Civil procedure
180 cases · December 1899 to February 2026
Case Volume by Year
1 99
2 17
4 18
6 19
4 20
3 21
1 22
1 24
153 25
5 26
1899–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Whether the Plaintiff has proven the claim for goods and services supplied to the Defendant — Whether the Defendants are liable for the guarantees — Whether the Defendants in counterclaim have conspired jointly to defraud the Plaintiff 3 Parties— Proper parties to be sued — Whether proper to sue sole proprietor in his own name and to add below the name within brackets the name of the firm — Whether respondent was properly named at the adjudication proceedings — Whether action can be taken against a body that has no legal status — Whether the Adjudicator is clothed with the jurisdiction — Whether adjudication proceedings valid 2 Banking and Finance — Islamic banking — Summary judgment — Recovery of outstanding sums under Murabahah term financing, Cashline-i and Tradeline-i facilities — Whether genuine triable issues raised — Defence based on non-receipt of demand letter — Whether the claim is premature — Whether proceedings must first be taken against the principal borrower before recourse to the guarantors — Guarantee and Indemnity — Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive — Whether service of certificate upon defendants a precondition –Whether defendants have proven manifest error — Principal liability clause — Indemnity clause — Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3. 2 Appeal — Appeal against summary judgment — Appeal against striking out of counterclaim — Applicable appellate standard — Whether re-hearing or review of discretion — Whether genuine triable issue raised — Distinction between limbs under O 18 r 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 — Sub-paragraph (a) confined to defects on the face of pleadings — Prohibition on affidavit evidence under O 18 r 19(2) for sub-paragraph (a) — Scope of sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Whether counterclaim for fraud and misrepresentation properly struck out under sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Lack of material particulars — Whether counterclaim obviously unsustainable — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 r.1 & r.3, & O.8 r.19. 2 Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 67 — Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, Rules 5(1), 5(3) and 5(4) — procedural law — striking out of notice of appeal — preliminary objection — filing of single notice of appeal for more than one decision — whether decisions were clearly and concisely identified 2 Appeal — Legal burden of proof — Reversal of burden — Distinction between legal burden and Evidential burden Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Expert evidence — whether Non-expert opinion preferred over expert testimony — Documentary evidence — Viva voce testimony — Witness credibility — Inconsistencies and contradictions- failure to consider reliability- Maritime law — Bunkering operations — Fuel segregation — Absence of contemporaneous records Appellate review — Erroneous appreciation of evidence — Findings plainly wrong 1 Summary judgment — Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether defendants disclosed bona fide triable issue — Admitted and quantified debt — Subsequent repayment agreement — Whether defence a sham or afterthought — Principles governing summary disposal — Whether judgment ought to be entered summarily 1 Appeal — Record of appeal — Memorandum of appeal — Failure to file record of appeal within the prescribed time — Omission of memorandum of appeal — No application for extension of time — Whether the appeal is incompetent — Order 55 r 4, Rules of Court 2012 — Whether Order 1A may be invoked — Mandatory procedural compliance — Appeal struck out. 1 Res judicata — Cause of action estoppel — Issue estoppel — Earlier action dismissed as premature — No termination notice issued under facility agreement — Whether dismissal on procedural ground bars subsequent action after valid termination notice — Whether new cause of action accrued — Doctrine not absolute — Whether injustice would result if applied 1 Default judgment — Application to set aside — Whether default judgment was regularly obtained — Whether application filed out of time — Order 42 rule 13 Rules of Court 2012 — Cogent reasons for delay — Five-year delay — No explanation offered — Whether defendants demonstrated a defence on the merits with a real prospect of success — Failure to file any proposed defence — Application dismissed — Requirements to set aside — Threshold for setting aside regular judgment — Defence must have a real prospect of success and carry degree of conviction — Service — Contractual deeming provision — Service by registered post deemed received on fifth day — Validity of contractual service clause. 1 Amendment of pleadings — Late amendment — After close of pleadings and completion of pre-trial case management — Trial dates fixed — Whether application bona fide — Whether cogent explanation for delay shown — Whether amendments introduce new causes of action — Whether amendments fundamentally alter character of action — Whether prejudice to defendants compensable by costs 1 Late filing — Written submissions — Non-compliance with court directions — Reply submissions filed out of time without leave — Rejected. • Conveyancing — Stakeholder solicitor — Appointment inferred from course of dealings — No formal acceptance not fatal. • Evidence — Bank statements — Admissibility — Subpoenaed bank witnesses — Weight vs admissibility — Admitted. • Stakeholder monies — Receipt into client account — Failure to remit matured sums — Breach established. • Partnership — Law firm — Branch autonomy — No notice to third party — Partners jointly and severally liable. • Quantum — RM1,439,022.89 proven after set-off — No proof of fixed deposit profit/hibah. • Interest — Pre- and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum — Costs awarded. 