BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA COVA SUITES PESURUHJAYA BANGUNAN, MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA

BA-25-57-09/2023 Kand. 78 17/09/2024 09:21:58 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-57-09/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara keputusan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan melantik Tai Yuk Ling untuk mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa bagi Cova Suites bertarikh 23.8.2023; Dan Dalam perkara perenggan 11, Jadual Kedua Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013. ANTARA BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA COVA SUITES (No. Pendaftaran: 0228) …PEMOHON DAN PESURUHJAYA BANGUNAN, MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA …RESPONDEN 1 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT [1] This applicant, Badan Pengurusan Bersama Cova Suites is challenging the decision of the respondent, Pesuruhjaya Bangunan, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya dated 23 August 2023. Vide a letter dated 23 August 2023, the respondent had appointed one Tai Yuk Ling to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to dissolve the existing committee and elect a new committee. Relief Sought [2] The reliefs sought by the applicant in this application for judicial review are reproduced below: “(i) Satu deklarasi bahawa keputusan yang dibuat melalui surat responden bertarikh 23.8.2023 adalah tidak sah dan boleh dibatalkan atas sebab melanggar undang-undang, tidak resional dan prosedur yang tidak wajar; (ii) Satu perintah certiorari bahawa keputusan responden melalui surat bertarikh 23.8.2023 dibatalkan; (iii) Satu perintah halangan untuk halangan responden daripada menggunakan kuasanya di bawah Jadual Kedua Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 untuk memaksa pemohon atau memberi kuasa kepada Tai Yuk Ling atau sesiapa yang lain untuk mengakses dokumen-dokumen pemohon dan/atau mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa sehingga pendengaran dan pelupusan permohonan- permohonan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam semakan kehakiman No. BA-25-38-07/2023 (termasuk apa jua 2 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal permohonan interlokutori dan/atau rayuan yang berkaitan) dan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Guaman No. BA- 22NCVC-333-08/2021 (termasuk permohonan interlokutori dan/atau rayuan yang berkaitan); (iv) Satu perintah supaya ganti rugi ditaksir;” Factual Background [3] The applicant is the Joint Management Body of a development known as Cova Suites (“the Development Area”) established under the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”). [4] The respondent is the Commissioner of Buildings for Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“COB”) appointed under subsection 4(1) of the SMA 2013 and have such powers as are conferred by the SMA 2013. [5] The last Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the applicant was held on 2 November 2019, with no subsequent meetings conducted. On 26 August 2020, 141 parcel owners requested for an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”). [6] On 2 September 2020, the applicant's Chairperson, Dr. Ang Hooi Bee, sought clarification on whether parcel owners in arrears could requisition an EGM. [7] On 15 September 2020, the respondent confirmed that all parcel owners including defaulters could requisition an EGM, but defaulters were required to settle arrears 7 days before the EGM. The EGM was to be convened within 6 weeks of the requisition. 3 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] On 17 September 2020, the applicant expressed concerns about pending court cases involving civil fraud and questioned the authenticity of some requisition signatures, seeking an exemption from holding the EGM. [9] On 23 September 2020, the applicant reiterated concerns about defaulters’ rights and the validity of the requisitions, stating that a quorum was not met and again sought an exemption from holding the EGM due to ongoing court cases. Grounds for Judicial Review [10] The applicant stated the followings grounds in this judicial review to challenge the decision of the respondent vide letter dated 23 August 2023: (i) Illegality – EGM Agenda illegal; (ii) Irrationality – Inconsistent/Confusing Ground; (iii) Illegality and/or irrationality waived requisition; and (iv) Irrational – the circumstances under which Impugned Decision was exercised. The Law Pertaining to Judicial Review [11] The grounds for an application for judicial review are illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality. These grounds were laid down by Lord Diplock in the case of Council of 4 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374 which was adopted by the Federal Court in the case of R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 as follows: “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410– 411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it: By 'illegality' as a ground for Judicial Review I mean that the decision maker must understand directly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exerciseable. By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts' exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the decision maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own 5 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by Judicial Review. I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to Judicial Review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development.” [12] The Federal Court’s decision in R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor (supra) suggests that the courts are permitted to scrutinize the challenged decision not only for process but also for substance. In other words, the courts are allowed to go into the merit of the matter. Nonetheless, the Federal Court in subsequent decisions held that not every case is amenable to such approach and merits can only be scrutinized in the most appropriate of cases. [13] In the Federal Court case of Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1 the court stated the following: “[16] The Rama Chandran decision has been regarded or interpreted as giving the reviewing court a license to review without restrain decisions for substance even when the 6 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal said decision is based on finding of facts. However, post Rama Chandran cases have applied some brakes to the courts’ liberal approach in Rama Chandran. The Federal Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v. Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11 after affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that there may be cases in which for reason of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security the principle in Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate. [17] The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v. Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, again held that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach. Further, it was held that a reviewing judge ought not to disturb findings of the Industrial Court unless they were grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the reviewing judge might not have come to the same conclusion.” [14] The meaning of error of law has also been explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Transport Workers Union [1995] 2 MLJ 317 in the following words: “It is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive definition of what amounts to an error of law, for the categories of such an error are not closed. But it may be said that an error of law would be disclosed if the decision-maker asks himself the wrong question or takes into account irrelevant considerations or omits to take into account relevant considerations (what may be conveniently termed an Anisminic error) or if he misconstrues the 7 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal terms of any relevant statute, or misapplies or misstates a principle of the general law.” [15] Founded on the principles relating to judicial review, this court will consider this application for judicial review. Analysis and Findings Illegality [16] The applicant submitted that a joint management body or committee of a stratified property can only be dissolved, and a new committee be elected, in an AGM. [17] In this regard, subparagraph 2(4) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 provides: “All the members of the management committee shall be elected at each annual general meeting of the management corporation.” [Emphasis added] [18] The word used in the said provision is “shall” which is a mandatory term. 8 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [19] Furthermore, subparagraph 2(6) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 provides that: “All the members of the management committee of a management corporation shall retire from office at the conclusion of the next annual general meeting…” [Emphasis added] [20] Reading both the provisions together, the applicant contended that an existing management committee can only be dissolved at the conclusion of the next AGM, and the new committee can only be elected during that AGM. [21] Therefore, the applicant submitted that the Impugned Decision with the agenda of effectively changing the whole joint management body of the applicant, is contrary to paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 and ought to be held as ultra vires. [22] The facts of this judicial review demonstrate that the applicant had: (a) convened an AGM annually since 2 November 2019; and (b) convene an EGM in accordance with the law upon the written requisitions by the parcel owners of the Development Area on 25 August 2020 and notwithstanding that the respondent has on 15 September 2020 clarified that the applicant shall convene an EGM within 6 weeks upon its receipt of the written requisitions by the parcel owners and that the said notice was issued on 21 June 2023. 9 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [23] In this regard subparagraph 11(5) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013, vests the COB with powers to authorize any person in writing convene an EGM if: (i) the respondent is satisfied that the management committee has not been properly constituted; or (ii) the applicant failed to convene the EGM within the time period stipulated in subparagraph 11(4) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013. [24] This court observes that the applicant failed to convene an AGM annually. As a result, the position of Chairperson has been held by the same person since 2 November 2019 and the Applicant failed to file audited accounts of the AGM with the COB. [25] In this regard, this court alluded to the case of Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd v. Pengurusan Perbadanan Jaya One & Ors and other appeals [2023] CLJU 2648 where the Court of Appeal held that a Management Corporation (MC) is a statutory entity with a duty to convene an AGM annually and to adhere to the SMA 2013. Notably, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 impose an obligation on the management body to hold an AGM each year and to convene an EGM upon a written requisition from the proprietors. 10 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [26] For ease of reference, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 is reproduced: “Annual general meeting 10. (1) The management corporation shall hold an annual general meeting for the consideration of accounts, election of the management committee and the transaction of such other matters as may arise. (2) The first annual general meeting shall be held within one month after the expiry of the initial period and the subsequent annual general meetings shall be held once in each year, provided that not more than fifteen months shall lapse between the date of one annual general meeting and the next. (3) The holding of any annual general meeting out of time in breach of this paragraph shall not affect the validity of the annual general meeting. Extraordinary general meetings 11. (1) A general meeting of the management corporation other than the annual general meeting shall be known as the extraordinary general