BEYOND HALLMARK SDN BHD (Company No.: 1099917-T) 1. CHEAH SIU HUI [personal representative of Cheah Theam Kheng (deceased)] (NRIC No.: 310131-10-5261) 2. YAHNASEGARAN S GOVINDASAMY (sued as the sole proprietor of Messrs. Yahna S.G) (NRIC No
Application dismissed because it was academic and an abuse of process; the 2nd Defendant proffered unreasonable and unjustified reasons for delay, failed statutory and professional record-keeping obligations, and failed to demonstrate due diligence or credible obstacles (CMCO/banking) to warrant extension of time.
- Citation
- WA-22NCVC-471-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Beyond Hallmark Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant (personal Representative): Cheah Siu Hui (personal representative of Cheah Theam Kheng, deceased); 2nd Defendant: Yahnasegaran s/o Govindasamy (Messrs. Yahna S.G.); 3rd Defendant: Cheah Siu Hui
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2021
- Case Number
- WA-22NCVC-471-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Action (civil Tracing/ Recovery) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Injunction and Disclosure Order (enclosure 115)
- Outcome
- Enclosure 115 (2nd Defendant's application for extension of time) dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Disclosure Orders, Accounting of Stakeholder Funds, Tracing of Funds, Res Judicata, Compliance With Court Orders, Record Keeping Obligations
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beyond Hallmark Sdn Bhd
Plaintiff
Cheah Siu Hui (personal representative of Cheah Theam Kheng, deceased)
1st Defendant (personal Representative)
Yahnasegaran s/o Govindasamy (Messrs. Yahna S.G.)
2nd Defendant
Cheah Siu Hui
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Writ Action (civil Tracing/ Recovery) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Injunction and Disclosure Order (enclosure 115)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant should be granted an extension of time to comply with the Court's injunction and disclosure order dated 10.11.2020
- 2 Whether the reasons advanced (lack of records, bank dormancy/closure, CMCO delays) justify an extension
- 3 Whether the application is academic or an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
Application dismissed because it was academic and an abuse of process; the 2nd Defendant proffered unreasonable and unjustified reasons for delay, failed statutory and professional record-keeping obligations, and failed to demonstrate due diligence or credible obstacles (CMCO/banking) to warrant extension of time.
Court Disposition
Enclosure 115 (2nd Defendant's application for extension of time) dismissed
Orders
- Application Enclosure 115 dismissed with costs of RM3,000.00 to the Plaintiff subject to allocator
- No extension of time granted to comply with paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Order dated 10.11.2020
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment