HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT HOLDING SDN. BHD. 1. ) PLATINUM PROSPERITY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE THAI CHUNG 3. ) WONG CHUN FAI

BB-A52-11-04/2021 Kand. 44 1 07/04/2022 10:52:25 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI PETALING JAYA DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN,MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL N0: BB-A52-11-04/2021 Antara HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT HOLDING SDN.BHD …PLAINTIF (NO SYARIKAT: 1051157- W) Dan 1. PLATINUM PROSPERITY SDN.BHD (NO.SYARIKAT: 1107484-W) 2. LEE THAI CHUNG 3. WONG CHUN FAI …DEFENDAN DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan Mahkamah ini pada 8.2.2022 telah membenarkan permohonan Defendan Pertama di Lampiran 19 di bawah Aturan 14A dan/atau Aturan 33 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dengan kos sebanyak RM1,500.00. Fakta kes Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama adalah untuk jumlah sebanyak RM119,892.80 bagi bayaran tertunggak barangan yang telah S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 dibekalkan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama bagi penggunaan nama dan cap dagangan di bawah Perjanjian Pelesenan.(Perjanjian tersebut). Jumlah tunggakan di atas adalah seperti berikut: a. Jumlah hutang pembekalan barangan = RM24,148.35 b. Jumlah hutang bayaran perjanjian pelesenan = RM95,774.45 Tuntutan balas Defendan Pertama adalah bayaran RM150,000.00 telah dibayar kepada Plaintif atas perjanjian pelesenan. Defendan Pertama memplid seksyen 66 Akta Kontrak untuk menuntut restitusi memandangkan Plaintif telah gagal untuk mendaftar francais di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Francais 1998. Defendan Pertama juga bergantung kepada seksyen 24 dan seksyen 2(g) Akta Kontrak 1950 yang Perjanjian Lesen bertarikh 13.5.2016 adalah tidak sah dan ‘void ab initio’. Permohonan Plaintif bagi jumlah hutang RM24,148.35 telah dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 seperti di Lampiran 16. Asas permohonan Defendan Pertama di Lampiran 19 Bahawa persoalan-persoalan undang-undang yang berikut ditentukan secara terus oleh Mahkamah ini untuk menentukan tuntutan Defendan Pertama untuk restitusi bagi wang yang telah dibayar kepada Plaintif dibawah Perjanjian tersebut yang bertarikh 13.5.2016 dan 21.9.2017 tersebut dalam tindakan ini tanpa satu perbicaraan penuh, iaitu: S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 a. Sama ada Perjanjian tersebut adalah pada asasnya dalam undang- undang merupakan satu Perjanjian Francais; dan b. Jika ya kepada (a), sama ada Plaintif telah melanggar Seksyen 6 Akta Francais, 1998; dan c. Jika ya kepada (a) dan (b), sama ada Perjanjian tersebut adalah tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan di sisi undang-undang dan terbatal (“void ab initio”). 2. Jika jawapan-jawapan kepada persoalan-persoalan undang-undang di atas adalah afirmatif, Defendan Pertama diberikan deklarasi-deklarasi yang berikut: a. Bahawa Perjanjian tersebut antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Pertama yang bertarikh 13.5.2016 dan 21.9.2017 adalah tidak sah di sisi undang- undang dan terbatal (“void ab initio”); b. Bahawa Plaintif hendaklah membayar kembali RM 150,000.00 fi lesen tersebut kepada Defendan Pertama dibawah section 66 Akta Kontrak 1950. Alasan-alasan ringkas permohonan Defendan Pertama ini adalah, antara lain, seperti berikut:- a. persoalan-persoalan undang-undang yang dinyatakan di atas adalah sesuai untuk penentuan tanpa perbicaraan penuh tindakan ini; b. penentuan persoalan-persoalan undang-undang yang dinyatakan di atas akan menentukan secara muktamad keseluruhan kausa atau perkara; dan S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 c. penentuan ini adalah perlu untuk mempercepatkan penyelesaian muktamad kehakiman tindakan ini untuk menjimatkan perbelanjaan dan kelewatan yang akan sebaliknya timbul sekiranya tindakan ini diteruskan ke perbicaraan penuh. Alasan-alasan Plaintif Klausa Perjanjian tersebut 2016 dan 2017 dengan jelasnya menunjukkan bahawa:- a. Pada setiap masa material, niat Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam menandatangani Perjanjian tersebut tersebut adalah untuk Plaintif memberikan satu lesen tidak eksklusif kepada Defendan Pertama untuk mengguna nama dan cap dagangan ‘HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT” yang dimiliki Plaintif yag tidak berkaitan dengan apa-apa francais dan/atau sebarang hak pemberian hak francais. b. Plaintif tidak pernah memberi sebarang representasi kepada Defendan Pertama bahawa Plaintif adalah ‘franchaisor bagi HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT di Malaysia c. Perjanjian tersebut bukannya satu perjanjian fancais dan adalah semata-mata perjanjian pelesenan sahaja dan d. Ketika perjanjian pelesenan ditandatangani, Defendan Pertama mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa perniagaan Plaintif bukannya satu francais. S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Prinsip undang-undang Aturan 14 A, KKM 2012 Aturan 14A – Pelupusan kes mengenai perkara undang-undang • (1)Mahkamah boleh, atas permohonan sesuatu pihak atau atas usulnya sendiri menentukan apa-apa persoalan undang-undang atau pentafsiran apa-apa dokumen yang berbangkit dalam mana- mana kausa atau perkara pada mana-mana peringkat prosiding jika ternyata pada mahkamah bahawa – (a)persoalan itu adalah sesuai bagi penentuan tanpa perbicaraan penuh tindakan itu; dan (b)penentuan itu akan menentukan secara muktamad keseluruhan kausa atau perkara atau apa-apa tuntutan atau isu dalamnya. (2)Apabila diputuskan sedemikian Mahkamah boleh membuang kausa atau perkara itu atau membuat apa-apa perintah atau penghakiman sebagaimana yang difikirkannya adil. (3)Mahkamah tidak boleh menentukan apa-apa persoalan di bawah Aturan ini melainkan jika pihak-pihak telah diberi peluang untuk didengar mengenai persoalan itu. (4)Bidang kuasa Mahkamah di bawah Aturan ini boleh dijalankan oleh Pendaftar. (5)Tiada apa-apa jua dalam Aturan ini boleh menghadkan kuasa Mahkamah dibawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19 atau mana-mana peruntukan lain kaedah-kaedah ini. Aturan 33 – cara perbicaraan S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 2. Masa perbicaraan tentang persoalan atau isu (A.33 k 2) Mahkamah boleh memerintahkan apa-apa persoalan atau isu yang berbangkit dalam suatu kausa atau perkara, sama ada mengenai fakta atau undang-undang atau sebahagiannya mengenai fakta dan sebahagiannya mengenai undang-undang dan sama ada yang berbangkit melalui pliding atau selainnya untuk dibicarakan sebelum, semasa, atau selepas perbicaraan kausa atau perkara itu, dan boleh memberikan arahan tentang cara yang persoalan atau isu itu hendaklah dinyatakan. Dalam kes Petroleum Nasional Berhad v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu (2004) 1 MLJ 8 di ms 18 Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan: “[10] We have to consider the scope and efficacy of O 14A…Its purpose is to expedite the disposal of an action at interlocutory stage in order to save costs and time. [12] …the order enables the court to determine any question of law or construction of document where it appears to the court that such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action and such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein.” Berkait dengan Aturan 33 k 2 Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes yang sama telah merujuk kes SI Rajah & Anor v Dato Mak Rok Kam & Ors (1993) 3 MLJ 741 di mana Lim Beng Choon J memutuskan sebelum membenarkan soalan awal [preliminary question] dibangkitkan mahkamah perlu membuat pemerhatian berikut iaitu : S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 • (a)as a general rule, the court will exercise its power under O33 r 2 if and only if the trial of the question will result in a substantial saving of time and expenditure which otherwise would have to be expended should the action go to trial as a whole; • (b)an order under the said rule should not be made in respect of matters which by reason of the obscurity either of the facts or the law ought to be decided at the trial of the suit; • (c)(c) preliminary points of law have been described as toe often of so called issues of fact, the justification is even harder to discern; • (d)a preliminary question should be carefully and precisely framed so as to avoid difficulties of interpretation as to what is the real question which is being ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue. Keperluan di bawah Aturan 14A , KKM 2012 adalah seperti berikut: i. persoalan undang-undang adalah sesuai untuk penentuan tanpa perbicaraan penuh tindakan berkenaan; ii. penentuan itu adalah muktamad bagi keseluruhan kausa atau perkara atau tuntutan atau isu di dalamnya; dan iii. pihak-pihak telah diberi peluang untuk didengar bagi persoalan yang berbangkit – rujuk kes Mahkamah Rayuan, Ernest Cheong Yong Yin (di bawah amalan dan gelaran Ernest Cheong PTL Chartered Surveyors) v Mohammed Jawel bin Inche I.M. Salleh & Ors (Tetuan Mah, Kamariyah & Partners, Penceiah) [2013] MLJU 1020. Ujian sama ada soal undang-undang adalah sesuai untuk ditentukan di bawah kaedah ini adalah sama ada semua fakta-fakta material yang berkaitan dengan persoalan itu telah dibuktikan atau diakui dan ini mengandaikan (postulates) bahawa tidak ada pertikaian tentang fakta S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 yang relevan pada masa Mahkamah menentukan persoalan undang- undang yang dibangkitkan. Kesesuaian untuk melupuskan sesuatu