S
Samry bin Masri
J 11 cases
About J Samry bin Masri
Samry bin Masri has been involved in 11 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning September 2025 to December 2025. These cases are from the High Court (11 cases). Samry bin Masri served as the delivering judge in 11 of these cases.
11
Total Cases
11
Delivered
0
Sat On (Coram)
How many cases has Samry bin Masri been involved in?
Samry bin Masri has been involved in 11 published judgments from September 2025 to December 2025, serving as the delivering judge in 11 of them. Cases span the High Court (11 cases).
Practice Areas
The Prosecution filed appeals against the discharge and acquittal, challenging the Sessions Court’s finding that no prima facie case existed under Section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act 2009 and Section 165 of the Penal Code against R1 and R2 respectively. Upon evaluating all record of proceedings, notes of evidence and the submissions of all parties, it was held that the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against either Respondent. The identification evidence is unreliable, the alleged receipt of monies is not shown to be corruptly intended or linked to any official act and the evidential gaps and inconsistencies are substantial. Accordingly, the appeal by the Prosecution is dismissed and the Sessions Court’s order discharging and acquitting both Respondents is affirmed. 4 The appeal before this court is the Plaintiffs’ appeal against the entirety of the findings on liability and part of the findings on quantum while the 2nd Defendant cross-appeal is on liability of parties. Briefly, Plaintiffs’ claim arises from a road traffic accident that occurred involving three (3) vehicles between Plaintiffs, 1st Defendant & 2nd Defendant. Consent judgment was recorded between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant without admission of liability while Plaintiffs continued their claim solely against the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant closed his case without calling any witnesses or giving evidence himself. In upholding the decision of Learned Sessions Court Judge and dismisses both Plaintiffs’ appeal and the 2nd Defendant’s cross-appeal, it was held that failure to adduce evidence is not synonymous with admission of claim and that Plaintiffs must first establish liability before any burden shifts to the defendant. In addition to that, a consent judgment cannot erase the fact that an accident occurred and that the 1st Defendant was involved. In deciding the quantum of damages, the awards given are well reasoned, proportionate and firmly anchored in both evidential valuation as well as legal principles. Hence, both appeals dismissed. 1 In brief, the Defendants are advocates and solicitors. The Plaintiff was a client of the Defendants. The Plaintiff engaged the Defendants’ firm to prepare a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Accordingly, the last day for settlement was 4 months from the date of the SPA. When nothing was received after 6 months, the Plaintiff’s wife lodged a police report. The Defendants demanded an apology and for Plaintiff to retract the police report and that the balance purchase price (“BPP”) would only be released upon such conditions were fulfilled. The Plaintiff through his solicitor, demanded the release of the BPP. As the demand went unanswered, the Plaintiff filed a claim in court. The Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the delay was caused by the Plaintiff’s own conduct which had tarnished their reputation. The learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and allowed some of the Defendants’ counterclaim. It was held that the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge allowing the Defendants’ counterclaim is set aside and the decision of the Sessions Court in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim is affirmed. The learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim which were undisputed but had yet to be released. However, despite no evidence produced, the Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge. Evidences before this court shows that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their counterclaim. Hence, the decision to set aside the Defendant’s counterclaim. 1 A Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered between Plaintff and D1 in 2014. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance (“CCC”) was issued in 2015. The Plaintiff commenced occupation of the property in 2016. From 2017 onwards, The Plaintiff discovered various defects. Complaints were made but no satisfactory remedial action was taken. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in 2020 and engaged a professional engineering firm in 2021 to inspect the property. Following the report dated 28/3/2022, Plaintiff filed for this action. Defendants, instead of filing their statement of defence, filed application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of time barred. It was held that there are mixed questions of fact and law in the present case where it cannot be conclusively determined on affidavit evidence only. Furthermore, Order 18 requires parties to specifically plead Limitation of Act if they wish to rely on it in their defence. However, no statement of defence has yet been filed by the Defendants. Hence, the Defendants’ application to strike out is dismissed with cost. 1 The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a piece of land in concern. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendants vacate the said Land, but they refused, asserting customary rights over the land. The Plaintiff then applied for summary judgment. It was held that the Defendants’ claim is unsupported by gazettement, documentary proof or any counterclaim for declaratory relief. The Defendants have failed to take any procedural or substantive step to displace the Plaintiff’s indefeasible title. Thus, does not constitute a triable issue capable of defeating the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. Hence, the application for summary judgment by Plaintiff was allowed. 1 The deceased, Hong Keat Seng (“HKS”), passed away in 2002 leaving behind six immovable properties (“the properties”) to the Plaintiffs. Following HKS’s death, the Defendant’s mother instructed the Defendant, who is HKS’s brother to oversee and manage matters relating to the properties. The plaintiffs are fully aware of the Defendant’s role in managing the properties from 2002 until 2023 without any interruption. In 2023, the Defendant informed the 2nd Plaintiff of his intention to relinquish responsibility for the management of the properties due to his age. The Plaintiffs suspected mismanagement on Defendant’s part. These suspicions led to the filing of the present application for pre-action discovery pursuant to Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). Through this application, the Plaintiffs seek disclosure of documents relating to the properties. Having satisfied all the requirements under the rule, the court allowed the Plaintiffs’ application. Dissatisfied, the Defendant appealed. 1 The Plaintiff is seeking leave to rectify and amend two security documents executed between the Plaintiff and D1 alone yet the case was filed against D1 & D2. It was discovered that there is no executed or enforceable contract between the Plaintiff and D2. D2 was not a party to the security documents or that she undertook any contractual obligation towards the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim rests on documents that D2 never signed and no pleaded facts establish an obligation on her part. Provisions relied upon by the Plaintiff’s solicitor presuppose the existence of a pre-existing legal obligation. In the present case, no such obligation exists on the part of D2 and the Plaintiff cannot rely on the statute to create an obligation where none exists. The Plaintiff’s application is therefore dismissed with no costs and the Plaintiff has since filed a notice of appeal against this decision 1 Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia while the Defendant is a licensed financial institution and act as the financier to a third party, Gebeng Jaya Sdn Bhd (“Gebeng Jaya”). As security for the financing, Gebeng Jaya charged its land (“the Land”) to the Defendant. Ultimately Gebeng Jaya defaulted payment to the Defendant. Exercising its rights under the National Land Code (“NLC”), the Defendant obtained an Order for Sale in 2020. In 2023, Gebeng Jaya entered into a sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with Plaintiff in respect of the Land. As such, the Defendant issued various redemption statements to the Plaintiff. Following that, the Plaintiff lodged a private caveat over the Land. However, the sale fell through due to a dispute between the parties. Now, the Plaintiff filed this action to restrain the Defendant from auctioning the Land. The Defendant through its counterclaim, seek the removal of the private caveat as the Plaintiff has no registrable or caveatable interest under Section 323 NLC. It was held that the Plaintiff’s interest is contractual rather than proprietary. The caveat cannot be maintained under NLC as it obstructs the Defendant from exercising its statutory powers over the land. Hence the Defendant’s counterclaim is allowed. The private caveat lodged by the Plaintiff is ordered to be removed. 1
Cases Delivered (11)
ca-24ncvc-152-07-2025 MYHC
CIMB BANK BERHAD v 1. ) ISMAIL BIN JUSOH 2. ) HALIMAH BINTI ALI
21 December 2025
ca-42ra-2-09-2023 MYHC
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDUL SHUKOR
9 December 2025
ca-42ra-3-09-2023 MYHC
Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD FAHMIE BIN FESAL
9 December 2025
ca-42ra-4-09-2023 MYHC
Pendakwa Raya v MUHAMMAD FAHMIE BIN FESAL
9 December 2025
ca-42ra-5-09-2023 MYHC
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDUL SHUKOR
9 December 2025
ca-22ncvc-18-04-2025 MYHC
MELVINDERJIT SINGH WALIA v 1. ) GENERAL HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD HADRY BIN MASRI ONN
3 December 2025
ca-24ncvc-216-10-2024 MYHC
SWIFT INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SDN BHD v RHB BANK BERHAD
15 October 2025
ca-12bncvc-3-03-2025 MYHC
KHAIRUL EFFENDI BIN HAMZAH v LIM BOON YAN
5 October 2025
ca-22ncvc-4-02-2025 MYHC
AGRI TECH SDN. BHD. v 1. ) KOPERASI ORANG ASLI KAMPUNG TANAM ROMPIN BERHAD 2. ) IBRAHIM A/L JINAL 3. ) AHING BIN PAK KAHLING
30 September 2025
ca-12b-18-12-2024 MYHC
1. ) MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS AKMAL BIN ABD RAZAK 2. ) RUHANI BINTI JUSOH v 1. ) SABRI BIN SEBOK 2. ) MOHD QAYYUM BIN MOHD KHALID
24 September 2025
ca-24ncvc-119-06-2024 MYHC
1. ) HONG SEOK KHOON 2. ) HONG SOON HUI 3. ) HONG SEOK CHIN 4. ) HONG SOON WEI v HONG KEAT SWEE
22 September 2025