Malayan Banking Berhad v 1. ) Bina Puri Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-210-05/2022)

BINA PURI SDN BHD (Company No..: 197501001598 (23296-X))

BINA PURI HOLDINGS BERHAD (Company No..: 199001015515 (207184-X))

TAN SRI DATUK TEE HOCK SENG (NRIC No.: 490719-10-5239) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosures 5, 10 and 35) Introduction [1] This case deals with a default of banking facilities by the 1st Defendant. The banking facilities are guaranteed by the 2nd and 3rd S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA Defendants. The 2nd Defendant is the holding company of the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant is a director of the 1st Defendant. [2] The Plaintiff’s claims against the 1st Defendant as the principal borrower under the banking facilities and against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pursuant to their corporate guarantees and personal guarantee respectively. The Defendants in turn have filed a Counterclaim seeking a declaration for the guarantees to be deemed null and void. [3] The Plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment in Enclosure 5 and has also filed an application under Enclosure 10 to strike out the Defendants’ Counterclaim. This is because the Defendants’ Counterclaim is based solely on the same allegations raised in their defence to the Plaintiff’s claim. Thus, in the event that this Court finds for the Plaintiff in Enclosure 5, it stands to reason that Enclosure 10 ought to be allowed as well. [4] Quite apart from Enclosures 5 and 10, there is also before this Court an application under Enclosure 35 which is the Defendants’ application for leave to file a further affidavit affirmed on 27.10.2022 (‘the Further Affidavit’). The Defendants wished to rely on the Further Affidavit for the hearing of Enclosures 5 and 10. However, Enclosure 35 was filed on 27.10.2022, on the eve of the hearing date fixed for Enclosures 5 and 10. Written submissions have already been filed by the parties in respect of both the Enclosures. [5] On 28.10.2022, I instructed counsel to address the Court on Enclosures 5 and 10. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [6] After hearing oral submissions from counsel, I allowed the Plaintiff’s applications under Enclosures 5 and 10, thus rendering Enclosure 35 to be academic. In any case, for the record, I did not consider the Further Affidavit as the same was filed late and after submissions have been filed by parties for Enclosures 5 and 10. [7] This judgment deals with all 3 Enclosures 5, 10 and 35. Background Facts [8] The Plaintiff granted various banking facilities to the 1st Defendant (‘Banking Facilities’) at its request. This is evidenced by the Letter of Offer dated 27.11.2013 and various Renewal Letters of Offer, Letters of Approval for Additional Banking Facilities, Letters of Notification and Facilities Agreement dated 18.12.2013 which were duly accepted and executed by the 1st Defendant in respect of the Banking Facilities. [9] In consideration of the Banking Facilities granted to the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant executed three (3) Corporate Guarantees, one dated 20.10.2015 and two others dated on 2.6.2016. The 3rd Defendant executed one (1) Personal Guarantee dated 12.11.2018. The 3 Corporate Guarantees and the Personal Guarantee shall be referred collectively as ‘the Guarantees’. [10] The Personal Guarantee had come about in this manner. The 1st Defendant had difficulties paying the Banking Facilities. At the request of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff by a letter dated 18.10.2018 agreed to a repayment arrangement subject to the S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA following terms and conditions, inter alia, which were duly accepted by the 1st to the 3rd Defendants:

Balance of the Outstanding Debts

To allow you to pay a monthly repayment of RM977,000.00 each for 12 months first with effect from October 2018 to September 2019 from the Progress Payments/Contract Proceeds and/or Retention Sum received from the Awarders

(ii) All the remaining Progress Payments/Contract Proceeds and Retention Sums to be received from the Awarders for all Projects financed by the Bank which will be credited to the Collection Account is allowed to be treated as advance payment for the monthly repayment of RM977,000.00.

(iii) Should the Progress Payments/Contract Proceeds and Retention Sums in the Collection Account is not sufficient for the monthly repayment of RM977,000.00, you are to remit the shortfall to your account accordingly.

Fresh Individual Guarantee by Tan Sri Datuk Tee Hock Seng for RM163.28 million. It was pursuant to the aforesaid that the 3rd Defendant provided the Plaintiff the Personal Guarantee. [11] The terms and conditions of the above repayment arrangement were further revised by, inter alia, the following documents:

Plaintiff’s Letter of Offer (Renewal and Restructuring of Banking Facilities) dated 11.6.2019;

(ii) Plaintiff’s letter (Renewal of Banking Facilities) to the 1st Defendant dated 23.12.2019,

(iii) Plaintiff’s letter (Moratorium of Payment (Covid-19)) to the 1st Defendant dated 6.4.2020;

(iv) Plaintiff’s letter (Renewal of Letter of Offer) to the 1st Defendant dated 27.8.2020;

Plaintiff’s Supplementary Letter of Offer to the 1st Defendant dated 2.2.2021;

(vi) Plaintiff’s Supplementary Letter of Offer to the 1st Defendant dated 15.4.2021; and

(vii) Plaintiff’s letter to the 1st Defendant dated 20.8.2021. (collectively the ‘Supporting Documents for the Repayment Arrangement’) [12] By a letter dated 3.9.2021 from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant pleaded the Plaintiff to, inter alia, allow the 2nd payment of RM1.4million for the Debt Service Reserve Account to be paid in 4 monthly instalments commencing from September 2021. [13] By a reply letter dated 27.10.2021 to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff informed that the Plaintiff was not agreeable to the 1st Defendant’s request to pay the 2nd payment of RM1.4million by way of 4 monthly instalments. The Plaintiff further stated, inter alia, that the Plaintiff was prepared on a few occasions to extend the tenure for repayment of outstanding balance and interest servicing under the Banking Facilities at the requests of the 1st Defendant (‘Repayment Assistance’). However, due to the 1st Defendant’s non-compliance S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA with the terms and conditions stipulated by the Plaintiff, the Repayment Assistance has lapsed and ceased to have any further effect. [14] In the same letter, the Plaintiff also demanded the 1st Defendant to, inter alia, fully settle the outstanding amount of RM12,653,752.59 under the Banking Facilities by 3.11.2021 failing which the Plaintiff would exercise all rights under the Security Documents including recalling or cancelling all the Banking Facilities and commencing legal proceedings against the 1st Defendant and the security parties for recovery of the amount due and owing under the Banking Facilities. The 1st Defendant did not reply to this letter. [15] By three (3) letters of demand all dated 29.11.2021 from the Plaintiff’s former solicitors, Messrs. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill to the 1st to 3rd Defendants respectively, the Plaintiff informed the Defendants, inter alia, that the 1st Defendant had defaulted in its repayment obligations to the Plaintiff and demanded for the total sum of RM75,717,832.57 together with interest as at 31.10.2021 to be paid within seven (7) days from the date thereof, failing which the Plaintiff will commence legal proceedings for recovery of the same. The Plaintiff also informed the 1st Defendant that in view of its default, the Plaintiff recalled the Banking Facilities granted to the 1st Defendant. [16] However, the Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with the said demands. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [17] The letters of demand issued to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively by Messrs LHAG expressly referred to the Guarantees executed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. [18] The Defendants admitted that they received the letters of demand dated 29.11.2021 from the Messrs LHAG. However, the Defendants did not reply to the said letters of demand. [19] By an email dated 13.12.2021 from the 1st Defendant (copied to the 3rd Defendant) to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant forwarded a Cash Flow Projection for the year 2022 to 2028 to the Plaintiff in an attempt to reassure the Plaintiff of its ability to repay the Plaintiff. [20] The Plaintiff therefore replied by an email dated 15.12.2021 requesting the 1st Defendant to provide, inter alia, a written repayment proposal, supporting documents and latest list of projects in hand latest by 27.12.2021 in order for the Plaintiff to review and consider if the Plaintiff should accept the 1st Defendant’s proposal. The Plaintiff also informed the 1st Defendant that if the 1st Defendant did not submit the written repayment proposal by the deadline prescribed, the Plaintiff would have no choice but to uplift the 1st Defendant Fixed Deposit Receipt and proceed with recovery action without further notice. [21] By an email dated 4.1.2022 from the Plaintiff to the 