Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud allegation

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

Ten Thiam Choy 1. ) Yip Kum Fook 2. ) Chim Hang Kuan 3. ) Low Mei Lan

Citation

BA-22NCvC-199-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-199-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The action was struck out because it re-litigates the same tenancy dispute between the same parties that was finally determined by the Sessions Court (19.12.2023) and affirmed on appeal; the Plaintiff failed to show the alleged fraud was newly discovered or concealed such that it would displace res judicata; therefore the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and continuing the suit would be an abuse of process.
18 Nov 2025

CHAN CHEAN GAIK ELEGANCE CLUB SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BNCC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court affirmed the trial judge's credibility-based factual findings: plaintiff met its burden, consignment notes and conduct established a consignment relationship (including implied consignment), defendant's expert evidence on signatures and gemology was unreliable, there was no persuasive evidence of gifts or fraud, and monetary damages in lieu of return were appropriate; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs ordered.
25 Sept 2025

MAGATHARAN A/L THANGIAH 1. ) XAVIER A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

BJ-A73KJ-147-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-A73KJ-147-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the collision with the first defendant occurred as alleged; material inconsistencies in medical histories, delayed and contradictory police reporting, failures to call material medical-record witnesses (allowing an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act), and unreliability of the first defendant's own account rendered the plaintiff's version unproven; therefore the action is dismissed.
18 Jul 2025

PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD 1. ) Abdul Ghani Bin Mohd Noor 2. ) MOHAMAD HAIZIR ASRAF BIN MOHAMAD TARMIZI 3. ) EMBI MOHD RIDZUAN BIN MAT HUSSIN

Citation

BA-12B-20-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-20-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge was not plainly wrong on findings of liability or on the assessment of quantum; the appellant failed to prove fraud or unauthorised rider, failed to call key witnesses, and the loss of earnings award was reasonable; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed.
20 May 2025

INDERPAL SINGH A/L SIMINDER SINGH MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-561-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-561-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff established the accident occurred as pleaded, valid notice was given to the insurer's agent within policy time limits, the Defendant failed to prove fraud or staging with clear and convincing evidence, and absent a proper election by the Defendant the insured sum of RM900,000 is payable; tort claims for negligence and malice dismissed.
10 Jan 2025

PEMPETISYEN JN TEGUH ENERGY SDN BHD UMD ENERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-871-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-871-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there was no stay of execution the pending appeal did not create a bona fide dispute as to the judgment debt; the fraud allegations had been litigated at trial and could not be re-opened in winding-up proceedings; and the respondent failed to pay the statutory notice within 21 days and failed to rebut the presumption of commercial insolvency, the court was entitled to make a winding-up order against the respondent.
28 Jun 2024

MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD 1. ) KESWAN A/L R. RAJANTHARAN 2. ) MURUGIAH A/L SANGAPILLAY 3. ) RAJESWARY A/P SANGAPILLAY

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-24-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-24-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Judge exercised his discretion judiciously in refusing leave to intervene because the application was made at the last minute without adequate factual support for fraud allegations and without satisfactory explanation for delay; therefore appellate intervention was unwarranted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
30 May 2024

MUHAMMED FAIRUS BIN MOHAMMAD ALI ROMINIDASS 1. ) PUVANESVARAN A/L SANDARAN 2. ) JASON IMMANUEL A/L PUVANESVARAN 3. ) ZURICH GENERAL INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD PENCELAH ZURICH GENERAL INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

AA-A53KJ-52-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-52-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Defendant 1 negligent for entering the main road without stopping and plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous medical records established the injuries were caused by the 23/12/2018 accident; Defendant 3 failed to prove fraud or that the injuries were pre-existing, its adjuster reports were unreliable and the non-production of the investigating adjusters justified adverse inference under s114(g), therefore judgment entered for the Plaintiff and damages awarded against Defendants 1 and 2 with Defendant 3's fraud defence dismissed.
23 Aug 2023

MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24C-53-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-53-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud on the balance of probabilities or to adduce admissible contemporaneous evidence to justify injunctive or declaratory relief to halt the adjudication; the alleged fraud was not advanced in the adjudication, statutory adjudication under CIPAA affords specific remedies (eg s15) post-decision, and absent clear lack of jurisdiction the court will not interfere pre-decision; accordingly the applications were dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.
3 Jul 2023

IOSTACS (M) SDN BHD UAT AIR CONDITIONING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-238-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-238-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff met the Order 14 requirements and established a prima facie case; defendant failed to show any substantive triable issue — its fraud and fiduciary breach allegations were bare, unrelated to the contract claim and unsupported by evidence — therefore summary judgment was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.