Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preservation of evidence

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff satisfied the three core requirements for Anton Piller relief—strong prima facie case based on forensic evidence and circumstantial links, serious potential irreparable harm from misuse of core confidential materials, and a real possibility of destruction or concealment of electronic evidence—there was no material nondisclosure and execution complied with safeguards; accordingly the Anton Piller Order is to be maintained and applications to set aside or stay are dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Anton Piller Order was lawfully granted and should be maintained because the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case based on forensic and circumstantial evidence, demonstrated serious potential harm from misuse of confidential materials, and showed a real possibility of destruction or concealment of digital evidence; there was no material nondisclosure and execution complied with supervisory safeguards, therefore defendants' applications to set aside or stay the Order were dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the three Arthur Andersen requirements — a strong prima facie case supported by forensic and circumstantial evidence, serious potential harm to proprietary business materials, and a real risk of destruction or concealment of digital evidence — that there was no material nondisclosure, and that the execution complied with safeguards; accordingly the Anton Piller Order was maintained and applications to set aside or stay were dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff established the three core requirements for an Anton Piller Order — a strong prima facie case supported by forensic and circumstantial evidence, serious potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business, and a real possibility of destruction or concealment of digital evidence; there was no material nondisclosure and the order was executed within safeguards — therefore the Anton Piller Order was properly granted and should be maintained, and the defendants' applications to set aside or stay the Order must be dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Anton Piller Order was properly maintained because the Plaintiff satisfied the three Arthur Andersen requirements: a strong prima facie case supported by forensic listings and circumstantial links, the potential harm was grave and irreparable to the Plaintiff's core confidential materials, and there was a real possibility of destruction or concealment of digital evidence; there was no material nondisclosure and the Order's execution complied with supervisory safeguards, therefore applications to set aside or stay were dismissed and the Order continued pending trial.
17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff satisfied the three core Arthur Andersen requirements: there was a strong prima facie case supported by forensic listings and timing of file transfers, the confidential materials risked serious irreparable commercial harm if disseminated, and there was a real possibility evidence could be destroyed or altered given the digital context; the plaintiff discharged the duty of disclosure and the execution complied with supervisory safeguards, therefore the Anton Piller Order was properly obtained and should be maintained pending trial.
18 Sept 2025

HOCK CHEONG LOGISTICS SDN BHD 1. ) YEO BOK SIANG 2. ) TAN SOU FUNG 3. ) ANASTASIA ROBITA GAMANI 4. ) SHARON A/P JOHNSON 5. ) SASA SHIPPING SDN BHD 6. ) AH YUTI BINTI ABDUL MANAF

Citation

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff satisfied the substantive thresholds for an Anton Piller Order (strong prima facie case, probable risk of destruction, possession of relevant materials, and confidentiality of information), that procedural defects were curable in the absence of prejudice, and that the APO was not oppressive or overbroad as executed; therefore the ex parte order was affirmed and seized materials retained in judicial custody.
13 Jun 2025

1. ) LEE HYEN SIP @ SIMON 2. ) ANEKA MEGA SDN BHD 3. ) MAJU BOSKU SDN BHD 4. ) GOLDEN LEADER SDN BHD 5. ) KUKUH MAJU SDN BHD 6. ) SUPER BEST SDN BHD 7. ) MASTER CITY SDN BHD 1. ) SEE HONG CHEEN @ SEE HONG CHEN 2. ) SEE FONG SENG 3. ) LEGA M

Citation

BA-22NCvC-63-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-63-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the 1st Plaintiff was an undisputed director and section 245(4) and (8) CA confer an entitlement to inspect records and permit auditor inspection subject to undertaking, the Court correctly granted the ad interim orders permitting the 1st Plaintiff, his solicitors and an approved company auditor to inspect and copy the companies' records pending the inter partes hearing; the defendants' refusal to facilitate access justified scrutiny and relief on balance of convenience.
11 Sept 2023

CHERY AUTOMOBILE RUS 1. ) AH SHIN SHIPPING SA 2. ) DORIKO LTD

Citation

WA-24NCC-242-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-242-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the setting aside application failed: the plaintiff did not withhold material facts which would have led to refusal of the ex‑parte orders because events in February were superseded by April communications and executed access agreements; urgency and risk to irreplaceable evidence justified the ex‑parte injunction; the requirements of Order 29 Rule 1(2A) were satisfied and balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction.