Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In camera proceedings

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

LIN WOON FUI DATO' TEH CHEE KIEN

Citation

WA-23NCvC-23-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-23-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the matters to be tried were private, familial and sensitive and that extensive media publicity created a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial; balancing the Sierra Club factors and statutory/inherent powers the salutary effects of confidentiality outweighed deleterious effects on open justice, therefore a protective order (in camera hearing) and sealing of cause papers were necessary to prevent injustice and to preserve fair trial rights; consequential orders (confidentiality of transcripts, limited access, costs in the cause, Form 83 endorsement) fo…
31 Oct 2025

LIN WOON FUI DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

Citation

WA-23NCvC-22-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-22-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the matters to be tried are private, familial and sensitive and that extensive media publicity created a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to the trial and to witnesses; balancing the necessity to prevent that serious risk and the salutary effects of confidentiality against the deleterious effect on open justice, the court concluded the protective and sealing orders were necessary and ordered the proceedings to be heard in camera and court records sealed.
31 Oct 2025

DATIN SERI TAN BEE GEOK DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

Citation

WA-23NCvC-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-31-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the matters to be tried are private, familial and sensitive and that extensive pre‑trial media publicity created a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial; applying the court's inherent jurisdiction and the balancing test (necessity and salutary v deleterious effects), the court concluded confidentiality and in camera hearing were necessary to protect the interest of justice and prevent abuse of process and therefore allowed the defendant's application and granted protective, sealing and consequential orders.
30 Jul 2024

1. ) MOHD RAZIN BIN RAZALI 2. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN AHMAD ZAKI

Citation

KA-46SOM-3-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-46SOM-3-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s14 Act 747 permits special protective measures without advance notice and that the earlier closed inquiry and order for typed/video evidence were lawful; however, because PW1's own testimony during prosecution examination revealed details that effectively identified the witness and because PW1 functioned as an active agent provocateur whose credibility required direct confrontation, protection was no longer necessary. Consequently the trial court's order that PW1 give further evidence as an ordinary sworn witness was upheld subject to in‑camera hearing (no public gallery)…
30 Jul 2024

1. ) ANAS HAFIZIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) MUHAMAD ASLAM BIN OSMAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN DAHAMID

Citation

KA-46SOM-4-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-46SOM-4-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the prosecution's examination and PW1's answers had already revealed PW1's identity as the boat operator, the court found statutory protection unnecessary and ordered that PW1 give further testimony as an ordinary sworn witness; the earlier order for typed/confidential testimony was cancelled but the testimony was to proceed without public gallery (in camera) and with a prohibition on disclosure of PW1's information absent legal process; the court also held s.14 Act 747 does not require advance notice to the defence.
25 Jan 2021

1. OAG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. OAG OFFSHORE PIPELINE SERVICES SDN BHD 3. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD - ABU DHABI 4. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD 5. SETIA OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. NG HOE KEONG 2. DEVANDRAN A/L ARUMU

Citation

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-42-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that it lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r.4 ROC and related statutory provisions to grant the Protective Order and the Anton Piller provisions after finding the plaintiffs met the ex parte disclosure threshold and required safeguards; the defendants' challenges to compel prior service and to rely on Bar Council Ruling 14.09 or certain Rules to avoid undertakings failed; accordingly Enclosures 15 and 26 were dismissed and Enclosure 41 was only partially allowed/dismissed to the extent described, with costs in the cause for the dismissed applications.
21 Dec 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor

Citation

WA-45-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of section 165 Penal Code: the accused was a public servant; he accepted RM2,000,000 credited into Tadmansori (a company he controlled) for his benefit without consideration; he knew the donor had connections with his official functions; the UMNO receipt was unreliable and no payment to UMNO was traced; therefore the accused is guilty under s165 PC.

Malaysia Case Law

LIN WOON FUI DATO' TEH CHEE KIEN

LIN WOON FUI DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

DATIN SERI TAN BEE GEOK DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

1. ) MOHD RAZIN BIN RAZALI 2. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN AHMAD ZAKI

1. ) ANAS HAFIZIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) MUHAMAD ASLAM BIN OSMAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN DAHAMID

1. OAG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. OAG OFFSHORE PIPELINE SERVICES SDN BHD 3. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD - ABU DHABI 4. OAG INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE SERVICES LTD 5. SETIA OFFSHORE SERVICES SDN BHD 1. NG HOE KEONG 2. DEVANDRAN A/L ARUMU

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor