Linear Consulting Sdn Bhd Coneff Corporation Sdn Bhd

Linear Consulting Sdn Bhd Coneff Corporation Sdn Bhd

Order 14A application dismissed at stage 1 because a negative answer on s66 execution would not dispose of the entire dispute; Section 66 is limited to documents required to be under common seal and the proposed question was wrongly framed; court declines to answer the Proposed Question and dismisses the application with costs.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-182-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Linear Consulting Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Coneff Corporation Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 October 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-182-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Writ Summons / Order 14 a Application (stage 1) Dismissed
Outcome
Defendant's Amended Notice of Application under Order 14A dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Documents, Section 66 Companies Act 2016, Section 64 Companies Act 2016, Order 14 a Rules of Court 2012, Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Audit Admission
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Execution of Documents Section 66 Companies Act 2016 Section 64 Companies Act 2016 Order 14 a Rules of Court 2012 Estoppel +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linear Consulting Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Coneff Corporation Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Writ Summons / Order 14 a Application (stage 1) Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreement was validly executed under s66 Companies Act 2016 when signed by only one director of each company
  2. 2 Whether a negative answer on execution under s66 would dispose of the entire dispute and entitle dismissal or refund
  3. 3 Whether payment of RM150,000 was made by mistake and recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

Order 14A application dismissed at stage 1 because a negative answer on s66 execution would not dispose of the entire dispute; Section 66 is limited to documents required to be under common seal and the proposed question was wrongly framed; court declines to answer the Proposed Question and dismisses the application with costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant's Amended Notice of Application under Order 14A dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs of RM 5,000 subject to allocatur
  • Answer to Proposed Question: Declined to Answer