1 Summary judgment — Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — “Triable issue” — Late filing — Non-compliance with court directions — Affidavit in reply and written submissions filed on hearing date — Rejection/striking out — Defendant confined to oral submissions on point of law only — Discretion — Prejudice — Revenue Law / Income Tax — Recovery of tax as civil debt — Income Tax Act 1967 (Act 53) — ss 103, 106(1), 106(3), 142(1), 145(2)(c) — “Pay first, argue later” — Deemed service of notices of assessment — Certificate under s 142(1) as sufficient evidence — Court not to entertain plea that assessment excessive/incorrectly assessed — Remedy by appeal to Special Commissioners 1 Summary judgment — Application under O 14 Rules of Court 2012 — Evidential threshold — Whether defendant raised bona fide triable issue — Bare denials and speculative allegations — Absence of documentary proof — When summary judgment appropriate 1 Striking out — Statement of claim — Whether discloses reasonable cause of action — Whether frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process — Allegations of fraud, illegality and misrepresentation — Pleadings lacking particulars — Plain and obvious case — Summary jurisdiction of court — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19(1)(a)–(d) 1 Striking out — Order 18 r.19(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) Rules of Court 2012 — Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable — applicable principle in Bandar Builders — Summary process to be exercised sparingly — Expiry of mining lease upon death of holder — Alleged mistake of law and frustration — Whether agreement void — Mixed questions of fact and law requiring full trial 1 whether dismissal of striking out action appealable — s. 68(1)(f) to read together with ss.67 and 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — Principles in MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor — Appeals filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants against this Court’s dismissals of their striking out application fall within the permissible appeals as set out in MT Ventures. 1 Counterclaim — Breach of contract — Exclusive distributorship — Whether Letter of Appointment prohibited delegation to third parties — Interpretation of written contract — Parol evidence rule — Sections 91 & 92 Evidence Act 1950 — Whether termination was lawful — Whether failure to protest termination amounts to waiver — Whether damages for loss of tender, inventory, and reputation recoverable — Burden of proof — Sections 101 & 102 Evidence Act 1950 — Damages under section 74 Contracts Act 1950 — Principles of Hadley v Baxendale — Mitigation of loss — Whether reputational loss claim sustainable in contract — Malik v Bank of Credit applied — Claim dismissed. 1 Striking out — Whether claim plainly unsustainable in law — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 Company law — Winding up — Sale and purchase agreements executed after presentation of winding-up petition — Whether void ab initio — Absence of validation order Limitation — Action founded on contract — Six-year limitation period — Whether claim time-barred — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Alleged fraud — Whether sufficient to invoke section 29 Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement of strict pleading and particulars — Whether triable issues disclosed 1 Trial — Re-examination of witness — Reference to document not disclosed to opposing party and not part of common bundle — Whether document admissible — Exclusion of evidence 1
+ 175 more
Whether the Plaintiff has proven the claim for goods and services supplied to the Defendant — Whether the Defendants are liable for the guarantees — Whether the Defendants in counterclaim have conspired jointly to defraud the Plaintiff 3 cases
wa-22ncc-137-03-2021 M SOUTH MARKETING SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ALL WAYS BUILDER SDN. BHD. 2. ) EURO HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) Choong Yuen Keong @ Tong Yuen Keong 4. ) Tong Yun Mong 5. ) ADY MARKETING SDN BHD
3 June 2025
wa-22ncc-246-06-2020 ADY MARKETING SDN. BHD. v 1. ) EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) EURO HOLDINGS BERHAD PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) ADY MARKETING SDN BHD 2. ) Choong Yuen Keong @ Tong Yuen Keong 3. ) Tong Yun Mong 4. ) ALL WAYS BUILDERS SDN BHD 5. ) M SOUTH MARKETING SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN YEE CHEW YAN
3 June 2025
wa-22ncc-632-12-2020 ADY MARKETING SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ALL WAYS BUILDER SDN. BHD. 2. ) EURO HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) WONG KIN SING 4. ) CHIA CHIW HOON PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) CHOONG YUEN KEONG @ TONG YUEN KEONG 2. ) TONG YUN MONG 3. ) M SOUTH MARKETING SDN. BHD.
