Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidentiality

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

1. ) NIRO CERAMIC SALES & SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 2. ) FOSHAN NIRO CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS TRADING CO LTD 1. ) GUOCERA SDN BHD 2. ) CHENG LI YONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried, they failed to show damages would be an inadequate remedy because alleged losses were commercial and quantifiable and confidential information was not particularised; combined with delay, the contention that contractual restraints had expired, and absence of a status quo requiring preservation, the balance of convenience favoured refusal of the interlocutory injunction, so the application to continue the ad interim order was dismissed.
18 Jun 2025

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) NATIONAL FEEDLOT CORPORATION SDN BHD (P-1) 2. ) NATIONAL MEAT & LIVESTOCK CORPORATION SDN BHD (P-2) 3. ) AGROSCIENCE INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 4. ) REAL FOOD COMPANY SDN BHD (P-4) 5. ) Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Bin Ismail

Citation

02(f)-14-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-14-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held Public Bank liable for wrongful disclosure of confidential banking information; it found the respondents adduced sufficient unchallenged documentary and expert evidence to prove loss and quantum and therefore awarded equitable, exemplary and aggravated damages of RM30,000,000 each, with 2% per annum interest and costs, setting aside the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions on damages.
21 Feb 2025

1. ) LOW HUEI YING 2. ) ERNEST MORGAN FERNAND LOW MATHY menyaman melalui ibunya dan next of friend Low Huei Ying Andrew Gregory Sewell (Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Tetuan Andrew Sewell) PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. ) MAYBA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated a bona fide serious issue and that the balance of convenience favoured granting a prohibitory interim injunction to preserve the status quo; the defendant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiffs' affidavits were false or that there was intent to obstruct justice, therefore the ad interim order was not rescinded and the committal application was dismissed.
10 Oct 2024

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) YONG HONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) PT HUP SDN BHD 3. ) JOHNSON CHONG TZUNG TSEN 4. ) HO KOK SENG 5. ) TEE WEE MING 6. ) TEE WEE SING 7. ) TEO SIEW PHIN 8. ) NG MING YEE 9. ) LOW HWEE HUAT 10. ) JS VALUERS

Citation

JA-22NCVC-17-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-17-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for discovery is dismissed because the applicant is barred by res judicata and issue estoppel from seeking documents previously determined to be protected by litigation privilege and confidentiality; additionally, the BNM documents are irrelevant, inadequately specified, not demonstrably in the Bank's possession and amount to a fishing expedition therefore not producible.
19 Jul 2024

1. ) DAGANG NEXCHANGE BERHAD 2. ) DAGANG NET TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 3. ) DNEX TELCO SERVICES SDN BHD 4. ) PT DAGANG SAMUDERA HUTAMA 5. ) PT DNEX TELCO INDONESIA MOHD ISMAIL KHAN BIN WAZIR KHAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-596-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-596-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the defendant, as CEO and senior manager, breached statutory duties under sections 213 and 214 of the Companies Act 2016 and fiduciary duties by knowingly withholding the original vendor price, failing to disclose a relationship creating a conflict of interest, circumventing procurement and approval limits, impeding due diligence and inspection, arranging/benefiting from secret commissions, and disclosing confidential board material; these breaches caused quantifiable losses and entitled plaintiffs to declarations, an account of profits/constructive trust, special damages,…
3 Oct 2023

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiffs’ application was dismissed because paragraph 10(i) of the APO unambiguously required the Supervising Solicitors to keep custody of data and devices until final disposal; the Plaintiffs’ proposed relief would effectively amend the sealed APO and does not fall within the limited exceptions permitting variation of a final order under the doctrine of functus officio; the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to justify releasing custody or unsupervised access, therefore the court refused to vary the APO and dismissed the application.
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 both relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded case and commercially sensitive; balancing competing considerations favored protection of the plaintiffs' proprietary interests while permitting use at trial under strict conditions. Accordingly the Protective Order in terms of Enclosure 154 was granted pursuant to Rule 94 Rules of Court 2012, including sealed filings, limited list of permitted recipients subject to undertakings, closed trial for confidential matters under s15(1), and post-trial deletion/return obligations.
21 Jul 2022

TEO PIK TAU JB CITY TOWER SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A54-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A54-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus or relevance between the broad, general documents sought and any issue likely to arise in intended proceedings; the requests were overly wide, tantamount to a fishing expedition, and sought confidential internal company documents which would prejudice the defendant; applicant also failed to show standing or contractual basis to justify pre-action disclosure.
20 May 2021

Ace Capital Growth Sdn Bhd Kua Kee Hoon & 5 Ors

Citation

WA-22NCC-565-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-565-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's confidential information and from soliciting, canvassing or enticing the plaintiff's customers (as at October 2020) pending trial because there were serious issues to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff; the court refused the broad injunction sought to restrain defendants from distributing, selling or trading in precious metals/gold bullion because the restraint was too wide, would unduly restrain trade and was vulnerable under Section 28 of the Contracts Act 1950.
29 Jan 2021

1. OAG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. OAG OFFSHORE PIPELINE SERVICES SDN BHD 3. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD - ABU DHABI 4. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD 5. SETIA OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. NG HOE KEONG 2. DEVANDRAN A/L ARUMU

Citation

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court admitted the relevant affidavits as the delay in service was a curable irregularity and would not cause substantive prejudice; the Court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of the main proceedings and of the 5/8/2020 EPO pending disposal of the appeals because special circumstances existed to preserve the Plaintiffs' trade secrets and to prevent the appeals being rendered nugatory; the Court also allowed the Defendants to file their Statement of Defence 14 days after the final disposal of their appeals.