LOW KIM HONG TETUAN CHIENG & LUM ASSOCIATES PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) LOW SU KIAN 2. ) Low Seow Kian

WA-24NCvC-3653-08/2023 Kand. 68 03/01/2024 12:31:11 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) SAMAN PEMULA NO: WA-24NCVC-3653-08/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Tetuan Chieng & Lum Associates dan surat bertarikh 17.07.2023 dan 18.7.2023 kepada Tetuan T & L Consultants Sdn. Bhd., Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 41, 50, 51, 52 dan 53 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan 29 Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan 5 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Aturan 15 Kaedah 16 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 1 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ANTARA LOW KIM HONG (NO. K/P : 420807-10-5139) …PLAINTIF DAN TETUAN CHIENG & LUM ASSOCIATES (Disaman sebagai sebuah firma) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The orders sought by the Plaintiff in this Originating Summons (Enclosure 1) are primarily for: (a) a declaration that Messrs Chieng & Lum Associates (Defendant) are not solicitors for the Plaintiff and not entitled to represent the Plaintiff in any matters or proceedings; (b) that the Defendant withdraw their letters dated 17.07.2023 and 18.07.2023 issued to Messrs T&L Consultants Sdn. Bhd.; and 2 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (c) an interim injunction first and thereafter a permanent injunction to be issued to the effect that the Defendant refrains from holding out that they are the Plaintiff’s solicitors in any matters or proceedings. [2] The grounds in support as stated in Enclosure 1 are as reproduced- “1. Plaintif merupakan bapa kepada Low Shee Kian (L1), Low Su Kian (L2) iaitu anak-anak lelaki Plaintif dan Low Seow Kian (L3) iaitu anak Perempuan Plaintif. 2. Plaintif adalah pengarah dan pemegang saham sebanyak 648,450 unit (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “saham tersebut”) dalam syarikat Sritama Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 197701004436 [35491-P]) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “syarikat tersebut”). Pengarah-pengarah lain adalah anak-anak Plaintif iaitu L1 dan L2. Pemegang-pemegang saham lain adalah L1 sebanyak 123,250 saham dan L2 sebanyak 64,800 saham. 3. Pada 11.07.2023, Plaintif telah mengarahkan Tetuan T&L Consultants Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “T&L”) iaitu setiausaha syarikat kepada syarikat tersebut supaya menyediakan dokumen-dokumen yang diperlukan untuk melaksanakan pemindahan milik saham tersebut kepada L1 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “pemindahan tersebut”). 4. Namun, pada 17.07.2023 T&L telah menerima surat daripada Defendan yang kononnya bertindak bagi Plaintif untuk, antara lain, membatalkan pemindahan tersebut dan memintakan dokumen-dokumen tersebut dikembalikan kepada Defendan. 5. Apabila ditanya oleh T&L melalui surat T&L bertarikh 18.07.2023 kepada Defendan, Defendan melalui suratnya bertarikh 18.07.2023 memaklumkan bahawa Defendan adalah dilantik oleh anak perempuan Plaintif, iaitu L3 selepas diberi kuasa oleh Plaintif. 3 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6. Plaintif selepas itu telah melantik Tetuan Raja Eleena Siew Ang & Associates (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Tetuan RESA”) dan mengarahkan Tetuan RESA supaya menulis kepada Defendan untuk mempertikaikan pelantikan mereka sebagai peguamcara Plaintif dan mengarahkan Defendan untuk menarik balik surat mereka bertarikh 17.07.2023 kepada T&L dan juga memohon maaf kepada Plaintif terhadap perbuatan mereka. 7. Selepas itu, Plaintif telah pada 25.07.2023 melantik Tetuan Goik, Ramesh & Loo (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Tetuan GRL”) sebagai peguamcara baru Plaintif untuk menggantikan Tetuan RESA. Plaintif telah mengarahkan Tetuan GRL untuk menulis kepada T&L untuk memaklumkan kepada mereka supaya melaksanakan pindah milik tersebut. 8. Akibat dari insiden-insiden di atas terutamanya surat Defendan bertarikh 17.07.2023 (ekshibit LKH-4) dan 18.07.2023 (ekshibit LKH-5) kepada T&L dimana Defendan masih bertegas bahawa mereka adalah masih peguamcara Plaintif dan mempunyai kuasa untuk bertindak bagi pihak Plaintif, T&L telah pada 27.07.2023 memfailkan satu Saman Pemula Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur No.: WA-24NCC-405-07/2023 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “tindakan tersebut”) untuk arahan daripada Mahkamah. 9. Tindakan Defendan di atas adalah amat angkuh dan tidak mempedulikan hak Plaintif. Perbuatan Defendan amat tidak professional dan keterlaluan. Walaupun peguamcara Plaintif telah dalam surat mereka bertarikh 03.08.2023 di atas telah menawarkan kepada Defendan untuk Defendan sendiri datang ke pejabat Tetuan GRL untuk melihat surat Pelantikan Peguamcara yang telah ditandatangani oleh Plaintif, Defendan enggan berbuat demikian dan masih mahu peguamcara Plaintif memberikan kepada mereka sesalinan surat Pelantikan Peguamcara tersebut. Sudah tentu Tetuan GRL tidak akan memberikan satu salinan surat Pelantikan Peguamcara tersebut kerana ianya adalah satu surat “private & confidential” di antara Plaintif dan peguamcara Plaintif. 