1. ) Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd 2. ) Everest Landmark Sdn Bhd 3. ) Teoh Kiang Hong 4. ) Ong Bee Lee v Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

02f-25-04-2021p Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 26 December 2024 • 02(f)-25-04/2021(P) • 87 min read
66 cases cited (10 SG, 56 foreign)

Catchwords

Judges (3)

Parties (5)

Case Significance

1. ) Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd 2. ) Everest Landmark Sdn Bhd 3. ) Teoh Kiang ... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated December 26, 2024 (citation: 02f-25-04-2021p). <p>This appeal was heard together with the related Teoh family property appeals involving Graceful Frontier, Everest Landmark, and other companies in which Theow Say Kow alleged misappropriation. The Federal Court addressed the 'plainly wrong' test governing appellate interference with trial court fact-finding and the reliability of recanted and expert evidence. The appeal was decided consistently with the lead appeal.</p> The panel comprised Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Rhodzariah binti Bujang, with Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim delivering the judgment.

Summary

This appeal was heard together with the related Teoh family property appeals involving Graceful Frontier, Everest Landmark, and other companies in which Theow Say Kow alleged misappropriation. The Federal Court addressed the 'plainly wrong' test governing appellate interference with trial court fact-finding and the reliability of recanted and expert evidence. The appeal was decided consistently with the lead appeal.

What was the outcome of 1. ) Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd 2. ) Everest Landmark Sdn Bhd 3. ) Teoh Kiang ...?

<p>This appeal was heard together with the related Teoh family property appeals involving Graceful Frontier, Everest Landmark, and other companies in ...

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 1965
s 132C
Courts of Judicature Act 1964
s 96
Evidence Act
s 101
Evidence Enactment
s 102
Powers of Attorney Act 1949
s 3

Cases Cited (66)

SG (2)
[2008] SGHC 50 [2013] SGCA 44
SLR (8)
[1990] 2 SLR(R) 414 [1996] 2 SLR(R) 957 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 [2002] 2 SLR(R) 959 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 [2013] 4 SLR 308
UK (4)
[1954] 3 All ER 745 [1955] 3 All ER 48 [1966] 1 QB 146 [2014] 1 WLR 2600
AU (1)
[2001] WASCA 260
MY (44)
[1939] 1 MLJ 253 [1959] 1 MLJ 193 [1961] 1 MLJ 105 [1970] 2 MLJ 61 [1971] 1 MLJ 43 [1975] 1 MLJ 119 [1977] 1 MLJ 15 [1980] 2 MLJ 86 [1981] 1 MLJ 212 [1983] 2 MLJ 172 [1983] 2 MLJ 232 [1984] 2 MLJ 19 [1993] 1 MLJ 182 [1993] 3 MLJ 217 [1994] 2 MLJ 12 [1995] MLJU 73 [1997] 3 MLJ 61 [1999] 4 MLJ 485 [2000] 1 MLJ 656 [2002] 3 MLJ 432 [2003] 3 MLJ 257 [2004] 3 MLJ 405 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2011] 1 MLJ 581 [2011] 6 MLJ 1 [2012] 6 MLJ 153 [2012] MLJU 837 [2013] MLJU 1585 [2014] 3 MLJ 228 [2015] 4 CLJ 20 [2015] 7 CLJ 584 [2017] 4 MLJ 697 [2017] 7 CLJ 715 [2018] 2 MLJ 177 [2018] 4 CLJ 705 [2018] 6 CLJ 683 [2020] 12 MLJ 165 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2020] 5 MLJ 442 [2020] 9 MLJ 409 [2020] AMEJ 0035 [2020] MLJU 57 [2022] 4 CLJ 854 [2024] MLJU 2538
IN (7)
(2007) 9 SCC 1 (2010) 1 SCC 199 AIR 1961 SC 1474 AIR 1964 SC 136 AIR 1980 SC 531 AIR 2001 SC 3031 AIR 2012 SC 478

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (02f-25-04-2021p)