Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad
About Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad
Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025–2026). These were heard before MYHC (3).
On the court record
Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appears in the corpus across property, criminal and public-law matters, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi). One matter, appearing for the defendant, was an application to cancel a private caveat under 'seksyen 327 KTN' (section 327 of the National Land Code); the court's reasoning, recorded in Malay, was that the caveator had no 'caveatable interest' entitling him to lodge a private caveat, having relied only on a power of attorney given to him after the land had been sold at auction, whereas the plaintiff was the successful bidder and an 'aggrieved person' with merit in the application to remove the caveat. A second matter, appearing for the respondent, was a criminal prosecution engaging a difficult question of causation: where death occurred more than sixteen months after an attack, whether the direct chain of causation was proven or whether an intervening complication — meningitis — broke the chain, in the context of a charge under 'seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan' (section 304(a) of the Penal Code), together with a charge of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, a parang, under section 326, and questions of common intention and whether mere presence at the scene with a weapon and passive assent sufficed. A third matter, appearing for the plaintiff, was a claim for 'pampasan' (compensation) arising from an allegedly wrongful detention under a detention order made under section 6(1) of the drug-related preventive-detention legislation, connected with an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court. The causation question in the criminal matter is a particularly demanding one, because a substantial interval between an assault and the eventual death invites the argument that some later, independent cause was truly responsible, and the prosecution must show that the original injury remained an operative cause notwithstanding the passage of time and the intervening medical complication. Across the appearances the practice moves between the protection of interests in land through the caveat mechanism, the proof of causation and participation in violent crime, and the liberty and compensation questions that arise from preventive detention.
How many cases has Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appeared in?
Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025–2026).
Which courts does Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appear in?
Mohd Azrul Hasyimi bin Mohammad appears before MYHC (3).
Why was the private caveat ordered to be cancelled?
Under 'seksyen 327 KTN' (section 327 of the National Land Code), the court found the caveator had no caveatable interest — relying only on a power of attorney given after the land was sold at auction — while the plaintiff, the successful bidder, was an aggrieved person with merit in the application to remove the caveat.
What causation question did the criminal matter raise?
Where death occurred more than sixteen months after an attack, whether the direct chain of causation was proven or whether an intervening complication (meningitis) broke it, on a charge under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, alongside a grievous-hurt charge under section 326 for a parang attack and questions of common intention.