1. ) TEH SWEE NEO 2. ) LEE YONG HEN 1. ) CCRM MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

1. ) TEH SWEE NEO 2. ) LEE YONG HEN 1. ) CCRM MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

On the balance of probabilities the Court found D1 admittedly failed to pay rent as required by the TA; the TA and related documents authorized D1 to deduct/offset charges but D1 never paid rent or discharged obligations; evidence and surrounding documents showed D2 prepared and controlled the project and the TA terms and D1 was a nominal vehicle controlled by D2; special circumstances existed to lift the corporate veil and make D2 jointly liable with D1; Plaintiffs had standing to sue as representatives under O.15 r.12 ROC; accordingly Plaintiffs' claim was allowed and Defendants' counterclaims dismissed.

Citation
JA-22NCvC-160-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (representative): Teh Swee Neo; Plaintiff (representative): Lee Yong Hen; 1st Defendant: CCRM Management Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Capital City Property Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 March 2023
Case Number
JA-22NCvC-160-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Representative Action for Unpaid Rent and Ancillary Reliefs (contract/company/equity) / Judgment at High Court (trial Concluded); Appeals Filed to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed against both Defendants; counterclaims by 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreement, Unpaid Rent, Lifting Corporate Veil, Estoppel (s.115 Evidence Act), Parol Evidence Rule (s.92 Evidence Act), Representative Proceedings (o.15 R.12 Roc)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Equity Evidence Civil Procedure Tenancy Agreement Unpaid Rent Lifting Corporate Veil +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teh Swee Neo

Plaintiff (representative)

Lee Yong Hen

Plaintiff (representative)

CCRM Management Sdn. Bhd.

1st Defendant

Capital City Property Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Representative Action for Unpaid Rent and Ancillary Reliefs (contract/company/equity) / Judgment at High Court (trial Concluded); Appeals Filed to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 1st Defendant breached the Tenancy Agreement by failing to pay rent
  2. 2 Whether 2nd Defendant is jointly liable by reason of effective control/alter ego (lifting corporate veil)
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiffs had standing to bring a representative action under O.15 r.12 ROC

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court found D1 admittedly failed to pay rent as required by the TA; the TA and related documents authorized D1 to deduct/offset charges but D1 never paid rent or discharged obligations; evidence and surrounding documents showed D2 prepared and controlled the project and the TA terms and D1 was a nominal vehicle controlled by D2; special circumstances existed to lift the corporate veil and make D2 jointly liable with D1; Plaintiffs had standing to sue as representatives under O.15 r.12 ROC; accordingly Plaintiffs' claim was allowed and Defendants' counterclaims dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed against both Defendants; counterclaims by 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim allowed against 1st Defendant CCRM Management Sdn. Bhd. and 2nd Defendant Capital City Property Sdn. Bhd.
  • 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaims dismissed