CHANDRA BOSH A/L MUNIANDI PHENOM INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

CHANDRA BOSH A/L MUNIANDI PHENOM INTERIOR DESIGN SDN. BHD.

The High Court allowed the appeal because the plaintiff established matters of interest to justice and special circumstances sufficient to permit looking behind or piercing the corporate veil: allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation tied to the defendant's lack of CIDB registration and the defendant's unexplained change/abandonment of office raised real risk of evasion or abuse of corporate personality, justifying addition of the two directors as defendants and consequential amendment of the writ and statement of claim; matter remitted to Sessions Court.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-121-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Chandra Bosh A/L Muniandi; Respondent/defendant: Phenom Interior Design Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2023
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-121-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court; Decision Allowed and Remitted to Sessions Court for Further Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lifting Corporate Veil, Amendment of Pleadings, CIDB Registration, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Evasion of Liability
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Statutory Regulation Lifting Corporate Veil Amendment of Pleadings CIDB Registration Fraudulent Misrepresentation +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandra Bosh A/L Muniandi

Appellant/plaintiff

Phenom Interior Design Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court; Decision Allowed and Remitted to Sessions Court for Further Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two directors should be added as defendants and the writ and statement of claim amended
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil may be lifted/pierced against the directors
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached Act 520 by not being registered with CIDB and whether that amounts to fraud/misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the plaintiff established matters of interest to justice and special circumstances sufficient to permit looking behind or piercing the corporate veil: allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation tied to the defendant's lack of CIDB registration and the defendant's unexplained change/abandonment of office raised real risk of evasion or abuse of corporate personality, justifying addition of the two directors as defendants and consequential amendment of the writ and statement of claim; matter remitted to Sessions Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Enclosure 26 allowed to add the two directors as proposed 2nd and 3rd defendants under Order 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC
  • Writ and Statement of Claim amended consequentially under Order 20 r 5(1) ROC