Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin bin Ramli & Ors and another case [2023] MLJU 1369

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
SUIT NO D5-22-610 OF 2006 AND D1-22-1960 OF 2008
20 June 2023

JUDGMENT

(3 applications)A. Background

[1]  In the above two suits (2 Suits) –

  • (1)Civil Suit No. D5-22-610-2006 (1st Suit) has been filed by two plaintiff companies (Plaintiffs) against individual defendants on the ground that they had breached their fiduciary and statutory duties as directors of the Plaintiffs in respect of certain contracts and transactions entered into by the Plaintiffs;
  • (2)the Plaintiffs alleged in Civil Suit No. D1-22-1960-2008 (2nd Suit) that the seven defendants in the 2nd Suit had conspired, either by lawful or unlawful means, to injure the Plaintiffs and had thereby caused loss to the Plaintiffs; and
  • (3)Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin bin Ramli (1st Defendant) and Dato’ Bistamam bin Ramli (2nd Defendant) are the first and second defendants in the 2 Suits. The 1st and 2nd Defendants (referred collectively in this judgment as the “Defendants”) have filed 2 counterclaims in the 2 Suits (2 Counterclaims) against the Plaintiffs and Telekom Malaysia Bhd. (TMB).

[2]  The following learned lead counsel appear in the 2 Suits and 2 Counterclaims (2 Suits/2 Counterclaims):

  • (1)Mr. Rabindra Nathan (Mr. Rabindra) is the learned lead counsel for the Plaintiffs;
  • (2)Mr. Lim Kian Leong led the Defendants in the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims;
  • (3)there were certain German individuals and a German company who were defendants in the 2 Suits (collectively referred to in this judgment as the “German Entities”). The learned lead counsel for the German Entities is Mr. Christopher Leong Sau Foo (Mr. Leong). Mr. Leong is assisted by, among others, Mr. Lim Tuck Sun; and
  • (4)TMB’s learned lead counsel is Mr. Lambert Rasa-Ratnam (Mr. Rasa-Ratnam).

[3]  On 27.9.2021, the German Entities had called Mr. Thomas Ach to testify online in the joint trial of the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims (Mr. Ach’s Online Testimony).

[4]  The 2 Suits were discontinued on 19.11.2021 by the Plaintiffs against the German Entities without any liberty to file afresh and with no order as to costs [Discontinuance Order (German Entities)].

[5]  On 21.1.2022, the Plaintiffs’ solicitors informed the court about a doctored video clip regarding Mr. Ach’s Online Testimony (Doctored Video Clip) which had been circulated in the public.

[6]  This court has delivered a judgment regarding the Doctored Video Clip – please refer to [2022] 3 MLRH 217, [2022] 4 CLJ 381, [2022] 3 AMR 486 [Judgment (Doctored Video Clip)].B. Three applications by Mr. Lim Tuck Sun

[7]  Initially, Mr. Lim Tuck Sun filed a notice of application (1st NA) which applied for the following orders:

  • (1)leave of court for Mr. Lim Tuck Sun to intervene in the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims (Intervention Application); and
  • (2)parts of the Judgment (Doctored Video Clip) regarding Mr. Lim as stated in Appendix 1 to the 1st NA [Impugned Parts (Judgment)] should be expunged by the court (Expunction Application).

