CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal
6 cases · March 2025 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
5 25
1 26
2025–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Application to strike out appeal — Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal filed out of time — Date of service on AR Registered card — Service disputed — Whether proof of service rebutted — Whether appeal defective and incompetent — Rules of Court O. 55. 1 Appeal against decision of Sessions Court — Breach of contract for non-payment of goods delivered — Sessions Court found in favour of Plaintiff and judgment entered against the Defendant — Whether Sessions Court erred in its decision — Whether appellate intervention ought to be applied — No arguable defence proven — Whether certain invoices issued time-barred — s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 — No appealable error found and appeal dismissed 1 Notice of Appeal — Preliminary Objection — Use of Form 111 instead of Form 111A — Whether technical non-compliance fatal to appeal — Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A — Overriding interest of justice — Waiver of objection CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata — Cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel — Previous suit against main contractor regarding same project — Subsequent suit against Government for same professional fees — Whether issues of liability and quantum finally adjudicated — Litigation by instalments — Abuse of process — Asia Commercial Finance principle CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory proceedings — Striking out — Effect of dismissal of striking out application — Whether trial judge precluded from revisiting defence of res judicata at full trial — Distinction between summary determination and trial findings — Lin Wen-Chih (FC) applied CONTRACT: Privity of contract — Professional consultancy services — Design and Build procurement model — Consultant absorbed into main contractor’s organisation — Claim for fees against Employer (Government) — Absence of direct contractual nexus — Whether Government liable for fees — Mutual termination agreement with main contractor EVIDENCE: Standard of proof — Claim for 80% completion of consultancy work — Finding of fact by trial court — Oral admission by witness regarding scope of drawings — Appellate intervention — “Plainly wrong” test 1 Finding of facts by Trial Judge — Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred during trial — Whether High Court intervention is warranted — Appeal dismissed DEFAMATION: Elements of defamation — Interpretation of defamatory words — Reference of defamatory statement — Publication to third parties 1 Whether Sessions Court’s findings ought to be disturbed — Whether findings were against the weight of evidence — Plaintiff failed to identify object struck or prove existence of hazard — Patrol records unshaken — Whether defendant proved reasonable system of inspection TORT: Negligence — Highway concessionaire — Alleged collision with foreign object on expressway — Whether defendant failed to remove or detect hazard — No evidence of object — No photographs or forensic support — Plaintiff’s evidence inconsistent and speculative — Whether breach of duty established — Whether strict liability applies EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Plaintiff failed to prove existence of object or defendant’s knowledge — No call logs or corroboration of PLUSline report –Burden lies on plaintiff to prove negligence 1 Striking out of Record of appeal — Defects in the appeal record — Failure to serve the draft index to the appeal record — Whether failure is fatal or curable — Mandatory rules — Order 55 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 1
Application to strike out appeal — Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal filed out of time — Date of service on AR Registered card — Service disputed — Whether proof of service rebutted — Whether appeal defective and incompetent — Rules of Court O. 55. 1 case
Appeal against decision of Sessions Court — Breach of contract for non-payment of goods delivered — Sessions Court found in favour of Plaintiff and judgment entered against the Defendant — Whether Sessions Court erred in its decision — Whether appellate intervention ought to be applied — No arguable defence proven — Whether certain invoices issued time-barred — s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 — No appealable error found and appeal dismissed 1 case
Notice of Appeal — Preliminary Objection — Use of Form 111 instead of Form 111A — Whether technical non-compliance fatal to appeal — Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A — Overriding interest of justice — Waiver of objection CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata — Cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel — Previous suit against main contractor regarding same project — Subsequent suit against Government for same professional fees — Whether issues of liability and quantum finally adjudicated — Litigation by instalments — Abuse of process — Asia Commercial Finance principle CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interlocutory proceedings — Striking out — Effect of dismissal of striking out application — Whether trial judge precluded from revisiting defence of res judicata at full trial — Distinction between summary determination and trial findings — Lin Wen-Chih (FC) applied CONTRACT: Privity of contract — Professional consultancy services — Design and Build procurement model — Consultant absorbed into main contractor’s organisation — Claim for fees against Employer (Government) — Absence of direct contractual nexus — Whether Government liable for fees — Mutual termination agreement with main contractor EVIDENCE: Standard of proof — Claim for 80% completion of consultancy work — Finding of fact by trial court — Oral admission by witness regarding scope of drawings — Appellate intervention — “Plainly wrong” test 1 case
Finding of facts by Trial Judge — Whether the Sessions Court Judge had erred during trial — Whether High Court intervention is warranted — Appeal dismissed DEFAMATION: Elements of defamation — Interpretation of defamatory words — Reference of defamatory statement — Publication to third parties 1 case
Whether Sessions Court’s findings ought to be disturbed — Whether findings were against the weight of evidence — Plaintiff failed to identify object struck or prove existence of hazard — Patrol records unshaken — Whether defendant proved reasonable system of inspection TORT: Negligence — Highway concessionaire — Alleged collision with foreign object on expressway — Whether defendant failed to remove or detect hazard — No evidence of object — No photographs or forensic support — Plaintiff’s evidence inconsistent and speculative — Whether breach of duty established — Whether strict liability applies EVIDENCE: Burden of proof — Plaintiff failed to prove existence of object or defendant’s knowledge — No call logs or corroboration of PLUSline report –Burden lies on plaintiff to prove negligence 1 case
Striking out of Record of appeal — Defects in the appeal record — Failure to serve the draft index to the appeal record — Whether failure is fatal or curable — Mandatory rules — Order 55 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
wa-16a-112-06-2025
YAP CHENG HONG v UNIVERSAL CORPORATE SERVICES SDN BHD
7 January 2026
MYHC
wa-12bncc-15-06-2025
ALM TRADING SDN BHD v CS NAM SDN BHD
17 December 2025
MYHC
ka-12bncvc-7-10-2024
PERUNDING IZA'D SENDIRIAN BERHAD v 1. ) Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
24 November 2025
MYHC
ba-12b-97-09-2024
INTAN SHAHNAZLAH BINTI ABDULLAH v MUHAMMAD NAIM BIN GHULAM MUHAMMAD
25 June 2025
MYHC
aa-12b-38-10-2023
BALAKRISHNA BALARAVI PILLAI v PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD
2 April 2025
MYHC
ba-12b-104-10-2024
LEE CHUNG BOON v TEOH AI CHIN
24 March 2025
MYHC