Content
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO: 22NCC-118-06/2024 BETWEEN HOCK CHEONG LOGISTICS SDN BHD …. PLAINTIFF (No. Pendaftaran: 199601004716 (377062-W)
Loading…
BA-22NCC-118-06/2024
High Court of Malaysia18 Sept 2025
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“and thus not privy to confidential materials. This omission, according to the Defendants, warrants the discharge of the APO under the principle in Empayar Sinarmas Sdn Bhd v Teguh Engineering Sdn Bhd [2022] CLJU 3435. 22. The Defendants therefore seek that the APO be set aside and all seized materials returned immediat”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO: 22NCC-118-06/2024 BETWEEN HOCK CHEONG LOGISTICS SDN BHD …. PLAINTIFF (No. Pendaftaran: 199601004716 (377062-W)
1
YEO BOK SIANG [NO. K/P: 630131-10-8107]
2
TAN SOU FUNG [NO. K/P: 790209-10-5460]
3
ANASTASIA ROBITA GAMANI [NO. K/P: 880131-49-5110]
4
SHARON A/P JOHNSON [NO. K/P: 000925-10-1850]
5
SASA SHIPPING SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 202401017950 (1563799-M)]
6
AH YUTI BINTI ABDUL MANAF [NO. K/P: 540809-10-5876] … DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ (Enclosure 3 – Plaintiff’s Application for Anton Piller Order) (Enclosure 32 – Defendants’ Application to Set Aside Anton Piller Order) (Enclosure 33 – Defendants’ Application for Return of Seized Materials)
1
These are the consolidated grounds of decision for Enclosure 3, the Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an Anton Piller Order (“APO”) dated 25 July 2024; Enclosure 32, the Defendants’ inter partes application to set aside the said order; and Enclosure 33, the Defendants’ related application for the return of all materials seized under the APO.
2
The Plaintiff, Hock Cheong Logistics Sdn Bhd, is a long-established logistics and freight forwarding company with a substantial clientele base. The 2nd to 4th Defendants were previously employed by the Plaintiff in managerial and operational capacities. Shortly after their resignation, they were found to have joined or assisted the 5th Defendant, SASA Shipping Sdn Bhd, a newly incorporated company in the same line of business.
3
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired to misappropriate confidential business information, including customer databases, pricing structures, and operational S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ procedures, and to use this data to solicit the Plaintiff’s clients and establish a competing business under the guise of SASA Shipping.
4
The Plaintiff applied for and obtained an ex parte Anton Piller Order from this Court on 25 July 2024, which was duly executed on 5 August 2024 under judicial supervision. The execution yielded, among others, (i) a concealed tablet device,
II
(ii) evidence of over 7,000 deleted files, and (iii) documents showing overlapping clients and pricing between the Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant.
5
The Defendants thereafter filed Enclosures 32 and 33 to set aside the APO, alleging procedural non-compliance, material non-disclosure, and oppression. The Plaintiff, conversely, seeks to confirm and continue the APO pending the trial of the main action.
6
Having considered the affidavits, submissions, and authorities, this Court now delivers its grounds of judgment. For reasons set out below, Enclosure 3 is allowed, while Enclosures 32 and 33 are dismissed.
7
The evidence shows that between May and June 2024, several key employees of the Plaintiff, including D2 to D4, tendered their resignations. Within days, a new company SASA Shipping Sdn S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ Bhd was incorporated, sharing the same customer base, suppliers, and logistics network as the Plaintiff.
8
Subsequent forensic analysis revealed that prior to their departure, massive data deletion occurred within the Plaintiff’s shared drive, affecting client quotations, shipping schedules, and rate matrices. Investigators further discovered that D3 had concealed a company-issued tablet during the APO execution, containing emails linking him to SASA Shipping operations even before his resignation.
9
Several long-term clients of the Plaintiff later confirmed that they had been approached by the Defendants, who described SASA Shipping as “the continuation of Hock Cheong Logistics under new management”.
10
On this basis, the Plaintiff filed the present ex parte application seeking to prevent further tampering with electronic evidence and to secure materials vital for its claim of conspiracy and breach of confidentiality.
11
The following issues arise for determination:
a
Whether the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for the grant of an Anton Piller Order;
b
Whether there was a real risk of destruction or concealment of evidence
c
Whether there was procedural non-compliance rendering the order invalid
d
Whether the APO was oppressive or overbroad in scope; and
e
Whether there was material non-disclosure warranting discharge of the order. IV. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS
12
The Plaintiff, through learned counsel, contends that the elements for an Anton Piller Order are satisfied. The Plaintiff relies on four established principles drawn from Arthur Andersen & Co v Interfood Sdn Bhd [2005] 3 MLJ 393 and Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Gordon Toh
13
The Plaintiff has a strong prima facie case;
14
There is a serious risk of destruction or concealment of evidence;
15
The evidence is vital to the Plaintiff’s case; and
16
The Plaintiff acts in good faith and not oppressively.
