East West One Plantations Berhad v Pacific Trustees Berhad (WA-24NCC-202-04/2025)

By a notice of application dated 23.1.2026 in Enclosure 12, the Plaintiffs applied for an injunction to compel the Defendant D to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of a consent order dated 29.5.2025 (Enclosure 11) consent order .

To wit, for the release of the trust account(s) funds in the sum of RM 6,779,296.75 for the claims made by the Plaintiffs in relation to the rehabilitation and restructuring e R&R exercise interest scheme(s) :

(EWPS 1);

S); and

PS), (collectively referred to as the interest scheme(s) )

On 16.4.2026, I allowed Enclosure 12. Here are my reasons. The consent order

The relevant extract of the consent order reads : 1)

1.1 As approved by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree that the full amount of RM 36.2 million held in the trust accounts shall be utilised for the Rehabilitation and Restructuring Exercise (R&R Exercise), as approved by the Planters and in accordance with the Supplemental Trust Deeds, all dated 30 December 2024.

1.2 All legitimate claims by the Plaintiff shall be processed and paid in full in accordance with the Supplemental Trust Deeds, all dated 30 December 2024. 2)

2.1 The Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with all the necessary documents and projections requested in respect of the outstanding historical claims to the satisfaction of the Defendant amounting to RM 13,490,086.42 within fourteen (14) days from 19th May 2025. The abovementioned historical claims shall collectively constitute the First Tranche Payment .

2.2 Upon the submission of the documents and projections by the Plaintiffs as mentioned in paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1 above, the Defendant shall process and release the First Tranche Payment to the respective Plaintiffs within three (3) working days thereof subject to satisfactory clarification or necessary documentation.

2.3 The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to resubmit any and all documents and / or projections which has been rejected prior to and / or after entering into this Consent Order, and the Defendant shall process and release the relevant First Tranche Payment, or part thereof, within the time period as stated in paragraphs 1.2 and 2.2 above.

2.4 endeavour to ensure safe passage and shall arrange a site visit for representatives from SSM, the Defendant and / or the incoming new trustee, Etiqa Amanah Berhad (see paragraph 5 below), to inspect the plantations.

2.5 The site visit shall be arranged by the Plaintiffs as soon as it is expedient and safe to do so.

2.6 Upon each payment made by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs shall promptly furnish payment records to Defendant for compliance and record - keeping purposes. 7) Parties are at liberty to apply. Background facts

disburse the trust account(s) funds for the purpose of the R&R exercise, which is contrary to :

the Companies Commission of Malaysia SSM directives letters to D dated 4.4.2024 and 13.3.2025;

the special resolution passed on 12.8.2024; and

the supplemental trust deed(s), the Plaintiffs had commenced an originating summons for a mandatory injunction against D in the present proceedings on 17.4.2025.

On 29.5.2025, the consent order was entered into between the parties.

Subsequent to the consent order, the Plaintiffs through their employees and representatives have on numerous occasions requested for the disbursement of the trust account(s) funds in relation to the R&R exercise. Specifically for :

the legal fees incurred by the Plaintiffs amounting to RM legal fees ;

the fees incurred for road repair works and fertilizers amounting to RM Sothiscon & J global claims ;

the sum of outstanding salaries and statutory claims as at December 2025 amounting to RM salaries and statutory claims ; and

the sum of other miscellaneous claims as at December 2025 amounting to RM other claims

The invoices and supporting documents for the above - mentioned claims are particularised below.

Legal fees : Particulars Date Sum East West Planter s Scheme 1 (EWPS 1)

Invoice No. : CW / 2505006 30.5.2025

Invoice No. : CW / 2505009 30.5.2025

Invoice No. : CW / 2505010 30.5.2025 Total

Sothiscon & J global claims : Particulars Date Sum S 1)

Fertilizers (J Global Sdn Bhd) JG - 2406022

17.6.2024 7.7.2024 RM 84,000.00

Road repair works (Sothiscon Sdn Bhd)

9.7.2024 9.7.2024 21.7.2024 21.7.2024 30.9.2024 26.8.2024 9.10.2024 RM 163,520.00 RM 340,200.00 RM 482,360.00 RM 333,870.00 RM 456,210.00 RM 280,500.00 RM 46,190.00 3. Fertilizers (J Global Sdn Bhd) JG - 2405018

13.5.2024 9.7.2024 RM 168,000.00

Road Repair Works (Sothiscon Sdn Bhd)

30.3.2024 18.5.2024 18.5.2024 26.5.2024 26.5.2024 13.6.2024 RM 193,750.00 RM 141,360.00 RM 171,500.00 RM 288,660.00 RM 189,100.00 RM 218,880.00 Total

Salaries and statutory claims (as at December 2025) : Particulars Date Sum East West Planter s Scheme 1 (EWPS 1)

