Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lifting the corporate veil

Legal area

Court

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.
14 Jan 2026

SAFFRON INFO SYSTEMS SDN. BHD. SARAVANAN A/L SUBRAMANIYAN

Citation

B-02(NCC)(W)-1271-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

B-02(NCC)(W)-1271-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

No evidence established a concluded share sale, no personal guarantee, and no proof of actual fraud or unconscionable conduct by the director to justify lifting the corporate veil; payments were made to the company and used legitimately as working capital, therefore the director is not personally liable and the High Court's dismissal of personal liability is affirmed.
17 Dec 2025

ARCO CORPORATE ADVISORY SDN BHD 1. ) PPFB SDN BHD 2. ) PPFB RETAIL SDN BHD 3. ) SYED MUHAMMAD ADAM BIN SYED ZAINAL ABIDIN 4. ) MUHAMMAD AMIESH BIN MOHD REMMY 5. ) ZHAFRI BIN ZULKIFLI 6. ) MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH BIN NOR AZMI 7. ) MUHAMMAD SHARAW

Citation

BA-22NCvC-463-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-463-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 3rd, 5th and 9th Defendants discloses no reasonable cause of action because the pleadings only allege corporate conduct without material facts showing personal involvement, personal assumption of responsibility, or any basis to lift the corporate veil; the pleadings are collectively framed, lack requisite particularity, amount to an abuse of process, and the defects are substantive and not curable by amendment; therefore the striking out applications are allowed.
4 Nov 2025

1. ) KUGIINDRAN A/L MUNINDY 2. ) NEVILLE ANTHONY FERNANDEZ AZTEC LABORATORIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-188-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-188-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court affirmed that the plaintiff demonstrated a clear and undisputed debt and met Order 14 requirements; the appellants failed to raise any bona fide triable issue and, as directors who continued trading while the company could not pay, they are personally liable under s.540 Companies Act 2016; appeal dismissed and lower court judgment affirmed.
22 Oct 2025

TEO YUN HOCK 1. ) AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD 2. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN BHD 3. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 4. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 5. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN 6. ) GO AUTO SERVICE

Citation

WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-70-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the 15th defendant's striking out application primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application; alternatively the court found the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient particulars of fraud and that absence of contractual privity did not preclude liability where fraud is alleged and the corporate veil may be pierced. Costs of RM5000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
18 Sept 2025

SIGNATURE CABINET SDN BHD 1. ) LIM KENG HENG 2. ) MOHAMED IZHAM BIN HAMZAH 3. ) ALIGAN DESIGN SDN BHD 4. ) ALIGAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) TULUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 6. ) JAYA PRAKASH A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-498-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was dismissed because on the face of the Amended SOC it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action, nor that the claim was scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process; allegations of integrated control, ownership and alleged fraudulent conduct required trial evidence and could not be resolved summarily under Order 18 r19(1).
15 Aug 2025

FELIX RELOCATIONS (M) SDN BHD 1. ) IVS ITECHNICS (M) SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' VICNESVARAN a/l RAJAMANIKKAN 3. ) DATIN GIRIJA a/p SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-159-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-159-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the transfers were loans not investments because contemporaneous requests called them loans, there was no evidence of any investment structure or vessel purchases, partial repayments constituted acknowledgement of debt, D2 misrepresented the purpose of funds, and the corporate structure was used to conceal misuse; therefore D1 and D2 are jointly and severally liable for RM2,000,000 and the corporate veil is lifted to hold D2 personally liable.
9 Jun 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG LI CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Te Chee Siong 5. ) Lim Soon Seng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahari Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found sufficient pleaded particulars and corroborating evidence that D2 and D3 misrepresented an urgent need and verified unsupported claims, that D1 did not legitimately supply machinery claimed, that two retrospective work orders were used to regularize prior dubious invoices, and that D4 and D5 (directors) consented to and benefited from the scheme so the corporate veil is lifted; relief was granted accordingly including repayment of overpayment and damages; D1's counterclaim was dismissed.
22 May 2025

AURELIA JOIE THAI MAXTER GLOVE MANUFACTURING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-315-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-315-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to commence a derivative action is dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove she is acting in good faith and failed to show that granting leave would prima facie be in the best interest of the 1st Defendant: the acquisition was approved by the sole shareholder SCB, was commercially justified, auditors did not find impropriety and any accounting reclassification was a presentation adjustment, there is no demonstrated financial loss or identifiable arguable cause of action, and the application appears motivated by collateral/personal disputes.
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.