Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misappropriation of trade secrets

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2025

1. ) CALIPH CONSULTANCY GROUP SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHD HAMZAVI BIN MD ZAIN 1. ) ONE TWO ONE ADVISOR SDN. BHD. 2. ) QAIZER CONSULTANCY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-18-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-18-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiffs' Application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show necessity under the Sierra Club test: the defendants (and Transferred Agents) already had access to and legitimate use of the Commission Allocation and Agent Database, the proposed orders were overbroad and in substance sought to injunct use of the information (requiring a separate injunction hearing and higher test), and granting the orders would prejudice defendants and Transferred Agents and was not justified by a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest.
3 Feb 2025

ITS Testing Services (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) DP Fluiteq Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Dev Menon A/L Gopalan 3. ) Peter Chang Ngi Lee 4. ) Murugan A/L Selvaraj PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN Carigali-PTTEPI Operating Company Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22IP-24-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-24-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The injunction was refused because on the documentary evidence before the court the plaintiff failed to establish a bona fide serious issue to be tried: the alleged confidential information was pleaded in overly broad and non‑specific terms and there was insufficient evidence that CPOC engaged the 1st defendant or that any confidential information was unlawfully used; the balance of convenience therefore lay against granting an injunction.
26 Jan 2022

1. ) POLYCHEM MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 2. ) FOCUS PIGMENT SDN BHD 3. ) LIM CHENG HAN 1. ) LOW LING WEI 2. ) FARBEN TECHNIQUE (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) SEOW LIANG YEAN 4. ) KEW CHII SHIANG 5. ) TAN CHUAN YIK

Citation

PA-22NCvC-55-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-55-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where precise words of communications are material to constitute ingredients of the pleaded causes of action (notably conspiracy and fraud and to pierce the corporate veil), Order 18 r.12(1) permits pleading those particulars; issues of unlawful interception under s.234 CMA 1998 and relevance of motive/intention are factual and triable matters and not grounds for striking out at interlocutory stage; therefore the strike out application was dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) CALIPH CONSULTANCY GROUP SDN. BHD. 2. ) MOHD HAMZAVI BIN MD ZAIN 1. ) ONE TWO ONE ADVISOR SDN. BHD. 2. ) QAIZER CONSULTANCY SDN. BHD.

ITS Testing Services (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) DP Fluiteq Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Dev Menon A/L Gopalan 3. ) Peter Chang Ngi Lee 4. ) Murugan A/L Selvaraj PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN Carigali-PTTEPI Operating Company Sdn Bhd

1. ) POLYCHEM MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 2. ) FOCUS PIGMENT SDN BHD 3. ) LIM CHENG HAN 1. ) LOW LING WEI 2. ) FARBEN TECHNIQUE (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) SEOW LIANG YEAN 4. ) KEW CHII SHIANG 5. ) TAN CHUAN YIK