AZLINA BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) RHB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) RHB ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT BERHAD

wa-12bncc-32-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 December 2025 • WA-12BNCC-32-12/2024 • 26 min read

7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

Introducer fees - commission claim - unlicensed dealing in securities- illegality as threshold bar - Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ss 58 & 59 - Securities Commission Guidelines for Marketing Representatives - absence of Marketing Representative registration - no binding contract - subject to management approval - pleadings deficiency - burden of proof - principal–agent relationship - effective cause doctrine - mere introduction insufficient - lack of causation - institutional investment mandate - temporal gap - quantum merit - failure to prove industry rate - no unjust enrichment.

Practice Areas

Introducer fees

Judges (1)

Muhammad Adam @ Edward bin Abdullah Delivered

Counsel (4)

Gan Partnership Firm Kamarudin & Partners Firm Annie Gomez Counsel Appellant Lee Xin Div Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

RHB ASSET MANAGEMENT Sdn Bhd Respondent RHB ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT BERHAD Respondent Azlina binti Ahmad Appellant

Case Significance

AZLINA BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) RHB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) RHB ISLAMIC INTER... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 2, 2025 (citation: wa-12bncc-32-12-2024). <p>A unit trust agent claimed RM271,875 in introducer fees from RHB Islamic International Asset Management for allegedly procuring UKM and PTPTN as institutional investors. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Sessions Court's finding that the plaintiff was not a registered Marketing Representative under the CMSA 2007, had no binding contract for introduction fees, and failed to prove she was the effective cause of the investments.</p> The case was decided by Muhammad Adam @ Edward bin Abdullah. Counsel appearing: Annie Gomez (counsel for appellant), Lee Xin Div (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A unit trust agent claimed RM271,875 in introducer fees from RHB Islamic International Asset Management for allegedly procuring UKM and PTPTN as institutional investors. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Sessions Court's finding that the plaintiff was not a registered Marketing Representative under the CMSA 2007, had no binding contract for introduction fees, and failed to prove she was the effective cause of the investments.

What was the outcome of AZLINA BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) RHB ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) RHB ISLAMIC INTER...?

<p>A unit trust agent claimed RM271,875 in introducer fees from RHB Islamic International Asset Management for allegedly procuring UKM and PTPTN as in...

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (7)

MY (7)

[1986] 2 MLJ 30 [1988] 3 MLJ 352 [2008] MLJU 696 [2009] 2 MLJ 546 [2016] 5 MLJ 1 [2017] 5 MLJ 292 [2020] 12 MLJ 67