IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
SUIT NO. D-22-2040-2008
BETWEEN
ORIX CREDIT MALAYSIA SDN BHD
…
(Company No : 67108-U)
PLAINTIFF
AND
CENTRO PROPERTIES SDN BHD
…
(Company No. 660488-M)
GROUNDS OF DECISION
1
DEFENDANT
1.
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant are in respect of the
following reliefs and orders :
(a)
a declaration that the plaintiff is the beneficial and/or legal
owner of the equipments described as “Gym Equipments”
(“Equipments”) as detailed in the Hire Purchase Agreement
No. 101-2007-07827-0 dated 24.12.2007 (“Hire Purchase
Agreement”) entered into between the plaintiff and the Yoga
Zone Group Sdn Bhd (“Yoga Zone”);
(b)
a declaration that the defendant do pay damages and/or losses
to the plaintiff by reason of the sale of the said Equipments;
(c)
a declaration that the defendant had acted wrongfully in selling
the said Equipments on 9.9.2008;
(d)
an order that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of
RM450,000.00 or such other amount as may be determined by
this court;
2
(e)
interest at the rate of 8% on the sum of RM450,000.00 from
9.9.2008 until date of full settlement;
(e)
costs of this action;
(f)
such other relief as deem fit and proper by this court.
Undisputed facts
2.
By a Hire Purchase Agreement No: 101-2007-07827-0 dated
24.12.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and Yoga Zone the plaintiff
had hired to Yoga Zone the Gym Equipments as in the Hire Purchase
Agreement for a period of twelve (12) months at the rental of RM70,000.00
per month.
3.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase
Agreement, the Gym Equipments were to be kept at all times at the
premises identified as 2nd Floor, Centro Mall, No. 8, Jalan Batu Tiga Lama,
Klang (“said Premises”). The said Premises is owned by the defendant.
3
Yoga Zone had rented the said Premises from the defendant and operates
as a fitness centre.
4.
Yoga Zone had defaulted in the repayment of the monthly rentals to
the plaintiff pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase
Agreement.
5.
Yoga Zone had also defaulted in the payment of monthly rental to the
defendant under the tenancy agreement.
6.
On 7.8.2008, the Receivers and Managers (“R & M”) of Yoga Zone
were appointed by the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Originating Petition
No. D6-26-40-2007.
7.
On 14.8.2008, the R & M issued a letter to the staff of Yoga Zone to
suspend all employment contracts with immediate effect and to shut down
the operation of the fitness centre.
8.
On 18.8.2008, the defendant’s solicitors J.M. Chong, Vincent Chee &
Co. (“JM Chong”) wrote to the R & M to demand for the payment of
4
outstanding rental of RM111,348.00 and utilities sum of RM23,291.65. It
was stated in the said letter that the R & M was required to pay the
aforesaid sum within three (3) days from the date of the letter, failing which
JM Chong have strict instruction to institute legal proceeding to recover the
outstanding sum.
9.
On 19.8.2008, the defendant filed an ex-parte application for leave to
issue distress proceeding against Yoga Zone.
10.
On 21.8.2008, the Klang Sessions Court had granted an Order to the
defendant to issue distress proceeding against Yoga Zone. At that material
time, R & M was appointed and Yoga Zone was placed under receivership.
11.
On 22.8.2008, the plaintiff’s representatives PW2 and PW3 were
present at the defendant’s premises with the defendant’s representative
DW1. PW2 and PW3 were allowed to visit the said Premises, to take
photographs and to inspect the Gym Equipments in the presence of DW1.
5
12.
On 26.8.2008, the writ of distress was executed at the said Premises.
Notice of Seizure and Inventory was prepared by the bailiff but the
valuation figure was left blank.
13.
On 28.8.2008, the plaintiff’s representatives PW2 had met up with the
defendant’s representatives DW2 at the office of DW2.
14.
On 2.9.2008, the Klang Sessions Court wrote to the auctioneer to
prepare the proclamation of sale and carbon copied to JM Chong. The
Proclamation of Sale showed the lists of inventories but no reserve price
was fixed.
15.
On 4.9.2008 at approx 4.49 pm, JM Chong faxed to R & M to inform
them that the defendant has instructed them for distress proceedings to be
levied on the said Premises.
