Teoh Say Hean v Wakil Sah Kepada Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon, Simati (BA-24NCC-140-12/2024)

WAKIL SAH KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA GOH BIAN SOON (No. K/P: 630904-01-5333), SIMATI

VALUE ADDED RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199601004099 [376445-W]) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Plaintif (Teoh Say Hean) memfailkan saman pemula ini (bertarikh 4- 12-2024) terhadap Defendan-Defendan untuk Mahkamah ini memerintahkan relief yng beikut: a) deklarasi bahawa 750,000 saham biasa, yang merangkumi 50% saham dalam Defendan Kedua (Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd) yang dipegang oleh Goh Bian Soon (Simati) adalah dipegang dalam amanah (‘held in trust’) untuk Plaintif di bawah Surat Ikatan Amanah (“Trust Deed”) bertarikh 15.3.2023 di antara Simati dan Plaintif, dan bahawa saham tersebut bukan sebahagian daripada harta pusaka Simati tersebut. b) perintah mengarahkan Defendan Pertama (dan/atau mana-mana pihak sah yang dilantik oleh Mahkamah sebagai wakil sah kepada harta pusaka Simati) untuk menandatangani kesemua dokumen dan/atau borang pemindahan saham tersebut kepada Plaintif serta mana-mana dokumen lain yang berkaitan dan/atau berbangkit daripadanya, dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh penyampaian sesalinan termeterai Perintah Mahkamah ini kepada pihak tersebut. c) sekiranya Defendan Pertama (dan/atau mana-mana pihak sah yang dilantik oleh Mahkamah) gagal atau enggan menandatangani dokumen dan/atau borang pemindahan Saham tersebut serta mana-mana dokumen lain yang berkaitan dan/atau berbangkit daripadanya, maka suatu perintah memberi kuasa kepada Pendaftar Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk menandatangani dokumen dan/atau borang yang material berkenaan pemindahan Saham tersebut berpihak kepada Plaintif. d) perintah mengarahkan Defendan Kedua untuk mendaftarkan pemindahan saham tersebut atas nama Plaintif dalam Daftar Ahli-Ahli (‘Register of Members’) Syarikat tersebut menurut Seksyen-Seksyen 105, 106, 107 dan/atau 109 Akta Syarikat-Syarikat 2016. Afidavit sokongan (AiS) Plaintif: [2] Dalam AiS, Plaintif menyatakan alasan untuk menyokong permohonannya dengan memperkenalkan bahawa − • Plaintif ialah pengurus besar. • Defendan Pertama ialah wakil sah kepada harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon (Simati). Setakat ini, Plaintif difahamkan oleh Puan Tey Rose (isteri Simati) dan Plaintif percaya bahawa tiada permohonan untuk Geran Probet difailkan bagi harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon (Simati). • melalui Kand. 5 bertarikh 13-1-2025, Plaintif memfailkan notis permohonan menurut Aturan 15 kaedah 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau di bawah bidang bidang kuasa sedia Mahkamah, untuk perintah-perintah seperti berikut:

1.

suatu perintah melantik TEY ROSE (No. K/P: 680520-01-5452) sebagai wakil sah untuk mewakili harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon (No. K/P: 630904-01- 5333), Simati bagi maksud prosiding ini; ATAU

sekiranya pemberian Geran Probet ataupun Geran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir telah dibuat berhubung harta pusaka Simati tersebut, maka suatu perintah bahawa wakil diri sah Simati tersebut dijadikan satu pihak dalam prosiding ini;

dalam mana-mana hal, untuk suatu perintah agar prosiding ini diteruskan terhadap pihak yang dilantik di bawah perenggan 1(a) di atas, atau mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan, terhadap wakil diri Simati tersebut di bawah perenggan 1(b) di atas, seolah-olah dia telah menggantikan harta pusaka Simati tersebut. Alasan-alasan untuk menyokong permohonan Plaintif ini adalah secara ringkasnya, adalah −

setakat pengetahuan Plaintif sepertimana yang dimaklumkan oleh isteri Simati, tiada mana-mana permohonan untuk Geran Probet dan/atau Surat Kuasa Mentadbir dibuat oleh mana-mana wakil sah kepada harta pusaka Simati setakat ini;

namun itu, perlantikan satu wakil sah yang boleh ditentukan bagi harta pusaka Simati tersebut adalah wajar agar prosiding Plaintif di sini dapat diteruskan di mana kertas-kertas kausa yang relevan dapat diserahkan kepada wakil sah harta pusaka Simati tersebut secepat mungkin;

permohonan ini dibuat secara bona fide dan tidak memprejudiskan mana-mana pihak. • Defendan Kedua ialah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia. [3] Pemegangan saham dalam syarikat (Defendan Kedua/Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd): Plaintif menyatakan bahawa sekitar tahun 2014, Plaintif dan Goh Bian Soon berkenalan di mana Goh Bian Soon itu ialah majikan kepada isteri Plaintif. Atas permintaan Goh Bian Soon, Plaintif memberikan pinjaman wang sebanyak RM773,000.00 melalui suatu perjanjian pinjaman bertarikh 19-1-2022 kepada Goh Bian Soon. Bayaran balik ialah melalui 3 kali ansuran bulanan bermula pada 25-2-2022 dan berkhir pada 25-4-

Goh Bian Soon hanya berjaya membayar balik sebanyak RM13,000.00 sahaja dan baki terhutang ialah sebanyak RM760,000.00. Goh Bian Soon meninggal dunia di Victoria, Australia pada 18-4-

[4] Corporate Information bagi Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd dalam rekod Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) ialah − • tarikh diperbadankan: 5-2-1996 • limited by shares; private limited • nature of business: investment holding • pengarah: Daniel Khoo @ Khoo Teng Teng dan Khoo Hai Chew • pemegang saham: Khoo Hai Chew (750,000 unit saham) dan Goh Bian Soon (750,000 unit saham) Trust Deed [4] Surat Ikatan Amanah/Trust Deed bertarikh 15-3-2023 yang disetemkan dan dindorskan. Secara ringkas, Trust Deed itu menyatakan − • Goh Bian Soon ialah the Trustee. • Teoh Say Hean ialah the Beneficiary. • Goh Bian Soon ialah pemilik dan pemegang saham sebanyak 50% dalam syarikat Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd yang mengandungi sebanyak 750,000 unit saham dalam syarikat. • pada tarikh Trust Deed ini, the Trustee berhutang sebanyak RM760,000.00 kepada the Beneficiary. • sebagai balasanuntuk membayar balik hutang kepada the Beneficiary, the Trustee bersetuju dan mengisytiharkan untuk memegang saham syarikat sebagai amanah bagi the Beneficiary secara mutlak sehingga bayaran penuh hutang oleh the Trustee kepada the Beneficiary. • jika the Trustee gagal menyelesaikan hutang tersebut, the Trustee hendaklah menyebabkan saham syarikat dipindahkan tanpa apa-apa bebanan dan atas kos oleh Trustee kepada the Beneficiary. Afidavit-afidavit Defendan Pertama/Wakil Sah Kepada Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon: [5] Dalam saman pemula ini, Defendan Pertama disebut sebagai Wakil Sah Kepada Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon. [6] Tey Rose ialah isteri mendiang Goh Bian Soon dalam afidavitnya menentang permohonan Plaintif untuk melantik dirinya/Tey Rose sebagai Wakil Sah Kepada Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon. Alasan Tey Rose adalah − a) Trust Deed bertarikh 15-3-2023 itu tiada dalam pengetahuan peribadinya dan Tey Rose tidak boleh mengakuinya. Tey Rose bukan pihak dan tidak terlibat dengan Trust Deed antara Plaintif dan mendiang suaminya. b) Plaintif mendakwa bahawa saham syarikat Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd yang dipegang di bawah Trust Deed bukannya sebahagian daripada harta pusaka Simati tetapi Kand. 5 notis permohonan Plaintif menuntut saham syarikat daripada harta pusaka melalui Wakil Sah Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon. c) Tey Rose tidak setuju dan tidak sanggup untuk dilantik sebagai Wakil Sah Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon kerana Tey Rose tidak selalu menetap di Malaysia dan kebanyakan masanya adalah menetap di Melbourne, Australia bersama anak-anaknya; dan sumber kewangannya yang tidak mencukupi untuk membiayai dan menjalankan proses sebagai Wakil Sah Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon. d) selain daripada itu, atas nasihat peguamcaranya, Tey Rose menyatakan terdapat Wasiat Terakhir Goh Bian Soon yang secara nyata menamakan dan melantik UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Bhd menjadi Wakil Sah Harta Pusaka Goh Bian Soon. Tiada apa-apa permohonan Plaintif ke arah itu. Maka, Tey Rose menyatakan bahawa bukan dirinya dilantik sebagai wasi harta pusaka mendiang suaminya. Sesalinan Last Will & Testament Goh Bian Soon diekshibitkan sebagai “TR-1”. e) Tey Rose dimaklumkan bahawa dalam tahun 2024, terdapat permohonan di Mahkamah Tinggi untuk Geran Probet kepada harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon oleh RHB Trustees Bhd tetapi tersekat kerana terdapat 2 kaveat difailkan oleh CIMB Bank Bhd dan RHB Investment Bank Bhd sebagai pemiutang Simati. Terdapat hutang-hutang Simati dengan kedua-dua bank tersebut dan kaveat-kaveat hanya ditarikbalik selepas hutang-hutang Simati dibayar melalui harta pusaka Simati. f) dalam afidavit tambahan Tey Rose bertarikh 9-6-2025, Tey Rose menyatakan bahawa UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Bhd telah diambilalih oleh dan digantikan dengan RHB Trustees Bhd. Last Will & Testament Goh Bian Soon [7] Ekshibit “TR-1” mengandungi perkara yang berikut: • tarikh diperbuat: 5-6-2006 • pemegang amanah/trustee & pentadbir/executor: UOB (Malaysia) Bhd • pembahagian dan agihan harta pusaka kepada isteri dan waris. [8] Pada klausa 6 Ekshibit “TR-1” memperuntukkan − “6. Gift of residuary estate