[8]  In the first case management (CM) of the 1st NA (1st CM) –

  • (1)Mr. Kenneth Koh Zhong Wey represented Mr. Lim Tuck Sun;
  • (2)the Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM were represented by learned counsel but the German Entities were not represented;
  • (3)when the court inquired from Mr. Kenneth Koh on why no learned counsel appeared on behalf of the German Entities, Mr. Kenneth Koh informed the court that the cause papers for the 1st NA [Cause Papers (1st NA)] had not been served on the solicitors for the German Entities, Messrs Chooi & Company + Cheng & Ariff (Messrs CCA).The court then directed Mr. Lim Tuck Sun’s solicitors to serve the Cause Papers (1st NA) on Messrs CCA. This is because even if a court matter has been discontinued against a party (X), if a learned counsel or solicitor (Y) (who has represented X in the case) has filed an application in the case after the discontinuance of the matter, Y should serve all cause papers regarding Y’s application on X. This is in the interest of justice because X is entitled to know of all developments in the case, especially the filing and outcome of an application by X’s own solicitor or counsel in the same case;
  • (4)I inquired from Mr. Kenneth Koh on whether Mr. Lim Tuck Sun wished to be present for the 1st CM. Mr. Kenneth Koh informed the court that Mr. Lim Tuck Sun was waiting outside the court room. I invited Mr. Lim Tuck Sun to be present for the 1st CM as the 1st NA was filed by him. The court also granted leave for Mr. Lim Tuck Sun to attend all subsequent CMs as well as to be present at the hearing and oral decision of the 2 NAs. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Lim Tuck Sun had appointed learned counsel to act for him in the 1st NA, I gave leave for Mr. Lim Tuck Sun to address the court if he wished to do so;
  • (5)Mr. Kenneth Koh tactfully inquired from me on whether I would be hearing the 1st NA. I informed Mr. Kenneth Koh as follows –
    • (a)after my perusal of the Cause Papers (1st NA), my preliminary view was that there was no “real danger of bias” on my part to hear the 1st NA. Hence, I would not recuse myself from hearing the 1st NA during the first CM; and
    • (b)Mr. Lim Tuck Sun had the liberty to file an application to recuse me from hearing the 1st NA (Recusal Application). I assured Mr. Lim Tuck Sun and Mr. Kenneth Koh that if a Recusal Application was subsequently filed, the court would not commence any committal proceedings on the court’s own motion against any person in respect of the Recusal Application; and
  • (6)Mr. Kenneth Koh stated that he had been instructed by Mr. Lim Tuck Sun to file a Recusal Application and applied for another CM to be fixed after the filing of the Recusal Application. I acceded to Mr. Kenneth Koh’s request and fixed a second CM for the 1st NA (2nd CM).

[9]  The Recusal Application was subsequently filed by Mr. Lim Tuck Sun by way of a second NA (2nd NA). This judgment shall refer to –

  • (1)the 1st NA and 2nd NA collectively as the “2 NAs”; and
  • (2)the Intervention Application, Expunction Application and Recusal Application collectively as the “3 Applications”.

[10]  During the 2nd CM –

  • (1)Ms. Ira Biswas A/P Sushil Kumar and Ms. Nicole Fiona Wee Sue-Ren appeared for Messrs CCA. Ms. Ira informed the court that –
    • (a)Messrs CCA had no instruction from the German Entities to receive the Cause Papers (1st NA);
    • (b)Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee attended the 2nd CM as a matter of courtesy and respect for the court; and
    • (c)Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee applied for leave to be excused from all further proceedings regarding the 2 NAs.
    Firstly, Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee were not required to appear for the CM because Messrs CCA had no instruction from the German Entities to act in respect of the 2 NAs. Secondly, Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee did not need leave of court to be excused from all proceedings with regard to the 2 NAs. The above conduct by Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee was in accordance with the finest traditions of the Bar. I expressed my heart-felt gratitude to Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee for attending the 2nd CM beyond the call of their duty to court and their clients. Ms. Ira and Ms. Wee then excused themselves from further proceedings with regard to the 2 NAs;
  • (2)learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM informed the court that –
    • (a)the Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM would not take any position with regard to the 2 NAs; and
    • (b)learned lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM kindly offered to act as Amici Curiae (friends of the court) in respect of the 2 NAs.
    I was pleasantly surprised by the selfless act of learned lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM to act as Amici Curiae regarding the 2 NAs. I have no hesitation to accept this pro bono offer; and
  • (3)this court informed all learned counsel and Mr. Lim Tuck Sun as follows –
    • (a)the court proposed to invite Mr. Robert Lazar (Mr. Lazar), a senior member of the Bar and a highly experienced litigator, to be an Amicus Curiae to assist the court regarding the 2 NAs. There was no objection to this proposal by any learned counsel. Mr. Robert Lazar subsequently accepted the court’s invitation to be an Amicus Curiae in respect of the 2 NAs; and
    • (b)the court stated that Mr. Lim Tuck Sun, Plaintiffs, Defendants and TMB had the right to propose to the court to invite –
      • (i)the Rt. Hon. Attorney General to attend and/or assist the court with regard to the 2 NAs: and/or
      • (ii)a representative from the Bar Council (BC) to be an Amicus Curiae or to hold a Watching Brief (WB) for the BC.
      The above proposals were not taken up by Mr. Lim Tuck Sun, Plaintiffs, Defendants and TMB.

