Content
WA-22NCvC-298-05/2025 Kand. 07/11/2025 09:45:32 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-22NCVC-298-05/2025 ANTARA 1. VICTOR WANG (No. Pasport: 062898741) 2. WANG ZHENG (No. Pasport: EH8131849) ... PLAINTIF- PLAINTIF DAN 1. MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MAMING (No. K/P: 910528-12-5657) 2. SARA NURASHEKEEN BINTI SUHAILI (No. K/P: 941118-13-5328) 3. STUDIO TWENTY THREE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 15621665-A) .. DEFENDAN- DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT |. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT 1. This matter concerns an application by the 3 Defendant, Studio Twenty Three Sdn Bhd ("the Company"), for continuation of interim injunctive relief comprising prohibitory, Mareva and mandatory orders against the Plaintiffs, Victor Wang and Wang Zheng ("the Plaintiffs"). The application arises from a corporate dispute involving allegations of director misconduct, asset misappropriation and systematic interference with the Company's business operations as the exclusive luxury nightclub operator in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX). 2. — The Plaintiffs had withdrawn their claim against the Defendants on 5 June 2025 with costs. On 30 June 2025 the Defendants filed their Amended Statement of Defence and Amended Counter-claim. The Plaintiffs then filed their Amended Reply to Defence and Amended Defence to Counter-claim on 16 July 2025. The ex parte Ad Interim Injunction was granted by this court on 22 May 2025 and varied on 5 June 2025. The Ad Interim Injunction became absolute on 20 August 2025. 3. The salient terms of the Ad Interim Injunction Order are as follows: (a) The Plaintiffs are banned from entering within 500m of Lane 23 premises, harassing staff or customers, accessing the company's digital assets (CCTV, social media, passwords, WhatsApp), publishing defamatory content, representing themselves as company representatives, interfering with business operations, or hiring third parties (including security guards or criminal groups) to monitor or harass the business. (b) The Plaintiffs' assets are frozen up to RM500,000 each. They cannot remove assets from Malaysia or dispose of, diminish, or otherwise deal with any assets (including bank accounts, shares, or property), whether in Malaysia or abroad. Sale proceeds must be paid to the Court or to a solicitors’ trust account. (c) The Plaintiffs must immediately remove all defamatory publications from all platforms and disclose all assets in writing within 7 days via affidavit, including bank accounts, shares, loans, debts owed to them, property, trust holdings and investments. 4. The Plaintiffs may withdraw RM1,000 per person per week for daily expenses, RM5,000 monthly for legal fees, and other reasonable amounts approved by this Court, with supporting documents. The penal clause on non-compliance was endorsed under O 45 R 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). 5. Having considered the evidence and submissions, | am satisfied that the continuation of the Ad Interim Injunction is justified, to prevent further irreparable harm to the Company. Il. THE PRINCIPLES OF INJUNCTION (a) Prohibitory Injunction: The Keet Gerald Francis Test 6. The position on interim prohibitory injunctions is governed by the Court of Appeal decision in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors (1995) 1 MLJ 193 CA, which established a tripartite test requiring: (1) a serious question to be tried; (2) that damages would not provide an adequate remedy; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. This test was reaffirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors (2019) 5 MLJ 1 FC, which emphasized that the threshold for "serious question" means the applicant need not demonstrate a prima facie case likely to succeed, but merely that there are bona fide triable issues warranting court intervention. 7. The Court of Appeal in SV Beverages Holdings Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors v Kickapoo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (2008) 4 MLJ 187 CA Clarified that courts should not attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or decide difficult questions of law requiring detailed argument when determining whether serious issues exist. The focus is on whether the pleaded case, supported by evidence, discloses a reasonably arguable cause of action. (b) Mareva Injunction: The Aspatra Framework 8. The principles governing the grant of a Mareva injunction are well-established. As held by the Federal Court in S & F International Limited v Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd (1985) 1 MLJ 62 FC, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements, i.e. that - a) A good arguable case against the defendant; b) The defendant has assets within the jurisdiction; and c) There is a real risk that the assets would be dissipated or placed beyond reach before judgment could be satisfied. 9. The threshold for a "good arguable case" is not high. It means more than barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily that the plaintiff has more than a 50% chance of SUCCESS. 10. However, the element of "real risk of dissipation" requires careful scrutiny. As emphasized in Bouvier v Accent Delight International Ltd (2015) SGCA 45 (Singapore Court of Appeal), the Court must: "examine the precise nature of the dishonesty that is alleged and the strength of the evidence relied on in support of the allegation... assessing... whether there is sufficient basis to find a real risk of dissipation. That alone is the justification which lies at the heart of the court's jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions." 11. As clarified in Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v Lee Yee Wuen (2022) 7 CLJ 505 CA, at paragraph [99]: "there must be evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets — whether direct evidence or an inference that may properly be drawn from evidence that is led and provided. It may not be presumed... If, however, want of probity or misconduct is so clearly established, even at the interlocutory stage, then, depending on the nature of the lack of probity or misconduct, a real risk of dissipation of assets may be inferred — not presumed.” 12. For asset preservation orders, the principles from Aspatra Sdn Bhd & 21 Ors v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd & Anor (1988) 1 MLJ 97 SC require - (1) a good arguable case on the merits; (2) assets within the jurisdiction; (3) a real risk that assets will be dissipated; and (4) that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. The "good arguable case” standard as explained in Biasamas Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kan Yan Heng & Anor (1998) 4 MLJ 1 CA, requires more than a barely arguable case but need not reach the level of a prima facie case - it must be one with a fair chance of success. (c) Mandatory Injunction: Exceptional Circumstances 13. Mandatory relief requiring positive action demands more stringent justification, as established in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396 and adopted locally. The court must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist and that the mandatory order is necessary to preserve the status quo or to prevent continuing breaches that cause immediate irreparable harm. Ill. FACTUAL MATRIX AND EVIDENCE ANALYSIS 14. The Company operates Lane 23, a luxury nightclub and bistro occupying premium premises at TRX. The evidence establishes that before the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of 19 May 2025, both Plaintiffs served as directors alongside the 1° and 2™ Defendants, with equal representation on the Board. This corporate structure was governed by a detailed Constitution and Shareholders Agreement dated 9 November 2024 (SHA), which contained specific provisions regarding Board management, conflict disclosure and default events. (i) The MateMate Energy Conflict 15. Central to this dispute is the fact that the Plaintiffs are the sole shareholders of Mate Mate Sdn Bhd ("MMSB"), the manufacturer and distributor of MateMate Natural Energy Drink. Without disclosure to the Board as required by s 221 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016), the Plaintiffs caused the Company to expend RM163,273.32 purchasing MateMate Energy from MMSB, thereby creating a direct conflict of interest and secret profit reaped for the Plaintiffs’ benefits. (ii) Pattern of Asset Misappropriation 16. On 29 April 2025, exactly ten (10) days after the Notice of Requisition for the Plaintiffs' removal as directors, the 2" Plaintiff caused the registered trademarks TM2024020908 (Class 43) and TM2024020905 (Class 41) to be assigned to herself personally without Board resolution, consideration or the Company’s knowledge. 