Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Piercing corporate veil

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

Mustaria Sdn Bhd 1. ) Wu Nah Yoh @ Woo Hin Wai 2. ) Wan Lai Peng 3. ) Woo Weng Kian @ Eric Woo Weng Kian

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-53-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-53-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in striking out the claim because the pleaded facts, assumed true at this stage, disclose serious triable issues concerning alleged director misconduct and potential piercing of the corporate veil; such issues require discovery, cross-examination and full trial, not summary dismissal; the insolvency regime does not bar a separate action for directors' personal wrongdoing.
25 Feb 2026

1. ) SELANGOR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GREAT VIEW ALUMINIUM SDN. BHD. 3. ) ACE BUILDING MATERIALS SDN. BHD. 4. ) WORLDWIDE ALUMINIUM BUILDER SDN. BHD. 5. ) CTSM GEOTECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 6. ) SEN LENG TRADING 7. ) BESTECH BUILDER

Citation

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the Statement of Claim pleads arguable causes of action in fraud and related wrongdoing; reliance on Section 503 materials as part of factual narrative does not render the claim plainly unsustainable or an abuse of process; admissibility and evidential scope of those materials and reflective loss issues are fact‑sensitive and for trial, not for summary disposal.
25 Feb 2026

1. ) SELANGOR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GREAT VIEW ALUMINIUM SDN. BHD. 3. ) ACE BUILDING MATERIALS SDN. BHD. 4. ) WORLDWIDE ALUMINIUM BUILDER SDN. BHD. 5. ) CTSM GEOTECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 6. ) SEN LENG TRADING 7. ) BESTECH BUILDER

Citation

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the Statement of Claim pleads arguable causes of action in fraud and related wrongdoing; references to s.503 liquidation materials do not render the pleading obviously unsustainable or an abuse of process and issues of admissibility, weight and derivativeness are fact- and evidence-sensitive matters for trial, not grounds for summary termination.
30 Jan 2026

POH HENG HAULAGE SDN BHD 1. ) PERNIAGAAN USAHASAMA MEMBALAK SDN. BHD. 2. ) Ng Yong Chee-telah Dikeluarkan Melalui O.18 3. ) NG YONG SIONG 4. ) Azis Satar Bin Satari-telah Dikeluarkan Melalui O.18

Citation

JA-22NCC-53-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-53-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claims against the 2nd and 4th defendants were struck out because the amended statement of claim, even if assumed true, failed to plead any specific facts giving rise to personal liability, contained inadequately particularised fraud allegations, and amounted to an abuse of process by improperly deploying veil‑piercing and fraud allegations to keep those defendants in the suit.
9 Jan 2026

BLACK SWAN PETROLEUM DMCC CMB.TECH NV

Citation

WA-27NCC-14-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-14-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against CMB. Tech NV was struck out because the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for conspiracy or inducement of breach: particulars were inadequate, affidavits could not cure pleading defects, there was no pleaded or proven fraud or inequitable conduct to justify piercing the corporate veil, and the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and risked breaching natural justice by not naming the subsidiary Euronav Shipping.
9 Dec 2025

1. ) DATO' DR FATHUL BARI BIN MAT JAHYA 2. ) SEKH MOHD FAZZLI BIN SEKH MOHD RUZI 3. ) WAN AZIZUL BIN WAN YUSOFF KRS TRAVEL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's factual findings that MAB refunded Rehla a settlement sum which included the plaintiff's RM 492,480, combined with admissions that the defendants misapplied those funds and made false declarations in striking off Rehla, establish fraud that justifies disregarding the company facade; the appellate court will not disturb these findings absent a plainly wrong conclusion — appeal dismissed.
28 Oct 2025

WELTON BUILDER SDN BHD DATO' SRI TEE YAM

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to transfer is dismissed because the suits do not share a common cause of action, the parties are legally distinct, the factual overlap is incidental, there is no real risk of inconsistent findings, the Defendant failed to prove the RM30 million was part of the JVA or to establish grounds to pierce the corporate veil, and the balance of convenience and ends of justice favour the matter remaining in Johor Bahru.
21 Oct 2025

HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD 1. ) INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB 2. ) DANNY NG HEAN TEE 3. ) TAI KUANG NENG 4. ) RUZI BIN SUPERMAN 5. ) NORMIZAH BINTI JAMIAN 6. ) WAN BAIZURAH BINTI WAN HUSIN 7. ) VICRAN A/L ELANGGOVEN 8. ) MOHD HAFILDZ BIN ASHA'

Citation

W-01(A)-142-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-142-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that Industrial Court orders substituting or joining non-employer related entities were erroneous because s.29(a) must be applied consistent with established company law: mere factual nexus (common directors/shareholders/address) is insufficient to substitute or join a non-employer; piercing the corporate veil is exceptional and requires credible particulars of impropriety or fraud; accordingly the Industrial Court Awards No.130 and No.131 of 2019 were quashed by certiorari.
25 Sept 2025

1. ) Mr. Hamed Ahmed Al Ghazali 2. ) Mr. Abdul Latif Al Khunaini 3. ) Mr. Faisal Al Hajri 4. ) Mr. Husam Abu Ghazaleh 5. ) Mr. Ahmad Al Osaimi 6. ) Mr. Fuad Al Wohaib Abrar Group International Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(A)-902-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-902-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the High Court: there was no privity of contract between the appellants and the respondent (the contracts were with AGAM), the proofs of debt advanced primarily alleged unliquidated wrongs and were not provable in winding up without prior trial and leave, the liquidator did not err in rejecting the proofs of debt, and appellate intervention was not warranted; appeal dismissed and High Court judgment affirmed.
19 May 2025

Lee Rodger Meiklejohn 1. ) Ranjeet Singh Sidhu 2. ) Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir 3. ) Gurmeet Kaur A/P Gurcharan Singh 4. ) G&P Solutions Sdn Bhd 5. ) Rothchilds Capital (I) Sdn Bhd 6. ) G&P Resources Sdn. Bhd. 7. ) Manibalan

Citation

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Defendant: alleged direct representations by the 2nd Defendant occurred in 2015 after the 2010–2011 investment and thus could not have induced the investment; the pleadings lack required particulars to establish that the 2nd Defendant authorised or made any pre-contractual representations, personally assisted in diverting funds, owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, or personally received or benefited from the funds; allegations relying on a separate UK judgment do not substitute for pleaded fa…