Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2026

BEST AMITY SDN BHD 1. ) SAKURA BINTI ARIFFIN 2. ) CHIN TECK SIANG 3. ) CHAU FOOK SANG 4. ) CHIAM TOW YONG

Citation

JA-22NCC-36-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-36-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found D1 breached fiduciary duties by diverting specific company receipts and concealing documents; the Defendants (D1–D4) conspired to misappropriate Flextronics scraps with sufficient inference from admissions and conduct; lorry JHV 3900 was held to belong to the Plaintiff and was converted; damages were assessed conservatively given evidentiary gaps (special damages RM92,048.90 against D1; RM250,000 joint and several for Flextronics conspiracy; RM175,760 joint and several for lorry conversion; RM60,000 general and RM60,000 exemplary damages jointly…
26 Feb 2026

ENCOVE SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHIN SIEW HA 2. ) JASMYRLINDA BINTI JARAEH

Citation

WA-B54-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B54-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the elements of conversion, detinue or trespass because defendants acted in their capacities as directors or agents to protect company assets and offered audit access; material facts are disputed making originating summons inappropriate; the dispute is essentially corporate governance properly determined in ongoing proceedings in Kota Kinabalu; accordingly the originating summons is dismissed with costs.
30 Jan 2026

1. ) Hernam Singh A/l Karam Singh 2. ) Baljit Kaur A/p Gurdit Singh 1. ) Ranjeet Singh A/l Bakshish Singh 2. ) RAJENDER KAUR A/P PRITAM SINGH

Citation

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations on the balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, lack of crucial documentary and testimonial evidence (no POA, no bank testimony or produced account records, no receipts for jewellery), credible documentary proof supported the defendants on the sale of the flat and the refinancing transfers were executed before lawyers; consequently both the plaintiffs' claims and the first defendant's counterclaim for resulting trust fail.
30 Jan 2026

1. ) Hernam Singh A/l Karam Singh 2. ) Baljit Kaur A/p Gurdit Singh 1. ) Ranjeet Singh A/l Bakshish Singh 2. ) RAJENDER KAUR A/P PRITAM SINGH

Citation

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, absence of crucial documentary evidence (no power of attorney, no bank witnesses, no receipts/deed of settlement), and credible documentary and witness evidence for the defendants (signed sale agreement, lawyer attestation, JPJ records); accordingly the plaintiffs' claims and the first defendant's counterclaim were dismissed with costs.
27 Oct 2025

NG KIAN TEK NG HUI JOO

Citation

MC-A72-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's claim in conversion was dismissed because he failed to prove the essential elements of conversion (no evidence of possession or right to immediate possession, no proof that three 50g bars existed or were sold as alleged, and no proof of ownership of funeral donations), and because an inordinate unexplained delay of over three years estopped the Plaintiff and amounted to abandonment of any claim; additionally Plaintiff lacked locus to sue in his personal capacity for funds forming part of the deceased's estate.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike‑out application because the procedural defects in the intervenors' affidavits were curable, the intervenors provided a reasonable explanation (overseas deponents and subsequent consular affirmation), no prejudice to the plaintiff was shown, and the court exercised its discretion under Order 32 r 13(2)(d), Order 1A and inherent jurisdiction (Order 92 r 4) to resolve the matter on the merits rather than on technical non‑compliance; costs awarded in the cause.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 to allow intervention because KMTCL and HALCL demonstrated that they have a legal interest as carriers/principals whose rights and liabilities will be directly affected by orders in the suit (not merely a commercial interest), intervention prevents multiplicity of proceedings, and the issues (including requirement for original bills of lading and effect of agency agreements) ought to be determined with them before the court.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike out application because the solicitors gave a reasonable explanation for filing the solicitors' affidavit and the deponents later properly affirmed their affidavits before a consular officer; the irregularities did not cause prejudice and were either cured or within the Court's discretion to remedy under Order 32 r 13 and Order 1A RoC 2012; accordingly the affidavits were accepted and the strike out failed.
23 Jul 2025

1. ) WANA GOLD 2. ) FATHIN SYAZWANI BINTI MOHAMAD ZAKRI 1. ) QALAM GOLD JEWELLERY (M) SDN BHD 2. ) QALAM GOLD JEWELLERY 3. ) MOHD ROZI BIN IBRAHIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-914-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-914-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence that Plaintiffs were not parties to the Gold SPA; the 382.70 grams of gold were advanced by Plaintiffs and Defendants were informed at the 16.1.2023 meeting that those grams belonged to Plaintiffs and had to be returned; Defendants unlawfully converted both the 382.70 grams and the 224.70 grams taken on 24.2.2023 by using intimidation and self-help (including employing a police sergeant and a gang); exemplary damages were warranted to punish and deter such conduct; accordingly judgment was entered for Plaintiffs ordering return/value of the gold, RM250,000 exem…
9 May 2025

CHAN KIM HU SAFZ AUTO SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-418-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-418-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to establish proprietary or possessory rights in the vehicles; no contractual bailment existed between plaintiff and defendant; Consent Judgment in related Suit 445 established WWC as owner; consequently plaintiff's claims in bailment, detinue, conversion and for proceeds against defendant fail.