Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forgery allegation

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

AFFIN BANK BERHAD 1. ) GPE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES SDN BHD 2. ) POOI CHEE KIONG 3. ) CHAN BOON PING

Citation

JA-A52NCC-591-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCC-591-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The third defendant failed to discharge the evidential threshold to show a genuine triable issue of forgery: he produced no police report, no handwriting expert evidence, and did not contradict the plaintiff's exhibited documents; burden to prove alleged forgery rested on him; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and entered against him.
10 Dec 2025

INCITEMENT SDN BHD 1. ) FUSIONEX INNOVATIONS SDN BHD 2. ) FXI SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 3. ) ADV FUSIONEX SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-20-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-20-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Application was dismissed because the pleaded facts and contemporaneous documents prima facie show an executed Term Sheet dated as signed on 21 July 2020 (after the 2nd Defendant's incorporation), thus a viable cause of action exists; the 2nd Defendant's evidence (hearsay affidavit and police reports) is insufficient at interlocutory stage to establish obvious unsustainability or forgery; significant factual disputes requiring oral evidence and credibility findings preclude summary striking out.
14 Nov 2025

PAC LEASE BERHAD 1. ) INSPIRA JAYA SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI TUJUAN BENA SDN. BHD.) 2. ) GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM 3. ) WAN NASIR BIN WAN MUSTAFHA 4. ) YONG PENG YUEN 5. ) IHAA CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 6. ) PARAGRENE LAND BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-440-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-440-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved a prima facie indebtedness by contemporaneous business records and proof of service; defendants failed to produce any credible documentary or forensic evidence to substantiate payments, rebut service, or prove forgery; therefore no bona fide triable issue existed and summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered for the plaintiff.
11 Jul 2025

1. ) LIM KON LIAN 2. ) LIM MING CHANG 1. ) HALIM SHAH HARLEM SHAHNON BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ANDREW SURIADY SJOEKOER

Citation

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that the 1st Plaintiff made a RM3,500,000 friendly loan to both Defendants on 18.8.2020, the 1st Defendant signed the Written Loan Agreement dated 18.8.2020, the cash was handed over at Hong Leong Bank Bukit Damansara, subsequent transfers totalling RM1,764,000 were repayments of that loan, and the 2nd Defendant is jointly liable under the principal loan agreement despite not being a signatory.
18 Jun 2025

LEE YAN SHIN (Berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya Ventureflex Management) PANG HUI CHING (berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya Restoran Ok Mookata)

Citation

WA-A72NCC-38066-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-38066-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff established valid service by affidavit and photographic evidence and the defendant provided only bare denial without specimen signatures, expert evidence or documentary proof; the defendant filed the application 14 months late without seeking statutorily required extension or offering adequate explanation; the delay was fatal and the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence; therefore the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
15 May 2025

M9 COMPLETE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai M7 Complete Technology Sdn Bhd) 1. ) KUM MENG WEI 2. ) SOLUMIE BINTI ODIAH 3. ) ARSHAD BIN ASRI 4. ) MILLIE JUSTINES BAHARUM

Citation

WA-22NCC-60-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-60-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of evidence the Plaintiff paid the agreed consideration for both 20% blocks as evidenced by contemporaneous documentation and admissions; the profit guarantee in the SHA is binding on the Defendants and the shortfalls for 2018–2020 as apportioned to Plaintiff's 40% shareholding total RM4,457,934.40, for which the Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
25 Apr 2025

Chiong Hoe Kean 1. ) Chiong Hoe Keat 2. ) Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to establish the objective test of a real danger of bias; the impugned directions were legitimate exercises of case management discretion in light of the applicant's repeated non-compliance and procedural irregularities, and there was no evidence of partiality beyond ordinary adverse rulings.
16 Apr 2025

SARALEANA NATTAYA BINTI AZMI TECHNA-X BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's own authenticated acknowledgements and confirmation receipt stating receipt of RM6,000,000 and RM2,452,000 respectively, and expressly declaring the purchase consideration fully and finally settled, established payment; the plaintiff failed to adduce positive evidence (e.g. expert document examiner report or prompt police report) to rebut or prove forgery, thus her claim for RM10,452,000 failed and was dismissed.
9 Apr 2025

NAGARAJ A/L SUBRAMANIAM GANESH A/L AHWALY

Citation

AA-11BNCvC-4-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-11BNCvC-4-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Magistrate because unchallenged expert fingerprint evidence established the IOU's authenticity, corroborative witness testimony supported the loan, the appellant offered only bare denial and no expert rebuttal, and the counterclaim sought declaratory relief which is beyond a Magistrate's jurisdiction under s.65 Subordinate Courts Act 1948; accordingly the respondent discharged the civil burden of proof and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Dec 2024

Khor Gaik Thiam Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-26-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-26-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court held appeals allowed, set aside Court of Appeal and affirmed High Court: (1) in-trial recantation does not require a rigid two-stage leave procedure nor automatic exclusion of prior or subsequent testimony; courts must scrutinise recanted testimony against contemporaneous evidence; (2) Khoon Chye Hin principle applies such that partial untruth requires careful scrutiny but not wholesale rejection; (3) the party alleging forgery bears the onus of proving it; (4) a witness being a party or sued does not ipso facto render them an interested witness whose evidence must be rejected;…