MOHD RAMLI BIN OTHMAN JAMAL BIN MD YUNOS

MOHD RAMLI BIN OTHMAN JAMAL BIN MD YUNOS

Appeal dismissed: the Sessions Court correctly applied legal principles that the company and its directors are distinct legal persons and the appellant failed to plead or prove lifting the corporate veil; the RM50,000 payment did not establish a personal guarantee or admission of debt by the respondent and the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong such as to justify appellate intervention.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-10-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mohd Ramli Bin Othman; Respondent/defendant: Jamal Bin Md Yunos
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-10-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Lifting Corporate Veil, Privity of Contract, Guarantee, Admission of Debt, Appellate Intervention/plainly Wrong Test, Costs, Subpoena and Adverse Inference
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Contract Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Evidence Lifting Corporate Veil Privity of Contract Guarantee +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Ramli Bin Othman

Appellant/plaintiff

Jamal Bin Md Yunos

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (director/shareholder) is personally liable for company debts
  2. 2 Whether RM50,000 payment constituted a personal guarantee or admission of debt by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact warrant appellate interference under the plainly wrong test

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: the Sessions Court correctly applied legal principles that the company and its directors are distinct legal persons and the appellant failed to plead or prove lifting the corporate veil; the RM50,000 payment did not establish a personal guarantee or admission of debt by the respondent and the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong such as to justify appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Sessions Court judgment affirmed