A bankrupt's involvement in corporate management without prior permission contravenes bankruptcy laws, leading to dismissal of claims dependent on their testimony.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's case against the Defendant is based on the Defendant's unlawful termination of an agreement dated 1 April 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2008 agreement"). The main relief sought by the Plaintiff is for declaration that the said 2008 Agreement is a valid and binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is enforceable whereas the termination notice of the 2008 Agreement issued by the Defendant through the Defendant's solicitors dated 24 December 2010 is void and invalid. The rest of the Plaintiff's claim is for special damages suffered by the Defendant as a result of the wrongful termination of the said 2008 Agreement by the Defendant.

[2] The Defendant's defence is that the Defendant has the right to terminate the said 2008 Agreement by giving a 3 months notice as agreed by the parties in a 30 November 2010 meeting and/or in the alternative, a reasonable period of notice of termination since the said 2008 Agreement does not have a termination clause.

[3] The rest of the Plaintiff's claim on damages are put to strict proof by the Defendant. The Defendant also counterclaims for the sum of RM37,643.70 as payments still not paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Plaintiff's Case

[4] Only one witness SP1 Yeo Lai Teck gave evidence for the Plaintiff. SP1 gave evidence that he was holding the position of business advisor for the Plaintiff's company and was appointed as an attorney or their representative to act for all transactions of the Plaintiff's company. SP1 said that he was appointed as a director of the company on 22 February 2011 with the consent of the Insolvency Department vide their letter dated 21 May 2012.

[5] According to SP1, the Plaintiff entered into the 2008 Agreement with the Defendant on 1 April 2008. In the 2008 Agreement the Defendant agreed to sell and the Plaintiff agreed to purchase scrap-metal of PCB such as bare copper, copper with metal and bare aluminium (herein referred to as "the metals") based on a term provided for in the 2008 Agreement which allows the Plaintiff to resell the said metals to third party in the market for profit. Clause 11 of the 2008 Agreement provides that "this agreement is binding for 3 years by both parties and thereafter will be auto renewed for every 3 years."

[6] According to SP1, the Plaintiff was entitled to a minimum of 6 years of contract based on this clause 11. However before the expiry of the first 3 years of the said Agreement, the Defendant through Messrs. Aswar Simon & Azhar sent a Notice of Termination letter dated 24 December 2012 to the Defendant. But before that, SP1 said that the Defendant wanted to review the 2008 Agreement by substituting it with a new agreement ("the 2010 Agreement") which provides for a contract period of 3 months from 1 October 2010 until 31 December 2010 and upon expiry thereof.

[7] It also provides further that on 31 December 2010, the parties shall enter into a New Agreement subject to the agreement of both parties. The 2010 Agreement also states that upon the signing of this agreement, the 2008 Agreement signed by both parties will be deemed null and void.

[8] SP1 testified that the Plaintiff did not agree with the terms of the 2010 Agreement and after some correspondences and meetings between the parties the matter could not be resolved. Hence, SP1 said that it was unfair for the Defendant to terminate the 2008 Agreement by a 3 months notice given by the Defendant's solicitors.

[9] SP1 testified that the Plaintiff had provided the services to the Defendant and was not in breach of th