Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

The Counterclaim was struck out as against the named Counterclaim Defendants because the Misappropriation Claim was conceded as legally defective for want of locus standi (proper plaintiff rule and reflective loss) and the Beneficial Ownership Claim was plainly unsustainable on admitted facts and law (resulting trust in favour of Dawama, absence of contemporaneous evidence, contradiction by registered shareholders, fatal non‑joinder of Dawama, and abuse of process), thereby meeting the threshold for strike out under Order 18 Rule 19.

Citation
WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff; 7th Defendant in the Counterclaim: SYMMID CORPORATION SDN. BHD.; Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff: NURHASLINA BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 1st Defendant in the Counterclaim: DATO' NORHISAM BIN MOHAMED NOR; 2nd Defendant in the Counterclaim: DATO' NORHAZRI BIN MOHAMED NOR; 3rd Defendant in the Counterclaim: NURHAFIZAH BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 4th Defendant in the Counterclaim: NURKHAIRUN NISA BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 5th Defendant in the Counterclaim: NOR ZULFAQAR BIN MOHAMED NOR; 6th Defendant in the Counterclaim: MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN; 8th Defendant in the Counterclaim: PUBLIKA ENTITY SDN BHD; 9th Defendant in the Counterclaim: ADMIRAL DREAMS SDN BHD; 10th Defendant in the Counterclaim: NOUR VISION SDN BHD; 11th Defendant in the Counterclaim: PROMINENT STRIKES SDN BHD; 12th Defendant in the Counterclaim: ELAF FOOD SDN BHD; 13th Defendant in the Counterclaim: NOKTAH LAKSAMANA SDN BHD; 14th Defendant in the Counterclaim: CREATE TEQ SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 July 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (company/equity) / Interlocutory Applications and Summary Judgment (grounds of Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Counterclaim struck out as against the 1st, 3rd to 5th, and 7th to 14th Counterclaim Defendants; summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff; prohibitory and Mareva injunctions by Counterclaim Plaintiff dismissed; prior Mareva application rendered academic.
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Proper Plaintiff Rule (foss V Harbottle), Reflective Loss, Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Resulting Trust, Non‑joinder of Necessary Parties, Mareva Injunction, Summary Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Injunctions Commercial Law Derivative Action Proper Plaintiff Rule (foss V Harbottle) Reflective Loss +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SYMMID CORPORATION SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff; 7th Defendant in the Counterclaim

NURHASLINA BINTI MOHAMED NOR

Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff

DATO' NORHISAM BIN MOHAMED NOR

1st Defendant in the Counterclaim

DATO' NORHAZRI BIN MOHAMED NOR

2nd Defendant in the Counterclaim

NURHAFIZAH BINTI MOHAMED NOR

3rd Defendant in the Counterclaim

NURKHAIRUN NISA BINTI MOHAMED NOR

4th Defendant in the Counterclaim

NOR ZULFAQAR BIN MOHAMED NOR

5th Defendant in the Counterclaim

MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN

6th Defendant in the Counterclaim

PUBLIKA ENTITY SDN BHD

8th Defendant in the Counterclaim

ADMIRAL DREAMS SDN BHD

9th Defendant in the Counterclaim

NOUR VISION SDN BHD

10th Defendant in the Counterclaim

PROMINENT STRIKES SDN BHD

11th Defendant in the Counterclaim

ELAF FOOD SDN BHD

12th Defendant in the Counterclaim

NOKTAH LAKSAMANA SDN BHD

13th Defendant in the Counterclaim

CREATE TEQ SDN BHD

14th Defendant in the Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (company/equity) / Interlocutory Applications and Summary Judgment (grounds of Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the named Counterclaim Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Counterclaim Plaintiff has locus standi to bring claims for misappropriation on behalf of Symmid
  3. 3 Whether the Beneficial Ownership Claim is sustainable given admitted funding by Dawama and absence of contemporaneous evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Counterclaim was struck out as against the named Counterclaim Defendants because the Misappropriation Claim was conceded as legally defective for want of locus standi (proper plaintiff rule and reflective loss) and the Beneficial Ownership Claim was plainly unsustainable on admitted facts and law (resulting trust in favour of Dawama, absence of contemporaneous evidence, contradiction by registered shareholders, fatal non‑joinder of Dawama, and abuse of process), thereby meeting the threshold for strike out under Order 18 Rule 19.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim struck out as against the 1st, 3rd to 5th, and 7th to 14th Counterclaim Defendants; summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff; prohibitory and Mareva injunctions by Counterclaim Plaintiff dismissed; prior Mareva application rendered academic.

Orders

  • Enclosures 70, 58 and 81 allowed and the Counterclaim dated 10.12.2024 struck out as against the 1st, 3rd to 5th, and 7th to 14th Counterclaim Defendants with costs awarded to the respective applicants.
  • Enclosure 60 allowed with costs; summary judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff.