Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud on the court

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

MW HEALTHCARE SDN BHD TEGA KUANTUM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant failed to prove actual positive fraud by the Defendant: the MDA Recall Notice concerned a distinct later product (Version 4) not pleaded or in issue in Suit 15, was publicly available, and MWH was aware of it during the trial but did not deploy it. There was no legal duty on Tega to disclose a document irrelevant to the pleaded issues, no cogent evidence of dishonest intent by Tega, and the Notice would not likely have led to a different outcome on the contested issues (passing off and unlawful interference). Accordingly, the Originating Summons under s 44 EA 1950 is dismissed.
31 Oct 2025

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

Citation

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the committal action as premature and an abuse of process because the core factual issue (service of invoices) was already finally determined in the substantive suit (20.8.2024) and remains subject to appeal; finality/res judicata bars relitigation of the same facts in committal proceedings. Although s.410 moratorium does not automatically bar committal (criminal/quasi-criminal jurisdiction retained), it was unnecessary to resolve that bar because the committal was founded on an issue already finally adjudicated. Costs awarded on party-and-party basis (RM3,000 per successf…
31 Oct 2025

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

Citation

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the issue of service of invoices had been decided finally in the substantive suit and therefore could not form the basis of fresh committal proceedings (res judicata / finality of litigation); the committal was premature and an abuse of process under Order 18 r.19; judicial management s.410 did not bar committal per se but was irrelevant because the underlying issue was final; costs awarded on party‑and‑party basis, not indemnity.
25 Sept 2025

1. ) 1MALAYSIA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD 2. ) IMBD ENERGY HOLDINGS LIMITED 3. ) 1MDB ENERGY LIMITED 4. ) 1MDB ENERGY (LANGAT) LIMITED 5. ) GLOBAL DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED 1. ) LOW TAEK JHO 2. ) TAN KIM LOONG 3. ) LOW HOCK PENG 4. ) L

Citation

WA-22NCvC-330-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-330-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to show sufficient legal or factual basis to set aside the JID: service was properly effected making the JID regular, the nearly three year unexplained delay was fatal to the application, there was no fraud on the court vitiating the judgment, and tactical desire to obtain a merits judgment for foreign enforcement does not justify reopening a final judgment; accordingly the application is dismissed.
7 Mar 2025

1. ) KAMARALZAMAN BIN IDRIS 2. ) NORMALA BINTI MOHD YATIM 1. ) OSMAN BIN ISMAIL 2. ) SITI SALMIAH BINTI ISMAIL 3. ) UMNI KALSUM BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) KAMARIAH BINTI MAIDEEN SHEIK 5. ) ISMAIL BIN IDRIS 6. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Sepang 7. ) PEN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-448-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-448-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs' application for a second stay failed because they did not establish exceptional circumstances related to enforcement that were not already considered; an existing conditional stay remained in force which plaintiffs failed to comply with; the issues plaintiffs sought to re‑litigate were previously adjudicated at a full trial (res judicata) and the alleged new facts were either available or could have been raised earlier; the fresh suit constituted an abuse of process and fell within grounds for striking out under O.18 r.19; moreover the civil court could not adjudicate on the valid…
29 May 2024

Yap Yoke Chong @ Allan Yap Yap Chee Siang

Citation

WA-22NCvC-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that the impugned High Court judgment was procured by fraudulent evidential materials (fabricated tombstones and false records) and that the fraud could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; s.44 Evidence Act 1950 permits a fresh collateral action to impeach such a judgment; res judicata does not bar impeachment for fraud; the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s credible fresh evidence, therefore the impugned judgment is set aside and reliefs granted.
17 Oct 2022

EXPO ELECTRONICS SDN BHD Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) PENCELAH 1. ) Dato Seri Yap Seng Yew 2. ) Datin Seri Gan Li Li

Citation

WA-24NCC-131-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-131-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed interveners were not entitled to intervene because the reinstatement order affected the company and not them personally and they were not a party required by statute; no breach of natural justice was established that would fall within the narrow exception allowing post-judgment intervention. Further, allegations of concealment, dishonesty and fraud were quasi-criminal and required a fresh suit and trial with fresh evidence; the application was also barred by inordinate delay and laches. Accordingly the intervention and set-aside application was dismissed with costs.
26 Sept 2022

Metropolitan Commerce Sdn Bhd PENCELAH DICADANGKAN SUN HUP HING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC-167-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-167-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused leave to intervene because the Sanction Order was a perfected, final order in proceedings that had concluded; the Proposed Intervener had notice and opportunity (Proof of Debt and CCM) but elected not to participate and was therefore deemed to have waived its rights and estopped from reopening the matter; allegations of fraud must be pursued by a fresh action rather than by intervention in the concluded proceedings; application dismissed with costs.
25 Jul 2022

Yee Mei Ken, Teh Soo Jin, Mattheus Goon Kin Zhi and Ho Yu Hang for the Applicant [Messrs Sia Boon Chee & Co.] Lim Kah Mun gor the Liquidator of the Respondent [Messrs Syed Muhamad Akhyari] PENCELAH Vickneswari a/p Veerasamy for the Proposed

Citation

POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-107-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-107-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the petitioner deliberately misrepresented that the judgment debt was payable to him, lacked locus standi, and that the winding-up order was obtained by fraud and abuse of process; applying Section 493 and the court's inherent jurisdiction the winding-up order was terminated/set aside and costs awarded.
24 May 2022

AMINAH BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) NUR ANIS BINTI JAMALUDIN 2. ) IKWAN HAFIZ BIN JAMALUDIN 3. ) WONG LU PEEN & TUNKU ALINA (SEBAGAI SEBUAH FIRMA PERKONGISAN) 4. ) LIZA CHAN SOW KENG 5. ) TENGKU FARIDDUDIN BIN TENGKU SULAIMAN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-381-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-381-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because the material issues relied on by the Plaintiff (meetings, existence of Sijil Faraid, execution and attestation of Letter of Renunciation, delay in distribution, alleged misrepresentations and misconduct) had been raised, ventilated and litigated in the earlier S7 proceedings; the Plaintiff could and should have pursued the remedies in that suit, so relitigation amounts to abuse of process and falls within res judicata in the wider sense. The without prejudice letter was inadmissible and did not establish fraud sufficient to avoid res judicata. Failure to have…