S
See Ah Moi
Person 1 case
See Ah Moi appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ma-22ncvc-23-04-2024
LUI WEI PING v 1. ) YAU CHENG EE 2. ) SEE AH MOI 3. ) HAU YEONG TAI 4. ) BIOBENUA TEKNOLOGI SDN BHD 5. ) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ALI
MYHC 23 February 2026
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About See Ah Moi
See Ah Moi appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2026 to February 2026. See Ah Moi appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve See Ah Moi?
See Ah Moi appears in 1 published judgment from February 2026 to February 2026. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
The First and Third Defendants applied under Order 34 rules 1(3) and 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action for alleged non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions. 1 The High Court dismissed the application. 1 The Court held that although Order 34 confers a discretionary power to dismiss for non-compliance, dismissal is a severe sanction which extinguishes a cause of action without adjudication on the merits. The threshold for its exercise is therefore high. The power is protective, not punitive, and must be applied consistently with the principles of access to justice, fairness between parties and proportionality. 1 The Court articulated a structured approach in determining whether dismissal is warranted, including consideration of: 1. The nature and seriousness of the non-compliance; 2. Whether the conduct was intentional or contumelious; 3. Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable; 4. Whether the applicant contributed to the delay; 5. Whether real and material prejudice affecting trial fairness was demonstrated; 6. Whether lesser sanctions would suffice. 1 On the facts, while there was delay in finalising the Agreed Facts, Issues to be Tried and Common Bundle of Documents, the delay was not contumelious. There was no unless order or express warning of dismissal. The Defendants had materially contributed to the delay and had failed to demonstrate serious or irremediable prejudice. Dismissal would therefore be disproportionate. 1 The application was dismissed, and the Plaintiff was directed to complete the outstanding pre-trial case management documents, with liberty to impose stricter sanctions in the event of further non-compliance. 1 Key Words 1 Civil Procedure; Order 34 ROC 2012; Case Management; Pre-Trial Case Management; Dismissal for Non-Compliance; Discretion; Contumelious Conduct; Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay; Contributory Delay; Prejudice; Proportionality; Access to Justice; Lesser Sanctions; Supervisory Jurisdiction. 1