Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 15 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 15 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 15 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Lifting of Corporate Veil – Whether action can be taken against the directors of a company for a company debt.

    Case:

    Chin Chee Keong v Toling Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 4 MLRA 180 CA

    Brief Facts:

    • The plaintiff [Toling] is a supplier of a plastic resin used in the manufacture of plastic products.
    • The plaintiff supplied resin to Pacific Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd (the ‘company’) for the period between 9 October 2003 and 24 February 2004.
    • The company failed to pay for the supply. The plaintiff sued the company and obtained judgment in default.
    • The company failed to pay the judgement sum.
    • The plaintiff then sued the directors of the company (the ‘defendants’) [Chin Chee Keong] under s.304(1) of the Companies Act (the ‘Act’) for the directors to be personally liable for the payment of the debt contending that the defendants carried out the business with the intention to defraud the plaintiff.
    • The High Court allowed the plaintiff’s claim, hence the present appeal.
    • The main issues raised before the Court of Appeal are;
    1. Whether the defendants were liable under s.304(1) of the Act and the burden of the proof undersubsection;
    2. whether the plaintiff who defrauded the creditor to be personally liable for the debt of the company s.304(1) of the Act.

    Decision: Appeal dismissed. Directors found liable for company's debt.

    • The primary object underlying s.304(1) of the Act was to provide for the lifting of the veil of incorporation in the specific circumstances of fraudulent trading with a view to ultimately pin personal accountability on the directors.
    • The following elements are to be proven on a balance of probabilities under s.304(1) of the Act;  (i) the business of the company has been carried out with the intent to defraud creditors; (ii) the defendants were knowingly a party to the carrying on the business in that manner and (iii) the discovery of the fraudulent trading.
    • An action against the directors of a company is best taken in separate proceedings instead of in the same proceedings against the company.
    • On a practical note, s.304(1) of the Act is not to be read literally as the court must first make a finding against the company before it can make any other consequential orders against its directors.
    • Despite knowing that it was not able to pay for its purchases, the company under the discretions of the defendants proceeded to place unusually large orders of raw material from the plaintiff.
    • The company did not have a profit generating busines at the material time and the defendants were unable to explain how they were going to honour the company’s obligations.
    • There is sufficient evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendants were dishonest when they incurred company debts with the plaintif knowing at that time the debts owed to the plaintiff will not be repaid or there was a substantial and unreasonable risk that the plaintiff will not be paid.
    • Therefore, given the circumstances, the court was entitled to infer that the defendants knowingly were parties to the fraudulent trading of the company.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil