Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of fiduciary duty

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

MEGAFEST SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 1. ) SIVANANTHAM A/L MUTHU KARPAN 2. ) LIM KUI YONG 3. ) LIM KWEE GEE 4. ) Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Selaku Wakil Sah Dan Pengurus Dan Penerima Estet Lim Thian Hock @ Lim Thiam Hock, Simati (Dalam Kebankra

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-761-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-761-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Allowed appeals against directors/insiders for void voluntary settlements within the 2‑year twilight and breach of directors' duties due to absence of valuable consideration or documentation; held fraudulent preference requires dominant intention and that Cemerlang Coke's receipts (pre‑petition cheques) were made under commercial pressure/no dominant intention so were not fraudulent, but the post‑petition payment (7th cheque) was not validated and must be set aside.
24 Feb 2026

1. ) Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad 2. ) Kulim Energy Nusantara Sdn Bhd 1. ) Ahamad Bin Mohamad 2. ) Abdul Rahman Bin Sulaiman 3. ) Zulkifly Bin Zakariah 4. ) Jamaludin Bin Md Ali 5. ) Azli Bin Mohamed 6. ) Shahrom Bin Mohd Saad

Citation

WA-22NCC-679-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-679-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found D1–D4 negligent in disclosure and procedure for Barut and Amara (failures to disclose material reports, not tying payments to HGU, not obtaining independent valuations) but not dishonest; Plaintiffs failed to prove causation/quantum of losses caused by those procedural breaches; discretionary relief under s581 and business judgment rule appropriate — court relieved D1–D4 from liability; claims against D5–D6 dismissed (acted within mandate, no red flags).
23 Feb 2026

SYED MOHAMAD BIN SYED DRUS 1. ) AMISAH BINTI MAT SALIM 2. ) AMISAH & CO 3. ) ZULFIKRI BIN MOHAMAD

Citation

TA-B53KP-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53KP-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove that the solicitors misapplied or misappropriated client funds or were professionally negligent; many payments were proven to relate to other projects or made on instructions of the partnership (Defendant Third), the Plaintiff benefited from registration and sales, certain claims were estopped or extinguished by settlement/acknowledgement documents and/or barred by limitation, and therefore the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
12 Feb 2026

1. ) BEVERLY DENTISTREE SDN BHD 2. ) NATASHA BEVERLY DENTAL SDN BHD ARLENA PHILIP LEE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) BEVERLY DENTISTREE SDN BHD 2. ) NATASHA BEVERLY DENTAL SDN BHD 3. ) NATASHA BEVERLY SDN BHD 4. ) Francis Ng Tian Sang 5. ) Howard Ng H

Citation

WA-22NCC-286-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-286-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned amendments were filed before pleadings closed in compliance with Order 20 r.3, were bona fide clarifications anchored to the original cause of action, did not change the character of the suit nor withdraw admissions, and caused no irremediable prejudice; therefore the applicant failed to show that leave under r.5 would inevitably have been refused and the application under r.4 was dismissed.
21 Dec 2025

JC ADVANCE MARKETING SDN. BHD. SATHYA A/L SELVAM

Citation

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the categories of documents sought were vague, overly broad and incapable of identification, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevancy and that the documents were within the Defendant's possession, custody or power, the request amounted to a fishing expedition and abuse of process, and the Plaintiff could have obtained relevant documents from the identified third party (MP Advance Enterprise); accordingly discovery was not necessary and costs were awarded.
8 Dec 2025

1. ) M3 TECHNOLOGIES (ASIA) BERHAD 2. ) M3 ONLINE SDN BHD 1. ) VOON SZE LIN 2. ) LIM SENG BOON 3. ) MAISARAH BINTI SAHRAN 4. ) ASMA BINTI ARIPIN 5. ) YAP SIEW DEEN 6. ) MUHAMMAD FATAHUL HARUN BIN SUMAP 7. ) FOO MING CHEONG 8. ) ZAIFAH BINTI

Citation

WA-22IP-41-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-41-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs, by failing to pay security for costs and electing not to call evidence at trial, abandoned the main action which is therefore dismissed; D3, D4 & D9 have a valid cause of action in unlawful interference with trade based on unjustified invocation of legal process and proved, on a balance of probabilities and in light of unchallenged testimony, that D9 suffered commercial harm warranting nominal and exemplary damages; consequential awards are RM10,000 nominal and RM300,000 exemplary plus costs.
6 Nov 2025

RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-741-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-741-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the evidence (particularly contemporaneous emails, admissions and circumstantial links), the trial judge was not plainly wrong to find the defendants misused Flowbird's confidential information, conspired to injure Flowbird and that the 1st and 2nd defendants breached fiduciary duties; however the High Court's damages figure for the Harding termination was excessive and must be reduced to reflect loss of profit (sales turnover less cost of sales), varied to USD51,610.00; remainder of the judgment affirmed.
6 Nov 2025

IEM SA FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-740-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-740-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the evidence and applying the established elements for breach of confidence and fiduciary duties, the trial judge was not plainly wrong to find that confidential information was disclosed by Flowbird's employees/directors to IEM and used to secure projects, constituting breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to injure; however the original damages award for the Rotorua contract (USD253,321.30) exceeded recoverable loss of profit and must be reduced to USD51,610.00 (sales minus cost). The remainder of the High Court judgment, including injunctions and findings of liab…
5 Nov 2025

TINDERMAN HOLDING LIMITED ACE INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED

Citation

WA-24NCC-126-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-126-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendant breached the Custodian Agreement by failing to comply with clear instructions and by unilaterally transferring custodial funds to an investment account without plaintiff's instruction or consent; estoppel bars the defendant from imposing new conditions after prior conduct and acknowledgements; accordingly the OS is allowed and the defendant must return the funds and pay costs.
22 Oct 2025

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

Citation

WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.