PYROCELL SDN BHD KOH YI FUNG

PYROCELL SDN BHD KOH YI FUNG

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any entitlement to directors' remuneration for the period claimed and there was no shareholders' resolution or written agreement authorising such payments as required by Companies Act s230; therefore the counterclaim is dismissed as meritless and an abuse of process, with costs awarded to the respondent according to scale under the Rules of Court 2012.

Citation
BA-A72-22-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff (original) / Defendant (counterclaim): PYROCELL SDN. BHD.; Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): KOH YI FUNG
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 October 2025
Case Number
BA-A72-22-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil Counterclaim Arising From Company/director Dispute / Judgment After Full Hearing of Counterclaim (two Day Trial)
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent
Legal Topics
Director's Remuneration, Burden of Proof, Companies Act S230 Approval of Directors' Fees, Striking Out/frivolous Claims, Set Off/accounting
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Contract Law Director's Remuneration Burden of Proof Companies Act S230 Approval of Directors' Fees Striking Out/frivolous Claims +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PYROCELL SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff (original) / Defendant (counterclaim)

KOH YI FUNG

Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Counterclaim Arising From Company/director Dispute / Judgment After Full Hearing of Counterclaim (two Day Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant (counterclaim plaintiff) was entitled to director's remuneration for Jan-Mar 2023
  2. 2 Whether any resolution or written agreement authorised payment of directors' remuneration
  3. 3 Whether claimant discharged burden of proof on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any entitlement to directors' remuneration for the period claimed and there was no shareholders' resolution or written agreement authorising such payments as required by Companies Act s230; therefore the counterclaim is dismissed as meritless and an abuse of process, with costs awarded to the respondent according to scale under the Rules of Court 2012.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent

Orders

  • Counterclaim dismissed with costs to the respondent to be taxed on scale as provided by the Rules of Court 2012
  • Main claim resolved by earlier consent order dated 19 March 2025: respondent to pay RM32,000.00 with interest at 5% per annum from 2 April 2025 until full settlement; no order as to costs on that consent order