16.
On 8.9.2008, plaintiff had terminated the Hire Purchase Agreement
and demanded from Yoga Zone to pay the whole outstanding amount.
6
17.
On 8.9.2009, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant to put
them on written notice that the Gym Equipments belonged to the plaintiff
and that the defendant should not proceed with the auction to dispose of
the Gym Equipments.
18.
On 9.9.2008, the plaintiff’s representatives PW2 and PW3 together
with the R & M representative, PW1 were present at the public auction.
DW2 called her boss but her boss refused to call off the auction. The
auction proceeded at the reserve price of RM60,500.00 and the Gym
Equipments were sold at RM60,500.00 to the successful bidder.
19.
The said Premises was rented out to Chi Fitness in January 2009 and
they took over the Gym Equipments from the successful bidder.
The plaintiff’s case
20.
The plaintiff called three (3) witnesses. The first was Kumarakuru a/l
Jai Prakash Krishnan (PW1) who is a consultant in the employment of
Ferrier Hodgson MH Sdn Bhd as the former R & M of Yoga Zone. PW1
confirmed that he was involved in Yoga Zone matter with two (2) other
7
staff. He said “some letters will have Ernest Ong and Ms Loo Suet Yee,
some of it will have his name”.
PW1 said each of them would be
collectively involved in the matter.
21.
PW1 testified that the defendant did not inform the R & M of the
distress proceeding filed against Yoga Zone. PW1 only came to know of
the auction date on 8.9.2008 a day before the auction at approx 3.30pm.
PW1 also confirmed that the plaintiff was notified of the auction date by the
R & M on the same day i.e. on 8.9.2008 in the late evening. PW1 testified
that he spoke to the bailiff prior to the auction that there is a court order
appointing the R & M and the Gym Equipments belongs to a third party.
He also spoke to the intending bidders that the Gym Equipments belongs
to third party. All of them agreed not to bid but only one person put in the
bid.
22.
During cross examination, PW1 testified that DW2 met PW1
sometime after 14.8.2008. PW1 said he visited the said Premises and
found the said Premises to be locked.
PW1 said when he met with DW2,
he had informed DW2 that the Gym Equipments belonged to a third party.
8
DW2 said to PW1 that she will take care of it as the said Premises was
under padlock and the keys will be kept by the defendant.
23.
Further, PW1 testified that as per the Court Order dated 7.8.2008, the
R & M were supposed to maintain the company as a going concern but
they could not do so due to the multiple distress proceedings taken against
Yoga Zone.
24.
In the re-examination, PW1 was asked about the last paragraph of
the letter dated 4.9.2008 (page 61 of Bundle B) sent by the defendant’s
solicitors Messrs JM Chong to the R & M. He said JM Chong had only
informed the R & M that “their clients have instructed them for distress
proceeding to be levied on the above said Premises”.
According to PW1,
the letter did not state that the auction will be carried out.
25.
Mr Chooi Chee Kit (PW2) holds the position as a Senior Manager in
the Credit Department and he was in the employment of the plaintiff for the
last twenty four (24) years.
He testified that sometime on or about
22.8.2008, he together with one Mr. Suresh Kumar (PW3) had attended at
the defendant’s premises at Centro Plaza, Klang for the purpose of meeting
9
with the defendant’s representative, Ms Catherine Ng (DW2) with the
intention to secure the release of the Gym Equipments and also to deliver
the letter dated 22.8.2008.
26.
According to the evidence of PW2, he hand delivered the letter dated
22.8.2008 to Kong Fong Seong (DW1). In the said letter, the defendant
was notified by the plaintiff that the Gym Equipments belong to the plaintiff
pursuant to a Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the plaintiff
and Yoga Zone and that the defendant was put on written notice not to
remove and/or dispose of the Gym Equipments without the plaintiff’s
consent in writing.
PW2’s evidence that he had hand delivered the letter
dated 22.8.2008 to DW1 was corroborated by the evidence given by PW3.
PW3 also confirmed that the letter dated 22.8.2008 was given by PW2 to
DW1 in his presence.
27.
On the issue as to whether the letter dated 22.8.2008 was hand
delivered to DW1, plaintiff’s witness PW2 claims that the letter dated
22.8.2008 was delivered to the defendant’s representatives, DW2 at the
meeting held on 22.8.2008. PW3 in his evidence also confirmed that such
event had taken place at the material time.
10
The defendant’s case
28.
The defendant is the proprietor of a commercial building known as
“Centro” at No. 8, Jalan Batu Tiga Lama, 41300 klang, Selangor Darul
Ehsan (to be referred as “the said Premises”).
29.
The defendant have rent the said Premises to Yoga Zone at monthly
rental of RM27,837.00.
30.
Yoga Zone failed to pay the monthly rental to the defendant which led
to the commencement of writ of distress proceedings and a public auction
was fixed on 9.9.2008.
31.
Thereafter the defendant was informed of the appointment of R & M
for Yoga Zone.
32.
The movable items attached at the said Premises were successfully
auctioned at the auction price of RM60,500.00 by the Klang Court’s Bailiff
assisted by a licensed auctioneer.
11
33.
It is the defendant’s case that the defendant has no knowledge of the
plaintiff’s interest and rights on the items attached at the said Premises.
34.
At all material time, the defendant has not received any notice from
Yoga Zone or the plaintiff to notify them that the items seized at the
defendant’s premises were owned or claimed by the plaintiff under a hire
purchase agreement between the plaintiff and Yoga Zone.
35.
The defendant state that the distress proceedings commenced by the
defendant against Yoga Zone was valid and in order under the law Until to
date Yoga Zone nor the plaintiff has taken any action to challenge the
defendant’s rights in relation to the said distress proceedings.
36.
Despite their knowledge on the auction fixed on 9.9.2008, the plaintiff
has failed and/or acted negligently in not taking any action to protect or
preserve their interest or rights on the items attached.
37.
The plaintiff’s claim should be rightfully made against Yoga Zone
under the hire purchase agreement and not against the defendant.
12
38.
The market value of the goods attached was RM60,500.00 which was
the price the goods were successfully auctioned at the said public auction.
Issues
39.
Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced between the parties,
the main issues for determination are as follow :
(i)
Whether the defendant has acted wrongfully in selling the Gym
Equipments on 9.9.2008.
(ii)
Whether the defendant has suffered losses of RM450,000.00
Findings
40.
PW1 testified that the defendant did not inform the R & M of the
distress proceeding filed against Yoga Zone. PW1 only came to know of
the auction date on 8.9.2008 a day before the auction at approx 3.30pm.
PW1 also confirmed that the plaintiff was notified of the auction date by the
R & M on the same day i.e. on 8.9.2008 in the late evening. PW1 testified
13
that he spoke to the bailiff prior to the auction that there is a court order
appointing the R & M and the Gym Equipments belongs to a third party.
He also spoke to the intending bidders that the Gym Equipments belongs
to third party. All of them agreed not to bid but only one person put in the
bid.
41.
During cross examination, PW1 testified that DW2 met PW1
sometime after 14.8.2008. PW1 said he visited the said Premises and
found the said Premises to be locked.
PW1 said when he met with DW2,
he had informed DW2 that the Gym Equipments belonged to a third party.
DW2 said to PW1 that she will take care of it as the said Premises was
under padlock and the keys will be kept by the defendant.
42.
Mr Chooi Chee Kit (PW2) holds the position as a Senior Manager in
the Credit Department and he was in the employment of the plaintiff for the
last twenty four (24) years.
He testified that sometime on or about
22.8.2008, he together with one Mr. Suresh Kumar (PW3) had attended at
the defendant’s premises at Centro Plaza, Klang for the purpose of meeting
with the defendant’s representative, Ms Catherine Ng (DW2) with the
14
intention to secure the release of the Gym Equipments and also to deliver
the letter dated 22.8.2008.
43.
According to the evidence of PW2, he testified that he hand delivered
the letter dated 22.8.2008 to Kong Fong Seong (DW1). In the said letter,
the defendant was notified by the plaintiff that the Gym Equipments belong
to the plaintiff pursuant to a Hire Purchase Agreement entered into
between the plaintiff and Yoga Zone and that the defendant was put on
written notice not to remove and/or dispose off the Gym Equipments
without the plaintiff’s consent in writing. PW2’s evidence that he had hand
delivered the letter dated 22.8.2008 to DW1 was corroborated by the
evidence given by PW3.
