Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contempt of court

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2026

OASIS TEAM SDN BHD 1. ) STAR LABS BIOSCIENCE SDN BHD 2. ) P'ng Aik Fong

Citation

BA-22NCC-137-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-137-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendants materially breached the Business Agreement by denying access and permitting unauthorised use, failed to remedy breaches within the 14-day period under Clause 7.3 causing automatic termination; the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to refund RM500,000 and the agreed RM2,000,000 liquidated damages under Clause 7.3 and Section 75 Contracts Act 1950; the Defendants’ contempt and failure to purge deprived them of the right to be heard, leaving the Plaintiff's evidence unrebutted.
9 Sept 2025

1. ) MK COOLING SERVICES 2. ) KOK YOKE MEI CHONG KEK FONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-435-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-435-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to stay execution was allowed because special circumstances existed: both parties’ appeals are part-heard and fixed to resume, execution and particularly an account-taking would irreversibly disclose information and destroy the substratum of the appeals, there was no urgency as the defendant delayed filing the account application for over two years, and the alleged contempt was unproven and did not bar the plaintiffs from being heard; accordingly justice required preserving the status quo pending disposal of the appeals.
2 Sept 2025

BISHOPGATE CAPITAL LIMITED 1. ) BOSTON ASIA CAPITAL LLC 2. ) MEHAMOOD HOSEIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-514-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-514-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendants failed to satisfy the High Court judgment within the ordered period, filed an appeal in breach of the court's direction and demonstrated conduct consistent with non-payment, the Court exercised its powers under Rules of Court and inherent jurisdiction to allow the Plaintiff to withdraw monies deposited in court as partial satisfaction and to dispense with personal service by permitting service on solicitors.
27 Aug 2025

Tan Sri Razarudin Bin Husain @ Abd Rasid Wan Muhammad Azri Bin Wan Deris

Citation

WA-23CY-47-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-47-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendant failed to comply with the 30 April 2025 court undertaking by posting an unreadable, mockingly presented apology and by not publishing it on the same accounts, and then published a 1 May 2025 video that repudiated and boasted about avoiding punishment; these acts, proven beyond reasonable doubt, undermined the administration of justice and constituted two separate contempts; a custodial sentence is warranted given lack of remorse and the contemnor's use of social media for gain.
7 Feb 2025

1. ) Chan Eng Leong 2. ) Chong Bee Choo Goh Kooi Cheng

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-642-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-642-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the injunction terms were sufficiently clear and the contemnors (Goh Choon Kim, Ong Ah Poh, Goh Choon Seang, Goh Kim Heong) knew or were deemed to know the terms (represented by solicitors or otherwise aware) and by issuing the impugned letters and taking the stated steps they breached the injunction and were in contempt; the contemnors were properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the sentencing (financial penalties with conditional committal) and costs were appropriate; Goh Kooi Cheng was acquitted because prosecution failed to prove bey…
25 Nov 2024

PEMPETISYEN H A I 1. ) P A I 2. ) K A I

Citation

WA-33-574-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-574-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On a balance of probabilities, applying a higher degree of persuasion given the gravity of adultery allegations, the circumstantial evidence (emails about IVF and partner, joint stays, shared residences, admission to Petitioner, access to matrimonial assets, and credibility findings) established adultery by Respondent with Co-Respondent; Co-Respondent liable to compensatory damages (MYR200,000) and costs; Respondent found primarily responsible for breakdown and ordered to pay lump-sum spousal maintenance MYR205,000 (derived from MYR5,000/month for 41 months to age 76) plus costs MYR50,000; ma…
4 Sept 2024

PEMPETISYEN CHUA SUZEN ENG LAI LEONG

Citation

BA-33-451-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-451-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because applicant failed to prove a material change in circumstances on the balance of probabilities, failed to comply with disclosure obligations, repeatedly acted in contempt of the consent order (recurrent defaults), and produced insufficient medical or financial evidence; consent order entered voluntarily and is binding absent fraud or exceptional circumstances.
17 May 2024

THEVITTHRA A/P VISWANATHAN KANNAN A/L RAJARATNAM PIHAK KETIGA RAJARAJESWARY A/P RAJARATNAM

Citation

BA-24F-247-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24F-247-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the child is of tender years and the statutory presumption in section 88(3) LRA favours placement with the mother, and because the defendant failed to rebut that presumption with cogent evidence while having removed the child from the jurisdiction in breach of court orders (impeding enforceability and constituting contempt), the court held the child's welfare is best served by granting the plaintiff sole custody and permitting the defendant reasonable supervised access in public; the defendant's custody claim was dismissed.
12 Jan 2024

1. ) Ter Thian Tin 2. ) Chong Fong Har 3. ) Chang Ngi Mooi 4. ) THC Rice Sdn Bhd 1. ) Chiptar Holdings Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) 2. ) Ralph ravin Ratnaswamy

Citation

WA-28PW-358-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-358-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence proceedings in Prayers 3, 4 and 5 was refused: (1) removal application failed for lack of evidence of misconduct or cause and relied on misconceived statutory provision (s450(4) inapplicable); (2) set-off application was contrary to the pari passu principle and s527(10) CA 2016 and Applicants did not show pecuniary loss to justify departure; (3) contempt application lacked a prima facie case of breach of the Oppression Order. Applications dismissed with costs RM15,000.00.
7 Sept 2023

Hisham Bin Halim 1. ) Maya Binti Ahmad Fuaad 2. ) Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Selangor 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia 4. ) Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor 5. ) Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah

Citation

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review: the Selangor Syariah High Court has statutory jurisdiction to hear committal and contempt related to custody orders under the relevant Selangor enactments; Article 121(1A) prevents the civil High Court from reviewing Syariah court matters absent a constitutional question; the judicial review was premature because no committal order had been made (leave to commence committal is inchoate); the appointment of the Syariah judge was valid and gazetted, so no illegality or procedural impropriety was established.