Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misrepresentation/fraud

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

OMIKASAM MOHAMMATH MUHAMMAD SYAFI BIN MOHD KHAMRI Yang berniaga dengan nama dan gaya RSZ GIGIH ENTERPRISE

Citation

AJ-A72NCvC-3-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCvC-3-02/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the written agreements were valid and binding as pleaded; the Plaintiff lacked privity to the second agreement (it was between Defendant and the Plaintiff's son) and therefore could not rely on it; the Plaintiff failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation and had inconsistent testimony; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed.
1 Dec 2025

Azhar Bin Atan Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Azhar Bin Atan (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Mohd Shah Bin Manaf (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 3. ) Jihan Yusnizan Binti Mohd Yusoff (Mengikut Tunttan Balas) 4. ) Goh Mui Chiuan (Mengiku

Citation

JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CELO had a prior retainer for the company in relation to PU 2022 and materially participated in preparing and witnessing PU 2022, BEA and CA; the current proceedings are sufficiently connected to that retainer such that there is a real likelihood Datuk Clarence Edwin will be a material witness and that confidential information relevant to the present disputes exists; accordingly the risk of conflict and misuse of privileged material justified disqualification under the court's jurisdiction and applicable professional rules. Separately, Shah was granted an extension to file defence on bona fid…
8 Feb 2022

RAVINDER SINGH A/L SHANGARA SINGH 1. ) THEVAN REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K. RAGAVAN

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-429-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-429-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The pleadings raised disputed factual issues regarding alleged representations and agency that ordinarily require a full trial; however the affidavit relied upon by the plaintiff (Annex 52) was improperly sworn by the plaintiff's solicitor, contained contentious matters not within the solicitor's personal knowledge and failed to state sources where based on information and belief in breach of Order 41 r.5 KKM 2012; consequently Annex 52 should be excluded and, absent it, Defendant First's strike out application (Annex 44) must be allowed with costs.
13 Jan 2022

HALE MEDICAL SUPPLY LLC 1. ) SKYFIELD DESIGN & BUILD SDN BHD 2. ) CHAN PARK HUGH 3. ) CHIN XIE JACK 4. ) NG KIAN YU

Citation

BA-22NCC-27-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-27-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to produce credible material evidence showing a real risk that any costs order could not be enforced; the plaintiff's payment of USD 1,300,000 and retention of local solicitors indicate means and credibility of claim; the plaintiff's claim is not a sham and has arguable prospects; therefore, in all the circumstances it is not just to order security for costs and the application is dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

OMIKASAM MOHAMMATH MUHAMMAD SYAFI BIN MOHD KHAMRI Yang berniaga dengan nama dan gaya RSZ GIGIH ENTERPRISE

Azhar Bin Atan Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Azhar Bin Atan (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Mohd Shah Bin Manaf (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 3. ) Jihan Yusnizan Binti Mohd Yusoff (Mengikut Tunttan Balas) 4. ) Goh Mui Chiuan (Mengiku

RAVINDER SINGH A/L SHANGARA SINGH 1. ) THEVAN REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K. RAGAVAN

HALE MEDICAL SUPPLY LLC 1. ) SKYFIELD DESIGN & BUILD SDN BHD 2. ) CHAN PARK HUGH 3. ) CHIN XIE JACK 4. ) NG KIAN YU