GME Global Automotive (M) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) RIDUAN BIN MAUDIN 2. ) AMIR BIN AZAHAR 3. ) DSR CORPORATE SERVICES (M) SDN BHD 4. ) DSR MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY (M) SDN BHD

Case Significance

A full-trial dispute over payments for used-car business premises channelled through a director's related companies, resolved with monetary orders and a costs award after possession was disturbed by a vacate notice.

This High Court decision follows a full trial of a civil claim arising out of a used-car business arrangement. The plaintiff, a company dealing in the wholesale and retail of used vehicles, alleged that the first defendant had offered it part of a plot of land at Batu 2½, Jalan Cheras, Kuala Lumpur (referred to as Lot 9) for the operation of a used-car business. The plaintiff agreed and made a series of payments — for booking, rental deposit and the cost of renovation works — to the first defendant and to the fourth defendant, totalling RM177,300.00, together with RM1,440.00 in stamp duty on a service contract entered into with the third defendant. After taking vacant possession of Lot 9, the plaintiff received a notice to vacate the land from the relevant land office, which precipitated the dispute. The claim against the second defendant was withdrawn early in the proceedings.

At trial the plaintiff called its witnesses while the first, third and fourth defendants relied on a single witness, the first defendant, who was the director and sole shareholder of the two corporate defendants. Both sides filed written submissions and replies before judgment.

Having weighed the evidence, the Court delivered judgment and made consequential monetary orders, including interest running from the date of judgment until full settlement, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM20,000 to the fourth defendant, subject to allocatur. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed a notice of appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the court analyses a commercial dispute over the leasing and fitting-out of business premises where payments are channelled through related corporate entities controlled by a single individual, and of how the court allocates responsibility among a director and his companies when the promised possession of land is later disturbed by a vacate notice.