Vinvest Capital Holdings Berhad (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai VIVICOM INTL HOLDINGS BERHAD) 1. ) EA Holdings Berhad 2. ) See Jovin 3. ) Ng Cheng Shin PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) VINVEST CAPITAL HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) EA HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) Mohammad

Vinvest Capital Holdings Berhad (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai VIVICOM INTL HOLDINGS BERHAD) 1. ) EA Holdings Berhad 2. ) See Jovin 3. ) Ng Cheng Shin PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) VINVEST CAPITAL HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) EA HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) Mohammad

On the pleadings alone the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the abuse of process claim lacked facts showing a dominant collateral purpose directed at Ng; there was no specific pleading to lift the corporate veil or facts of fraud/unlawful use to attach personal liability to directors; and the conspiracy claim failed for lack of pleaded agreement and overt acts with requisite particulars; therefore striking out under Order 18 r19(1)(a) was warranted.

Citation
WA-22NCC-536-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (main Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): VINVEST CAPITAL HOLDINGS BERHAD; 1st Defendant (main Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): EA HOLDINGS BERHAD; 2nd Defendant (main Action): SEE JOVIN; 3rd Defendant (main Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): NG CHENG SHIN; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): MOHAMMAD SOBRI BIN SAAD; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): BASIR BIN BACHIK; 5th Defendant (counterclaim): AZAHAR BIN RASUL; 6th Defendant (counterclaim): ABDUL FATTAH BIN MOHAMED YATIM; 7th Defendant (counterclaim): CHOO SENG CHOON; 8th Defendant (counterclaim): WONG WAN ROU; 9th Defendant (counterclaim): TAY MUN KIT; 10th Defendant (counterclaim): LIM TONG HOCK; 11th Defendant (counterclaim): CHIA KOK TEONG; 12th Defendant (counterclaim): DAVID HAH WEI ONN; 13th Defendant (counterclaim): TAN CHUEK HOOI
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 August 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCC-536-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Division Civil Suit (high Court of Malaya) / Judgment on Striking Out Applications Under Order 18 R19(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Striking Out Applications allowed; counterclaim struck out against the applicants; costs awarded to the applicants.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Conspiracy to Injure, Separate Legal Personality / Corporate Veil, Striking Out Under Order 18 R19(1)(a)
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Company Law Tort Commercial Litigation Abuse of Process Conspiracy to Injure Separate Legal Personality / Corporate Veil Striking Out Under Order 18 R19(1)(a)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VINVEST CAPITAL HOLDINGS BERHAD

Plaintiff (main Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

EA HOLDINGS BERHAD

1st Defendant (main Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

SEE JOVIN

2nd Defendant (main Action)

NG CHENG SHIN

3rd Defendant (main Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

MOHAMMAD SOBRI BIN SAAD

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

BASIR BIN BACHIK

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

AZAHAR BIN RASUL

5th Defendant (counterclaim)

ABDUL FATTAH BIN MOHAMED YATIM

6th Defendant (counterclaim)

CHOO SENG CHOON

7th Defendant (counterclaim)

WONG WAN ROU

8th Defendant (counterclaim)

TAY MUN KIT

9th Defendant (counterclaim)

LIM TONG HOCK

10th Defendant (counterclaim)

CHIA KOK TEONG

11th Defendant (counterclaim)

DAVID HAH WEI ONN

12th Defendant (counterclaim)

TAN CHUEK HOOI

13th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Division Civil Suit (high Court of Malaya) / Judgment on Striking Out Applications Under Order 18 R19(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action for abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil may be lifted or individuals can be liable for corporate acts absent pleaded fraud or unlawful use
  3. 3 Whether the tort of conspiracy to injure was pleaded with necessary particulars including agreement and overt acts

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings alone the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the abuse of process claim lacked facts showing a dominant collateral purpose directed at Ng; there was no specific pleading to lift the corporate veil or facts of fraud/unlawful use to attach personal liability to directors; and the conspiracy claim failed for lack of pleaded agreement and overt acts with requisite particulars; therefore striking out under Order 18 r19(1)(a) was warranted.

Court Disposition

Striking Out Applications allowed; counterclaim struck out against the applicants; costs awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • Striking Out Applications under Order 18 r19(1)(a) allowed
  • Counterclaim struck out against the Striking Out Applicants