NINE QUESTIONS FOR SARAWAK REPORT: FOCUS / SARAWAK REPORT REPEATEDLY FAILS TO GIVE COVERAGE TO MULTINATIONAL COURT DECISIONS

👇🏽
– - –

1.
2. RELATED: INVESTORS AND STAFF RELIEVED OVER COURT DECISION
3. RELATED: DIRECTOR FAILS IN APPEALS TO WIND UP SANYAN HOLDINGS
4. RELATED: NO PENINSULA LAWYERS IN EAST M'SIAN APPEALS CASE

– - –

What #SarawakReport has been neglecting to mention for well over three years – the actual court judgment(s).Throwback,...
Posted by 9Q4SarawakReport on Monday, November 23, 2015

– - –

1. WHAT SARAWAK REPORT HAS BEEN NEGLECTING TO MENTION FOR WELL OVER THREE YEARS – THE ACTUAL COURT JUDGMENT(S)
2.
3. RELATED: DIRECTOR FAILS IN APPEALS TO WIND UP SANYAN HOLDINGS
4. RELATED: NO PENINSULA LAWYERS IN EAST M'SIAN APPEALS CASE

– - –

RELATED: INVESTORS AND STAFF RELIEVED OVER COURT DECISION
"The Japanese partners had invested much time, effort and money in Sibu. I am sad that Ting would ask for the company to be shut down simply because he was not paid an extortionate amount of money or reinstated as managing director. It is disappointing that he would have so little regard for the welfare of many people who rely on the day-to-day operations of the company. It is my hope that Ting will heed the words of the many judges who have heard this case and work with us for the good of everyone instead of working against us for his own good." – Datuk Mohammad Tufail Mahmud, April 21, 2012

REPORTED BY THE BORNEO POST

SIBU, April 21, 2012–

Japanese investors and 1,050 workers of Sanyan Wood Industries Sdn Bhd here are relieved the Court of Appeal has dismissed businessman and former assemblyman Datuk Ting Check Sii’s claims against the company, and for it to wind it up.

The company’s executive chairman Datuk Mohammad Tufail Mahmud, representing the Sarawakian component of the joint venture company, yesterday said the company had over 1,050 workers.

Tufail said the Japanese partners had invested much time, effort and money in Sibu.

“I am sad that Ting would ask for the company to be shut down simply because he was not paid an extortionate amount of money or reinstated as managing director.

“It is disappointing that he would have so little regard for the welfare of many people who rely on the day-to-day operations of the company.

“It is my hope that Ting will heed the words of the many judges who have heard this case and work with us for the good of everyone instead of working against us for his own good,” he said.

Meanwhile, the executive director of the company and representative of the Japanese component of the joint venture said: “We (Japanese investors) are relieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal. We have put a lot of time and money into Sibu to help make the company what it is today. The company is doing well despite the volatile market conditions and we are hopeful for the future.”

On April 16, the Court of Appeal in Kuching dismissed an appeal on Ting’s claims against the company.

The company is a Sarawakian and Japanese joint venture company established in Sibu in 1993 to undertake plywood manufacturing and distribution to Japan.

Ting was the managing director of the company until he resigned in 2003 and a shareholder holding 20 per cent interest in the company.

Three years later in 2006, Ting filed a Section 181 Petition in the High Court in Kuching against the company and all the Sarawakian and Japanese directors.

Ting claimed that he had been oppressed by the management and claimed over RM120 million from the company for director’s fees and other money he felt owed to him and secret profits against his interest.

Ting also claimed that if he was not paid or reinstated as managing director of Sanyan Wood Industries Sdn Bhd, the company should be wound up.

On July 28, 2007, the High Court dismissed Ting’s petition after finding that the Sarawakian and Japanese directors had been fair and reasonable to Ting.

The High Court found that he had created disharmony in the economic activities of the company after he resigned.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, Ting filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in 2007. On April 16, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal in Kuching consisting of Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail dismissed Ting’s appeal and ordered him to pay costs to the company and its directors.

The Court of Appeal found that Ting had no merit in his appeal and had not established any of the grounds alleged by him.

Ting was represented by Wong Ho Leng. The Japanese directors and partners were represented by Sim Hui Chuang and Lim Lip Sze, while the Sarawakian directors and partners by Wilian Yeo.

('Investors and Sanyan staff relieved over court decision.' – The Borneo Post, April 21, 2012)

– - –

1. WHAT SARAWAK REPORT HAS BEEN NEGLECTING TO MENTION FOR WELL OVER THREE YEARS – THE ACTUAL COURT JUDGMENT(S)
2. RELATED: INVESTORS AND STAFF RELIEVED OVER COURT DECISION
3.
4. RELATED: NO PENINSULA LAWYERS IN EAST M'SIAN APPEALS CASE

– - –

RELATED: DIRECTOR FAILS IN APPEALS TO WIND UP SANYAN HOLDINGS
Furthermore, the Court found that Tufail was magnanimous in allowing him to remain as a director and chairman of the company.

