Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor

Person 1 case

Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

wa-22ncc-332-05-2024

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR v 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOON 4. ) DATIN TAN KUI MOI 5. ) LIU YOONG CHWEN

MYHC 20 April 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor

Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning April 2025 to April 2025. Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor?

Datuk Seri Utama Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor appears in 1 published judgment from April 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).

Practice Areas

Courts will strike out a suit based on the principles of "let the loss lie where it falls" and in pari delicto when the parties are equally at fault in an illegal or immoral transaction. The courts act on the Latin maxim “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio”, which states that no action arises from a dishonourable cause-The maxim in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) can be displaced or moderated by three considerations commonly referred to as the “trio of considerations” first propounded in the English Supreme Court case of Patel v Mirza 2016 UKSC 42-to strike out the plaintiffs’ Writ-Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) and/or (b), (c) and (d) of the ROC 2012-Whether a case is plain or obvious does not depend upon the length of time it takes to argue the case, but that when the case argued on the affidavit evidence available, it becomes plain and obvious that the case has no chance of success-Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence. A trial of the action will not add anything more-The court must submit the evidence to critical examination. If that leads to the conclusion that the action could not possibly succeed it should be struck out-What are sham agreements?-A written agreement is a sham where it incorporates clauses by which neither party intends to be bound and which is obviously a smokescreen to cover the real intentions of both contracting parties-Court will not assist a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-It is trite that the court will not condone or lend its hand to a party who takes advantage of its own wrongdoings and comes to court without clean hands-It is a universal principle of law that the court would not allow a party to take advantage of his own wrong-It is also trite law that the court will not assist a plaintiff or any party who is privy to an immoral or an illegal act-the court would not lend its aid to the plaintiff who had founded his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act-The court can take cognizance of illegality even if not expressly pleaded by a defendant if on the pleadings and or facts the claim is ex facie illegal-The maxim in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) can be displaced or moderated by three considerations commonly referred to as the “trio of considerations” first propounded-the burden is on the plaintiffs to satisfy the court that the “trio of considerations” favour them-The concept of separate legal entity as between a company and its members or directors can be traced back to the landmark English House of Lords decision-Directors do not bear personal liability for the contractual breaches of their company for acts done in their capacity as directors. 1

Plaintiff (1)

wa-22ncc-332-05-2024 MYHC

20 April 2025