SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1998 MarsdenLR 1374

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

KAMALANATHAN RATNAM, J


SOH CHUN SENG
versus
CTOS-EMR SDN BHD

GUAMAN NO. S2-23-35-1997

Decided On : 05-09-98

Advocates:
Mr. Leonard Yeoh for appellant/plaintiff.
(Messrs Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah)
Mr. Chew Chang Min with Mr. Wong Hok Chong for respondent/defendant.
(Messrs Liza Chan & Co)

JUDGMENT

FACTS

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar given on 4.3.98 wherein she allowed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High Court (the RHC).

The plaintiff is a businessman and is a director of a group of companies called Audio One Group of Companies. The defendant was at all material times involved in providing services by way of information on the credit worthiness of individuals or companies upon request of its clients. The defendant gathers these information after collating and compiling them from public records such as government gazettes, newspapers and data from searches conducted at the Registry of Business and Companies and the Courts.

The plaintiff had applied to Citibank for the use of credit card facilities on or about December 1993 but the request was turned down by Citibank. The defendant's company, Audio One Entertainment Sdn Bhd (Audio One), applied for hire purchase facilities from Hong Leong Finance Bhd on or before December 1996. This too was rejected.

CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff contends that at the request of its client dated 29.4.97 the defendant furnished the following information on the plaintiff. The full report is reproduced:

2 CTOS CREDIT SEARCH REPORT DATED 29-04-97 Done by: SABILA

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY YOU: REPORT NO: 212049

ACCOUNT NO: AOESB AUDIO ONE ENTERTAINMENT SDN BHD

NAME: SOH CHUN SENG

I/C No: / 541023106353 VR REF: PREMIERE

TEL: 03? 2446529 FAX: 03? 2447851

IMPORTANT: This report is confidential. Reproduction is prohibited.

Report only indicates the information was published in the relevant source.

It is not intended as confirmation of the 'current status' of the case. For the case's current status, your further probe with the relevant parties is required in cases of 'NAME MATCH', 'ALIAS MATCH', or 'NEAREST NAME MATCH', you should seek an identity confirmation from the relevant parties.

* INFORMATION AS PER CTOS DATABASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

==================================================

1) BANKRUPTCY- CREDITOR'S petition issued

SPECIAL REMARK:

NAME : SOH CHUN SENG (NEW IC MATCH)

ALIAS :

I/C No : 4695233 / 541023106353

REMARK :

ADDRESS : 7, JLN 109, KEPONG BARU, KL

FIRM :

EXPARTE : AMERICAN EXPRESS-JLN SULTAN ISMAIL, KL

BANKRUPTCY NO: D5-29-5830-92 HIGH COURT KUALA LUMPUR

NOTICE DATE:

PETITION DATE: 301092 STAR 010493 HEARING DATE:040593

ORDER DATE :

ANNULMNT/DISC:

AMOUNT:

SOLCTR: ISHARIDAH HO CHONG & MENON

LOT 903, 9TH FLR REF: ISCH/03/92/NA/NR/NA

WISMA HLA TEL: 03-2420022/2447975

JALAN RAJA CHULAN 50200 KUALA LUMPUR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The computer will NOT report records that are:-

* 1. Same name but DIFFERENT I/C Number.

* 2. Fail the AGE TEST: At the time of action, the age of

your subject was 17 years old or less (below majority age).

Age tests are performed when the new 12 digit I/C number is

furnished for the search.2

Whilst conceding that there was such a bankruptcy petition presented against him, the plaintiff contended that on 23.9.93 the said petition was struck out. However the fact that it was stuck out was never indicated in the said report. The plaintiff now contends that it was due to this misleading information that both his applications for credit facilities were rejected. He therefore filed this suit for libel, injunction to restrain further publication, damages and costs.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

The defendant contended that it was at the request of Audio One for a check on a list of its customers and directors of which the plaintiff is a director, that the defendant provided the information on 29.4.97. The defendant argues that notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff's name was in the list, however the information that was provided was published in the relevant source, namely 'The Star' newspaper dated 1.4.93. The defendant argued that the report being one of judicial proceedings i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top