meeting. (2) The management committee— (a) shall convene an extraordinary general meeting upon a requisition in writing made by the proprietors who are together entitled to at least one-quarter of the aggregate share units; (b) shall convene an extraordinary general meeting upon receiving a direction in writing from the 11 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Commissioner for the transaction of such business as the Commissioner may direct; and (c) may convene an extraordinary general meeting on such other occasion as it thinks fit. (3) The requisition shall state the objects of the meeting and shall be signed by the requisitionist and deposited at the registered office of the management corporation, and may consist of several documents in like form each signed by one or more requisitionists. (4) The extraordinary general meeting shall be held as soon as practicable but in any case not later than six weeks after— (a) the requisition has been deposited at the registered office of the management corporation; or (b) receiving a direction in writing from the Commissioner under subsubparagraph (2)(b). (5) If— (a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the management committee has not been properly constituted; or (b) the management committee fails to convene the extraordinary general meeting within the time period stipulated in subparagraph (4), the Commissioner may authorize in writing any person to convene an extraordinary general meeting for such purposes as may be approved by the Commissioner. (6) In the case of a meeting convened pursuant to subsubparagraph (5)(b), all costs incurred by the person in convening the meeting shall first be paid by the management corporation to that person and such costs shall be recoverable as 12 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal a debt due from all the members of the management committee personally to the management corporation.” [27] Thus, founded on the provisions of the Second Schedule of the SMA 2013, this court finds the Notice dated 23 August 2023, appointing Tai Yuk Ling to convene the EGM for Cova Suites, was proper and within the powers granted by the SMA 2013. Moreover, this court agrees with the contention by the respondent that it is not the COB’s duty to verify the validity of the written requisitions from parcel owners. Irrationality [28] According to the applicant, it is not clear which grounds the respondent relied on in the exercise of its power. It was argued by the applicant that from the contents of the Notice date 23 August 2023 as reproduced below, the respondent appears to have relied on both in its Impugned Decision. however, it is not known which notice the respondent was referring to as it is not specified. The said notice inter alia reads as follows: “2. Untuk makluman tuan, berdasarkan semakan pentadbiran ini mendapati mesyuarat agung tahunan (AGM) terakhir bagi badan pengurusan bersama (JMB) Cova Suites diadakan pada 2 November 2019 dan tiada laporan kewangan beraudit yang difailkan kepada pentadbiran ini. Selain itu, JMB Cova Suites telah gagal mengadakan mesyuarat agung luar biasa (EGM) dalam tempoh enam minggu setelah menerima permintaan secara bertulis daripada pemilik petak yang telah diterima oleh JMB Cova Suites pada 26 Ogos 2020 seperti yang telah 13 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal diperuntukkan subperenggan 11(4)(a), Jadual Kedua, Akta 757. 3. Oleh itu, pentadbiran ingin menarik perhatian tuan terhadap peruntukkan subperenggan 11(5)(b), 11(4)(b) dan 11(2)(b), Jadual Kedua, Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013… iaitu: Subperenggan 11(5)(b), Jadual Kedua Akta 757 (b) Jawatankuasa Pengurusan tidak mengadakan mesyuarat agung luar biasa dalam tempoh masa yang dinyatakan dalam subperenggan (4), Pesuruhjaya boleh memberi kuasa bertulis kepada mana-mana orang untuk mengadadakan suatu mesyuarat agung luar biasa bagi apa-apa maksud sebagaimana yang diluluskan oleh Pesuruhjaya. Subperenggan 11(4)(a), Jadual Kedua Akta 757 (4) Mesyuarat agung luar biasa hendaklan diadakan secepat yang boleh dilaksanakan tetapi dalam mana-mana hal tidak lewat daripada enam minggu selepas- (b) menerima suatu arahan secara bertulis daripada Pesuruhjaya di bawah subsubperenggan (2)(b). Subperenggan 11(2)(b), Jadual Kedua Akta 757 (b) hendaklah mengadakan suatu mesyuarat agung luar biasa apabila menerima arahan bertulis daripada Pesuruhjaya bagi transaksi apa-apa urusan sebagaimana yagn diarahkan oleh Pesuruhjaya.” [Emphasis added] 14 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [29] It was argued by the applicant that if the respondent relied on the owners’ requisition dated 26 August 2020 as the sole ground, the requisition, which was issued more than three years ago, was already abandoned by the requisitionists themselves. [30] The applicant is currently challenging two Tribunal Awards in court. The first, related to compel the applicant to hold an AGM, is pending hearing under JR 81. The second, related to a notice from the respondent dated 21 June 2023, compelling the applicant to hold an EGM, is pending hearing under JR 38. Both cases revolve around the applicant's alleged failure to convene a general meeting and submit audited reports, with JR 81 focusing on an AGM and JR 38 on an EGM. [31] According to the applicant, , the respondent ought not have made a fresh decision, as in the Impugned Decision, to again compel the convening of the EGM in the guise of appointing Tai Yuk Ling to do so as there are two cases, JR 81 and JR 38 which are pending adjudication. The applicant submitted that the respondent ignored the applicant’s rights of challenge in the two judicial review cases in JR 81 and JR 38 and attempted to bypass the courts, thereby undermining the judicial proses. [32] Furthermore, the applicant argued that Suit 333 is still on-going. What is left to be determine in Suit 333 is the applicant’s counterclaim against three plaintiffs (who are ex-office bearers and committee members of the applicant) for among others, breach of fiduciary and statutory duties under the SMA 2013. [33] The facts of this application is clear. There was no AGM held and the decision