Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In pari delicto

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2025

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

Citation

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and Amended Statement of Claim were struck out because the plaintiffs’ own pleaded facts and contemporaneous documents demonstrated the sale of shares was genuine and not a sham; the claim was ex facie tainted by illegality/admission of sham which the plaintiffs failed to displace by the Patel trio; some defendants were not parties to the SPA and directors are not personally liable absent veil lifting; accordingly the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.
21 Apr 2025

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

Citation

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and Amended Statement of Claim were struck out because the plaintiffs’ own pleaded admissions and contemporaneous documents demonstrated the share sale and subsequent agreements were genuine, the claim was thereby ex facie tainted by illegality/sham allegations unsupported by evidence, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden to displace the pari delicto bar, and the claims were frivolous or vexatious such that summary dismissal under Order 18 r 19 was justified.
21 Dec 2023

1. ) Ragavan a/ P.Subramaniam 2. ) Sivalingam a/l K Karuppiah 1. ) Pournamis Jewels (M) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Mageswary a/p Muniandy

Citation

WA-22NCC-86-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-86-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim is dismissed because the plaintiffs abandoned their pleaded sale claim at trial without amending pleadings and evidence established the arrangement was a sham masking an illegal unlicensed moneylending transaction; an agreement found to be moneylending and entered into by an unlicensed lender is unenforceable under section 15 of the Moneylenders Act 1951.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

1. ) Ragavan a/ P.Subramaniam 2. ) Sivalingam a/l K Karuppiah 1. ) Pournamis Jewels (M) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Mageswary a/p Muniandy