Golden Plus Holdings Berhad v Tan Say Han (W-02(IM)(NCC)-1414-07/2025)

YANFULL (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD SHIU FAI FONG (In The High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division) Between 1. Golden Plus Holdings Berhad 2. Golden Plus Construction Sdn Bhd 3. Golden Plus (BVI) Pte Ltd S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw 2 4. Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd 5. Paradize Bazaar Sdn Bhd 6. Venice Heights Sdn Bhd 7. Hanpopular Sdn Bhd 8. Yanfull Investments Limited 9. Yanfull (Shanghai) Co. Ltd …Plaintiffs And 1. China Idea Development Limited 2. Pacific Victor International Ltd 3. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Malaysian Will)

Teh Wei Kian 5. Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie 6. Wu Kwok Ying, Maria 7. Goh Sin Tien 8. Huang Guoquan 9.

Huang Guoyuan

Yong Chooi Lan

Tay Say Han

Shiu Fai Fong

Seng, Deceased (United Kingdom Will)

Seng, Deceased (Hong Kong Will) Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (China Will) …Defendants S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF TEH SOON SENG, DECEASED

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF TEH SOON SENG, DECEASED (HONG KONG WILL) …RESPONDENTS S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw (In The High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division) Between 1. Golden Plus Holdings Berhad 2. Golden Plus Construction Sdn Bhd 3. Golden Plus (BVI) Pte Ltd 4. Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd 5. Paradize Bazaar Sdn Bhd 6. Venice Heights Sdn Bhd 7. Hanpopular Sdn Bhd 8. Yanfull Investments Limited 9. Yanfull (Shanghai) Co. Ltd …Plaintiffs And 1. China Idea Development Limited 2. Pacific Victor International Ltd 3. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Malaysian Will)

Teh Wei Kian 5. Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie 6. Wu Kwok Ying, Maria 7. Goh Sin Tien 8. Huang Guoquan 9.

Huang Guoyuan

Yong Chooi Lan Tay Say Han S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw

Shiu Fai Fong 13. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (United Kingdom Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Hong Kong Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (China Will) …Defendants

YANFULL (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD GOH SIN TIEN S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw (In The High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division) Between 1. Golden Plus Holdings Berhad 2. Golden Plus Construction Sdn Bhd 3. Golden Plus (BVI) Pte Ltd 4. Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd 5. Paradize Bazaar Sdn Bhd 6. Venice Heights Sdn Bhd 7. Hanpopular Sdn Bhd 8. Yanfull Investments Limited 9. Yanfull (Shanghai) co. Ltd …Plaintiffs And 1. China Idea Development Limited 2. Pacific Victor International Ltd 3. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Malaysian Will)

Teh Wei Kian 5. Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie 6. Wu Kwok Ying, Maria 7. Goh Sin Tien 8. Huang Guoquan 9.

Yong Chooi Lan S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw

Tay Say Han

Shiu Fai Fong

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (United Kingdom Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Hong Kong Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (China Will) …Defendants

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

YANFULL (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD TAY SAY HAN S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw (In The High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division) Between 1. Golden Plus Holdings Berhad 2. Golden Plus Construction Sdn Bhd 3. Golden Plus (BVI) Pte Ltd 4. Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd 5. Paradize Bazaar Sdn Bhd 6. Venice Heights Sdn Bhd 7. Hanpopular Sdn Bhd 8. Yanfull Investments Limited 9. Yanfull (Shanghai) co. Ltd …Plaintiffs And 1. China Idea Development Limited 2. Pacific Victor International Ltd 3. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Malaysian Will)

Teh Wei Kian 5. Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie 6. Wu Kwok Ying, Maria 7. Goh Sin Tien 8. Huang Guoquan 9.

Huang Guoyuan Yong Chooi Lan S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw

Tay Say Han 12. Shiu Fai Fong 13. Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (United Kingdom Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Hong Kong Will)

Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (China Will) …Defendants CORAM: RAVINTHRAN N. PARAMAGURU, JCA FAIZAH BINTI JAMALUDIN, JCA LATIFAH BINTI HAJI MOHD TAHAR, HCJ S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] These four appeals — Appeals Nos. W-02(IM)NCC)-1411-07/2025 (“Appeal 1411”), W-02(IM)NCC)-1412-07/2025 (“Appeal 1412”), W- 02(IM)NCC)-1413-07/2025 (“Appeal 1413”), and W-02(IM)NCC)-1414- 07/2025 (“Appeal 1414”) — were heard together before us on 27 January 2026, at the conclusion of which judgment was reserved. We now deliver our decision. [2] In all four appeals, the appellants are the same nine plaintiffs in the in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCC-605-12/2020 (“Suit 605”), namely Golden Plus Holdings Berhad, Golden Plus Construction Sdn Bhd, Golden Plus (BVI) Pte Ltd, Sri Serdang Sdn Bhd, Paradize Bazaar Sdn Bhd, Venice Heights Sdn Bhd, Hanpopular Sdn Bhd, Yanfull Investments Limited and Yanfull (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. [3] The respondents are:

In Appeal 1411, the respondent is Shiu Fai Fong, who was the 12th defendant in Suit 605;

In Appeal 1412, the respondents are Pacific Victor International Ltd (the 2nd defendant); Teh Chiao Eing, Valarie (the 5th defendant); Wu Kwok Ying, Maria (the 6th defendant); the Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (United Kingdom Will)(the 13th defendant); and the Personal Representatives of Teh Soon Seng, Deceased (Hong Kong Will)(the 14th defendant) in Suit 605. S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw

In Appeal 1413, the respondent is Goh Sin Tien, who was the 7th defendant in Suit 605; and

