Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlawful interference with trade

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

1. ) M3 TECHNOLOGIES (ASIA) BERHAD 2. ) M3 ONLINE SDN BHD 1. ) VOON SZE LIN 2. ) LIM SENG BOON 3. ) MAISARAH BINTI SAHRAN 4. ) ASMA BINTI ARIPIN 5. ) YAP SIEW DEEN 6. ) MUHAMMAD FATAHUL HARUN BIN SUMAP 7. ) FOO MING CHEONG 8. ) ZAIFAH BINTI

Citation

WA-22IP-41-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-41-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs, by failing to pay security for costs and electing not to call evidence at trial, abandoned the main action which is therefore dismissed; D3, D4 & D9 have a valid cause of action in unlawful interference with trade based on unjustified invocation of legal process and proved, on a balance of probabilities and in light of unchallenged testimony, that D9 suffered commercial harm warranting nominal and exemplary damages; consequential awards are RM10,000 nominal and RM300,000 exemplary plus costs.
5 Nov 2025

MW HEALTHCARE SDN BHD TEGA KUANTUM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant failed to prove actual positive fraud by the Defendant: the MDA Recall Notice concerned a distinct later product (Version 4) not pleaded or in issue in Suit 15, was publicly available, and MWH was aware of it during the trial but did not deploy it. There was no legal duty on Tega to disclose a document irrelevant to the pleaded issues, no cogent evidence of dishonest intent by Tega, and the Notice would not likely have led to a different outcome on the contested issues (passing off and unlawful interference). Accordingly, the Originating Summons under s 44 EA 1950 is dismissed.
30 Sept 2025

1. ) NIRO CERAMIC SALES & SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 2. ) FOSHAN NIRO CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIALS TRADING CO LTD 1. ) GUOCERA SDN BHD 2. ) CHENG LI YONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-381-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried, they failed to show damages would be an inadequate remedy because alleged losses were commercial and quantifiable and confidential information was not particularised; combined with delay, the contention that contractual restraints had expired, and absence of a status quo requiring preservation, the balance of convenience favoured refusal of the interlocutory injunction, so the application to continue the ad interim order was dismissed.
1 Jul 2025

LEMON SKY ANIMATION SDN BHD 1. ) WONG CHENG FEI 2. ) FOONG KA KING 3. ) SPIKY THINGS SDN BHD 4. ) CHIN YOON SEAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the pleadings disclose a common question of law or fact relevant to both suits and that the differences are not so fundamental as to defeat consolidation; allegations of bad faith and prejudice were not established. Accordingly the Court allowed the application to transfer/consolidate (Enclosure 16) and awarded costs in the cause.
17 Jun 2025

1. ) TECK HUAT (K.L) COMPANY SDN BHD 2. ) SUN FOODS INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED 1. ) OBH TRADING SDN. BHD. 2. ) OOI BENG HUAT FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sun Foods was a necessary and proper party because it is the manufacturer and accepted author/owner of the Mark, has direct and substantial interest in the reliefs, the joinder arises from the same factual matrix and would avoid multiplicity and inconsistent findings; defendants failed to show irremediable prejudice and there was no inordinate delay, therefore joinder under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) is justified.
25 Apr 2025

NGC ENERGY SDN BHD 1. ) KALSOM BINTI MUHAMAD 2. ) Goo (Goh) Say Dock berniaga sebagai PUSAT PEMBEKAL GAS BUDIMAN CERGAS [Business Registration No.: JM0192279-H] 3. ) berniaga sebagai PUSAT PEMBEKAL GAS BUDIMAN CERGAS

Citation

JB-22NCvC-30-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-30-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff did not have an immediate right to possession of the empty MIRA cylinders because the longstanding industry practice of cylinder exchange and buyback governs possession; consequently the plaintiff failed to prove detinue or unlawful interference on the balance of probabilities. The court ordered enforcement of the industry practice by directing a joint inspection, independent assessment of cylinder condition, and mandated exchange or, failing completion within prescribed timeframes, buyback at agreed rates. The defendants' counterclaim for outstanding transport charges was allow…
26 Mar 2025

BLACKSPACE SDN BHD 1. ) MITCHELL WONG POU YEE 2. ) CHENG WEE WEE 3. ) LIM EE LING 4. ) SOH EE FAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given (a) the Defendants' roles and admissions (incorporation of Interspark while employed, access to Plaintiff's confidential data, partners joining before resignations and securing first client prior to resignation), (b) the documents are or likely are in Defendants' possession, and (c) the documents are relevant and necessary to fairly dispose of central issues, the court exercised its discretion under Order 24 to allow the discovery application described in Enclosure 9.
19 Aug 2024

KUALITI ALAM HIJAU (M) SDN BHD 1. ) HHC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) LIM SEOW BOON 3. ) LAI BAK HOON 4. ) UMMI HAZWAI BINTI AB HAMID 5. ) ANDREA NG PEI CHUN 6. ) SAIFUL AZWAN BIN YAHYA 7. ) TAN PENG HOOI 8. ) HHC GREEN GLOBAL MANUFACTURING SDN B

Citation

WA-22NCC-595-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-595-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendants' employment was terminated effective 1.8.2018; contemporaneous documents and admissions by the plaintiff's director (including instruction to prepare termination notices and WhatsApp messages) disproved plaintiff's central assertions; continued EPF/SOCSO contributions and digital signatures did not prove ongoing employment or forgery where authority existed; plaintiff failed to prove conspiracy, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful interference, unjust enrichment or knowing/dishonest assistance; therefore all claims dismiss…
28 Nov 2023

WA-22IP-44-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-22IP-44-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-44-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st plaintiff lacked locus at filing because the registered proprietorship remained with the 2nd plaintiff; the Registered Mark's disclaimer precluded exclusive rights in 'NANO' and 'G'; defendants' marks and businesses were not similar or used in a way causing public confusion; plaintiffs therefore failed to prove infringement, passing off, unlawful interference or conspiracy; counterclaim for abuse of process and attempt to pierce the corporate veil failed; all claims and counterclaim dismissed with costs.
4 Oct 2023

WA-22IP-14-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-22IP-14-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-14-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the court found plaintiff acquired the Stayzon business and IP, confidential regulatory materials were entrusted to the first defendant who procured new NOTs in the distributor's name without authority and caused continued representations (domain/NPRA entries) and disclosure to Hygiene parties; this satisfied elements of breach of confidence, passing off, conspiracy and unlawful interference as to first, second and third defendants, and sufficient objective similarity and causal connection established copyright infringement by the fourth and fifth defendants; first defendant brea…