Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anton piller order

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

1. ) N2N CONNECT BERHAD 2. ) NGN CONNECTION SDN BHD 3. ) N2N GLOBAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 4. ) HERMES BOS SDN BHD 5. ) NETINFINIUM SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 1. ) CHUA TIONG HOONG 2. ) AHMAD ASHRAF BIN AZMAN 3. ) SHYAM SUNDAR RAYUDU 4. ) WONG VOON FUI 5

Citation

WA-22IP-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that it has inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r 4 ROC 2012 to set aside or regulate a Notice to Produce issued under s.66 Evidence Act 1950 where the notice is abusive, oppressive or disproportionate; applying that principle, the Court upheld the NTP insofar as it related to the 1,634 specifically identified Annexure A items (relevant and within defendants' custody/power) but struck out the omnibus demand for "all documents and/or materials" as overbroad and encroaching on discovery. The substantive burden of proof remains with the Plaintiffs.
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.
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 correctly granted and should be maintained because the Plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case based on forensic listings and circumstantial linkage to subsequent commercial activity, the potential harm from misuse of confidential materials is serious and irreversible, there was a real possibility evidence could be destroyed or concealed given the digital transfers and cloud storage, no material non-disclosure was established, and the execution complied with supervisory safeguards; therefore defendants' applications to set aside or stay the Order fail.
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 held that the Plaintiff met all three Arthur Andersen requirements — strong prima facie case, serious potential harm, and real risk of destruction of evidence — that there was no material non‑disclosure, and that the Anton Piller Order was executed within its authorised safeguards; accordingly the Anton Piller Order is to be maintained and the Defendants' 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 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.