17. The 1% Plaintiff also orchestrated the misappropriation of the Company's EUR453,928 L-Acoustics sound system by executing a sham agreement with Motifv8, claiming personal payment of EUR366,889.35, when this amount was actually paid by the Company, intending to claim ownership by paying only the remaining EUR87,038.65. (iii) Business Interference 18. Despite the Ex-parte Ad Interim Injunction Order, the Plaintiffs embarked on a tactical ambush of business interference including defamatory social media posts on the Company's official TikTok account @lane23.kl and a separate @lane23.truth account making false allegations of gangster intimidation and xenophobia. Anonymous emails were also issued out to international DJ Grossomodo's management containing damaging misinformation about — criminal investigations and drug-related activities of the Defendants, resulting in performance cancellation and the artist performing at a competitor venue; and the unauthorized termination of security services exposing the Company to legal liability. IV. APPLICATION OF THE TESTS FOR INJUNCTION A. Serious Issues to be Tried / Good Arguable Case 1. Secret Profits and Breach of Statutory Duties 19. S221 CA 2016 mandates that directors disclose any direct or indirect interest in contracts with the company "as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the director's knowledge.” The Plaintiffs' failure to disclose their ownership of MMSB while causing the Company to purchase RM163,273.32 of MateMate Energy constitutes a clear breach of this statutory provision. 20. The High Court in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Lee Son Hong & 7 Lg (2024) CLUJU 2926 HC at [85]-[97] held that non- disclosure under S 221 ca 2016 constitutes breach of fiduciary duty where the director places personal interest in conflict with company interests. Similarly, in Pan Malaysian Pools Sdn Bhd v Kwan Tat Thai & Anor and other appeals (2018) 4 MLJ 461 CA, the Court of Appeal found liability for secret profits arising from an employee's undisclosed pecuniary relationships with the employer's vendors. 21. The evidence establishes prima facie breach of the fundamental fiduciary principle that directors must act in the company's best interests and avoid conflicts of interest, as articulated in FGV Holdings Bhd (formerly known as “Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd”) v Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad & Anor (2024) 12 MLJ 503 HC. 2. Conversion and Misappropriation of Company Assets 22. The Federal Court's decision in Low Cheng Teik & Ors v Low Ean Nee (2024) 5 MLJ 580 FC is directly on point, holding that a unilateral trademark assignment by directors without the Board’s knowledge or approval constitutes wrongful conduct that harms the company. The timing of the assignment that took place within days of the removal notice of the Plaintiffs as 10 directors demonstrates deliberate retaliation and the misappropriation of the Company's assets. 23. The High Court's analysis in GS Yuasa Corp v GBI Marketing Malaysia Sdn Bhd (2017) 8 MLJ 166 HC identified the key indicators of sham trademark assignments include the assignment for nominal consideration without commercial justification; the absence of negotiations; the lack of payment documentation; and the unexplained delays in registration. These factors are present here, with the additional element of timing suggesting fraudulent intent by the Plaintiffs. 24. Also, the 1% Plaintiffs scheme to claim ownership of the EUR453,928 L-Acoustics system by paying only EUR87,038.65 while falsely claiming personal payment of EUR366,889.35 constitutes attempted conversion of company property. The recent High Court decision in Bina Harta Group Sdn Bhd & Ors v Yee Chee Pang & Anor (2025) MLJU 625 HC at [26]-[27] which found the systematic diversion of company funds to constitute serious triable issues warranting interim relief. 3. Unlawful Interference with Economic Interests 25. The tort of unlawful interference with trade or business requires proof of the interference with business; that it was done via 11 unlawful means; with the intention to injure; and causing resulting damage (see Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (sole proprietor of the firm Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) (2009) 3 MLJ 525 HC). The coordinated social media campaign and deliberate sabotage of the Grossomodo performance satisfy all elements. 26. Unlawful interference arises when unlawful means are used with the object of causing damage (see: Worldwide Rota Dies Sdn Bhd v Ronald Ong Cheow Joon (2010) 8 MLJ 297 HC). Here, the defamatory publications and anonymous sabotage clearly aimed to damage the Company's reputation and business relationships. 4. Conspiracy to Injure 27. The elements from Renault SA v Inokom Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals (2010) 5 MLJ 394 CA are satisfied: where the agreement between the Plaintiffs (husband and wife acting in concert); with their purpose to injure the Company (evidenced by timing and coordination); their acts in execution (trademark theft, sound system scheme, business interference); and (the resulting damage (operational disruption, reputational harm, asset loss). 