CHEN WEI HAU 1. DEREK CHEONG SHENG ZE 2. COLLAB WORKING LIFESTYLE SDN. BHD.

CHEN WEI HAU 1. DEREK CHEONG SHENG ZE 2. COLLAB WORKING LIFESTYLE SDN. BHD.

Conflicting contemporaneous evidence (payment vouchers, business cards, WhatsApp messages, director's resolution) created genuine triable issues about whether the RM250,000 was a loan or investment and whether the Plaintiff held a shareholder/director role; the claim was not obviously unsustainable and therefore the strike-out application had to be dismissed so the issues could be resolved at trial by viva voce evidence.

Citation
22NCC-698-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Chen Wei Hau; 1st Defendant: Derek Cheong Sheng Ze; 2nd Defendant: Collab Working Lifestyle Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 November 2020
Case Number
22NCC-698-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (breach of Agreement / Shareholder Dispute) / Interlocutory – Strike Out Application Dismissed
Outcome
Defendants' application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Abuse of Process, Oral Agreement Vs Written Evidence, Shareholder Rights, Loan Vs Investment
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Franchise Law Employment Law Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 Abuse of Process Oral Agreement Vs Written Evidence +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Wei Hau

Plaintiff

Derek Cheong Sheng Ze

1st Defendant

Collab Working Lifestyle Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (breach of Agreement / Shareholder Dispute) / Interlocutory – Strike Out Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's claim is obviously unsustainable and fit to be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 RoC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's action constitutes an abuse of the court's process
  3. 3 Whether the RM250,000 payment was an investment conferring 25% shareholding or a short-term loan

Ratio Decidendi

Conflicting contemporaneous evidence (payment vouchers, business cards, WhatsApp messages, director's resolution) created genuine triable issues about whether the RM250,000 was a loan or investment and whether the Plaintiff held a shareholder/director role; the claim was not obviously unsustainable and therefore the strike-out application had to be dismissed so the issues could be resolved at trial by viva voce evidence.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 12 dismissed with costs of RM 4,000