WAI CHOO 1. ) PLATINUM INTEGRATED CITY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE THAI YOUNG MATAHARI 3. ) BINTANG LEE THAI HSIN

WAI CHOO 1. ) PLATINUM INTEGRATED CITY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE THAI YOUNG MATAHARI 3. ) BINTANG LEE THAI HSIN

Defendants failed to raise any triable issue: allegations of illegality lacked particulars and relevance; the exhibited Settlement Agreements did not pertain to the Agreements in suit; alleged breach of the negative pledge and claimed penalty were unparticularized and unsupported; no counterclaim was pleaded....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-251-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Wai Choo; 1st Defendant: Platinum Integrated City Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Lee Thai Young Matahari; 3rd Defendant: Bintang Lee Thai Hsin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-251-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Dispute (put and Call Option; Guarantee) / Summary Judgment (judgment Entered)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; judgment entered against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally on their guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Put Option, Call Option, Guarantee, Directors' Irrevocable Undertaking, Summary Judgment, Illegality (alleged Money‑lending/money‑laundering), Settlement Agreement, Negative Pledge, Liquidated Damages
Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Company Law Put Option Call Option Guarantee Directors' Irrevocable Undertaking +5 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wai Choo

Plaintiff

Platinum Integrated City Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Lee Thai Young Matahari

2nd Defendant

Bintang Lee Thai Hsin

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Dispute (put and Call Option; Guarantee) / Summary Judgment (judgment Entered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant breached the put option agreement and is liable for the shortfall between agreed price and market price
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are jointly and severally liable under their directors' irrevocable undertaking/guarantee
  3. 3 Whether allegations of illegality/money‑lending or money‑laundering invalidate or raise triable issues in respect of the Agreements

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to raise any triable issue: allegations of illegality lacked particulars and relevance; the exhibited Settlement Agreements did not pertain to the Agreements in suit; alleged breach of the negative pledge and claimed penalty were unparticularized and unsupported; no counterclaim was pleaded. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and the Plaintiff's claim was allowed against the 1st Defendant and against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on their joint and several guarantee.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; judgment entered against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally on their guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Summary judgment allowed for the Plaintiff
  • Judgment against 1st Defendant for the amount claimed by Plaintiff (difference between RM0.40 and weighted average RM0.2502 per share)