Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate governance

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2026

CHEN, YA-LI 1. ) CHONG SHU WEN 2. ) STEP UP PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-687-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-687-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant has standing and acted in good faith, but failed the second limb: it is not prima facie in D2's best interest to grant leave because D2 is now registered owner of the property (no demonstrated loss for full refund), remaining monetary claims face material uncertainty because of an informal unstamped arrangement involving D2's own directors, internal corporate governance remedies (board meeting under s311(3)) were not exhausted, and the late-stamping action resulted in perfected title; accordingly leave under s348(4) is refused and the originating summons dismissed.
4 Nov 2025

1. ) MOHD YUNOS BIN MALEK 2. ) MOHD HASSAN BIN MADON 3. ) MOHAMMED OMAR BIN MADON 1. ) ABDUL MAJID BIN MOHD ZIN 2. ) LEE LAI HUAT 3. ) MAJU CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-45-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-45-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There is a serious issue to be tried on the validity of the 895,000 shares and whether the First Defendant has acted or will act ultra vires by excluding a co-director; the balance of convenience and justice favors a limited in personam injunction to prevent unilateral corporate acts that could render the plaintiffs’ claim academic; the injunction is narrowly framed so as not to undo concluded settlements with YPJP and res judicata, functus officio, s54(a) and non-intervention principles do not bar the limited relief sought.
28 Oct 2025

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) TEOH SZE WEI 2. ) WONG SUT YI 1. ) QA ADVISORY SDN BHD 2. ) CHUA KEE SEONG 3. ) TAN WENG KHAI

Citation

WA-28NCC-1236-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-1236-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the core factual dispute—whether QA carried on procurement services requiring an APS licence—was credibly denied by respondents and not tested by cross-examination, the court confined itself to undisputed facts which did not establish failure of substratum or mismanagement; accordingly the petitioners failed to prove just and equitable grounds for winding up and the petition was dismissed.
19 Sept 2025

1. ) VICTOR WANG 2. ) WANG ZHENG 1. ) MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MAMING 2. ) SARA NURASHEKEEN BINTI SUHAILI 3. ) ANDY CHEONG NAM LOONG 4. ) OOI YOU JING 5. ) CHOW CAPITAL VENTURE LPT 6. ) STUDIO TWENTY THREE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-276-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-276-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The s.346 petition was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish a quasi‑partnership or that their removal was oppressive; the removal occurred by a duly convened EGM in accordance with the Constitution and Shareholders Agreement provisions permitting removal for default or fiduciary breach, and the petition constituted an abusive collateral attack on the EGM outcome.
18 Jul 2025

WONG KIE CHIE 1. ) KATHRYN MA WAI FONG (as the personal representative, executrix and trustee of the estate of the late Wong Kie Nai) 2. ) WTK REALTY SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-47-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-47-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Breach of s132D(1) was established but the proper remedy is application of statutory validation under ss63 and/or 355 Companies Act 1965; the Duomatic common law principle cannot be used to displace or circumvent the statutory validation mechanism; applying ss63/355 to the proven facts (knowledge, acquiescence, benefit, delay and absence of substantial injustice) it was just and equitable to validate the allotments and therefore the Court dismisses the appellants' appeals and affirms the Court of Appeal by granting validation orders for the impugned share issuances.
14 Jul 2025

Trudy Ranjini Ganendra 1. ) Dato' Dennis Ganendra 2. ) Minconsult Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Dato Sri Roslan Bin Muhammad Tahar PIHAK TERKILAN Dato Wan Razali Bin Wan Muda

Citation

WA-24NCC-551-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-551-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove Minconsult was a family company or that she had enforceable legitimate expectations of management participation; Board decisions were made with proper governance and did not deprive her of shareholder rights; no conduct amounting to oppression under s.346 was established; the 3rd and 4th Defendants had no case made out against them; although motivations were suspicious, the counterclaim for abuse of process failed because bad faith was not proven sufficiently.
23 May 2025

Poo Wei Jye 1. ) Adam Yong Kar Poh 2. ) Yong Mei Mei 3. ) Jye and Partners Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCC-152-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-152-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove minority oppression under s346 Companies Act 2016 on affidavit evidence; material allegations were credibly denied by respondents, many issues required factual trial, and several complaints amounted to alleged corporate loss properly pursued derivatively by the company; therefore the originating summons is dismissed with costs.
30 Dec 2024

Datuk Kasi A/L K.L. Palaniappan 1. ) Menara Embun Sdn Bhd 2. ) PB Trustee Services Berhad (Wasi Bagi Harta Pusaka Allahyarmah Tan Sri Datuk Haji Mustapha Kamal Bin Haji Abu Bakar No. K/P: 490318-08-5599) 3. ) Felina Binti Tan Sri Datuk Haji

Citation

WA-24NCC-410-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-410-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove existence of a quasi-partnership, common understanding or legitimate expectation that would constrain majority voting; the contested acts (nominations, transfers, address change, circular resolutions, information provision) were within powers under the companies' articles or commercially justified, and did not constitute conduct oppressive under s.346; prior findings on Setia Haruman limit re-litigation; Originating Summonses are dismissed and costs awarded against Plaintiff.
5 Mar 2021

Sykt Ogen LED Sdn Bhd [No. Sykt: 201601001793] 1.Balaguru a/l Muniandy [No. K/P: 760330-08-5759] Dalam kapasiti peribadi dan berniaga diatas nama dan gaya Ogen Worldwide [No. Pendaftaran: 202003039005] 2. Azzumas Technology Sdn Bhd [No. Syk

Citation

22NCC-89-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-89-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that there are serious questions to be tried on the affidavits, the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff because the defendants' conduct (use of forged/altered documents, appointment and website alterations) risks irreparable loss to the plaintiff's goodwill and trade name, and damages would be inadequate; accordingly an interim prohibitory injunction should issue in favour of the plaintiff.
2 Dec 2020

1. KHOO TENG CHUAN 2. KHOR CHUN MOOI 1. WEALTHY ACHIEVERS SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 811438-A) 2. ANG KIM CHENG @ ANG TENG KOK 3. KANG CHAI 4. CHAN WAI KIT

Citation

P-02(NCVC)(W)-2180-10/2018 DIDENGAR BERSAMA P-02(NCVC)(W)-2286-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

P-02(NCVC)(W)-2180-10/2018 DIDENGAR BERSAMA P-02(NCVC)(W)-2286-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of circumstantial and documentary evidence the Court concluded WA was operated for the benefit of the five families, the 2nd defendant was the shadow director and directing mind of WA, and the transfer of the 1st plaintiff's one share to the 3rd defendant was invalid and set aside; the separate application to re-amend pleadings was correctly refused as too late and prejudicial.