In Appeal 1414, the respondent is Tan Say Han, who was the 11th defendant in Suit 605. [4] By the High Court judgment in Suit 605 dated 13 March 2025 (“the judgment”) and the consequential costs order dated 10 April 2025 (“the cost order”), the appellants obtained judgment against the defendants, including the present respondents in these appeals, for substantial sums exceeding RM133 million, with part of the judgment sum` expressed in Renminbi. [5] By orders dated 16 July 2025, the High Court granted those respondents a stay of execution of the monetary parts of the High Court judgment and the costs order, pending disposal of their appeals against the judgment. [6] There is only one issue before us in these appeals. It is whether the learned High Court Judge was right in holding that there were special circumstances sufficient to justify a stay of execution in favour of all these respondents. [7] For the reasons set out below, it is our judgment that the question must be answered in the negative. The governing principles [8] It is settled that by virtue of section 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, an appeal does not operate as a stay. A successful litigant is prima facie entitled to the fruits of the judgment unless the court orders S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw otherwise. That is the general rule. A party seeking a stay must therefore show that the case falls within a recognised exception. [9] The leading authority remains Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257; [2003] 4 CLJ 1, FC. The Federal Court made clear that a stay is not granted as a matter of course. An applicant must show special circumstances. Those circumstances must relate to the execution of the judgment, rather than to the correctness of the judgment or the merits of the appeal. The categories of what may amount to special circumstances are not closed. But the circumstances relied upon must be truly special and not merely instances of ordinary hardship. A common instance is where, absent a stay, the appeal would be rendered nugatory. [10] The same principle was stated by this Court in Ming Ann Holdings Sdn Bhd v Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 MLJ 49; [2002] 3 CLJ 380, where it was held that the circumstances relied on must be “special, not ordinary, common or usual circumstances” and must go to the execution rather than to the validity of the judgment or merits of the appeal. The High Court’s reasons for granting the stays [11] The reasons which moved the High Court to grant the stays of execution may be summarised as follows. [12] In Appeal 1411, the learned Judge accepted the 12th defendant, Shiu Fai Fong’s contention that she was merely an employee or at most a peripheral actor in the underlying transactions, and that she lacked the financial means to satisfy the judgment. His Lordship accepted that the judgment sum was exceptionally large for her as an individual; that S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw payment would require liquidation of her assets and reduce her to poverty; that there was a real risk of non-recovery if she succeeded on appeal because some of the plaintiffs were foreign entities in non-reciprocating jurisdictions; that the joint and several nature of the judgment created uncertainty as to which plaintiff would receive payment; and that immediate enforcement would expose her to bankruptcy and render her appeal nugatory. The learned Judge also regarded that the stakeholder proposal as impractical because it would still require her to make payment of the judgment sum. [13] In Appeal 1412, involving the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th defendants, the learned Judge accepted the respondents’ contention that immediate enforcement of the judgment sum of about RMB221 million or RM133 million would necessitate liquidation of substantial assets and cause irreparable harm, in particular by forcing a sale of the Mayfair Property in Hong Kong and other assets which could not easily be restored if their appeal succeeded; that identified assets exceeding the judgment sum would remain available for future enforcement; that there were concerns that the judgment sum, if paid, may later be irrecoverable because of the appellants’ multinational structure; and that the balance of justice favoured a stay. The learned Judge likewise held that a stakeholder arrangement was inappropriate because it would compel the very liquidation that those respondents were seeking to avoid. [14] In Appeal 1413, involving the 7th defendant, Goh Sin Tien, the learned Judge accepted that he was a 75-year-old retiree with registered disability status arising from hearing impairment; that he lacked the means to satisfy the judgment; that garnishee proceedings had already frozen his bank account; that immediate enforcement would likely lead to bankruptcy S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw with serious consequences; that his appeal would thereby be rendered nugatory; that there were concerns over practical recoverability because of the appellants’ multinational structure and alleged financial difficulties; and that the stakeholder arrangement was impracticable because he had no funds to pay into it. [15] In Appeal 1414, involving the 11th defendant, Tay Say Han, the learned Judge accepted that he was a 73-year-old individual with no stable income and limited means; that the judgment sum of around RM133 million was far beyond his financial capacity; that enforcement had already begun; that bankruptcy was a real possibility; that bankruptcy would impair his ability to pursue his appeal; that there were concerns about cross-border recovery; and that the stakeholder arrangement was not viable because he was unable to pay into such an account. Why the stays ought not to have been granted [16] With respect, we are unable to agree that those circumstances, whether viewed separately or cumulatively, amount in law to special circumstances. What the learned Judge treated as special, upon a proper application of Kosma Palm Oil Mill and Ming Ann Holdings, was no more than the ordinary consequences of an adverse money judgment. [17] First, impecuniosity is not enough. Financial hardship, even severe hardship, is the ordinary consequence of a money judgment. If inability to pay, or difficulty in paying, were by itself sufficient, the exception would undermine the rule. That is not the law under Kosma Palm Oil Mill and Ming Ann Holdings. The circumstance relied on must be exceptional in character and must truly relate to execution in a way that takes the case out of the ordinary. S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw [18] Secondly, the prospect that assets may have to be sold, liquidated or otherwise realised to satisfy the judgment does not amount to a special circumstance. That too is part of the ordinary process of enforcement. In Ming Ann Holdings, the fears relied upon by the judgment debtor, including the consequences of enforcement and winding-up, were treated as nothing unusual. Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) held that the grounds relied on by the applicant are nothing more than “fear of losing” and emphasised that execution is a natural process which follows a judgment. The fact that enforcement may be painful, disruptive or even ruinous to the debtor does not by itself make the circumstances special. [19] It follows that the reasons relied on by the respondents to support their application for stay in these four appeals — namely poverty, possible bankruptcy, liquidation of assets, and the personal inconvenience and hardship flowing from those matters — cannot of themselves satisfy the special circumstances test. However sympathetic those facts may appear, they remain consequences of enforcement. They are not, in law, exceptional. [20] Thirdly, the respondents’ personal position, whether as employees, peripheral actors, retirees, elderly individuals or personal representatives, does not alter the inquiry. Once judgment has been entered against them, the question is not whether the burden appears harsh having regard to their role in the underlying facts. The question remains whether there is some special circumstance going to execution such that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. That is the inquiry required by Kosma Palm Oil Mill, and it is not answered merely by pointing to age, status or limited means. S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw [21] Fourthly, the size of the judgment sum does not by itself change the position. A large sum may intensify hardship. But size alone does not transform ordinary hardship into a special circumstance. If it did, then large money judgments would routinely be stayed and smaller ones would not. That is not the law. Indeed, the learned High Court Judge himself acknowledged in his grounds of judgment (in respect of encl. 709) that quantum in isolation does not constitute a special circumstance, and “to hold otherwise would mean that all substantial judgments would be automatically stayed pending appeal”. [22] In our view, the learned Judge fell into error by treating the respondents’ inability to satisfy the judgment as though that fact itself established nugatoriness. It does not. The true question is not whether payment is difficult. It is whether, if payment