3 June 2025
Parties— Proper parties to be sued — Whether proper to sue sole proprietor in his own name and to add below the name within brackets the name of the firm — Whether respondent was properly named at the adjudication proceedings — Whether action can be taken against a body that has no legal status — Whether the Adjudicator is clothed with the jurisdiction — Whether adjudication proceedings valid 2 cases
Banking and Finance — Islamic banking — Summary judgment — Recovery of outstanding sums under Murabahah term financing, Cashline-i and Tradeline-i facilities — Whether genuine triable issues raised — Defence based on non-receipt of demand letter — Whether the claim is premature — Whether proceedings must first be taken against the principal borrower before recourse to the guarantors — Guarantee and Indemnity — Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive — Whether service of certificate upon defendants a precondition –Whether defendants have proven manifest error — Principal liability clause — Indemnity clause — Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rr 1, & 3. 2 cases
wa-22m-100-01-2025 MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v 1. ) CARZO IMPORT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) DELON LEE KEAN YIP 3. ) CHEONG WAI KEH 4. ) CARZO HOLDINGS BERHAD
8 June 2025
wa-22m-109-01-2025 MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v 1. ) CARZO SDN BHD 2. ) DELON LEE KEAN YIP 3. ) CHEONG WAI KEH 4. ) CARZO HOLDINGS BERHAD
8 June 2025
Appeal — Appeal against summary judgment — Appeal against striking out of counterclaim — Applicable appellate standard — Whether re-hearing or review of discretion — Whether genuine triable issue raised — Distinction between limbs under O 18 r 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 — Sub-paragraph (a) confined to defects on the face of pleadings — Prohibition on affidavit evidence under O 18 r 19(2) for sub-paragraph (a) — Scope of sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Whether counterclaim for fraud and misrepresentation properly struck out under sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) — Lack of material particulars — Whether counterclaim obviously unsustainable — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 r.1 & r.3, & O.8 r.19. 2 cases
Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 67 — Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, Rules 5(1), 5(3) and 5(4) — procedural law — striking out of notice of appeal — preliminary objection — filing of single notice of appeal for more than one decision — whether decisions were clearly and concisely identified 2 cases
Appeal — Legal burden of proof — Reversal of burden — Distinction between legal burden and Evidential burden Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Expert evidence — whether Non-expert opinion preferred over expert testimony — Documentary evidence — Viva voce testimony — Witness credibility — Inconsistencies and contradictions- failure to consider reliability- Maritime law — Bunkering operations — Fuel segregation — Absence of contemporaneous records Appellate review — Erroneous appreciation of evidence — Findings plainly wrong 1 case
Summary judgment — Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — Whether defendants disclosed bona fide triable issue — Admitted and quantified debt — Subsequent repayment agreement — Whether defence a sham or afterthought — Principles governing summary disposal — Whether judgment ought to be entered summarily 1 case
Appeal — Record of appeal — Memorandum of appeal — Failure to file record of appeal within the prescribed time — Omission of memorandum of appeal — No application for extension of time — Whether the appeal is incompetent — Order 55 r 4, Rules of Court 2012 — Whether Order 1A may be invoked — Mandatory procedural compliance — Appeal struck out. 1 case
Res judicata — Cause of action estoppel — Issue estoppel — Earlier action dismissed as premature — No termination notice issued under facility agreement — Whether dismissal on procedural ground bars subsequent action after valid termination notice — Whether new cause of action accrued — Doctrine not absolute — Whether injustice would result if applied 1 case
Default judgment — Application to set aside — Whether default judgment was regularly obtained — Whether application filed out of time — Order 42 rule 13 Rules of Court 2012 — Cogent reasons for delay — Five-year delay — No explanation offered — Whether defendants demonstrated a defence on the merits with a real prospect of success — Failure to file any proposed defence — Application dismissed — Requirements to set aside — Threshold for setting aside regular judgment — Defence must have a real prospect of success and carry degree of conviction — Service — Contractual deeming provision — Service by registered post deemed received on fifth day — Validity of contractual service clause. 1 case
Amendment of pleadings — Late amendment — After close of pleadings and completion of pre-trial case management — Trial dates fixed — Whether application bona fide — Whether cogent explanation for delay shown — Whether amendments introduce new causes of action — Whether amendments fundamentally alter character of action — Whether prejudice to defendants compensable by costs 1 case
Late filing — Written submissions — Non-compliance with court directions — Reply submissions filed out of time without leave — Rejected. • Conveyancing — Stakeholder solicitor — Appointment inferred from course of dealings — No formal acceptance not fatal. • Evidence — Bank statements — Admissibility — Subpoenaed bank witnesses — Weight vs admissibility — Admitted. • Stakeholder monies — Receipt into client account — Failure to remit matured sums — Breach established. • Partnership — Law firm — Branch autonomy — No notice to third party — Partners jointly and severally liable. • Quantum — RM1,439,022.89 proven after set-off — No proof of fixed deposit profit/hibah. • Interest — Pre- and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum — Costs awarded. 1 case
Summary judgment — Order 14 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 — “Triable issue” — Late filing — Non-compliance with court directions — Affidavit in reply and written submissions filed on hearing date — Rejection/striking out — Defendant confined to oral submissions on point of law only — Discretion — Prejudice — Revenue Law / Income Tax — Recovery of tax as civil debt — Income Tax Act 1967 (Act 53) — ss 103, 106(1), 106(3), 142(1), 145(2)(c) — “Pay first, argue later” — Deemed service of notices of assessment — Certificate under s 142(1) as sufficient evidence — Court not to entertain plea that assessment excessive/incorrectly assessed — Remedy by appeal to Special Commissioners 1 case
Summary judgment — Application under O 14 Rules of Court 2012 — Evidential threshold — Whether defendant raised bona fide triable issue — Bare denials and speculative allegations — Absence of documentary proof — When summary judgment appropriate 1 case
Striking out — Statement of claim — Whether discloses reasonable cause of action — Whether frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process — Allegations of fraud, illegality and misrepresentation — Pleadings lacking particulars — Plain and obvious case — Summary jurisdiction of court — Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19(1)(a)–(d) 1 case
Striking out — Order 18 r.19(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) Rules of Court 2012 — Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable — applicable principle in Bandar Builders — Summary process to be exercised sparingly — Expiry of mining lease upon death of holder — Alleged mistake of law and frustration — Whether agreement void — Mixed questions of fact and law requiring full trial 1 case
whether dismissal of striking out action appealable — s. 68(1)(f) to read together with ss.67 and 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — Principles in MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor — Appeals filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants against this Court’s dismissals of their striking out application fall within the permissible appeals as set out in MT Ventures. 1 case
Counterclaim — Breach of contract — Exclusive distributorship — Whether Letter of Appointment prohibited delegation to third parties — Interpretation of written contract — Parol evidence rule — Sections 91 & 92 Evidence Act 1950 — Whether termination was lawful — Whether failure to protest termination amounts to waiver — Whether damages for loss of tender, inventory, and reputation recoverable — Burden of proof — Sections 101 & 102 Evidence Act 1950 — Damages under section 74 Contracts Act 1950 — Principles of Hadley v Baxendale — Mitigation of loss — Whether reputational loss claim sustainable in contract — Malik v Bank of Credit applied — Claim dismissed. 1 case
Striking out — Whether claim plainly unsustainable in law — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 Company law — Winding up — Sale and purchase agreements executed after presentation of winding-up petition — Whether void ab initio — Absence of validation order Limitation — Action founded on contract — Six-year limitation period — Whether claim time-barred — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Alleged fraud — Whether sufficient to invoke section 29 Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement of strict pleading and particulars — Whether triable issues disclosed 1 case
Trial — Re-examination of witness — Reference to document not disclosed to opposing party and not part of common bundle — Whether document admissible — Exclusion of evidence 1 case
Discovery — Pre-action discovery — Order 24, rule 7A, Rules of Court 2012 — Application for discovery after commencement of proceedings against developer — Whether application procedurally proper — Whether purpose of pre-action discovery to identify cause of action and proper party — Application dismissed 1 case
Documents sought from non-party — Application for discovery against person not a party to proceedings — Whether discovery appropriate where proceedings already commenced — Order 24, rule 7A(7), Rules of Court 2012 — Prohibition on discovery after proceedings commenced 1 case
Security for Costs — Order 23, rule 1, Rules of Court 2012 — Plaintiff ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction — Two-stage inquiry — Whether threshold condition satisfied — Exercise of judicial discretion — Factors to be considered — Plaintiff's assets within jurisdiction — Whether property subject to litigation constitutes sufficient security — Security ordered in reduced amount 1 case
Interpleader — Stakeholder — Competing claims to stakeholder fund — Solicitor holding purchase monies and title documents — Whether plaintiff entitled to be discharged from liability — Order 17 r 1 and r 3 Rules of Court 2012 — Schedule, para 5 Court of Judicature Act 1964 Contract — Sale and purchase of land — Breach — Failure to pay balance purchase price — Whether purchaser entitled to terminate agreement — Whether right of termination reserved to vendor — Contracts Act 1950 s 56 Land Law — Sale of land — Delivery of vacant possession prior to full payment — Redemption of charge — Custody of original title and security documents — Whether security documents to be retained pending completion Equity — Stakeholder funds — Beneficial ownership — Whether funds held for benefit of vendor — Estoppel — Whether purchaser precluded from reclaiming stakeholder sum — Unjust enrichment — Equitable estoppel Legal Profession — Solicitors — Duty as stakeholder — Proper discharge of stakeholder’s obligations — Right to interplead — Neutrality of stakeholder Statutory Interpretation — Effect of statutory seizure and return of funds — Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 — Whether seizure affects beneficial ownership 1 case
Originating summons — Co-ownership of immovable property — Breakdown of relationship between co-owners — Power of court to order sale — Whether just and equitable to terminate co-ownership — Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25 and Sch, para 3 — Rules of Court 2012, O 31 r 1 1 case
