W
Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati
Person 1 case
Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ba-22ncvc-527-12-2023
CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD v 1. ) LOK PEY LING 2. ) KERK JIUN HONG 3. ) WAKIL DIRI KEPADA TEE YOK LAN @ TAY ENG LUN, SI MATI
MYHC 27 August 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati
Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning August 2025 to August 2025. Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati?
Wakil Diri Kepada Tee Yok Lan @ Tay Eng Lun, Si Mati appears in 1 published judgment from August 2025 to August 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1. The present suit was instituted by the Plaintiff company against three Defendants for the restitution and recovery of monies alleged to have been wrongfully received. 2. These payments, made by the Plaintiff company, were authorised by its then director, Kerk Han Meng. What lends this case its distinctive complexion is that the First, Second, and Third Defendants are, respectively, Kerk’s wife, son, and mother-in-law. Of further significance is that the accounts and records of the Plaintiff company disclose a similar pattern of payments of salaries or allowances to another director’s family members, namely, his ex-wife, son, and mother. However, the Plaintiff company has not prosecuted a claim against the other director’s ex-wife, son and mother. 1 3. The Plaintiff contended that these payments were without legal basis and must be restored. The Defendants, however, stood firm in their defence, insisting that the sums were lawfully paid and lawfully received. In any event, it was also contended by the Defendants that the claims are time barred. At its core, the contest is whether these familial transactions were legitimate dealings, or whether they amount to an unjust depletion of the Plaintiff’s assets, leaving its claim, if proven, with compelling merit. 1