Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contempt

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2025

1. ) Mutiara Securities Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) Rayan Sanjev Barr Kumarakulasinghe 3. ) Santhi R. Mahendra Rajah Steven Gregory

Citation

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the plaintiffs' committal application (Kand.36) and granted the defendant's application to set aside the ex‑parte orders (Kand.73) because plaintiffs failed to establish contempt to the criminal standard and there were material defects and disputes over service and clarity of the injunction terms; the defendant's explanations were satisfactory and committal at this interlocutory stage would be unnecessary and disproportionate to liberty interests. The court nevertheless preserved a mutual interlocutory restraint on publishing case‑related material pending full trial and awar…
25 Jun 2025

1. ) LO CHANG GENG (mendakwa dalam kapasitinya sebagai ahli kepada Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) 2. ) WONG AH SENG (mendakwa dalam kapasitinya sebagai ahli kepada Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan) 1. )

Citation

WA-24NCvC-86-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-86-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Respondent, a senior lawyer who chaired the EGM, had actual knowledge of the clear and mandatory High Court Order to convene an EGM to consider and if thought fit pass the requisitioned resolutions; she expressly and wilfully refused to allow deliberation and voting on the requisitioned motion, thereby committing contempt beyond reasonable doubt; procedural defects (lack of personal service or penal notice, non-party status) were dispensed with due to actual knowledge and the Order's unambiguous wording; alternative sanctions were appropriate given mitigating factors.
19 Jun 2025

1. ) Mohd Nasir Bin Ibrahim 2. ) Narimah Binti Ibrahim 1. ) Zulkifli Bin Ibrahim 2. ) Mohd Hatta Bin Ibrahim 3. ) Ziedah Binti Ibrahim

Citation

BA-22NCvC-131-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-131-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant 1 was found to have breached the interim injunction on the evidence; contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and mens rea is not necessary, but having regard to D1's age, character and the context of a familial inheritance dispute, the proper exercise of discretion required a reprimand rather than committal; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
15 Apr 2025

Tan Kheng Guan (Mendakwa Bagi Pihak Dirinya Sendiri Dan Pemegang Saham Syarikat Ketiga Shigen Polycolor Sdn. Bhd., Selain Daripada Pertama Dan Kedua) 1. ) CHU KOK KHING 2. ) EE GENG CHOON 3. ) SHIGEN POLYCOLOR SDN BHD 4. ) SHIFTY TECHNOLOGY

Citation

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found, on bank statements and oral testimony, that defendants knowingly and deliberately withdrew RM7,049,286.76 in breach of the Injunction, Stay Order and undertakings; solicitors John Khoo and Martin Khoo failed in their duty as officers of the court and assisted/abetted the breach; contempt proven beyond reasonable doubt; ordered return of the funds within 30 days and imposed fines with default imprisonment as specified.
28 Jun 2024

Chen Teck Shin Foo Chi Mei BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK TANG POOI FUN

Citation

WA-24F-262-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-262-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff wilfully breached clear terms of the Court Order on multiple occasions (failure to return children as scheduled, refusal to disclose police report, prolonged retention of passports) amounting to contempt; accordingly contempt established and a monetary fine with conditional imprisonment was imposed.
18 Mar 2024

1. ) Chan Eng Leong 2. ) Chong Bee Choo 1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-22NCvC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Goh, Ong, Goh Choon Seang and Goh Kim Heong committed contempt by issuing letters and taking steps that breached the ad‑interim injunction (14.1.2020) because they knew or were deemed to know its terms (being represented and advised by solicitors) and their acts were intended to and did risk pre‑empting the proper disposal of Suit 8 and interfering with Global's management; GK Kooi Cheng was not proven to have breached the injunction.
5 Sept 2023

SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Citation

CB-42(Ors)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

CB-42(Ors)-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the prosecution failed to satisfy the three‑part test for a pre‑emptive gag order; the Sessions Court correctly found no real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of trial, adequate alternative remedies existed, and the statements did not pertain to specific witnesses or exhibits such as to warrant prior restraint; the High Court will not interfere with that exercise of discretion.
17 Apr 2023

LAM BOURNE RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) LAMBOURNE ESTATE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM

Citation

BL-22NCvC-22-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-22-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The committal order was affirmed because the respondent complied with the procedural requirements under Order 52, the appellant was validly served and given opportunities to comply and to show cause but failed to do so, and therefore committal for contempt was a proper exercise of the court's power to protect the administration of justice.
17 Apr 2023

EWE SAW LEE DATO' SRI ANDREW KAM TAI YEOW

Citation

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-257-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to satisfy the 'real danger of bias' test; allegations were speculative and based on interim observations in related proceedings rather than evidence showing disqualifying bias; recusal would amount to judge-shopping and abuse of process; accordingly recusal application (enclosure 165) was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff (RM8,000 payable within 14 days).
25 Jan 2023

MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAMED SHARIFAH AISYAH BINTI SYED MOHAMED

Citation

WA-23NCvC-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully disobeyed the ad‑interim injunction: the defendant provided a credible explanation that the police report was made to secure assistance to recover her children pursuant to a Syariah Court interim custody order after prolonged parental alienation, creating reasonable doubt as to contumacious conduct; therefore committal could not be ordered.