Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection of company records

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2026

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNISAMY 1. ) HS HEIWA PRECISION (M) SDN BHD 2. ) SANDRA SHEAGER A/L CHIDAMBARAM

Citation

WA-24NCC-583-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-583-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that paragraph 8 was within its jurisdiction under Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 and necessary as a contingent mechanism to resolve disputes about absence of documents; the 3-day production period in paragraph 5 was reasonable given statutory duties under s245 and the mechanical nature of producing identified copies; and endorsement of a Penal Notice was appropriate to give the mandatory order practical enforceability. The interlocutory order dated 6 April 2026 was therefore upheld in full.
3 Mar 2026

ER KA WEI 1. ) LADANG S.W. SUNGAI RENTUNG SDN BHD 2. ) SEE HONG CHEEN @ SEE HONG CHEN 3. ) TAN LAM KOO 4. ) KOK YOON HEE

Citation

BA-24NCC-115-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-115-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff, as director, is entitled to inspect and copy the company records on a bona fide basis; the Originating Summons is allowed with costs and the Defendants must produce all documents in Annexure A in their possession or control within 14 days or file detailed affidavits of non‑existence; inspection to be conducted by the Plaintiff's approved auditor under confidentiality and reasonable copying conditions.
28 Feb 2022

1. ) MOK LIK YUEE 2. ) YEAP SOW KUEN 1. ) FY SDN BHD 2. ) MOK CHEE HOONG 3. ) LEAN MENG SEONG 4. ) MOK JO YI

Citation

AA-24NCC-6-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCC-6-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was not fatally defective in heading or particulars but the Plaintiffs' case was, on its face, a complaint about corporate wrongs and mismanagement (reflective loss) properly pursued as derivative claims; the Plaintiffs failed to aver oppression qua shareholders with necessary particularity and their s.346 claim was misconceived and an abuse of process, therefore the defendants' strike out application was allowed and the Originating Summons dismissed with costs.
7 Jan 2022

NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD 1. NAUTICAL SUPREME SDN BHD 2. DATO' SERI TIMOR SHAH RAFIQ 3. DATO WAN MOHD YAACOB BIN WAN SALAIDIN

Citation

WA-22NCC-163-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-163-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants formed a conspiracy to injure NTT or that the defendants breached fiduciary or statutory duties; the overt acts were explained by legitimate concerns about corporate governance, accounting and share transfer disputes, and no clear intention to injure or demonstrable causative damage to NTT was established; claim dismissed with costs.
25 Nov 2021

DATO' SRI ANDREW KAM TAI YEOW RAUB MINING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1707-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1707-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The tax documents obtained from the respondents' tax agents fall within the statutory definition of 'classified material' under s.138(5) Income Tax Act 1967 and, absent written authority or other statutory exception under s.138(2), are mandatorily prohibited from being produced or used in court; therefore the High Court correctly disallowed and expunged the documents and the Court of Appeal affirms and dismisses the appeals.
21 Sept 2021

DATO' SERI TIMOR SHAH RAFIQ NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCC)(A)-1980-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(A)-1980-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant satisfied the threshold for leave under s.348 by acting in good faith and showing a prima facie case in the company's best interest: independent Crowe Horwath reports raised sufficient concern that USD19.9m of shareholders' advances were unsubstantiated, auditors' unqualified reports and Shin Yang acknowledgements were not determinative, and majority management control does not immunise directors from accountability; consequently leave to commence derivative proceedings was granted and High Court order set aside.
7 Apr 2021

Low Wee Houng 1. Alpharon Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. Low Wee Heng

Citation

BA-24NCC-52-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-52-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd Defendant wilfully disobeyed the 5 March 2019 order; the 2nd Defendant demonstrated substantial compliance by producing the core accounting records and cheques, showed efforts to search for additional documents not in his possession, and there was no evidence of deliberate withholding; accordingly committal could not be granted.
4 Jun 2020

SIM CHIN HU (NRIC No.: 711010-03-5081) 1. KERK HAN MENG (NRIC No.: 711010-03-5081) 2. LEE YU MENG (NRIC No.: 740404-08-5412) 3. KUA CHIN WEE (NRIC No.: 731004-01-5007) 4. CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD (Company Reg No.: 200101003712)

Citation

WA-24NCC-138-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-138-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Interlocutory injunction refused because the plaintiff failed to show a bona fide serious issue that the company was a quasi‑partnership or that he had a legitimate expectation to participate in management; there was no documentary evidence of such an understanding, damages were an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the defendants to exercise their rights under the articles absent evidence of bad faith or excess of power.