Category: Civil Procedure

LEGAL UPDATES – CIVIL PROCEDURE – MENTAL HEALTH – HIGH COURT FREEZES ASSETS BEFORE MENTAL CAPACITY IS DETERMINED

Can the High Court freeze a person’s assets before deciding whether he or she lacks mental capacity? In Ong Tjoei Aik Harold v Gan Siew Mui @ Gan Yook Hwa (F) & Ors [2026] 10 MLJ 115, the High Court answered yes. The Court held that, although the Mental Health Act 2001 only confers powers over a person’s estate after a declaration of incapacity, the High Court may exercise its inherent and equitable jurisdiction to grant urgent interim injunctions to preserve assets where there is a real risk of dissipation. The decision is an important authority on protecting vulnerable persons and ensuring that mental capacity proceedings are not undermined by the disappearance of the estate before the court can determine the merits.

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – HIGH COURT ORDERS SECURITY FOR COSTS AGAINST HIDDEN FUNDER – CHAMPERTOUS FEATURES TRIGGER O 23 R 1(2A) ROC

In Syed Sazlee bin Syed Hamzah (as executor) v Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 937, the High Court ordered RM400,000 in security for costs against a non-party funder, Khoo Kiam Chong (“KKC”), after finding strong evidence that he financed and controlled the litigation in return for 47.5% of the recovery. The Court held that the POA, Declaration of Trust and Agreement for Shares bore clear champertous characteristics, and that the estate lacked assets and had a history of unpaid costs, creating a real risk of non-payment. Applying Order 23 rule 1(2A)(b), the Court imposed RM250,000 and RM150,000 as security while ensuring the amount would not stifle the claim.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – ACTION – CAPACITY TO SUE

Can a Management Corporation (MC) or Joint Management Body (JMB) sue for defamation?

CIVIL PROCEDURE – INJUNCTION – INTERIM INJUNCTION

How’s interlocutory injunction granted? How can it be set aside?