Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of court order

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found that D2 and D3 wilfully failed to comply with the Order and the CSO, constituting contempt; leave to commence committal was properly granted because a prima facie case was established and guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the imposed sentence and costs.
24 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that D2 and D3 failed to comply with the judgment and the CSO to deposit RM2,000,000, that the failure constituted wilful contempt of court established beyond reasonable doubt at the leave stage, that leave for committal was properly granted, and accordingly convicted D2 and D3 of contempt; sentencing was imposed on D3 (sole proprietor and advocate) as recorded and the applications by D2 and D3 to set aside the leave were dismissed.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found D2 and D3 guilty of contempt because they wilfully and deliberately failed to comply with the Judgment and the Conditional Stay Order; leave to commence committal was properly granted after a prima facie showing; evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 dismissed, and sentences were imposed as recorded.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that D2 and D3 wilfully and knowingly failed to comply with the express terms of the Court Order and the Conditional Stay Order to deposit the specified sums; the plaintiff and D1 discharged the burden at the leave stage establishing a prima facie case of contempt; accordingly leave was properly granted and D2 and D3 were guilty of contempt, warranting committal and fines; D3's status as an advocate made compliance imperative and supported the impose sentence and conditions for staying imprisonment.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that D2 and D3 had failed to comply with the Order and the Conditional Stay Order, that the leave for committal was properly granted on a prima facie case, and that the breach was wilful and amounted to contempt beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly D2 and D3 were found guilty of contempt and committal orders and sentences were lawful and appropriate under Article 126, s13 Courts of Judicature Act and Orders 45/52 ROC.
16 Jun 2025

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that D2 and D3 wilfully failed to comply with the Order and the CSO, constituting contempt of court; the applicants established a prima facie case and proof beyond reasonable doubt of contempt was made; accordingly leave was correctly granted, Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 were dismissed, and D3 (as sole proprietor and advocate) and D2 were found guilty and sentenced as recorded.
24 Jul 2024

LIM KIEN HUAT 1. ) HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD (Dalam Liquidasi) 2. ) TAN KEN MENG 3. ) KHOO CHUN FUN 4. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-17D-12-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-17D-12-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the DB/DC findings were not manifestly perverse, there was no breach of natural justice (appellant was given opportunity to be heard on penalty), partner liability attached for firm staff conduct, res judicata and locus arguments failed, and the DB was entitled to enhance sanction; therefore the DB Order (6 months suspension and RM50,000 fine) stands and costs were awarded as ordered.
8 Jan 2024

PEMPETISYEN Abc Def

Citation

BA-33JP-644-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33JP-644-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Respondent wilfully disobeyed Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Consent Order; 'consult and obtain views' did not require prior consent or presence of Petitioner, Respondent had informed and consulted Petitioner and acted on medical referrals, no clear opposing views requiring an expert were shown, therefore committal dismissed and costs awarded to Respondent.
13 Dec 2023

PEMPETISYEN XXXX SIVA PAKKIAM A/P RAMASAMY

Citation

WA-33-167-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-167-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent was found to have wilfully and contumaciously refused to comply with the Court Order by denying access and relocating the child to Singapore without consulting the Petitioner or obtaining court leave, thereby constituting contempt; remedy is a fine of MYR7,000 with default imprisonment and costs to the Petitioner.
28 Apr 2023

ARKITEK ZAINUDDIN HARUN SRI ALAM SDN BHD (IN CREDITORS VOLUNTRAY LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-342-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found cause shown to remove the joint liquidators: they proceeded with a COI meeting on 19.11.2020 in the absence of creditor representatives (demonstrating lack of independence/unbias), failed to comply with parts of the Consent Orders (notably inadequate steps to recover substantial overseas funds and failure to deposit land compensation with designated solicitors), and thus were removed; the Court appointed Ralph Ravin Ratnaswamy as liquidator as he was suitably qualified and supported by majority creditors.