12 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Shareholders Agreement 28. The Plaintiffs’ conduct violates multiple fiduciary obligations including the duty of loyalty, good faith, full disclosure and acting in the Company's best interests. Cl. 10.2 SHA identifies as default events including the failure to observe agreement terms, involvement in competing businesses, fraudulent acts and conduct injuring the Company's reputation. All the defaulting events are all established here from the Plaintiffs’ actions. B. Inadequacy of Damages 1. Irreparable Harm to Unique Assets and Goodwill 29. The Lane 23 trademark represents the Company's distinctive identity as TRX's exclusive premium nightclub. As emphasised in Low Cheng Teik (supra), trademark rights are inherently unique, and their misappropriation causes harm that cannot be adequately quantified or compensated monetarily. The exclusive positioning in a premium location creates goodwill that, once damaged, cannot be easily restored. 30. Lane 23's unique position as TRX's exclusive licensed nightclub creates irreparable harm impossible to quantify. The trademark represents a distinctive brand identity central to operations. Ongoing social media attacks and performance sabotage cause 13 continuing reputational damage that, once lost, cannot be restored monetarily. The ongoing social media attacks and business interference create continuing harm that defies precise calculation. Each defamatory post, cancelled performance, and reputational attack compounds the damage. In Bina Harta Group v Yee Chee Pang (2025), the Court recognised that harm going to a company's very existence cannot be adequately compensated by damages alone, particularly where ongoing breaches pose existential threats. 2. Market Position and Business Relationships 31. Lane 23's exclusive position as TRX's only licensed nightclub creates unique business relationships with international artists, premium customers, and corporate partners. The sabotage of the Grossomodo performance demonstrates how easily these relationships can be damaged, with ripple effects throughout the industry that cannot be quantified or restored through monetary compensation. C. Real Risk of Asset Dissipation 1. Unauthorized Cash Removal 32. CCTV footage capturing the Plaintiffs removing cash from the Company safe without Board authorization provides compelling 14 evidence of dissipation risk. In Alami Vegetable Oj! Products Sdn Bhd v Mohammed Radwan Alami & Ors (2019) MLJU 802 HC at [40], the High Court held that unauthorised withdrawal of company funds, unsupported by documentation furnished, clearly evidenced dissipation risk. 2. Pattern of Asset Flight 33. The pattern is clear: a secret trademark assignment immediately after a removal notice; an attempted sound system misappropriation through fraudulent documentation; unauthorised cash removal without accounting; and continued defiance of court orders. This demonstrates escalating disregard for corporate governance and legal obligations. 3. Sophisticated Concealment Methods 34. The Plaintiffs' use of sham agreements, backdated documents, and anonymous communications reveals sophisticated methods of concealment, increasing the likelihood of successful asset dissipation if unchecked. Their legal sophistication and international connections (foreign passports) heighten the risk of cross-border asset movement. 15 D. Balance of Convenience 35. The balance favours the Company. The injunctions preserve legitimate business operations and prevent further asset misappropriation. Plaintiffs suffer no genuine prejudice as orders merely restrain unlawful conduct they have no right to perform. Without relief, the Company faces extinction, given its exclusive license and reputation-dependent business model. Public interest favours preventing director misconduct and protecting corporate governance. 36. The Company seeks only to preserve its lawful business operations, protect corporate assets from further misappropriation, and maintain its reputation pending trial. These represent fundamental corporate interests deserving protection. The Company faces extinction without interim relief, given the exclusive nature of its TRX license and its reliance on its reputation in the entertainment industry. 37. The injunctions merely restrain the Plaintiffs from conduct they have no lawful right to perform. Any inconvenience is self- imposed through their own misconduct. They retain the ability to pursue any legitimate claims through proper legal channels while being restrained only from further damaging conduct. 16 38. The public interest strongly favours preventing directors from misappropriating corporate assets and violating fiduciary duties with impunity. Corporate governance depends on effective judicial intervention to restrain directorial misconduct. The integrity of Malaysia's business environment requires robust protection of corporate assets from insider abuse. 