1st and 3rd Defendants, the Plaintiff referred to a meeting between the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant and again reminded the 1st and 3rd Defendants for, inter alia, the 1st Defendant’s written repayment proposal, actual cash flow statement of the Bina Puri Group for the S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA past 12 months, business plan and various supporting documents in order for the Plaintiff to review before deciding whether to accept or reject the proposal. [22] By an email dated 10.1.2022 from the Plaintiff to the 1st and 3rd Defendants, the Plaintiff informed, inter alia, that the outstanding amount due and owing as at 31.12.2021 by the 1st Defendant was RM75,250,597.47 and thus demanded the 1st and 3rd Defendants to remit the agreed monthly instalment of RM977,000 by 24.1.2022. [23] By an email dated 8.3.2022 from the Plaintiff to the 1st and 3rd Defendants, the Plaintiff informed, inter alia, that the outstanding amount due and owing as at 28.2.2022 by the 1st Defendant was now RM74,107,117.23 (together with contractual interests accruing thereon until full settlement). The Plaintiff further stated that to-date they have not received any written repayment proposal acceptable to the Plaintiff as well as the payments despite repeated requests from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff demanded the 1st Defendant to submit a written repayment proposal for Bina Puri Group together with the supporting documents latest by 15.3.2022. The Defendants did not provide any written repayment proposal despite repeated requests from the Plaintiff. [24] By three (3) letters of demand all dated 23.3.2022 from the Plaintiff’s present solicitors, Messrs. Skrine to the 1st to 3rd Defendants respectively, the Plaintiff demanded for the total sum of RM74,107,117.23 as at 28.2.2022 to be paid within seven (7) days from the date thereof failing which the Plaintiff would proceed with S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA civil suit against the 1st Defendant and its security parties to recover the outstanding amount due and owing to the Plaintiff. [25] By a letter dated 31.3.2022 from the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant proposed, inter alia, a repayment schedule to settle the outstanding owed by the 1st Defendant in the following proposed terms: i. RM 800,000 per month from May 2022 to December 2023. ii. RM 1,000,000.00 per month from January 2024 to December 2028. (‘Proposed Repayment Schedule’) [26] By a reply letter dated 15.4.2022 from the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff informed that they were unable to agree to the 2nd Defendant’s Proposed Repayment Schedule. [27] The Plaintiff also informed, inter alia, that they would be terminating the repayment arrangement for Blocks M, K and L of Angkasa Apartments (‘UMS Hostel’) in view of the Defendants’ default in payment, and thus the Redemption Sum for the remaining units under the UMS Hostel would be revised to 100% of the Sale and Purchase Agreement Price with immediate effect. [28] By a letter dated 28.4.2022 from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant pleaded the Plaintiff to reconsider and agree to the Proposed Repayment Schedule, as the 1st Defendant was experiencing a cash flow shortfall and it was not possible to maintain the original monthly instalment of RM 977,000.00. The 1st S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA Defendant also appealed for the Redemption Sum for the UMS Hostel to be revised to 50% instead. [29] By a reply letter dated 11.5.2022 from the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff informed that the Plaintiff was unable to accede to the 1st Defendant’s requests. The Plaintiff then proceeded to file the present action. [30] By a letter dated 25.5.2022 from the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff repayment schedules / arrangement to repay the 1st Defendant’s indebtedness owing to the Plaintiff. This was rejected by the Plaintiff. [31] By a letter dated 1.9.2022 from the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant again submitted repayment proposals for the Plaintiff’s consideration. No resolution was achieved between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in respect of the Banking Facilities. [32] Based on the aforesaid facts, the Plaintiff is seeking judgment to be entered against the Defendants for the outstanding under the Banking Facilities on the ground that there is no bona fide defence on the merits to its claims. Triable Issues [33] The Defendants raised the following as ‘triable issues’ to resist the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment under Enclosure 5: S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA

the Guarantees are voidable on the ground that the Guarantees were tainted with misrepresentation;

that the Corporate Guarantees and in particular, the Personal Guarantee executed by the 3rd Defendant was procured under duress and or undue influence;

the Plaintiff’s suit is tainted with bad faith for placing “unnecessary pressure on the Defendants”. [34] Each of these issues shall be dealt with in turn below. Misrepresentation [35] With respect to learned counsel for the Defendants, I find no merits at all on the issue of misrepresentation. In fact, the Defendants have not even been able to demonstrate on credible evidence the existence of the alleged misrepresentation. [36] According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had purportedly represented to the Defendants that the Plaintiff would not take any action against the 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant so long as the 1st Defendant, being the principal debtor, continues to run the business and is able to show that it was capable of repaying the sums under the Banking Facilities. [37] The aforesaid is quite a curious ‘representation’. If the 1st Defendant is capable of repaying the sums under the Banking Facilities, there would be no reasons for the Plaintiff to take any action at all. This S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA begs the question as to why the Plaintiff would even make such a representation in the first place. [38] In any case, there is no evidence proffered by the Defendants to support their otherwise bare averments on the existence of the alleged misrepresentation by the Plaintiff. There is absolutely no mention of these alleged misrepresentation in any of the written communication amongst the parties. At no time prior to the commencement of this action, was there any complaints raised by the 2nd Defendant that the Corporate Guarantees were procured in reliance of any representation by the Plaintiff. No contemporaneous documents have been adduced. This is so even when the Plaintiff had required the 3rd Defendant to provide his Personal Guarantee in November 2018. [39] It is not insignificant that there is absolutely no issue raised on the Guarantees when the Defendants admittedly received the letters of demand from the Plaintiff’s solicitors demanding for repayment outstanding amount due and owing by the 1st Defendant under the Banking Facilities. In fact, the Defendants pleaded for more indulgence from the Plaintiff to consider their repayment proposals. [40] The Guarantees were executed in consideration of the Plaintiff granting and/or continuing to grant banking facilities to the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant had duly accepted the Plaintiff’s Letters of Offer for additional Banking Facilities which expressly stated that the Plaintiff would grant the banking facilities requested by the 1st Defendant subject to terms and conditions, one of which S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA was execution of fresh corporate guarantee by the 2nd Defendant to secure repayment of the amount owing by the 1st Defendant. [41] Based on the aforesaid, the 2nd Defendant then duly executed the 1st Corporate Guarantee dated 20.10.2015, and the two Corporate Guarantees both dated 2.6.2016 in favour of the Plaintiff. [42] The terms of the Corporate Guarantees are clear, that is, the Plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the guarantees at any time and to exercise all or any remedies available, including commencing civil suit against the borrower and the guarantors to recover all monies due and owing to the Plaintiff. [43] As regards the 3rd Defendant, the condition for a fresh individual guarantee to be executed by the 3rd Defendant was expressly stated in the Plaintiff’s letter dated 18.10.2018 to the 1st Defendant, which was duly accepted by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. [44] The terms in the Personal Guarantee dated 12.11.2018 which was executed by the 3rd Defendant are also clear that the Plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the guarantee at any time and to exercise all or any remedies available including commencing civil suit against the borrower and the guarantors to recover all monies due and owing to the Plaintiff. [45] Accordingly, the Defendants’ contention of a triable issue based on misrepresentation is rejected. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA Duress/Undue Influence [46] The Defendants contended that the relationship between the Defendants and the Plaintiff has crossed over the line of an ordinary relationship as between a banker and customer, or as between a lender and debtor. More specifically, it is contended that by reason of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant’s long relationship ever since 1996, the Plaintiff and its officers have an intimate knowledge of all the 1st Defendant’s business affairs. Following from the aforesaid, it is contended that the Plaintiff stood in a fiduciary relation to the Borrower and the 1st Defendant. [47] Learned counsel for the Defendants contended that there is therefore a triable issue as to whether the Plaintiff has used its stronger position as a fiduciary to obtain an unfair advantage over the Defendants especially the 3rd Defendant within the meaning of Section 16(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. It is said that the Plaintiff is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of the Defendants. [48] It is further submitted that the Plaintiff had exerted undue influence and pressure on the 3rd Defendant to execute the Personal Guarantee dated 12.11.2018 when the Plaintiff via its letter dated 7.9.2018 informed the 1st Defendant that there was already a default by the 1st Defendant to the facilities granted by the Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant was under pressure and duress to sign the said Personal Guarantee due to the default by the 1st Defendant. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [49] Again, I am unable to agree with learned counsel for the Defendants. [50] The 3rd Defendant had previously accepted and executed the Personal Guarantee without complaint and benefited from the substantial banking facilities granted to the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant is a director of the 1st Defendant. He is not an illiterate gullible “old man” who does not know the meaning of the documents signed by him. [51] In fact, the 3rd Defendant on numerous occasions pleaded to the Plaintiff to extend indulgence in considering their repayment arrangement/proposals. Thus, the 3rd Defendant’s dispute on the Personal Guarantee, raised after the filing of the present suit, reeks of a convenient afterthought on the part of the 3rd Defendant. [52] There is simply no legal basis for the Defendants to impute a fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this case. Merely because the Plaintiff and the Defendants have established a long banker-customer relationship does not ipso facto create a fiduciary relationship between the parties. [53] The Court is also not satisfied that based on the facts and documentary evidence before this Court, the Defendants have established a credible and or serious case of duress or undue influence to give rise to a ‘triable issue’. The Defendants failed to adduce any evidence in any of their affidavit to support allegation of undue influence. The Defendants merely attempted to draw an inference from one single event, namely the fact that Plaintiff had S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA informed the 1st Defendant that there was outstanding amount due and owing by the 1st Defendant under the Banking Facilities, to suggest that the 3rd Defendant was therefore under the ‘undue influence’ by the Plaintiff to execute the Personal Guarantee. This falls far short of the requisite elements to establish duress or undue influence. [54] Not only is the aforesaid wholly inadequate to establish undue influence or duress, it is also contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. Evidence shows that the Personal Guarantee was executed in consideration of the Plaintiff granting banking facilities of RM 163,280,764.87 to the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiff’s Letter of Offer dated 18.10.2018 which was duly accepted by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. [55] In truth, what the Defendants in the present case are seeking to do so is to raise the pleas of misrepresentation, duress and or undue influence simply to enable them to argue that the Plaintiff’s claims based on the Guarantees ought only be determined by way of a full trial requiring the relevant witnesses, namely representatives of the Plaintiff and the representatives of the Defendants who attended the meetings to discuss on the restructuring of the banking facilities of the 1st Defendant, to be called to testify and adduce oral evidence as to what exactly transpired during the meetings purportedly to establish the representation, duress or undue influence as alleged by the Defendants. