Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Witness immunity

  • 7 Mar 2025

    NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

    Citation
    02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    i
    Case number
    02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    The minority held the appeals should be dismissed and the Court of Appeal decision affirmed because the respondent's allegations of fabrication, perjury, intimidation and conspiracy raised serious issues discovered during/after the earlier trial that are not plainly unsustainable; witness immunity is not absolute and does not protect fabrication/procurement of false evidence; the tort of malicious prosecution can apply to civil proceedings in Malaysia; therefore the claims must be determined at full trial rather than struck out summarily.

  • 7 Mar 2025

    NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

    Citation
    02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    i
    Case number
    02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    Majority held that the defendants D1–D5 were entitled to absolute witness immunity in respect of the evidence given in Suit 1333 and related preparatory acts, that the plaintiff's claims fell within core immunity and/or were an abuse of process and res judicata, and that malicious prosecution is not to be extended to civil proceedings in Malaysia; accordingly the claims against the appellants were unsustainable and properly struck out.

  • 28 Sept 2020

    Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak Ambank Islamic Bank Berhad & 2 Lagi

    Citation
    22NCC-680-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    22NCC-680-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court struck out the Statement of Claim because on its face the claim was legally unsustainable: the pleaded facts did not establish a proximate causative link between defendants' alleged breaches and the criminal charges (which flowed from independent prosecutorial discretion), the suit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on ongoing criminal proceedings and would unfairly re‑litigate witness testimony (protected by immunity), and parts of the claim were time‑barred or barred by laches; holding company liability was not pleaded with requisite fraud to lift the corporate veil.