Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directors' removal

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

1. ) TAN YOOK SUN 2. ) LOW CHEE MENG 1. ) TAN BOON HUAT 2. ) CHAU NGO MOY 3. ) TAN YEAN SAN 4. ) TAN MARY 5. ) TAN YEAN PENG 6. ) TAN BEE JUN 7. ) ALLIED FOAM INSULTATION SDN BHD 8. ) GOE HOLDINGS SDN BHD 9. ) CAPITAL ADVANTAGE SDN BHD 10.

Citation

WA-22NCC-102-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-102-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No constructive or resulting trust was proven over the Plaintiffs' shares; D7–D14 did not operate as quasi-partnerships with enforceable unwritten understandings entitling Plaintiffs to entrenched management rights; the acts complained of did not, on the evidence, constitute oppression under s.346 CA 2016 as they did not affect Plaintiffs' rights as members; the counterclaim for abuse of process failed for lack of proof of collateral dominant purpose and damage; accordingly both claim and counterclaim dismissed with costs.
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.
21 Feb 2023

ZAKRI AFANDI BIN ISMAIL 1. ) IKWAN HAFIZ BIN JAMALUDIN 2. ) NUR ANIS BINTI JAMALUDIN 3. ) IVORY INSIGHTS SDN. BHD. 4. ) Tengku Zahaimi Bin Tuan Hashim

Citation

WA-22NCC-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The injunctions were granted because the statements of claim disclosed prima facie causes of action and bona fide serious issues to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo (injury to plaintiff and his commercial interests would be irreparable), damages were inadequate, and the delay was satisfactorily explained and did not bar relief; findings in the related estate suit did not resolve the validity of the transfers or removal of the director and therefore did not preclude grant of the injunctions.
21 Feb 2023

ZAKRI AFANDI BIN ISMAIL 1. ) IKWAN HAFIZ BIN JAMALUDIN 2. ) NUR ANIS BINTI JAMALUDIN 3. ) IVORY INSIGHTS SDN. BHD. 4. ) Tengku Zahaimi Bin Tuan Hashim

Citation

WA-22NCC-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-23-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Aminah Suit and subsequent Court of Appeal decision finally determined that the subject shares belonged to the named defendants; the plaintiff had an interest, was aware of those proceedings and did not intervene, and is therefore a privy bound by res judicata; accordingly the present claims are barred, constitute an abuse of process and disclose no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out with costs.
20 Apr 2022

TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY 1. ) BWFW MEDIC SDN BHD 2. ) KHAMSIAH BINTI MUDA 3. ) SULONG BIN MUDA 4. ) MOHAMAD HUSAIN BIN MOHD DAWOED 5. ) KHAIRIL ANNUAR BIN MOHD NOOR 6. ) ASFAZIAN BIN CHE RAMLI 7. ) ZAR CONSULYANCY SERVICES SDN BHD 8. ) ASPA

Citation

WA-22NCC-397-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-397-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim is dismissed because the conspiracy cause of action was inadequately pleaded (failed to specify type, agreement particulars, overt acts and predominant purpose) and the Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the requisite intention/predominant purpose to injure and actual pecuniary damage; defendants acted within lawful corporate powers (including commissioning a legal audit and shareholders' voting rights) and relied on legitimate corporate governance decisions.
28 Jun 2021

Chong Swee Kek Mee-Ca-Mee Shopping Centre Sdn Bhd

Citation

KA-28NCC-48-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-28NCC-48-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the company was a family quasi-partnership; there was an irretrievable breakdown of mutual trust and confidence demonstrated by false accusations, exclusion from management and appointment of majority-controlled directors; a sale of the petitioner's shares on fair terms was not demonstrably available; affidavits challenged on authority were properly admitted; accordingly it was just and equitable to wind up the company and appoint a liquidator, with costs RM2,000 awarded.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) TAN YOOK SUN 2. ) LOW CHEE MENG 1. ) TAN BOON HUAT 2. ) CHAU NGO MOY 3. ) TAN YEAN SAN 4. ) TAN MARY 5. ) TAN YEAN PENG 6. ) TAN BEE JUN 7. ) ALLIED FOAM INSULTATION SDN BHD 8. ) GOE HOLDINGS SDN BHD 9. ) CAPITAL ADVANTAGE SDN BHD 10.

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

ZAKRI AFANDI BIN ISMAIL 1. ) IKWAN HAFIZ BIN JAMALUDIN 2. ) NUR ANIS BINTI JAMALUDIN 3. ) IVORY INSIGHTS SDN. BHD. 4. ) Tengku Zahaimi Bin Tuan Hashim

ZAKRI AFANDI BIN ISMAIL 1. ) IKWAN HAFIZ BIN JAMALUDIN 2. ) NUR ANIS BINTI JAMALUDIN 3. ) IVORY INSIGHTS SDN. BHD. 4. ) Tengku Zahaimi Bin Tuan Hashim

TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY 1. ) BWFW MEDIC SDN BHD 2. ) KHAMSIAH BINTI MUDA 3. ) SULONG BIN MUDA 4. ) MOHAMAD HUSAIN BIN MOHD DAWOED 5. ) KHAIRIL ANNUAR BIN MOHD NOOR 6. ) ASFAZIAN BIN CHE RAMLI 7. ) ZAR CONSULYANCY SERVICES SDN BHD 8. ) ASPA

Chong Swee Kek Mee-Ca-Mee Shopping Centre Sdn Bhd