PW3 also confirmed that the letter dated
22.8.2008 was given by PW2 to DW1 in his presence.
During cross
examination, the court finds that PW2 and PW3 remain as a truthful
witness.
44.
PW2 further testified that upon his arrival at Centro Plaza, Klang, both
PW2 and PW3 were greeted by DW1. DW1 told them that DW2 was not
in. Both parties exchanged calling cards.
15
45.
On the day of the auction on 9.9.2008, PW2 and PW3 were at the
said Premises and they met DW2.
PW2 told DW2 that the Gym
Equipments belong to the plaintiff and asked DW2 not to proceed with the
auction.
DW2 admitted to PW2 in the presence of PW3 that she had
received the letter dated 22.8.2008 and she said she would speak to her
boss.
DW2’s response at that material time was that she was not able to
do anything since it was her management’s decision to proceed with the
auction.
46.
The defendant argued that at that material time, the operation of
Yoga Zone was handled by the R & M whom has issued a letter dated
21.8.2008 (page 25 of Bundle B) to inform the defendant of their
appointment. The said letter merely sought the defendant’s cooperation
not to take any repossession action but did not notify of the plaintiff’s
interest in the equipments at the premises.
There was no subsequent
letter from the R & M to inform the defendant that the equipments are a
subject matter of a Hire Purchase Agreement between the plaintiff and
Yoga Zone.
16
47.
However, based on the evidence of PW1, Pw2 and PW3 the court
finds that the defendant through DW1 and DW2 knew that the plaintiff was
the owner of the Gym Equipment.
48.
In this regard, it is not disputed that there were two (2) meetings held
between the plaintiff’s representatives and the defendant’s representatives
on 22.8.2008 and 28.8.2008 and both parties had exchanged calling cards.
It does not make any common sense for a company known as ORIX Credit
to be a potential investor of a premises as alleged by the defendant.
49.
DW2 claimed that one Ernest Ong from R & M’s office called her to
inform her that someone is coming to look at the premises as prospective
investor.
However, Ernest Ong was never called as a witness by the
defendant to support her allegation, and hence, it can only remain as a
bare allegation.
50.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Juahir bin Sadikon v
Perbadanan Kemajuan Ekonomi Negeri Johor [1996] 3 MLJ 627 at
p635 held as follows :
17
“He who alleges must prove such allegation and the onus is on the appellant
to do so. See s 103 of the Act. Thus, it is incumbent upon the appellant to
produce Tan Sri Basir as his witness to prove the allegation. The fact that the
appellant was unable to secure the attendance of Tan Sri Basir as a witness
does not shift the burden to the respondent to produce the witness and
testify as to what he had uttered, as firstly, the respondent never raised such
an allegation and secondly, has denied even making one. For this very
reason, the adverse inference under s 114(g) of the Act relied upon by the
appellant cannot be accepted as establishing that if the witness had been
produced, his evidence would work against the respondent. There is no
obligation in law for the respondent to produce the witness as that obligation
rests with the appellant, the party who alleges, and the fact that the appellant
was unable to do so is fatal to his case. For this very reason too, the adverse
inference under s 114(g) is invoked against the appellant.”
51.
In Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] MLJ 253 CA; [1939] 1 LNS 107 ,
Terrell A-G CJ held that:
“It is no doubt true as mentioned above that if the defendant had been the
claimant, he could not have hoped to satisfy the Court, if he failed to call the
witness with whom he alleged that the negotiations on behalf of the plaintiff
were conducted. The reason for that would be that the Court is entitled to the
best evidence available before it can be called upon for a decision, and if a
18
plaintiff failed to call a material or essential witness it is almost inevitable that
his claim would be rejected. But it is a very different thing to suggest that in a
case where the onus probandi was not on him but on the other side, a failure
to call a material witness would result in the same fatal consequences”.
52.
In the light of the authorities cited above, the court finds that since it is
the defendant who has alleged that Ernest Ong called her, it is thus
incumbent upon the defendant to call him.
The burden of proof lies upon
the plaintiff pursuant to sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 to
call Ernest Ong as a witness. Given that the plaintiff has the burden of
proof and Ernest Ong is a material witness to the defendant’s case, the
court finds that no adverse inference can be invoked against the plaintiff for
not calling Ernest Ong.
53.
The court finds that at the meeting held on 28.8.2008, DW2 knew
that the plaintiff is the owner of the Gym Equipments and that the writ of
distress had already been executed on the 26.8.2008 and the Gym
Equipments had been seized and subject to be sold by way of auction, why
did DW2 kept silent and not inform PW2 of this matter.
19
54.
The court also finds that based on the evidence adduced by the
plaintiff, the defendant had received the letter dated 22.8.2008 which was
delivered by PW2 to DW1 who was present at the 22.8.2008 meeting. The
evidence of PW2 was corroborated by the evidence of PW3.
55.
Even if I am wrong in concluding that the defendant knew before the
auction that the equipments belong to the plaintiff, on the day of the auction
on 9.9.2008, the defendant through DW2 knew that the plaintiff was the
owner of the equipment. On the day of the auction on 9.9.2008, PW2 and
PW3 were at the said Premises and they met DW2. PW2 told DW2 that
the Gym Equipments belong to the plaintiff and asked DW2 not to proceed
with the auction. DW2 admitted to PW2 in the presence of PW3 that she
had received the letter dated 22.8.2008 and she said she would speak to
her boss. DW2’s response at that material time was that she was not able
to do anything since it was her management’s decision to proceed with the
auction. This evidence remains unrebutted by the defence. Hence at the
very least, the defendant should have ask the court to call off the auction.
56.
Based on the evidence adduced, on the balance of probabilities, the
court finds that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was the owner of the
20
Gym Equipment but failed to inform the court accordingly when it filed for
the distress proceedings.
57.
Thus, the plaintiff has acted wrongfully in selling the said Equipments
on 9.9.2008.
Losses
58.
It is not disputed that the original value of the Gym Equipments which
was paid by Yoga Zone to the supplier was RM1,392,800.00.
The
defendant has never challenged or disputed the original purchase price
paid by Yoga Zone. Hence, it must be accepted that the sum of
RM1,392,800.00 is a genuine purchase price paid to the supplier for the
purchase of the Gym Equipments sometime on 17.12.2007. It is also not
disputed that the Gym Equipments were sold at RM60,500.00 on 9.9.2008.
The plaintiff argued that the Gym Equipments had an original value of
RM1,392,800.00 at the time of purchase on 17.12.2007 but was sold for
RM60,500.00 on 9.9.2008 which is less than nine (9) months.
It was
further argued by the plaintiff that the defendant could have provided a
valuation of the Gym Equipments prior to the sale but chose not to do so.
21
Now that the Gym Equipments have been sold to a third party, the plaintiff
could not have obtained a valuation of the equipments unless the valuer is
able to inspect the equipments. The defendant was in the best position to
do the valuation prior to the auction. But since that was not done, the
plaintiff argued that the inference is that there is no basis for the reserve
price to be fixed at RM60,500.00. In the present case, the plaintiff is only
asking for the sum of RM450,00.00 which is approximately 32% of the
original value RM1,392,800.00 and for less than nine (9) months.
59.
With regards to the document market ID5, I am of the view that they
are inadmissible as the alleged maker of these documents i.e. Mr. Steven
was not called. This document was put in for identification but has not in
fact been proved.
60.
The plaintiff has informed the court that he is beyond seas and
therefore could not attend trial. In this regard, the court agrees with the
submission of learned counsel for the defendant that this case was fixed
and set down by the learned Registrar during the final case management
on 17.6.2010. In other words, the plaintiff has knowledge of the trial dates
about 5 months ago and therefore it is not an excuse to say that the
22
witness could not attend court as he is in overseas.
Moreover the maker
of ID5 was never listed as one of the plaintiff’s witness in the “Senarai
Saksi-Saksi Plaintif”. In other words, the plaintiff has never intended to call
the maker of ID5 as witness in court to admit ID5.
61.
Thus, in my judgment it is not safe to rely on this document as
credible basis to make findings in respect of the quantum of losses suffered
by plaintiff. In my view ID5 should not be given any weight.
62.
In any event, the plaintiff has not even attempted to call any
representative from Dynamex Health & Gym (M) Sdn Bhd for purpose of
admitting the said ID5.
