-24ncc-102-02-2025 MYHC

Dato Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd

3 September 2025

wa-24ncc-526-09-2023 MYHC

1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2. ) MOHD FAIZ BIN SAZALI

wa-24ncc-186-04-2024 MYHC

Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v 1. ) AWIE ANAK KILAU 2. ) TAMRON AUTO SERVICE 3. ) HALIJAH BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) NUR IFFAH NADZIRAH BINTI MOHD HAFIZ

wa-22ncc-442-09-2020 MYHC

1. ) MANJUNG AQUATIC SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) MANJUNG AQUA FARMING SDN BHD v 1. ) MOHAMAD ZAHID BIN PUTERA 2. ) HUSIN BIN YAHYA 3. ) YONG KWAI HEONG 4. ) YONG WEI JIEN 5. ) EMPEROR MARINE SEAFOOD SDN BHD 6. ) PELANTAR CERGAS (M) SDN BHD 7. ) ADIL JUTA SDN BHD 8. ) GIGIH MUDA SDN BHD 9. ) SITIAWAN HATCHERY SDN BHD

wa-22ncc-528-07-2023 MYHC

1. ) THERUMOORTHI A/L APPALANAIDU 2. ) ANJELAI DEVI A/P MANIAM v 1. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 2. ) AIA BERHAD

wa-28jm-34-12-2024 MYHC

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) LOW YEW GUAN 2. ) LEE OI KUAN 3. ) LOW YEW LIM 4. ) TEO PECK KWAN 5. ) DATO TS. HJ. MOHD ZAIDI llAMDIN dan 195 lain

wa-22ncc-696-09-2023 MYHC

KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE

wa-24ncc-114-03-2025 MYHC

MARITIME NETWORK SDN BHD v RHB BANK BERHAD

wa-24ncvc-86-01-2024 MYHC

1. ) LO CHANG GENG (mendakwa dalam kapasitinya sebagai ahli kepada Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) 2. ) WONG AH SENG (mendakwa dalam kapasitinya sebagai ahli kepada Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) v 1. ) FOO WAH CHEK (didakwa atas kapasitinya sebagai Presiden Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) 2. ) TAN KUAN FENG (didakwa atas kapasitinya sebagai Naib Setiausaha Agung Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) 3. ) PERSATUAN HAINAN ...

wa-22ncc-582-08-2023 MYHC

Krisia Binti Aris Palilah v 1. ) Zaiton Binti Ahmad 2. ) Muhammad Hasrullah Bin Roslan 3. ) Ong Li Hoon 4. ) Pembinaan Yokriskon Sdn Bhd

wa-37j-17-03-2024 MYHC

SENG SAN BING v SATIN STRAITS SDN. BHD. PIHAK TERKILAN Jaimie Sia Zui Keng

wa-22ncc-332-05-2024 MYHC

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR v 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOON 4. ) DATIN TAN KUI MOI 5. ) LIU YOONG CHWEN

wa-22ncc-396-06-2024 MYHC

AMBANK (M) BERHAD v 1. ) HIGAIN VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) LX MODE (M) SDN BHD 3. ) ZAHARUDIN BIN ZAINOL RASHID 4. ) EDDEE DZULKARNEIN BIN ZAHARUDIN

wa-15-1-01-2023 MYHC

MAH CHIN BOOI v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

wa-24ncc-203-04-2024 MYHC

PALOH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

wa-24ncc-202-04-2024 MYHC

EE SOON GUAN SDN. BHD. v 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

wa-22ncc-46-01-2025 MYHC

RANDY NG KAI SHENG v BEMED (PTJ) SDN. BHD.

wa-22ncc-70-02-2025 MYHC

TEO YUN HOCK v 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 4. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 5. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN 6. ) GO AUTO SERVICES SDN BHD 7. ) GOAUTO GROUP SDN BHD 8. ) INTRO SYNERGY SDN BHD 9. ) NEXV MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 10. ) SPE FOUNDATION 11. ) ASPIRE ARENA SDN BHD 12. ) SMS AUTO WORLD SDN BHD 13. ) PHOENIX PINNACLE SDN BHD 14. ) FAROK BIN MAASOM 15. ) DATO' SHEIKH MOHAMAD SH...

wa-22ncc-222-04-2024 MYHC

AFFIN BANK BERHAD v 1. ) PCS VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN

wa-22ncc-225-04-2024 MYHC

AFFIN BANK BERHAD v 1. ) PCS VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN

wa-24nccarb-22-07-2023 MYHC

Reliance Electro Mechanical Plumbing Contracting Co LLC (Sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di United Arab Emirates dengan No. Peti Surat: 52027) v Zelan Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd

wa-12bncc-32-09-2023 MYHC

1. ) APLI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MAT YASIN 3. ) RAMLEE BIN SAIDIN 4. ) SINCERE PROGRESS SDN BHD v 1. ) Abdul Malik Bin Dasthigeer 2. ) Siadali Bin Mohd Abu Bakkar

wa-22ncc-364-10-2016 MYHC

wa-22ip-41-05-2024 MYHC

1. ) RESTORAN NAIZ ALI SDN. BHD. 2. ) RIZAL ALI BIN NAIZALI BERNIAGA SEBAGAI PAKEEZA RESTAURANT & CATERING v 1. ) A CERENIO RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 2. ) MUHAMMAD ZAHID 3. ) ASIF ALI 4. ) SADIQ BIN AHMAD SAID 5. ) Mohamed Amin Bin Mohamed Shabir

wa-12bncc-30-09-2023 MYHC

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH

wa-24ncc-38-01-2025 MYHC

ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD v MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD

23 January 2025

wa-22ncc-216-04-2024 MYHC

1. ) DENG CHENGLIANG 2. ) XIE YONG v 1. ) Levin Tan Eu Sheng [Nod At Encl. 19] 2. ) TAN TIONG KIAT

21 January 2025

wa-24ncc-1067-12-2022 MYHC

1. ) KHEE SAN BERHAD 2. ) KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 3. ) KHEE SAN MARKETING SDN BHD 4. ) MEGA GLOBAL CONFECTIONARY SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) TUNAI IMPIAN ENTERPRISE SDN BHD 2. ) HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad 3. ) Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad 4. ) DATO' ADAM PRIMUS VARGHESE BIN ABDULLAH (PENGURUS KEHAKIMAN INTERIM TERDAHULU BAGI KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD)

19 January 2025

wa-22ncc-378-06-2024 MYHC

1. ) LER CHENG CHYE (PELIKUIDASI-PELIKUIDASI BAGI PUSTAKA EFEKTIF SDN. BHD. (DALAM LIKUIDASI)) 2. ) LUM TUCK CHEONG (PELIKUIDASI-PELIKUIDASI BAGI PUSTAKA EFEKTIF SDN. BHD. (DALAM LIKUIDASI)) v 1. ) ATURAN PRISMA SDN BHD 2. ) ABD RAHMAN BIN HARUN 3. ) MAZLAN BIN MD ZAIN 4. ) CHAI CHEE SENG 5. ) GOH LIK SIN 6. ) YAAKOB BIN NORDIN

15 January 2025

wa-12ancc-60-06-2024 MYHC

SAFEMINE MINERALS SDN. BHD. v Tee Joo Teik [Selaku wasi harta pusaka Encik Bong Yam Keng (Si Mati)

wa-24ncc-194-04-2024 MYHC

LIEW MOONG JU v 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @ NG TING MIEW 3. ) Ng Jin Yeong