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 Court struck out the Counterclaim as against the 1st, 3rd-5th and 7th-14th defendants (and separately against Mesriah) because the misappropriation claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to lack of locus standi and the counterclaimant's concessions, and the beneficial ownership claims were plainly and obviously unsustainable: funding from Dawama creates a presumption of resulting trust favoring Dawama, there is no contemporaneous evidence to rebut that presumption, the claims contradict established corporate law principles and suffer fatal non-joinder of Dawama; the pleadings were frivolous/vexatious or an abuse of process, satisfying the Order 18 Rule 19 threshold.

Citation
WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / 7th Defendant in Counterclaim: SYMMID CORPORATION SDN. BHD.; Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff: NURHASLINA BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 1st Defendant in Counterclaim: DATO' NORHISAM BIN MOHAMED NOR; 2nd Defendant in Counterclaim: DATO' NORHAZRI BIN MOHAMED NOR; 3rd Defendant in Counterclaim: NURHAFIZAH BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 4th Defendant in Counterclaim: NURKHAIRUN NISA BINTI MOHAMED NOR; 5th Defendant in Counterclaim: NOR ZULFAQAR BIN MOHAMED NOR; 6th Defendant in Counterclaim: MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN; 8th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): PUBLIKA ENTITY SDN BHD; 9th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): ADMIRAL DREAMS SDN BHD; 10th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): NOUR VISION SDN BHD; 11th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): PROMINENT STRIKES SDN BHD; 12th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): ELAF FOOD SDN BHD; 13th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company): NOKTAH LAKSAMANA SDN BHD; 14th Defendant in 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
Commercial Civil Suit (main Claim for Recovery and Counterclaim Involving Company/beneficial Ownership and Injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Stage: Striking Out Applications and Summary Judgment Applications Decided; Grounds of Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Applications to strike out (Enclosures 70, 58 and 81) and summary judgment (Enclosure 60) allowed; Counterclaim struck out as to specified defendants; Counterclaim Plaintiff's prohibitory and Mareva injunction application (Enclosure 25) dismissed; Enclosure 3 rendered academic
Legal Topics
Proper Plaintiff Rule, Derivative Action (s347 Companies Act 2016), Reflective Loss, Resulting Trust, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Mareva Injunction, Summary Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Injunctions Proper Plaintiff Rule Derivative Action (s347 Companies Act 2016) Reflective Loss Resulting Trust +3 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SYMMID CORPORATION SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff / 7th Defendant in Counterclaim

NURHASLINA BINTI MOHAMED NOR

Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff

DATO' NORHISAM BIN MOHAMED NOR

1st Defendant in Counterclaim

DATO' NORHAZRI BIN MOHAMED NOR

2nd Defendant in Counterclaim

NURHAFIZAH BINTI MOHAMED NOR

3rd Defendant in Counterclaim

NURKHAIRUN NISA BINTI MOHAMED NOR

4th Defendant in Counterclaim

NOR ZULFAQAR BIN MOHAMED NOR

5th Defendant in Counterclaim

MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN

6th Defendant in Counterclaim

PUBLIKA ENTITY SDN BHD

8th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

ADMIRAL DREAMS SDN BHD

9th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

NOUR VISION SDN BHD

10th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

PROMINENT STRIKES SDN BHD

11th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

ELAF FOOD SDN BHD

12th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

NOKTAH LAKSAMANA SDN BHD

13th Defendant in Counterclaim (family Holding Company)

CREATE TEQ SDN BHD

14th Defendant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Suit (main Claim for Recovery and Counterclaim Involving Company/beneficial Ownership and Injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Stage: Striking Out Applications and Summary Judgment Applications Decided; Grounds of Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Counterclaim Plaintiff has locus standi to pursue misappropriation claims on behalf of the company
  2. 2 Whether the proper plaintiff rule and principle against reflective loss bar the Counterclaim Plaintiff's personal claims
  3. 3 Whether alleged beneficial ownership and nominee arrangements are sustainable given admitted source of funding (Dawama)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court struck out the Counterclaim as against the 1st, 3rd-5th and 7th-14th defendants (and separately against Mesriah) because the misappropriation claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to lack of locus standi and the counterclaimant's concessions, and the beneficial ownership claims were plainly and obviously unsustainable: funding from Dawama creates a presumption of resulting trust favoring Dawama, there is no contemporaneous evidence to rebut that presumption, the claims contradict established corporate law principles and suffer fatal non-joinder of Dawama; the pleadings were frivolous/vexatious or an abuse of process, satisfying the Order 18 Rule 19 threshold.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out (Enclosures 70, 58 and 81) and summary judgment (Enclosure 60) allowed; Counterclaim struck out as to specified defendants; Counterclaim Plaintiff's prohibitory and Mareva injunction application (Enclosure 25) dismissed; Enclosure 3 rendered academic

Orders

  • Enclosures 70, 58 and 81 allowed with costs awarded to the respective applicants
  • Enclosure 60 allowed with costs and summary judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff (Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd.)