63.
ID5 is claimed by the plaintiff to be a written confirmation on the
valuation of the equipments made by the vendor and therefore before it
could be admitted as evidence in court, the defendant as the party directly
affected by the valuation are entitled to cross examine the maker of ID5.
Question and details as to how the maker come to the figure of
RM450,000.00 are to be made to the maker during cross examination. In
23
the absence of the maker, the defendant is deprived of the benefit to cross
examine him.
64.
To hold otherwise would amount to dispensing with proof of quantum
altogether and this cannot be the law.
65.
Referring to the decision of Lord Goddard in Bonham-Carter v Hyde
Park Hotel Ltd. 64, TLR 177, 178, Edgard Joseph JR. FCJ in the case of
Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor. v Plenitude Holdings Sdn. Bhd. [1995]
1 CLJ 15 said as follows :
... plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for
them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, so
to speak, throw them at the head of the Court, saying: 'This is what I have
lost, I ask you to give me these damages'. They have to prove it.
This dictum was referred to and applied by our Court of Appeal in John v.
Dharmaratnam[1961] 1 LNS 35 7.
And, in Popular Industries Limited v. Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn.
Bhd. [1989] 3 MLJ 360, the Court had occasion to say this (at p.367):
24
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff seeking substantial damages has the, burden of
proving both the fact and the amount of damages before he can recover. If
he proves neither, the action will fail or he may be awarded only nominal
damages upon proof of the contravention of a right. Thus nominal damages
may be awarded in all cases of breach of contract (see Marzetti v. William ).
And, where damage is shown but its amount is not proved sufficiently or at
all, the Court will usually decree nominal damages. See, for example Dixon
v. Deveridge and Twyman v. Knowles .
In Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation Bhd. v. Glove Seal Sdn. Bhd.
[1994] 3 MLJ 569, at 582 E to F, Mohd Dzaiddin, SCJ, speaking for the
Supreme Court quoted, with approval, the above passage in the Popular
Industries case.
66.
In the light of the authorities cited above, I am of the view that the
plaintiff is only entitle to damages of RM60,500.00 based on the price sold
at the auction.
67.
I accept the submission of the defendant that the oral evidence of
PW2 and PW3 could not be relied to determine the condition of the
equipments because:
25
(i)
In his Witness Statement, PW2 testified that upon the
inspection of the equipments on 22.8.2008, they appeared to
look relatively new and in his opinion the gym equipments were
in good working condition. However during cross examination,
PW2 admitted he did not test and inspect every each
equipment but those tested were in good working condition.
(ii)
He further adduced evidence that it was his assumption that all
the equipments were in good condition as they were less than
one (1) year old.
(iii)
In other words, there is no evidence adduced at all that the
equipments were in fact in good working condition.
(iv)
PW3 has made the same statement in P6 that the equipments
looked relatively new and in his opinion the equipments were in
good working condition. However PW3 denied testing the
equipments at all as he admitted that there was no power
supply at the premises.
26
(v)
There seems to be a conflict of evidence. Since there was no
power supply to the premises, it is unlikely both PW2 and PW3
had even tested the equipments on 22.8.2008.
Conclusion
68.
Based on the above reasons, the court finds that, on the balance of
probabilities, the plaintiff has proven that the defendant acted wrongfully in
selling the Gym Equipments. However, the court finds that the defendant
has not proven that the Gym Equipments is worth RM450,000.00. Thus,
the court awards damages of RM60,500.00 to the plaintiff based on the
purchase of the equipment sold at price the auction. Costs to the plaintiff to
be taxed by the Registrar.
(Hanipah binti Farikullah)
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Dagang 7
KUALA LUMPUR
Dated : 28.2.2011
27
Solicitors for the plaintiff
Wong Kok Leong together with Low Boon Seong
Tetuan KL Wong
No. 31, 2nd Floor, Jalan barat
Off Jalan Imbi
55100 Kuala Lumpur
Solicitors for the defendant
Loo Hui Yee
Messrs J.M. Chong, Vincent Chee & Co.
Suite 6A.01, 6A.02 & 6A.03,
Level 6A, Menara Trend
Intan Millennium Square
No. 68, Jalan Batai Laut 4
Taman Intan
41300 Klang, Selangor
28