tindakan mengikut Aturan ini bergantung sepenuhnya sama ada Mahkamah boleh menentukan persoalan undang-undang yang dibangkitkan tanpa perbicaraan penuh – lihat kes Mangamal Jhamatmel Lalwani v NE Vickerana (2001) 1 SLR 90. Sesuatu isu itu hanya sesuai untuk penentuan di bawah Aturan 14A jika persoalan undang-undang yang akan ditentukan telah dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam pliding dan keterangan afidavit adalah mencukupi untuk Mahkamah membuat keputusan dan ketentuan itu menjadi muktamad bagi keseluruhan tindakan berkenaan – Iihat kes Mahkamah Rayuan, Bato Bagi & Ors v Government of the State of Sarawak [2011] 6 CLJ 387. Apa yang perlu untuk mencetuskan prosedur di bawah Aturan 14A sama ada terdapat mencukupi fakta-fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan untuk membentuk (formulate) persoalan undang-undang yang penentuannya akan melupuskan keseluruhan tindakan – lihat kes Daya Bersama Sdn, Bhd. (in liquidator) v Kiron Chhotalal Doschi & 5 Ors [2011] 2 AMR 40. Aturan 14A ini memberi kuasa kepada Mahkamah ini untuk membuat dapatan muktamad mengenai persoalan undang-undang. Seperti diputuskan dalam kes Shong Mor Sdn Bhd v Cyman Dev (2009) 9 MLJ 175, Aturan 14A adalah tidak sesuai dalam kes yang melibatkan penentuan persoalan fakta. S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Dalam kes Savant Asia Sdn Bhd v Sunway PMI-Pile Construction Sdn Bhd( 2007) 7 MLJ 706, Mahkamah putuskan bahawa untuk sesuatu pihak berjaya dalam permohonan di bawah Aturan 14A , dua prasyarat yang perlu dipenuhi ialah: (i)the question of law or construction must be suitable for determination without full trial; and (ii)such determination should be final as to the entire cause or matter.” Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugan v Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd (2016) 3 MLJ 122 memutuskan bahawa syarat-syarat yang disebutkan dalam kes Savant Asia( supra) tersebut merupakan “prerequisite or prior condition which must be fulfilled before this order can be invoked.”. Mahkamah Rayuan seterusnya memutuskan: “The court should not, as a matter of course, proceed to determine any such question, without first considering the legal prerequisite in this order. The conditions prescribed in r 1 are not that can be conveniently avoided or sidestepped.” Secara rumusannya, 3(tiga) kehendak wajib yang perlu dipenuhi oleh Defendan seperti diperuntukkan di bawah Aturan 14A menurut autoriti- autoriti yang disebutkan adalah: (i) the question of law or construction is suitable for determination without the full trial (r1(1)(a)); (ii) such determination will be final as to the entire cause of matter or any claims or issue therein (r1(1)(b)); and S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iii) the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question (r 1(3)).” Aturan 33 dan Aturan 14A yang mempunyai kesan undang-undang yang sama iaitu keutusan Mahkamah atas persoalan undang-undang dan fakta yang akan menyebabkan tindakan dan tuntutan Plaintif boleh dibatalkan dan dilupuskan tanpa melalui satu perbicaraan penuh memperuntukkan Prinsip mantap berkaitan penggunaan Aturan 14A dan Aturan 33 diputuskan di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Thein Hong Teck & Ors v Mohd Afrizan Husain & Anor Appeal [2012] 1 CLJ 49 memutuskan: - “It is trite law that Order 14A of the Rules of High Court 1980 may only be resorted to if there is no dispute by the parties as to the relevant facts, or that the court, upon scrutinizing the pleadings concludes that the material facts are not in dispute (see Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 471). Where the issues of fact are interwoven with legal issues raised, it will be undesirable for the court to split legal issues and factual determination for to do so would in effect be to give rulings in vacuo or on a hypothetical ruling which the court will not do (See State Bank of India v Marjani Marketing, 1 March 1991, CA Transcript No. 91/0304) Berdasarkan kes diatas Mahkamah Persekutuan menggariskan Aturan 14A (boleh diguna pakai untuk permohonan Aturan 33) boleh digunakan dalam keadaan-keadaan berikut: - i. Pihak-pihak tidak mempertikaikan fakta-fakta relevan; S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 ii.Daripada penelitian pliding, Mahkamah dapati fakta material tidak dipertikaikan; dan iii.Fakta tidak berkait dengan isu undang-undang yang ditimbulkan oleh pihak-pihak. Dapatan dan Keputusan Mahkamah Pada 13.5.2016, pihak-pihak telah melaksanakan Perjanjian tersebut dengan tujuan memberikan Defendan Pertama hak untuk melaksanakan perniagaan steamboat menggunakan nama Plaintif "Home Town Steamboat". Sebagai balasan, Defendan Pertama perlu membayar Plaintif sejumlah RM 150,000.00 sebagai yuran pelesenan serta yuran royalti bulanan sebanyak 6 setiap sen (%) daripada jualan kasar bulanan Defendan Pertama. Pada 21.9.2017, pihak-pihak telah melaksanakan satu lagi “Perjanjian Lesen” dengan istilah yang sama. Perjanjian pelesenan tersebut mengandungi terma-terma yang bersifat perjanjian francais. Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa Plaintif tidak didaftarkan sebagai tuanpemberi francais di bawah s.6 Akta Francais 1998. Tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa Defendan Pertama telah membayar RM 150,000.00 kepada Plaintif sebagai yuran lesen di bawah Perjanjian Lesen tersebut. S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Ia juga tidak dapat dipertikaikan bahawa Plaintif telah memasukkan syarat-syarat dalam Perjanjian tersebut. Perjanjian tersebut bertarikh 13.5.2016 dan 21.9.2017 pada asasnya di sisi undang-undang merupakan satu perjanjian francais kerana Plaintif telah, 1. Memberi hak kepada Defendan Pertama untuk mengendalikan perniagaan mengikut sistem francais. Plaintif telah memberi hak kepada Defendan Pertama untuk mengendalikan perniagaan mengikut sistem francais. Klausa 6 perjanjian jelas memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- 6. CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS OF THE LICENSOR The Licensor agrees, at all times during the Term and without liability for any costs or expenses to any third parties or any financial obligations on the part of the Licensor, to: 6.1 permit the Licensee to operate the Business under the Proprietary Marks with the Operating Business System and utilising the Licensed Material in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 6.2 provided full disclose of the Licensed Materials, in particular all recipes, formula and material sources, support, know-how and guidance to the Licensee relating to the Business, and to include all innovations and new Products. 6.3 use its reasonable endeavors to improve and develop the Operating Business System together with the Licensee. S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 6.4 provide or procure any other parties to provide further or continuing training courses to the Licensee, its key operational staff and shop managers and employees on such subjects relating to the Business or training for new employees subject to training fees and any expenses including but not limited to travelling expenses being borne by the Licensor. 6.5 organise and convene periodic meeting, the agenda of which shall include discussions of any improvements to the Operating Business System and the Licensed Material and the Licensor’s proposals for promotional activities and the general operational problem of the Operating Business System. 6.6 to advertise and promote for general benefit of the Business bearing the Proprietary Mark and Intellectual Property Rights. 6.7 to supply ingredients, foodstuffs, preparations, produce and products, beverages to the Licensee or to recommend or advise any third party supplier of the same to ensure quality and standard of the goods and services provided under the business in accordance with the Operating Business System or Operations Manual.” 2. Memberi lesen kepada Defendan Pertama untuk menggunakan hak harta intelek sepeeti system dan tanda “HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT”, maklumat sulit dan hak cipta. Klausa 2 perjanjian dengan jelas menyebut:- 2. APPOINTMENT AND GRANT 2.1 The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee, during the Term of the License and upon the terms and conditions herein contained the non- S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 exclusive rights and non-exclusive license to operate the Business on the Premises under the Proprietary Marks and Intellectual Property Rights in accordance to the System.” 3. Mentadbirkan kawalan berterusan ke atas operasi perniagaan mengikut system francais. Klausa 7 dan 14 perjanjian memperuntukkan sedemikian:- 7. OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEE The Licensee agrees and warrants during the Term to:- 7.8 to comply with all instructions from time to time and any time given by the Licensor in relation to operation of the Business which may be given in the form of written letter or memorandum or note in any inspection report. 7.9 to use ingredients, foodstuff, preparations, produce and products, beverages supplied by the Licensor exclusively or otherwise, to use any of the same supplied by any third party identified or permitted by the Licensee to ensure quality and standard of the goods and services provided under the Business in accordance with the Operating Business System or Operations Manual. The Licensee may suggest other sources of supply by third party provided that reference, recommendation and approval or consent from the Licensor is obtained. 