Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 245 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2026

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNISAMY 1. ) HS HEIWA PRECISION (M) SDN BHD 2. ) SANDRA SHEAGER A/L CHIDAMBARAM

Citation

WA-24NCC-583-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-583-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that paragraph 8 was within its jurisdiction under Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 and necessary as a contingent mechanism to resolve disputes about absence of documents; the 3-day production period in paragraph 5 was reasonable given statutory duties under s245 and the mechanical nature of producing identified copies; and endorsement of a Penal Notice was appropriate to give the mandatory order practical enforceability. The interlocutory order dated 6 April 2026 was therefore upheld in full.
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.
19 Apr 2024

LEE YOKE WAN 1. ) DAHAN CIPTA SDN. BHD 2. ) KONG LAN MEE 3. ) LEE GEE SENG 4. ) LEE KOK SENG 5. ) HO AH SENG @ HO THAM SENG

Citation

BA-24-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24-5-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although a director's inspection right under s245 is prima facie absolute, the defendants met their burden to show clear evidence of improper ulterior motive and potential detriment to the company and that relevant issues were subject to prior adjudication; accordingly the court refused the inspection order and dismissed the originating summons with costs to the plaintiff.
17 Aug 2023

1. ) Datuk Beh Kim Ling 2. ) V.S. Industry Berhad NEP Holdings (Malaysia) Berhad

Citation

WA-24NCC-43-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-43-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Inspection Order was clear and unambiguous; NEP failed to open its entire accounting records at the commencement of the inspection and failed to supply copies of documents listed in Annexure B within the inspection period; the named directors/officers had notice and responsibility and therefore, on the totality of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, NEP and the officers (LCH, LCK, CCP, KKH) committed contempt of court and are to be punished accordingly.
17 Aug 2023

1. ) Datuk Beh Kim Ling 2. ) V.S. Industry Berhad NEP Holdings (Malaysia) Berhad

Citation

WA-24NCC-43-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-43-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Originating Summons was allowed because s.245 CA 2016 and common law give a director an almost absolute right to inspect accounting and other records (including relevant subsidiary records) and the Defendant failed to prove 'clear proof' that inspection would be abused; the 2nd Plaintiff's contractual rights to consolidated accounts under the Shareholders' Agreement must be enforced; the right to inspect includes the right to obtain copies and to appoint an approved auditor to inspect on the director's behalf.
9 Mar 2022

LOH TECK WAH 1. ) LIM PANG KIAM 2. ) YAP CHEE KHENG 3. ) PNL TRADING SDN BHD 4. ) SUBANG INDUSTRY PARK SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-229-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-229-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff, being a director, is entitled under s.245 CA 2016 to inspect the companies' accounting and other records and to be assisted by an approved auditor and to obtain copies; the defendants failed to prove clear, affirmative evidence that the inspection would be abused or cause substantial harm; therefore the originating summonses for inspection are allowed subject to conditions and undertakings.
9 Mar 2022

LOH TECK WAH 1. ) LIM PANG KIAM 2. ) YAP CHEE KHENG 3. ) PNL BUSINESS SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-249-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-249-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff, being a director, entitled under s.245 CA 2016 to inspect the accounting and other records of the named companies; the defendants failed to provide clear proof of improper purpose or real risk of substantial harm; prior demand is not a statutory prerequisite to court relief; inspection includes the right to be assisted by an auditor and to obtain copies; accordingly the originating summonses were allowed with specified conditions.
9 Mar 2022

LOH TECK WAH 1. ) LIM PANG KIAM 2. ) YAP CHEE KHENG 3. ) PNL CAPITAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-248-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-248-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendants failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving that inspection would be exercised for an improper purpose or cause substantial harm; therefore under s.245 CA 2016 the plaintiff, as a director, is entitled to inspect the accounting and other records, to be assisted by an approved auditor subject to an undertaking, and to obtain copies; the court ordered inspection with specified practical conditions and costs.
28 Sept 2021

LOW EAN NEE SNE MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-164-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-164-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendant successfully rebutted the presumption that the plaintiff's request was for proper discharge of director's duties by adducing clear evidence of bad faith and ulterior motive (prior misuse of documents, non‑participation in management, failure to give reasons or undertaking); accordingly the court refused inspection under section 245 and dismissed the originating summons.
19 Apr 2021

Heng Keng Thiang 1. Ban Hoe Leong Marine Supplies Sdn Bhd 2. Buan Hoa Leong Holdings Sdn Bhd 3. Jade Discovery Sdn Bhd 4. Atlas Ace Sdn Bhd 5. Pacific Prelude Sdn Bhd 6. BHL Marine (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCVC-1690-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCVC-1690-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, being a director at the time of filing, is entitled under s245(4) CA 2016 to inspect and copy accounting records confined to the period January 2018 to October 2019; defendants failed to discharge the burden to prove the inspection would be exercised for an improper purpose; inspection permitted subject to auditor's undertaking and confidentiality; claim against 6th defendant dismissed as plaintiff was not a director of that company.