YUM Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A corporate defendant in the Raub control litigation, whose matters bring to bear undertakings in damages, the vexatious-litigant jurisdiction, striking out for abuse of process, and the limits on a share lien.

YUM Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus as one of the corporate defendants in the protracted family and corporate-control litigation connected to the Raub interests, and its appearances trace the same injunction, vexatious-litigant and company-law strands that run through the dispute. In a High Court matter the court addressed the enforcement of an undertaking in damages following the discharge of injunctions, considering whether the corporate defendants were entitled to damages, whether a finding that the injunctions were wrongly granted was required, whether special circumstances existed to bar enforcement of the undertaking, and whether a letter of intent expressed to be subject to contract was enforceable, together with the assessment of opportunity-cost damages.

The company also appears in the vexatious-litigant and striking-out proceedings that the courts used to contain the feud. In one matter the court characterised the conduct in issue as the persistent pursuit of claims already decided and the proliferation of collateral proceedings, observing that the law on vexatious litigants exists precisely to forestall such misuse, and that the constitutional liberties under Articles 5 and 8 must be exercised in accordance with law. In striking-out proceedings under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 the court addressed res judicata, the bar on collateral attacks on earlier rulings, and the sufficiency of the pleading of conspiracy, while a related matter engaged whether a lien could be exercised over fully paid-up shares under section 111 of the Companies Act 2016.

For a reader, the company's appearances are best understood as one facet of a multi-front control dispute in which undertakings in damages, the vexatious-litigant jurisdiction, striking out for abuse of process, and the limits on a company's share lien are all brought to bear. The corporate parties are named as they appear on the record; the individual family members are referred to by their procedural role only. The company's appearances form one facet of a multi-front control dispute in which the courts bring several doctrines to bear at once — undertakings in damages, the vexatious-litigant jurisdiction, striking out for abuse of process, and the limits on a share lien — all directed at ending the collateral and repetitive litigation that such feuds generate while preserving the constitutional right of access to justice exercised in accordance with law.