1. Commercial lot sales and tenancies — Unpaid rent — Action to pierce corporate veil to impose liability of tenant company on developer company. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1483
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
SEE MEE CHUN, J, WONG KIAN KHEONG, J, ISMAIL BRAHIM, JJCA
Capital City Property Sdn Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Teh Swee Neo & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO J-02(NCVC)(W)-649-04 OF 2023
Important Points
Piercing the corporate veil to impose one company's liability on another requires proof of actual fraud or equitable fraud. Mere control, management, or "interest of justice" is insufficient, as corporate groups may lawfully arrange their affairs to avoid future liability provided no existing rights are deprived.
Subject
Company Law - Corporate Veil / Separate Legal Entity
Act Referred
Companies Act 2016: S.20, S.4
Evidence Act 1950: S.91, S.92, S.115, S.101(1), S.102
Contracts Act 1950: S.41
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966: S.3
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989
Evidence Act 1950: S.91, S.92, S.115, S.101(1), S.102
Contracts Act 1950: S.41
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966: S.3
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989
Headnote
(A) Companies Act 2016 - Section 20 - Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 91, 92 and 115 - Contracts Act 1950 - Section 41 - Separate legal personality of companies - Piercing the corporate veil to impose liability of one company on another - General rule that each member of a corporate group is a separate legal entity - Piercing the corporate veil between companies is an exceptional discretion and can only be invoked if one of two exceptions is proven on a balance of probabilities: (i) actual fraud (dishonesty) or (ii) equitable/constructive fraud (unconscionable conduct) (Paras 14, 19, 20) - Mere control, management, or the "interest of justice" is insufficient to pierce the veil in the absence of these exceptions (Para 20(4)) - A group of companies has the right to arrange its corporate affairs to avoid future legal liability, provided there is no actual or potential illegality and no intention to deprive a person of existing rights (Paras 19, 20(1)).
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 91 and 92 - Entire agreement clause - Effect of a clause stating the contract constitutes the sole and entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings - Such clauses prevent the implication of terms or reliance on pre-contractual representations not contained in the written document (Paras 33(4)-(5)).
(C) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 115 - Estoppel - Doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied to pierce the corporate veil when the legal exceptions for piercing are not met, especially where the claimant can enforce a judgment against the primary liable company (Paras 37, 38).
Facts of the case:
A developer sold commercial units to purchasers. A separate company rented these units from the purchasers but failed to pay rent. The purchasers sued both the tenant company and the developer company. The High Court held both jointly and severally liable by piercing the corporate veil of the tenant company, citing the developer's control and the interest of justice. The developer appealed the finding of joint liability.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in law by failing to apply the strict exceptions for piercing the corporate veil between companies. The tenant company was not a shell company, and the agreements were genuine commercial contracts. The "entire agreement" clause in the sale and purchase agreements precluded the developer's liability for the tenant's rent, and there was no evidence of actual or equitable fraud.
Issues: Whether the corporate veil of a tenant company could be pierced to impose its liability on a developer company based on control and the interest of justice, and whether the doctrine of estoppel could justify such an imposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that piercing the corporate veil to impose liability on another company requires proof of actual fraud or equitable fraud. The right of a corporate group to arrange its affairs to limit future liability is recognized. Control or "interest of justice" alone does not justify piercing the veil. Furthermore, an "entire agreement" clause prevents the addition of liabilities not expressly agreed upon in writing, and estoppel cannot be used to bypass the separate legal personality of companies without the requisite fraud exceptions.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment against the second defendant set aside.
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 91 and 92 - Entire agreement clause - Effect of a clause stating the contract constitutes the sole and entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings - Such clauses prevent the implication of terms or reliance on pre-contractual representations not contained in the written document (Paras 33(4)-(5)).
(C) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 115 - Estoppel - Doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied to pierce the corporate veil when the legal exceptions for piercing are not met, especially where the claimant can enforce a judgment against the primary liable company (Paras 37, 38).
Facts of the case:
A developer sold commercial units to purchasers. A separate company rented these units from the purchasers but failed to pay rent. The purchasers sued both the tenant company and the developer company. The High Court held both jointly and severally liable by piercing the corporate veil of the tenant company, citing the developer's control and the interest of justice. The developer appealed the finding of joint liability.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in law by failing to apply the strict exceptions for piercing the corporate veil between companies. The tenant company was not a shell company, and the agreements were genuine commercial contracts. The "entire agreement" clause in the sale and purchase agreements precluded the developer's liability for the tenant's rent, and there was no evidence of actual or equitable fraud.
Issues: Whether the corporate veil of a tenant company could be pierced to impose its liability on a developer company based on control and the interest of justice, and whether the doctrine of estoppel could justify such an imposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that piercing the corporate veil to impose liability on another company requires proof of actual fraud or equitable fraud. The right of a corporate group to arrange its affairs to limit future liability is recognized. Control or "interest of justice" alone does not justify piercing the veil. Furthermore, an "entire agreement" clause prevents the addition of liabilities not expressly agreed upon in writing, and estoppel cannot be used to bypass the separate legal personality of companies without the requisite fraud exceptions.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment against the second defendant set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
company law
-
corporate veil
- piercing the corporate veil
- lifting the corporate veil
-
corporate veil
-
contract law
- privity of contract
-
interpretation
- entire agreement clause
-
evidence law
- parol evidence rule
- estoppel
Advocates:
Joshua Kevin (with Leng Wie Mun and Yap Zhen Yun) (Kevin & Co) for the appellant.
Lim Chang (Lim Chang & Soo) for the respondents.
Joshua Kevin (with Leng Wie Mun and Yap Zhen Yun) (Kevin & Co) for the appellant.
Lim Chang (Lim Chang & Soo) for the respondents.
Table of Contents
Wong Kian Kheong JCA:
JUDGMENT A. Novel issues
[1]This case discusses whether the court could pierce the corporate veil of one company (Company X) and impose liability incurred by Company X on another company (Company Y) when -
(1) Company Y had developed commercial lots in a shopping mall (Lots) and sold the Lots to various purchasers (Purchasers);
(2) the Purchasers and Company X had entered into tenancy agreements wherein the Purchasers rented the Lots to Company X (Tenancy Agreements);
(3) Company X was liable to the Purchasers for the unpaid rent of the Lots under the Tenancy Agreements (Unpaid Rent);
(4) Company Y was not a party to the Tenancy Agreements;
(5) the Purchasers had obtained a final judgment against Company X for the Unpaid Rent [Purchasers’ Final Judgment (Company X)]; and
(6) Company X is solvent; and
(7) the Purchasers’ Final Judgment (Company X) is not a “paper judgment” and can be executed against Company X.
The above question also discusses the following matters -
(a)with regard to a group of companies [Group (Companies)], in view of the separate legal personality of each member company in the Group (Companies) as well as the right of the Group (Companies) to arrange its corporate affairs among the member companies of the Group (Companies), how should the court exercise its discretionary power to pierce the corporate veil of Company X and impose Company X’s liability on Company Y? In this regard, whether the court can exercise its discretionary power to pierce a company’s corporate veil when -
(i)actual fraud had been committed;
(ii)there existed equitable fraud or unconscionability;
(iii)Company Y was evading its liability for the Unpaid Rent;
(iv)there was an abuse of the corporate personality of Company X;
(v)there existed special or exceptional circumstances;
(vi)it was in the interest of justice to pierce the corporate veil of Company X; and/or
(vii)Company Y controlled, managed and/or directed Company X;
(b)the effect of an entire agreement clause and bilateral written variation clause in the SPAs;
(c)the application of ss 9192Evidence Act 1950EA) as well as the provisos (a) to (f) of s 92EA
(d)whether Company X and Company Y were estopped by s 115EA
(e)the relationship between the application of the doctrine of privity of contract and the court’s discretionary power to pierce the corporate veil of a company.
B. Background
[2]I will refer to the parties as they were in the High Court.
[3]The second defendant company (2nd Defendant) built a shopping mall named “Capital City Mall” (Mall).
[4]By way of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs), the 2nd Defendant sold commercial units in the Mall (Units) to various purchasers (Unit Purchasers). The contents of the substantive provisions in the SPAs were identical.
[5]The first defendant company (1st Defendant) entered into tenancy agreements with the Unit Purchasers wherein the 1st Defendant rented Units from the Unit Purchasers (TAs). The substantive provisions in the TAs were identical.
C. Proceedings in the High Court
[6]This suit in the High Court (This Suit) was a representative or class action filed by two plaintiffs on behalf of Unit Purchasers of 97 Units (Plaintiffs) against both the 1st and 2nd Defendants (collectively referred to in this judgment as the “Defendants”).
[7]In This Suit -
(1)the Plaintiffs claimed that both the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for rent (Rent) which had not been paid by the Defendants for the 97 Units pursuant to the TAs (Original Action);
(2)the 1st Defendant denied the Original Action and filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for the following relief -
(a) a declaration that the Plaintiffs had breached the TAs [Alleged Plaintiffs’ Breaches (TAs)] by failing to pay various charges due to the 2nd Defendant pursuant to the SPAs; and
(b) an order for the Plaintiffs to pay damages to the 1st Defendant as a result of the Alleged Plaintiffs’ Breaches (TAs)
(1st Defendant’s Counterclaim); and
(3)the Original Action was de
