A
Azman bin Yusof
Person 1 case
Azman bin Yusof appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-21ncvc-80-04-2021
1. ) DATIN PADUKA DR. TAN YEE KEW 2. ) VIJAYA KUMARI A/P KANNIPAN 3. ) LEE CHUN TACK 4. ) RAZALI BIN ABU BAKAR 5. ) ASMUNI BIN NAFIAH 6. ) DEWI MURNI HARUN 7. ) VASANDA A/P VYTHILIGAM 8. ) MOHAMED NOORSYAFIQ BIN SHAMSUDIN 9. ) THULOSIMANY 10. ) SABRINA BINTI SAHUL HAMID 11. ) KALADEVI A/P RAMACHANTHIRAN 12. ) VELLAMMAL A/P VADAMALAY 13. ) RAJA NORSIDAH BT RAJA ABDUL JALIL 14. ) SITI NORWANA BINTI ZAKARIA 15. ) NUR AFIQAH BINIL MOHTAR APANDI 16. ) TAMIL SELVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM 17. ) MUNIAMAH A/P...
MYHC 3 November 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Azman bin Yusof
Azman bin Yusof appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. Azman bin Yusof appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Azman bin Yusof?
Azman bin Yusof appears in 1 published judgment from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
This judgment dismisses a tort action by 810 plaintiffs against 18 defendants arising from a September 2020 water disruption in Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur. The High Court determined the threshold issue of locus standi after the first plaintiff (PW-1), a former Member of Parliament, testified as sole witness. The Court held this was a private law tort action requiring strict standing requirements, not public interest litigation. PW-1 lacked personal standing, having resided outside the affected area with no personal water disruption. The action failed as a representative proceeding under Order 15 Rule 12 ROC 2012, lacked endorsement under Order 6 Rule 2(1)(b) and proper authorization. The remaining 809 plaintiffs adduced no evidence and defects emerged where 103 plaintiffs with non-existent identity card numbers, 8 deceased plaintiffs, 3 undischarged bankrupts without DGI sanction, and 8 residing outside the affected area. PW-1 admitted inability to prove any claim and lacked written authorisation from the plaintiffs. 1 Locus standi; representative action; tort; private law standing; Order 15 Rule 12; Order 6 Rule 2(1)(b); costs 1