1. ACE SOLUTION INVESTMENTS LIMITED [Company No.: 1678746] 1. VIP GLOVES LIMITED [Company No.: 83057884876] 2. WONG KAI FATT [Identity Card No.: 641126106629] 3. CHEN WEE MIN [Identity Card No.: 590731106515] 4. LEE CHOONG CHOY [Identity Ca

1. ACE SOLUTION INVESTMENTS LIMITED [Company No.: 1678746] 1. VIP GLOVES LIMITED [Company No.: 83057884876] 2. WONG KAI FATT [Identity Card No.: 641126106629] 3. CHEN WEE MIN [Identity Card No.: 590731106515] 4. LEE CHOONG CHOY [Identity Ca

The Plaintiff failed to prove payment of the agreed consideration into the accounts specified by D1 and produced no evidence of refund; absent proof of payment there was no valid contract formed under the Share Form, consequently the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance and the conspiracy claims against D2 to D4 were obviously unsustainable and the striking out applications were allowed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-506-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ACE SOLUTION INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: VIP GLOVES LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: WONG KAI FATT; 3rd Defendant: CHEN WEE MIN; 4th Defendant: LEE CHOONG CHOY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCC-506-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Division Civil Suit / Judgment on Striking Out Applications
Outcome
Enclosure 25 and 30 allowed; Plaintiff's claims struck out
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Consideration/payment, Specific Performance, Conspiracy by Unlawful Means, Striking Out Test, Misrepresentation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Tort (conspiracy) Fraud Formation of Contract Consideration/payment Specific Performance +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACE SOLUTION INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Plaintiff

VIP GLOVES LIMITED

1st Defendant

WONG KAI FATT

2nd Defendant

CHEN WEE MIN

3rd Defendant

LEE CHOONG CHOY

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Division Civil Suit / Judgment on Striking Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid contract was formed between the Plaintiff and D1 under the Share Form
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff paid the agreed consideration to D1 as required for contract formation
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance is sustainable absent proof of payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove payment of the agreed consideration into the accounts specified by D1 and produced no evidence of refund; absent proof of payment there was no valid contract formed under the Share Form, consequently the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance and the conspiracy claims against D2 to D4 were obviously unsustainable and the striking out applications were allowed.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 25 and 30 allowed; Plaintiff's claims struck out

Orders

  • Enclosure 25 and 30 allowed
  • The Plaintiff's claims in the suit are struck out as obviously unsustainable