7.11 at all times use and apply the Proprietary Marks and Intellectual Property Rights only and no other names or marks to operate the Business in the Premises. S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 7.12 apply the Proprietary Marks and Intellectual Property Rights only in such a way and on such items as required and/or directed in the Operations Manual which may be varied, updated or amended from time to time and at any times, and/ or in accordance with the Licensor’s instructions to identify the Products and the Licensor’s instructions to identify the Products and the Business. 7.13 ensure that all employee and personnel employed in the Business shall at all times present a neat and clean appearance and render competent sober and courteous service to customers and comply with any and or directions of the Licensor in this respect relating to dress, appearance and demeanor. 7.17 to deliver to the Licensor an accurate monthly sales report no later than the 3rd day of the succeeding month in relation to the Business ending on the last date of the calender month immediately preceeding the payment due date in such format as shall from time to time be prescribed by the Licensor (the sales report in relation to the Business for the period from the 1st day of the month in which the License shall expire to the Expiry Date shall be furnished to the Licensor on the day following the Expiry Date) and to truly and promptly account to and answer all the queries and questions raised by the Licensor from time to time and at any time. 7.24 to inform the Licensor on any change of shareholding exceeding thirty per centum (30%) shareholdings of the Licensee, change of management and ownership. 14. OPERATION MANUAL S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 14.1 The Licensee shall conduct the Business in accordance with the Operations Manual, the terms of which shall be deemed incorporated into and shall form part of this Agreement as if set forth fully herein. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of the Operations Manual the former shall prevail. The Operations Manual may be updated, improved, varied, modified and amended from time to time or any time by the Licensor. 14.2 The Operation Manual shall at all times before and after the termination of this Agreement remain the sole and exclusive property of the Licensor and the Licensee hereby acknowledges that even after the termination of this Agreement the copyright therein is vested in the Licensor and the Licensee shall not take and shall procure that no other person whosoever will infringe the copyright of the Operation Manual in whatever manner including but not limited to take any copies thereof in electronic or other form or store the same in any electronic or other medium without the prior written consent of the Licensor.” 4. Plaintif mengenakan fi royalti terhadap Defendan Pertama Klausa 15 perjanjian tersebut membuktikan bahawa Plaintif telah mengenakan fi royalti terhadap Defendan Pertama sebagai pertimbangan Plaintif memberi hak kepada Defendan Pertama untuk menjalankan perniagaan menggunakan hak harta intelek Plaintif. Klausa 15 memperuntukkan :- 15. LICENSE FEE AND OTHER PAYMENTS S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 15.1 In consideration of the grant of the License herein, the Licensee shall make the following payments in the following manner to the Licensor or in any manner as from time to time required by the Licensor, or such other person as the Licensor may direct: 15.1.1 pay a non-refundable license fee as specified in Section 1 in Schedule 3 in the manner stated herein. This license fee includes fees and expenses for the interior design of the Premises; 15.1.2 pay royalty fee equal to the percentage as specified in Section 2 in Schedule 3 of the Gross Sales of each calendar month at the Premises; 15.1.3 the royalty fee payable for each calendar month shall be paid to the Licensor no later than the seventh (7th) day of the month succeeding the calendar month in which chargeable royalty fee is due. The months gross sale shall be provided in the prescribed time stated in Clause 7.17; 15.1.4 all license fee or royalty fee, is payable without any deduction, withholding or set off, whether for tax purposes or any other reasons and in Ringgit Malaysia by cheque drawn on a bank approved by the Licensor; 15.1.5 For the purposes of this Agreement the expression “Gross Sale” shall include all sums invoiced by the Licensee whether or not received, and all cash and credit transactions including the value of all goods and services sold or rendered in the relevant trading period whether or not invoiced, but shall not include customer refund or allowances or deduction for tax purposes; 15.1.6 In the event that any sum due to the Licensor is not paid by the Licensee on the due date, such sum bear interest of one point five per S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 centum (1.5%) per month shall be imposed on the sum unpaid from the date the sum becomes due until the date of full payment of the same.” Plaintif telah gagal mendaftarkan dirinya di bawah s.6 Akta Francais 1998 .Kegagalan sedemikian adalah satu kepenyalahgunaan undang-undang (illegality).