Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

On the judicial record

A High Court judge whose reported corpus centres on trusts and estates, professional negligence and fraud, and civil procedure, decided with careful attention to standing and proof.

Justice Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi sits in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions in this corpus are civil, with a strong emphasis on trusts and estates, professional negligence, fraud and civil procedure, and judgments that often open with an abstract of the issues. Trust and estate disputes recur: a trust company appointed as substitute trustee under family trust deeds sought to recover monies from deceased settlors' bank accounts using irrevocable powers of attorney, and estate-administration disputes challenge the validity and handling of letters of administration granted to a personal representative.

Professional negligence and fraud are a distinct strand, including a consolidated set of striking-out applications in a professional-negligence and fraud claim arising from a land purchase where a caveat alleging fraud was later discovered, and claims of fraudulent misrepresentation over investment agreements said to concern non-existent projects. Will disputes also feature, including a claim to validate the will of a person who died during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Civil-procedure practice is prominent. Decisions address striking out under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court, treated as a remedy confined to plainly unsustainable claims rather than a tactical exit; an application for security for costs under section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 against a wound-up company prosecuting a counterclaim; the propriety of a penal endorsement on a judgment-debtor-summons order; and the setting aside of an ex parte order terminating co-proprietorship made without joining the personal representatives of deceased co-owners. A large multi-plaintiff tort action arising from a water disruption is resolved on the threshold issue of locus standi, the court determining standing before reaching the merits. Preliminary objections on the proper forum — for example whether a dispute over a vesting order obtained by a liquidator under the Companies Act should first be heard elsewhere — also feature. The corpus reflects a High Court judge managing a broad civil list with careful attention to standing, proof and procedure, and a marked willingness to dispose of unsustainable claims and counterclaims at the threshold.