SOLSIS (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 87347-P) 1. KENNY WOO B’NG TAT (No. K/P: 841113-14-6679) 2. RICHARD KUOK-ONN KHONG (No. Paspot : N9043546)

SOLSIS (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 87347-P) 1. KENNY WOO B’NG TAT (No. K/P: 841113-14-6679) 2. RICHARD KUOK-ONN KHONG (No. Paspot : N9043546)

The Plaintiff established a prima facie case via admitted contracts, guarantees signed by the defendants, supporting transactional documents and uncontradicted witness testimony; the Defendants' no-case submission failed because they elected not to call evidence to rebut the prima facie case, therefore judgment was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-555-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: SOLSIS (M) SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: KENNY WOO B’NG TAT; 2nd Defendant: RICHARD KUOK-ONN KHONG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Case Number
WA-22NCC-555-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Trial (high Court Commercial) / Judgment Following Trial and Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants' submission of no case to answer dismissed
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Guarantor Liability, Credit Facility Enforcement, Prima Facie Proof, Illegality/public Policy, Bursa Listing Requirements
Contract Guarantee Commercial Law Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence No Case to Answer Guarantor Liability +4 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOLSIS (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

KENNY WOO B’NG TAT

1st Defendant

RICHARD KUOK-ONN KHONG

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Trial (high Court Commercial) / Judgment Following Trial and Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants had no case to answer on guarantees they executed
  2. 2 Whether the procurement and supply transactions were sham/illegal and rendered guarantees unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether Bursa listing requirements or alleged illegality voided the guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established a prima facie case via admitted contracts, guarantees signed by the defendants, supporting transactional documents and uncontradicted witness testimony; the Defendants' no-case submission failed because they elected not to call evidence to rebut the prima facie case, therefore judgment was entered for the Plaintiff on the guarantees for the claimed sum.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants' submission of no case to answer dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of RM6,303,137.78
  • Interest at 5% per annum from 22 October 2018 to the date of full realisation