LEE YEN HOCK AVENUE GOLDEN SDN BHD & 3 ORS

LEE YEN HOCK AVENUE GOLDEN SDN BHD & 3 ORS

The committal applications were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to serve the mandatory formal notice to show cause under O.52 r.2B prior to making ex parte applications for leave; that procedural non‑compliance was mandatory and incurable, rendering the entire committal proceedings defective and necessitating dismissal in favour of the alleged contemnors.

Citation
26NCC-10-01/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: LEE YEN HOCK; 1st Respondent: AVENUE GOLDEN SDN BHD; 2nd Respondent: CHOO AH FOOK; 3rd Respondent: TREBLE MEDIUM SDN BHD; 4th Respondent: CHOO SEIK YEN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 October 2020
Case Number
26NCC-10-01/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Committal Proceedings for Contempt Under Order 52, Rules of Court 2012 / Appeal Against Dismissal of Committal Applications (leave and Committal Proper)
Outcome
Committal applications dismissed for non‑compliance with O.52 r.2B; proceedings declared defective
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Order 52 R.2 B Notice to Show Cause, Procedural Compliance and Jurisdiction, Oppressive Conduct and Misappropriation, Service of Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Company Law Committal Proceedings Order 52 R.2 B Notice to Show Cause Procedural Compliance and Jurisdiction Oppressive Conduct and Misappropriation Service of Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE YEN HOCK

Petitioner

AVENUE GOLDEN SDN BHD

1st Respondent

CHOO AH FOOK

2nd Respondent

TREBLE MEDIUM SDN BHD

3rd Respondent

CHOO SEIK YEN

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Proceedings for Contempt Under Order 52, Rules of Court 2012 / Appeal Against Dismissal of Committal Applications (leave and Committal Proper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O.52 r.2B mandatory requires personal service of a notice to show cause before ex parte leave applications
  2. 2 Whether the alleged contempts constituted contempt in the face of the court (O.52 r.2A) or other contempts (O.52 r.2B)
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with O.52 r.2B is curable under O.1A/O.2

Ratio Decidendi

The committal applications were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to serve the mandatory formal notice to show cause under O.52 r.2B prior to making ex parte applications for leave; that procedural non‑compliance was mandatory and incurable, rendering the entire committal proceedings defective and necessitating dismissal in favour of the alleged contemnors.

Court Disposition

Committal applications dismissed for non‑compliance with O.52 r.2B; proceedings declared defective

Orders

  • Enclosure 238 and Enclosure 282 dismissed
  • No order as to costs