Dato’ Dr Abd Wahab bin Abd Ghani lwn Mohd Rashid bin Mohd Noor dan lain-lain [2023] MLJU 1441

MAHKAMAH TINGGI (KUALA LUMPUR)
LATIFAH MOHD TAHAR H
GUAMAN SIVIL NO WA-22NCVC-281-05 TAHUN 2018
1 July 2023

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

(LAMPIRAN 1 )RAYUAN

[1]  Perayu/ Plaintif tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi pada 30 Januari 2023 dan merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sebahagian keputusan seperti berikut:-

  • (a)Bahawa jumlah penyelesaian RM200,000.00 dibayar kepada Defendan Pertama ke dalam akaun peguamcara-anakguam Tetuan P.S. Ranjan & Co.
  • (b)Tuntutan Balas Defendan Pertama dibenarkan sebahagian iaitu faedah 5% terhadap jumlah RM200,000.00 dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian; dan
  • (c)Kos dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama sebanyak RM30,000.00, Defendan Kedua sebanyak RM15,000.00 dan Defendan Ketiga sebanyak RM15,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.

[2]  Pihak-pihak akan dipanggil sebagai Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga seperti di Mahkamah Tinggi dan pihak-pihak dirujuk kepada Guaman Asal No WA-22NCVC-75-02/2016 ( selepas ini disebut “Guaman 75” ) akan dirujuk seumpamanya seperti guaman tersebut.

Malayan Banking Bhd v Tan Soek Phee & Ors and another appeal [2023] 5 MLJ 507


COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL KARIM, ABU BAKAR JAIS AND LIM CHONG FONG JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS W-02(NCVC)(W)-2194–10 OF 2018 AND W-02(NCvC)(W)-2220–10 OF 2018
4 August 2023

Contract — Damages — Loss of opportunity/chance — Whether High Court erred in refusing bank damages for loss of chance/opportunity — Whether Court wrongly held bank had not proven that it had suffered actual loss and that it had no prospect of success in recovering any monies from wound up borrower — Whether borrower’s insolvency or winding up was irrelevant — Whether evidence showed solicitor’s negligence had caused bank to lose opportunity of recovering its loan from borrower and guarantors — Whether bank was entitled to judgment for sum claimed as it was reasonable measure of damages and was not remote

Malayan Banking Bhd v Tan Soek Phee & Ors and another appeal [2023] MLJU 1749

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL KARIM ABDUL JALIL, ABU BAKAR JAIS AND LIM CHONG FONG JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS W-02(NCVC)(W)-2194-10 OF 2018 AND W-02(NCvC)(W)-2220-10 OF 2018
4 August 2023

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTINTRODUCTION

[1]  These are appeals against the trial judgment of the High Court that partially allowed the claim pertaining to solicitor’s professional negligence.

[2]  The learned High Court judge on 25th September 2018 adjudged and ordered as follows:

  • (i)The Defendants are to make payment of the sum of RM127,994.00 to the Plaintiff together with interest on the said amount at 5% per annum from 30th May 2016 until full settlement;
  • (ii)The Plaintiff’s claim for damages for loss of chance is dismissed; and
  • (iii)No order as to costs.

[3]  We have on 10th April 2023 unanimously allowed the Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-2194-10/2018 (“Appeal 2194”). In this regard, we varied the High Court judgment dated 25th September 2018 by allowing and ordering the Defendants to make payment of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for loss of a chance and hence judgment was accordingly entered in the sum of RM622,006.00 to the Plaintiff. However, we dismissed Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-2220 (“Appeal 2220”). There shall be no order as to costs as agreed by the parties.

[4]  We now provide the grounds of judgment below and continue to address the parties as Plaintiff and Defendants for convenience

Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia & Anor v Innovans Palm Industries Sdn Bhd [2023] 2 MLJ 742

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN, NANTHA BALAN AND DARRYL GOON JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NO P-01(A)-172–04 OF 2021
9 September 2021

Administrative Law — Judicial review (‘JR’) — Whether matter was amenable to JR — Director-General (‘DG’) of Malaysian Palm Oil Board (‘MPOB’) refused to release seized palm oil to respondent because the oil was subject of criminal proceedings — Whether DG’s decision was not amenable to JR because reliefs sought in JR application would encroach upon or interfere with magistrate’s jurisdiction to deal with the oil under the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1998 — Whether respondent had not shown any procedural impropriety, abuse of power or mala fides on the part of the DG or the MPOB

