Suzana binti Muhamad Said

On the judicial record

A High Court judge whose reported corpus spans housing damages, interlocutory and default practice, trust protection and contempt, in both national languages.

Justice Suzana binti Muhamad Said sits in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions in this corpus are civil, combining first-instance trials with a substantial body of appellate and interlocutory work, in both Bahasa Malaysia and English. Housing and consumer questions recur through summary-judgment applications under Order 14 of the Rules of Court claiming liquidated ascertained damages for the late delivery of vacant possession, decided on whether the defence raised any triable issue.

Interlocutory and procedural practice is prominent. Decisions address prohibitory injunctions to restrain the disclosure of confidential and private information; third-party discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court; the entry of judgment on the default of pleadings under Order 19 rule 7; the striking out of a defence and counterclaim for non-compliance with court directions, leaving the claim to proceed to trial undefended; and applications for an extension of time under Order 3 rule 5, refused where no justified reason was shown.

Trust and enforcement questions also feature, including an originating summons under sections 12(5) and 12(6) of the Public Trust Corporation Act 1995 read with the Specific Relief Act 1950 to prohibit a trustee from dealing with trust assets, and committal proceedings for contempt against parties said to have breached court orders. Appeals from the Sessions Court, including on the setting aside of a judgment in default of defence and extensions of time to appeal, round out a broad docket, several turning on whether a default judgment was regularly obtained. The corpus reflects a High Court judge managing a busy civil and appellate list, resolving each matter by close attention to the governing rule of court and to whether the threshold for summary, default or interlocutory relief has been met on the material actually before the court, and giving reasons for refusing relief where a party has not discharged that threshold.