REPORTED BY THE BORNEO POST

SIBU, October 1, 2011–

The Court of Appeal in Kuching recently dismissed an appeal by Dato’ Ting Check Sii against Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd and Datuk Mohammad Tufail Mahmud.

Ting is a 13 per cent minority shareholder and director of Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd. Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd through its subsidiary, Pelita Towerview Sdn Bhd, owns Wisma Sanyan in Sibu, the tallest building in Sarawak and employs over 100 people to manage Wisma Sanyan.

In 2006, Ting filed a winding-up petition against Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd in the High Court at Kuching.

In his petition, Ting made numerous personal allegations against the company and its directors.

He alleged that there was an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between himself and Tufail. He also claimed that he was ousted from the management of the company. For those reasons, Ting wanted to wind-up the company.

If successful, the effect of the winding up order against Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd would see the company dissolved and broken up.

On July 26, 2007, after considering the evidence presented by all the parties, the High Court in Kuching dismissed Ting’s petition.

High Court Judge Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer disagreed with Ting’s allegations and found that he had in fact voluntarily resigned as managing director of the company.

Furthermore, the Court found that Tufail was magnanimous in allowing him to remain as a director and chairman of the company.

Accordingly, the High Court Judge held that the company should not be wound up as Ting had not been deprived of his directorship and the company was still operating profitably.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, Ting appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Last Friday (September 23), the Court of Appeal at Kuching heard Ting’s appeal.

After reading and hearing the submissions of Counsels for Ting and Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd, the three-panel of Court of Appeal ‘s judges, Datuk Sulong Matjeraie, Dato’ Azhar @ Izhar Ma’ah and Dato’ Mohamed Apandi Ali unanimously dismissed Ting’s appeal and ordered him to pay cost of RM50,000.00 to Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court Judge had fully considered all the evidence and that they could not find any plausible reason to disturb or overturn the decision.

Wong Ho Leng and Ting Cheng Ching represented Ting while Sim Hui Chuang, Lim Lip Sze and Wilian Yeo represented Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd.

In a statement issued here yesterday, Tufail stated that he was “very disappointed that Dato’ Ting would want to wind up the company for his own personal interests.

“I am also very surprised that the Member of Parliament of Sibu and the ADUN representative for Bukit Assek, Wong Ho Leng, would agree to take up the case for Dato’ Ting.

“If it had succeeded it would have left all the company’s employees jobless. Therefore, the staff and I am very relieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal,” Tufail added.

Yesterday, the employees and families of Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd and Wisma Sanyan Sibu displayed banners written in three languages at Wisma Sanyan expressing their gratitude to Tufail for defending their livelihood.

('Director fails in appeals to wind up Sanyan Holdings.' – The Borneo Post, October 1, 2011)

– - –

1. WHAT SARAWAK REPORT HAS BEEN NEGLECTING TO MENTION FOR WELL OVER THREE YEARS – THE ACTUAL COURT JUDGMENT(S)
2. RELATED: INVESTORS AND STAFF RELIEVED OVER COURT DECISION
3. RELATED: DIRECTOR FAILS IN APPEALS TO WIND UP SANYAN HOLDINGS
4.

– - –

RELATED: NO PENINSULA LAWYERS IN EAST M'SIAN APPEALS CASE
The decision also meant that lawyers from Sabah and Sarawak may, however, appear before the Federal Court or Court of Appeals when the appellate Court sits in Putrajaya, if the appeal is against a judgment of the High Court in Sabah or Sarawak.

REPORTED BY MY SARAWAK

SIBU, April 16, 2009–

A monumental decision favouring Sarawakian and Sabahan lawyers was made yesterday. The Federal Court (F.C.) sitting here said Peninsular Malaysian lawyers cannot appear in an appeal case before the Court of Appeal (C.A.) or F.C. which originates from Sabah or Sarawak, even if the appellate court convened in Putrajaya.

The decision also meant that lawyers from Sabah and Sarawak may, however, appear before the F.C. or C.A. when the appellate Court sits in Putrajaya, if the appeal is against a judgment of the High Court in Sabah or Sarawak.

The apex court, therefore, overturned a judgment of the C.A. delivered by Justice Gopal Sri Ram, declaring that Counsel Tommy Thomas, a senior Peninsular Malaysian lawyer, was entitled to represent a former state assemblyman Datuk [sic.] Ting Chek [sic.] Sii in his appeal against a Kuching High Court judgment dismissing his petition to wind up a local company Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd.

Justice Sri Ram held that because the C.A. was sitting in Putrajaya the applicable law to decide if Thomas could practise in the court was the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Sarawak Advocates’ Ordinance which regulates legal practice before the courts in Sarawak had no extra-territorial effect and therefore Thomas is not subject to the restriction in the Sarawak Ordinance regarding his eligibility to appear before the C.A. in Putrajaya.

Dissatisfied with that decision, Sanyan Holdings and Tufail sought a ruling from the F.C. on the ground that the C.A.’s judgment eroded a constitutional protection embodied in Article 161 B of the Federal Constitution that allows only persons resident in Sabah and Sarawak to practise before the courts in the two states and also before the C.A. and F.C. when dealing with appeals originating from the two East Malaysian states.