Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fiduciary duty

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2025

SIN CHUNG TOURS SDN BHD SOH KO JIN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-873-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-873-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent lacked any proprietary (registered or beneficial) interest in the company land at the date of the caveat; being a beneficiary of shares or a director does not create a caveatable interest absent acting bona fide for the company in relation to the land; respondent did not discharge the burden under s327 KTN and the caveat was mala fide and an abuse of process, therefore the caveat must be cancelled and removed immediately.
13 Nov 2025

SAVILLS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) Dato Jeyaraj A/l V. Ratnaswamy 2. ) DISTRICT GRAND LODGE OF THE EASTERN ARCHIPELAGO 3. ) CHRIS TEH TEONG KHUAN 4. ) EXSIM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 5. ) CHRISTOPHER MARTIN BOYD

Citation

WA-22NCC-350-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-350-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses reasonable causes of action and there are genuine conflicts of material fact (concerning introduction, conduct, intent and use of groundwork) and questions of intent and unjust enrichment that are not amenable to summary determination; therefore the matter must proceed to trial.
10 Nov 2025

TRESENERGY SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN YA'AKOB 2. ) MTC ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-603-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to discharge the burden to show special circumstances warranting a stay: impecuniosity and fear of bankruptcy do not qualify; no evidence the national interest would be affected; defendants admitted inability to satisfy judgment so cannot show risk of being unable to be reinstated if appeal succeeds; proposed conditional stay cannot be implemented absent fresh sanction/clear authority from Official Receiver/Liquidator. Enclosure 80 therefore dismissed.
25 Sept 2025

VOLKER BURTH IQI REALTY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCC-52856-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-52856-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because the tenancy did not materialize and the defendant produced no contractual or factual basis showing the RM8,480 had been paid to the landlord or expressly forfeited, the sum remained trust money held by the defendant as stakeholder and must be returned under sections 33(b) and 73 of the Contract Act 1950 and relevant authorities.
28 Jul 2025

LIEW WAI LOY LIEW WAI HAN

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-98-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-98-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead with requisite particularity the elements and remedies for a constructive trust, failed to seek declaratory relief invalidating the transfer, failed to adduce evidence on the source of purchase funds (permitting s 114(g) inference), and the PA’s language reasonably authorized execution of transfers; no appealable error or plain wrongness by the trial judge was shown.
24 Jul 2025

LYFEMED MEDICARE (M) SDN BHD 1. ) PROFESSIONAL LATEX SDN BHD 2. ) XALI PTE LTD 3. ) SENDOR SDN BHD 4. ) TANG KUM HOE

Citation

WA-22NCC-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-74-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Lyfemed contracted with Xali, not Professional Latex; Professional Latex dealt with Xali and acted on Xali's instructions to deduct and apply the deposit against Xali's invoices; there was no contractual, fiduciary or trust relationship between Lyfemed and Professional Latex and no unjust enrichment by Professional Latex; therefore Lyfemed's claims against Professional Latex fail and must be dismissed with costs.
16 Jul 2025

1. ) GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) GOLDEN PLUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN PLUS (BVI) PTE LTD 4. ) SRI SERDANG SDN BHD 5. ) PARADIZE BAZAAR SDN BHD 6. ) VENICE HEIGHTS SDN BHD 7. ) HANPOPULAR SDN BHD 8. ) YANFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A stay of execution was granted in respect of specified parts of the judgment because the applicant demonstrated special circumstances: (1) enforcement would likely lead to the applicant's bankruptcy and thereby render his appeal nugatory in practical terms given his advanced age and the personal nature of the allegations; (2) multi-jurisdictional and multi-currency aspects and non-reciprocating foreign plaintiffs create legitimate obstacles to recovery; and (3) requiring payment into stakeholder accounts was not viable given the applicant's demonstrated incapacity to pay. The balance of just…
15 Jul 2025

GREATSHIP GLOBAL OFFSHORE SERVICES PTE LTD 1. ) VANTAGE MARINE & LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) AZIZUL AZMA BIN AB MALIK 3. ) ESWARAN A/L PANJARATNAM 4. ) WONG CHENG PERNG 5. ) MARGRATE TAMBANUN 6. ) MUHAMMAD SABRI BIN AB GHANI 7. ) SKOSV SDN BHD

Citation

WA-27NCC-12-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-12-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SKOSV's separate Acknowledgement and Confirmation constituted agreement to be bound by the Payment Procedure in Addendum No.4; SKOSV knowingly withheld notification of End User receipts and entered a Set-Off (Hibiscus Addendum No.1) that deprived funds intended for Greatship, such conduct amounted to direct interference and inducement of breach and imposed a constructive trust and fiduciary duties on SKOSV; conversely, evidence did not show the Vantage Directors acted outside their corporate capacities or with predominant intention to injure Greatship, therefore conspiracy and trustee claims…
3 Jul 2025

SHEELA A/P GEORGE 1. ) RADZALI BIN AHMAD KOLDI 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-529-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-529-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2nd Defendant satisfied the threshold for striking out under Order 18 r 19(1)(a),(b) and/or (d): the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action against the bank because the duty to transfer title did not lie with the bank, the bank validly chose security (private caveat), the Plaintiff's authorities were distinguishable, and the claim was therefore properly struck out.
26 Jun 2025

SAILCOTT (M) INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) NAZIRAH BINTI HASNAN 3. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-723-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-723-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because (a) no proximate relationship existed between bidder and procuring authority to found a duty of care in the tender evaluation process, (b) no fiduciary relationship or enforceable representation was established, and (c) commercial tendering rules ordinarily leave bidders to bear preparation costs; therefore the defendants' Order 18 Rule 19 application succeeded and the writ and statement of claim were struck out with costs awarded to the defendants.