39. The Company's employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders deserve protection from the continuing harm caused by the Plaintiffs' conduct. The exclusive nightclub license represents significant public investment in TRX development that internal corporate disputes should not undermine. V. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND PROPORTIONALITY 40. The restraints on physical access, interference with operations, and further asset misappropriation are narrowly tailored to prevent continuation of established harmful conduct while preserving the Plaintiffs' legitimate rights. The 500-meter exclusion zone around Lane 23 is reasonable given the evidence of physical confrontations and the need to ensure uninterrupted business operations. 17 41. The RM10,000,000 preservation limit for each Plaintiff is proportionate to the scale of potential claims and established asset values. The disclosure requirements follow standard Mareva practice and are essential for effective asset preservation. 42. The requirement to remove defamatory content addresses continuing publication causing immediate harm. The asset disclosure obligations are standard in Mareva proceedings and necessary for proper preservation of assets pending disposal of this action. 43. The fundamental principle governing Mareva injunctions is that they should not unduly interfere with a defendant's ability to conduct ordinary business. As established in Halifax plc v Chandler (2001) EWCA Civ 1750: "The purpose of a freezing injunction is not to interfere with the defendant's ordinary business or his ordinary way of life... there can be no objection in principle to the defendant's dealing in the ordinary way with his business and with his other creditors.” 44. The Court in /raqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co. S.A. (The Angel Bell) (1981) Q.B. 65 ("Angel Bell") held that 18 defendants should be free to make payments they consider necessary in the ordinary course of business, even where the legality of such payments is disputed. 45. The evidence establishes a compelling case of corporate misconduct requiring immediate judicial intervention. The Plaintiffs have engaged in deliberate asset misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duties, and coordinated business interference causing irreparable harm to the Company's unique business operations. 46. All legal tests for interim relief are comprehensively satisfied. The serious triable issues are overwhelming; damages would be wholly inadequate given the unique nature of the assets and the continuing harm; and the balance of convenience decisively favours the preservation of the Company's legitimate interests. 47. The public interest in maintaining corporate governance standards and protecting legitimate business operations strongly supports continuation of the interim orders. Without such relief, the Company faces imminent collapse, and the integrity of the judicial process would be undermined by allowing continued asset dissipation and business interference pending trial. 19 VI. CONCLUSION 48. The evidence establishes some corporate fiduciary misconduct requiring immediate intervention. Although not conclusive, the proof of deliberate asset misappropriation, fiduciary breaches, and coordinated business interference would have caused some irreparable harm to the business operations. 49. Although the Plaintiffs deny the allegation of misconduct, they have demonstrated a calculated pattern of conduct to appropriate corporate assets and destroy business goodwill in retaliation for their lawful removal as directors. The timing, coordination and reactions cannot negate those incidents as isolated or mere misunderstandings. 50.In balancing fairness to both parties, this court continues the ad interim orders with variations mentioned at the beginning. The summary of my decision is the following: (a) The evidence discloses serious triable issues on seven causes of action: secret profits, trademark misappropriation, sound system misappropriation, unlawful interference with business, conspiracy to injure, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of SHA. These are not frivolous claims but substantial allegations supported by documentary evidence. 