Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Related‑party transactions

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2026

ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN HASHIM 2. ) MOHD IKRAM BIN RAHIM 3. ) FOONG SOON FEI 4. ) WONG LI GINN 5. ) WONG CHIN YAP 6. ) TRANSVISION ENGINEERING SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA Sundarasan Arum

Citation

WA-28JM-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-32-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court appointed a Judicial Manager because ASM was shown to be unable to pay its debts (notably two unsatisfied CIPAA awards), the IJM's credible preliminary report established a high probability that rehabilitation would succeed based on significant unencumbered land assets and GDV potential, and there were serious concerns about management's disclosure and related‑party transactions such that the Court’s discretion properly favored placing the company under an independent statutory officer to verify liabilities and maximize creditors' recoveries.
14 Apr 2025

KOAY PENG SOON 1. ) LEE SEIK FUN 2. ) LIM LEONG CHUAN 3. ) ENPRO SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ABRE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 5. ) ENPRO TEKNOLOGI SDN BHD 6. ) ENPRO ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-329-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-329-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the majority directors denied the Plaintiff access to company financial information and transferred substantial funds to related companies without proper authorization or contemporaneous documentation; that conduct constituted oppression under s346 Companies Act 2016 and the appropriate equitable remedy is a court‑directed buy‑out of the Plaintiff's 30% shareholding with valuation that accounts for improperly diverted funds and excludes a minority discount; the defendants' counterclaim failed procedurally and on the evidence.
9 Oct 2024

GA YEE FURNITURE SDN BHD 1. ) Encony Development Sdn Bhd 2. ) ERAMAS KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 3. ) Dato' Khor Wooi Chen

Citation

PA-22NCVC-13-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-13-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfers totaling RM9,397,057.40 were not bona fide related‑party loans; D3 and D4, who controlled the companies, conspired and/or breached fiduciary duties in transferring Plaintiff's funds for defendants' benefit; those transfers gave rise to a constructive trust over the monies and the Property and allowed equitable tracing into the Property; tracing is to the value of the Property realised (RM25,000,000) and defendants are liable in the quantified sums with interest.
11 Sept 2024

SHAKIB BIN ABU BAKAR BANAFEE 1. ) AWH INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) MOHD AZIZUL BIN MOHD NASIR 3. ) AHMAD AKID BIN NOOR AZLEE

Citation

JA-22NCC-67-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-67-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a higher probability of success on the merits by demonstrating prima facie contraventions of Companies Act 2016 (conflict of interest under s.225 and impermissible financial assistance under s.123), risk of dissipation of D1's assets via the RM20,000,000 transaction and prejudice that cannot be adequately remedied by damages; accordingly the court granted mandatory/interim relief in part to restore funds and maintain pre‑EGM status quo pending trial.
11 Oct 2022

Yap Yeow Han and Abd Azim bin Abd Razak for the Applicant [Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners] 1. ) Emily Wong and H’ng Yen Jun for the 1 st Respondent [Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong] 2. ) Saheran Suhendran and Rodney Gan for the 2nd Respondent [Messr

Citation

WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-333-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Motion dismissed because the prior 26.8.2021 court order approving the sale was regular and conclusive, the applicant failed to prove illegality, lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fraud or bad faith by the liquidator, the tender process and disclosures were adequate and the sale was not shown to be at undervalue; Section 517 was inapplicable as the decision had been judicially approved and injunctive relief to undo a regular court-approved sale would be unjust and an abuse of process.
22 Feb 2021

TOSHIBA ELEVATOR AND BUILDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION (Diperbadankan di Jepun, No. Syarikat: 5010701006785) 1. INTERPLEX SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 81026-V) 2. INTERPLEX HOLDINGS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 323452-T) 3. ITN RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarik

Citation

WA-24NCC-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-183-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

TELC failed to prove oppression under s.346 CA 2016 because (a) the advances to related companies funded a legitimate PMSM motor project of benefit to MSEL which TELC knew about and participated in before increasing its shareholding, (b) disputed accounting entries were reversed and remedied, (c) the alleged 2016 agreement to sell 21% was at most a basis for negotiation and not a binding sale (and many communications were without prejudice), (d) the unpaid debts were acts of other companies and not conduct of MSEL's affairs actionable under s.346, and (e) delay and acquiescence by TELC and re…
11 Sept 2020

RWC ELEVATORS & ESCALATORS PRODUCTS (M) SDN BHD MS ELEVATORS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-21-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-21-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No bona fide triable issue of set-off was established because the defendant produced no contemporaneous agreement, no evidence of set-offs having been effected, and its own documents included an acknowledgement of debt; mere common shareholding and minutes/discussions are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Consequently summary judgment was appropriate on reduced claim amounts and security for costs applications were dismissed.
15 Jan 2020

HAMIZAN BINTI MOHD ARIS (NRIC : 670129-10-6264) 1. BRUHANUTHEEN BIN AHMED MUSTAFA (NRIC : 581217-10-5099) 2. AHMAD RIZA BIN BASIR (NRIC : 601119-08-5755)

Citation

BA-24NCC-114-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-114-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's allegations did not meet the statutory threshold of oppression under s.346: the principal transactions were authorized by directors' resolutions and occurred before the plaintiff acquired shares, the plaintiff delayed unreasonably in bringing the claim, the defendants provided credible explanations and documentary evidence, and conjecture about secret profits or administrative errors is insufficient to establish oppression; accordingly the application is dismissed with costs.