GAN SIOWCK LEE v 1. ) ABDUL SHUKOR AHMAD 2. ) ALDRIN WONG 3. ) KANDASIVAM A/L SIVAKOLUNTHU 4. ) PHILIP MATHEWS 5. ) PRITHVIRAJ SINGH SACHDEV 6. ) SARAH SHARUM 7. ) SUHANA DEWI SELAMAT 8. ) BALJIT SINGH A/L BALWANT SINGH 9. ) LEE MEW KWAN 10. ) SARJEET SINGH SIHDU 11. ) GASPAR GNANAMUTHU 12. ) SHAMSUL FALAK BIN ABDUL KADIR 13. ) ALJAFRI ABDUL BIN MAJID 14. ) BALAN DASS 15. ) CHUA CHYE HUP 16. ) MAHAREDZA MAHADZIR 17. ) SOFIA BINTI JOHARI 18. ) TAN CHIN POH 19. ) NURZURAIDA SOON BINTI ABDULLAH ...
Catchwords
Four applications are being heard concurrently by the Court. In this regard, there are four enclosures representing them: Enclosure 3, Enclosure 16, Enclosure 17 and Enclosure 21. By way of Enclosure 3, the plaintiff seeks interim injunctive relief to maintain the status quo of her membership without the defendants' interference. Upon the plaintiff's appearance for an ex parte hearing, the Court ordered that an inter partes hearing be held instead. In Enclosure 16, the 1st to 19th defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). Similar to Enclosure 16, Enclosure 21 has also been filed by the 20th defendant. In Enclosure 17, the plaintiff seeks a stay and suspension of the operation of the Royal Lake Club Kuala Lumpur's (“Club”) Constitution, which terminates her membership and declares her a persona non grata, and further seeks to restore her membership status. The Court finds that in a situation like this, it will not allow the Court to interfere in matters that are strictly within the Club's internal jurisdiction and are governed by its Constitution. Here, the internal remedies mechanisms prescribed by the Club's Constitution must be exhausted first and/or complied with. Contravening these internal remedies would be futile and would undermine the purpose for which the Constitution was adopted. To this end, the Court finds that the Court ought not to interfere with the Club's Constitution in this matter, and if there is a remedy at all, it should be contained within the Constitution.
Practice Areas
Four applications are being heard concurrently by the Court. In this regard, there are four enclosures representing them: Enclosure 3, Enclosure 16, Enclosure 17 and Enclosure 21. By way of Enclosure 3, the plaintiff seeks interim injunctive relief to maintain the status quo of her membership without the defendants' interference. Upon the plaintiff's appearance for an ex parte hearing, the Court ordered that an inter partes hearing be held instead. In Enclosure 16, the 1st to 19th defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). Similar to Enclosure 16, Enclosure 21 has also been filed by the 20th defendant. In Enclosure 17, the plaintiff seeks a stay and suspension of the operation of the Royal Lake Club Kuala Lumpur's (“Club”) Constitution, which terminates her membership and declares her a persona non grata, and further seeks to restore her membership status. The Court finds that in a situation like this, it will not allow the Court to interfere in matters that are strictly within the Club's internal jurisdiction and are governed by its Constitution. Here, the internal remedies mechanisms prescribed by the Club's Constitution must be exhausted first and/or complied with. Contravening these internal remedies would be futile and would undermine the purpose for which the Constitution was adopted. To this end, the Court finds that the Court ought not to interfere with the Club's Constitution in this matter, and if there is a remedy at all, it should be contained within the Constitution.
Parties (22)
Abdul Shukor Ahmad Defendant Aldrin Wong Defendant Aljafri Abdul bin Majid Defendant Balan Dass Defendant Baljit Singh a/l Balwant Singh Defendant Chua Chye Hup Defendant Gan Siowck Lee Plaintiff Gaspar Gnanamuthu Defendant Kandasivam a/l Sivakolunthu Defendant Kelab Taman Diraja Kuala Lumpur Defendant Lee Mew Kwan Defendant Maharedza Mahadzir Defendant Nurzuraida Soon binti Abdullah Defendant Philip Mathews Defendant Prithviraj Singh Sachdev Defendant Sarah Sharum Defendant Sarjeet Singh Sihdu Defendant Shamsul Falak bin Abdul Kadir Defendant Sivaloganathan a/l Yoganathan Defendant Sofia binti Johari Defendant Suhana Dewi Selamat Defendant Tan Chin Poh Defendant
Case Significance
GAN SIOWCK LEE v 1. ) ABDUL SHUKOR AHMAD 2. ) ALDRIN WONG 3. ) KANDASIVAM A/L... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 24, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-253-04-2025). The case was decided by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan.
What was the outcome of GAN SIOWCK LEE v 1. ) ABDUL SHUKOR AHMAD 2. ) ALDRIN WONG 3. ) KANDASIVAM A/L...?
GAN SIOWCK LEE v 1. ) ABDUL SHUKOR AHMAD 2. ) ALDRIN WONG 3. ) KANDASIVAM A/L... is a High Court decision dated July 24, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan. See the full judgment for details.