Back
2012 MarsdenLR 2344
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ZUNG ZANG WOOD PRODUCTS SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
KWAN CHEE HANG SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeals No: S-02-3404-10 & S-02-3405-10]
Fiduciary duty breaches lead to fraudulent corporate maneuvers; plaintiffs' claims of fraud were properly pleaded, and submissions were timely due to the discovery rule.
Headnote:(A) Companies Act 1965 - Issues of fraud, limitation, and fiduciary duties - Plaintiffs alleged fraud by their son and daughter-in-law resulting in loss of control over family companies and assets derived from their investments. (Paras 2, 5, 8, 70)
(B) Fraud - Sufficient pleadings with particulars established. The court found the plaintiffs' averments convincingly detailed fraudulent acts which led to losses suffered by them. (Paras 20-24)
(C) Limitation - The court confirmed that actions were timely based on the discovery rule under Section 18 of Sabah Limitation Ordinance. (Paras 30-38)
(D) Fiduciary Duty - The defendant's actions breached his duties as a director, making various corporate transactions void. (Paras 47-49) (E) Evidence - The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence over the defendant’s claims due to the absence of counter-evidence from the second defendant. (Paras 72-73) (F)
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs of RM80,000.00 awarded.
Key Points: - Plaintiffs alleged fraud by the defendant and his wife, resulting in loss of control over family companies and assets (!) (!) . - The court confirmed that actions were timely based on the discovery rule under Section 18 of the Sabah Limitation Ordinance (!) (!) . - The defendant breached his fiduciary duties as managing director, making corporate transactions void (!) (!) . - The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence over the defendant’s claims due to lack of counter-evidence (!) (!) . - Appeals were dismissed with costs of RM80,000 awarded [p_E]. - The fraudulent allocation and disposal of shares were violations of fiduciary powers under the Companies Act 1965 (!) (!) . - The father, as an illiterate director, was misled by the defendant regarding the disposal of company assets (!) (!) . - The defendant wrongfully retained accounting books and delayed audit of group accounts (!) . - The disposal of shares and assets was carried out without proper approval or disclosure to shareholders (!) (!) . - The court affirmed the need for directors to act in good faith and in the best interest of the company when issuing or transferring shares (!) (!) .
What are the rights of the plaintiffs regarding the fraudulent transfer of shares and assets by the defendant?
How does the court apply the limitation period under the discovery rule in cases of fraud?
What constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty by a director in corporate law?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of parties involved in the disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. finding of facts regarding management and control. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. judicial findings on family business management and fraudulent acts. (Para 16) |
| 4. discussion on the particulars of fraud allegations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. allegations and particulars of fraud in pleadings. (Para 23) |
| 6. application of limitation periods to claims. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. discussion on applicability of limitation laws concerning fraud. (Para 35 , 38) |
| 8. review of evidence on corporate actions taken by mathew. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. evidence of financial mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty. (Para 44 , 46) |
[1] These relatively complex Appeals arose from Sandakan High Court Civil Suits No S22-24 of 2008 (Suit No 24) and No S22-26 of 2008 (Suit No 26) which had been consolidated ("the Consolidated Suits") and heard jointly with Civil Suit No S22-39 of 2008 ("the Tekala Suit").
[2] These Suits revolve around the parents, their younger son and daughter in law, and family companies, with enormous acreages of plantation land in Sabah, and 1,550,000 shares worth RM8,757,500. The plaintiff 's claims in the Consolidated Suits are founded on fraud purportedly perpetrated on the parents viz plaintiffs 2 and 3 by their younger son Mathew Kwan Hung Cheong (defendant 4) ("Mathew") and his wife, Elaine Gay Chow Song (defendant 5) ("Elaine").
[3] In the Consolidated Suits, the parties are:
(1) Plaintiff 1, Kwan Chee Hang Sdn Bhd, a private limited ultimate holding company of all the defendant companies ("the Ultimate Holding Company");
(2) Plaintiff 2, the father Kwan Chee Hang (PW2) who is the patriarch of the Kwan family and founder of the Ultimate Holding Company;
(3) Plaintiff 3, the mother Wong Nyuk Ching (PW4) who is Kwan Chee Hang's wife and co-founder of the Ultimate Holding Company;
(4) Defendant 4, Mathew (DW1);
(5) Defendant 5, Elaine; and
[4] Mathew and Elaine control the following defendant companies:
(a) Zung Zang Wood Products Sdn Bhd ("ZZ Wood Products SB");
(b) Zung Zang Holdings Sdn Bhd ("ZZ Holdings SB"), which wholly owns the following subsidiaries:
(i) ZZ Wood Products SB;
(ii) Zung Zang Plantation Sdn Bhd ("ZZ Plantation SB"); and
(iii) Granright Enterprise Sdn Bhd ("GESB").
[5] In Suit No 24, the plaintiffs sought:
(1) A declaration that the Ultimate Holding Company is the legitimate and beneficial shareholder of all the issued shares of ZZ Wood Products SB; and an order that the Register of Members of ZZ Wood Products SB be rectified accordingly;
(2) A declaration that the Ultimate Holding Company and/or ZZ Wood Products SB are the legitimate and beneficial shareholder of 80% of the issued shares of ZZ Holdings SB; and an order that the Register of Members of ZZ Holdings SB be rectified accordingly;
(3) A declaration that the Ultimate Holding Company and/or ZZ Holdings SB are the legitimate and beneficial shareholders of the issued shares of ZZ Plantations SB; and an order that the Register of Members of ZZ Plantations SB be rectified accordingly;
(4) An order that the plaintiffs be authorised to effect the necessary alterations to the Register of Members of the respective companies for carrying out such orders into effect;
(5) An order directing that plaintiff 2 be reinstated as a director of ZZ Wood Products SB, ZZ Holdings SB and ZZ Plantations SB respectively;
(6) An injunction restraining defendants 4 and 5 and/or their agents or servants from transferring or dealing with any of the Land referred to in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim;
(7) Damages for loss suffered as a result of the acts of defendants 4 and 5;
(8) Such further or other relief as the Court deems fit; and
(9) Costs on a full indemnity basis.
[6] In Suit No 26, the plaintiffs sought:
(1) A declaration that the Ultimate Holding Company is the legitimate and beneficial shareholder of all the issued shares of ZZ Holdings SB; and an o