is made and the appeal later succeeds, restitution would be practically impossible in a legally meaningful sense. This is the context in which the relevant authorities, notably Kosma Palm Oil Mill, and with respect to a money judgment involving a proposed stakeholder arrangement, Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners (Sued as a firm) v Teguh Asiamas Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 2846; [2025] CLJU 2367, refer to an appeal being rendered nugatory. The stakeholder mechanism [23] In our judgment, the only point which could genuinely engage the nugatory principle, is the respondents’ concern that, if they succeed in their appeals, recovery of the monies from the appellants may be difficult because of the financial concerns raised concerning the group, the fact that some of the appellants are foreign entities, and some are said to be located in non-reciprocating jurisdictions. Whilst this issue was a live S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw concern raised in the High Court, it is no longer a concern here. This is because the appellants have proposed a mechanism which, in our judgment, addresses it fully. [24] The proposed mechanism is simple. The total judgment sum is to be paid to the appellants’ solicitors to be held as stakeholders in an interest-bearing account pending disposal of the appeals. In our judgment, that is the appropriate solution in a case such as this. Once the money is ring-fenced in a stakeholder account under the control of solicitors and within the Malaysian legal process, the respondents’ concern about dissipation, foreign recovery, or inability to repay are neutralised. The fund remains intact and available whichever way the appeals are ultimately decided. [25] The proposed stakeholder arrangement finds direct support in the recent decision of this Court in Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners (supra). There, this Court treated the stakeholder arrangement as a principled middle course between two competing considerations: the judgment creditor’s right to the fruits of the judgment, and the judgment debtor’s right to pursue an appeal that is not rendered nugatory. The Court held that where the judgment sum is paid into and preserved under a stakeholder arrangement, the usual concern that a successful appeal would be rendered nugatory no longer arises, because the monies remain intact and capable of being returned if the appeal succeeds. The Court considered the appellant’s reliance on the Federal Court’s decision in Renew Capital Sdn Bhd & Ors v ADM Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd (Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-4-01/2022), in which the Federal Court had answered in the affirmative the question whether an applicant who had shown that the respondents lacked capacity to repay the judgment sum should be S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw granted an unconditional stay, having regard to Kosma Palm Oil Mill. However, no written grounds were issued by the Federal Court. This Court in Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners held that such authority did not displace the court’s discretion to impose a conditional stay which adequately addressed the same concern. [26] In that context, this Court in Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners emphasised the legitimate and important function served by conditional stays. Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin JCA observed that conditional stays serve to prevent abuse by judgment debtors who might otherwise delay satisfaction of judgments through successive applications; to provide assurance to successful litigants while protecting genuine appeal rights; and to reduce the burden of appellate courts by avoiding further stay applications where reasonable protective measures have already been put in place. That observation, in our view, goes to the heart of the present appeals. A stakeholder arrangement is not a mere procedural convenience. It is a judicial recognised mechanism by which the court balances fairness to both sides without undermining either the finality of the judgment or the integrity of the appeal process. [27] The Court additionally determined that once the fund is held by independent stakeholders, the financial weakness of the judgment creditor is no longer relevant. This is because the funds are not paid directly to the judgment creditor and remains beyond its immediate reach pending the appeal. For the same reason, concerns regarding the potential dissipation of the funds abroad, or difficulties in tracing or recovering assets across jurisdictions, cease to carry weight when the fund remains within the Malaysian legal system under the control of legal practitioners, who are officers of the court. The Court expressly held that S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw the fear that a successful appeal would be rendered nugatory does not arise when funds are held in stakeholder accounts subject to court orders and the professional obligations of the solicitors involved. [28] The Court also rejected the attempt to resist compliance with the stakeholder conditions as, in substance, an attempt to obtain an unconditional stay by another route. In doing so, it referred to Order 45 rule 10 of the Rules of Court 2012, as well as the authorities on non-compliance with conditional orders, and reaffirmed that a party who does not comply with the conditions imposed cannot continue to insist on the benefit of the stay. A litigant cannot refuse a condition which adequately protects the appeal, and then rely on that refusal as a basis for seeking a broader and unconditional stay. [29] In the present appeals, the stakeholder arrangement answers the only arguably substantial concern the respondents were able to raise as regards the execution of the judgment, namely the risk of non-recovery. Once the money is preserved in a stakeholder account, the respondents’ appeals would not be rendered nugatory. If they succeed, the money remains there to be returned. If they fail, the appellants, as successful litigants, are not kept wholly out of the fruits of their judgments. In that sense, the stakeholder mechanism is not merely convenient — it preserves the integrity of the appellate process without allowing money judgments to be indefinitely delayed by assertions of hardship and fears of losing which, in law, are not special circumstances. [30] We are unable to accept the learned High Court Judge’s view that the stakeholder arrangement must fail because it still requires payment by the respondents. The reasoning confuses inability to pay with the legal S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw test for stay. The point of a stakeholder arrangement is not to relieve a judgment debtor of the burden of satisfying a money judgment. The point is to preserve the fund and thereby neutralise any real risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory. If inability to pay into a stakeholder account were itself enough to justify an unconditional stay, then any impecunious judgment debtor could obtain a total stay of execution simply by saying that payment is impossible. That would run directly contrary to Kosma Palm Oil Mill, Ming Ann Holdings and Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners. [31] Nor are we persuaded by the reliance placed on the respondents’ advanced age, health, disability, or personal circumstances. Those matters may explain why enforcement will be difficult for them. But they do not alter the legal character of the circumstance relied upon. The law does not recognise hardship alone as enough. The respondent in Appeal 1411 said she would be reduced to poverty; the respondents in Appeal 1412 relied on the likely forced sale of the Mayfair Property and other assets; the respondent in Appeal 1413 relied on his age, disability and frozen account; and the respondent in Appeal 1414 said he would become a bankrupt and be unable effectively to continue his appeal. Taken at their highest, these concerns are all variations of the same theme: hardship in paying a money judgment. On the authorities, such hardship is not enough to amount as special circumstances. [32] We should add that the learned High Court Judge’s repeated reliance on the balance of justice does not justify the result reached. Balance of justice is not a free-standing substitute for the special circumstances requirements in a stay application. It operates within the established framework. Once the respondents fail to show circumstances S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw which are truly special and go to execution of the judgment, the court cannot grant a stay merely because it feels that hardship to the respondents outweighs temporary inconvenience to the appellants. The legal threshold must still be met. [33] For those reasons, we are satisfied that the learned High Court Judge erred in principle in granting stays of execution in all four appeals. The matters relied on by the respondents did not amount to special circumstances sufficient to justify the orders granted. The proper order is not an unconditional stay. The proper order is for the judgment sum be paid into a stakeholder account held by the appellants’ solicitors pending the final determination of the respondents’ appeals.

