JUDGMENT

Shamsulbahri Haji Ibrahim J:

[Enclosures 24 and 27]

Introduction

[1] These are two applications filed by the plaintiff and the defendant in encls 24 and 27 respectively. Enclosure 24 is the plaintiff's application for a summons for direction and notice of appointment for assessment of damages whereas in encl 27, the defendant sought for the assessment of damages be conducted by way of a full trial where witnesses give testimonies before this court.

[2] As a brief background, the plaintiff is a company dealing with buying, selling, renting out and operating self-owned and leased real estates and non-residential buildings whereas the defendant is the Plaintiff's 2nd biggest minority shareholder and former director.

[3] The Plaintiff is the registered owner of a property held under GM10124, Lot 65082, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor with postal address at No 3, Lorong Mohd Tahir 20B, Jalan Raja Nong, 41000 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Property").

[4] On 6 September 2024, the defendant, as he then was the Plaintiff's director, lodged a private caveat on the Property to protect his interest as the plaintiff's minority shareholder and to prevent the company from selling the Property to any third party without his knowledge.

[5] In or around October 2024, a purchaser by the name of Koh Ye Yan expressed her interest in purchasing the Property at a price of RM400,000.00. Although Koh Ye Yan knew about the existence of the private caveat on the Property, she still showed her interest to proceed with the purchase, provided that the plaintiff took necessary steps to remove the private caveat.

[6] In light of the offer, the plaintiff agreed with the sale as the offered price of RM400,000.00 was higher than the prevailing market valuation of the Property which was estimated to be within the range of RM300,000.00 to RM350,000.00. As such, the plaintiff convened an Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") on 11 November 2024 to discuss the proposed sale. The EGM was attended by all directors save the defendant. Upon obtaining the requisite majority vote, the resolution approving the proposed sale was passed.

[7] Subsequently, a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) was entered into by the plaintiff and Koh Ye Yan on 12 November 2024.

[8] On 3 January 2025, the Plaintiff filed an OS in this court seeking inter alia for the Defendant's private caveat be removed.

[9] Without the Plaintiff's knowledge, on 24 January 2025 the defendant withdrew the caveat. However, the defendant still proceeded to contest the Plaintiff's application by filing his Affidavit in Reply on the same day. The withdrawal was only disclosed by the defendant during the case management on 26 February 2025. Nevertheless, notwithstanding its withdrawal, the defendant proceeded with his submission so that the merits of the lodgement of the private caveat could be deliberated upon.

[10] During the case management, the defendant's solicitors continued to act as if the private caveat was still in place, informing the court of their purported "intention" and "willingness" to withdraw it, despite the fact that the private caveat had already been withdrawn.

[11] On 11 March 2025, the defendant filed the supplementary affidavit which in turn the plaintiff filed its further affidavit on 13 March 2025 together with the written submission. The Defendant also filed his written submission on that day.

[12] On 8 April 2025, after hearing submissions from both sides, this court held that the defendant has no caveatable interest to lodge the private caveat and the caveat was declared wrongful. The court also ordered the damages sought by the plaintiff to be assessed.

[13] On 25 April 2025, the plaintiff filed a summons for direction and notice of appointment for assessment of damages in encl 24.

[14] On 3 June 2025, the defendant filed an application in encl 27 for the assessment of damages be conducted by way of a full trial where witnesses testify before this court.

Enclosure 27 - Application B