Carmen Yen & Bryan Teo for the Applicant [Messrs Joel & Mei] LAIN-LAIN Charlotte Diana Williams bersama Dato' J. Shamesh for the Petitioner [Messrs Jeeva Partnership]

Carmen Yen & Bryan Teo for the Applicant [Messrs Joel & Mei] LAIN-LAIN Charlotte Diana Williams bersama Dato' J. Shamesh for the Petitioner [Messrs Jeeva Partnership]

The application to admit the proposed further affidavit was dismissed because the proposed new evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria: the evidence was irrelevant to the statutory s465 issues (it did not have probable influence on the Petition's outcome), the Respondents failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the earlier affidavit, and much of the material was not credible or corroborated; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded in the cause.

Citation
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28NCC-667-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Tan Pit Mooi; Respondent: Jaia Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Jasmine Jane Mohan; Respondent: Law Wen Jia; Respondent: Andy Tan Kian Kok
Court
WINDING UP
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Case Number
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. WA-28NCC-667-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Companies Act 2016 S465(1)(f) and (h) / Interlocutory Application to Admit Further Affidavit (enclosure 10); Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application (Enclosure 10) dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Ladd V Marshall Test, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Intellectual Property Winding Up Admission of Fresh Evidence Ladd V Marshall Test Just and Equitable Winding Up +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Pit Mooi

Petitioner

Jaia Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Jasmine Jane Mohan

Respondent

Law Wen Jia

Respondent

Andy Tan Kian Kok

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Companies Act 2016 S465(1)(f) and (h) / Interlocutory Application to Admit Further Affidavit (enclosure 10); Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file a further affidavit in reply (admission of fresh evidence)
  2. 2 Whether the alleged new evidence is relevant to s465(1)(f) and (h) Companies Act 2016
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit the proposed further affidavit was dismissed because the proposed new evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria: the evidence was irrelevant to the statutory s465 issues (it did not have probable influence on the Petition's outcome), the Respondents failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the earlier affidavit, and much of the material was not credible or corroborated; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application (Enclosure 10) dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 10 dismissed
  • Costs in the cause