JUDGMENT

Khadijah Idris JC:

[1] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants appealed against my decision dismissing their appeals against the decision of the Deputy Registrar who had dismissed the defendants' preliminary objections in respect of the plaintiff's application for direction for assessment of damages.

[2] Enclosure 140 is Notis Rayuan Kepada Hakim Dalam Kamar dated 6 April 2016 filed by Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Putra the 1st defendant (1st defendant). Whilst encl 141 Notis Rayuan Kepada Hakim Dalam Kamar of even date jointly filed by Wong Fook Heng, the 2nd defendant (2nd defendant) and Tiong Young Kong, the 3rd defendant (3rd defendant).

[3] Enclosure 140 is registered as Mahkamah Rayuan Sivil No W-02(IM) (NCC)-1236-07-2016 and encl 141 as Mahkamah Rayuan Sivil No W-0 (IM) (NCC)-1237-07-2016. This grounds of judgment is in respect of both appeals.

Factual Background

[4] As the instant appeals concern compliance with provisions of the , the background which forms the basis of these appeals is best narrated chronologically. The chronological events as substantially laid down by the plaintiff is as follows.

[5] The above chronological events was presented by the plaintiff in their written submissions filed at the direction of the Registrar for the hearing of the preliminary objections raised by the defendants before the Registrar, and subsequently before this Court. There was no affidavits filed by any of the parties for purpose of the preliminary objections. Although the defendants did not lay down the chronological events in their written submissions, they did not dispute or deny those events. In fact, the defendants related to the events when they reiterated the dispute on the CA Order has got nothing to do with the terms on assessment of damages. Needless to say, those events are of common and general knowledge to the solicitors for the plaintiff and defendants and well within their personal knowledge. As such, for purpose of the instant appeals, I am of the view the Court can rely and consider those events as the factual background of the instant appeals.

[6] The terms of the Court of Appeal dated 25 August 2015 (CA Order), provides, amongst others, for the following:

"[1] Rayuan perayu terhadap responden pertama, responden kedua dan ketiga dibenarkan dengan kos;

[2] Perintah seperti dipohon di perenggan-perenggan 104.1, 104.2, 104.6, 104.7 dan 104.10 Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 22 Jun 2011;

[3] Rayuan perayu terhadap responden keempat ditolak dengan kos;

[4] Rayuan Balas responden pertama terhadap perayu ditolak dengan kos;

[5] Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 21 Mac 2014 di perenggan adalah disahkan;

[6] Kos di Mahkamah Tinggi untuk ditaksirkan (dengan persetujuan);

[7] Kos sebanyak RM50,000.00 bagi rayuan perayu dan RM15,000.00 bagi Rayuan Balas responden pertama dibayar oleh responden pertama kepada perayu;

[8] Kos sebanyak RM50,000.00 dibayar oleh responden kedua dan responden ketiga kepada perayu;

[9] Kos sebanyak RM50,000.00 dibayar oleh perayu kepada responden Keempat;

[10] Deposit dikembalikan kepada Perayu."

[Emphasis Added]

[7] The reliefs sought by the plaintiff in its Statement of Claim dated 22 June 2011 which were allowed by the Court of Appeal are reproduced below:

104.1 A declaration that the 1st defendant, as the then Executive Chairman and/or director and/or Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff had breached the Fiduciary Duties and/or Statutory Duties and/or Duty of Care and/or Trust Obligations to the plaintiff;

104.2 A declaration that the 2nd defendant and/or 3rd defendant, as the then directors of the plaintiff had breached the Fiduciary Duties and/or Statutory Duties and/or Duty of Care and/or Trust Obligations to the plaintiff;

104.6 A declaration that the divestment of 10,500,000 ordinary shares of par value RM0.50 each in Petra Energy Berhad by the plaintiff to the 7th defendant was not bona fide and/or in the interests of the plaintiff and/or is