Budaya YNS Sdn Bhd v Rembau Galian Sdn Bhd and other cases [2023] MLJU 1045

HIGH COURT (SEREMBAN)
AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN J
APPEAL NOS NA-12BNCC-3-07 OF 2022, NA-12BNCC-4-07 OF 2022 AND NA-12BNCC-5-07 OF 2022
23 May 2023

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTINTRODUCTION

[1]  The appellant in this case, Budaya YNS Sdn Bhd, was the defendant in the court below. The respondents and the plaintiffs at first instance, Rembau Galian Sdn Bhd, Permata Ketara Sdn Bhd and Rembau Galian had entered into Sand Excavation Agreements with the appellant dated 7 May 2013, 31 May 2013 and 24 June 2013 respectively.

[2]  In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were before the court below.

[3]  The plaintiffs sued the defendant in three separate suits at the Sessions Court for breach of the Sand Excavation Agreements. The plaintiffs claimed for the return of deposits sums of RM200,000 that they had each paid to the defendant. In addition, they claimed for loss of profits arising from the contended breach by the defendant of the Agreements. The three suits were heard together at the Sessions Court.

[4]  After a full trial of the actions, the Sessions Court allowed the plaintiff’s claim in part only, for the return of the deposit amounts. The claim for loss of profit was dismissed. The defendant has now appealed against this decision

Jackan Joy @ Victor a/l Rajagopal dan satu lagi lwn Ravintheran a/l Govindasamy dan satu lagi [2023] MLJU 402

MAHKAMAH TINGGI (KUALA LUMPUR)
LATIFAH MOHD TAHAR H
GUAMAN SIVIL NO WA-22NCVC-69-02 TAHUN 2017
1 March 2023

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

(LAMPIRAN 237)RAYUAN

[1]  Perayu / Defendan Kedua (dalam Tuntutan Asal) tidak berpuashati dengan keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi pada 12 Disember 2022 dan kini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut yang memutuskan bahawa permohonan Responden-Responden / Plaintif-Plaintif (dalam Tuntutan Asal) untuk memberhentikan tindakan terhadap Perayu / Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Pertama (dalam Tuntutan Asal).

[2]  Pihak-pihak akan disebut sebagai Plaintif-Plaintif, Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua, Defendan Ketiga dan juga Defendan-Defendan dalam alasan penghakiman ini.

[3]  Dalam kes ini terdapatnya permohonan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dibawah Aturan 21 Kaedah 3(1), Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dimana Plaintif- Plaintif di dalam Tuntutan Asal membuat permohonan di bawah peruntukan Aturan 21 Kaedah 3(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk perintah- perintah bahawa:-

  • a)Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam Tuntutan Asal diberi kebenaran untuk memberhentikan tindakan yang telah difailkan ke atas Defendan-Defendan di dalam Tuntutan Asal;
  • b)Tiada perintah terhadap kos; dan
  • c)Lain-lain relif yang difikirkan suai-manfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.

[4]  Alasan-alasan permohonan adalah seperti berikut:-

  • 1.Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tuntutan asal telah memfailkan tindakan sekarang ini terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua dalam Tuntutan asal pada10.02.2017.
  • 2.Pada setiap masa yang material Defendan-Defendan dalam Tuntutan Asal telah memfailkan Tuntutan Balas pada 20.03.2017.
  • 3.Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Tuntutan Asal telah menuntut terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua antara lain pembayaran balik Pinjaman Persahabatan berjumlah RM150,000.00 yang diberikan pada Mac 2010.
  • 4.Pada setiap masa yang material pihak-pihak telah memfailkan semua dokumen pra-perbicaraan seperti yang diarahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia in.
  • 5.Akhirnya tindakan sekarang ini telah ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 28.7.2021, 29.7.2021, 30.7.2021, 21.6.2022, 10.8.2022 dan 15.8.2022.
  • 6.Permohonan Pemberhentian tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif ke atas Defendan-Defendan adalah kerana Defendan Pertama telah membuat bayaran sebanyak RM170,000.00 (termasuk kos pembaikpulih hartanah tersebut) kepada Plaintif Pertama pada 02.08.2022.
  • 7.Pemberhentian tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif ke atas Defendan- Defendan adalah wajar kerana tuntutan utama Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tindakan ini telah dijelaskan oleh Defendan Pertama.
  • 8.Permohonan ini adalah bona fide dan akan menjimatkan masa Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan semua pihak dalam tindakan ini.
  • 9.Alasan-alasan lain adalah seperti yang terkandung dalam Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Jackan Joy @ Victor A/L Rajagopal pada 12.09.2022 yang difailkan bersama.

