Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of fraud

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2025

DATO' SIA AH GUAN 1. ) KEK LYE KHENG 2. ) WINSON KEK CHUN SEAN 3. ) WINNIE KEK JIA YING

Citation

BA-23NCvC-42-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-42-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants discloses no reasonable cause of action because there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and those defendants, and the fraud allegations are pleaded in general terms without required particulars; therefore the pleadings are plainly unsustainable and strike out under Order 18 r.19(1) is appropriate.
10 Oct 2025

1. ) TAN YAN SHIN 2. ) JEFFREY MAH WENG KAI INTERCONTINENTAL MUSHROOM FARMING SDN BHD PIHAK YANG MENUNTUT Natural Mushroom Sdn Bhd

Citation

BD-56WSL-8-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-56WSL-8-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The interpleader must be confined to determining ownership of the seized goods; the EC failed to particularise allegations of fraud or to adducesufficient evidence to rebut the Claimant's documentary and possession evidence. No triable issue was established that would justify converting the interpleader into a full trial. On the balance of probabilities the Claimant proved ownership; accordingly the interpleader is to be disposed summarily in favour of the Claimant and EC's summons for directions (encl.52) is dismissed.
29 Sept 2025

1. ) CHIA YANG HOCK 2. ) CHIA YONG HAK 3. ) CHIA YONG PENG TETUAN TAY & PARTNERS

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the claim solely on affidavit material because the accrual date of the cause of action in tort could be when actual damage was suffered (loss of access in early 2023), and material disputed factual issues (professional negligence, alleged fraud, effect of 2003 judgment, status of strata title and partnership liability) require oral evidence and assessment at full trial; therefore the claim was not obviously unsustainable and must be remitted to trial.
2 May 2025

PAINT MARKETING CO (M) SDN BHD 1. ) NG FATT CHUAN 2. ) BIBI NUR BINTI KHAIRUL TAN @ TAN CHAI LONG

Citation

BC-A52NCC-32-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-A52NCC-32-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The amended counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because allegations of fraud and misrepresentation lacked required particulars (no persons, dates, events or specific representations), and claims for special damages were not particularised; coupled with defendants' failure to contemporaneously dispute payments (estoppel/account stated), the counterclaim was prima facie unsustainable and therefore frivolous/vexatious and properly struck out under Order 18 r.19; costs awarded to plaintiff RM3,000.00.
10 Oct 2024

1. ) IOUPAY LIMITED 2. ) ISENTRIC SDN BHD 3. ) IOU PAY (ASIA) SDN BHD 4. ) DATAMORPH SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) KUAN CHOON HSUING 2. ) YONG YUEN YEEN 3. ) YONG YUEN NEE 4. ) ASPIRE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 5. ) Edward Tan Tee Tong 6. ) Liew Jw

Citation

WA-22NCC-137-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-137-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Relevant Paragraphs were struck out because they introduced extensive new factual allegations and transactions not pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim, thereby improperly supplementing the claim through a reply, causing prejudice and delay and risking inconsistent findings with concurrent proceedings; accordingly they are scandalous/unnecessary and an abuse of process and are struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b),(c) and (d).
19 Apr 2024

1. ) Gnasegaran A/l Palani 2. ) Palanisamy A/l Marappan 3. ) Arumugam A/l Muthusamy Ramesh @ Muthu A/l Nallayan

Citation

WA-22NCvC-522-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-522-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the plaintiffs' suit because the ownership issue had been conclusively adjudicated (res judicata/issue estoppel), the plaintiffs were bound by their prior sworn testimony and statutory declarations, the claim was time‑barred and the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to challenge the will/grant in this forum; further the claim failed to plead particulars of fraud and constituted an abuse of court process; consequently there was no reasonable cause of action.
10 Oct 2023

AIR PLUS TRAVEL AND TOURS PTE LTD S5 SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-92-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-92-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because the SOC flagrantly departed from mandatory Rules: it was disconnected from the writ endorsement, alleged conspiracy and fraud without required particulars, improperly involved quantified general damages not permitted to be pleaded, contained irrelevant and confusing material, and the Plaintiff refused court directions to amend; under Order 34 the Court was entitled to strike out the claim.
27 Sept 2022

1. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB 2. ) SITI NORLINA BINTI ABD MALIK 3. ) TAN KOH YIN 4. ) SUEN HUI MIN 5. ) RAVI A/L RAJOO 6. ) Chew Kew Kit 7. ) ENG KIEN CHUAN 8. ) NEPTUNIA WOON MEI YEN 9. ) YOONG KOW @ YONG CHIN CHOON 10. ) LOH SIEW LENG 11

Citation

BA-22NCvC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim fails to particularize allegations of fraud or to show any nexus or contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and the 5th Defendant; absent privity there is no basis for contractual or tortious liability and no pleaded actual or equitable fraud to justify lifting the corporate veil. Consequently the pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 5th Defendant and the strike out is warranted.
10 Mar 2022

SARA YASMIN BINTI SEKH MOHD RUZI 1. ) HAMALUDIN BIN ALI 2. ) MOHAMED ADLAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDIN 3. ) RUSLI BIN BABA

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-69-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-69-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed and the writ and Statement of Claim against the 4th Defendant struck out because the pleadings failed to establish a prima facie basis to lift the corporate veil or to allege fraud with the particulars required by Order 18 r12(1); directors are not liable for company debts absent properly pleaded and particularised wrongdoing, and affidavit material cannot cure defective pleadings, rendering the claim frivolous or vexatious as against the 4th Defendant.
10 Dec 2021

SAFETY CAPITAL SDN BHD MALAYSIA STEEL WORKS (KL) BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-82-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-82-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim was dismissed because it failed to prove fraud or dishonest conduct by the director on the balance of probabilities and failed to particularize fraud; contemporaneous documents and audited accounts evidenced regular intercompany transactions; the RM10,681,000 was validly and absolutely assigned to Soon Seng Co (Selangor) Sdn Bhd extinguishing Plaintiff's rights and the action was in any event time‑barred under the Limitation Act, leaving Plaintiff without locus to recover the sum.