CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Teh Swee Neo 2. ) Lee Yong Hen

j-02ncvcw-649-04-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 6 January 2025 • J-02(NCvC)(W)-649-04/2023 • 51 min read
33 cases cited (0 SG, 33 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (6)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Teh Swee Neo 2. ) Lee Yong Hen is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated January 6, 2025 (citation: j-02ncvcw-649-04-2023). <p>Capital City Property Sdn Bhd appealed against a High Court decision that pierced the corporate veil to impose liability for unpaid rent owed by its related company CCRM Management Sdn Bhd to individual purchasers of commercial lots. The key issue was whether a court can pierce the corporate veil of one company and impose its liability on another company in the same group. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the High Court erred in piercing the corporate veil as there was no evide The panel comprised Ismail bin Brahim, See Mee Chun and Wong Kian Kheong, with Wong Kian Kheong delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Dato' Joshua Kevin (counsel for appellant), Leng Wie Mun (counsel for appellant), Lim Chang (counsel for respondent), Yap Zhen Yun (counsel for appellant).

Summary

Capital City Property Sdn Bhd appealed against a High Court decision that pierced the corporate veil to impose liability for unpaid rent owed by its related company CCRM Management Sdn Bhd to individual purchasers of commercial lots. The key issue was whether a court can pierce the corporate veil of one company and impose its liability on another company in the same group. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the High Court erred in piercing the corporate veil as there was no evidence of actual fraud, the liable company was solvent, and its judgment could be enforced.

What was the outcome of CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Teh Swee Neo 2. ) Lee Yong Hen?

<p>Capital City Property Sdn Bhd appealed against a High Court decision that pierced the corporate veil to impose liability for unpaid rent owed by it...

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (33)

UK (14)
[1889] UKHL 1 [1926] AC 101 [1951] 1 All ER 806 [1956] 1 All ER 341 [1965] 2 QB 537 [1967] 1 All ER 518 [1967] 2 QB 786 [1987] AC 22 [1990] Ch 433 [1991] 4 All ER 769 [1997] 3 WLR 1046 [1997] EWCA Civ 1279 [1998] Ch 241 [2011] 1 WLR 2900
AU (1)
[2008] WASC 239
MY (18)
[1980] 2 MLJ 136 [1985] 2 MLJ 291 [1991] 2 CLJ 1540 [1996] 1 MLJ 843 [1996] 3 MLJ 533 [1998] 1 MLJ 1 [2001] 1 CLJ 779 [2002] 4 CLJ 729 [2005] 2 CLJ 596 [2005] 3 CLJ 355 [2009] 6 MLJ 751 [2012] MLJU 1450 [2013] 7 MLJ 437 [2014] AMEJ 1458 [2015] 3 AMR 953 [2016] 1 MLJ 464 [2017] 10 MLJ 592 [2021] 3 MLJ 622