DATO SUHAIMY BIN OTHMAN 1. ) INFINITY TRUSTEE BERHAD 2. ) ZURANITA BINTI MUHD ZAIN

DATO SUHAIMY BIN OTHMAN 1. ) INFINITY TRUSTEE BERHAD 2. ) ZURANITA BINTI MUHD ZAIN

Plaintiff failed to prove that either Defendant was a party to or privy to the Subscription Agreements and thus cannot enforce or obtain remedies under those agreements; the Agreements expressly bind Plaintiff and Asia Cornerstone and allocate refund obligations to Asia Cornerstone; the Plaintiff also failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-133-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dato' Suhaimy bin Othman; 1st Defendant: Infinity Trustee Berhad; 2nd Defendant: Zuranita binti Muhd Zain
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2024
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-133-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / High Court Judgment at Trial Level; Appeal Lodged to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Claim dismissed against the Defendants (High Court judgment). Plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Misrepresentation (s18 Contract Act), Contractual Interpretation, Agency, Remedies for Breach (s74 Contract Act), Admissibility of Unpleaded Evidence
Contract Law Misrepresentation Trust Law Evidence Law Privity of Contract Misrepresentation (s18 Contract Act) Contractual Interpretation Agency +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dato' Suhaimy bin Othman

Plaintiff

Infinity Trustee Berhad

1st Defendant

Zuranita binti Muhd Zain

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / High Court Judgment at Trial Level; Appeal Lodged to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants were parties to the Short‑Term Note Subscription Agreements
  2. 2 Whether privity of contract prevents the Plaintiff from suing the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant made an actionable misrepresentation inducing the Plaintiff to enter the agreements

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove that either Defendant was a party to or privy to the Subscription Agreements and thus cannot enforce or obtain remedies under those agreements; the Agreements expressly bind Plaintiff and Asia Cornerstone and allocate refund obligations to Asia Cornerstone; the Plaintiff also failed to prove actionable misrepresentation by the 2nd Defendant. Therefore the claim against the Defendants is dismissed and costs awarded to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against the Defendants (High Court judgment). Plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against the 1st and 2nd Defendants
  • Costs of RM15,000.00 awarded to the Defendants, subject to allocator fee