Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of full and frank disclosure

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-394-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Plaintiff met all three Arthur Andersen requirements — strong prima facie case, serious potential harm, and real risk of destruction of evidence — that there was no material non‑disclosure, and that the Anton Piller Order was executed within its authorised safeguards; accordingly the Anton Piller Order is to be maintained and the Defendants' applications to set aside or stay are dismissed.
2 Oct 2025

PUNCAK GALI HARMONI SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte injunction and originating summons were incompetent and voidable because they were commenced in breach of the mandatory moratorium under section 410(c) Companies Act 2016 and were obtained by material non-disclosure; nunc pro tunc filing did not cure the jurisdictional defect; injunction also impermissibly interfered with a government contract and provisions of the Specific Relief Act and Government Proceedings Act, therefore the ex parte order is set aside and the originating summons dismissed in limine with indemnity costs to the defendant.
18 Sept 2025

HOCK CHEONG LOGISTICS SDN BHD 1. ) YEO BOK SIANG 2. ) TAN SOU FUNG 3. ) ANASTASIA ROBITA GAMANI 4. ) SHARON A/P JOHNSON 5. ) SASA SHIPPING SDN BHD 6. ) AH YUTI BINTI ABDUL MANAF

Citation

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-118-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff satisfied the substantive requirements for an Anton Piller Order (strong prima facie case, real risk of destruction, possession of relevant confidential materials) and that procedural defects were curable and caused no prejudice; consequently the APO was affirmed and not discharged.
3 Jul 2025

CHOONG KAI YONG 1. ) ELYZA'S CONCEPT SDN. BHD. 2. ) YONG KWAI FONG

Citation

WA-A52NCC-1236-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-1236-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear real risk of dissipation of defendants' assets, had not made full and frank disclosure, and had taken the dining table reducing the claim materially; defendants operated lawfully and held assets exceeding RM2 million; on balance of convenience the injunction would cause greater prejudice to defendants, therefore the Mareva injunction was refused and costs were awarded to defendants.
26 Jan 2024

UNICIOUS ENERGY PTE LTD PEMILIK DAN/ATAU PENCARTER DEMIS KAPAL ATAU VESEL ALPINE MATHILDE (NO. IMO 9380506) YANG BERDAFTAR DI PELABUHAN HONG KONG

Citation

WA-27NCC-49-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-49-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the plaintiff obtained and continued the writ and warrant of arrest in circumstances amounting to mala fides and/or gross negligence: the arrest had no foundation, the plaintiff knew or must have known the Cargo was blocked under US sanctions and that the defendant was a US person or controlled by US persons, the plaintiff engaged in sham arrangements and failed full and frank disclosure; accordingly damages for wrongful arrest and wasted expenses are awarded to the defendant to be assessed by the High Court Deputy Registrar, and costs were fixed for Enclosures 21, 27 and 39.
29 Jun 2022

1. ) AFRIZAN TARMILI KHAIRUL AZHAR 2. ) MOHD AFRIZAN BIN HUSAIN Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-30-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-30-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the ex parte leave because the applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure material to the application (failure to disclose the pending stay application and opposition), and held that the Court of Appeal's reversal reinstated the AOB's sanctions effective 10.12.2021 so the prohibition had not lapsed; consequence: the ex parte leave was vacated and the second judicial review could not proceed without leave.
13 Dec 2021

WA-24NCVC-2242-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-24NCVC-2242-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-2242-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex-parte interim injunction was lawfully set aside because O.29 r.1(2C) prohibits ex-parte orders that stop or impede the holding or progress of an association meeting and because the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts; accordingly the injunction was obtained improperly and must be set aside.
7 Jan 2021

Aliran Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCVC-445-10-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-445-10-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ARR was not gazetted as reserved land and no right of way had been created under the NLC; the plaintiff therefore had no legal right to be invaded; the plaintiff further failed to make full and frank disclosure of those material facts in its ex parte application and has no real prospect of success for a perpetual injunction, so the interlocutory injunction is refused and the ex parte order set aside.
5 Aug 2020

MANJUNG AQUA FARMING SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 778622-P) 1. ) 1. YONG KWAI HEONG (NO. K/P : 761231-08-6208) 2. ) 2. EMPEROR MARINE SEAFOOD SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 913431-K)

Citation

WA-24NCVC-2619-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-2619-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Anton Piller ex-parte order was set aside and the plaintiff's amended writ dismissed because the plaintiff failed to disclose an extremely strong prima facie case and did not make full and frank disclosure of material facts (including that the premises were an off-site storage address under s47(2)), and there was no sufficient evidence of a real risk of destruction or that records remained in the defendants' possession; the ex-parte search order was therefore disproportionate and liable to be overturned.