Author: Robin

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
AKHTAR TAHIR J
GUAMAN NO WA-22NCVC-88-02/2020
3 February 2021

JudgmentIntroduction

[1]  The 2^nd and 4^th Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Court Rules 2012 (“the Rules 2012”).The Plaintiff’s Claim

[2]  The Plaintiff’s claim against the 2^nd and 4^th Defendants was principally for a breach of fiduciary duties as Directors of the Plaintiff by entering into a lopsided, untenable and fraudulent agreement with the 1^st Defendant as well as 2 other supplementary agreements with 3^rd parties.

[3]  The Plaintiff was appointed by the Government of Malaysia to register and manage the intake of foreign students to the local Institutes of Learning.

[4]  For this purpose the Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the 1^st Defendant who had professed to have an expertise in undertaking the project.

[5]  As a result of the agreement executed with the 1^st Defendant not only the Plaintiff but the Treasury of Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia had suffered financial losses as well as loss of opportunities under the project.The Grounds of the 2^nd Defendant’s Application

[6]  The alleged breach of fiduciary duties are alleged to have taken place before the execution of the agreement with the 1^st Defendant which was executed on 1/11/2012 and as this claim was only filed in 2020 it is time barred as any claim for breach of contract is limited to 6 years.

[7]  The allegation of fraud and breach of duties have not been particularized.

[8]  In a judicial review proceedings in Kuala Lumpur High Court under the suit number 25-04-2013 the Plaintiff had taken a stand that the agreement with the 1^st Defendant was valid and enforceable and therefore he is now estopped from questioning the validity of the agreement.The Grounds of the 4^th Defendant’s Application

[9]  There is no cause of action against the 4^th Defendant as he was only appointed on the date of execution of the agreement and therefore had not taken part in any negotiations of the agreement.

[10]  In the judicial review proceeding in the High Court the Plaintiff had taken a stand to support the agreement with the 1^st Defendant and therefore the Plaintiff is now estopped from declaring the agreement as invalid.

[11]  The Plaintiff’s claim is time barred for the same reasons raised by the 2^nd Defendant.

[12]  The Plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this proceedings on behalf of the Treasury and the Government of Malaysia.

[13]  The Statement of Claim lacks particulars especially on the allegation of breach of fiduciary duties.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
SUIT NO WA-22NCC-155-04 OF 2021
23 November 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  There are 5 applications before the Court to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim:

1.1 Enclosure (“Enc”) 11 made by the 8th Defendant (“D8”);

1.2 Enc. 15 made by the 1st and 2^nd Defendants (“D1 & D2”);

1.3 Enc. 17 made by the 3^rd to 5^th Defendants (“D3 to D5”);

1.4 Enc. 26 made by the 6th Defendant (“D6”); and

1.5 Enc. 33 made by the 7th Defendant (“D7”).

[2]  All the applications were made pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 (a), (b), and/or (d) of Rules of Courts 2012 (“ROC 2012”) and/or Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court except for Enc. 26 which was made pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 (a) ROC 2012.

[3]  On 14th October 2021, I had allowed all 5 applications with costs. As the matters were related, it is convenient to deal with all 5 enclosures in one judgment.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
SUIT NO WA-22NCC-284-05 OF 2019
2 September 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  The Plaintiff (‘Rich Emerald’) filed this action against the Defendant (‘Engareh’) for unpaid balance sum in respect of goods sold and delivered to Engareh. In turn, Engareh has counterclaimed for refund of part payments made and reimbursement of transportation charges.

[2]  The case turns very much on the finding of facts as to actual terms of the agreement reached between the parties on the purchase of the goods.

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURTIntroduction

[1]  The appellants are Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia (Malaysian Palm Oil Board) (First Appellant) and Ketua Pengarah Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia (Director General – Malaysian Palm Oil Board) (Second Appellant). The First Appellant is a statutory body established pursuant to the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1998 (“the Act”) to promote and develop national objectives, policies and priorities for the wellbeing of the Malaysian palm oil industry. The Second Appellant is the Director General of the First Appellant appointed under the Act. The Respondent is Innovans Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd (Company No.: 385096-K) (“Respondent”). The Respondent is licensed by MPOB to sell, purchase, store and export various palm oil products.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-459-09 OF 2020
8 May 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  The 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Defendants’ application in enclosure (“Enc”) 13 to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim is grounded on Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) and/or under the inherent powers of the Court.

[2]  The 5^th Defendant’s application in Enc. 36 to strike out the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim is similarly grounded on Order 18 r 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the ROC 2012, and/or under the inherent powers of the Court.

[3]  On 15^th March 2021, I dismissed Enc. 13 with costs whilst Enc. 36 was dismissed with costs on 30^th March 2021. As the matters were related, it is convenient to deal with both enclosures in one judgment.

HIGHT COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ASHRAF REZAL ABDUL MANAN
SUIT NO D-22NCC-776 OF 2009
3 June 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES BEFORE REGISTRAR IN ENCLOSURE 80 & 81)Introduction

[1]  This case concerns two assessments of damages ordered by the learned trial judge dated 27 December 2012 in favour of Plaintiffs against TRA Mining (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (TRA), the first defendant (Enclosure 80) and Mohd Afrizan bin Hussain (Afrizan), the second defendant (Enclosure 81).

[2]  This case has a very long litigation history. The main action commenced in 2009 which then involved subsequent lawsuits in several courts and various stages of appeal proceedings. The judgment ordering for this assessment of damages had gone up to the appellate courts and was affirmed eventually. The matter was then remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages. I shall state, at the outset, that when this assessment was directed to proceed before a registrar, Circular No.2/2021 of the Chief Judge of Malaya dated 30 March 2021 has yet been in place.

