SARA YASMIN BINTI SEKH MOHD RUZI 1. ) HAMALUDIN BIN ALI 2. ) MOHAMED ADLAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDIN 3. ) RUSLI BIN BABA

SARA YASMIN BINTI SEKH MOHD RUZI 1. ) HAMALUDIN BIN ALI 2. ) MOHAMED ADLAN BIN AHMAD TAJUDIN 3. ) RUSLI BIN BABA

The appeal was allowed and the writ and Statement of Claim against the 4th Defendant struck out because the pleadings failed to establish a prima facie basis to lift the corporate veil or to allege fraud with the particulars required by Order 18 r12(1); directors are not liable for company debts absent properly pleaded and particularised wrongdoing, and affidavit material cannot cure defective pleadings, rendering the claim frivolous or vexatious as against the 4th Defendant.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-69-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / 4th Defendant: Sara Yasmin Binti Sekh Mohd Ruzi; Respondent / Plaintiff: Hamaludin Bin Ali; Respondent / Plaintiff: Mohamed Adlan Bin Ahmad Tajudin; Respondent / Plaintiff: Rusli Bin Baba
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 March 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-69-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Dismissal of Striking Out Application / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; striking out granted as against the 4th Defendant
Legal Topics
Lifting Corporate Veil, Striking Out Under O18 R19, Particulars of Fraud, Separate Legal Personality, Affidavit Vs Pleadings
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Law Lifting Corporate Veil Striking Out Under O18 R19 Particulars of Fraud Separate Legal Personality +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Yasmin Binti Sekh Mohd Ruzi

Appellant / 4th Defendant

Hamaludin Bin Ali

Respondent / Plaintiff

Mohamed Adlan Bin Ahmad Tajudin

Respondent / Plaintiff

Rusli Bin Baba

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Dismissal of Striking Out Application / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 4th Defendant (a director) is liable for the tenant company's debts
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim sufficiently pleaded facts to lift the corporate veil
  3. 3 Whether fraud was pleaded with the particularity required by Order 18 r12(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the writ and Statement of Claim against the 4th Defendant struck out because the pleadings failed to establish a prima facie basis to lift the corporate veil or to allege fraud with the particulars required by Order 18 r12(1); directors are not liable for company debts absent properly pleaded and particularised wrongdoing, and affidavit material cannot cure defective pleadings, rendering the claim frivolous or vexatious as against the 4th Defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; striking out granted as against the 4th Defendant

Orders

  • Allow appeal and set aside the Sessions Court's dismissal of the 4th Defendant's striking out application
  • Strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim as against the 4th Defendant