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

2025 MarsdenLR 3040

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
WA SKILLS TRAINING MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NURAIN MOHD SAKIRIN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-432-10/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Cheah Soo Chuang,Khor Wei Wen ,Respondent Advocate: Hasshahari Johari Mawi,Rosly Ayub,Muhamad Hafizan Shafuan

Directors owe fiduciary duties to their company; breaches of these duties can lead to personal liability for damages and conspiracies involving directors may result in actionable claims.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act 1960 - Sections 218(1), 221(1), 225(1), 230(4), (5), 244, 248, 259, 267, Companies Act 2016 - Duty of care and fiduciary obligations of directors, tort of conspiracy - Plaintiff claimed against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorised payments, and conspiracy to misappropriate funds resulting in damages. Court ruled that sufficient evidence demonstrated the first defendant's failure to perform her duties, including unauthorised withdrawals from the company's bank account and breaching statutory obligations. (Paras 60, 66, 82)

(B) Locus Standi - Plaintiff deemed to have the right to initiate proceedings as minority shareholders successfully passed a resolution for the legal action by the company against the defendants for missing funds. (Paras 80, 81)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a Malaysian private limited company, alleged breach of fiduciary duty by its director and another director's engagement in conspiracy to misappropriate funds amid assertions of a shareholders agreement. The main complaints included failure to account for CIDB payments and other unauthorised financial actions taken by the defendants. (Paras 4-30)

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting reliefs, including an account on the disputed funds, damages for negligence and conspiracy, and costs against the defendants. (Paras 83, 84)

Issues: Whether the first defendant breached her duties and if the scheme of conspiracy between the defendants to injure the plaintiff existed. (Paras 33-35)

Ratio Decidendi: The first defendant's lack of credible evidence to substantiate her actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duties, and the Court found that the plaintiff, as a corporate entity, had the right to pursue these claims. (Paras 84)

Result: Judgement in favor of the plaintiff; reliefs granted against the defendants.

Table of Content
1. claims by the plaintiff (Para 1)
2. company formation and operations details (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15)
3. director's roles and responsibilities (Para 8 , 9 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. financial management and payments from cidb (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
5. claims of breaches against defendants (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. existence of shareholders agreement (Para 30 , 31)
7. defendants' contractual obligations assertions (Para 36 , 37)
8. contentions regarding first defendant's duties (Para 46 , 47)
9. evidence analysis against first defendant's claims (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 62)
10. burden of proof standard and applicable cases (Para 77 , 78)
11. locus standi established for plaintiff (Para 80)
12. court's ruling and relief granted (Para 83 , 84)
JUDGMENT

Indra Nehru Savandiah JC:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's case is premised on claims as follows:

(a) an account of the balance of Ringgit Malaysia 773,695.61 ("the balance CIDB sum") arising from the payments received from the Construction Industry Development Board of Malaysia ("CIDB") for services rendered, within 30 days after the date of judgment, and in the event of failure to account within this stipulated period, payment of the balance of Ringgit Malaysia 773, 695.61;

(b) an account of the sum of Australian Dollar 128,373.08 being the funds provided by WA Skills Training Pty Ltd to the plaintiff since 3 May 2016 ("WAST funds"), within 30 days after the date of judgment, and in the event of failure to account within this stipulated period, payment of the sum of Australian Dollar 128,373.08;

(c) payment of Ringgit Malaysia 610,014.38 is the unauthorised withdrawal or payment made from the plaintiff's Hong Leong Bank account no 27800019373;

(d) payment of Ringgit Malaysia 10,000.00 being the unauthorised payments of directors' fees;

(e) payment of Ringgit Malaysia 112,500.00 being the unauthorised increment of the first defendant's salary;

(f) damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary, statutory and contractual duties by the first defendant to be assessed by the Registrar;

(g) damages for conspiracy by both the defendants to be assessed by the Registrar;

(h) aggravated and exemplary damages;

(i) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sums awarded by the Court in prayers (a) to (h) above from the date of judgment until the date of full settlement;

(j) costs;

(k) such further and other relief as the Court may deem fit and proper.

[2] The Court allowed payers (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), interest to be at 5% per annum and costs of RM50,000.00 against the defendants.

[3] Hence, the appeal is filed.

Background Facts

[4] The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia.

[5] The plaintiff's business offered personnel, corporate, and industrial training activities, coaching, training and development, facilitation, business simulation, research, assessment, and certification services, primarily for the construction industry.

[6] At all material times, the training services provided by the plaintiff were conducted by WA Skills Training Pty Ltd (WAST), a company established and based in Australia, with its business address at 12 Halifax Drive, Bunbury WA 6230, Australia.

[7] The training services also included vocational qualifying courses per the Australian Qualification Framework and others as needed.

[8] The first defendant is a Malaysian national. At all relevant times, she served as both a director and an employee of the plaintiff.

[9] Before the plaintiff's incorporation, she was employed by WAST.

[10] Her scope of work includes, among other things:

(a) managing the daily operations of the plaintiff;

(b) facilitating and assisting in the scheduling and coordination of training activities;

(c) ensuring that the course materials and training staff comply with relevant laws and regulations; and;

(d) ensuring that the plaintiff's business operations comply with the laws and regulations.

[11] The second defendant is an Australian citizen.

[12] In 2016, he was promoted t

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