[3]  Both assessments were done by way of affidavit evidence. In this judgment, I shall refer the parties as they were referred to in the Federal Court judgment.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ROZANA ALI YUSOFF J
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-21NCVC-10-02 OF 2016
30 September 2021

JUDGMENTA. INTRODUCTION

[1]  The Plaintiff is seeking against the Defendant, inter alia, as follows:

[a] The lands it surrendered for free to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants remain as schools for the benefit of the residents of the Plaintiff’s development; or

[b] Alternatively, the return of the lands it surrendered for free to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in return for which the Plaintiff is willing to pay to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants reasonable compensation.

[2]  However, the Plaintiff in their submission submitted that they are not seeking for monetary damages notwithstanding the fact the lands were surrendered for free to build schools. At all material times, the Plaintiff has never relinquished its’ proprietary rights (either in law or in equity) on the lands.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JC
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO WA-28NCC-1315-12 OF 2019
8 January 2021

JUDGMENT

[1]  By way of a winding-up petition dated 12.12.2019 (Petition), the Petitioner, one WTWT Sdn Bhd (Petitioner) had sought to wind up the 1st Respondent company, Lysaght (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (R1) pursuant to sections 465(1)(f) and 465 (1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 respectively.

[2]  The main grounds relied on by the Petitioner are inter alia as follows:-

• a)using R1 as an instrument of fraud to take over control of Lysaght Galvanized Steel Bhd (LGS), a public company listed on the Bursa Malaysia without complying with the requisite laws and regulations governing takeover
• b)Chew Brothers (M) Sdn Bhd, the 2nd respondent herein (R2) and its nominee directors acting in their own selfish interest to obtain control in breach of the original substratum and constitution through removal of entrenched rights of shareholders
• c)breakdown of mutual trust and confidence as evidenced by the ongoing litigation and failure to achieve quorum for the meetings
• d)permanent deadlock in the management of R1 whereby no business can be transacted due to quorum failure
• e)denial of income through refusal to pay dividends despite RM110,000,000 cash pool
• f)winding-up would be fairest and most equitable way forward
• g)winding-up would cause little disruption and indeed would resolve all disputes

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
AHMAD FAIRUZ ZAINOL ABIDIN J
SAMAN PEMULA NO WA-24NCC-474-09/2019
30 August 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to s. 355 of the Companies Act 1965 (“the CA 1965”) and/or s. 582 of the Companies Act 2016 (“the CA 2016”) to validate the Plaintiff’s board of directors’ resolutions passed at two (2) board meetings held on 28.5.2019 and 3.6.2019.

[2]  The resolutions that the Plaintiff sought to validate are as follows: –

• (a)approving the appointment of Mr. Heng Chiang Pooh from FMS Management Services Sdn. Bhd. as the company secretary;
• (b)approving the audited financial statements for the years ended 31.12.2015, 31.12.2016 and 31.12.2017 for circulation to the shareholders and auditors at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM);
• (c)approving the Director’s Report and Statement by Directors, authorizing the following directors, namely Chew Kar Yoo @ Chew Kar Hoo and Lim Fong Boon to sign the Director’s Report and Statement by Directors for and on behalf of the board and approving the said Director’s Report and Statement by Directors for inclusion with the audited financial statements for the years ended 31.12.2015, 31.12.2016 and 31.12.2017 respectively for circulation in accordance with s. 257 of the CA 2016;
• (d)authorizing the director, Lim Fong Boon to sign the Statutory Declaration as the Director/Officer primarily responsible for the financial management of the Plaintiff pursuant to s. 251(1)(b) of the CA 2016 and approving the Statutory Declaration for inclusion with the audited financial statements for the years ended 31.12.2015, 31.12.2016 and 31.12.2017 respectively for circulation in accordance with s. 257 of the CA 2016;
• (e)to convene the 36th AGM after an Order from this Honourable Court and authorizing the Managing Director to fix the venue, date and time of the AGM thereafter as well as to authorize the Company Secretary to circulate the audited financial statements for the years ended 31.12.2015, 31.12.2016 and 31.12.2017 and to send the Notice of AGM to all members and auditors; and (Collectively referred to as “the First Resolution”)
• (f)appointing Sreenevasan Young to represent the Plaintiff to file this application and to do all necessary things to regularize the Plaintiffs board meeting held on 28.5.2019.

HIGH COURT (PENANG)
GEORGE VARUGHESE JC
SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO PA-25-50-09/2020
1 July 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENTIntroduction

[1]  Enclosure 1 is the applicant’s judicial review application, seeking orders for certiorari, declaration, prohibition and mandamus under Order 53, Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”).

[2]  In enclosure 1, the applicant challenged the decision of the 2^nd respondent in rejecting the applicant’s claim of ownership and request of return of 4,579.91 metric tonnes of used cooking oil (“UCO”) seized by the respondents on 26/05/2020 under the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1988 (“MPOBA 1998”) (“Impugned Decision”).

[3]  The applicant, inter alia, sought for the following orders:

• (i)an order of certiorari to quash the Impugned Decision;
• (ii)a declaration that the Impugned Decision is erroneous in law and/or ultra vires and/or irrational and/or illegal and/or in breach of natural justice;
• (iii)an order of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from taking any steps to enforce and/or assert any right of ownership or to sell the UCO;
• (iv)an order of mandamus to compel the 1st and/or 2^nd respondent to release and/or return the UCO or the proceeds of any sale of the UCO and all books, records, documents or other articles seized by the respondents to the applicant within seven (7) days from the date of the Order herein; and
• (v)an order of general damages to be assessed by this Honourable Court.