( Rujuk kes Tea Delights(M) Sdn Bhd v Yeap Win Nee (2016) 7 MLJ 92 dan Noraini Alias v Rangkaian Hotel Seri Malaysia [2009] 9 CLJ 815) dan ‘hold out’ sebagai francais di bawah s. 37A Akta Francais 1998. Di dalam kes Dr HK Fong Brainbuilder PTE. LTD. v. SG-Maths Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 773, Mahkamah Tinggi memutusakan bahawa:- “[36] As decided in the above Part D(2), Malaysian law applies to MLA (2013). The MLA (2013) is not entitled a “franchise” contract. Nor does the MLA (2013) use the word “franchise”. However, as explained in Barisan Tenaga Perancang, the court if not bound by the label or description given by the parties to MLA (2013). I am of the view that FA applies to MLA (2013) for the following reasons: “franchise” means a contract or an agreement, either expressed or implied, whether oral or written, between two or more persons by which – a) The franchisor grants to the franchisee the right to operate a business according to the franchise system as determined by the franchisor during a term to be determined by the franchisor; b) The franchisor grants to the franchisee the right to use a mark, or a trade secret, or any confidential information or intellectual property, owned by the franchisor or relating to the franchisor, and includes a situation where the franchisor, who is the registered user of, or is licensed by S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 another person to use, any intellectual property, grants such right that he possesses to permit the franchisee to use the intellectual property; c) The franchisor possesses the right to administer continuous control during the franchise term over the franchisee’s business operations in accordance with the franchise system; and d) In return for the grant of rights, the franchisee may be require to pay a fee or other form of consideration. A perusal of MLA (2013) clearly shows that MLA (2013) fulfills all the four cumulative conditions of a “franchise” in s. 4(a), (b), (c) and (e) FA (4 Prerequisites) Perjanjian Lesen yang menjadi subjek dalam tindakan ini memenuhi kesemua intipati bagi suatu perniagaan francais dalam seksyen 4 Akta Francais 1998. Di dalam kes Janet Ooi Hui Ming v. STC Management Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2021] 8 CLJ 952, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa:- “(1) When read in light of the factual matrix, it was clear that the agreement was a franchise agreement. It was not a license agreement as contended by the defendants. This finding was fortified after carrying an examination of the definition of a franchise as provided in s. 4 of the Franchise Act 1998 (‘Act’) and juxtaposing the said definition to the terms of the agreement. (2) The net effect of the agreement satisfied the four limbs in s. 4 of the Act: (i) the first defendant granted to the plaintiff the right to operate the Shane Centre according to the Shane ‘cooperation chain system’ and Shane manuals as well as policies as determined by the first defendant during the term of the agreement. The s.4 (a) limb of the Act was satisfied; S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (ii) the first defendant granted to the plaintiff the right to use the Shane mark, syllabus, teaching materials and intellectual property owned by the first defendant or which the first defendant was licensed by another to use. The s. 4(b) limb of the Act was satisfied; (iii) the first defendant possessed the right to administer continuous control during the term of the agreement over the plaintiff’s business operations in accordance to the Shane system. This included the requirement for the plaintiff to operate the Shane Centre in strict compliance with business policies established by the first defendant as outlined in the agreement and the associated operation manuals as provided by the first defendant. The first defendant retained a continuous control by retaining the right to decide the location of the centre, conducting inspections and monitoring exercises on the plaintiff’s accounts and operations at any time and to ensure compliance, and retained very wide powers to sanction the plaintiff in the event of any breach. The s. 4(c) limb of the Act was satisfied; and (iv) in return, the plaintiff was to pay the first defendant the initial fees and the monthly fees. The s. 4(c) limb of the Act satisfied. (3) Section 6(1) of the Act provides that ‘a franchisor shall register his franchise with the Registrar (of Franchise) before he can operate a franchise business or make an offer to sell the franchise to any person’. A failure to register a franchise attracts a penal sanction as provided under s. 6(2) of the Act. The second defendant in his evidence confirmed that the Shane brand was not registered with the Malaysian Registrar of Franchise. Clearly, the first defendant was operating a franchise business without first registering it with the Registrar. The effect of nonregistration of the Shane brand franchise rendered the agreement (as a franchisee agreement) being tainted with illegality, consequently rendering the agreement void. This was consonant with s.2 (g) of the Contracts Act 1950 S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (‘Contracts Act’) which reads ‘an agreement not enforceable by law if said to be void’. The agreement was also unlawful given the failure to register the said franchise. Reference was made to s. 24 of the Contracts Act.” Di dalam kes Janet Ooi Hui Ming (supra) juga memutuskan bahawa: “[6] The plaintiff was entitled to restitution under s.66 of the Contracts Act as the agreement was void for illegality. It followed that the plaintiff was entitled to be restored to the position she would have been had the tort had not been committed. This essentially meant that the plaintiff was entitled to all payments made by her to the defendants under the agreement.” 27. Based on the above line of authorities, we respectfully submit that the Licensing Agreements should be held illegal for the following reasons: a) The s. 4 (a) limb of the Franchise Act 1998 was satisfied. Clause 2.1 and 6.1 of the Licensing Agreements granted the First Defendant the right to operate their “Home Town Steamboat” under the Proprietary Marks with the ‘Operating Business System’. Clause 14 granted the First Defendant the right to operate the business under the ‘Operation Manuals’ as well as policies as determined by the Plaintiff during the term of the agreement; b) The s. 4(b) limb of the Franchise Act 1998 was satisfied. Clause 2 and Clause 6 of the Licensing Agreements clearly shows that the Plaintiff granted to the First Defendant the right to use the “Home Town Steamboat” mark, all recipes, formula and material sources, support, know-how as well as the intellectual property owned by the Plaintiff; S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 c) The s. 4(c) limb of the Franchise Act 1998 was satisfied. Clause 7 of the Licensing Agreements have given the Plaintiff the right to administer continuous control during the term of the agreement over the First Defendant’s business operations. Clause 7.8 warrants the First Defendant to comply with all instructions from time to time and any time given by the Plaintiff in relation to operation of the Business which may be given in the form of written letter or memorandum or note in any inspection report. Clause 7.17 warrants the First Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff an accurate monthly sales report no later than the 3rd day of the succeeding month in relation to the Business ending on the last date of the calender month immediately preceeding the payment due date in such format as shall from time to time be prescribed by the Plaintiff. Clause 7.24 warrants the First Defendant to inform the Plaintiff on any change of shareholding exceeding thirty per centum (30%) shareholdings of the First Defendant, change of management and ownership. The Licensing Agreement also retained very wide powers to sanction the First Defendant in the event of any breach; d) The s. 4(d) limb of the Franchise Act 1998 was satisfied. Clause 15 of the Licensing Agreements compelled the First Defendant to pay a non- refundable license fee to the Plaintiff, as well as a monthly royalty fee of 6 per cent (%) of the First Defendant’s monthly gross sale. Kesimpulan Berdasarkan dapatan Mahkamah sebagaimana di atas, persoalan awal seperti dipohon oleh Defendan Pertama adalah afirmatif. Perjanjian Pelesenan tersebut memenuhi intipati seksyen 4 Akta Francais 1988. Ia S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 tidak didaftarkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta tersebut sekaligus satu kepenyalahgunaan undang-undang. Restitusi dan deklarasi yang dipohon Defendan Pertama seperti di Lampiran 19 dibenarkan dengan kos RM1,500.00. Bertarikh: 4hb. April 2022 Faiz bin Hj. Dziyauddin Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 3 Petaling Jaya Pihak-Pihak Koh Shu Yin ( Tetuan Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim) peguam cara bagi pihak Plaintif Choo Wai Hou ( Tetuan Chris Choo & Co. ) peguam cara bagi pihak Defendan Pertama S/N 7pykDt2wz0KeJoP6VdYog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal