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.

w-02imc-1548-09-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 20 November 2025 • W-02(IM)(C)-1548-09/2024 • 124 min read
66 cases cited (4 SG, 62 foreign)

Outcome

Enclosure 27 (in Appeal 1518) and Enclosure 29 (in Appeal 1548) being the Respondent’s application to strike out the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed with costs; b. Enclosure 22 (in Appeal 1518) and Enclosure 24 (in Appeal 1548) being the Respondent’s application to adduce further evidence is dismissed with costs; c. Appeal 1518 is allowed with costs; d. Appeal 1548 is allowed with costs; and e.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-02imc-1548-09-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Contempt of court – 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.

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (3)

Azimah binti Omar Coram Azizah binti Haji Nawawi Coram Mohd Firuz bin Jaffril Delivered

Counsel (8)

Cheah Teh & Su Firm Sanjay Mohan Firm Andy Gan Kok Jin Counsel Respondent B Thangaraj Counsel Appellant Faye Lee Chin Counsel Appellant Lee Zhun Hao Counsel Respondent Teh Eng Lay Counsel Respondent Wong Li Wei Counsel Appellant

Parties (9)

FIRST WORLD HOTELS & RESORTS Sdn Bhd Respondent GENTING HIGHLANDS BERHAD Respondent GENTING MALAYSIA BERHAD Respondent GM AERO SUPPORT Sdn Bhd Appellant PERUNDING REKACEKAP Sdn Bhd Appellant SYCAL BERHAD Appellant Lau Yee Sum Appellant Lee Yong Chiew Appellant Zahiruddin bin Zainal ( Beramal Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya Zahiruddin Town Planning Services) Appellant

Case Significance

A companion Court of Appeal decision on the appealability of a committal-leave order and res judicata, holding that compulsorily obtained documents used to inform related proceedings did not breach the Riddick undertaking.

This Court of Appeal decision is the companion appeal to a linked matter and again concerns leave granted to commence committal proceedings for an alleged breach of the implied Riddick undertaking, this time involving a different group of appellants that included GM Aero Support Sdn Bhd, Sycal Berhad and consulting engineers. The respondents had sought to commit the appellants for contempt for using compulsorily obtained documents in related Temerloh proceedings, and the appellants challenged the leave order. The focus here rests on the procedural questions surrounding such an appeal and the finality of the issues already litigated.

Two threshold questions arose. The first was the appealability of a leave order: whether an order granting leave to commence committal proceedings is amenable to appeal, or whether an appeal against it is academic or premature because the committal itself has yet to be heard. The Court had to decide whether the appellants were entitled to challenge the leave at that stage rather than await the substantive committal hearing. The second was res judicata and issue estoppel: whether the questions raised — in particular the propriety of using the documents and the scope of the implied undertaking as explained in Harman v Secretary of State and its Malaysian application — had already been determined in related proceedings, so that they could not be reopened.

Consistently with the linked appeal, the Court found that the documents had been used to place relevant facts before the Temerloh court on the subdivision and alienation issue, rather than for a collateral or improper purpose, and disagreed with the respondents' initiation of contempt proceedings. It dismissed the respondents' applications to strike out the appeal and to adduce further evidence, with costs, and awarded lump-sum costs of RM35,000 in this appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appealability of a committal-leave order and of how res judicata and the Riddick undertaking interact where documents obtained under compulsion are used in related litigation.

Summary

This is the companion appeal to W-02(IM)(C)-1518-09/2024 involving GM Aero Support and additional defendants (Sycal Berhad, Perunding Jutera, Perunding Rekacekap, YC Lee Architect, and Zahiruddin Town Planning) against the Genting group companies on the same Riddick implied undertaking issue. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, on the same grounds that documents filed and read in open court are public documents not subject to the Riddick restriction.

What procedural questions did this appeal raise?

It raised whether an order granting leave to commence committal proceedings is appealable or whether such an appeal is academic or premature before the committal is heard, and whether res judicata or issue estoppel barred re-litigating the propriety of using the compulsorily obtained documents.

How did the Court dispose of the matter?

Consistently with the linked appeal, the Court found the documents were used to apprise the Temerloh court of relevant facts rather than for a collateral purpose, disagreed with the contempt route, and dismissed the respondents' strike-out and further-evidence applications with costs, awarding RM35,000 costs.

Statutes Cited

Civil Law Act 1956
s 3(1)
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
s 15(1)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012
Supreme Court of Judicature Act
s 8(1)

Cases Cited (66)

SLR (4)
[2013] 4 SLR 1116 [2013] 4 SLR 529 [2015] 2 SLR 578 [2021] 2 SLR 584
UK (30)
[1913] AC 417 [1914] 3 KB 86 [1944] AC 111 [1948] 1 All ER 469 [1954] 3 All ER 745 [1975] 1 All ER 41 [1975] QB 613 [1977] 1 QB 881 [1977] 3 All ER 677 [1977] QB 881 [1982] 1 All ER 532 [1983] 1 AC 280 [1983] AC 280 [1985] Ch 299 [1986] 2 All ER 941 [1987] AC 829 [1988] 2 All ER 820 [1991] 2 All ER 908 [1999] 2 AC 177 [1999] 4 All ER 498 [2001] 2 AC 532 [2001] 3 All ER 433 [2001] UKHL 26 [2002] 1 All ER 842 [2002] EWCA Civ 1409 [2004] EWCA Civ 798 [2011] UKPC 46 [2012] EWHC 1117 [2016] UKSC 35 [2019] 4 All ER 1071
AU (2)
[2001] WASC 138 [2005] SASC 228
MY (29)
[1936] MLJ 141 [1970] 2 MLJ 70 [1973] 2 MLJ 74 [1988] 2 MLJ 12 [1990] 1 MLJ 356 [1992] 1 MLJ 147 [1996] 2 MLJ 57 [1997] 1 MLJ 257 [2003] 1 MLJ 513 [2003] 2 MLJ 495 [2006] 4 MLJ 113 [2008] 3 MLJ 653 [2008] 6 MLJ 704 [2008] 8 CLJ 308 [2009] 9 MLJ 441 [2011] 10 CLJ 186 [2012] 4 MLJ 573 [2015] 3 MLJ 65 [2015] 4 CLJ 113 [2017] 3 MLJ 350 [2017] MLJU 445 [2019] 4 MLJ 614 [2020] 11 MLJ 141 [2020] 2 MLJ 1 [2020] 9 CLJ 601 [2023] 3 MLJ 829 [2025] 2 MLJ 618 [2025] MLJU 1204 [2025] MLJU 2835
IN (1)
AIR 1960 SC 941

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-02imc-1548-09-2024)