Salaries, statutory remittance Nov 2025 RM 96,964.33 2. Salaries, statutory remittance Dec 2025

Salaries, statutory remittance Nov 2025 RM 96,964.33 4. CEO fees Nov 2025 RM 28,000.00 5. Salaries, statutory remittance Dec 2025 RM 567,461.32 6. CEO fees Dec 2025

Salaries, statutory remittance Sep 2025 RM 126,009.01 8. Salaries, statutory remittance Oct 2025 RM 102,725.56 Total

Other claims (as at December 2025) : Particulars Date Sum S 1)

Terus Naik Sdn Bhd EWP 2407 - 001 11.11.2025 RM 41,700.00 2. Tan Norizan & Associates

Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia SSM / BP / TPR 63 / 2024 3.3.2025 RM 100,000.00 4. Goh Say Beng Warehouse rental @ RM 3,800 / mth Oct - Dec 2025 RM 11,400.00 5. Petty cash 17.11.2025 RM 218.70 6. Thirumanickam 1st Instalment / 8th 2nd Instalment / 8th 3rd Instalment / 8th 4th Instalment / 8th Sep 2025 Oct 2025 Nov 2025 Dec 2025 RM 10,000.00 7. Catalyst Advisory & Consultancy 16.7.2024 RM 144,380.00 8. Tan Norizan & Associates 154 - 03 - 1 154 - 03 - 2 22846 - 05 - 1 22846 - 05 - 2 22846 - 05 - 3 372 - 06 - 1 372 - 06 - 2 W - 02 (IM)(NCC) - 836 - 05 / 2024

30.9.2025 30.9.2025 30.9.2025 30.9.2025 30.9.2025 30.9.2025 30.9.2025 26.11.2025 26.11.2025 RM 43,416.00 RM 27,216.00 RM 27,216.00 RM 21,816.00 RM 108,216.00

15.7.2025 6.10.2025 RM 15,000.00

CPS Management Corporation Inv - CPS - CPSMC - 2025 - 9947 Inv - CPS - CPSMC - 2025 - 9946 Inv - CPS - CPSMC - 2025 - 10596 INV - CPS - CPSMC - 2025 - 10597

31.8.2025 1.9.2025 1.10.2025 1.10.2025 RM 6.00 RM 2,014.85 RM 2,014.85 RM 6.00 11. Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Bhd E - cover : AEKK 1544264 14.8.2025 -

13.8.2025

16.7.2025 RM 2,342.52 13. Ricoh (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd PINV - 000358891 PINV - 000386102

1.9.2025 30.9.2025 1.10.2025 RM 928.80 RM 66.76

28.8.2025 28.9.2025 RM 1,298.50

16.8.2025 16.9.2025 RM 720.50 RM 781.77 16. CelcomDigi I / BS / EWO / 2508 / 805

5.9.2025 5.10.2025 RM 1,802.00 RM 1,802.00 17. Staffs medical claim

17.7.2025 28.7.2025 RM 331.00

Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Rate Assessment 04 / 2025 Apr 2025 RM 1,202.17 19. WV & Partners Quot no. 49074 8.9.2025

15.7.2025 12.9.2025 RM 15,000.00 RM 6,000.00 Total

The above - mentioned claims were submitted to D via email, accompanied by the relevant invoices and supporting documents.

Following the above, D requested for further clarification and supporting documents to verify the said claims. The Plaintiffs duly responded to and provided the further clarification and supporting documents as requested by D.

However, despite being provided with satisfactory clarification and the necessary documentation as requested, D has gone silent and This is notwithstanding the numerous follow - up emails sent by the Plaintiffs to D. Nevertheless, D has to - date failed to provide any response and process the said claims.

Hence, the Plaintiffs have commenced the present application consent order. The applicable law

In Stone World Sdn Bhd v Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 237, the Federal Court clarified that the power for the court to amend or vary a sealed order is found in the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and this is

The Federal Court held (at page 245) : Where is this jurisdiction to amend or supplement the original sealed order found? It is found in the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. The superior courts possess a residual inherent jurisdiction to, inter alia, clarify the terms of an order and to make ancillary orders primarily to give effect to the decision or judgment handed down. It is a necessary jurisdiction to enable a court to ensure that substantive justice between the parties is served, so as to give effect to its primary decision, through the dispensing of procedural justice. [20] That the court has the jurisdiction to dispense ancillary or supplemental orders to augment or substitute the original relief or remedy so as to give effect to the intent and purpose of its original decision is not in doubt. The doctrine of functus officio does not encroach upon that jurisdiction. Liberty to apply [21] And the form in which the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction is effected with them the inherent liberty to apply, although this right is often expressly reserved in relation to final orders. The existence of such an inherent right has been expressly recognised in

A court becomes functus officio after delivering a judgment or order, and thereby loses the power to reopen, alter or supplement that decision, ensuring finality in litigation.

Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the functus officio rule. These are summarised in the Federal Court case of Stone World (supra, at page 244 - 245) as follows : There are limited and discrete situations where the court may make a further order subsequent to its previous sealed order. These situations include :

an amendment of a previous order to reflect the original intention of the court which is evident from the previous and original order, or the body of the judgment of the original order;

correct a clerical error or a similar form of slip;

the clarification, supplementing of or amendment of a previous order so as

if there is provision in the Rules to amend an original order so as to enlarge The Defendant failure to disburse the trust account(s) funds

The wording of the salient provisions of the consent order bears reiterating.

Paragraph 1.1 of the consent order reads :

1.1 As approved by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree that the full amount of RM 36.2 million held in the trust accounts shall be utilised for the Rehabilitation and Restructuring Exercise (R&R Exercise), as approved by the Planters and in accordance with the Supplemental Trust Deeds, all dated 30 December 2024.

Paragraph 1.2 of the consent order reads :

1.2 All legitimate claims by the Plaintiff shall be processed and paid in full in accordance with the Supplemental Trust Deeds, all dated 30 December 2024.

Paragraph 2.1 of the consent order reads :

2.1 The Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with all the necessary documents and projections requested in respect of the outstanding historical claims to the satisfaction of the Defendant amounting to RM 13,490,086.42 within fourteen (14) days from 19th May 2025. The abovementioned historical claims shall collectively constitute the First Tranche Payment .

Paragraph 2.2 of the consent order reads :

2.2 Upon the submission of the documents and projections by the Plaintiffs as mentioned in Paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1 above, the Defendant shall process and release the First Tranche Payment to the respective Plaintiffs within three (3) working days thereof subject to satisfactory clarification or necessary documentation.

Recitals F and G of the supplemental trust deed(s) states :

(F) In respect of the funds (including interest) in the Trust Account, the Reserve Fund Trust Account and the Sinking Fund Trust Account which is to be released and utilized by the Management Company for the rehabilitation of the Plantation, the Trustee shall disburse the funds in accordance with the disbursement schedule, annexed herewith in Schedule 1 hereto (hereinafter called the Disbursement Schedule ).

(G) The disbursement of the funds in accordance with the Disbursement Schedule shall be supported by valid invoices and any supporting documents which the Trustee may reasonably require, and for disbursements without any invoice or supporting documents by a written request by the Management Company identifying and detailing the proposed usage of the funds for the immediate forthcoming month.

It is important 1 of the supplemental trust deed(s) is merely a proposed disbursement schedule by the Plaintiffs, and not a rigid guideline to be strictly followed.

It is my finding failure to disburse the trust account(s) funds in relation to the R&R exercise to the Plaintiffs, is in breach of paragraphs 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 of the consent order. are duly supported by the necessary documentation and satisfactory clarification, as requested by D.

I will now

First head of claim - the legal fees First, the legal fees. It can be seen from the email correspondence between the Plaintiffs and D that subsequent to the Plaintiffs submitting the relevant supporting documents, D has on 28.7.2025 reverted with the remittance advice :

However, D had disregarded a portion of the claims submitted by the Plaintiffs. It wa clarification on the variance between the claims submitted and the remittance received, that D provided its reason for the rejection of the legal fees claimed :

On 7.8.2025, the Plaintiffs appealed against legal fees claimed, with further clarification given :

To - date, there is no response provided by D or any process by D, despite satisfactory documentation and clarification given. This is in breach of paragraphs 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 of the consent order.

It is significant to note that the legal fees claimed by the Plaintiffs are an essential part to the R&R exercise, for the following reasons :

Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) tiada halangan untuk Pacific Trustees berhad (PTB) melepaskan wang daripada akaun-akaun dana Amanah di bawah memastikan perjalanan Pelan Pemulihan dan Penstrukturan Semula (PPPS) selaras dengan mesyuarat penanam bertarikh 12.08.2024 .

Despite the above, D failed to disburse the trust account(s) funds amounting to RM 39,115,129.32 for the purpose of the R&R exercise.

Hence, the originating summons herein was commenced on 17.4.2025 to compel D to disburse the trust account(s) funds for the purpose of the R&R exercise in accordance with:- (i) the d letters to D dated 4.4.2024 and 13.3.2025; (ii) the special resolution passed on 12.8.2024; and

(iii) the supplemental trust deed(s).

