Abd Ghani Golamdin v 1. ) UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA 2. ) UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Uniutama Management Sdn Bhd) 3. ) UNIUTAMA SOLUTION SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai R & D Serindit Com UUM Sdn Bhd)

01f-18-07-2020k Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 15 March 2021 • 01(f)-18-07/2020(K)

Catchwords

CONTRACT LAW: Validity of contract – Authenticity of contract – The Turquand Rule - Appellant claims for arrears of salary, commissions, compensation and bonus based on a purported oral agreement – the oral agreement was reduced into a written agreement (‘exhibit P22’) that was admitted in the High Court – Whether exhibit P22 is authentic and sufficiently proved – Whether the Appellant can rely on the ‘Turquand Rule’ to assume that the internal procedures of the company has been complied with. EVIDENCE LAW: Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 – admissibility of oral evidence – oral evidence to contradict the terms of the agreement – Whether a document marked as an exhibit at the High Court can be challenged – The Principle of Concealment.

Practice Areas

CONTRACT LAW: Validity of contract

Judges (3)

Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Coram Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat Delivered Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof Coram

Parties (4)

UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS Sdn Bhd Respondent UNIUTAMA SOLUTION Sdn Bhd Respondent UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA Respondent Abd Ghani Golamdin Appellant

Case Significance

Abd Ghani Golamdin v 1. ) UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA 2. ) UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT ... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated March 15, 2021 (citation: 01f-18-07-2020k). The panel comprised Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim, Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat and Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof, with Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat delivering the judgment.

What was the outcome of Abd Ghani Golamdin v 1. ) UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA 2. ) UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT ...?

Abd Ghani Golamdin v 1. ) UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA 2. ) UNIUTAMA MANAGEMENT ... is a Federal Court decision dated March 15, 2021. The case was heard by Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim. See the full judgment for details.