SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 204

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NAUTICAL SUPREME SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCC)(W)-182-01/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Dato' Dr Cyrus V Das,David Thomas Mathews,Olivia Loh,Lai Ann Xing,Koh Jo Vin ,Respondent Advocate: Pang Kong Leng,Chok Zhin Theng,Jonathan Lim See Kheng,Michelle Chin Zi Shan

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove actual loss or intent to injure in a conspiracy claim, affirming the necessity of demonstrating actual damage for such torts.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act 2016 - Sections 213, 214, 217, 218 - Tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means - Appeal against High Court's dismissal of suit for conspiracy - Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any intention to injure by the defendants, and the alleged breaches of duty were not substantiated - Non-Sinister Inference Rule not applicable in this jurisdiction - High Court's findings on lack of actual loss or damage affirmed. (Paras 1, 8, 12, 41)

(B) Tort Law - Conspiracy - Distinction between unlawful and lawful means - Court clarified that the tort of conspiracy requires proof of actual loss or damage, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate in this case - The necessity of actual loss for claims of conspiracy was emphasized. (Paras 31, 37)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff company alleged that the defendants conspired to injure it by unlawful means through various actions that jeopardized its business operations. The High Court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff could not prove the defendants' intent to injure or any actual loss resulting from their conduct. (Paras 8, 12)

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants had conspired against it or that any breaches of duty occurred. The appellate court upheld these findings, emphasizing the need for actual loss in conspiracy claims. (Paras 12, 41)

Issues: The main issues were whether the Non-Sinister Inference Rule should apply in this jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff proved the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. (Paras 1, 31)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Non-Sinister Inference Rule should not be applied, and the plaintiff must demonstrate actual loss to succeed in a conspiracy claim - the defendants' conduct did not amount to unlawful conspiracy. (Paras 16, 32)

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs. (Paras 41)

JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Background

[1] This appeal raises two novel questions, namely:

(1) if two inferences are equally open to the court from the same set of facts and these inferences do not concern the credibility of a witness, is there a rule that the court should accept the non-sinister inference and reject the sinister inference (Non-Sinister Inference Rule)?; and

(2) with regard to the tort of conspiracy to injure a claimant by unlawful means, whether Malaysian courts should substitute the requirement of actual knowledge regarding the unlawful means on the part of the conspirators and accept a lower threshold of "constructive intent" as laid down by the apex courts in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) as follows:

(a) the decision of the Supreme court of Canada in Cement LaFarge Ltd v. BC Lightweight Aggregate Ltd [1983] 1 SCR 452; and

(b) the joint judgment of Lord Sumption and Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC in UK's Supreme court case of JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov & Anor [2018] 2 WLR 1125.

[2] A draft of this judgment (Draft) had been previously forwarded to Hanipah binti Farikullah FCJ (who heard this appeal in the court of Appeal) and Mariana binti Haji Yahya JCA. Both my learned sisters had expressed their agreement with the Draft.

B. Background

[3] We shall refer to the parties as they were in the High court.

[4] With regard to the plaintiff company (Plaintiff):

(1) the shareholders of the Plaintiff are as follows:

(a) the first defendant company (1st Defendant) holds 20% of the shares in the Plaintiff [1st Defendant's 20% Shares (Plaintiff)]; and

(b) 80% of the Plaintiff's shares [AMSB's 80% Shares (Plaintiff)] belong to Azimuth Marine Sdn Bhd (AMSB);

(2) the 1st Defendant had nominated the second and third defendants ("2nd Defendant" and "3rd Defendant") to be non-executive directors of the Plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are also directors of the 1st Defendant;

(3) Dato' Seri Suresh Emmanuel Abishegam (Captain Suresh) is:

(a) the managing director (MD) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Plaintiff; and

(b) a director of AMSB.

AMSB is a member of Azimuth group of companies which is ultimately owned by East India Shipping Corporation Sdn Bhd (EISC). Captain Suresh is the majority shareholder of EISC;

(4) Dato' Ahmad Johari bin Abdul Razak (Johari) is a director of the Plaintiff and the chairman of its board of directors (BOD);

(5) Dato' Abdul Latiff bin Ahmad (Latiff) is a director of the Plaintiff. Mr Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram (Sudhir) is an alternate director of Latiff in the Plaintiff as at 7 March 2016. With effect from 2 November 2016, Sudhir is a director of the Plaintiff; and

(6) the Plaintiff's Financial Controller is Puan Azian bt Abdul Aziz (Azian).

[5] The Plaintiff is a "special purpose vehicle" to undertake a project with Vale Malaysia Minerals Sdn Bhd (Vale) in Lumut, Perak Darul Ridzuan (Project). With regard to the Project:

(1) the Plaintiff was required to construct, own and operate seven harbour tug boats (Tug Boats) to:

(a) be chartered to Vale; and

(b) provide harbour tug services.

For the purpose of the Project, the Plaintiff and Vale entered into a "Harbour Tugs Services Agreement" on 11 April 2013 [Harbour Tugs Services Agreement (Plaintiff-Vale)];

(2) by way of a "BIMCO" (Baltic and International Maritime Council) standard ship management agreement dated 12 April 2013 (BIMCO Agreement), the Plaintiff appointed Azimuth Ship Management Sdn Bhd (ASM) to manage and operate the Tug Boats on behalf of the Plaintiff; and

(3) the Plaintiff obtained a US$51,845,183.00 banking facility from Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Bhd (Bank) to finance 70% of the Plaintiff's expenditure for the Project - please refer to the facility agreement dated 9 April 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Bank (Plaintiff's Facility). The balance 30% for the Project was to be funded by the Plaintiff's shareholders.

[6] On 12 April 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Shin Yang Shipyard Sdn Bhd (Shin Yang) for the pu


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top