DATO' DANNY GOH MENG KEONG v DERRICK KOK WEI CHEN
ba-22ncvc-373-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 6 April 2026 • BA-22NCvC-373-09/2023 • 24 min read
9 cases cited
(0 SG, 9 foreign)
Outcome
I dismissed that part of the claim because the appropriate relief on the facts is restitutionary and compensatory, namely return of the RM1,250,000.00, together with interest and costs. I was not satisfied that the Plaintiff crossed the threshold for exemplary damages in a commercial dispute, and mere wrongful conduct, even if established, is insufficient to justify exemplary damages. P. Orders 61. For the reasons above, I allowed the Plaintiff’s claim in part and made the following orders:.
Catchwords
The case concerned whether RM1,250,000.00 paid by the Plaintiff, Dato’ Danny Goh Meng Keong, to the Defendant, Derrick Kok Wei Chen, was merely a purchase price for 5% shares in WOWME Technology Limited or was paid based on misleading representations about the company’s viability and profitability. The Defendant argued that the transaction was a simple willing buyer-willing seller arrangement, where the Plaintiff received shares in an Irish company. However, the Plaintiff claimed that he invested because the Defendant represented WOWME as a viable digital platform business with substantial profit potential. After a full trial involving evidence from both parties and witnesses, the Court found that the Plaintiff had proven material misrepresentation on the balance of probabilities. The Defendant had portrayed WOWME as a profitable and promising business, but evidence from WOWME’s director showed that the company had no sales, turnover or profitability, and possessed minimal assets and capital. The Court held that the payment was not made solely for shares but was induced by the Defendant’s representations about the company’s commercial potential. The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and ordered the Defendant to repay RM1,250,000.00 with 5% interest from the filing date until full payment, together with costs. However, the claim for exemplary, aggravated, or punitive damages was dismissed as the appropriate remedy was restitution and compensation rather than punishment.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
UK (1)
[1964] AC 1129
MY (8)
[1979] 2 MLJ 229 [2003] 2 MLJ 97 [2007] 3 MLJ 362 [2015] 5 MLJ 1 [2016] 3 MLJ 122 [2024] 2 MLJ 98 [2025] 1 MLJ 813 [2025] MLJU 1731
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-373-09-2023)