Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion - Sources confirm O 29 r 3 restricts pre-originating process applications (normally by notice) to urgent cases, but no documented applications of this via notice prior to issuance; emphasis on ex parte urgency under r 1 to avoid abuse, with discharge risks if process not promptly issued. Related striking out for circumventing processes noted, but no exact matches. ["CHAI JOOK KEW vs CHAI JEN CHIEW & ANOR - High Court"] ["Expro Marine Sdn Bhd vs Amalgamated Plant Engineering Sdn Bhd - High Court"] ["WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd vs Ahmad Zul-Qarnain bin Ibrahim (on behalf of the Mental Health Committee of Datoâ Puan Sri Hamidah bt Abdullah vide Court Order dated 04.05.2021 in Kuala Lumpur) - High Court"]
In the complex world of Malaysian civil procedure, practitioners often grapple with the timing of applications relative to originating processes. A common query arises: Find me cases that applied Order 29 Rule 3 of Rules of Court 2012, where notice of application is initiated prior to originating process. This question targets scenarios where notice under Order 29 Rule 3—typically concerning applications for leave or other preliminary steps—is served before the main originating summons or writ. Understanding this can be crucial for avoiding procedural pitfalls in litigation.
This post examines available legal materials, reveals the absence of direct precedents, and explores related rules to provide practical guidance. Note that this is general information based on reviewed documents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012 generally deals with applications requiring notice, such as those for leave to commence proceedings or interlocutory relief. Rule 3 specifically addresses the mode and timing of such notice. While exact text isn't quoted here, it emphasizes serving notice before the originating process in certain pre-action contexts to ensure fairness. Pre-action originating summons are tools for urgent matters like injunctions or declarations before full pleadings, but they must comply strictly with procedural timelines.
The challenge? No reviewed judgments directly apply or interpret Order 29 Rule 3 in pre-action scenarios. This gap highlights the need for careful research beyond standard databases.
A thorough analysis of Malaysian judgments shows no documents referencing Order 29 Rule 3 in the context of pre-action originating summons applications. Materials focus on adjacent provisions:
These rules intersect procedurally but do not address notice prior to originating processes under Order 29 Rule 3. No timeline analysis or inter-document links tie back to the query.
While direct cases are absent, other documents illuminate procedural norms around originating summons (Order 7), motions (Order 8), service (Order 10), and appearances (Order 12). These provide context for pre-action steps:
These cases, under Rules of the High Court 1980 (predecessors to 2012 rules), emphasize fairness in pre-originating steps—echoing potential principles for Order 29 Rule 3. For example, delays or weak grounds rarely justify ex parte relief: The grounds for seeking extensions must be solidly supported; mere difficulties faced by counsel do not justify delay. UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)
Other tangential sources, like those on possession actions under Order 83 Rule 3, interpret related timelines but not Order 29. PERWIRA HABIB BANK MALAYSIA BHD vs LUM CHOON REALTY SDN BHD Non-Malaysian cases (e.g., on customs rules or Indian bail) were reviewed but excluded as irrelevant.
Without Order 29 Rule 3 cases, patterns from analogs offer guidance:
| Rule | Key Principle | Example Citation ||------|---------------|------------------|| Order 28 r8 | Convert on factual disputes | GREEN NATURE GRANDEUR SDN BHD & ORS vs COMPANIES COMMISSIONS OF MALAYSIA & ORS (NO 2) - 2018 MarsdenLR 2084KMC PARTNERS BERHAD vs VICTOR SAW SENG KEE & ORS (ENCLS 2 79 & 102) - 2025 MarsdenLR 539 || Order 18 r19 | Strike unsustainable claims | DATO DENNIS GANENDRA vs DATO ROSALINE GANENDRA & ANOR (ENCLS 8 & 10) - 2021 MarsdenLR 428TASJA SDN BHD vs GOLDEN APPROACH SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 2689 || Order 12 | No ex parte extensions typically | UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2) || Order 20 | Amendments discretionary | ALLOY CONSOLIDATED SDN BHD & ANOR vs DATO DR HJ ADAM HARUN - 2011 MarsdenLR 4744 |
These discretionary elements—context-dependent and fairness-oriented—may indirectly inform Order 29 applications.
No exceptions to Order 29 Rule 3 emerge due to the evidentiary gap. Generally, procedural relief hinges on bona fides and timeliness. For pre-action notice:- Serve promptly to avoid abuse claims.- Demonstrate urgency without factual disputes.- Prefer inter partes where possible, per ex parte critiques. UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)
Recommendations:- Search broader databases (e.g., CLJ, MLJ) for unreviewed cases.- For originating summons, flag disputes early to trigger Order 28 conversion. GREEN NATURE GRANDEUR SDN BHD & ORS vs COMPANIES COMMISSIONS OF MALAYSIA & ORS (NO 2) - 2018 MarsdenLR 2084- Engage counsel to tailor applications, avoiding ex parte overreach. UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)
Direct cases applying Order 29 Rule 3 to pre-action originating summons remain elusive in the reviewed materials, limiting definitive analysis. However, related rules like Orders 28, 18, 12, and 20 reveal a judiciary prioritizing procedural fairness, factual clarity, and inter partes engagement.
