2 Jan 2026
Defendants failed to prove payment to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff held the shares on trust for DW3; as there was total failure of consideration the shares are to be restituted to the Plaintiff and beneficial ownership is declared in his favour, with costs to Plaintiff.
5 Aug 2025
The injunction was granted because the plaintiff has raised a serious triable issue that he is the beneficial owner and that the 1st Defendant holds the share as nominee/trustee; there is admitted past dissipation of substantial company funds and a real risk of further dissipation making damages inadequate; on balance of convenience preservation of the funds pending trial is justified; res judicata did not bar the claim as the prior decision was interlocutory and the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
24 Jul 2025
NCY had already disposed of the shares and received full consideration and therefore had no legal or beneficial interest; because his interests would not be affected by the outcome, his joinder was unnecessary and the intervention application was dismissed with costs.
14 Jan 2025
The Court held the Trust Deed satisfied the three certainties and created a private express trust effective from 11.4.2016; consequently the appellant was immediately the beneficial owner of 250,000 shares and entitled to the rights, title and benefits (including dividends), the dividends were held on trust for him and could be used to offset his portion of acquisition costs, but the respondent retained a contractual/creditor right to demand immediate repayment; on the accounting the appellant owed RM3,563,521.68 as at 22.6.2022.
22 Jul 2024
The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence as establishing beneficial ownership on payment and execution of transfer documents; the defendant's no case to answer was rejected; the court ordered the company to transfer and the company secretary to effect the transfer to the plaintiff or his nominees but required that the transfer be effected in accordance with the company's Memorandum and Articles (ie legal registration must comply with Article 21 and share certificate formalities).
29 May 2024
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs proved their case by contemporaneous documents and credible, consistent witness evidence; defendants failed to discharge the evidential onus on their counterclaims and defenses (including allegations of collusion and illegality) which were either res judicata or not substantiated. Therefore plaintiffs are entitled to the pleaded monetary reliefs and interest and defendants' counterclaims are dismissed.
29 Oct 2023
Court found Plaintiff funded the shares and contemporaneous documents (handwritten notes, pre-signed Form 32A transfers and directors' circular resolutions held in the secretarial file) corroborated a 65:35 trust arrangement; 1st Defendant produced no evidence of having paid consideration and thus a resulting/constructive trust arose; 1st Defendant's refusal to transfer and exercise of voting/disposal rights constituted breach; declarations, transfer orders and injunctions were therefore granted.
29 Nov 2022
Plaintiff failed to prove existence of a personal loan; contemporaneous documents and credible witnesses established an oral investment agreement under which Parpur advanced approximately RM 590,000 to NZR and is beneficial owner of 50% of NZR; Sachdave must transfer 50% of shares to Parpur subject to compliance with Moneylenders Act and must provide full financial and corporate accounts; allegations of siphoning were unproven and any company cause of action belongs to NZR; no interest award as capital was repaid.
5 Aug 2022
Loh failed to discharge the high evidentiary burden to prove a trust over Liew’s shares given absence of documentary proof and his inconsistent prior position in JM 1 (judicial estoppel); the allotment to PNLBS and appointments were valid exercises of Liew’s authority as sole director/shareholder; granting the reliefs would place Loh in prohibited conflict under s218 Companies Act 2016 and would be contrary to public policy and illegality principles, therefore both originating summonses are dismissed.
30 Apr 2021
Where the plaintiff produced SSM searches showing the defendant as registered owner, omission to aver belief of beneficial ownership under Order 50 r3 was not fatal; the defendant must show lack of beneficial interest to resist making the charging order absolute. On the evidence most shares remained subject to a charging order absolute, but where contemporaneous evidence established transfer of shares (Ace Trace) or a subsisting trust (Chico Development) the court refused to make the order absolute in respect of those shares and varied the ex-parte order accordingly.