O
Ong Ying Mi
Person 1 case
Ong Ying Mi appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ba-25-82-10-2025
1. ) SHINY RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 2. ) PRISTANA HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) MASTER EXPRESS TRAVELS & TOURS SDN. BHD. 4. ) G.B. RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 5. ) VILLA CERIA SDN. BHD. 6. ) PUNCAK PURNAMA SDN. BHD. 7. ) SEWANG MURNI SDN. BHD. 8. ) KIMIX CONCRETE SDN. BHD. 9. ) DARULVEST SDN. BHD. 10. ) SEGAMAN MAKMUR SDN.BHD. 11. ) LEE CHIT WAI 12. ) ONG PENG LIAN 13. ) ONG YING MI (Sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Ong Leong Kheng, simati) 14. ) ZESTRA INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 15. ) BENUA MUHIBAH SDN. BHD. 16. ) PRIDE...
MYHC 19 February 2026
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Ong Ying Mi
Ong Ying Mi appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2026 to February 2026. Ong Ying Mi appeared as applicant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Ong Ying Mi?
Ong Ying Mi appears in 1 published judgment from February 2026 to February 2026. Most commonly as applicant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
Application for leave to commence judicial review application to challenge the decision of the First Respondent’s decision rejecting their applications to be alienated lands AG objected to the application on the following grounds - 1 (i) Applicant 13 did not have the locus standi to file this application as she was not a TOL holder nor had she applied to the Lands to be alienated to her; 1 (ii) Applicants 1, 2, 3 and 20 did not have the locus standi to file this application as they were not aggrieved by the Rejection Letters because it was not addressed to them; 1 (iii) Applicant 14 did not have the locus standi because their application for the Lands to be alienated to them was still in consideration and had not been rejected; 1 (iv) Enclosure 1 was filed outside the prescribed time frame; 1 (v) Enclosure 1 was vexatious and frivolous as the Applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure, there were no grounds to challenge the Notices and their application for an order of mandamus was flawed. 1 AG's objections were allowed and the Applicants' application for leave was dismissed. 1