GREENPOWER VALUE SDN BHD 1. UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. PAVILION YIELDS SDN BHD 3. MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 4. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 5. ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 6. DBS BANK LIMITED 7. AFFIN BANK BERHAD

GREENPOWER VALUE SDN BHD 1. UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. PAVILION YIELDS SDN BHD 3. MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 4. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 5. ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 6. DBS BANK LIMITED 7. AFFIN BANK BERHAD

The Court set aside the ex‑parte leave because the Consent Order was contractual and effectively superseded by the subsequently executed SPA (which contained an entire agreement clause), the Consent Order bore no penal endorsement and was not coercive in wording, the Order 52 statement lacked necessary particularisation, Tan Sri Lim (a non‑party) had not been personally served, and there was material non‑disclosure in the ex‑parte leave application; consequently no prima facie case of contempt was established.

Citation
24NCC-134-04/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: GREENPOWER VALUE SDN BHD; 1st Defendant/trustee: UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; 2nd Defendant/2nd Alleged Contemnor: PAVILION YIELDS SDN BHD; 3rd Defendant/bank: MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD; 4th Defendant/bank: MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD; 5th Defendant/bank: ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD; 6th Defendant/bank: DBS BANK LIMITED; 7th Defendant/bank: AFFIN BANK BERHAD; 1st Alleged Contemnor: TAN SRI DATO' LIM CHENG POW; 3rd Alleged Contemnor/director of Pavilion Yields: LO HOOI LIN; 4th Alleged Contemnor/director of Pavilion Yields: MAZNAH BINTI BABA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Case Number
24NCC-134-04/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Committal/contempt Proceedings / Applications to Set Aside Ex‑parte Leave for Committal (enclosures 45, 47, 61); Consequential Enclosure 38 Struck Out
Outcome
Applications in enclosures 45, 47 and 61 allowed; ex‑parte Leave Order for committal dated 20.1.2016 set aside; consequential striking out of enclosure 38.
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Committal Proceedings, Penal Notice Endorsement, Leave to Commence Committal (order 52), Particularisation of Allegations, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Entire Agreement Clause, Personal Service Requirement
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Contract Law Banking and Finance Equity and Trusts Injunctions Consent Order Committal Proceedings +6 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GREENPOWER VALUE SDN BHD

Plaintiff

UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

1st Defendant/trustee

PAVILION YIELDS SDN BHD

2nd Defendant/2nd Alleged Contemnor

MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

3rd Defendant/bank

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

4th Defendant/bank

ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

5th Defendant/bank

DBS BANK LIMITED

6th Defendant/bank

AFFIN BANK BERHAD

7th Defendant/bank

TAN SRI DATO' LIM CHENG POW

1st Alleged Contemnor

LO HOOI LIN

3rd Alleged Contemnor/director of Pavilion Yields

MAZNAH BINTI BABA

4th Alleged Contemnor/director of Pavilion Yields

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Committal/contempt Proceedings / Applications to Set Aside Ex‑parte Leave for Committal (enclosures 45, 47, 61); Consequential Enclosure 38 Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Consent Order could be enforced by committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the SPA superseded the Consent Order
  3. 3 Whether the Order 52 statement was sufficiently particularised to found leave for committal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court set aside the ex‑parte leave because the Consent Order was contractual and effectively superseded by the subsequently executed SPA (which contained an entire agreement clause), the Consent Order bore no penal endorsement and was not coercive in wording, the Order 52 statement lacked necessary particularisation, Tan Sri Lim (a non‑party) had not been personally served, and there was material non‑disclosure in the ex‑parte leave application; consequently no prima facie case of contempt was established.

Court Disposition

Applications in enclosures 45, 47 and 61 allowed; ex‑parte Leave Order for committal dated 20.1.2016 set aside; consequential striking out of enclosure 38.

Orders

  • Enclosures 45, 47 and 61 are allowed (with costs).
  • Leave Order for committal dated 20.1.2016 is set aside.