Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allegation of fraud

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2025

SENTIASA LEGA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. RXT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A54-194-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A54-194-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The ex parte warrant of distress was properly granted because the plaintiff established all statutory prerequisites under Section 5 Distress Act 1951 (landlord-tenant relationship and rent arrears totaling RM280,000); the lease permitted termination for non-payment under clause 7.1; the defendant failed to prove fraud or any defense to negate the arrears; and the deposit could not be applied without landlord's written consent — therefore the defendant's application to set aside the ex parte order is dismissed with costs RM3,000.
30 Jul 2024

CK RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 1. ) Shivdev Singh A/l Lal Harcharan Singh (Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Tetuan L. H. Singh & Co.) 2. ) DSG HOLDING SDN BHD

Citation

AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed intervener acted and signed the consent judgment as agent/director of Defendant One and not in a personal capacity; he failed to demonstrate a separate direct interest or credible evidence of fraud or forgery that would justify intervention under O 15 r 6(2)(b); therefore the application to intervene is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
23 Apr 2024

PUTRI SHAZANA BINTI MEGAT ABDUL RAHIM SELINA CHONG BINTI ABDULLAH PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia

Citation

WA-22NCvC-651-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-651-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Judgment-in-Default was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to prove defective service or produce a prima facie meritorious defence and offered unconvinced explanations for the near four-year delay, therefore the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded.
23 Feb 2023

1. ) XXXX 2. ) SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD 1. ) JAMILAH BINTI SHEIKH DAUD 2. ) DR.ABDUL RAHIMAN BIN DATUK A.S. DAWOOD 3. ) MOHAMED IBRAHIM BIN DATUK A.S. DAWOOD 4. ) NASEEM BINTI MOHAMED ABDULLA 5. ) PASLA HOLDINGS SDN.BHD. 6. ) AZINAL SDN.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim was dismissed because the pleadings allege fraud and breach of trust which raise serious issues fit to be tried; the claim is not plainly and obviously unsustainable and amendment to the Statement of Claim was allowed; therefore the matter must proceed to trial and the strike out power under Order 18 Rule 19 should not be exercised.
15 Jul 2022

SENEBA CRYSTAR SDN. BHD. DCS TRADING SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-191-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-191-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant demonstrated a caveatable interest and raised serious questions warranting trial; the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo and therefore the plaintiff's application to remove the caveat must be dismissed and the caveat remain in force, with costs awarded to defendant.
31 Jan 2022

LUGENDRAN A/L SELVARAJA SARAN A/L BATHUMALAI PENCELAH ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

Citation

BK-A53KJ-126-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-A53KJ-126-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit deposed by its solicitor was inadmissible because it contained contentious facts and should have been sworn by the plaintiff; the applicant (insurer) demonstrated a timely bona fide prima facie case and, given its statutory exposure under s.96 RTA and the aim to avoid multiplicity and injustice, was entitled to intervene and be added as the second defendant under O.15 r.6 ROC 2012.
4 Jan 2022

KWAN SUE YUAN iHEAL MEDICAL SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-130-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-130-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff's claim was founded on allegations of fraud which O.14 r.1(2)(b) bars from summary disposal; the plaintiff's evidential basis (an unsigned, undated one-page internal summary) was insufficient to establish the losses without trial, the voluntariness and admissibility of the defendant's admissions required full testing at trial, and disputed issues concerning employer identity/secondment and applicable notice period were bona fide triable issues; hence the Sessions Court's summary judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for full tr…
29 Dec 2021

FRANKLIN RAJ 1. SUSAI A/L AROKIASAMY 2. CITHAMBARAM MUTHALIYAR A/L YAHAMPARAM 3. CHUBB INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

KB-A53KJ-133-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-A53KJ-133-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because the Third Defendant's counterclaim and pleadings are founded on allegations of fraud (including alleged failure to give notice under s96(2) Road Transport Act 1987). Order 14 expressly excludes summary judgment for claims based on fraud and the pleadings and affidavit material disclose triable issues (existence of accident, injuries and alleged fraud) that require full trial; therefore summary judgment is inappropriate.
22 Oct 2021

1. SHAWAL BIN MARSOM 2. SITI ARUMI BINTI ASNGAD 3. NUR FADHIAH QISTINA BINTI SHAWAL 4. JASTINA YANTI BINTI MD SARDI 1.MOHAMAD ZAKI BIN MOHD RADZI 2.PACIFIC & ORIENT CO. SDN BHD

Citation

BL-12B-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12B-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's apportionment (30:70) was set aside because the appellate court found a serious misapprehension and insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence: the IO's investigation was unreliable, police reports were inconsistent, there was no direct or reliable evidence linking the 1st Defendant to the collision as pleaded, and therefore the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof; appellants' appeals allowed and plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
23 May 2021

1. GOH HAI LOONG 2. LING KEA CHEW KER ZEE WEI

Citation

JA-12ANCVC-31-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCVC-31-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the JID was regularly obtained, the defendants filed the set-aside application after an unexplained and substantial delay (approx. 17 months) and their alleged defence of fraud was unpleaded and unsupported by evidence, the court upheld the Sessions Court decision and dismissed the appeal; delay and lack of meritorious defence warranted refusal to set aside the JID.