Key Takeaways:- No high-confidence matches for Order 29 Rule 3; expand research.- Analog cases warn against procedural shortcuts (e.g., invalid ex parte orders). UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)UNI WALL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES SDN BHD vs GLOBAL UPLINE SDN BHD (NO 2)- Prioritize demonstrating genuine disputes or urgency in pre-action steps.
This underscores the nuanced nature of Malaysian civil procedure. For personalized advice, consult a legal professional. Stay informed on rules updates to navigate court processes effectively.
#RulesOfCourt2012, #LegalProcedures, #MalaysiaLaw
The Defendants Notice of Application dated 18.7.2024 seeks to strike out the Plaintiffs Originating Summons pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012Court for interim injunctive relief and instead ... The Originating Summons is an abuse of process as it attempts to circumvent the Plaintiffs pending Stay Application and winding-up proceedings in the Winding-Up #HL....
Order 7. Originating Summonses: General Provisions. Order 8. Originating and other Motions: General Provisions. Order 10. Service of Originating Process: General Provisions. Order 12. Entry of Appearance to Writ or Originating Summons. Order 15. ... to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. ... The said O 25 r 7 provides only one exception which is an applicati....
Order 7. Originating Summonses: General Provisions. Order 8. Originating and other Motions: General Provisions. Order 10. Service of Originating Process: General Provisions. Order 12. Entry of Appearance to Writ or Originating Summons. ... of it to 29 January 2010 is an abuse of the courts process. ... According to cases like Lee Phet Boon v. Hock Thai Finance Corp Bh....
to 29 January 2010 is an abuse of the courts process. ... Service of Originating Process: General Provisions. Order 12. Entry of Appearance to Writ or Originating Summons. Order 15. Causes of Action, Counterclaims and Parties. ... to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. ... According to cases like Lee Phet Boon v. Hock Th....
According to cases like ; [1994] 2 MLJ 448; [1994] 3 CLJ 466; and ; [1997] 3 MLJ 671; [1997] 4 CLJ 544; [1997] 4 AMR 3912, CA, an application to set aside an ex parte order is not an appeal and a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction ... Service of Originating Process: General Provisions. Order 12. Entry of Appearance to Writ or Originating Summons. Order 15. Causes of Action, Counterclaims and Partie....
Application Under Order 29 Rules 1 And 2 Of The Rules Of 2012 [6] The plaintiff's application is made by virtue of O 29 rr 1 and 2 of the Rules. ... (4) An order under this rule may be made on such terms, if any, as the court thinks just. (5) An application for an order under this rule shall be made by way of a no....
The legal procedures for the ex-parte application for an ex-parte interim injunction are clearly spelt out in Order 29 rule 1 (2A), (2B) and (2BA) of the Rules of Court 2012. ... related to injunctive reliefs after the Originating Summons was served to the Defendant could not be entertained by this Court for non-compliance to Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of #HL_....
According to Order 29 rule 1 (1), a party who has not pleaded a claim for injunction in his originating process may be granted an interlocutory injunction, and similarly, a party who has expressly pleaded a claim for injunction in his originating process may also be granted an interlocutory injunction ... Flowing from this trite principle, Order 29 rule 1 (1) of our Rules of Court#HL_EN....
According to Order 29 rule 1 (1), a party who has not pleaded a claim for injunction in his originating process may be granted an interlocutory injunction, and similarly, a party who has expressly pleaded a claim for injunction in his originating process may also be granted an interlocutory injunction ... Flowing from this trite principle, Order 29 rule 1 (1) of our Rules of Court#HL_EN....
[29]Rule 3 of the order provides: 3 Action for possession or payment (O 83 r 3) (1) The affidavit in support of the originating summons by which an action to which this rule applies is begun must comply with the following provisions ... But, the Court was actually interpreting the words "mortgage or other charge" in s 2(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, an Act passed prior to the NLC and the cases r....
The second limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the premium has been charged in respect of an extent of land Ac.160.462 under the premises of acquired land prior to the first date of July, 1994, but in fact, a larger portion of the acquired land was acquired by the petitioners’ farm at subsequent dates, as detailed in Annexure-2. 2. Assailing the impugned notice, Sri Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the proceeding as appears from Anenxure-3 was initiated in 1994 and the provision applied therein under Sub-Rul....
It was, therefore, clear that refined gold was available in abundance in Indonesia for fulfilling the requirements of India. In view of the confirmation by the Indonesian authorities that the jewellery exported to India were manufactured entirely using gold mined in Indonesia, Rule 12 of the Customs Tariff Origin Rules did not apply. Fourthly, the impugned Circular referred to Rule 12 of the Customs Tariff Origin Rules which applied to goods manufactured using both originating and non-originating goods.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.02.2012 passed the following order:- Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 29.03.2012 passed the following order:- Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 29.3.2012 passed the following order:- Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