[34] Accordingly, Appeals 1411, 1412, 1413 and 1414 are allowed. The High Court orders dated 16 July 2025 granting the stays of execution are set aside. [35] In substitution, we order as follows:

the respondents in Appeals 1411, 1412, 1413 and 1414 shall pay the total judgment sum under the High Court judgment dated 13 March 2025 and the costs order dated 10 April 2025, together with all accrued interest, less any judgment sum recovered through garnishee proceedings and settlement, to the appellants’ solicitors within 60 days from the date of this judgment.

the appellants’ solicitors shall hold the said total judgment sum as stakeholders in an interest-bearing account pending the final S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw disposal of the respondents’ appeals against the High Court judgment.

upon the final disposal of those appeals, the stakeholders shall release the monies, together with accrued interest, to the party or parties entitled thereto in accordance with the outcome of the appeals or any further order of the Court; and

costs of these four appeals are fixed at RM20,000.00 for each appeal, subject to allocatur. DATED: 31 MARCH 2026 -SGD- (FAIZAH BINTI JAMALUDIN) JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw COUNSELS: APPEAL NO. W-02(IM)(NCC)-1411-07/2025 For the Appellants: P. Gananathan Alan Adrian Gomez Chin Sim Cheng Kaviscyna Balakrishnan [Messrs. Tommy Thomas] For the Respondent: Dhinish Bhaskaran Wong Jia Jing [Shearn Delamore & Co] APPEAL NO. W-02(IM)(NCC)-1412-07/2025 For the Appellants: P. Gananathan Alan Adrian Gomez Chin Sim Cheng Kaviscyna Balakrishnan [Messrs. Tommy Thomas] For the Respondents: Dato’ Malik Imtiaz Sarwar Sean Yeow Yvonne Lim Hooi Chung Wai [Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill] S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw APPEAL NO. W-02(IM)(NCC)-1413-07/2025 For the Appellants: P. Gananathan Alan Adrian Gomez Chin Sim Cheng Kaviscyna Balakrishnan [Messrs. Tommy Thomas] For the Respondent: Rachel Ng Li Hui Muhammad Ferhat Bin Mohd Jafri [Thomas Phillip] APPEAL NO. W-02(IM)(NCC)-1414-07/2025 For the Appellants: P. Gananathan Alan Adrian Gomez Chin Sim Cheng Kaviscyna Balakrishnan [Messrs. Tommy Thomas] For the Respondent: Atiqah binti Azman [Khairul Fadzli Amin & Co] S/N sEYas0ne9ke8Ilk0M/CgDw