20 (b) |The Company has demonstrated considerably more than a barely arguable case. The documentary evidence (corporate searches, trademark records, purchase invoices, CCTV footage, social media screenshots) is substantial and unrebutted. The Plaintiffs have filed no opposing affidavits. Hence, the Company has a fair chance of succeeding at trial. (c) The harm to the Company, i.e. the loss of its unique trademark, damage to business reputation and goodwill, loss of competitive position, regulatory and contractual consequences cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. The harms. are intangible, unquantifiable, and potentially permanent. Only injunctive relief provides effective protection. (d) The Plaintiffs have substantial assets within Malaysia, including MMSB shareholdings, bank accounts, and personal property. This element is easily satisfied. (e) The Plaintiffs’ past conduct of misappropriating the Company's assets, the unauthorised cash removal and the failure to account for funds demonstrate a real and substantial risk that they could and would dissipate the Company's and also their assets to frustrate the judgment. The risk is solidly grounded in evidence, not speculation. 21 (f) |The balance decisively favours granting the ad interim injunction. The Company faces immediate, irreparable harm if the injunction is refused. The Plaintiffs face only temporary restraint from unlawful conduct, with adequate safeguards for living expenses and legal costs and with complete remedy through the undertaking if the restraint proves unjustified. The harms, the strength of the Company's case and the status quo considerations all favour in maintaining the ad interim injunction. (g) The Company has presented sufficient documentary proof. While the Plaintiffs have offered no evidence in response to negate the Company’s contentions. Their written submissions raise procedural objections that do not withstand the evidence void. Where substantial evidence meets silence, and where the evidence documents wrongdoing, the case for interim relief is compelling. (h) The Plaintiffs' demonstrated contempt of the Ex-parte Ad Interim Injunction Order by publishing additional defamatory posts after being served with the order heightens the necessity for continued restraint. They have shown they will not voluntarily comply with the law or respect judicial authority. Only continuing injunctive relief, will protect the Company's interests pending trial. 22 51. If the Plaintiffs dissipate assets, any judgment will be unenforceable. If the 2"¢ Plaintiff sells or licenses the trademark to third parties, the Company may be unable to recover it. If continuing defamation destroys the business's reputation, the Company may close before trial. Interim relief is not merely convenient but necessary to preserve the possibility of effective final relief. Dated 20" August 2025 Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi Judicial Commissioner Kuala Lumpur High Court NCvC 8 Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Plaintiffs Counsel : Haris bin Md Nor Messrs Adnan Sharida & Associates Defendant's Counsel : Muhammad Hiqmar Danial bin Hidzir Messrs Cheang & Ariff 23 Cases referred: Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors (1995) 1 MLJ 193 CA Jaya Sudhir a/| Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors (2019) 5 MLJ 1 FC SV Beverages Holdings Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors v Kickapoo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (2008) 4 MLJ 187 CA S & F International Limited v Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd (1985) 1 MLJ 62 FC Bouvier v Accent Delight International Ltd (2015) SGCA 45 Singapore Court of Appeal Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v Lee Yee Wuen (2022) 7 CLJ 505 CA Aspatra Sdn Bhd & 21 Ors v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd & Anor (1988) 1 MLJ 97 SC Biasamas Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kan Yan Heng & Anor (1998) 4 MLJ 1 CA American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396 WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Lee Son Hong & 1 Lg (2024) CLJU 2926 HC Pan Malaysian Pools Sdn Bhd v Kwan Tat Thai & Anor and other appeals (2018) 4 MLJ 461 CA FGV Holdings Bhd (formerly known as “Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd”) v Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad & Anor (2024) 12 MLJ 503 HC Low Cheng Teik & Ors v Low Ean Nee (2024) 5 MLJ 580 FC GS Yuasa Corp v GBI Marketing Malaysia Sdn Bhd (2017) 8 MLJ 166 HC 24 Bina Harta Group Sdn Bhd & Ors v Yee Chee Pang & Anor (2025) MLJU 625 HC Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (sole proprietor of the firm Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) (2009) 3 MLJ 525 HC Worldwide Rota Dies Sdn Bhd v Ronald Ong Cheow Joon (2010) 8 MLJ 297 HC Renault SA v Inokom Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals (2010) 5 MLJ 394 CA Alami Vegetable Oil Products Sdn Bhd v Mohammed Radwan Alami & Ors (2019) MLJU 802 HC Halifax plc v Chandler (2001) EWCA Civ 1750 Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co. S.A. (The Angel Bell) (1981) Q.B. Acts/Laws referred: O 45 R 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 S 221 of the Companies Act 2016 25