Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent misrepresentation

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

International Shipcare Sdn Bhd 1. ) Sabenajadi Sdn Bhd 2. ) Petronas Dagangan Berhad 3. ) Mohd Amin Bin Mohd Shukor

Citation

WA-22NCC-867-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-867-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants is plainly unsustainable because there is no contractual nexus between Plaintiff and D2/D3 and the 2nd Defendant fully discharged its contractual obligations by paying the 1st Defendant the entire agreed sum; consequently there is no unjust enrichment or juristic gap to remedy under Section 71, promissory estoppel and fraud are insufficiently particularised, and the 3rd Defendant acted in his representative capacity so no personal liability is pleaded; therefore the pleadings against D2 and D3 are struck out.
10 Apr 2026

XXXX 1. ) Foo Yong 2. ) Loke Kok Kuen 3. ) Ong Tiong Tjuan (D3 In Counter Claim)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-237-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-237-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Foo made a fraudulent misrepresentation that Steven owed RM38,600,000 without any documentary evidence; the independent forensic audit (Ferrier Hodgson) corroborated absence of any such injection, and Steven proved he signed under duress so there was no conspiracy; therefore the FSA was set aside, restitution ordered, Foo liable for defamation damages to Steven and Ong entitled to RM5,000,000 balance under the SSA.
5 Mar 2026

LUTFI HARIZ BIN MOHD AMIN 1. ) RIDUAN BIN MAUDIN 2. ) DSR MEDICLINIC (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) DSR MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY (M) SDN. BHD. PIHAK TERKILAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

BC-B53-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-B53-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found on the balance of probabilities that defendants, especially defendant one, made false representations that the clinic was validly registered and operable; plaintiff relied on those representations and suffered quantifiable loss; defendants had or should have had knowledge of registration lapse; contract was voidable for fraud and plaintiff entitled to rescission and damages, exemplary damages and costs with interest.
5 Mar 2026

1. ) FAIZATUL HASANAH BINTI HUSSAIN 2. ) MOHD AZHAR BIN MOHD KHALID FAUZIAH BINTI HUSSAIN

Citation

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to apply the law correctly: it imposed personal liability without satisfying the legal threshold to displace separate legal personality, erred in inferring fraud from subsequent non-performance, failed to establish undue influence under s16, and awarded speculative damages; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment dated 29.09.2025 was set aside.
13 Feb 2026

1. ) NG SOCK FOON 2. ) LIM KIM KEANG 3. ) YEN JEAN SIANG 4. ) LEE SUVEN 5. ) KONG LAI HOONG 6. ) LEE JIA MIN 7. ) ADINO GIAM LIP GHEE 8. ) PREM KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 9. ) PRAKASH KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 10. ) NAVANITHAN A/L RADZAKRISNAN 11. ) SUM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-299-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-299-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation with requisite particularity and evidence; the developer fulfilled the statutory infrastructure contribution and representations were limited to a proposal within the local authority's control; statutory schemes did not confer a private cause of action for the alleged regulatory breaches and no proven loss was shown beyond LAD; annexure formed part of the SPA; absent evidence of fraud or façade, the corporate veil was not to be lifted — therefore all claims dismissed and costs awarded to Defendants.
6 Feb 2026

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD 1. ) DICKSON WOO BOON SIEW 2. ) CHOONG SOO HOI 3. ) LEE SWEE KIAT 4. ) LEE MEI PENG 5. ) CHU SWEE WAH 6. ) TIONG POH LING 7. ) PRISTINE CLEAR SDN BHD 8. ) CSL PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part: the settlement letters were valid and not vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation; LAD entitlement is to be determined strictly by the express SPA terms and the parties' agreed settlement (but miscellaneous charges agreed in the settlement must be deducted from LAD); the High Court order directing repayment of RM25,394 was set aside because the 6th respondent bore the burden to prove the payment and failed to call material witnesses; accordingly the High Court judgment was varied with revised LAD amounts and costs awarded to the Appellant.
16 Dec 2025

1. ) YONG YEH FONG 2. ) CHAN KWANG HAU 3. ) KEE JOO EE 4. ) TEE WEI KANG 5. ) FOO KHAR YI 6. ) CHONG SIAU XIAN 7. ) HONG TEIN HWEE 8. ) TAN ZHENG HAO 9. ) KELVIN TING CHENG TAT 10. ) YANG WEN BIN 11. ) LIEW PUA KANG 12. ) CHEN XIAO HUI 13.

Citation

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-219-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found plaintiffs have a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation supported by the defendant's messages and partial admissions; there were sufficient grounds to believe the defendant has assets (including a prior RM100,000 payment) and objective indicators of dishonesty and risk of dissipation; the undertaking and built-in procedural allowances were adequate; therefore a Mareva injunction freezing assets up to USD400,000 was justified and ordered with costs.
2 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM TECK HOE 2. ) EE KAI XIN 1. ) MANITREX GLOVES (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) ABDUL NASIR BIN ABDUL GHAFFAR 3. ) NUR AINA ADILLA BINTI ABDUL NASIR 4. ) PENDAFTAR SYARIKAT, SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-24NCC-234-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-234-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The OS was dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to prove Manitrex was carrying on business at the time of striking off and reinstatement would be unjust and redundant given prior adverse findings; moreover reinstatement cannot cure the fatal lack of locus standi at the time suit 389 was filed and the application was a reactive abuse of process.
28 Nov 2025

GME Global Automotive (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) RIDUAN BIN MAUDIN 2. ) AMIR BIN AZAHAR 3. ) DSR CORPORATE SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 4. ) DSR MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-461-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-461-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or conspiracy: contemporaneous documents established defendant4 had a valid tenancy for a defined portion of Lot 9 and plaintiff had not pleaded particulars nor shown justified reliance; privity of contract barred personal liability of the 1st defendant absent contractual term or guarantee; accordingly plaintiff's claim was dismissed and defendants' counterclaims were allowed in part (awards set out).
4 Nov 2025

1. ) HAN ON SDN BHD 2. ) ACONMAN SDN BHD 1. ) EAS AIR-CONDITIONING SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) Wong Kok Khoon

Citation

WA-22NCvC-276-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-276-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend (Encl 102) dismissed because it was filed late without cogent explanation, amounted to a tactical manoeuvre that materially changed the character of the suit by adding new equitable and tortious causes (estoppel, conspiracy, expanded fraud), and caused prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.