TEO YUN HOCK 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 4. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 5. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN 6. ) GO AUTO SERVICE

TEO YUN HOCK 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 4. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 5. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN 6. ) GO AUTO SERVICE

The court dismissed the 15th defendant's striking out application primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application; alternatively the court found the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient particulars of fraud and that absence of contractual privity did not preclude liability where fraud is alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Teo Yun Hock; 1st Defendant: Autohome Motor Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Go Auto Sales Sdn. Bhd.; 3rd Defendant: Sheikh Mohamad Azli bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal; 4th Defendant: Sheikh Mohamad Azrul bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal; 5th Defendant: Ahmad Azam bin Sulaiman; 6th Defendant: Go Auto Services Sdn Bhd; 7th Defendant: Goauto Group Sdn Bhd; 8th Defendant: Intro Synergy Sdn Bhd; 9th Defendant: Nexv Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd.; 10th Defendant: SPE Foundation; 11th Defendant: Aspire Arena Sdn. Bhd.; 12th Defendant: SMS Auto World Sdn. Bhd.; 13th Defendant: Phoenix Pinnacle Sdn. Bhd.; 14th Defendant: Farok bin Maasom; 15th Defendant: Dato’ Sheikh Mohamad Shalahuddin Ayubi Kamal Azad bin Sheikh Mohamad Amin; 16th Defendant: Wan Ahmad bin Wan Omar; 17th Defendant: Go Automobile Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd.; 18th Defendant: Joy Design Studio Sdn. Bhd.; 19th Defendant: W & R Resources Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 October 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Writ Summons (civil) / Interlocutory – Application to Strike Out Dismissed; Trial Fixed (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to strike out filed by 15th defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance / Conspiracy, Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19, Mareva Injunction, Lifting the Corporate Veil, Privity of Contract
Contract Equity Tort Companies Law Civil Procedure Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teo Yun Hock

Plaintiff

Autohome Motor Sdn. Bhd.

1st Defendant

Go Auto Sales Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Sheikh Mohamad Azli bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal

3rd Defendant

Sheikh Mohamad Azrul bin Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal

4th Defendant

Ahmad Azam bin Sulaiman

5th Defendant

Go Auto Services Sdn Bhd

6th Defendant

Goauto Group Sdn Bhd

7th Defendant

Intro Synergy Sdn Bhd

8th Defendant

Nexv Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd.

9th Defendant

SPE Foundation

10th Defendant

Aspire Arena Sdn. Bhd.

11th Defendant

SMS Auto World Sdn. Bhd.

12th Defendant

Phoenix Pinnacle Sdn. Bhd.

13th Defendant

Farok bin Maasom

14th Defendant

Dato’ Sheikh Mohamad Shalahuddin Ayubi Kamal Azad bin Sheikh Mohamad Amin

15th Defendant

Wan Ahmad bin Wan Omar

16th Defendant

Go Automobile Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd.

17th Defendant

Joy Design Studio Sdn. Bhd.

18th Defendant

W & R Resources Sdn. Bhd.

19th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Writ Summons (civil) / Interlocutory – Application to Strike Out Dismissed; Trial Fixed (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate delay in filing striking out application warrants refusal
  2. 2 Whether particulars of fraud were sufficiently pleaded
  3. 3 Whether 15th defendant can avoid liability for alleged fraud on basis of lack of privity

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the 15th defendant's striking out application primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application; alternatively the court found the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient particulars of fraud and that absence of contractual privity did not preclude liability where fraud is alleged and the corporate veil may be pierced. Costs of RM5000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out filed by 15th defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs of RM 5,000 to the plaintiff subject to allocatur
  • Matter remains fixed for trial commencing 24-07-2026