Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonest assistance

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

1. ) SCIB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BHD 1. ) AWANA JV SURIA SAGA SDN BHD 2. ) MBSB BANK BERHAD BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KU CHONG HONG

Citation

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was granted because the plaintiffs presented a credible, prompt explanation for delay based on newly discovered MACC documents, the proposed amendments arise from the same factual foundation as the original claim, no irremediable prejudice was shown and any prejudice can be managed or compensated by costs, with sufficient time before trial to address amendments.
9 Mar 2026

1. ) SCIB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BHD 1. ) AWANA JV SURIA SAGA SDN BHD 2. ) MBSB BANK BERHAD BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK KU CHONG HONG

Citation

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-17-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend was granted because the plaintiffs credibly relied on newly discovered documents obtained via MACC that were not previously in their possession, the proposed amendments arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim, there was no inordinate delay and any prejudice to defendants can be managed by case management directions and costs; consequently the amendments will advance substantive justice.
3 Dec 2025

1Malaysia Development Berhad 1. ) Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony 2. ) White & Case LLP

Citation

WA-22NCC-294-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-294-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the substance test the court found Malaysia has extraterritorial jurisdiction under s.23(1)(a) and (c) CJA and the case also fell within Order 11 r 1(1)(H) and (J) ROC: the causes of action (dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy) had their centre of gravity in Malaysia (victim, loss and key conspirators in Malaysia), consolidation could be relied upon and events after ex parte leave may be considered; plaintiff established a good arguable case and serious issues to be tried; consequently the application to set aside service out of jurisdiction was dismissed and leave to…
3 Dec 2025

1Malaysia Development Berhad 1. ) Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony 2. ) White & Case LLP

Citation

WA-22NCC-294-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-294-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Consolidation was ordered because the two actions arise from the same factual matrix (the Good Star phase), involve multiple common questions of law and fact, rely on overlapping documents and witnesses, and some reliefs arise from the same series of transactions; consolidation would save judicial time and costs and was not shown to be an abuse of process.
28 Nov 2025

1. ) TIONG WANG HOCK 2. ) SYLVESTER SAN MUN KIN 1. ) SIN KIM KUAN 2. ) LOO WOOI KEONG 3. ) OOI HOOI ENG 4. ) LAU YIEN TOH 5. ) TEOH ENG WAH 6. ) LIEW SI MOY 7. ) CHA KOK SOON 8. ) LEE HSIN KEAT 9. ) CHAI VUI FOO 10. ) LIM CHUNG PHIN 11. ) A

Citation

WA-22NCvC-335-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-335-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the 1st Plaintiff failed to establish unjust enrichment, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance against the named defendants on the balance of probabilities; underlying transactions were tainted by illegality and the plaintiffs had not come with clean hands; particulars of dishonest assistance were inadequately pleaded; the 2nd Plaintiff, being an undischarged bankrupt, lacked capacity without DGI sanction and his claim is struck out; accordingly the 1st Plaintiff's claims dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
12 Nov 2025

1. ) JEGATHESAN A/L JEGASOTHY 2. ) SIVALALITA A/P MANICKAVASAGAR 1. ) LOW CHEE WEE 2. ) LOW SOOK YING 3. ) MONDAY - OFF MARKETING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-122-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-122-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action supported by contemporaneous documents (MODSB letter, Friendly Loan Agreement and payments) that create genuine triable issues about the nature of the payments, whether the RM700,000 formed part of the purchase consideration and whether the Defendants personally bear liability; the case is not plainly and obviously unsustainable on the affidavit evidence and thus must proceed to trial.
29 Sept 2025

NEWLAKE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ZENITH DELIGHT SDN BHD (D1) 2. ) KUMAR JASPAL QUAH & AISHAH (D2) 3. ) How Chee Hong (Steven) (D3) (Amber Kiew Sieh Pei) 4. ) Thian Mung Ching (D4)

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-184-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-184-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found the High Court erred by narrowing the appellant’s case to a single alleged misrepresentation and by failing to appreciate contemporaneous documents and witness evidence showing a series of misrepresentations and dissipation of funds; the facts supported that D2/D3 occupied a fiduciary position (constructive trust) in respect of monies paid which were used for purposes unrelated to the land acquisition, the SPA was voidable for fraud and rescinded, and the appellants were entitled to the reliefs in the Statement of Claim; appeal allowed and High Court decision set asi…
19 May 2025

Lee Rodger Meiklejohn 1. ) Ranjeet Singh Sidhu 2. ) Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir 3. ) Gurmeet Kaur A/P Gurcharan Singh 4. ) G&P Solutions Sdn Bhd 5. ) Rothchilds Capital (I) Sdn Bhd 6. ) G&P Resources Sdn. Bhd. 7. ) Manibalan

Citation

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-503-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Defendant: alleged direct representations by the 2nd Defendant occurred in 2015 after the 2010–2011 investment and thus could not have induced the investment; the pleadings lack required particulars to establish that the 2nd Defendant authorised or made any pre-contractual representations, personally assisted in diverting funds, owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, or personally received or benefited from the funds; allegations relying on a separate UK judgment do not substitute for pleaded fa…
9 May 2025

1. ) LEMBAH KERJAYA SDN BHD (dalam penggulungan sukarela pemiutang) 2. ) PENYELESAI UNTUK LEMBAH KERJAYA SDN BHD (dalam likuidasi sukarela pemiutang) 1. ) RIMBUN CORPORATE ADVISORY SDN. BHD. 2. ) RAVEENDRA KUMAR A/L NATHAN 3. ) SHARMAN A/L

Citation

WA-22NCvC-474-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-474-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Statement of Claim failed to plead essential particulars for conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt (no identification of conspirators, agreement, overt acts or recipients) and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action as to Defendants 1-6; further, claims against the executors were time-barred or without connection given striking out of co-defendants; claims against the bank lacked pleaded contractual or fiduciary basis and were time-barred; accordingly all defendants' striking out applications were allowed and the SoC struck out as pleaded agai…
27 Mar 2025

1. ) Global Maritime Ventures Berhad 2. ) GMV Borcos Sdn Bhd (dalam liquidasi sukarela) 1. ) Mohd Zafer Mohd Hashim 2. ) Sidqi Ahmad Said bin Ahmad 3. ) AWH Equity Holding Sdn Bhd 4. ) Wan Hamimie binti Wan Ariff 5. ) Tetuan Ram Reza & Muha

Citation

WA-22NCvC-242-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-242-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to meet the threshold specificity and relevancy requirements for third-party discovery: the description of documents was overly broad and constituted a fishing expedition contrary to Order 24 r.7A(3)(b); the documents were not shown to be relevant under s.7 BBEA and did not fall within the statutory definition of 'banker\u2019s book'; and the plaintiffs failed to establish that the banks had the documents in their possession, custody or power and that discovery was necessary to fairly dispose of the suit. Accordingly the application…