Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stakeholder funds

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

1. ) VITAL LIVING EMPIRE SDN BHD 2. ) SASHITHERAN A/L KANAGASABAPATHI 3. ) VIGNESWARAN A/L AH WALI 1. ) ELEGANT GROUP SDN BHD 2. ) SATIS KUMAR 3. ) NGEOW CHOW YING (Defendant Sued as a Firm Practicing under the Firm Name & Style of Ngeow &

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-481-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-481-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

There was no honest or real dispute as to ownership of the RM164,758.63 — the funds belonged to the first plaintiff; the summary judgment that prompted release was overturned thereby restoring parties to their original positions; the first defendant has no legal or equitable basis to compel the intervener to hold or to have the funds paid into court under Order 29; intervener's stakeholder role had ended on release; therefore the preservation application is dismissed and funds are to be returned to the plaintiff.
30 Sept 2025

THE SEA CAPITAL LP TETUAN JULIUS LEONIE CHAI PENCELAH CHEE CHEN HAO

Citation

BA-24NCC-78-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-78-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The proposed intervener does not possess a direct legal interest in the subject matter of this suit because he is not a party to the Escrow Agreement and his claimed interest arises from separate proceedings; therefore he fails the threshold under Aturan 15 kaedah 6(2)(b) and the application to intervene is dismissed.
29 May 2025

Ting Chin Siong 1. ) Sieh Joo Shiong 2. ) Tetuan Yeoh Shim Siow & Lay Kuan

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4493-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4493-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No genuine or material dispute of fact exists on matters essential to the plaintiff's claim (execution of the Consent Judgment, payment of RM50,000, completion of transfer, failure to refund); the defendant's allegations of property damage are collateral and, if actionable, constitute a separate cause of action and do not justify conversion to a Writ; accordingly conversion was correctly refused and the matter proceeds by Originating Summons.
10 Dec 2024

RAHMAH BEE BINTI O KATTI MOHAMAD ETIKA MAJUJAYA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the requested client account documents were relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the claim and for saving costs because they directly relate to the subject matter of the claim (the RM900,000.00 stakeholder sum) and materially affect the credibility of the Defence; accordingly the Sessions Court order for discovery was affirmed and production was ordered within seven days, and the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.
6 Dec 2024

EE KAH FUK LIM BEE KUA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-383-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-383-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The FLA is void ab initio and unenforceable because it was designed to conceal the misapplication of stakeholder funds by the Plaintiff (a trustee), lacked essential certainty as an agreement to enter into a future SPA, and attempted to circumvent registration requirements for charges under the National Land Code; evidence (expert and admissions) established the Defendant did not sign the FLA; the RM590,005.30 advanced was a unilateral top-up by the Plaintiff and is not debt owed by the Defendant; consequently the Plaintiff has no caveatable proprietary interest and the private caveat must be…
29 Nov 2024

1. ) Shahrizat, Rashid & Lee 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Kartina Binti Arshad 4. ) Elizabeth Shanti A/P Frank Louis XXXX

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellants failed to show the Plaintiffs' claim was obviously unsustainable; there are disputed material facts (including admissions in a statutory declaration, cheque signatures and competing accounts) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and therefore Suit 199 must proceed to trial; consequently the strike out appeals lacked merit and are dismissed.
13 Feb 2024

SHANTI A/P SUNDREKANABADI BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Tetuan G.Ram, Rozzeta & Associate

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2428-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2428-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment (Lampiran 7) was refused because allowing it summarily would prejudice Messrs G. Ram, Rozetta & Associates who were not named as respondents yet hold stakeholder funds and are materially affected; the originating summons was defectively pleaded and the applicant and its lawyers failed to take timely, proper procedural steps to name or involve the non-party; on the balance of probabilities the non-party would be prejudiced by the amendment, therefore amendment denied and costs awarded to the non-party.
17 Oct 2023

SIM KWANG KAI, ADRIAN 1. ) JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO 2. ) SABRINA MICKAGNES LEE YAN CHENG 3. ) MOHD SYAFIQ BIN SHAHABUDIN 4. ) JW SAB & PARTNERS SDN BHD 5. ) CHIEW CHAK MENG 6. ) TETUAN TANES KHOO & PAULRAJ PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Yong Min Jie 2.

Citation

WA-22NCC-425-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-425-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiff established a good arguable case and defendants have assets within jurisdiction, the Mareva injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to adduce solid evidence of a real risk that defendants would dissipate assets to avoid judgment; the claim of dissipation rested primarily on inferences from alleged lack of probity regarding RM3,154,231.40, evidence was weak and inconsistent, there was material unexplained delay undermining urgency, and the application appeared aimed at securing assets/pressuring settlement rather than preventing imminent evasion of judgment.
2 Aug 2023

UDAI SINGH A/L RATTAN SINGH 1. ) CENTRE SIDE EXPRESS SDN BHD 2. ) LAL RAVINDRARAJULOO NAIDU A/L S INOKANNA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-91-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-91-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted uncontested affidavit evidence that only RM1,500,002.74 was disbursed, deducted RM378,000 of repayments to arrive at RM1,122,002.11, found no triable issues raised by the Defendants on a balance of probabilities, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate; stakeholders were ordered to pay the judgment sum to the Plaintiff's solicitors, with interest, legal fees and costs as ordered.
21 Nov 2022

1. ) TEH POH HONG 2. ) CH'NG CHENG HAI KEJURUTERAAN HOCK KHENG SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-51-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-51-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held clause 10.1 of the SPA unambiguously made the plaintiffs responsible for complying with governmental and local authority requirements including applying for planning permission and building plan approval; plaintiffs' failure or refusal to obtain required approvals prevented the defendant from performing the reconstruction obligations under the Supplemental Agreement, entitling the defendant to terminate the Supplemental Agreement and to the release of the RM250,000 stakeholder sum; plaintiffs' declaratory relief was academic and trespass was not proven.