Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mala fides

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2024

1. ) DR CHE ABDUL DAIM BIN HAJI ZAINUDDIN 2. ) NA'IMAH BINTI ABDUL KHALID 3. ) ASNIDA BINTI ABDUL DAIM 4. ) MD WIRA DANI BIN ABDUL DAIM 5. ) MUHAMMED AMIR ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 6. ) MUHAMMED AMIN ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 7. ) ILHAM TOWER SDN BHD 1.

Citation

WA-25-8-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-8-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave for judicial review was refused because as a general rule investigative acts in the course of criminal investigations are not amenable to judicial review absent compelling prima facie evidence of mala fide; applicants failed to establish mala fide or any other recognised ground to justify review and must instead raise challenges in the criminal forum; therefore no arguable case for leave existed.
12 Apr 2022

1. ) SIVAKUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM 2. ) RAJASEGARAN A/L MARIMUTHU YANG BERHORMAT PEGUAM NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-264-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-264-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants have standing in the public interest context but failed to discharge the onerous burden of overcoming the presumption of legality attached to prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3); they did not present compelling prima facie evidence of mala fide or other recognised grounds for review; accordingly leave for judicial review is refused.
21 Feb 2022

Liew Chia Soon 1. ) LOH TECK WAH 2. ) FINTREE CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) Kang Mooi Chin

Citation

W-02(IM)-1231-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)-1231-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the ex parte IJM order and the subsequent JMO because the applicant’s conduct demonstrated mala fides and abuse of process in the context of an ongoing shareholders’ dispute; the applicant failed to prove Fintree was unable to pay its debts (the IJM reports ignored contingent assets such as sizeable billable fees), there was material non-disclosure in the ex parte application, and judicial management was being weaponised rather than used for bona fide corporate rescue.
21 Feb 2022

1. ) PNL Capital Sdn Bhd 2. ) PNL Business Services Sdn Bhd 3. ) PNL Trading Sdn Bhd 4. ) Subang Industry Park Sdn Bhd 5. ) Tian An Trading Sdn Bhd 1. ) LOH TECK WAH 2. ) Fintree Capital Sdn Bhd 3. ) Kang Mooi Chin

Citation

W-02(IM)-1229-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)-1229-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeals allowed and High Court orders appointing an IJM and making a JMO were set aside because the applicant's use of the judicial management mechanism was tainted by mala fides and abuse of process; the requirement that the company is or will be unable to pay its debts under s.405(1)(a) was not satisfied (contingent assets were not properly accounted for), and the ex-parte application involved material non-disclosure and was used to pursue a collateral shareholders' dispute rather than to protect bona fide creditor interests.
30 Jul 2021

Goh Leong Yong 1. ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan 2. Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur 3. Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 4. Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is allowed and a writ of habeas corpus is issued because the respondents failed to show that the Magistrate exercised judicial discretion in accordance with the guidelines in Zaidi Kanapiah to ensure compliance with legal, procedural and constitutional safeguards when granting the s 4(1) POCA remand; s 4 POCA is constitutional and habeas corpus applications are not academic despite supervening remands.
30 Jul 2021

Goh Leong Yong 1. ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan 2. Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur 3. Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 4. Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-158-11/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is dismissed. The habeas corpus application directed at the s.4(1)(a) remand was academic because that order had lapsed and custody was then governed by a valid s.4(2)(a) remand; there was no procedural non-compliance in either s.4(1)(a) or s.4(2)(a) detentions; section 4 POCA is constitutional and within Parliament’s powers under the Federal Constitution; the Minister’s inclusion of unlawful gaming in the POCA schedule was within delegated powers and consistent with POCA’s purpose; allegations of mala fides were not established.
5 Nov 2020

1. MOHD ASREEN BIN MOKHTAR 2. TETUAN ASREEN & CO 1. JULIE LIM SIEW BEE 2. TETUAN JULIE LIM, VASANTHAN & CO

Citation

JA-23NCvC-3-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-23NCvC-3-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the defendants' strike‑out application because the plaintiffs' claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, constituted an abuse of the court's process, was mala fide and the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to sue for losses of a non‑party; the pleading was bound to fail and required striking out with costs.
2 Nov 2020

1. MOHD HAIRY BIN MOHAMMAD 2. ZAIDI BIN KANAPIAH 3. MUHAMAD AMIN NUR RASHID BIN MOHAMED PUAD 1. ASP KHAIRUL FAIROZ BIN RODZUAN 2. MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET KUALA LUMPUR 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-44-206-10/2020; WA-44-207-10/2020; WA-44-208-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-206-10/2020; WA-44-207-10/2020; WA-44-208-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications were dismissed as academic because the initial detention period had been superseded by a subsequent remand under section 4(2) of POCA and therefore there was no live controversy; on the merits, Applicants failed to prove mala fides and the detaining authority demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements under section 4, so habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
1 Sept 2020

LIM SOO KOK BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-52-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-52-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside was dismissed because the contract empowered the bank to treat all sums as immediately due on default without requiring a fresh notice after part payments, the bank did not waive its rights absent an express written waiver, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie defence or properly pleaded mala fide in affidavit evidence.