LIM Wee Loo v 1. ) LIM May Chin (NA-22NCC-6-03/2025)

LIM MAY CHIN [NRIC No. 650205-04-5224]

LEOW KOK CHUNG [NRIC No. 731229-08-5479]

YOONG SEE NIE [NRIC No. 901207-04-5088]

[1] The Plaintiff brings the three Defendants to this Court to recover RM965,000.00 she claims she had lent them. The legal dispute between them centers on the nature of the said RM965,000.00 transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendants' personal bank accounts. [2] The first key area is the argument of a friendly loan versus business investment. The Plaintiff contends that the funds were personal loans provided to the Defendants, specifically through an arrangement with the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant who promised a 3% monthly interest rate. The Plaintiff asserts that these loans are outstanding and must be repaid. Conversely, the Defendants deny the existence of any loan. They argue that the money was for Plan B, a business scheme within the company Eostre, used for opening 832 accounts and ordering stock to help the Plaintiff achieve the Legacy Duke sales rank. The Plaintiff maintains that Plan B was merely the name given to the loan arrangement and that the funds were never funneled into Eostre's corporate accounts but remained under the Defendants' personal control. [3] Next, is the validity of the Repayment Agreement. A significant point of contention is a Repayment Agreement signed by the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant on 12.6.2024, in which she allegedly acknowledged the debt and agreed to a monthly repayment plan of RM50,000.00. The Plaintiff maintains the document is an undisputed written admission of the debt. The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant claims she was pressured or forced to sign the Repayment Agreement due to fear and pressure during a meeting, though there was never any police report lodged by the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant regarding this alleged duress. [4] The Defendants have filed a counterclaim for RM1,116,965.00 asserting that they actually advanced RM2,134,400 of their own money to help the Plaintiff reach her sales targets. The Plaintiff disputes this entirely, arguing it is an afterthought designed to evade liability, and points out that the Defendants have failed to produce any receipts, invoices, or bank statements proving they ever advanced such a sum. [5] There is an allegation of illegal moneylending during the trial. The Defendants' counsel suggested that the Plaintiff acted as an unlicensed moneylender by charging an exorbitant 3% monthly interest rate. The Plaintiff's legal team objected, stating this was an upleaded defense (trial by ambush) and argued that the interest rate was a plan offered by the $ ^{1st} $ Defendant herself to entice the Plaintiff to provide funding. Official Business Model of Eostre Sdn Bhd [6] The backdrop of the case concerns the business of Eostre Sdn Bhd (Eostre) and the Plaintiff's alleged participation or membership into the business. There is nothing too complicated and this Court sets out what it is before iterating the facts of the case borne by the evidence at trial. [7] Based on the testimony and evidence provided at trial, the investment and business model at Eostre operates though MLM structure centered on digital credits and sales rankings. Eostre is a product-based direct-selling company. The official business model consists of three main steps: rewards are often paid out in the form of ERP credits added to the member's account. [10] While ERP is used for purchases, the system tracks earnings though other points. EBP which is Eostre Bonus Points represent the actual commission earned by an agent. Unlike ERP, EBP can be requested for withdrawal as cash directly into the agent's bank account. Loyalty points called YIPPS are considered a form of commission reward. EBC is a point value representing the quota or capacity a member has to receive commission. Facts of the Case [11] A total of four witnesses gave evidence at full trial, the Plaintiff herself and Chia Chin Kang, the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) and Director of Eostre (PW2) who testified regarding the company's business model. The $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant, a high-ranking agent in Eostre took the witness stand and Cheng Chin Li (DW2), a member of the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's team and the owner of 'kcleow65' account used for ERP credit transfers. This Court was informed that the Defendants attempted to call one Agnes Thai Sook Foong as a subpoenaed witness, but it was withdrawn after the Defendants claimed that she was hospitalized in Taiwan. The $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ and $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Defendants did not testify. [12] The Plaintiff is a professional architect who, in May 2023, was introduced to the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant was a highranking agent within Eostre. The Plaintiff initially visited