Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial estoppel

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2025

Govindasamy A/l Sellaiah 1. ) ALH Industries Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

Citation

BA-22NCvC-431-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-431-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out and dismissed the plaintiff's action because the fraud-based challenge to the prior default judgment was precluded by res judicata and judicial estoppel and constituted an abuse of process; the plaintiff had opportunities and in prior proceedings had taken inconsistent positions or neglected to raise the points, so the claim was plainly unsustainable and liable to be dismissed under O.18 r.19 and O.92 r.4.
20 Sept 2024

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22C-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned letter dated 16.8.2018, read in context and issued on the Defendant's letterhead to the Plaintiff, constituted a binding letter of undertaking (a collateral contract) by which the Defendant promised to make direct payment to the Plaintiff via the HDA; the Defendant was therefore in privity with and bound to the Plaintiff under that undertaking, and having produced no evidence or the referenced 4.6.2018 letter the court drew an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; accordingly judgment is entered for the Plaintiff for the specified sums, interest and costs.
1 Aug 2024

NG PAK MUI DESAMINIUM JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-674-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-674-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the audited accounts, contemporaneous conduct and an earlier joint affidavit established a mutual understanding that shareholders' advances were unsecured, interest-free and not repayable on demand; the plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting contrary and the claim was a collateral abuse of process, therefore the plaintiff's claim failed and the defendant's counterclaim succeeded.
7 May 2024

Muhammed Yusoff Rawther Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) PENGARAH, JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH, POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) TAKIYUDDIN BIN HASSAN 2. ) Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Mus

Citation

WA-22NCvC-491-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-491-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the polygraph results met the necessity and relevancy threshold for third‑party discovery under Order 24 r 7A (mere assertions insufficient), the Plaintiff was judicially estopped by his earlier affidavit treating the results as privileged, and the polygraph report constituted communications made in official confidence within s 124 Evidence Act 1950 as part of police investigation papers (investigating officer certified non‑disclosure). Additionally, polygraph results are unsuitable for resolving credibility in civ…
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong

Citation

PA-24NCvC-950-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-950-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities and having regard to the matrix of fact, contemporaneous Share Sale Agreements, parties' conduct and earlier pleadings, SHA1 and SHA2 were intended to record the rights and obligations arising from sale and transfer of existing shares (SSA1 and SSA2) and not a subscription for new shares; therefore the plaintiffs' claim that the SHAs are void for want of consideration/performance fails.
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong

Citation

PA-24NCvC-952-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-952-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found SHA1 and SHA2 were intended to record and regulate the rights arising from sale and transfer of existing shares effected by SSA1 and SSA2, not a subscription for new shares; parties failed to perform alleged obligations for subscription, contemporaneous sale agreements, documentary evidence (payment, registration) and plaintiffs' earlier pleadings estopped them from the subscription contention; accordingly the declarations sought were refused and the originating summons dismissed.
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 3. ) Goh Wan Peng 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong 3. ) Chong Bee Choo

Citation

PA-24NCvC-955-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-955-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities, read in their contractual matrix and together with corresponding Share Sale Agreements and documentary conduct, SHA1 and SHA2 effectuate sale and transfer of existing shares rather than subscription of new shares; plaintiffs failed to perform their alleged obligations and are judicially estopped from asserting a subscription theory, therefore the declarations sought were refused and the originating summons dismissed.
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong

Citation

PA-24NCvC-956-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-956-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Considering the SHAs together with the contemporaneous Share Sale Agreements, the parties' conduct, documentary evidence and unchanged issued capital, the court concluded the agreements effected sale and transfer of existing shares not subscriptions for new shares; plaintiffs' inconsistent earlier pleadings barred their new contention by judicial estoppel; therefore the declaration seeking to void SHA1 and SHA2 was dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 3. ) Goh Choon Seang 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong 3. ) Chong Bee Choo

Citation

PA-24NCvC-957-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-957-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Considering the matrix of fact, contemporaneous Share Sale Agreements (SSA1 and SSA2), the parties' conduct (payments, transfer forms, SSM registration, failure of plaintiffs to convene meetings), and prior inconsistent pleadings, the court held SHA1 and SHA2 documented sale and transfer of existing shares and were not conditional subscription agreements; therefore the plaintiffs' claim that the SHAs are void for want of consideration/performance fails and the Originating Summons is dismissed.
25 Apr 2024

1. ) Goh Choon Kim 2. ) Ong Ah Poh 3. ) Jayamas Property Sdn Bhd 1. ) Natural Transforms Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chan Eng Leong

Citation

PA-24NCvC-951-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-951-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities, considering the matrix of fact (contemporaneous SSAs, parties' conduct, documentary evidence, unchanged issued capital) and applying objective contract interpretation and business common sense, the SHAs were intended to reflect the sale and transfer of existing shares rather than a subscription for new shares; the plaintiffs failed to perform their alleged obligations and are estopped from asserting the inconsistent subscription theory, therefore the SHAs are not void or unenforceable.