6.1 I give all my real and personal property whatsoever and wheresoever not hereby or by any codicil hereto specifically disposed of (including any property over which I may have a general power of appointment or disposition by will) to my trustees upon trust to sell call in and convert the same into money with power to postpone such sale calling in and conversion for so long as they shall in their absolute discretion think fit without being liable for loss.”. [9] Ekshibit “TR-2” mengandungi dokumen yang berikut: • kaveat oleh CIMB Bank Bhd bertarikh 7-8-2023 • kaveat oleh RHB Investment Bank Berhad bertarikh 3-7-2023 • Laporan kematian di luar negara Goh Bian Soon • Penghakiman bertarikh 8-3-2022 diperoleh oleh RHB Investment Bank Berhad terhadap Goh Bian Soon (Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Guaman No.: WA-22 NCC- 73-02/2022). Goh Bian Soon hendaklah membayar kepada RHB Investment Bank Berhad jumlah keberhutangan sebanyak RM1,039,119.85, faedah dan kos. Defendan Kedua/Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd: [10] Pengarah dan pemegang saham Defendan Kedua (En Khoo Hai Chew) menyatakan bahawa berdasarkan pengetahuannya tiada permohonan Geran Probet difailkan bagi pihak harta pusaka Simati (Goh Bian Soon). [11] Defendan Kedua tiada tanggungjawab untuk memasukkan nama Plaintif sebagai pemilik sah saham syarikat Defendan Kedua dalam Daftar Ahli kerana Trust Deed bertarikh 15-3-2023 adalah antara Goh Bian Soon dan Plaintif. Defendan Kedua tidak berada dalam kedudukan untuk mensahkan Trust Deed tersebut. Sekiranya Mahkamah ini mensahkan kesahihan Trust Deed tersebut, Defendan Kedua akan mematuhi Perintah Mahkamah dan kos prosiding tidak harus ditanggung oleh Defendan Kedua. Afidavit balasan Plaintif: [12] Dalam afidavit balasan dan afidavit tambahan, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa permohonannya untuk melantik wakil sah kepada harta pusaka Simati (Goh Bian Soon) adalah − • Tey Rose, isteri kepada Simati, tidak mempertikaikan mengenai kesahihan Trust Deed yang ditandatangani oleh suaminya dengan Plaintif. Maka, sewajarnya tidak berbangkit isu sama ada Tey Rose mempunyai pengetahuan peribadi mengenai Trust Deed itu. • saham biasa sebanyak 750,000 yang merangkumi 50% saham dalam Defendan Kedua (Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd) sememangnya bukan sebahagian daripada aset dalam harta pusaka Simati. • Plaintif memohon di Mahkamah ini untuk melantik Tey Rose sebagai wakil sah harta pusaka Simati adalah bukan untuk Tey Rose mentadbir harta pusaka Simati tetapi hanya untuk memenuhi keperluan tatacara di bawah A. 15 k. 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi tujuan wakil sah menandatangani dokumen dan/atau borang pemindahan saham tersebut kepada Plaintif. Ini kerana tiadanya Geran Probet atau Surat Kuasa Mentadbir dikeluarkan bagi harta pusaka Simati. Selanjutnya, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa kaedah yang digunapakai ialah untuk mengatasi kesukaran dalam menyaman harta pusaka seseorang yang telah meninggal dunia sebelum tindakan dimulakan dan di mana tiada Geran Probet atau Surat Kuasa Mentadbir dikeluarkan bagi harta pusaka Simati. • bagi permohonan Plaintif ini, tiada isu “blowing hot and cold” seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Tey Rose. • Tey Rose yang tidak bersetuju untuk dilantik sebagai wakil sah harta pusaka Simati bukannya suatu alasan yang baik. Ini kerana tiada keperluan mandatori mengenai persetujuan di bawah peruntukan A. 15 k. 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Mahkamah ini mempunyai budi bicara penuh untuk melantik seseorang bagi mengelakkan kelewatan tatacara dalam melaksanakan tanggungjawab Simati sebagai pemegang amanah di bawah Trust Deed tersebut. • permohonan Plantif seperti dalam Kandungan 5 di Mahkamah ini bukanlah untuk melantik Tey Rose sebagai executor atau wasi harta pusaka Simati. • alasan Tey Rose mengenai beliau tidak kerap berada di Malaysia juga bukan alasan yang baik. Ini kerana Tey Rose sebenarnya boleh balik ke Malaysia atau Plaintif boleh menghantar borang pemindahan saham ke alamat tempat tinggal Tey Rose di Melbourne, Australia atau Tey Rose boleh menggunakan surat kuasa wakil/Power of Attorney. [13] Berkenaan dengan perkara penamaan UOB Trustee (Malaysia) Bhd sebagai wasi dalam wasiat Simati, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa permohonan pemindahan saham yang dipegang di bawah amanah oleh Simati adalah bukan sebahagian daripada aset harta pusaka Simati. Sebagai memenuhi keperluan tatacara sahaja, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa permohonannya ini hanya untuk menyelesaikan isu pelaksanaan pemindahan saham dalam Defendan Kedua kepada Plaintif. Oleh itu, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa tiada kaitan mana-mana peranan UOB Trustee (Malaysia) Bhd sebagai wasi harta pusaka Simati. [14] Selanjutnya, Plaintif menjawab mengenai isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Tey Rose bahawa Plaintif perlu menghormati wasiat akhir Simati adalah tidak berkaitan. Ini kerana saham dalam Defendan Kedua bukannya sebahagian daripada aset Simati dalam harta pusaka Simati. [15] Sebagai jawapan mengenai kaveat-kaveat yang dimasukkan oleh pemiutang-pemiutang, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa kaveat-kaveat tersebut tidak berkenaan dengan dan/atau tidak menjejaskan hak Plaintif ke atas saham Defendan Kedua. Plaintif menyatakan walau apa-apa jua pun, jika kewujudan kaveat-kaveat tersebut sebagai sekatan kepada permohonan untuk Geran Probet, maka sebenarnya permohonan Plaintif ini adalah suatu pertimbangan kukuh untuk melantik Tey Rose sebagai wakil sah harta pusaka Simati. Jika tidak maka proses untuk memindahkan saham Defendan Kedua kepada Plaintif menjadi lambat dan seterusnya menjejaskan hak Plaintif di bawah Trust Deed tersebut. [16] Secara alternatifnya, atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa jika Tey Rose masih enggan dilantik sebagai wakil sah harta pusaka Simati, Mahkamah ini boleh memberikuasa kepada Pendaftar Mahkamah untuk tujuan terhad memberi kesan kepada pemindahan saham Defendan Kedua dengan cara menandatangani borang pemindahan saham tersebut kepada Plaintif. Cara ini dapat mengelakkan ketidakadilan. Analisa, Dapatan dan Keputusan [17] Mahkamah ini telah mendengar permohonan Plaintif menurut Aturan 15 kaedah 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau di bawah bidang bidang kuasa sedia Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, untuk perintah-perintah seperti berikut:

1.

suatu perintah melantik TEY ROSE (No. K/P: 680520- 01-5452) sebagai wakil sah untuk mewakili harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon (No. K/P: 630904-01-5333), Simati bagi maksud prosiding ini; ATAU

sekiranya pemberian Geran Probet ataupun Geran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir telah dibuat berhubung harta pusaka Simati tersebut, maka suatu perintah bahawa wakil diri sah Simati tersebut dijadikan satu pihak dalam prosiding ini;

dalam mana-mana hal, untuk suatu perintah agar prosiding ini diteruskan terhadap pihak yang dilantik di bawah perenggan 1(a) di atas, atau mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan, terhadap wakil diri Simati tersebut di bawah perenggan 1(b) di atas, seolah-olah dia telah menggantikan harta pusaka Simati tersebut. [18] Pada pada 17 Julai 2025, Mahkamah ini memutuskan seperti yang berikut: “Perenggan 1(a) dalam Notis Permohonan bertarikh 13 Januari 2025 (Kandungan 5) ditolak tetapi perenggan 1(b) dalam Kandungan 5 tersebut dibenarkan bersama perenggan 2 dalam Kandungan 5 tersebut (setakat mana ianya berkaitan dengan perenggan 1(b) dalam Kandungan 5 tersebut).”. Plaintif merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sebahagian keputusan tersebut. [19] Peruntukan Aturan 15 kaedah 6A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 sememangnya mengenai “Proceedings against estates”. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Plaintif dan peguam caranya peruntukan ini membolehkan tindakan dibawa terhadap estates/harta pusaka seseorang simati yang mana tiada geran probate atau pentadbir dibuat. [20] Peruntukan Aturan 15 kaedah 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memberi budi bicara kepada Mahkamah untuk melantik mana-mana orang bagi mewakili harta pusaka simati jika Mahkamah fikirkan adil berbuat sedemikian dengan mengambil kira/mempertimbangkan hal keadaan yang relevan dalam kes/permohonan tersebut. Walau pun persetujuan (consent) tidak/bukan menjadi suatu keperluan nyata dalam kaedah 6A, kewujudan persetujuan (consent)adalah suatu elemen penting untuk menentukan perintah pelantikan wakil sah yang dinamakan. Isu persetujuan Tey Rose untuk dilantik sebagai wakil sah untuk mewakili harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon [21] Dalam kes Glen Lau Lian Seng v. Personal Representative of Jeswant a/l Natarajan, Deceased [2017] 9 CLJ 96, keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang dipetik dalam beberapa keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi lain menjelaskan mengenai pemakaian peruntukan mengenai pelantikan wakil sah untuk mewakili harta pusaka. Dalam kes Glen Lau Lian Seng, YA Azizul Azmi Adnan, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur (YA ketika itu) dalam penghakimannya membenarkan rayuan perayu untuk mengetepikan suatu perintah yang diberikan oleh Pendaftar Mahkamah untuk melantik balu itus sebagai the representative of the estate of her estranged departed husband. Mahkamah ini ingin merujuk penghakiman yang memfokuskan mengenai alasan YA iaitu − • The issue turns on the relevant considerations that the court may take into account when making an order for a person to be the representative of a deceased pursuant to O. 15 r. 6A of the Rules of Court 2012 and the related subsidiary question of whether the court may order a nominated person to be the personal representative against such person’s wishes. • The plaintiff, Mr Glen Lau Lian Seng, was a business partner of the deceased, Mr Jeswant Natarajan. • The plaintiff contended that he had made a number of friendly loans to Mr Natarajan in 2014, which loans totalled in excess of RM1.2 million. Unfortunately, Mr Natarajan passed away of a heart attack in April 2016. The plaintiff commenced this action after his death to recover the loans. • The nominated representative, Ms Dorothea Winkelmayer, is the widow of the deceased. It is not disputed that Ms Winkelmayer had been separated from the deceased for several years. According to her affidavit evidence, she also had not spoken to the deceased for several years, at least until shortly before his passing. • As there was no executor or administrator appointed to represent the estate of the deceased, the plaintiff made an ex parte application under O. 15 r. 6A of the Rules of Court 2012 for an order for Ms Winkelmayer to be appointed as the representative of the estate of her late husband. • Analysis: [6] It is clear that O. 15 r. 6A (4) provides for the judicial power and discretion to order the appointment of any person to represent the estate of a deceased in proceedings against the estate of the deceased. In the absence of any such order, proceedings cannot be properly maintained against the estate of the deceased until and unless a grant of probate or administration has been made and the personal representative is made a party to such proceedings. In such circumstances, the official administrator may be appointed solely for the purposes of accepting service of process. [7] The crisp issue for determination relates to the manner in which the court is to exercise its discretion to appoint a person as a representative pursuant to O. 15 r. 6A (4). In my view, the court may appoint any person to represent the estate of a deceased if it is just to do so, taking into account the relevant surrounding circumstances of the case. • The factors that I have taken into consideration are as follows:

No consent. Ms Winkelmayer has not consented to being appointed as the representative of her late husband’s estate. As we shall see later, I am in agreement with counsel for the plaintiff that consent is not an express requirement of O. 15 r. 6A. Nonetheless, I am of the view that the fact of consent is a relevant consideration in determining whether or not the court ought to exercise its discretion to grant the order sought. The basic proposition is this: if the court orders that a person acts as a personal representative of the estate of a deceased in proceedings against such estate, that person will, in the course of defending the action, incur liability for which he or she may not be made whole. The court ought to be slow to impose any liability on a third party in any action in circumstances where there exists no cause of action against that third party. Thus, to my mind, the existence of consent is a very important element in determining whether or not the court ought to grant the order appointing the nominated representative. I leave open the possibility that the court may properly exercise its discretion under O. 15 r. 6A (4) to appoint a nominated representative against such person’s wishes. However, it would appear to me that the circumstances must be such as to overwhelmingly favour the appointment of a person to act as the personal representative of an estate of a deceased in the absence of any consent of that person. Certainly, the mere fact that the person is a next of kin of the deceased does not justify the grant of the order;

No indemnity. The plaintiff has not provided any indemnity to Ms Winkelmayer for any personal liability or expense that she may incur in representing the estate. In my view, if an appropriate indemnity is given to the nominated representative, the court could conceivably grant the order to appoint the nominee even in the absence of consent. Even here though, the court would be concerned that the nominated representative would act in the best interests of the prospectivebeneficiaries of the estate and would defend the claim in an appropriate manner. Such an order would lay the representative open to an action from the beneficiaries of the estate at a later stage, and hence careful consideration ought to be given to the surrounding circumstances even where an indemnity has been given;