Eostre to learn about its products. She explicitly informed the 1st Defendant that she had no experience in direct selling or the multi-level marketing (MLM) business model. She testified that she was not interested in the complexities of selling products or fighting for sales ranks. Instead, her primary concern was the safety of her funds. She wanted an arrangement where her principal sum was guaranteed and returned within a specific time frame. [13] In response to the Plaintiff's inexperience, the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant introduced the Plaintiff to Plan B as an alternative. The Plaintiff contends she was presented Plan B as a loan arrangement rather than a direct selling business model. Under the terms of Plan B, the Plaintiff would provide capital as a loan, and in return, the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant promised a 3% monthly interest rate with the full principal sum to be returned after six months. The Plaintiff viewed this as a 'simple one-to-one loan' rather than a risky business venture. [14] During the cross-examination of the Plaintiff, the Defendants challenged this contention arguing that the money was actually a business investment intended to open 832 downline accounts and purchase ERP credits to help the Plaintiff achieve the high-ranking Legacy Duke status. They pointed out that the Plaintiff had attended Eostre's functions, meetings, and overseas trips, suggesting she was an active agent rather than a mere lender. However, as admitted by the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant, there is no documentary evidence such as bank statements or receipts to prove that the RM965,000.00 was ever funneled into Eostre's corporate accounts or used for product orders. The Plaintiff asserted that her attendance at Eostre's events and overseas trips were strictly as an invitee and under the direction of the 1st Defendant, rather than an active business operator. In her words 'AI was managed by the 1st Defendant ... when she invited me, I went to all the functions.' She emphasized that she never personally sold Eostre products, or accessed any account (even the jpp0006 account that the Defendant contended was hers) or managed any digital credits (ERP), viewing those Eostre events as social or ceremonial obligations rather than business operations. She further testified that the overseas business trips were not free business rewards as she paid for her own airfare and 'topped up' hotel costs when the 1st Defendant told her the company required it. She maintains that while she was technically a 'member' according to what she was told, her actual role was limited to being a capital provider for a personal loan arrangement. Regarding the International Leadership Recognition event in Bangkok when she was photographed on stage for the Legacy Duke rank, she explained that she went on stage because the 1st Defendant had directed her to. She maintained she did not understand the ranking system and was simply following the lad of the person managing her funds. This evidence was not successfully rebuked by the Defendants at trial. [16] The Defendants' other witness DW2, actually corroborated the Plaintiff's description of Plan B. DW2 admitted that the arrangement involved providing money in exchange for 3% interest and a return of capital after six months. While the Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff owner the 'jpp006' account, they could not produce system records actually showing her name as the owner. [17] While the Eostre system explicitly lists the full name of the Plaintiff for account jpp006, the Plaintiff testified that she has no knowledge of the account, no password, and has never accessed it. She maintains that the 1st Defendant managed all the digital aspects of the business. Evidence reveals that the join date for account jpp006 was 14.12.2022. This is significant because the Plaintiff was not yet introduced to the 1st Defendant or Eostre then. A fact that has not been dislodged is that the Plaintiff was introduced to the 1st Defendant and Eostre in May 2023, which is roughly 5 months later that the opening date of the said account. [18] To explain this timeline gap, DW2 and Eostre's director PW2 testified that usernames and ownership details can be edited or replaced in the system, provided the account has not yet been verified with a national ID (NRIC). This suggests the account may have existed under a different name before allegedly being assigned to the Plaintiff. Yet, there is nothing adduced to show this Court that the Plaintiff had overtaken another existing account and when that was done. [19] The Defendants produced 21 pages of transactions statements (Bundle B, pages 113-133) to prove they had used the Plaintiff's money to buy ERP credits. However, these documents failed to clearly link the funds to her. During the cross-examination of the $ ^{1st} $ Defendant, she admitted that the Plaintiff's name or 'Alysia' does not appear anywhere in the records showing the transfer of 1,123,200 ERP credits. The credits were transferred from account kcleow65 owned by DW2 to hundreds of other accounts with usernames like bueno64 or bueno65. DW2 testified under oath that he did not know who actually owned or control these receiving accounts. There is no evidence of any money trail that connects the Plaintiff's RM965,000.00 to any legitimate business activity at Eostre on her behalf. [20] Furthermore, Eostre's company policy strictly prohibits personal loan arrangements among members, reinforcing that Plan B was an unauthorized private deal outside of company operations. [21] The Plaintiff made several and formal efforts to recover the RM965,000.00 loan. The Defendants' responses were characterized by evasion, the provision of unreasonable excuses, and the assertion that the funds were business investments rather than a loan. The Plaintiff testified that she made repeated efforts to contact the Defendants to get her money back. She used the 'Alysia - Plan B Account Reconciliation Group' on WhatsApp to track the tranches of funds and interest payments, which were managed by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff had sought security for her capital; she had asked the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant to provide a promissory note or a written loan agreement, but the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant had delayed until she eventually failed to provide any written agreement to the Plaintiff. Instead of providing a promissory note for the Plaintiff's loan, the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant reportedly showed the Plaintiff promissory notes she had with other lenders from Taiwan to reassure the Plaintiff. [22] Between 2.7.2023 and 30.4.2024, the Defendants made partial payments totaling RM165,421.00. Although the Plaintiff characterizes these as interest instalments on the loan, the Defendants later argued that these were 'sales profits' from the Eostre business. There is no evidence produced at trial to show such sales profits. [23] After the Defendants continued to fail and refuse to pay the principal sum as promised, the Plaintiff filed a police report regarding their actions. [24] Pursuant to the failure on the part of the Defendants to repay the amount owed to the Plaintiff, the latter sought the assistance from Dato Tan Too Hau on 12.6.2024. Dato Tan is described as a founder of Midoc International, an independent network marketing team within Eostre. The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant identified him as her leader and upline during her testimony, He was seen as the mediator or facilitator between the parties due this his high-ranking position and influence over the sales team. A meeting was convened involving the Plaintiff, the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant, Dato Tan, Ng Choon Ming and other witnesses including one Roy Lim (who was terms as one of the bosses of Eostre) and one Dato Sri Kenneth Yap. [25] During this meeting, Dato Tan proposed a payment plan. The 1st Defendant signed this Repayment Agreement which outlined a schedule to repay the RM865,000.00 through RM50,000.00 monthly instalments of over 18 months. The Repayment Plan also suggested alternative settlement methods, such as using units from a growth fund or digital ERP credits. In this Court during the trial, the 1st Defendant argued that she only signed the Repayment Plan because she felt fear and pressure when surrounded by the group during the meeting. She testified that Dato Tan told her that the Repayment Agreement was only temporary and that the formal version would be drafted by lawyers later. There was no complaint or police reports filed by the 1st Defendant then or ever for the alleged forced signature which undermines her claims for duress. It only surfaced at trial. [26] Following the meeting, the Plaintiff's solicitors prepared a formal Repayment Agreement dated 3.7.2024 to reflect the agreed-upon terms. However, the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant failed to attend the signing and has refused to sign the formal document or make any payments under the initial plan. [27]. The Eostre management became aware of the personal loan arrangement through multiple channels, including direct presence at the 12.6.2024 meeting and several prior complaints. Eostre high level management was present when the Plaintiff's debt was discussed. The Plaintiff testified that the meeting to recover her funds was witnessed by five people, including Roy Lim who was the described one of the three bosses at Eostre. PW2, one of Eostre's director and CMO testified that the company had received many complaints regarding the 1st Defendant's activities prior to her termination. These complaints involved the 1st Defendant conducting activities prior to her termination. These complaints involved the 1st Defendant conducting activities that were inconsistent with the company's business model and official policies. [28] At trial, it was adduced that Eostre management maintains that the personal loan agreement, Plan B was