Tan Sri Dato Kam Woon Wah Dato Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow PIHAK TERKILAN Linda Kam Thai Eng

Tan Sri Dato Kam Woon Wah Dato Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow PIHAK TERKILAN Linda Kam Thai Eng

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie contempt: the Stay Order did not, on its terms or the court's expressed reasoning, prohibit increasing the companies' paid up share capital; the applicant provided no particulars or verifying evidence that the plaintiff exercised voting rights...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-306-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff; Respondent: Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah; Defendant; Applicant: Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow; Respondent: Linda Kam Thai Eng; Respondent: Edward Kam Tai Keong; Respondent: Dennis Kam Thai Leong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCC-306-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Arising From Commercial/share Dispute / Leave Stage (application for Leave to Commence Committal Dismissed)
Outcome
Enclosure 191 dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Committal, Stay of Execution, Share Allotment/dilution, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Company Law Contempt of Court Appeals Leave to Commence Committal Stay of Execution Share Allotment/dilution Interpretation of Court Orders

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah

Plaintiff; Respondent

Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow

Defendant; Applicant

Linda Kam Thai Eng

Respondent

Edward Kam Tai Keong

Respondent

Dennis Kam Thai Leong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Arising From Commercial/share Dispute / Leave Stage (application for Leave to Commence Committal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a prima facie case of contempt
  2. 2 Whether the Stay Order prohibited increase of companies' total paid up shares or exercise of shareholder rights
  3. 3 Whether alleged contemnors had actual notice of the Stay Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie contempt: the Stay Order did not, on its terms or the court's expressed reasoning, prohibit increasing the companies' paid up share capital; the applicant provided no particulars or verifying evidence that the plaintiff exercised voting rights or convened/shareholder resolutions to effect the dilution; and alleged contemnors lacked proof of actual notice of the Stay Order.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 191 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 191 dismissed with costs fixed at RM15,000.00 to be paid to each set of solicitors for the alleged contemnors subject to payment of allocator