Oral promises require clear evidence to be enforceable; claims may be barred by the Limitation Act or res judicata principles if previously litigated.

Introduction

[1] This claim by the plaintiff stems from the embroilment of dissatisfaction that the plaintiff had whilst working for the defendants. Their relationship ended in May 2019 when the plaintiff as the director, refused to sign the company's financial statements that he purportedly said lacked adequate supporting documentation. The plaintiff did not accept the reason that the documents were unavailable because of the ransomware virus that affected the accounting records and maintained his position in not signing to approve the financial statements. His refusal prompted the 2nd defendant to remove him as director and appoint his brother as the new director, who then signed the financial statements. The plaintiff accepted the termination but then still came to the office. He was then asked to leave, and thereafter, the plaintiff demanded RM10,000,000.00 payment as justification for his termination. The plaintiff claimed he was wrongfully terminated for refusing to assume the company's potential financial liability.

[2] The plaintiff is suing four energy companies, primarily seeking RM6,800,000.00 in unpaid profit-sharing and additional back wages totalling RM14,683,895.00. The plaintiff, who initially earned RM37,248.00 monthly at Talisman Malaysia, left his position in 2008 after the 2nd defendant promised him a 50% shareholding in a new company, a directorship, and 8% of gross income from all projects in exchange for accepting a lower salary of RM25,000.00 monthly to develop offshore production platform technology called mobile offshore production and storage unit (MOPSU) and the Safe Isolation & Reinstatement of Plant and Energy Systems (SIRPS). The plaintiff successfully secured a major USD91.4 million Petronas contract and developed patented MOPSU technology. However, despite oral promises and alleged admissions of debt by the defendants, he was ultimately forced to resign in 2019 when he refused to sign unsupported financial statements. The case involves claims for breach of oral agreements, unpaid profit-sharing (with the 2nd defendant allegedly showing a payment voucher for RM8,800,000.00 representing the plaintiff's 8% share), intellectual property rights compensation, and various corporate restructuring manoeuvres that the plaintiff argues were designed to avoid paying his promised compensation.

[3] The defendants fundamentally dispute the plaintiff's action by arguing that the plaintiff was never an employee but merely a consultant/contractor who served as a nominee director on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The defendants contend that the 2nd defendant made no representations, assurances, or promises regarding shareholding, directorship, profit-sharing, or intellectual property rights, and that the plaintiff was already compensated approximately RM2,000,000.00 in December 2011 as appreciation for his contributions to the 4th defendant's Petronas project. They assert that the 2nd defendant was not the controlling mind behind the companies, that the plaintiff voluntarily transferred his shares in 2010 to Sharifah Zuraidah bt Syid Mustafa Alqurdi, and that he never held shares in the 1st or 3rd defendants. Crucially, the defendants argue the action should be dismissed on procedural grounds that the claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 (having accrued since 2008 but only filed in August 2020), barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to the plaintiff's previous Industrial Court case tha