Low Wee Houng 1. Alpharon Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. Low Wee Heng

Low Wee Houng 1. Alpharon Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. Low Wee Heng

Plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd Defendant wilfully disobeyed the 5 March 2019 order; the 2nd Defendant demonstrated substantial compliance by producing the core accounting records and cheques, showed efforts to search for additional documents not in his possession, and there was no evidence of deliberate withholding; accordingly committal could not be granted.

Citation
BA-24NCC-52-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: LOW WEE HOUNG; 1st Defendant: ALPHARON MARKETING SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: LOW WEE HENG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 April 2021
Case Number
BA-24NCC-52-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (inspection of Company Records; Committal Application) / Judgment on Committal Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for committal against the 2nd Defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Inspection of Company Records, Compliance With Court Orders, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Criminal Procedure (quasi Criminal Committal) Committal Proceedings Inspection of Company Records Compliance With Court Orders Burden and Standard of Proof

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LOW WEE HOUNG

Plaintiff

ALPHARON MARKETING SDN BHD

1st Defendant

LOW WEE HENG

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (inspection of Company Records; Committal Application) / Judgment on Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant wilfully disobeyed the Court order dated 5 March 2019 to allow inspection of accounting records
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff proved the alleged contempt beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants substantially complied with the inspection order and whether missing documents were in the 2nd Defendant's possession

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd Defendant wilfully disobeyed the 5 March 2019 order; the 2nd Defendant demonstrated substantial compliance by producing the core accounting records and cheques, showed efforts to search for additional documents not in his possession, and there was no evidence of deliberate withholding; accordingly committal could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for committal against the 2nd Defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for committal against the 2nd Defendant is dismissed.
  • Costs in the sum of RM1,000.00.