Summary judgment — Commercial debt — Supply of telecommunications equipment — Unpaid invoices — Clear documentary evidence — Purchase orders, delivery orders and invoices — Defence alleging coercion and additional agreement — No contemporaneous protest or supporting documents — Bare assertions — Afterthought — No bona fide triable issue — Summary judgment allowed — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 Contract — Guarantee — Letter of guarantee — Personal liability of guarantor — Guarantor admitting signature — Defence of misunderstanding and failure to read document — No fraud, misrepresentation or duress — Party bound by document signed — No triable issue — Summary judgment against guarantor — L’Estrange v Graucob applied Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Counterclaim — Striking out — Allegation of commercial conspiracy — Failure to plead essential elements — No agreement, no common design, no overt acts, no particulars of damage — Pleadings vague and speculative — No reasonable cause of action — Frivolous and vexatious — Abuse of process — Counterclaim struck out — Rules of Court 2012, O.18 r.19 Company Law — Separate legal personality — Third parties — Alleged conspirators not party to contract or alleged additional agreement — No factual nexus pleaded — Improper joinder — Counterclaim unsustainable Evidence — Burden of proof — Allegations of coercion and conspiracy — Absence of contemporaneous documents — No protest, complaint or corroborative evidence — Allegations rejected Practice and Procedure — Consolidated determination — Summary judgment and striking-out applications — Efficient disposal — Counterclaim dismissed consequent upon summary judgment 1 case
Judgment in default — Setting aside — Delay — Application made out of time — Knowledge of judgment — Failure to update contractual address — No prayer for extension of time — Laches and prejudice — Whether application fatally defective — Regularity of service — Contractual mode of service — Registered post — Deemed service — Actual receipt immaterial — Tactical applications — Real prospect of success — Stricter test — Deliberate default — Whether JIDA regularly obtained — Rules of Court 2012 O 42 r 13 — Federal Constitution, item 7(j) of the Federal List in the Ninth Schedule. 1 case
Preliminary issues — Order 33 r 2 Rules of Court 2012 — Application to determine limitation, fraudulent concealment and injury as preliminary issues — Whether issues raised are pure questions of law — Whether issues involve disputed facts and expert medical evidence — Whether determination would result in piecemeal adjudication Limitation Act 1953 ss 6(1)(a), 29 — Medical negligence — Product liability — Alleged metallosis arising from hip implant — Global recall — Alleged fraudulent concealment — Whether suitable for summary determination — Order 33 application dismissed — Action to proceed to full trial. 1 case
Striking out — Application under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) Rules of Court 2012 — Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Whether claim plainly and obviously unsustainable — Presence of triable issues — Prohibition against conducting mini-trial — Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd applied 1 case
Summary judgment — O.14 Rules of Court 2012 — Claim for payment for maintenance and repair works — Works completed and acknowledged by signed and stamped documents — Partial payments made without protest — Clear contemporaneous documentary evidence — Defences of inflated claims, collusion, absence of purchase orders and reliance on internal SOP unsupported and raised belatedly — Internal SOP not binding on plaintiff — Silence and partial payments gave rise to estoppel — No bona fide triable issue on principal sum — Summary judgment correctly granted — Contractual interest not suitable for determination under O 14. 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 4 cases Construction
Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012
cited in 2 cases Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 2 cases Limitation
Act 1953
cited in 1 case Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 1 case Limitation Act
1953
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
Page 6 of 8wa-24ncc-614-12-2024
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD v GHAM POH CHAI
18 May 2025
MYHC
ba-24ncvc-1953-09-2024
BIMAL PILLAI v 1. ) BRB MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BRB INTERNATIONAL B. V. 3. ) PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD 4. ) NIK AMRI BIN NIK MOHAMED 5. ) PAUL ANTHONY TAYLOR 6. ) AMRI BIN RAZALI