4 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10. Plaintif berhak untuk memfailkan tindakan ini demi untuk menjaga kepentingan dan hak Plaintif. T&L boleh memfailkan tindakan mereka di atas ke Mahkamah untuk menjaga kepentingan mereka dan tindakan tersebut tidak kena mengena dengan tindakan ini dan tidak boleh memudaratkan hak Plaintif untuk memfailkan tindakan ini. Tindakan ini juga tidak berniat untuk menjejaskan prosiding tersebut. 11. Tindakan salah Defendan dengan mewakili Plaintif tanpa apa-apa perlantikan yang sah, benar dan/atau betul daripada Plaintif dan tindakan Defendan dengan bertindak tanpa arahan Plaintif telah menjejaskan dan memprejudiskan teruk terhadap hak-hak Plaintif; 12. Kemudaratan Plaintif tidak boleh dipampas dengan kos kerana Defendan telah menjejaskan hak Plaintif dimana sebarang kerugian yang akan dialami oleh Plaintif tidak dapat didapat dikompensasikan dengan wang; 13. Plaintif mempunyai kes yang baik (“good case”) terhadap Defendan; 14. Imbangan keadilan dan kesenangan (“balance of justice and convenience”) memihak (“favour”) kepada injunksi ini diberikan.”. BRIEF FACTS [3] The backstory of this case is rather delicate as it involves a family dispute over some shares transferred from a father to his son, challenged by his other children. In general, the basis of Enclosure 1, is pertaining to the transfer of 648,450 unit of shares (Shares) owned by the Plaintiff in Sritama Sdn. Bhd. (Company) to his son, Low Shee Kian (1st Son). 5 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [4] On 11.07.2023, the Plaintiff went to the Company Secretary namely T&L Consultants Sdn. Bhd. (Company Secretary), together with the 1st Son where the Plaintiff executed the transfer of Shares to the 1st Son. [5] It was contended by the Defendant that the Plaintiff then informed his daughter, Low Seow Kian, that he did not wish to proceed with the transfer of Shares and gave his daughter the authority to find a solicitor to stop the said transfer of Shares and maintain the status quo. [6] The Defendant then issued a letter dated 17.7.2023 to the Company Secretary to cancel the transfer of Shares to the 1st Son. The Company Secretary replied through a letter dated 18.7.2023 where the Company Secretary requested a copy of the appointment letter of the Defendant's firm as the Plaintiff's solicitor. [7] The Defendant through a letter dated 18.7.2023 to the Company Secretary, informed them that the Plaintiff’s daughter was authorised by the Plaintiff to appoint the Defendant. The two letters issued by the Defendant dated 17.7.2023 and 18.7.2023 (Letters) were disputed by the Plaintiff. 6 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] Subsequently, Messrs. Raja Eleena Siew Ang & Associates (RESA) issued a letter dated 21.07.2023 to the Defendant informing that they represented the Plaintiff and demanded the Defendant to withdraw its letter dated 17.07.2023 to the Company Secretary. [9] Thereafter, Messrs Goik Ramesh & Loo (GRL) replaced RESA and issued the Defendant a letter dated 25.7.2023 informing that GRL has replaced RESA as the Plaintiff's solicitor and demanded that the Defendant withdraw the letter dated 17.7.2023 to the Company Secretary. Both letters dated 21.07.2023 and 25.7.2023 clearly indicated to the Defendant, that they are the solicitors representing the Plaintiff at all times. [10] The letter of appointment of Messrs GRL in Enclosure 2 at Exhibit “LKH-8” is reproduced- 7 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal THE ISSUE [11] The issue at hand is simply- Whether the Plaintiff has appointed the Defendant to represent him or otherwise? If the answer is in the negative, therefore, the Defendant must retract its’ letters dated 17.07.2023 and 18.07.2023 to T&L Consultants Sdn Bhd, the Company Secretary, as the Defendant has no authority to do so. 8 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [12] The Plaintiff filed this suit to declare that he has not appointed the Defendant to represent him, of which the Defendant adamantly stated otherwise. [13] In Malaysia, the right to representation is enshrined in Article 5 of our Federal Constitution particularly for an accused person (see Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution and also in the Criminal Procedure Code at section 255). Eventhough the law is silent for civil litigant, it is indisputable that access to judicial process is also granted in civil matters as a matter of human rights for the right to choose or appoint a solicitor is one’s choice. [14] The crux of the Plaintiff's case is that, in fact, the Defendant had not been appointed to represent the Plaintiff thus has no authority to act for the Plaintiff. [15] In terms of proving one’s case, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, the burden of proof lies on that person. This Court finds that since the Defendant contended that it was appointed by the Plaintiff, therefore, the burden is on the Defendant to prove that it was duly 9 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal appointed by the Plaintiff and was instructed by the Plaintiff to issue the Letters (see sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950). [16] In Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Ei Du Pont Nemours And Company [2012] 4 MLJ 34; [2012] 9 CLJ 79; [2012] 4 MLRA 370 (CA), on the application of sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950, it was held that- “[68] The present case is a civil case, where the court decides based on the evidence adduced during trial on the balance of probabilities. Under s 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 the person who asserts the existence of any fact must prove the fact exists. s 102 of the same act stipulates that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. What the respondent needs to do (as the defendant to the present claim) is to enter appearance within time and to be represented by counsel to handle the proceeding on its behalf; to file the necessary statement of defence and counterclaim as well as other follow-up documents to get the matter ready for trial...". [17] The Defendant contended that it was appointed and instructed by the Plaintiff’s daughter. In this regard, the burden is on the Defendant to prove and produce the authorization letter signed by the Plaintiff appointing the daughter as such, if any, but none. 10 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [18] The Defendant had also provided two (2) statutory declarations from the Plaintiff’s daughters; namely Low Seow Kian and Low Tong Chan stating that the Plaintiff has mandated, authorised and entrusted Low Seow Kian to stop the transfer of the Shares in the Company to the 1st Son and that thereafter, Low Seow Kian had appointed the Defendant to stop the transfer of the Shares and to return all share documents to the Defendant for safe keeping. [19] However, this Court finds that nowhere from the evidence, could be found that the Plaintiff had confirmed this authorisation allegedly given to his daughter. [20] In this context, for lack of authority or no authority to act, it warrants the act of solicitors as a nullity (see Syawal Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dayadiri Sdn Bhd [1990] 2 MLRH 244; [1990] 3 MLJ 239; [1990] 3 CLJ 165, William Jacks & Co (M) Sdn Bhd v. Chemquip (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [1991] 1 MLRA 264; [1991] 2 MLJ 555; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 492 and Ranhill Holdings Bhd v. Mohd Fakrunizam Ibrahim, [2021] MLJU 2205; [2021] MLRHU 1715). [21] Further, in Ranhill Holdings Bhd (supra), it was held- 11 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “[33] I should first state that the defendant's reliance on the decisions in Syawal Enterprise (supra) and William Jacks & Co (supra) merely confirms that the lack of mandate of the lawyers may result in a nullity of the proceedings that may be set aside and that a challenge for that purpose may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. But these cases also made it clear that the allegation that the action has been brought or defended by solicitors who were not so authorised must, like any other allegation, be proved by sufficient evidence.”. [22] The Defendant had also contended that the Plaintiff has a very weak mental capacity and was manipulated by the 1st Son and that the Plaintiff is illiterate. However, there was no evidence produced by the Defendant in support of this contention. [23] Based on the facts, the form for the transfer of Shares was signed at the Company Secretary’s office. The Company Secretary had also dutifully, repeatedly interviewed the Plaintiff to ensure that the Plaintiff had the necessary and required mental capacity to transfer the Shares to the 1st Son before agreeing to be the witness to the Plaintiff’s signature. [24] In any event, this Court finds that only the Directors via a company resolution, can refuse such registration of a transfer of shares and not the Company Secretary (See section 106 (2) of the Companies Act 2016). 12 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [25] Therefore, based on the facts of the case from the affidavits filed by both parties, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has never appointed the Defendant to represent him. Rightfully, the appointment of solicitors is the choice of the Plaintiff. [26] As such, the Defendant has no authority to instruct the Company Secretary to stop the transfer of Shares from the Plaintiff to the 1st Son. CONCLUSION [27] Thus, Enclosure 1 is allowed for the following Orders- (a) That Messrs Chieng & Lum Associates are not solicitors for the Plaintiff and are not entitled to represent the Plaintiff in any matters or proceedings unless appointed by the Plaintiff in writing; (b) That the Defendant to withdraw the letters dated 17.07.2023 and 18.07.2023 issued by the Defendant to Messrs T&L Consultants Sdn. Bhd.; (c) A permanent injunction to the effect that the Defendant is refrained from holding out that they are the Plaintiff’s solicitors 13 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in any matters or proceedings unless appointed by the Plaintiff in writing; and (d) Cost. (YA DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of the High Court NCVC1 Kuala Lumpur Court. Date: 2 January 2024 COUNSELS PLAINTIFF Tetuan Goik, Ramesh & Loo Suite N-3-1, 2nd Floor Block N, Plaza Damas 60, Jalan Sri Hartamas 1, Sri Hartamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur. DEFENDANT 14 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Tetuan Law Chambers of Dahlia Lee & Co. C-06=09. Plaza Mont Kiara, No. 2, Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur. 15 S/N F09X0a4JAkm/Dmb6nCSN/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal