MEDIC PRO HEALTHCARE SDN BHD v 1. ) HANSEN CHUA CHIN SHEN 2. ) CHONG MEL JUNE 3. ) GEW LAI TECK 4. ) ANG CHAI HUN 5. ) LUA SOO KENG 6. ) ENDO SOLUTION 7. ) ENDOLUMINAZ HEALTHCARE SDN BHD

Case Significance

A worked application of the Arthur Andersen requirements for maintaining an Anton Piller order in a trade-secrets dispute, confirming that a stay of such preservation relief will be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that alleged oppressive execution must be weighed against the appointed supervising solicitors' safeguards.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns applications to set aside or stay an Anton Piller order — the exceptional ex parte relief that permits a claimant to enter premises and preserve evidence — and the claimant's cross-application to continue that order until trial. The plaintiff, Medic Pro Healthcare Sdn Bhd, alleged that its former senior employee, the first defendant, had access to extensive confidential materials, including training modules, client lists, pricing structures and technical manuals, and that shortly before his resignation there was significant activity downloading, transferring and duplicating those materials across personal devices, external storage and cloud accounts. It further alleged that the second to seventh defendants — including two corporate entities, Endo Solution and Endoluminaz Healthcare Sdn Bhd — assumed roles connected to marketing or distributing similar materials, indicating a coordinated diversion of the plaintiff's business. The court granted the ex parte order, appointing supervising solicitors to ensure execution with proper safeguards. The defendants applied to discharge or stay it, contending that the requirements for Anton Piller relief were not met, that the order was executed oppressively, that there had been material non-disclosure, and that the seized material showed no wrongdoing. Applying the three requirements in Arthur Andersen — a strong prima facie case, serious potential harm, and a real possibility of destruction of evidence — the court held that all three were fulfilled, that there was no material non-disclosure, and that execution had been proper. It rejected the defendants' claim to be innocent bystanders, holding that the cumulative evidence suggested coordinated activity warranting preservation of materials, and that a stay is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances not shown here. The court ordered that the Anton Piller order granted in October 2024 be maintained in full pending disposal of the main action, dismissed all the defendants' applications, and fixed costs at RM5,000.