No evidence to suggest that Ms Winkelmayer is a beneficiary of the estate. Counsel for the plaintiff conceded that there is no evidence that is properly before this court that suggests that the assets of the estate exceed its liabilities and that Ms Winkelmayer would stand to benefit from the distribution of the assets of the estate. If such were the case, an argument might be mounted to justify the appointment of a nominated representative even in absence of consent. However, such is not the case in the present instance; and

Ms Winkelmayer was separated from her husband. The undisputed evidence was that Ms Winkelmayer had been separated from the deceased for some years prior to his passing and that they were not in regular communication. This is of course not in and of itself determinative or decisive but is nonetheless one of the factors to be taken into account by the court. If they had been separated for a number of years in life, it would be an imposition to make her responsible for his affairs in death. • Accordingly, having regard to the relevant circumstances of this case, I am of the view that it would not be just to order Ms Winkelmeyer to be appointed as the personal representative of the estate of her late husband. • I am in total agreement with Mr Paramalingam for the plaintiff that consent is not an express requirement of O. 15 r. 6A. However, with respect, the real issue is not whether consent must be obtained before the court may grant an order under O. 15 r. 6A (4) (a). Sub-rule 6A(4)(a) provides for a discretion of the court, and it is axiomatic that any such discretion must be exercised judicially. In my view, a court may exercise its discretion to grant an order sought under r. 6A (4)(a) where it is just to do so, having regard to all the relevant surrounding circumstances of the case. One of the relevant circumstances that the court may validly take into account is whether the nominated representative has consented to so act. [22] Dalam kes saman pemula di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Tey Rose ialah balu kepada mendiang Goh Bian Soon. Dalam Wasiat Terakhir Goh Bian Soon betarikh 5-6-2006, Goh Bian Soon secara nyata − • melantik UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Berhad sebagai the executor and trustee bagi Wasiatnya. • melantik Tey Rose (isteri), anak-anak Simati, ibu bapa Simati, adik lelaki Simati, dan adik ipar kepada isteri Simati dilantik sebagai penjaga/the guardian kepada anak-anak Simati. • memberi barang peribadinya kepada Tey Rose (isteri); wang tunai kepada adik lelaki Simati dan adik ipar kepada isteri Simati; bagi akaun bersama antara Simati dengan penama akaun bersama, penama kepada akaun bersama memperoleh secara mutlak; • UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Berhad sebagai my Trustee kepada Goh Bian Soon dipertanggungjawabkan bagi pemberian residuary estate Simati. • menyenaraikan kuasa UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Berhad sebagai trustee. [23] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan penghakiman dalam kes Glen Lau Lian Seng iaitu “like O. 15 r. 6A, O. 15 r. 15 is concerned with the proper exercise of judicial discretion to appoint a person to act as a representative of a deceased person”. [24] Walau pun fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini berbeza sedikit dengan kes Glen Lau Lian Seng berkenaan dengan perkara bayaran indemniti, peguam cara Plaintif berhujah bahawa tiada obligasi Plaintif untuk menanggung rugi Tey Rose, “Tey Rose’s claim that she should be indemnified is also an afterthought and unmeritorious. There is no legal requirement for indemnity under Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) ROC 2012.”. Walau bagaimana pun, Plaintif bersedia untuk − “the Plaintiff had already undertaken to reimburse any reasonable notarisation cost, which was the only conceivable expense involved.”. [25] Mahkamah ini berpendapat faktor keengganan Tey Rose yang berikut perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini (hujahan peguam cara bagi Tey Rose adalah dirujuk): “5. Tey Rose is unwilling to take up the role of the legal representative for the estate of the Deceased and also takes the position that Teoh cannot compel her to fill the role. Below are our submissions detailing why Tey Rose cannot be required to accept this role.

No knowledge: The most apparent reason is because Tey Rose is not a party to the Deed of Trust. She is not involved in the Deed of Trust and also has no personal knowledge of what it entails thus cannot admit to the same except that there is a document of a Deed of Trust dated 15-3-2023 (“Deed of Trust”) between the Deceased and the Plaintiff (to which I am not a party and have no involvement) made known to her recently.

Hardship/Lack of Convenience: Tey Rose has pleaded that she does not reside permanently in Malaysia as she is mostly residing in Melbourne, Australia with her daughter, Angelina Goh Wei Ni who is currently studying at a university there. The travelling and the expense that will inherently entail as a legal representative makes this role highly difficult for her and it is not feasible to warrant her to do so.

Tey Rose has pleaded that, as a widow with a special needs son (autism) and a daughter who is still studying, she lacks the financial resources to undertake the responsibilities and costs associated with acting as the Legal Representative/Executor of the Deceased's estate. On the contrary, forcibly causing her to take up this role would impose undue hardship, causing both emotional/mental stress and financial strain.

The Legal Representative is UOB Trustees (M) Bhd: Most importantly, the Deceased has a Last Will and his Last Will dated 5.6.2006 expressly and in clear words name and appoint UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Bhd, not me, as the Legal Representative of his estate as the Executor. It is trite law that the last wishes and terms of the Deceased's Last Will must be given effect to.”. [26] Semasa pendengaran saman pemula ini, Mahkamah ini mendapati terdapat Last Will & Testament Goh Bian Soon diekshibitkan sebagai “TR- 1” dan Mahkamah ini mengarahkan pihak-pihak memfailkan afidavit mengenai nama-nama yang tertera di dalam Last Will & Testament Goh Bian Soon agar kedudukan nama yang berikut diperjelas:

The Executor named in the Will, UOB Trustees (now succeeded by RHB Trustees);

(ii) The Guardians appointed in the Will, namely Goh Bian Beng and Chiew Wai Seng. [27] Tiada apa-apa afidavit daripada penama (i) dan (ii) difailkan dan Mahkamah ini meneliti hujahan peguam cara bagi Plaintif dan peguam cara bagi Tey Rose, khususnya perenggan-perenggan iaitu − Hujahan peguam cara bagi Tey Rose: “The Plaintiff seeks to appoint Tey Rose, widow of the late Goh Bian Soon ("the Deceased"), as the Legal Representative of the Deceased’s estate, for the purpose of enforcing a purported Deed of Trust relating to shares in Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd (“VAR”). The Plaintiff precariously and callously asserts that it is permissible to compel the appointment of Tey Rose, despite her repeated objections and lack of consent. This is in face of an existing and clearly named Legal Representative of the Deceased, namely UOB Trustees Bhd – who is the much suitable and proper fit for this role. This Court had on 7.5.2025 deferred its decision and requested parties to clarify the position of: (i) The Executor named in the Will, UOB Trustees (now succeeded by RHB Trustees); (ii) The Guardians appointed in the Will, namely Goh Bian Beng and Chiew Wai Seng. Teoh, as a Plaintiff – it is indeed his duty and responsibility to prove and advance his application to the Court and not the duty of a third party (i.e. Tey Rose, who was brought in to be the Legal Representative of the Deceased's estate against her wishes) to seek information for other third parties such as the Legal Representative of the Deceased's estate (UOB), Goh Bian Beng and also Chiew Wai Seng. The law is clear and trite that it is a Plaintiff’s duty to assert, prove and convince the Court of his/her case. It is not the Defendant/Respondent’s duty to fill the gaps in the Plaintiff’s case. Our statutory provisions and common law has proven this time and again: • Sections 101 & 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 • The Carbon Company Sdn Bhd v. Ng Lee Hoon [2017] 6 CLJ 1892 (Court of Appeal); Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo Achi alias Sona Lena Alamelo Acho, deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 6973 (Federal Court) Despite legal burden or onus on the Plaintiff – Teoh, Tey Rose has taken the liberty to assist this Honourable Court by proactively contacting all the parties identified by the Court, all while the Plaintiff – Teoh stayed idle on these crucial points of his case:

RHB Trustees Bhd (formerly UOB Trustees) confirmed that they were never contacted or served by the Plaintiff in relation to this application or the Trust Deed (see Enclosure 25);

(ii) Goh Bian Beng and Chiew Wai Seng similarly confirmed that they were never approached or notified (see Enclosure 25). All the above confirmed: No communication whatsoever was made by the Plaintiff to the relevant and interested parties; … This evidences that the Plaintiff has not fulfilled even the basic procedural duties of notifying relevant stakeholders, nor attempted to engage with the named Legal Representative, Executor or Guardians of the estate. Thus, the Plaintiff's application suffers from a severe and potentially fatal flaw whereby interested and relevant parties are not even notified - procedural impropriety, is flagrantly premature, and has failed to observe principles of natural justice (see Tokai Corporation v DKSH Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2016] MLJU 621 at [57]4; Lai Soon Onn v Tan Tian Sin & Ors [2017] 11 MLJ 4765 at para 88). The Deceased executed a valid-in-law and most importantly unambiguous Last Will dated 5.6.2006, expressly appointing UOB Trustees (Malaysia) Bhd as the Legal Representative of his Estate.

The law is trite that the property of the deceased vests immediately upon death in the named executor. This is clear. • See S.M.K.R. Meyappa Chetty v S.N. Supramanian Chetty [1916] 1 AC 603 at p609. • Affirmed by the Federal Court in Kalwant Singh v Jaswant Kaur [2022] 3 MLJ 184. As such, the Plaintiff – Teoh’s argument that the subject shares under the Trust Deed are not part of the Estate is untenable and misconceived here as until and unless these said shares are transferred and registered successfully under the name of the Plaintiff Teoh - the said shares are still vested in the Estate who is under the custody and care of the named Legal Representative/Executor which is unmistakably UOB Trustees and not Tey Rose. The Plaintiff still has to and must deal with the Executor UOB Trustees and not Tey Rose. The Plaintiff has made no attempt to: (i) Serve the application on UOB Trustees; (ii) Invoke a citation procedure under Order 71 rule 42(1) to require them to accept or refuse the grant; (iii) Justify why the named Executor is bypassed in favour of an unwilling third party. The Plaintiff’s conduct renders this application procedurally defective, premature and improper. In comparison to UOB Trustees, who would make the proper and better choice to administer the Trust Deed on these compelling reasons:

UOB is the named Legal Representative and Executor the

(ii) All properties, undeniably and undisputably, vest/transmit immediately and has been vested/transmitted to the Estate which is under the care and control of UOB Trustees;

(iii) UOB, unlike Tey Rose, has no issues of lacking the financial nor logistical capacity to assume such an onerous role. (iv) It is within the professional expertise of UOB Trustees to administer properties of a deceased; (v) UOB Trustees, unlike Tey Rose (the widow) is also a neutral third party – which will face no emotional strain or distress in dealing with the Deceased debts and properties. F. COMPANY LAW DIMENSIONS The shares in question are held in Value Added Resources Sdn Bhd (‘VAR’). The company’s: (i) Articles of Association (Art. 6) preclude recognition of trusts; (ii) Under Section 105(4) and 109(7)(a) of the CA20168, only the Executor or Administrator is entitled to the shares. Accordingly, the legal title to the shares vests in RHB Trustees, not in Tey Rose. This is clear. The Plaintiff’s application is therefore misdirected and untenable in law.”. Hujahan peguam cara bagi Plaintif: “TEY ROSE’S SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT (ENCLOSURE 25) Upon a closer scrutiny of Tey Rose’s Enclosure 25, it is noted that:

instead of obtaining affidavits from the Third Parties as directed by this honourable Court, Tey Rose chose to affirm her own affidavit, which regrettably fails to address the inquiry raised by the Court—namely, the Third Parties’ views/position, if any, in relation to Enclosure 5.

