Christopher Grant (Passport No: 465551165) 1. Teh Beng Leong (NRIC No: 700802-07-5299) 2. Pang Shiau Wooi (NRIC No: 780507-02-5398)
The appeal was dismissed because the amended statement of claim contained sufficient averments (alter-ego control, misrepresentation, particulars of payment and disparity in work value, unjust enrichment and conduct on termination) to raise triable issues on piercing the corporate veil and the negligence claim against the director in his personal capacity was properly pleaded; striking out was inappropriate as the claim was not plainly unsustainable and the matters must be resolved at trial.
- Citation
- PA-12ANCC-8-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Appellant: Christopher Grant; Respondent/plaintiff (lower Court): Teh Beng Leong; Respondent/plaintiff (lower Court): Pang Shiau Wooi; 1st Defendant (lower Court): GB Interior Designs & Kitchens Sdn Bhd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2019
- Case Number
- PA-12ANCC-8-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Against Dismissal of Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 (re Hearing on Appeal Record)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Piercing Corporate Veil, Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19(1), Wrongful Termination, Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment
- 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
Christopher Grant
Appellant
Teh Beng Leong
Respondent/plaintiff (lower Court)
Pang Shiau Wooi
Respondent/plaintiff (lower Court)
GB Interior Designs & Kitchens Sdn Bhd
1st Defendant (lower Court)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Against Dismissal of Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 (re Hearing on Appeal Record)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to hold the director personally liable for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
- 2 Whether the amended statement of claim is plainly unsustainable and should be struck out under O 18 r 19(1)
- 3 Whether negligence claim against a corporate entity is properly pleaded or should be against natural persons
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the amended statement of claim contained sufficient averments (alter-ego control, misrepresentation, particulars of payment and disparity in work value, unjust enrichment and conduct on termination) to raise triable issues on piercing the corporate veil and the negligence claim against the director in his personal capacity was properly pleaded; striking out was inappropriate as the claim was not plainly unsustainable and the matters must be resolved at trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to respondents
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