Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Piercing the corporate veil

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2028

1. ) P. KALIVANN A/L PALANIVELU 2. ) MALA A/P KASINATHAN 1. ) FROGGER CREATION SDN BHD 2. ) YAP CHEE KONG 3. ) YUE KAH LAI 4. ) CHEN YIN CHOY

Citation

BA-23NCvC-67-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-67-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed both strike out applications because the stringent threshold for summary striking out under Order 18 r19(1) was not met; the Plaintiffs' pleadings could not be categorised as plainly or obviously unsustainable and the contested issues of fact and law (conspiracy, fraud, duty of care, and potential piercing of the corporate veil) require full trial; unsuccessful defendants may seek costs at the trial's conclusion.
5 Mar 2026

1. ) FAIZATUL HASANAH BINTI HUSSAIN 2. ) MOHD AZHAR BIN MOHD KHALID FAUZIAH BINTI HUSSAIN

Citation

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-104-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to apply the law correctly: it imposed personal liability without satisfying the legal threshold to displace separate legal personality, erred in inferring fraud from subsequent non-performance, failed to establish undue influence under s16, and awarded speculative damages; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment dated 29.09.2025 was set aside.
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 Statement of Claim pleads arguable causes of action in fraud and related wrongdoing which are not rendered obviously unsustainable merely because they refer to s503 liquidation materials; issues of admissibility, scope of s503(8), abuse of process and reflective loss are fact- and evidence-sensitive and must be determined at trial, therefore the strike-out applications under Order 18 Rule 19 fail.
23 Jan 2026

KINGSMEN PROJECTS SDN BHD AS CLEANING EQUIPMENT (M) SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) LIM TIAN SIONG 2. ) SIMON ONG CHIN SIM

Citation

JA-A53CY-3-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53CY-3-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The counterclaim was struck out because on the face of the pleadings and documents there is no reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants; the evidence shows the contractual relationship was between KEG and ASCEMSB; there is no pleaded or evidential basis to pierce the corporate veil or to establish fraud or conspiracy with requisite particulars; striking out was appropriate under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012 as the claim was unsustainable and an abuse of process, and related matters belong to the winding-up forum.
4 Dec 2025

1. ) MY DENTAL CARE SDN. BHD. 2. ) ZEEFITRI SANIAH BINTI BIDIN 3. ) ASLAM BACHO 4. ) MDC ASIA LINK BERHAD 1. ) MUHAMMAD FADLI BIN EMBONG 2. ) Aida Adlina Binti Mohamad 3. ) Dzulqarnain Bin Ahmad Iskandar Shah 4. ) Muhd Fadzli Amin Bin Muhd

Citation

BA-12ANCC-33-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-33-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Mutual Agreement was valid and binding because acceptance was effectively communicated by the parties' conduct and correspondence; the Mutual Agreement governs the plaintiffs' claim and obviates re‑litigation of background investment arrangements; summary judgment was appropriate because the defendants' challenges raised no triable issues of merit; the 3rd and 4th defendants cannot be held personally liable absent personal guarantees or proof of fraud.
28 Nov 2025

GME Global Automotive (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) RIDUAN BIN MAUDIN 2. ) AMIR BIN AZAHAR 3. ) DSR CORPORATE SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 4. ) DSR MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-461-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-461-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or conspiracy: contemporaneous documents established defendant4 had a valid tenancy for a defined portion of Lot 9 and plaintiff had not pleaded particulars nor shown justified reliance; privity of contract barred personal liability of the 1st defendant absent contractual term or guarantee; accordingly plaintiff's claim was dismissed and defendants' counterclaims were allowed in part (awards set out).
17 Nov 2025

AHMAD ABDULLAH & GOH LIM KING HOCK@ LIM KENG HOCK

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the pleaded cause of action against the individual directors did not disclose a reasonable cause because the appointment and refunds related solely to the company, there was no evidence of payments to the directors and no basis to pierce the corporate veil; therefore the writ and statement of claim against the directors were properly struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(a), (b) and (d).
22 Oct 2025

LIM TING CHAI 1. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS 3. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 4. ) TAN LIANG KEAT

Citation

WA-22NCC-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2014 proceedings were void ab initio for lack of prosecutorial consent under AMLA and therefore did not bar relitigation; plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims were not statute-barred because fraudulent breaches of constructive trust fall within Limitation Act s22(1) and alternative claims were saved by s29 until discovery on conviction; evidence including final criminal findings and company operational documents proved fraudulent representations, knowledge or recklessness by directors, a constructive trust arose over the monies/gold, and the corporate veil could be pierced to hold directors per…
21 Oct 2025

Hubline Berhad 1. ) Danny Ng Hean Tee & 20 Orang Lagi 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Highline Shipping Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-01(A)-128-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-128-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeals allowed. The Industrial Court erred in ordering substitution of Hubline and joinder of Highline under s.29(a) on the basis of the asserted nexus alone. Section 29(a) must be applied consistent with fundamental company law: mere factual or legal nexus is insufficient to displace separate legal personality. Piercing the corporate veil is exceptional and requires credible evidence of impropriety or assumption of liability (per Keller/Prest). The Claimants failed to meet that threshold and the Industrial Court Awards No.130 and No.131 of 2019 are quashed.
8 Oct 2025

NYTREX GLOBAL SOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) DAQ WAREHOUSE SDN BHD 2. ) DAQ LOGISTICS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-39-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-39-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the Plaintiff's own pleadings the loss arose from storage for which D1 was responsible; the Statement of Claim contains no pleaded duty, breach or causation against D2 and invoices/payments do not establish liability; no pleaded facts justify piercing the corporate veil; therefore the claim against D2 discloses no reasonable cause of action and is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19.