Further, Tey Rose then chose to shift the blame on the Plaintiff for his alleged failure to contact the said Third Parties to ‘effect the Trust Deed’, which is her only response regarding the ‘role’ of the said Third Parties. To that end, the Plaintiff … submits as follows:

5.1 Tey Rose’s stand on the Third Parties is an afterthought and misconceived:

the said invitation by this honourable for Tey Rose to obtain the Third Parties’ views/position, if any, on the Plaintiff’s Enclosure 5 did not impose any legal or procedural obligation upon the Plaintiff to serve or notify these parties, especially when no order for joinder was made under Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) ROC 2012, and when the nature of the Plaintiff’s application via Enclosure 5 does not concern the administration of the Deceased’s estate at all as the Trust Shares do not form part of the Deceased’s assets at all.

5.2 Irrelevance of the Third Parties:

No Grant of Probate Extracted It is not disputed by Tey Rose that UOB Trustee, although named as executor in the Will of the Deceased, has not extracted any Grant of Probate. Hence, UOB Trustee is not yet the personal representative within the meaning of the law. The appointment as executor in a Will only confers legal standing upon extraction of a Grant of Probate.

it is the Plaintiff’s stand that notwithstanding the existence of the Will, the Plaintiff’s application via Enclosure 5 is under the ‘first limb’ of Order 15 6A(4)(a) ROC 2012, ie for an order appointing a person to represent the estate of the Deceased for the purpose of the proceeding, ie Enclosure 1 and where no grant of probate or administration has been made, as in this case and as acknowledged by Tey Rose. In other words, the ‘second limb’, which involves making the personal representative (executor or administrator) a party, only applies where a Grant has been made— which is not the case here.

Misconception of Roles Tey Rose’s consistent mischaracterisation of UOB Trustee as the ‘legal representative’ of the Deceased is a fundamental legal error. The term legal representative under ‘first limb’ in Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) ROC 2012 refers to a party appointed by the Court for the purpose of representing the estate in a civil suit where no Grant has been extracted, not to a Will-named executor. In any event, there is nothing in Tey Rose’s Affidavits indicating there are infant child involved which requires the participation of the guardian/alternate guardian.

Plaintiff’s Claim for the Trust Shares Relates to Trust Property, Not Estate Assets The Plaintiff’s claim under Enclosure 1 is premised on a trust—he claims beneficial ownership of 750,000 shares in the 2nd Defendant company held on trust by the Deceased. These are not part of the Deceased’s estate. Hence, the Will and the executor nor the guardian have no role to play in the adjudication or facilitation of this trust claim by the Plaintiff.

5.3 Non-Participation of the Third Parties:

Tey Rose’s claim that the Plaintiff failed to notify the Third Parties is irrelevant and/or merely a red herring as there is no legal obligation for the Plaintiff to communicate with them on the grounds stated above.