17
The Plaintiff submits that the forensic findings establish a real risk of destruction: 7,000 files were deleted, a tablet was concealed, and customer communications were intentionally S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ erased. The conduct of the Defendants indicates coordinated efforts to destroy or conceal digital evidence.
18
Counsel further argues that the APO was executed under proper supervision, and procedural irregularities if any were minor and do not warrant nullification. It was emphasised that the purpose of the APO was preservation of evidence, not harassment.
19
The Plaintiff relies on the following authorities: I) Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Gordon Toh Cheng Guan [2009] 6 MLJ 287 – probable apprehension of destruction suffices for APO relief. II) Juris Technologies Sdn Bhd v Foo Tiang Sin [2020] 7 MLJ 525 – post-employment misuse of confidential data justifies injunctive relief. III) Dimerco Express (M) Sdn Bhd v Patricia Lee Yoke Ching [2024] 11 MLJ 773 – customer lists, pricing data, and operational templates are confidential and protectable. IV) Digital Tempo Sdn Bhd v Pengangkutan Awam Putrajaya Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 MLJ 55 – procedural irregularities should not override substantive justice where the applicant acts bona fide.
20
The Plaintiff therefore prays that the APO be confirmed in full and the Defendants’ applications be dismissed with costs.
21
The Defendants, on the other hand, raise four principal objections:
a
Procedural Non-Compliance The APO was served 11 days after it was granted and the inter partes hearing was fixed beyond the 14-day limit stipulated by Order 29 Rule 1(2BA) of the Rules of Court 2012. By operation of law, they argue, the order lapsed and is therefore null and void.
b
Overbreadth of the Order
Schedule
Schedule B of the APO refers to “all letters, emails, and notes,” which the Defendants claim is vague and constitutes a fishing expedition. Reliance is placed on Apparatech (M) Sdn Bhd v Ng Hock Chong [2006] 2 MLJ 61, where overbroad wording was held oppressive. (c) Lack of Strong Prima Facie Case The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s claim is speculative and based on coincidence of timing. They argue that the data allegedly deleted were routine and non-confidential, and that any overlap of clientele is normal in the logistics industry. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ (d) Material Non-Disclosure The Plaintiff allegedly failed to disclose that D3 and D4 were junior staff without decision-making authority, and thus not privy to confidential materials. This omission, according to the Defendants, warrants the discharge of the APO under the principle in Empayar Sinarmas Sdn Bhd v Teguh Engineering Sdn Bhd [2022] CLJU 3435. 22. The Defendants therefore seek that the APO be set aside and all seized materials returned immediately. VI. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A. Applicable Legal Principles 23. The law on Anton Piller Orders is well established. The remedy is extraordinary, permitting search and seizure without prior notice. Courts thus exercise such discretion sparingly and only when essential to prevent the destruction of crucial evidence. 24. The principles from Arthur Andersen, Multi-Code Electronics, and Lock International plc v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268 govern the Court’s discretion. The Plaintiff must show: (i) a strong prima facie case; (ii) a serious potential or actual damage to the Plaintiff; S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ (iii) clear evidence that the Defendants possess relevant incriminating materials; and (iv) a real possibility of destruction of such evidence before discovery. 25. The Court must also ensure that the order is not oppressive and that adequate safeguards are observed. B. Prima Facie Case 26. Based on the affidavits and documents, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case. The following factors are significant: i) The temporal proximity between the Defendants’ resignations and the incorporation of SASA Shipping; ii) The discovery of overlapping client contracts and freight rate structures; iii) The forensic evidence of large-scale deletions and concealment of devices. 27. These facts collectively demonstrate an organised course of conduct indicative of misuse of confidential information, satisfying the first requirement under Multi-Code Electronics and Juris Technologies. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ C. Risk of Destruction of Evidence 28. The evidence reveals deliberate deletion of data and concealment of a company device. Applying Multi-Code Electronics, the Plaintiff need not prove actual destruction; a probable and credible apprehension suffices. The facts here present a clear and imminent risk. 29. This Court is therefore satisfied that the APO was rightly granted to preserve evidence that might otherwise have been lost or destroyed. D. Confidential Nature of Information 30. The Plaintiff’s client lists, pricing templates, and internal processes constitute confidential trade information. The same conclusion was reached in Dimerco Express, where similar commercial data were held protectable. 31. The Defendants’ argument that the information is “industry common knowledge” fails to appreciate that confidentiality does not depend on novelty but on the circumstances of creation and usage. The materials here are the result of years of relationship-building and operational refinement by the Plaintiff. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ E. Procedural Compliance 32. The Defendants’ principal challenge lies in alleged non-compliance with procedural timelines under Order 29 Rule 1(2BA). It is undisputed that the order was served after 11 days and heard inter partes after 14 days. 33. However, this Court adopts the reasoning in Digital Tempo, where Darryl Goon J (as he then was) held that procedural rules are meant to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat it. Where there is clear substantive merit and no prejudice to the opposing party, the Court may exercise its discretion under Order 2 Rule 3 to cure procedural irregularities. 34. In the present case, the APO was executed under supervision; all materials remain in judicial custody; and the Defendants have demonstrated no prejudice arising from the delay. To discharge the APO for such technical irregularity would defeat the very purpose of its issuance that is the preservation of evidence. 35. Accordingly, the Court finds that the procedural defect is curable and does not invalidate the APO. F. Proportionality and Alleged Oppression 36. The Court has examined the terms of Schedule B and the conduct of the search. Although broad in wording, the evidence S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ shows that the search was executed strictly within the scope of the order. No abuse or excess was alleged during execution. 37. The Court is satisfied that the breadth of the terms was necessary to ensure completeness of preservation. The APO was not oppressive in substance or effect. G. Alleged Non-Disclosure 38. The Defendants’ claim of material non-disclosure also fails. The Plaintiff disclosed all material circumstances — the resignations, the new company’s incorporation, and the deletion of files. The omission to state the Defendants’ job titles is not material, as confidentiality extends beyond senior management. 39. The duty of full and frank disclosure requires material, not exhaustive, disclosure. On the facts, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff acted in utmost good faith. H. Application of Authorities 40. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the cited authorities is well founded. (a) Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Gordon Toh Cheng Guan [2009] 6 MLJ 287 The Court of Appeal held that a probable apprehension of destruction suffices to justify Anton Piller relief. Here, the S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ discovery of over 7,000 deleted documents and a hidden tablet demonstrates a clear and reasonable apprehension of destruction of evidence. (b) Juris Technologies Sdn Bhd v Foo Tiang Sin [2020] 7 MLJ 525 This case recognises the continuing duty of confidentiality owed by ex-employees. The Defendants’ conduct in soliciting the Plaintiff’s clients and presenting the 5th Defendant as a continuation of the Plaintiff’s business falls squarely within the principle of post-employment misuse established therein. (c) Dimerco Express (M) Sdn Bhd v Patricia Lee Yoke Ching [2024] 11 MLJ 773 The Court affirmed that client databases and pricing models are proprietary confidential information deserving of protection. The Plaintiff’s data in this case are of the same nature and merit equal protection. (d) Digital Tempo Sdn Bhd v Pengangkutan Awam Putrajaya Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 MLJ 55 The High Court emphasised that procedural irregularities should not override substantive justice. The minor procedural delays in the present case do not invalidate the APO, as no prejudice was suffered by the Defendants. 41. These authorities collectively support the Plaintiff’s application and refute the Defendants’ challenge. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ I. Enclosure 33 – Return of Seized Materials 42. Enclosure 33, seeking the return of seized materials, is ancillary to Enclosure 32. Since the APO is affirmed, the materials seized under judicial supervision shall remain under custody until further order of the Court. 43. The Court reiterates that the Supervising Solicitor’s custody safeguards both parties’ interests. The Defendants’ fear of misuse is therefore unfounded. VII. COURT’S DECISION 44. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that: (a) The Plaintiff has fulfilled all substantive requirements for the grant of an Anton Piller Order; (b) The Defendants have failed to establish any valid ground to set aside or modify the order; and (c) Justice demands the preservation of evidence to ensure a fair trial. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ VIII. ORDERS 45. The Court accordingly makes the following orders: 46. The Plaintiff’s application (Enclosure 3) is allowed; 47. The Defendants’ applications (Enclosures 32 and 33) are dismissed; 48. The Anton Piller Order dated 25 July 2024 is affirmed in full; 49. All materials seized pursuant to the said order shall remain in the custody of the Supervising Solicitor until trial or further order of this Court; and 50. Costs in the cause. IX. CONCLUSION 51. This Court reiterates that Anton Piller Orders are exceptional remedies granted only in clear cases where the risk of destruction of evidence is real and substantial. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that threshold convincingly. 52. The Defendants’ objections, founded largely on procedural and technical grounds, fail to displace the substantive merit and necessity of the APO. Justice and equity demand that evidence vital to adjudication be safeguarded. S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ 53. For the reasons above, Enclosure 3 is allowed, Enclosures 32 and 33 are dismissed, and the Anton Piller Order dated 25 July 2024 is confirmed in full. Dated this 03 November 2025 -sgd- ………………………………….. Datin Asmah binti Musa Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Counsel for Plaintiff : Mr. Siow Chan Wai Tetuan Y Kong, Wong & Parners Counsel for Defendant : Mr. Jonathan lee Xing Sheng (Ms. Ning Allya Natasya with him) Tetuan Liow & Co S/N OAJdy96mwUywRrsyvs7fBQ
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.