Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disqualification of counsel

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

PEAK MODEL SDN. BHD. 1. ) HATI JANAKUASA SDN. BHD. 2. ) GONG WEI 3. ) LIU JIANGLIN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-285-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Disqualification refused because applicant failed to show a solicitor‑client relationship, possession or risk of misuse of confidential information, or an objective appearance of impropriety; alleged lack of authority is an internal corporate dispute and not a recognised ground for disqualification. Stay under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005 refused because this is a multi‑party dispute involving non‑signatories and central tortious claims inextricably linked to the claims against the signatory, so granting a stay would cause fragmentation and a real risk of inconsistent findings; Clause 17.2 and t…
1 Dec 2025

Azhar Bin Atan Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Azhar Bin Atan (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Mohd Shah Bin Manaf (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 3. ) Jihan Yusnizan Binti Mohd Yusoff (Mengikut Tunttan Balas) 4. ) Goh Mui Chiuan (Mengiku

Citation

JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CELO had a prior retainer for the company in relation to PU 2022 and materially participated in preparing and witnessing PU 2022, BEA and CA; the current proceedings are sufficiently connected to that retainer such that there is a real likelihood Datuk Clarence Edwin will be a material witness and that confidential information relevant to the present disputes exists; accordingly the risk of conflict and misuse of privileged material justified disqualification under the court's jurisdiction and applicable professional rules. Separately, Shah was granted an extension to file defence on bona fid…
1 Dec 2025

1. ) GOH MON CHIUAN 2. ) SONNY YEOW KENG WAN 1. ) TOKOH AGRO SDN. BHD. 2. ) LIM SAU CHONG

Citation

JA-22NCvC-52-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-52-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CELO and all advocates practising under it were disqualified because (i) CELO had a prior retainer for the corporate client in the same series of transactions (PU 2022, BEA, CA), (ii) CELO and Datuk CE possessed privileged and potentially material information and had acknowledged holding privileged communications, (iii) there was a real probability Datuk CE would be a material witness, and (iv) those facts created a real risk of conflict of interest and perceptible misuse of confidential information contrary to Kaedah 3, 5 and 28 and the court's inherent jurisdiction; separately, Shah was gra…
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.
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.
7 Mar 2025

LIM CHOON LAI 1. ) HELIOZ (M) SDN BHD 2. ) NG YIM HOCK

Citation

BA-22NCvC-271-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-271-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to disqualify was dismissed because the Defendants failed to prove that Mr Ong or his firm represented the Defendants or had a disqualifying pecuniary interest, failed to show actual conflict or that Mr Ong is a necessary witness whose testimony would render representation improper, and did not provide strong and cogent reasons to override the Plaintiff's right to choose counsel.
7 Mar 2025

1. ) UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN. BHD. 2. ) SELESA HILLHOMES SERVICES SDN. BHD. BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SELESA HILLHOMES

Citation

CB-22NCvC-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to discharge the high burden required to disqualify counsel. The internal dispute over the JMB's composition and the circumstances of appointment did not establish misconduct or a conflict under Rules 4 or 5(a) sufficient to taint the administration of justice. Accordingly CM Lai & Partners remain entitled to represent the defendant and the application is dismissed with costs.
20 Feb 2025

1. ) NG ANNIE 2. ) NG GUAT KEOW 3. ) LUCY NG 4. ) NG MEE THIAM 1. ) Ng Joo Mok Sebagai Pentadbir Tunggal De Bonis Non Bagi Estet Ng Swee Long (Si Mati) 2. ) NG JOO MOK 3. ) PRESTASI JUTA SDN BHD 4. ) HOW LAI PENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-476-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-476-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CCLC was disqualified because it had acted for D2 in the SSEA, had been paid in D2's personal capacity and a CCLC solicitor is central to disputed, material facts and likely to be a witness, engaging LPPE Rules 5 and 28; conversely, the Plaintiffs' O.14A application was dismissed because material facts are disputed (whether D2 purchased shares personally or on behalf of remaining beneficiaries), the evidential record shows payments and communications supporting those disputes, and the issues are intertwined with factual enquiries and a counterclaim, making summary legal determination inapprop…
20 Nov 2024

MOHD ZUDILMI BIN MOHD NOR 1. ) NUSAJAZA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi) 2. ) JAZLAN BIN HJ AB AZIZ 3. ) TENGKU MASRUN BIN TENGKU MAHMOD 4. ) BALA SUBRAMANIAM S/O RASU 5. ) RAMILAH AINI BINTI SALLEH

Citation

TA-A72-27-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-A72-27-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court disqualified The Law Office of Maran Ram from representing Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 because the firm had acted for both the plaintiff (beneficial owner under the construction agreement) and the liquidator/defendant in interconnected transactions and documents, creating a conflict of interest and breaching Rules 4 and 5 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978; the objection based on delay was insufficient to defeat the application.