In any event, despite being informed by Tey Rose of the Plaintiff’s claim, neither UOB Trustee, Goh BB nor Chiew SW chose to affirm any affidavit to assert an interest or object to the relief sought under Enclosure 5. This is because the Plaintiff’s claim for the Trust Shares does not concern the estate’s assets and hence, there is no prejudice to the Deceased’s estate. In fact, their silence supports the Plaintiff’s position that the claim relates to trust property, not the Deceased’s estate assets. In conclusion, the Plaintiff submits that the participation of UOB Trustees, Goh BB and Chiew SW is wholly irrelevant to Enclosure 5, which is squarely within the first limb of Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) ROC 2012. The Trust Deed establishes the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim under Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 5 is the part of the procedural mechanism to ensure the ‘purpose of the proceeding under Enclosure 1’ is given effect, and it is independent of the Deceased’s estate administration. As such, Tey Rose’s objections are misconceived and an attempt to delay the proceedings.”. [28] Penelitian Mahkamah ini kepada hujahan-hujahan peguam-peguam menunjukkan bahawa sememangnya tiada apa-apa “maklum balas diperoleh daripada pihak ketiga” iaitu UOB Trustees, Goh BB and Chiew SW. Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan Plaintif bahawa maklum balas yang diperlukan itu tidak relevan. Berdasarkan fakta mengenai Trust Deed yang dimasuki dan dimeterai antara Plaintif dan Goh Bian Soon pada tahun 2006 bagi pemegangan saham dalam syarikat Defendan Kedua memperuntukkan bahawa Goh Bian Soon hanya memegang saham tersebut secara amanah untuk Plaintif. Ini disebabkan pinjaman oleh Goh Bian Soon kepada Plaintif. Pada tahun 2023 iaitu 2 peristiwa berlaku iaitu 15-3-2023 Trust Deed ditandatangani dan 18-4-2023 Goh Bian Soon meninggal dunia. Dengan kematian Goh Bian Soon itu, mendiang mati meninggalkan suatu wasiat dan di dalam wasiat itu terteralah nama UOB Trustee. [29] Walau pun peguam cara kepada Tey Rose ada menulis hujahan bagi penyelesaian kepada masalah pemindahan saham Defendan Kedua yang dipegang secara amanah oleh Goh Bian Soon (Simati), adalah jelas nyata bahawa kedudukan Defendan Kedua yang langsung tidak membantah dan tidak membangkitkan apa-apa persoalan adalah langkah yang terbaik kepada Plaintif untuk menujukan dan memfailkan permohonan kepada UOB Trustees (M) Bhd. untuk dilantik sebagai the legal representative of the estate. Peguam cara kepada Tey Rose berhujah “There is no evidence of the Plaintiff even trying to reach out to UOB Trustees or name them in their application for the transfer of the shares. The Plaintiff also does not deny no such attempt has been made. This application to name as the legal representative is highly unwarranted, improper and pre-mature.”. Pendapat Mahkamah: Tiada apa-apa alasan kukuh dinyatakan oleh Plaintif alasan keengganan Plaintif untuk menghubungi UOB Trustees, selain daripada Plaintif menyatakan alasan tidak relevan bagi permohonannya dalam saman pemula ini. Selanjutnya, dengan adanya maklum balas daripada UOB Trustee dapat menyelesaikan isu pengeluaran apa-apa Grant of Probate dan seterusnya dapatlah melantik UOB Trustee wakil sah kepada harta pusaka Goh Bian Soon. [30] Prinsip dalam kes Glen Lau Lian Seng ada dipetik dalam beberapa kes di Mahkamah Tinggi, antaranya − a) Teo Tiam Teng v. Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pusaka Simati, Salleh Bin Saring [2023] 1 LNS 967, Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam memutuskan − “[25] It is trite law that generally, the death of the defendant does not extinguish the cause of action against him. The cause of action survives, notwithstanding his death. O. 15 r. 6A provides a remedy for a suit to be brought in the event of the defendant’s death. The rules allow the action to be brought against his estate, by citing the personal representatives of the estate of the said deceased as the defendant.”. b) JW Development Sdn Bhd v. Syarikat Bamas Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 640, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur memutuskan − “[30] Adalah jelas kuasa Mahkamah dalam kaedah 6A ini adalah kuasa budi bicara. A. 15 k. 6A tidak memprekripsi bahawa persetujuan orang yang dilantik sebagai wakil Si Mati adalah diperlukan sebelum perintah penggantian atau perlantikan dibuat. Apa yang perlu dipertimbangkan adalah perkara-perkara yang relevan yang merangkumi tindakan atau kes di hadapannya. c) Beyond Halmark Sdn Bhd v. Cheah Theam Kheng & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 2212, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur memutuskan − “[6] Since D1 had passed away at the commencement of this present action, the Plaintiff by its Enclosure 11 had applied inter alia for an order that D3 be appointed to represent the estate of D1 for the purpose of the proceedings herein. The application is made pursuant to Order 15 rule 6A of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and/or and/or Order 20 rule 5 of the ROC 2012. [9] D3 had resisted the application on the following grounds: i. He does not consent to such appointment. ii. If he is appointed he will be forced to incur liability for which he may not be able to reimburse from the estate of D1. iii. He had not much knowledge about the dealings of D1 in this matter. iv. There is conflict of interest for D3 to D1’s personal representative for the purpose of the present suit because at the same time, D3 is also claiming against D1’s estate to preserve D3’s claim of RM 500,000.00 owed by D1 to D3. v. Amanah Raya Berhad is the most appropriate person to be named. D3 does not consent to the appointment [10] This Court must emphasize here that even though D3 had raised five (5) grounds in opposing the Plaintiff’s application, the essence of his objection is primarily on the issue of his consent. … [13] Regarding the issue of consent, the counsel for D3 had submitted that even though he agrees that there is no express provision under Order 15 rule 6A(4)(b) of the ROC 2012 requiring a consent to be obtained from the proposed person to be appointed as a personal representative of a deceased, there are decided cases where the court had taken the approach that such consent is a relevant factor to be considered when appointing a person to be a personal representative of a deceased. … [24] By the clear words of Order 15 rule 6A of the ROC 2012, this Court is of the considered view that in determining whether any person may be appointed to represent any deceased person, the court needs to consider all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the case. … [29] Regarding D3’s contention that he lacks personal knowledge of the subject matter of the present case, this Court opines that a person to be appointed as the personal representative of a deceased person need not necessarily possess intricate and vast knowledge of the subject matter of the claims made against the deceased. In this action D3 is merely appointed as the personal representative of D1 where his appointment only functions for the purposes of the action. He is not appointed as a general executor or administrator of D1’s estate in which he is not supposed to interfere or meddle with the deceased’s assets. In such position, no personal knowledge of the subject matter of the claims is necessary. … ”. [31] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia v. Yong Siew Choon [2006] 1 MLJ 1 memutuskan − “Per Augustine Paul FCJ: [1] The object of O. 15 r. 6A of the Act is to provide a remedy where there is no person in law who can be sued. It is therefore superfluous to state that even where no grant of probate or of administration has been made to the estate of a deceased person O. 15 r. 6A will have no application if there is, in law, a person who can be sued. An executor de son tort is such a person. (p 548 f-g)”. [32] Memandangkan perlantikan ini akan menjadikan Tey Rose “bertanggungjawab secara statutori”, maka Mahkamah ini tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya melantik beliau atas dasar “assumption of responsibility” di mana telah dipralihat dalam afidavit Tey Rose sendiri akan “keenganan beliau untuk dilantik” terutama dengan penegasan bahawa “beliau tidak ingin lagi tinggal di Malaysia” yang akan menyukarkan lagi tindakan dikenakan terhadap beliau (isu bidangkuasa misalnya), sekiranya tanggungajawab ini tidak dilaksanakan kelak. (Accolade Land Sdn Bhd v Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 1526) [33] Dalam hal keadaan kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, deklarasi agar Mahkamah ini mengisytiharkan bahawa saham dalam Defendan Kedua yang dipegang oleh Goh Bian Soon (Simati) bukan sebahagian daripada harta pusaka Simati tersebut, Mahkamah ini memutuskan kedudukan saham tersebut sewajarnya diselesaikan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua melalui pemindahan saham via Article of Association Defendan Kedua. Kesimpulan [34] Sebagaimana alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini menolak prayer pada perenggan 1 (a) saman pemula ini dan kos permohonan ditanggung oleh Plaintif. Bertarikh: 24 September 2025. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC12 Peguam cara: Bagi pihak Plaintif: En Chua Kim Hong Rudeen Tetuan Rudeen Chua & Co., Subang Jaya Bagi pihak Puan Tey Rose: En Dennis Yuean Jin Han Tetuan Cheang & Ariff, Kuala Lumpur Bagi pihak Defendan Kedua: En Ang Jian Ming Tetuan Tay, Tee & Nasir, Petaling Jaya