a direct violation of corporate rules. PW2 testified that Eostre is a direct selling product-based company and that any activity involving personal loans or loan arrangements is completely contrary to the company policy. Eostre management concluded that the $ ^{1st} $ Defendant was introducing a business model based on loans rather than the company's authorized direct selling of health products. The primary action taken by Eostre was the termination of the $ ^{1st} $ Defendant's agency account. Although the termination letter dated 13.8.2025 refers to the plural agent accounts, she was terminated from the company's hierarchy. [29] On 11.6.2024, one day before the 12.6.2024 meeting, an Undertaking Letter was signed between the $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Defendant and Mersun Trading to move a large portion of the sales hierarchy out of the $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's network and into a separate chain, effectively stripping the $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Defendant of control over those accounts. Since the termination, Eostre management has refused to cooperate with the $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's legal team regarding requests for details on the accounts that were transferred away from her. [30] The $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant was officially terminated on 13.8.2025. The reasons for the termination are violating policy by operating unauthorized loan arrangements like Plan B, reputational damage as Eostre management had determined that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's action had the potential to damage the company's reputation and created significant tension within the market and sales force, and high volume of adverse complaints that Eostre received from other members regarding the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's unauthorized activities. Legal Arguments [31] The Defendants argued that it was not a personal loan but a business investment. In the alternative, they allege that the Plaintiff acted as an unlicensed moneylender by charging an exorbitant 3% monthly interest rate. This alternative argument is unpleaded. [32] The Plaintiff contends that the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant's signature on the 12.6.2024 document constitutes a clear written admission of debt. The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant maintains that she never intended to pay, claiming she cannot afford it and noting that she has since been terminated by Eostre. [33] The Plaintiff further extends her legal argument on the non-calling of witnesses said to be material for defence including the $ 2^{n d} $ Defendant and the $ 3^{r d} $ Defendant themselves, hence applying this Court to draw adverse inference against the Defendants. All the arguments are taken in the assessment by this Court in the paragraphs that follow. This Court's assessment Loan v Investment [34] The evidence establishes that Plan B was offered by the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant to the Plaintiff. Although Plan B was not in any written form, there contemporaneous documentary evidence to show that the Plaintiff had indeed transferred sums totaling to RM965,000.00 through 52 online bank transfers between 25.5.2023 and 22.11.2023. These funds were directly into the personal bank accounts of the Defendants and one associate entity rather than to Eostre's corporate accounts. [35] The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant received a total of RM633,000.00 across accounts at Maybank Bank Berhad account no. 105055237103 and AmBank Bank Berhad account no. 88810299831091. The 2 $ ^{nd} $ Defendant received a total of RM164,000.00 in his Maybank Bank Berhad account no. 112362172186. The 3 $ ^{rd} $ Defendant received a total of RM145,000.00 in her Public Bank Berhad account no 6886431734. MMS Health PLT received RM23,000.00 in its Alliance Bank Berhad account no 040100010437903 based on the instructions of the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant. [36] The transfers of the said amount as stipulated above are not disputed. The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant herself admitted to the same in her cross-examination. There is also documentary evidence in the form of their WhatsApp conversation in the chat group Alysia - Plan B Reconciliation Group and also the Repayment Agreement on 12.6.2024. [37] Despite claiming the money was a business investment for stock and account openings, the Defendants cannot show where the money went after it entered their personal accounts. During the $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Defendant's cross-examination, she conceded that there are no documentary evidence such as bank statements, receipts or invoices showing these funds were ever transferred to Eostre's corporate accounts or used to purchase stock. She explicitly agreed that there is nothing in the evidence to show to whom or where the money was thereafter funneled. Though