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

2025 MarsdenLR 6255

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
CHUA HENG HONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
S LITE ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Civil Suit Nos: PA-22NCvC-15-02/2024 & PA-22NCvC-80-05/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Ong Yu Shin,Lim Wooi Ying,Lau Yi Xuan ,Respondent Advocate: Loo Hsien Yang

Clause contravening statutory provisions is void; non-parties to a contract lack legal standing for claims.

Headnote:(A) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Section 35 - Share Sale Agreement - Breach of contract - The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of agreement as clause 9.3 of the Share Sale Agreement was found to contravene Section 35 of CIPAA and thus void. The Defendants' counterclaim was allowed as the Plaintiffs could not enforce the agreement due to the lack of privity of contract. (Paras 26, 57, 74)

(B) Contract Law - Privity of contract - Hong Poh, being a non-party, could not rely on the clauses of the Share Sale Agreement for recovery or damages as it lacked enforceable rights. (Paras 58, 60)

(C) Legal Principles - The doctrine of separate legal entity precludes directors or shareholders from claiming personal damages for losses suffered by the company. (Paras 72, 76)

(D) Res Judicata - The counterclaim was allowed as the previous case did not preclude fresh claims on the breach of agreement. (Paras 86-88)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs P1 and P2 claimed against the Defendants, who counterclaimed declaring certain provisions of their Share Sale Agreement void for breach stemming from conditional payment terms subject to recovery from third parties.

Findings of Court:
Clause 9.3 of the Share Sale Agreement contravened Section 35 of CIPAA, thus was illegal and rendered void. Additionally, the Plaintiffs had no standing to claim damages on behalf of Hong Poh due to lack of privity.

Issues: The court considered the enforceability of clause 9.3 of the Share Sale Agreement and whether the Plaintiffs had standing to claim damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that clauses violating statutory provisions cannot be upheld and that non-parties to a contract lack the legal standing to enforce it.

Result: Plaintiffs’ claim dismissed; Defendants’ counterclaim allowed.

Table of Content
1. parties and relationship in the ssa (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. plaintiffs' claims for breach of ssa (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. validity of clause 9 in ssa (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. doctrine of separate corporate entity (Para 70 , 72 , 74)
Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants for breach of cl 9 of a share sale agreement dated 13 October 2020 ("SSA"). The Defendants in turn counterclaim for a declaration that cl 9 of the SSA is void. After a full trial, I dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim and allow the Defendants' counterclaim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Background Facts

[2] The 1st Plaintiff ("P1") and the 2nd Plaintiff ("P2") are the directors of the 3rd Plaintiff ("Hong Poh"). P1 is the sole shareholder of Hong Poh. Both P1 and P2 were former shareholders of the 1st Defendant ("SLite"). The 2nd Defendant ("D2") is the director and shareholder of S Lite.

[3] On 13 October 2020, P1 and P2 entered into the SSA to sell their 50% shareholding in S Lite to D2 for a consideration of RM120,000.00. The SSA was entered into between P1 and P2 (as vendors) and D2 (as purchaser). SLite, the target company, is also a signatory to the SSA. Hong Poh however is not a party to the SSA.

[4] Clause 9.3 of the SSA contains a conditional payment provision. Where SLite agrees not to pursue Hong Poh for the outstanding sum of RM2,912,637.88 ("outstanding sum") owed by Hong Poh to SLite under various construction projects ("construction projects"). Unless Hong Poh successfully recovers the outstanding sum from the owners of the construction projects.

[5] Clause 9.2 of the SSA stipulates that SLite agrees to share 50% of the legal fees and disbursements incurred by Hong Poh in taking legal action to recover the outstanding sum from the employers of the construction projects.

Clause 9 Of The Ssa

[6] Clause 9 of the SSA reads:

"9. Outstanding Sum

9.1 From the books of the Company [ie SLite], there is a sum of Ringgit Malaysia Two Million Nine Hundred Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven and Sen Eighty Eight (RM2,912,637.88) only ("the Outstanding Sum") due and payable by Hong Poh Engineering Construction Sdn Bhd (714939-T) ("Hong Poh") to the Company as at 5 August 2020 for works done in respect of certain projects ("the Project(s)") as set out in Appendix A and whereby Hong Poh is a private company wholly owned and controlled by the Vendor(s).

9.2 As the owner(s) of the Project(s) has delayed / defaulted in payment of the amount due to Hong Poh, Hong Poh is commencing legal action(s) against the owner(s) of the Project(s) for recovery of the debt equivalent to the Outstanding Sum and the Company agrees to absorb fifty per centum (50%) of the legal fees and disbursements incurred in the legal action(s) to recover of the debt due provided that:

(a) if the legal action(s) is filed in a civil Court, the Vendor(s) shall furnish the relevant details and documents of the legal action(s) so taken, in particular the Writ and Statement of Claim, to the Company within one (1) month of the filing date;

(b) if the legal action(s) is taken by way of any other legal proceedings, the Vendor(s) shall furnish the relevant details and documents of the relevant proceedings, in particular the document(s) making out the Vendor(s)' claim, to the Company within one (1) month of the filing date; and

(c) in either scenario, the Vendor(s) shall keep the Purchaser(s) informed of the progress and development of the action taken.

9.3 The Parties agree that the Outstanding Sum or any part thereof less the portion of the costs agreed at cl 9.2 above will only be repaid by Hong Poh to the Company upon recovery and receipt of the amount from the owner(s) of the Project(s).

9.4 The parties agree that the provisions above, in particular Clause 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 shall not be prejudicial in any manner to the rights of the Company to take its own appropriate legal action(s) against any or all the owner(s) of the Project(s) for recovery of the relev

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