The above legal action was necessary to compel D to fulfil its duties as the trustee for the interest scheme(s) and to clarify its duties under the supplemental trust deed(s). This was ultimately recorded under the consent order, in which D has now failed to comply with. Second head of claim - the Sothiscon & J global claims

Second, the Sothiscon & J global claims. It can be seen from the email correspondence between the Plaintiffs and D that subsequent to the Plaintiffs submitting the relevant supporting documents, D had on 26.6.2025 requested from the Plaintiffs further documentation as follows :

Thereafter, on 7.8.2025, the Plaintiffs furnished D with the necessary

To - date, there is no response provided by D or any process by D, despite satisfactory documentation and clarification given. This is in breach of paragraphs 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 of the consent order. Third head of claim - the salaries and statutory claims

Third, the salaries and statutory claims. These are in relation to the employees of the Plaintiffs, being the management company of the interest scheme(s) managing and executing the R&R exercise. The payment of the salaries and statutory claims for the employees of the Plaintiffs are quintessential to the operation of the Plaintiffs companies and the R&R exercise.

It can be seen from the email correspondence between the Plaintiffs and D that subsequent to the Plaintiffs submitting the relevant supporting documents on 4.11.2025, D had on 12.11.2025 (eight days after) replied rejecting the claim for SSM compound amounting to RM 100,000 :

It is noteworthy that D had admitted to the relevance of the SSM compound as an expense for the R&R exercise. But D had nonetheless

It is also germane to note that :

The compound issued by inability to remit funds within the prescribed timeframe, which was a direct consequence of the financial constraints at the material time.

This financial difficulty was one of the primary reasons the EGM was scheduled shortly thereafter, with the objective of restructuring and stabilising the interest scheme(s).

The settlement of the SSM compound is connected to the R&R exercise, as regulatory compliance is a prerequisite for the continuation of operations.

Without resolving such statutory liabilities, the company would be unable to proceed effectively with the R&R exercise.

D takes the stand that the disbursement of funds must strictly adhere to the disbursement schedule. However, the SSM compound and other relevant claims need not be expressly spelt out in the proposed disbursement schedule in Schedule 1 of the supplemental trust deed(s). supplemental trust deed(s) is merely a proposed disbursement schedule by the Plaintiffs, and not a rigid guideline to be strictly followed.

With D s admission of the relevance of the SSM compound as an expense for the purpose of the R&R exercise, it falls under the categories of disbursements in the proposed disbursement schedule :

Further, D had also failed to respond to the Plaintiffs and process the months :

October 2025 - as per paragraph 30 above.

November 2025 :

December 2025 :

The above action and inaction by D is in breach of paragraphs 1.2,

2.1 and 2.2 of the consent order. Fourth head of claim - other claims

Fourth, the other claims. It can be seen from the email correspondence between the Plaintiffs and D that subsequent to the Plaintiffs submitting the relevant supporting documents for the following months, there was no response provided by D :

October 2025 :

November 2025 :

December 2025 :

From the above, I consider t and process the claims that were properly submitted by the Plaintiffs are in breach of paragraphs 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 of the consent order. Concluding remarks

According to the Plaintiffs, the R&R exercise and the interest scheme(s), which pertains to oil palms plantation, are volatile and time - sensitive. As the plantation is a living and ever - changing environment, where a long delay may cause irreversible damage to the plantation.

Hence, strict compliance with the three working days turnaround time by D, as explicitly stated in paragraph 2.2 of the consent order, is vital to the upkeeping of the oil palm plantation. This is more so when the primary purpose of the R&R exercise is to rehabilitate and restructure the already struggling interest scheme(s) for the benefit of all their stakeholders.

is obliged to exercise vigilance in carrying out its functions as trustee, and in safeguarding the rights of the interest holders. However, D seems to have lost sight of the fact that it had entered into the consent order, which requires subject to satisfactory clarification or

D says that it does not object in principle to the release of the trust funds to the Plaintiffs, as it recognises that the funds are intended for the implementation of the R&R exercise. D reiterates that it stands ready to release such funds, where the contractual and statutory requirements are satisfied.

Nevertheless, D alleges that the claims were rejected on legitimate grounds. To wit, that the claims were either unsupported, insufficiently explained or unrelated to the R&R exercise. I disagree.

My finding is that D had failed to comply with the consent order, taking into consideration the numerous contemporaneous documents exhibited in the Plaintiffs affidavit in support dated 23.1.2026 (Enclosure 13). D had also failed to credibly deny the Plaintiffs affidavit in reply dated 10.3.2026 (Enclosure 15). (See the High Court case of Utama Merchant Bank Bhd v Cawis Wira Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 7 CLJ 143 at 148).

For the reasons above, I allowed the Plaintiffs application in Enclosure 12. I made no order as to costs. Dated 30 April 2026 Quay Chew Soon Judge High Court of Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division NCC 2) Counsels Ramesh Kanapathy and Lim Li Huang (Messrs. Chellam Wong) for the Plaintiffs Michelle Ng Li Wen and Tay Khye Vern (Messrs. Rahmat Lim & Partners) for the Defendant Case reference 1. Stone World Sdn Bhd v Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 237 2. Utama Merchant Bank Bhd v Cawis Wira Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 7 CLJ 143