Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restoration/restitution

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2025

KARTHIYANI (M) SDN. BHD. 1. ) Karthiyani A/p Govindan 2. ) Khamhini A/p Devarajah [BERDAGANG SEBAGAI PEMILIK TUNGGAL DI PERKHIDMATAN PERUNDINGAN KORPORAT KASIH MURNI (NO. PENDAFTARAN: 201303071450 [002210912-K]) 3. ) RAYYANI SINAR BUMI SDN.

Citation

BA-22NCC-77-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-77-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the combined subjective-objective test for directors’ duties the court found Defendants 1 and 2, as directors, failed to act bona fide in the company's best interests, authorised and effected substantial unauthorised payments without contemporaneous board authority or documentary support, conduct amounted to breach of s213 duties and, given the facts and admissions, included elements of fraud; funds and proceeds are properly subject to constructive trust and restitution; Defendant 1 is liable for disposal of the company car; Defendant 2's counterclaim fails for want of causa and proof; cos…
3 Feb 2025

1. ) AZRI-MALEK BIN WAN HARON 2. ) HISHAM RIZAL BIN WAN HASSAN NUR HARTINI BINTI IBRAHIM

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2520-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2520-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 34 empowers the High Court to revoke a grant where sufficient cause is shown; applicants established sufficient cause objectively by proving respondent’s sustained non-cooperation, misuse of estate assets, failure to open estate account, withholding documents and belated assertion of a hibah after accepting appointment, all of which impaired due and proper administration and prejudiced beneficiaries; the civil court therefore had jurisdiction and the application was not premature given existing Sijil Faraidh and the stage of administration.
6 Sept 2024

NORDIN BIN KASSIM MURALLITHARAN A/L MUNISAMY PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Citation

W-08-99-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-08-99-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Application for extension of time dismissed because the delay of 154 days was inordinate and unexplained, the appellant (an advocate) bore responsibility for procedural failures including omission of the intervener and failure to seek extension earlier, solicitor’s default was not a sufficient excuse, and the proposed appeal lacked merit given the appellant’s admissions and documentary evidence showing receipt and clearance of the RM100,000.
15 Nov 2023

1. ) LIM CHENG KEE 2. ) Lim Cheng Boon 1. ) LIAW KIM BEE 2. ) LIM TEE CHENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-577-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-577-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the deceased made an enforceable promise to will the property to the Plaintiffs which induced the transfer; that promise created a trust/contract in Plaintiffs' favour; the deceased's subsequent transfer to Defendants breached the contract and rendered performance impossible and the agreement void at the moment of transfer; because Defendants were not yet registered at that moment and the transfer was unauthorized, Defendants could not rely on indefeasibility; consequently the property (2/3) was restored to the Plaintiffs and costs awarded.

Malaysia Case Law

KARTHIYANI (M) SDN. BHD. 1. ) Karthiyani A/p Govindan 2. ) Khamhini A/p Devarajah [BERDAGANG SEBAGAI PEMILIK TUNGGAL DI PERKHIDMATAN PERUNDINGAN KORPORAT KASIH MURNI (NO. PENDAFTARAN: 201303071450 [002210912-K]) 3. ) RAYYANI SINAR BUMI SDN.

1. ) AZRI-MALEK BIN WAN HARON 2. ) HISHAM RIZAL BIN WAN HASSAN NUR HARTINI BINTI IBRAHIM

NORDIN BIN KASSIM MURALLITHARAN A/L MUNISAMY PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

1. ) LIM CHENG KEE 2. ) Lim Cheng Boon 1. ) LIAW KIM BEE 2. ) LIM TEE CHENG