Khoo Yee Hwa Mid Haven Realty Sdn Bhd Mid Haven Development Sdn Bhd Kadr Perkasa Sdn Bhd

Khoo Yee Hwa Mid Haven Realty Sdn Bhd Mid Haven Development Sdn Bhd Kadr Perkasa Sdn Bhd

The High Court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal because the pleadings and conduct (including 173 payments over about four years) revealed multiple triable issues as to existence and terms of the agreement and whether cheque payments were legitimate fees or proceeds of fraud; absence of board resolution and resignation letters could not be determinatively resolved on strike out application under O.18 r.19; therefore the claims and counterclaims must proceed to trial in the Sessions Court.

Citation
BA-12ANCVC-133-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: KHOO YEE HWA; Defendant/respondent: MID HAVEN REALTY SDN. BHD.; Defendant/respondent: MID HAVEN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; Defendant/respondent: KADR PERKASA SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 February 2020
Case Number
BA-12ANCVC-133-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Sessions Court for Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal allowed; Sessions Court order striking out set aside; matter remitted for trial; costs awarded
Legal Topics
Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19 ROC 2012, Management Fee Disputes, Turquand Rule, Breach of Trust/cheating Allegations, Company Resolution Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Criminal Law (fraud) Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19 ROC 2012 Management Fee Disputes Turquand Rule +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KHOO YEE HWA

Plaintiff/appellant

MID HAVEN REALTY SDN. BHD.

Defendant/respondent

MID HAVEN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Defendant/respondent

KADR PERKASA SDN. BHD.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Sessions Court for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's claim and the Defendants' counterclaims were plain and obvious and liable to be summarily struck out under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether a binding agreement dated 20.01.2014 existed between the parties appointing the Plaintiff as Project Manager cum Project Coordinator and conferring entitlement to 2.5% TDV and RM5,000 per project per month
  3. 3 Whether 173 cheque payments of RM5,000 each were legitimate management fee payments or proceeds of fraud/cheating/breach of trust

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal because the pleadings and conduct (including 173 payments over about four years) revealed multiple triable issues as to existence and terms of the agreement and whether cheque payments were legitimate fees or proceeds of fraud; absence of board resolution and resignation letters could not be determinatively resolved on strike out application under O.18 r.19; therefore the claims and counterclaims must proceed to trial in the Sessions Court.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal allowed; Sessions Court order striking out set aside; matter remitted for trial; costs awarded

Orders

  • Allow Plaintiff's Appeal No. BA-12ANCvC-133-08/2019
  • Set aside Sessions Court order striking out the Plaintiff's claim and the Defendants' counterclaims