LAI SING FOO 1. ) KENANGA INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 2. ) LEE KIM LIN 3. ) WONG KONG CHOONG @ LEONG KONG CHOONG

LAI SING FOO 1. ) KENANGA INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 2. ) LEE KIM LIN 3. ) WONG KONG CHOONG @ LEONG KONG CHOONG

The Term Sheet was a private arrangement orchestrated by the 2nd defendant outside the 1st defendant's business and supervisory systems and it contravened Bursa Rules and the CMSA (constituting an illegal forward/price‑fixing arrangement); therefore the Term Sheet is unlawful and void and cannot be enforced against the 1st or 3rd defendants. The 2nd defendant acted without authority and in breach of her remisier agreement and code of ethics, so the plaintiff's claim against her was allowed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-662-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lai Sing Foo; 1st Defendant: Kenanga Investment Bank Berhad; 2nd Defendant: Lee Kim Lin; 3rd Defendant: Wong Kong Choong @ Leong Kong Choong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 November 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCC-662-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims against 1st and 3rd defendants dismissed; claim against 2nd defendant allowed
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Market Manipulation/false Trading, Vicarious Liability, Remisier Conduct, Forward Contracts, Failure of Consideration
Source Language
Malay/English
Securities Law Contract Law Company Law Tort (duty of Care) Illegality of Contract Market Manipulation/false Trading Vicarious Liability Remisier Conduct +2 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lai Sing Foo

Plaintiff

Kenanga Investment Bank Berhad

1st Defendant

Lee Kim Lin

2nd Defendant

Wong Kong Choong @ Leong Kong Choong

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Term Sheet is a binding contract enforceable against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Term Sheet contravenes securities laws and Bursa Rules
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant is liable for the acts of the 2nd defendant (remisier)

Ratio Decidendi

The Term Sheet was a private arrangement orchestrated by the 2nd defendant outside the 1st defendant's business and supervisory systems and it contravened Bursa Rules and the CMSA (constituting an illegal forward/price‑fixing arrangement); therefore the Term Sheet is unlawful and void and cannot be enforced against the 1st or 3rd defendants. The 2nd defendant acted without authority and in breach of her remisier agreement and code of ethics, so the plaintiff's claim against her was allowed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims against 1st and 3rd defendants dismissed; claim against 2nd defendant allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 3rd defendants are dismissed with costs
  • Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant is allowed