of the Tribunal and COB to order the applicant to hold 15 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal an AGM and EGM respectively, in the view of this court, fell on deaf ears. [34] The position of the law in unambiguous. AGMs are required to held annually. The applicant has breached its statutory duty and the express provisions of SMA 2013 for failing to convene an AGM annually as required under the law. This is evident from the fact that no audited accounts have been filed with COB since the last 10th AGM held on 2 November 2019 which is the date of the last AGM held on 2 November 2019. [35] The applicant also failed to convene an EGM after receiving a written requisition from the proprietors on 26 August 2020, as required under subparagraph 11(2)(a) of the SMA 2013. More significantly, the applicant did not convene the EGM despite receiving a written directive from the COB on 15 September 2020. [36] Moreover, subparagraph 2(5) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 provides: “2. Constitution of management committee (5) There shall be a chairman, secretary and treasurer, all of whom shall be natural persons, to be elected by the management committee from among its members immediately after the conclusion of the general meeting but no chairman, secretary or treasurer shall hold office for more than two consecutive years.” [Emphasis added] 16 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [37] In this application, the facts are that the chairperson, Dr. Ang Hooi Bee has been holding the position of Chairperson since 2 November 2019. This is a clear breach of the provisions of subparagraph 2(5) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013. [38] As a result of the failure of the applicants to hold an EGM, this court is of the view that the interest of the parcel owners at large has been prejudiced by the inaction and/or omission of the applicant. To protect the interest of the parcel owners, the respondent had exercised the respondent’s power under subparagraph 11(5) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013 for an EGM to be convened to uphold the interest of the parcel owners. [39] The applicant argued that the respondent should not have acted based on the written requisitions of the parcel owners which the applicant contended, were invalid due to among others, arrears not paid up by them and other reasons set out in the applicant’s letter dated 23 September 2020. [40] Pertaining to this contention, this court alluded to the case of Yu Kuan Huat v. Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur [2023] CLJU 265 where the court held that it is not the duty of COB to investigate whether each and every provision of the Second Schedule relating to the convening of the general meeting is complied with. “[26] There is nothing in subparagraph 7(8) of the Second Schedule that imposes a duty on the COB to investigate the validity of the general meeting or election of the members of the management committee… 17 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [28] ... The COB is certainly not under a duty to investigate whether each and every provision of the Second Schedule relating to the convening of the general meeting is complied with when furnished with stipulated the documents after a general meeting. In essence the COB merely acknowledged what was verified in the documents by the MC of Lot 163 through its management committee.” [41] In Yu Kuan Huat (supra), the applicant for judicial review challenged the COB’s decision that the Second AGM was compliant with the Second Schedule. The challenge was based on a letter from the COB, which confirmed receipt of documents from the MC of Lot 163 verifying the election of the management committee members. The court ruled that it is not the COB’s responsibility to investigate whether all provisions of the Second Schedule were followed during the general meeting. The COB’s role was simply to acknowledge the verification provided by the management committee. [42] The COB exercised its powers under subparagraph 11(5)(b) of the Second Schedule to the SMA 2013, rather than under subparagraph 11(2)(a). SMA 2013 clearly allows the COB to use these powers without requiring additional investigation or probation. In Muhamad Nazri bin Muhamad v. JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 547, the Court of Appeal ruled that courts should not interpret or add words to a statute when the language is clear, as with the SMA 2013. Additionally, it was noted that the applicant failed to file audited accounts, which violates the provisions of the SMA 2013. 18 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] The applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal Award, which required the convening of the 11th AGM of Cova Suites by 6 January 2023. This non-compliance is argued to be a criminal offence. The applicant has provided various excuses, citing an ongoing judicial review (JR 81) as the reason for non-compliance. However, there is no evidence presented to the court that the applicant's office bearers made any efforts or took any steps to comply with the Tribunal Award. Conclusion [44] This court is satisfied there are no grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety which would warrant this could to allow this application for judicial review. This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. Costs of RM4,000.00 to be paid to the respondent subject to allocator. Date: 13 September 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam 19 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: For The Applicant: Bernard Scott, Jonas Lee Fook Khong Tetuan Sault Scott & Co. Advocates & Solicitors No. 7-3, Jalan PJU 5/10, Dataran Sunway Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. +6 03 6140 7940 sault.scott@yahoo.com For the Respondent: Lai Chee Hoe, Ooi Xin Yi Tetuan Chee Hoe & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors Suite D-06-06 Plaza Mont Kiara, No. 2, Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. +6 03 6203 2366 info@cheehoe.com 20 BA-25-57-09/2023 S/N a8oSL8JBaktq2EFumQ3nA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal