Contempt of Court
5 cases · July 2020 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 20
4 25
2020–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Implied undertaking (Riddick principle) — Use of documents obtained under compulsion — Whether undertaking survives once documents are filed, marked and read in open court — Public documents — Related proceedings — Whether leave of court required — Grant of leave to commence committal proceedings — Appealability of leave order — Whether appeals are academic or premature — Res judicata and issue estoppel — Proper scope and application of Harman v Secretary of State — Malaysian position. 2 Leave to commence committal proceedings — Alleged false statements in affidavits — Prima facie threshold — Standard of proof — Whether mere falsity sufficient — Court’s duty at leave stage — Liberty of individual — Federal Constitution art 5 — Order 52 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Committal proceedings — Injunction order — Whether non-compliance amounts to contempt — Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt — E & E Equipment Sdn Bhd v. Speci Avenue (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2005] 6 MLJ 589 — Distinction between civil and criminal contempt — Tan Sri Dato' (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors v. Lim Pang Cheong & Ors [2012] 2 CLJ 849 — Federal Constitution, art 126; Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 13; Rules of Court 2012, O 52 r 3. Injunction — Validity pending appeal — Principle that an order remains binding until set aside — Houng Hai Hong & Anor v MBf Holdings Bhd [1995] 3 AMR 3079, [1995] 4 CLJ 427 — Effect of appellate court setting aside injunction — Whether order operates ab initio — Houng Hai Hong & Anor v MBf Holdings Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 427 Practice and Procedure — Committal — Leave to commence committal not equivalent to finding of contempt — Mere prima facie vetting — Standard of proof — Beyond reasonable doubt — Lim Chau Leng (P) v. Wong Chee Chong [2006] 1 AMR 151 and Foo Khoon Long v Foo Khoon Wong [2009] 9 MLJ 441. Digest: committal application dismissed. 1 Decision on application to set aside leave order granted pursuant to O. 52 r. 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 — grounds for setting aside — Notice pursuant to O.52 r.2B — non-compliance is not fatal — the right forum — Federal Court — as impugned comments implicate the judiciary as a whole — does not necessarily have to commence at High Court — Application dismissed Evidence Law — section 114A of Evidence Act — presumption of fact on publication — impugned comments were contemptuous — prima facie publication on news portal 1
Leave to commence committal proceedings — Alleged false statements in affidavits — Prima facie threshold — Standard of proof — Whether mere falsity sufficient — Court’s duty at leave stage — Liberty of individual — Federal Constitution art 5 — Order 52 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Committal proceedings — Injunction order — Whether non-compliance amounts to contempt — Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt — E & E Equipment Sdn Bhd v. Speci Avenue (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2005] 6 MLJ 589 — Distinction between civil and criminal contempt — Tan Sri Dato' (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors v. Lim Pang Cheong & Ors [2012] 2 CLJ 849 — Federal Constitution, art 126; Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 13; Rules of Court 2012, O 52 r 3. Injunction — Validity pending appeal — Principle that an order remains binding until set aside — Houng Hai Hong & Anor v MBf Holdings Bhd [1995] 3 AMR 3079, [1995] 4 CLJ 427 — Effect of appellate court setting aside injunction — Whether order operates ab initio — Houng Hai Hong & Anor v MBf Holdings Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 427 Practice and Procedure — Committal — Leave to commence committal not equivalent to finding of contempt — Mere prima facie vetting — Standard of proof — Beyond reasonable doubt — Lim Chau Leng (P) v. Wong Chee Chong [2006] 1 AMR 151 and Foo Khoon Long v Foo Khoon Wong [2009] 9 MLJ 441. Digest: committal application dismissed. 1 case
Decision on application to set aside leave order granted pursuant to O. 52 r. 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 — grounds for setting aside — Notice pursuant to O.52 r.2B — non-compliance is not fatal — the right forum — Federal Court — as impugned comments implicate the judiciary as a whole — does not necessarily have to commence at High Court — Application dismissed Evidence Law — section 114A of Evidence Act — presumption of fact on publication — impugned comments were contemptuous — prima facie publication on news portal 1 case
Key Statutes
Supreme Court of Judicature Act
cited in 2 cases Civil Law Act 1956
cited in 2 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 2 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 2 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 2 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Azizah binti Haji Nawawi 2 Mohd Firuz bin Jaffril 2 Azimah binti Omar 2 Nallini Pathmanathan 1 Abdul Rahman bin Sebli 1 Mohd Zawawi bin Salleh 1 Vernon Ong Lam Kiat 1 Azahar bin Mohamed 1 Rohana binti Yusuf 1 Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim 1 Muhammad Adam @ Edward bin Abdullah 1 Muhammad Adam bin Abdullah 1 Mohd Radzi bin Harun 1
Top Firms
Cases
w-02imc-1518-09-2024
1. ) GM AERO SUPPORT SDN. BHD. 2. ) Khoh Siew Kim v 1. ) GENTING HIGHLANDS BERHAD 2. ) GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) FIRST WORLD HOTELS & RESORTS SDN. BHD.
20 November 2025
MYCOA
w-02imc-1548-09-2024
1. ) GM AERO SUPPORT SDN. BHD. 2. ) SYCAL BERHAD 3. ) LAU YEE SUM (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA PERUNDING JUTERA) 4. ) PERUNDING REKACEKAP SDN BHD 5. ) LEE YONG CHIEW (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA YC LEE ARCHITECT) 6. ) ZAHIRUDDIN BIN ZAINAL ( BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA ZAHIRUDDIN TOWN PLANNING SERVICES) v 1. ) GENTING HIGHLANDS BERHAD 2. ) GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) FIRST WORLD HOTELS & RESORTS SDN. BHD.
20 November 2025
MYCOA
wa-22ncc-406-06-2023
XXXX v XXXX
28 October 2025
MYHC
ca-23e-1-08-2023
LB LAND SDN BHD v HO NYET FOONG
7 May 2025
MYHC
08l-4-06-2020w
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA v 1. MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT 489718-U) 2. KETUA EDITOR, MALAYSIAKINI
1 July 2020
MYFC