FORMIS RESOURCES & ORS vs RISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY SYSTEM PTY LTD & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 254

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
FORMIS RESOURCES & ORS – Appellant
Versus
RISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY SYSTEM PTY LTD & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Table of Content
1. validity of an arbitration and its enforcement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. assessment of evidence in no case situations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. corporate actions and the aspect of fraud. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 27)
4. defendants' responsibility under corporate law. (Para 24 , 26 , 31 , 36)

Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA:

For ease of reference, the parties will be referred as they were in the original suit before the High Court.

[1] These four appeals are taken together. All 13 defendants in the action have appealed against the decision made against them. The appellants in the 2nd appeal [W-02(NCVC)(W)-1383-08-2014] were the 2nd and 5th defendants whereas in the 3rd [W-02(NCVC)(W)-1384-08-2014] and 4th appeals [W-02(NCVC)(W)1407-08-2014], the appellants were the 13th and 12th defendants respectively. The appellants in the 1st appeal [W-02(NCVC)(W)- 1337-08-2014] comprise the remaining nine defendants. We heard the appeals on 2 February 2016 and had stood down the matter for decision on a date to be informed to the parties. This is our decision.

The Arbitration

[2] The plaintiff is an Australian company specialising in providing "Enterprise Risk Intelligence" solutions an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 254

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAFORMIS RESOURCES & ORS – AppellantVersusRISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY SYSTEM PTY LTD & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
FORMIS RESOURCES & ORS – Appellant
Versus
RISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY SYSTEM PTY LTD & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent