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 8 of 8rayuan-sivil-no-02f-29-03-2017w
TAN WEI HONG & 4 LAGI v PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA DI RAJA MALAYSIA & 4 LAGI
21 May 2018
MYFC
bka-1-12-2014p
GIN POH HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. 222445-X) (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) … v 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF PENANG 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA 3. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND MINES PENANG 4. THE LAND ADMINISTRATOR, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, PENANG 5. THE CHIEF MINISTER OF PENANG (INCORPORATION) 6. THE CHIEF MINISTER OF PENANG
11 March 2018
MYFC
02-21-03-2015w
DR HARI KRISHNAN DR MOHAMAD NAMAZIE … APPELLANTS v MEGAT NOOR ISHAK BIN MEGAT IBRAHIM 2. THE TUN HUSSEIN ONN NATIONAL EYE HOSPITAL
13 December 2017
MYFC
02f-11-2011w
1. Ooi Woon Chee 2. Ng Kim Tuck v Sew Teow Guan & 26 Lagi
25 September 2017
MYFC
02f-16-03-2019j
LIM CHOON SENG v LIM POH KWEE
31 December 1899
MYFC