Soh Phei Ching 1. ) WM Wellmax Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. ) Heng Hua Kian 3. ) Heng Seng Soo

Soh Phei Ching 1. ) WM Wellmax Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. ) Heng Hua Kian 3. ) Heng Seng Soo

The application is dismissed because a consent judgment operates as a contract and cannot be varied unilaterally; the Defendants failed to show any vitiating factor (fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or duress), sought a substantive amendment beyond clarification (removal of the Plaintiff as director), and attempted to rely on a liberty-to-apply clause improperly while being in breach of the consent order, therefore the Court will not disturb the Consent Judgment.

Citation
PA-24NCC-21-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: SOH PHEI CHING; 1st Defendant: WM WELLMAX MARKETING SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: HENG HUA KIAN; 3rd Defendant: HENG SENG SOO
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 February 2026
Case Number
PA-24NCC-21-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Vary Consent Judgment / Judgment on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to vary the Consent Judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Variation of Consent Judgment, Estoppel, Breach of Consent Order, Injunction, Removal of Director, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Equity Consent Order Variation of Consent Judgment Estoppel Breach of Consent Order +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOH PHEI CHING

Plaintiff

WM WELLMAX MARKETING SDN BHD

1st Defendant

HENG HUA KIAN

2nd Defendant

HENG SENG SOO

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Vary Consent Judgment / Judgment on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a consent order may be varied without the consent of all parties
  2. 2 Whether paragraph (t) (liberty to apply) permits substantive amendment to remove a director
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' alleged breaches preclude equitable relief to vary the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because a consent judgment operates as a contract and cannot be varied unilaterally; the Defendants failed to show any vitiating factor (fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or duress), sought a substantive amendment beyond clarification (removal of the Plaintiff as director), and attempted to rely on a liberty-to-apply clause improperly while being in breach of the consent order, therefore the Court will not disturb the Consent Judgment.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the Consent Judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application to vary the Consent Judgment dated 29 July 2025 dismissed
  • Costs to Plaintiff in the sum of RM2000.00