Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fiduciary duties

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

Mustaria Sdn Bhd 1. ) Wu Nah Yoh @ Woo Hin Wai 2. ) Wan Lai Peng 3. ) Woo Weng Kian @ Eric Woo Weng Kian

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-53-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-53-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in striking out the claim because the pleaded facts, assumed true at this stage, disclose serious triable issues concerning alleged director misconduct and potential piercing of the corporate veil; such issues require discovery, cross-examination and full trial, not summary dismissal; the insolvency regime does not bar a separate action for directors' personal wrongdoing.
10 Feb 2026

ATLANTIS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) TAN YU PING 2. ) HEE KAH PAU PIHAK TERKILAN LEOW SUAN YANG

Citation

AA-22NCC-10-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCC-10-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The third-party notice discloses a prima facie factual nexus (alleged active participation in financial management and joint signatory role) that raises triable issues; strike-out is inappropriate because the claim is not plainly and obviously unsustainable and the grant of derivative leave does not preclude third-party proceedings for contribution under Section 10(1)(c) Civil Law Act 1956; therefore the strike-out application is dismissed and the third-party claim proceeds to trial.
19 Dec 2025

LAU JENN FENG 1. ) FOURSEASON FRONTIER SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHAN KONG HONG

Citation

WA-24NCC-263-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-263-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no Ebrahimi-type quasi-partnership or legitimate expectation that the Plaintiff would retain management rights after revocation of his alternate directorship; the Company lacked capacity/finance to complete Property 3 and the 2nd Defendant personally assumed the risk rather than divert a corporate opportunity that caused a distinct loss to the Plaintiff; operational disputes and the Plaintiff's own misconduct negated oppression claims. Therefore s346 relief was not made out and the Originating Summons was dismissed.
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.
12 Aug 2025

1. ) MANJUNG AQUATIC SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) 2. ) MANJUNG AQUA FARMING SDN BHD 1. ) MOHAMAD ZAHID BIN PUTERA 2. ) HUSIN BIN YAHYA 3. ) YONG KWAI HEONG 4. ) YONG WEI JIEN 5. ) EMPEROR MARINE SEAFOOD SDN BHD 6. ) PELANTAR CERGAS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-442-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-442-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed all claims because special damages were not specifically pleaded and not in the consent judgment; diminution claims were barred by the reflective loss principle; plaintiffs had elected and accepted an account of profits (RM1,141,892.03) and thus could not also recover general damages; aggravated damages are not available to a corporate plaintiff; exemplary damages were not supported by pleaded facts or evidence falling within the narrow permitted categories.
1 Jul 2025

LEMON SKY ANIMATION SDN BHD 1. ) WONG CHENG FEI 2. ) FOONG KA KING 3. ) SPIKY THINGS SDN BHD 4. ) CHIN YOON SEAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-515-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the pleadings disclose a common question of law or fact relevant to both suits and that the differences are not so fundamental as to defeat consolidation; allegations of bad faith and prejudice were not established. Accordingly the Court allowed the application to transfer/consolidate (Enclosure 16) and awarded costs in the cause.
16 Jun 2025

BAANU A/P MOHAN AIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-700-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-700-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the clause was void under section 28 of the Contracts Act 1950 because it unlawfully restrains the spouse (a third party) from exercising a lawful profession or employment; while an employer may validly restrict an employee during the contract for fidelity reasons, it cannot lawfully impose indirect restraints on third parties via contractual terms, therefore the impugned clause is unenforceable.
12 Mar 2025

LEE BEE SUN 1. ) SIEW SEOW KIM 2. ) MUCK HO WAN 3. ) SUPER RESOURCES & TRADING SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-249-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-249-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Dismissal because plaintiff failed to establish that the rights complained of derived from her status as a shareholder or that there existed oppression under s.346: alleged wrongs either arose from her role as a director or were wrongs to the company (properly pursued derivatively under s.347); no quasi‑partnership or pleaded legitimate expectation; pleadings lacked specific averments linking shareholder status to management rights.
15 Jan 2025

K SENG SENG CORPORATION BERHAD TAN LIAN CHOON

Citation

BA-12B-53-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-53-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed; the Sessions Court was plainly wrong on liability because the trial Judge improperly shifted the burden to the plaintiff, failed to give proper judicial weight to the LGMS forensic evidence which established a prima facie cause of action, and erred in inferring a dominant collateral purpose from discontinuance and other circumstantial factors; accordingly the finding of abuse of process was set aside and costs awarded to the appellant.
8 Jan 2025

LEE CHIAP HAN NG WAH LEONG

Citation

BA-22NCC-132-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-132-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the claim and counterclaim because the pleaded causes of action sought relief that is properly vested in the company, not in individual shareholders, no special factual relationship was pleaded to create fiduciary duties owed to the shareholder, and the plaintiff did not plead a recognizable personal cause of action for loss of personal property on the pleaded facts.