NEWFIELDS ADVISORS SDN BHD vs MUI CONTINENTAL BERHAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 962

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NEWFIELDS ADVISORS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MUI CONTINENTAL BERHAD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim relates to professional fees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. sole issue for determination. (Para 4)
3. arguments from plaintiff and defendant. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court analysis on evidence act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. importance of contemporaneous documents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21)
6. agreement on transaction value components. (Para 18 , 20)
7. defendant liable for fees based on total consideration. (Para 22)

[1] This action concerns a claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for, among others, a sum of RM1,580,950, purportedly being the balance of professional fees due and owing in respect of a transaction between the Defendant and Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad ["TMI"]["the said Transaction"].

[2] The Plaintiff holds a Capital Markets Services Licence from the Securities Commission to provide corporate financial advisory services.

Facts

[3] The background facts are as follows:

[a] the Defendant is a subsidiary of Malayan United Industries Bhd ["MUI"] held through Novimax (M) Sdn Bhd ["Novimax"]. Novimax is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MUI.

[b] the Plaintiff was appointed as advisor to the Defendant in respect of the said Transact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 962

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURNEWFIELDS ADVISORS SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMUI CONTINENTAL BERHAD – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NEWFIELDS ADVISORS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MUI CONTINENTAL BERHAD – Respondent