Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

The misappropriation claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff lacks locus standi and expressly conceded those claims and must pursue any company claim by way of a derivative action under s.347 Companies Act 2016; the beneficial ownership claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff admitted the funding derived from Dawama which prima facie vests beneficial ownership in Dawama by resulting trust, the claim lacked contemporaneous documentary support and was contradicted by registered shareholders' affidavits, Dawama was a necessary party whose non-joinder was fatal, and the pleadings were plainly and obviously unsustainable and an abuse of process under Order...

Citation
WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff; 7th Defendant in Counterclaim: Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff: Nurhaslina binti Mohamed Nor; 1st Defendant in Counterclaim: Dato' Norhisam bin Mohamed Nor; 2nd Defendant in Counterclaim: Dato' Norhazri bin Mohamed Nor; 6th Defendant in Counterclaim: Mesriah binti Kadiran; 14th Defendant in Counterclaim: Create Teq Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 July 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (high Court, Commercial Division, Ncc) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment and Injunction Applications)
Outcome
Applications to strike out allowed against specified Counterclaim Defendants; summary judgment for Plaintiff entered; injunction applications dismissed or rendered academic.
Legal Topics
Proper Plaintiff Rule, Derivative Action (s.347 Companies Act 2016), Reflective Loss, Resulting Trust, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Summary Judgment, Mareva Injunction
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Injunctions Proper Plaintiff Rule Derivative Action (s.347 Companies Act 2016) Reflective Loss Resulting Trust +3 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff; 7th Defendant in Counterclaim

Nurhaslina binti Mohamed Nor

Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff

Dato' Norhisam bin Mohamed Nor

1st Defendant in Counterclaim

Dato' Norhazri bin Mohamed Nor

2nd Defendant in Counterclaim

Mesriah binti Kadiran

6th Defendant in Counterclaim

Create Teq Sdn Bhd

14th Defendant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (high Court, Commercial Division, Ncc) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment and Injunction Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Counterclaim Plaintiff has locus standi to pursue misappropriation claims on behalf of the company
  2. 2 Whether shareholder claims are barred by the proper plaintiff rule and the rule against reflective loss
  3. 3 Whether alleged 'family trust' and beneficial ownership claims are sustainable given admitted source of funds

Ratio Decidendi

The misappropriation claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff lacks locus standi and expressly conceded those claims and must pursue any company claim by way of a derivative action under s.347 Companies Act 2016; the beneficial ownership claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff admitted the funding derived from Dawama which prima facie vests beneficial ownership in Dawama by resulting trust, the claim lacked contemporaneous documentary support and was contradicted by registered shareholders' affidavits, Dawama was a necessary party whose non-joinder was fatal, and the pleadings were plainly and obviously unsustainable and an abuse of process under Order...

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out allowed against specified Counterclaim Defendants; summary judgment for Plaintiff entered; injunction applications dismissed or rendered academic.

Orders

  • Enclosures 70, 58 and 81 allowed; Counterclaim dated 10.12.2024 struck out and dismissed as against the 1st, 3rd to 5th, and 7th to 13th Counterclaim Defendants and as against the 14th Counterclaim Defendant (Create Teq) and the 6th Counterclaim Defendant (Mesriah); costs awarded to the respective applicants.
  • Enclosure 60 allowed with costs; summary judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of RM4,580,000.00.