Ong Kow Ee @ Ong Chiow Chuen v Stone Master Corporation Berhad (WA-28PW-733-12/2022)

DATO’ EII CHING SIEW @ YII CHING SIEW (No. K/P: 450826-13-5197)

IDAH HARTITI SURTIONO (No. K/P: 570621-71-5020) … PETITIONERS AND STONE MASTER CORPORATION BERHAD (In Liquidation) (No. Syarikat: 498639-X) … RESPONDENT

DATUK ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUEN

FOO CHOOI WAI (NRIC NO.: 711014-05-5100) … APPLICANTS S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Enclosure 1 is the Applicants’ Notice of Motion (“NOM”) to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 07.11.2022 for a public examination of the Directors of the Respondent pursuant to sections 502 and 503 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) obtained by the Liquidator of the Respondent (“the Liquidator”) in WA-28PW-483-10/2022 (Suit 483) (“the Ex-Parte Order”). [2] This application is identical to the application by Low Eng Tack in WA- 28PW-730-12/2022 (“Suit 730”) who was the Respondent’s Company Secretary at the material time. The grounds for my decision herein are to be read with my grounds given earlier is Suit 730 since the issue are almost identical. BACKGROUND FACTS [3] This present application arises from the Ex-Parte Oder obtained in Suit 483, which was the Notice of Motion initiated by the Liquidator of the Respondent against the Applicants in this application, Low Eng Tack S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw and Datuk Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the proposed Examinees’ for public examination under section 503 of CA

[4] The Respondent’s ex-parte application in Suit 483 was allowed by this Court on 07.11.2022 where the following orders were made: a. That the Applicant Sundaresan A/L Arumugam (NRIC No. 710424-10-5321) as the Liquidator of the Respondent be allowed to make this application; b. That the following former Directors and Secretary of the Respondent’s wholly owned subsidiary namely:

(i) ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUEN (NRIC No.: 420404-04-5151), former Director of the Respondent and Respondent’s subsidiaries having a last known address at 43, Bukit Merbok ria, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan;

(i) Stone Master (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd under Johor Bahru High Court Civil Suit No. JA2CC-84-10/2021 (“Suit 84”) for a total judgment sum of RM1,406,698.70; and

(a) The Liquidator’s filing of the 483 Motion for a public examination of the Applicants is an abuse of process and is unnecessary as the Applicants have cooperated with the Liquidator in his request for documents;

(b) The Liquidator failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts that he had already commenced legal actions against various parties on precisely the same issues that he seeks to cross examine the Applicants on; S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw

(c) The Liquidator has other means and/or alternatives to obtain the information since the Liquidator has commenced several suits against the Applicants and related persons; and

(d) the Ex-Parte Order was obtained for a collateral purpose and was not necessary for the business of preserving, collecting, managing and distributing the SMCB’s assets and not for the Respondent’s benefit. FINDINGS BY THIS COURT [8] The issues raised by the Liquidator, as stated in paragraph (5), have already been addressed in earlier grounds in Suit 730. I will reiterate the broad reasoning from Suit 730, as it is equally applicable to this application to set-aside the Ex-Parte Order. [9] Applying established legal principles, courts should be reluctant to order public examinations when alternative avenues are available for the Liquidator to obtain the required information. [10] In the present case, the Liquidator has already commenced numerous civil suits against not only the Applicants, but also Low Eng Tack. The fact that the Liquidator has already commenced numerous civil suits S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw (which were not adequately disclosed in the Liquidator’s Application) clearly shows that the Liquidator already has sufficient information/material regarding the so-called RMTSB Shares Issue, SPG Land Issue and Fake Debts Issue that he is pursuing. [11] This Court agrees with the Applicants submission that given the existence of the civil suits, there is no real need for a public examination of the Applicants under the Ex Pate Order dated 07.11.2022. The required information could e obtained through interrogatories and discovery of documents under the Rule of court 2026 (“ROC 2016”), rather than through a separate public examination, which could serve as a tool for harassment or oppression or a means of affording the Liquidator with an opportunity to “fish for evidence”. [12] The most cost-efficient way forward would be for the Liquidator to examine and procure the information/documents he allegedly requires in the very civil suits that he himself has already commenced, either by way of interrogatories or discovery under the provisions of the ROC 2016 and not by way of a separate public examination of the Proposed Examinees before the Winding-Up Court. [13] This Court is persuaded by the Applicants’ submission that 483 Order was not obtained in good faith, nor done in the best interests of the Respondent. Instead, 483 Order is oppressive. The Applicants ought not to be exposed to undue pressure to be cross examined in Court S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw over matters that are already pending in other courts and where evidence will be presented in due course. The Ex-Parte Order is redundant, an abuse of process, and therefore oppressive towards the Applicants herein. [14] For the above reasons and other reasons given in my grounds of judgment in Suit 730 I allow the prayers in this application to set-aside the Ex-Parte Order with costs. Dated 5 March 2025 ……………t.t………………. Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: T. S. GOH SOLICITORS FOR THE PETITIONER: TETUAN S K SONG COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: LIANG CHONG BENG SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT: TETUAN CB LIANG, NG & CO Cases Referred to: Legislation Referred to: ➢ Companies Act 2016 ➢ Rules of Court 2016 Decision date: 25 July 2024 S/N dq9uPvD4q0mbPMC7tOgBw