Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Option agreements

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2026

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The discovery application was dismissed because the requested documents were not specifically identified or shown to exist, the request would improperly shift the burden of proof onto the respondent, was overly wide and amounted to a fishing expedition, and was unnecessary given applicants already possessed the cheques and a prior nearly identical application had been dismissed.
11 Feb 2026

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The discovery application was dismissed because the Requested Documents were not specifically identified or shown to exist, the request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition, granting it would improperly shift the burden of proof under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, and discovery was unnecessary given applicants already had key cheques and a substantially identical prior application had been dismissed.
13 Sept 2024

Lim Thiam Huat GA Skylight Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCC-567-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-567-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Call Option Notices were duly served; the exhibited notices and subsequent correspondence are inadmissible because originals were not produced and secondary evidence rules do not apply; Plaintiff’s evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by objective evidence and credible defendant witnesses; failure to call material witness Chau justified adverse inference. Therefore the essential fact of valid service was not established and the claim must be dismissed.
31 May 2024

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) GRAND DEAL VISION SDN BHD 2. ) MUSTAKIM BIN MAT NUN 3. ) SARAH AZREEN BINTI ABDUL SAMAT

Citation

WA-22NCC-664-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-664-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Put Option Notice was valid because it complied in substance and timing with clause 2.2 despite not matching the annexed form; the Personal Guarantee expressly bound the 2nd and 3rd defendants to obligations including amendments, so they were not discharged; the letter of demand was properly served (AR cards, recipient names, and copy to solicitors) and defendants offered only bare denials; defendants raised no triable issues, therefore summary judgment was justified and granted with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Lim Thiam Huat GA Skylight Berhad

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) GRAND DEAL VISION SDN BHD 2. ) MUSTAKIM BIN MAT NUN 3. ) SARAH AZREEN BINTI ABDUL SAMAT