the Defendants claimed the money was converted into ERP credits, DW2 admitted that he did not know who actually owned or controlled the hundreds of accounts that received the credits in the digital system. The Defendants were unable to show their contention on the conversion of ERP credits to whichever accounts they alleged was/were the Plaintiff's. [38] There is also the evidence whereby the Plaintiff did not know nor was she involved in any orders or transactions regarding Eostre and its products. The Defendants have dislodged this fact. They are unable to show any involvement of the Plaintiff in the account opening, holding or handling. They have also failed to adduce evidence to show on a balance of probabilities that any of the accounts at Eostre really belonged to the Plaintiff. [39] All these serve as receipt and indebtedness corroborating the Plan B contended by the Plaintiff. Moreover, evidence reveal that there was part-payment of RM165,421.00 made by the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant between July 2023 and March 2024. This constitutes an unequivocal admission of debt. Cases such as Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v Lewis & Co [2017] MLJU 906; [2017] MLRHU 667; [2017] CLJU 964 and Manivanan Kuppusamy v Datuk Ganesan Subramaniam [2025] MLRHU 77; [2025] MLJU 108; [2025] CLJ 86 stipulates that partial payments unequivocally signify an acknowledgment and admission of indebtedness. Similarly, in Khor Boon Hong v Ooi Tse Bing [2024] MLJU 49; [2024] MLRSU 19; [2024] SMCU 5, it was held that consistent monthly payments are characteristic of debt repayment rather than fluctuating business commissions, as in this case. [43] The Plaintiff testified that she has no moneylending license but maintained that she did not offer the terms, rather, they were part of Plan B proposed by the 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant to secure funding. The evidence does not show a system, continuity or advertising that would classify the Plaintiff as being in the business of moneylending. It is noted that the Plaintiff has abandoned the claim for the 3% interest and only seeks the return of her RM965,000.00 principal sum. [44] There is inconsistency of the Defendant's pleadings. Paragraph 10 of the Defense originally pleaded that the RM965,000.00 was a business investment for opening account and stock. This Court will not allow the Defendants to approbate and reprobate simultaneously claiming the funds were for Eostre stocks (to justify keeping the funds) and an illegal loan (to avoid repaying the sum). This is not a case where the contract is illegal ex facie. This Court finds it a fact that the Plaintiff is not in the business of moneylending. She is a professional architect, was averse to complex multi-level investment, and would, from the looks of it, be more disinclined to such ideas after this case. The Defendants have failed to lead any evidence to show this Court that the Plaintiff operates a system and continuity that would show a business of such alleged moneylending. The decision in Ngui Mui Khin & Anor v Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd [1979] CLJU 60; [1980] 2 MLJ 9; [1979] 1 MLRA 313 that MLA applies to moneylenders, not just moneylending transactions; proving a 'business' requires continuity or system. In this case, this Court concludes that loan granted by the Plaintiff is that of a friendly loan simpliciter - see the Court of Appeal's case of Sureshraj a/l Krishnan v PV Power Enginering Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] CLJU 2746; [2021] MLJU 2504; [2023] MLRA 186. [45] In any event, the Defendants did not raise this in their pleadings. Numerous authorities such as Saiman bin Umar v Lembaga Pertubuhan Pelandang [2015] MLJU 559; [2015] 9 CLJ 153; [2015] 5 AMR 777 and Yew Wan Leong v Lai Kok Chye [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 330; [1990] 2 MLJ 152; [1990] 1 MLRA 327 established the legal principle that courts should not decide issues not raised in pleadings, as the trial must be confined to the pleas on which the parties are at variance. The Federal Court ruled in Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd [2017] 3 MLRA 333; [2017] 2 MLJ 697; [2017] 4 CLJ 1, that any radical departure from a pleaded case must be specifically pleaded, or it ought to be disregarded. [46] Hence, this Court rejects the Defendant's alternative defence of illegal moneylending. The unpleaded defence represents a radical departure from their original business investment narrative, which is legally impermissible as it prejudices the Plaintiff. Substantively, the Defendants failed to prove that the Plaintiff was in the business of moneylending through system or continuity. The Plaintiff has successfully shown that her claim for RM965,000.00 she loaned and transferred to the Defendants' bank accounts is a legal suit to recover the friendly loan simpliciter. [47] This Court is also unable to accept the contention that she was in fear and under duress when she signed the Repayment Agreement on 