14 May 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-502-11-2021
MRADULA A/P RAMANIK LAL v 1. ) MASER (M) SDN BHD 2. ) IBRAHIM BIN MAT SEDDEK 3. ) MOHAMMAD AZAHAN BIN MAT SEDDEK 4. ) DATO' MAT SEDDEK BIN ADAM
14 May 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-60-02-2021
M9 COMPLETE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai M7 Complete Technology Sdn Bhd) v 1. ) KUM MENG WEI 2. ) SOLUMIE BINTI ODIAH 3. ) ARSHAD BIN ASRI 4. ) MILLIE JUSTINES BAHARUM
14 May 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-858-12-2024
KOK PEEK BOON v AIA BERHAD
5 May 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-860-12-2024
SHUM CHING JOO v 1. ) AIA BERHAD 2. ) AIA GENERAL BERHAD
1 May 2025
MYHC
aa-24mfc-41-01-2024
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v RUBY ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL SDN BHD
24 April 2025
MYHC
aa-24ncvc-354-07-2024
ZENN HRB SDN BHD v LIANG KEE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
24 April 2025
MYHC
wa-22m-1360-10-2024
SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v WIDAD BUSINESS GROUP SDN BHD
21 April 2025
MYHC
ba-24ncvc-49-01-2024
HAMIDAH BINTI BAJURI v ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI DAN/ATAU MENGUSAHAKAN TANAH NO. HAKMILIK PM11583, LOT 117047 MUKIM PETALING, DAERAH PETALING SELANGOR
15 April 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-86-02-2024
CIMB BANK BERHAD v 1. ) STYLO INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) NANCY YEOH AI SUAN
10 April 2025
MYHC
aa-11bncvc-4-03-2024
NAGARAJ A/L SUBRAMANIAM v GANESH A/L AHWALY
8 April 2025
MYHC
wa-12bm-1-10-2024
GREAT EASTERN TAKAFUL BERHAD v ABDUL RASHID BIN AKHBAR ALI
7 April 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-489-09-2022
AXIATA DIGITAL CAPITAL SDN BHD v 1. ) WONDER 7 GLOBAL SDN BHD 2. ) KHOR BOON GUAN 3. ) GAN JOO KEE 4. ) MIRICA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) MIKAR SOLUTIONS PLT 6. ) MAK WENG WAH 7. ) MIR MAJU ENTERPREISE SDN BHD 8. ) VENCUBATOR SDN BHD 9. ) FOOD BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 10. ) EAT AT NANYANG SDN BHD 11. ) BIGO INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 12. ) HOSPITALITY INNO CHAIN SDN BHD 13. ) BIG WELL PLT 14. ) TAN ENG GEE 15. ) LOI DER LIANG
7 April 2025
MYHC
wa-28ncc-1029-11-2024
TRILLION OSCAR SDN BHD v TIMUR ENTERPRISE SDN BHD PENCELAH Su Ming Jiun
26 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-110-02-2024
1. ) MAXI WONDER SDN BHD 2. ) FONG SAU YING 3. ) DATO' PANG YEE TECK 4. ) TAN HUI KANG 5. ) ONG AH CHOO v DCS TRADING SDN BHD
25 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22m-1787-12-2023
OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD v 1. ) BRAHIM'S HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) FAHIM CAPITAL SDN BHD
20 March 2025
MYHC
ja-22ncvc-60-05-2023
KOAY KIM HOE (menuntut sebagai nominee SOMPO INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD dan untuk diri sendiri) v WONG CHENG NUN (Passport No. F8357492P, seorang warganegara Malaysia yang beralamat di Malaysia)
18 March 2025
MYHC
ka-24ncvc-682-09-2018
MOHD MUSYRIFF BIN AHMAD TAJUDDIN v 1. ) NADIRAH BINTI AHMAD 2. ) AZUDEN BIN AZIZ 3. ) ABDUL RAHAMAN BIN WAN LAH
16 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-708-10-2024
TAI MA HEAVY MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) CCP SHEET PILING SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) 2. ) CHEONG CHIN PAU 3. ) CHONG CHIN LOON 4. ) EU CHEE CHONG
11 March 2025
MYHC
ba-12b-28-03-2024
E-KOMODITI SDN BHD v CENTURY SOFTWARE SDN BHD
5 March 2025
MYHC
wa-24ncc-490-10-2024
Khee San Food Industries Sdn Bhd v Adam Primus Varghese Bin Abdullah
5 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22m-1515-09-2023
1. ) RADIANT SPLENDOUR SDN BHD 2. ) RAJESH A/L JAIKISHAN v DR MOHAMMAD HANIS BIN OSMAN
2 March 2025
MYHC
wa-22m-503-05-2024
BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD v 1. ) Temasek Blooms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dato' Colin Tan June Teng @ Chen Junting 3. ) Dato' Edwin Tan Ping Huang @ Chen Binghuang
9 February 2025
MYHC
w-02imncvc-979-05-2022
Karen Nicola Lawrie v Bumi Armada Berhad
6 February 2025
MYCOA