PUNCAK KENANGAN Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A contest over corporate control combining allegations of fraud in a consent order, champertous funding, natural justice and rectification of the register under the Companies Act 2016.

Puncak Kenangan Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in interlocking commercial proceedings that centre on allegations of fraud, champerty, and the rectification of a company's register of members.

One matter concerned security for costs under Order 23 rules 1(1) and 1(2A) of the Rules of Court 2012, where a nominal plaintiff sued for the benefit of another and a non-party was said to be funding the litigation in return for a share of any recovery. The court considered whether a plaintiff suing as an executor in a representative capacity was exempt from security for costs, whether the funding arrangement amounted to champerty and maintenance, and whether the quantum of security should be reduced to avoid stifling the litigation.

The two related matters turned on the impeachment of a consent order said to have been procured by the conscious and deliberate concealment of material facts. The court examined the test for setting aside a judgment on the ground of fraud, whether that test requires proof of conscious and deliberate dishonesty rather than mere unconscionability, and whether concealed facts were material in the sense that their disclosure would have fundamentally altered how the court approached the matter. The proceedings also engaged the rectification of the register of members under section 602(4) of the Companies Act 2016, whether champertous agreements are void under section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950, breaches of the audi alteram partem rule where interested parties were excluded, and whether successive proceedings on substantially similar allegations amounted to an abuse of process.

Taken together, the matters portray a contest over corporate control in which fraud, funding arrangements, natural justice and the finality of a consent order are argued in combination. The narrative reports the statutory provisions and doctrines the court identified, and records outcomes only as expressed, offering no view on the contested allegations.