1. ) THIRTEEN WINGS SDN BHD 2. ) ASHWIN KUMAR KANDIAH 3. ) ASTRIKE SDN BHD 4. ) AXCEND SDN BHD 5. ) TURBO BOOZE SDN BHD 6. ) HOPS SDN BHD v 1. ) HEINEKEN MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) HEINEKEN MARKETING MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia Berhad 4. ) Carlsberg Marketing Sdn. Bhd

wa-22ncvc-221-04-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 16 November 2025 • WA-22NCvC-221-04/2021 • 8 min read
1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 for determination of a question of law arising from the Plaintiffs’ Competition Act 2010 (“CA 2010”) claims. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs cannot commence or maintain a private action under subsection 64(1) of the CA 2010 because the Malaysia Competition Commission (“MyCC”) has not made any finding of infringement against the Defendants. Issues - Whether a prior MyCC finding is a legal precondition to a private action under subsection 64(1) - Statutory - Subsection 64(1) allows a person who suffers loss “as a result of an infringement” to bring an action -Statutory Scheme Must Be Read as an Integrated Whole - Factual Trigger of Section 64 Does Not Depend on MyCC- The Court finds that there is no closure notice under subsection 16(4), no non-infringement decision under section 39, and no determination under section 40. The Court is of the opinion that the “absence of a finding” is not equivalent to “no infringement”; it merely signifies that no regulatory conclusion has been reached. Order 14A Is Not a Striking-Out Mechanism - The Defendants’ consequential prayer is in substance a striking out application under Order 18 rule 19 of ROC 2012 -SOC Discloses Triable Issues - Paragraphs 17, 36 to 39 and prayers (f) to (k) contain substantive allegations relating to dominance, collective dominance, anticompetitive conduct and loss. These are fact-intensive issues that require full ventilation at trial.

Judges (1)

Mahazan binti Mat Taib Delivered

Counsel (6)

Raja, Darryl & Loh Firm Vinodhan Kuppusamy Firm Amanda Cheak Xin Yi Counsel Defendant Ivanpal Singh Grewal Counsel Plaintiff Joshua Chong Wan Ken Counsel Defendant Vinodhan Kuppusamy Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (10)

ASTRIKE Sdn Bhd Plaintiff AXCEND Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia Berhad Defendant Carlsberg Marketing Sdn Bhd Defendant HEINEKEN MALAYSIA BERHAD Defendant HEINEKEN MARKETING MALAYSIA BERHAD Defendant HOPS Sdn Bhd Plaintiff THIRTEEN WINGS Sdn Bhd Plaintiff TURBO BOOZE Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Ashwin Kumar Kandiah Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Competition Act 2010 (Cap 712)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)
[2022] 1 CLJ 956

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-221-04-2021)