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [56] The aforesaid pleas are tenuous and wholly unsupported by the facts. On the contrary, the Defendants did not dispute their indebtedness and had admitted to their liability by approaching the Plaintiff with various settlement proposals and repayment arrangements to settle their indebtedness. For this reason, this triable issue must also be rejected. Mala Fide [57] The Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim is tainted with bad faith and/or mala fide intention. The Defendants had been communicating with the Plaintiff on modes and/or terms to settle the facilities granted to the 1st Defendant ever since before the suit was filed. It is said that the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendants’ ability to pay the Plaintiff based on projections from various projects undertaken and/or awarded to the 1st Defendant. [58] Not only that, the Defendants contended that other entities in the Bina Puri Group which are BPCSB and Gugusan Murni Sdn Bhd had entered into an Option Agreement dated 13.6.2022 and a Sale and Purchase Agreement, all of which aimed to settle the Plaintiff’s claims from the proceeds therefrom. [59] Despite having been informed about the Defendants’ ability to pay, the Plaintiff still proceeded with this suit. There is no reasonable ground for the Plaintiff to impose such an unnecessary pressure on the Defendants whilst the Defendants and/or Bina Puri Group have assets and ability to clear the Plaintiff’s claim. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [60] The Defendants submitted that for a group of companies that handles various construction project at multinational and international level, the Plaintiff’s suit badly affected the Defendants’ reputation. The Plaintiff’s action to file and maintain this suit clearly shows that the Plaintiff’s purpose is to embarrass the Defendants. [61] The Defendants argued that the process of the Court has not been used in a bona fide manner and that it has been abused. The law is trite that the Court will not use its machinery improperly. [62] With respect, as alluded to in the background facts above, the Plaintiff has granted many indulgence to the Defendants to settle the outstanding sums. The Plaintiff has no obligation to continue to accommodate the Defendants’ breaches. The Defendants are bound by the terms of the Security Documents, particularly relating to the full discretion of the Plaintiff whether to accept or reject any of the Defendants’ proposals, and also the consequences for breaching the obligations under the Banking Facilities. [63] Once the Defendants have executed the relevant security documents i.e. the Guarantees, they are then bound to perform their obligations as provided in the Guarantees. The terms of the Guarantees are clear - the Plaintiff has full discretion and liberty to exercise all remedies available and proceed with civil suit against the Defendants to recover all monies due and owing under the Banking Facilities (see Clauses 7 and 7A of the Guarantees). [64] Finally, notwithstanding the Defendants’ allegation that the Plaintiff had purportedly refused to provide the necessary assistance to S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA them to sell the charged property to meet its liabilities to the Plaintiff, there is in fact no evidence at all that the Plaintiff had acted in any way to prevent the Defendants from settling with the Plaintiff as alleged. In any case, the charged property that the Defendants are seeking to sell, even if the same is proceeded with will still fall far short of the total outstanding sum due under the Banking Facilities from the Defendants to the Plaintiff. [65] Accordingly, I also find no merits in the Defendants’ mala fide point. Conclusion [66] On the facts it is obvious that the allegations raised by the Defendants on the Guarantees in this case are merely afterthoughts which are clearly contrary to the contemporaneous documents and must be rejected as desperate attempts by the Defendants to evade payment of their debts to the Plaintiff. [67] Since the Defendants have not been able to raise any bona fide triable issues to merit the Plaintiff’s claims to go for full trial, I grant the Plaintiff an order in terms of its application for summary judgment under Enclosure 5 with costs fixed at RM 10,000.00 subject to allocator. [68] With my decision on Enclosure 5, it must necessarily follow that the Defendants’ Counterclaim which is based solely on the same allegations raised in their defence to the Plaintiff’s claim must be struck out as well. S/N B4mC7r8ObUmoaQGzwt3ttA [69] In the premises, I grant an order in terms of the Plaintiff’s application to strike out the Defendants’ Counterclaim under Enclosure 10 with costs fixed at RM 7,000 subject to allocator. [70] With the judgments entered in favour of the Plaintiff for Enclosures 5 and 10, the application under Enclosure 35 is rendered academic. Dated on the 22nd day of November 2022 ONG CHEE KWAN J Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 COUNSEL:

Ms. Claudia Cheah together with Ms. Karen Tan for Plaintiff

Ms. Tay Shieh Chin together with Ms. Nurufarhina Ab Rahim for Defendants Messrs. Arthur Wang, Lian & Assoc. (Kuala Lumpur)

Section 16(1) of the Contracts Act 1950