12.6.2024. There is no evidence of this complaint at the material time. The 1st Defendant did not lodge any police report regarding the alleged duress and being forced to sign the document. Under the principle established in 1 Millennium International Sdn Bhd v Neoh Chee Keong & Anor [2023] MLRHU 53; [2023] MLJU 70, a failure to lodge a police report within reasonable period suggests that a claim of duress is an afterthought designed to evade liability. It is the 1st Defendant's testimony that her refusal to pay was not actually based on duress but rather because she does not want to pay, cannot afford to pay and because her agency with Eostre has been terminated. [48] The evidence additionally shows that the Plan B loan arrangement with the Plaintiff was a continuous series of 52 transactions over several months, rather than a single event. The 1 $ ^{st} $ Defendant was active in managing these tranches through a dedicated WhatsApp chat group. [49] The agreement was moderated by Dato Tan and witnessed by other agents and Eostre management. The $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant confirmed she had signed it voluntarily at that time because she was told it was temporary, which contradicts the narrative of being physically or mentally coerced into an involuntary act. [53] This carries signification weight as this Court is entitled to infer that if the $ 2 ^{n d} $ Defendant, the $ 3 ^{r d} $ Defendant, Ng Choon Ming and Dato Tan had testified, their evidence would have undermined the Defendants' case and supported the Plaintiff's version. Where a party privy to the facts like the $ 2 ^{n d} $ and the $ 3 ^{r d} $ Defendants refrains from giving evidence to refute a claim, the Plaintiff's testimony regarding the loan arrangement is presumed to be true. The failure to call these material witnesses is described as the strongest possible circumstance to discredit the truth of the Defendants' case/ It implies that the business investment narrative is a bare denial or a fabrication designed to avoid liability. [54] The legal position is that for a defendant to choose a tactical move not to call witnesses is permissible, but he cannot complain if the court draws all reasonable adverse inferences from the facts disclosed. See Guthrie Sdn Bhd v Trans-Malaysian Leasing Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 33; [1991] 1 CLJ 155; [1990] 1 MLRA 542. Jaafar bin Shaari & Anor (suing as Administrators of the Estate of Shofiah bte Ahmad, deceased) v Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 3 MLJ 693; [1997] 1 MLRA 605. In this case, it leads to the legal conclusion that the RM865,000.00 was indeed a personal loan and not a business investment of the Plaintiff in Eostre. [55] It is very clear from the evidence that there is no evidence to support the Defendants' counterclaim of RM1,116,965.00. The Defendants had failed to prove that they had advanced any sum to the Plaintiff, most certainly not RM2,124,000.00 as claimed. In the absence of any evidence, the Defendants have not proven on a balance of probabilities their Counterclaim. It is thus, dismissed in its entirety. This Court's Findings [56] As per the evidence proven on a balance of probabilities as assessed above, this Court rules that the Plaintiff has proven her claim against all three Defendants. There is proof of payment on the part of the Plaintiff to the three Defendants under the instruction of the 1st Defendant. There is the 1st Defendant's written admission and also admission by conduct on the part of all three Defendants. This Court dismisses the Defendants' narrative that the money was a business investment for lack of documentary evidence, and it is a clear company policy violation. Adverse inference is drawn against the Defendants for failing to call material witnesses. This Court disregards the unpleaded illegal moneylending argument, which in any event cannot be sustained by the evidence. [57] The Defendants' Counterclaim is hereby dismissed in its entirety as the Defendants had failed to discharge its burden of proof and it seems that it is an afterthought created to solely evade liability based on the evidence of the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant and the election to not give evidence on the part of the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant and the $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Defendant. This Court's Orders [58] In the premises, this Court orders the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Defendant, the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Defendant and the $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Defendant to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM965,000.00. [59] Interests of 5% per annum on the judgment sum until full and final settlement. [60] Costs in the sum of RM30,000.00 subject to allocator. Dated 26 May 2026 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN For the Plaintiff:Mr. Muhammad Izham Bin Pandak Muhamad Susan Lee & CoFor the Defendant:Mr. Gregory Ng Yang & Partners