Dato’ Seri Yap Seng Yew & Anor v Expo Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) & Ors [2023] MLJU 1795

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG J
SUIT NO WA-22NCC-591-11 OF 2022
3 August 2023

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  Enclosure (“Enc.”) 8 was filed by the Plaintiff for:

  • a.An injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Defendants, their servants, employees or agents or otherwise howsoever from exercising their rights as a director of Cekap Asia Sdn Bhd;
  • b.An injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, their servants, employees or agents or otherwise howsoever from appointing any further directors and/or convening any Extraordinary General Meeting;
  • c.An order for an extension of time to serve the court papers in this suit, pending the process of obtaining leave to proceed against Expo Electronics Sdn Bhd, which is in liquidation.

[2]  Enc. 8 was heard together with Enc. 27 which was the 2nd to 4th Defendants’ application to strike out the Writ and Statement of claim (“SOC”) pursuant to Order 18 r 19(1) (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) and/or under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court.

[3]  I had allowed Enc. 8 and dismissed Enc. 27 with costs to the Plaintiff on 29.5.23 and given broad reasons for my decisions. The 2nd to 4th Defendants have appealed against the decision in Enc. 8. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision

Lai Chin Wah & Anor v Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 891

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
LEE SWEE SENG, S NANTHA BALAN AND NORDIN HASSAN JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NO C-02(NCvC)(W)-607-03 OF 2021
3 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]  The circumstances under which the Court may intervene with the freedom of contract are limited. It is easier to intervene in cases of illegality where parties cannot agree to do that which the law prohibits. What then is the position where a matter is not prohibited by statute but expressly stated as a right of a party?

[2]  The question then is whether contracting out of a statute would be permitted. Should the Court nevertheless refuse to enforce such a term if to do so would unfairly prejudice the rights of the weaker party to the bargain, or that it would defeat the purpose of the law or be contrary to public policy. Interestingly in this appeal, the issue is whether a developer can enforce a term in an agreement where the purchaser has agreed not to apply for change of category of land use from “agriculture” to “building” for the land that he purchased.

[3]  The purchasers here had obtained the approval of the State Authority for such a conversion and have constructed, with the approval of the local authority, on the once agriculture land a long house straddling the 2 pieces of land, one bought by the husband and the other by the wife, from the developer and which the wife subsequently transferred to the husband.

[4]  The developer insisted that it is a breach of the contract represented in the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“S&P”) and the Deed of Covenants (“DOC”) signed between the developer and the purchaser for each parcel of the agricultural land in the development in Janda Baik in Pahang.

[5]  The purchasers argued that the National Land Code (“NLC”) conferred such a right to the registered proprietor and whilst the S&P and DOC had been entered into, very significantly this so-called restriction does not appear on the subdivided titles when they were subsequently issued. It was argued that the contractual restrictions cannot take away the rights of the purchasers as reflected in the subdivided titles without such a restriction and moreover the NLC expressly grants such a right to the registered proprietor of the land.

APE Electrical Sdn Bhd v Chandra Segar a/l L Marullamulth & Anor and another appeal [2023] 1 MLJ 557

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
YAACOB MD SAM, RAVINTHRAN AND GUNALAN MUNIANDY JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS B-02(NCVC)(W)-1785–09 OF 2018 AND B-02(NCVC)(W)-1786–09 OF 2018
21 September 2022

Contract — Agreement — Agreement between plaintiff and defendant — Whether agreement was a money lending or sale and purchase transaction — Whether sale and purchase agreements were sham documents — Whether alleged interest payment proven — Whether first defendant was moneylender — Whether there was misrepresentation against plaintiff — Moneylenders Act 1951

Misrepresentation — Representation by defendant’s consultant to plaintiff — Whether there was innocent misrepresentation — Whether plaintiffs were misrepresented into signing sale and purchase agreements — Whether there was false statement of fact — Contracts Act 1950 s 18