ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

ENDLESS CORPORATE SDN. BHD. 1. ) GS REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY 3. ) YEOH ENG KONG

The Court found that D2 and D3 wilfully failed to comply with the Order and the CSO, constituting contempt of court; the applicants established a prima facie case and proof beyond reasonable doubt of contempt was made; accordingly leave was correctly granted, Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 were dismissed, and D3 (as sole proprietor and advocate) and D2 were found guilty and sentenced as recorded.

Citation
WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Endless Corporate Sdn. Bhd.; 1st Defendant: GS Realty Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Tetuan Patrick Yeoh & Company; 3rd Defendant: Yeoh Eng Kong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Case Number
WA-24NCvC-2327-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt Arising From Enforcement of Civil Judgment and Conditional Stay / Judgment and Sentencing With Stay Application Considered
Outcome
Enclosure 165 and Enclosure 169 allowed; Enclosure 174 and Enclosure 176 dismissed; D2 and D3 (and D3 as sole proprietor) found guilty of contempt.
Legal Topics
Committal, Conditional Stay, Breach of Court Order, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgment Committal Conditional Stay Breach of Court Order Sentencing

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endless Corporate Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

GS Realty Sdn. Bhd.

1st Defendant

Tetuan Patrick Yeoh & Company

2nd Defendant

Yeoh Eng Kong

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal for Contempt Arising From Enforcement of Civil Judgment and Conditional Stay / Judgment and Sentencing With Stay Application Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 and D3 breached the Court Order and the Conditional Stay Order (CSO)
  2. 2 Whether the CSO was mandatory and enforceable in the form granted
  3. 3 Whether leave to commence committal was properly granted (prima facie contempt)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that D2 and D3 wilfully failed to comply with the Order and the CSO, constituting contempt of court; the applicants established a prima facie case and proof beyond reasonable doubt of contempt was made; accordingly leave was correctly granted, Enclosures 165 and 169 were allowed, Enclosures 174 and 176 were dismissed, and D3 (as sole proprietor and advocate) and D2 were found guilty and sentenced as recorded.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 165 and Enclosure 169 allowed; Enclosure 174 and Enclosure 176 dismissed; D2 and D3 (and D3 as sole proprietor) found guilty of contempt.

Orders

  • D3 sentenced to 10 days imprisonment and fined RM100000.00 and in default of payment to be imprisoned for 2 months; the two 10-day imprisonment terms ordered (from Enclosure 165 and 169) to run concurrently
  • Costs awarded to Plaintiff and to D1 in respect of the successful applications (Enclosure 165 and 169)