AGENSI PEKERJAAN DZH SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai DZH Management Consultants Sdn. Bhd.) v GENTING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (WA-22NCvC-324-05/2021)

High Court of Malaysia6 Nov 2023

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

08/03/2024 09:44:13 WA-22NCvC-324-05/2021 Kand. 176 S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw S/N c5bVblfmB0e/5bO/JAk4Qw

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 6 Nov 2023
Case number: WA-22NCvC-324-05/2021
Coram: YA Dato' Indera Mohd Arief Emran Bin Arifin
Practice area: Abuse of Process and Res Judicata -Multiplicity of proceedings- counsel failed to disclose the existence of the orders of the Court entered against his client- -same issues raised in three proceedings-same subject matter and same defences- Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to relitigate on the same issues again. Contract- validity of tenancy agreement- misrepresentation-no evidence in writing- the 2019 agreement is binding on the 1st Plaintiff-no written protest or complaint that she was not given the opportunity to purchase the said property- right to purchase was removed from the 2019 agreement- the Courts had earlier decided that the Tenancy was correctly terminated and accepted by the 1st Plaintiff- no basis for the said judgments to be set aside on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation or under any of the exceptional circumstances- Defendants do not owe any fiduciary duties to the 2nd Plaintiff-They were not directors of the said company and did not stand in any fiduciary relationship with the said entity- the tenancy agreement between the 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff is unlawful as it contravenes clause 6.7 of the 2013 Agreement-clause 6.7 of the 2019 Agreement- no evidence that the landlord, the 1st Defendant or even the 4th Defendant had agreed to the sub tenancy- no position to claim any form of damages relating to the sub tenancy against any of the Defendants- failure to pay rentals-Section 10 of Covid Act- termination was valid-misrepresentations are mere allegations without any proof and are mere afterthoughts put forward to justify the claim against the Defendants- Section 101 to Section 103 of the Evidence Act- Plaintiffs have failed to prove the claims against the Defendants-Plaintiffs claim is dismissed
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 5
Published: 8 Mar 2024
Source ID: 6ed59673-e657-4707-bfe5-b3bf24093843

Catchwords

Abuse of Process and Res Judicata -Multiplicity of proceedings- counsel failed to disclose the existence of the orders of the Court entered against his client- -same issues raised in three proceedings-same subject matter and same defences- Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to relitigate on the same issues again. Contract- validity of tenancy agreement- misrepresentation-no evidence in writing- the 2019 agreement is binding on the 1st Plaintiff-no written protest or complaint that she was not given the opportunity to purchase the said property- right to purchase was removed from the 2019 agreement- the Courts had earlier decided that the Tenancy was correctly terminated and accepted by the 1st Plaintiff- no basis for the said judgments to be set aside on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation or under any of the exceptional circumstances- Defendants do not owe any fiduciary duties to the 2nd Plaintiff-They were not directors of the said company and did not stand in any fiduciary relationship with the said entity- the tenancy agreement between the 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff is unlawful as it contravenes clause 6.7 of the 2013 Agreement-clause 6.7 of the 2019 Agreement- no evidence that the landlord, the 1st Defendant or even the 4th Defendant had agreed to the sub tenancy- no position to claim any form of damages relating to the sub tenancy against any of the Defendants- failure to pay rentals-Section 10 of Covid Act- termination was valid-misrepresentations are mere allegations without any proof and are mere afterthoughts put forward to justify the claim against the Defendants- Section 101 to Section 103 of the Evidence Act- Plaintiffs have failed to prove the claims against the Defendants-Plaintiffs claim is dismissed

Parties

1. ) AGENSI PEKERJAAN DZH SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai DZH Management Consultants Sdn. Bhd.) - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
2. ) DZH HEALTH RESORT CLUB SDN. BHD. - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
1. ) GENTING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. - defendant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) BENJAMIN LIM KEONG HOE - defendant - ejudgment_parties
3. ) LEE MAN ONN - defendant - ejudgment_parties
4. ) TROPICANA MAKMUR GAGAH SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Raindust Realty Sdn. Bhd.) - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Parties

1. ) AGENSI PEKERJAAN DZH SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai DZH Management Consultants Sdn. Bhd.) - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

2. ) DZH HEALTH RESORT CLUB SDN. BHD. - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

1. ) GENTING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. - defendant - ejudgment_parties

2. ) BENJAMIN LIM KEONG HOE - defendant - ejudgment_parties

3. ) LEE MAN ONN - defendant - ejudgment_parties

4. ) TROPICANA MAKMUR GAGAH SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Raindust Realty Sdn. Bhd.) - defendant - ejudgment_parties