Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidential information

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

STEVEN GOH HONG HUI ONG KOK KEONG

Citation

WA-B52NCC-335-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCC-335-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The defendant’s interlocutory application is dismissed because the contested issues involve intertwined questions of law and disputed material facts which require full trial, oral evidence and cross-examination; consequently the matter is not suitable for final determination under Order 14A or separation under Order 33. Costs of RM4,000 awarded to plaintiff.
27 Nov 2025

CHEW WAI HOE PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MESRA TERRACE

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to particularise any specific confidential information or demonstrate a real risk to the administration of justice; allegations were speculative and premature; therefore disqualification could not be ordered and the application was dismissed with costs.
14 Nov 2025

1. ) SURESH A/L DORASAMY 2. ) KAYTRE A/P DORASAMY 1. ) Dorasamy A/l Nalaya 2. ) Partiban A/l Dorasamy 3. ) Sarawathy A/p Karuppan

Citation

JA-24NCvC-683-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-683-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The firm was directly involved in the events and documents central to the dispute, the principal has close family ties to parties and knowledge that could make him a material witness, creating a real and reasonable risk of conflict and impairment of professional independence; therefore the court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction and applying professional rules, must disqualify the firm to preserve integrity and public confidence in the proceedings.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Anton Piller Order was correctly granted and should be maintained because the Plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case based on forensic listings and circumstantial linkage to subsequent commercial activity, the potential harm from misuse of confidential materials is serious and irreversible, there was a real possibility evidence could be destroyed or concealed given the digital transfers and cloud storage, no material non-disclosure was established, and the execution complied with supervisory safeguards; therefore defendants' applications to set aside or stay the Order fail.
18 Sept 2025

HOCK CHEONG LOGISTICS SDN BHD 1. ) YEO BOK SIANG 2. ) TAN SOU FUNG 3. ) ANASTASIA ROBITA GAMANI 4. ) SHARON A/P JOHNSON 5. ) SASA SHIPPING SDN BHD 6. ) AH YUTI BINTI ABDUL MANAF

Citation

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff satisfied the substantive requirements for an Anton Piller Order (strong prima facie case, probable risk of destruction, possession of relevant materials, and necessity of preservation); procedural delays were curable in the exercise of the Court’s discretion where there was no prejudice and execution occurred under supervision; material non-disclosure was not established; therefore the ex parte Anton Piller Order dated 25 July 2024 is affirmed and the applications to set aside and for return of seized materials are dismissed.
4 Apr 2025

EE SOON GUAN SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

Citation

WA-24NCC-202-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-202-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found Messrs Cheang & Ariff had been retained and advised D1/D2 and the companies in relation to the CCM Show Cause matter, had received confidential information relevant to the issues now pursued by the plaintiff against D1/D2, and had liaised with family members who are now the plaintiff's directors; a fair‑minded informed member of the public would perceive an appearance of impropriety and risk to the administration of justice; accordingly the firm and the named counsel were disqualified from acting for the plaintiff, with costs awarded against the firm.
4 Apr 2025

PALOH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

Citation

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Counsel and firm were disqualified because they had previously acted for D1 and D2 in the reinstatement proceeding, received and prepared affidavit material and explanations about failure to lodge statutory documents that amounted to confidential information, engaged with family representatives (including ECT) who later act for the plaintiff, and therefore a fair‑minded informed member of the public would conclude the proper administration of justice required their removal (appearance of impropriety); costs RM10,000 ordered against the firm.
3 Mar 2025

HOMECROWD SDN BHD Kevin Chew Tze Kenn

Citation

WA-12BCY-1-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BCY-1-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant breached express contractual confidentiality obligations (Appendix II read with the Consultancy Agreement) and fiduciary duties by permitting unauthorised third‑party access to and revoking access from Plaintiff's GitLab repository and by committing files consistent with a Trojan/Backdoor under the Defendant's account; these breaches caused reliance losses which the Plaintiff proved with factual evidence and RM147,427.16 was awarded accordingly.
6 Jul 2023

1. ) SHYAM SUNDAR RAYUDU 2. ) WONG VOON FUI 1. ) N2N CONNECT BERHAD 2. ) NGN CONNECTION SDN BHD 3. ) N2N GLOBAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 4. ) HERMES BOS SDN BHD 5. ) NETINFINIUM SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(IPCv)-1986-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(IPCv)-1986-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal set aside the Anton Piller Order because there was proven non-compliance with material terms of the APO (custody and handling of seized items, failure to identify persons executing searches) and material non-disclosures in the ex parte application (absence of true copies of the plaintiffs' software/source code and failure to disclose reasons for withdrawal/strike out of related claims), and those defects justified setting aside the APO rather than limiting relief to damages.
2 Sept 2022

1. ) NANO G CENTRAL SDN BHD 2. ) NANO G PLT 1. ) EVA ENERGY SDN BHD 2. ) IRISPRO INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 3. ) CHEW LEA YONG

Citation

WA-22IP-44-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-44-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the documents in Exhibit A to be confidential and commercially sensitive and also necessary for the plaintiffs to prove their pleaded case; applying the balancing principles from precedent and relevant rules the court granted the Protective Order under Rule 94 Rules of Court 2012, with tailored measures (redaction, restricted recipients, undertakings, sealed filing and closed trial under s15(1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964).