CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal
10 cases · February 2024 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
3 24
5 25
2 26
2024–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Application to strike out appeal — Notice of Appeal defective and Record of Appeal filed out of time — Whether appeal defective and incompetent –O. 55 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 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 Whether Sessions Court judge was correct in not admitting defendant's affidavit in reply 1 Non-compliance with filing and service requirements and timelines — Whether delay fatal — Whether appeal should be struck out 1 Appellate intervention — Reluctance to disturb findings of fact — Whether trial judge misdirected herself in assessment of evidence — Whether lack of judicial appreciation of evidence — Whether trial judge misdirected herself in law — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1
Application to strike out appeal — Notice of Appeal defective and Record of Appeal filed out of time — Whether appeal defective and incompetent –O. 55 Rules of Court 2012 1 case
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
Whether Sessions Court judge was correct in not admitting defendant's affidavit in reply 1 case
Non-compliance with filing and service requirements and timelines — Whether delay fatal — Whether appeal should be struck out 1 case
Appellate intervention — Reluctance to disturb findings of fact — Whether trial judge misdirected herself in assessment of evidence — Whether lack of judicial appreciation of evidence — Whether trial judge misdirected herself in law — Whether appellate intervention warranted 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 4 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 2 cases Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 2 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Athi & Seelan 1 Krish Mano & Associates 1 Yek & Co. 1 Lee Sharen 1 Abdul, Low & Partners 1 Khairul & Shuhada 1 Zamri Ibrahim & Co 1 Attorney General Chamber 1 Deidra Sharina & Co. 1 Kinv's Law Office 1 Tan Chong Li & Co 1 Ming & Partners 1 Shearn Delamore & Co. 1 Dennis Mahen.R & Aida 1 Raj, Ong & Yudistra 1
Top Lawyers
Athithan a/l Singaravelu 1 Balakrishna Balaravi Pillai 1 Yek Jo-Ee 1 Ben Lee Kam Foo 1 Atiqah Maisarah Binti Azrul Hisham 1 Irman Al-Syafeeq bin Mohd Simin 1 Muhammad Izhar bin Mohd Salehuddin 1 Mohammad Yunus bin Razak 1 Khairul Anuar bin Musa 1 Nurul Waheda Abd Rahman 1 Zamri Ibrahim 1 Nur Asnani Binti Mohd Basharuddin 1 Tan Kinv Tat 1 Earn Yee 1 Tan Chong Lii 1
Cases
wa-16a-156-09-2025
ORIENT BB SDN BHD v NOOR AZRI FIRDAUS BIN NOOR AZMAN
28 January 2026
MYHC
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
wa-12ancc-54-08-2023
Troy Information Technology Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Heitech Padu Berhad
25 April 2024
MYHC
wa-12bncc-28-08-2023
LIM CHEE YONG v THONG HOE KHIN
16 April 2024
MYHC
wa-12bncc-20-07-2023
PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD v 1. ) MARIANA BINTI MUHAMMAD 2. ) MOHAMMAD SELIM BIN MAKBUL AHAMAD 3. ) MUHAMMAD ARHAM MIKHAIL (adalah budak bawah umur yang menuntut melalui Ibu yang sah, Mariana Binti Muhammad)
4 February 2024
MYHC