Mahkamah tangguh perintah berkait perjanjian fi RM1.55 juta firma guaman, 203 pelabur

The High Court in Kuala Lumpur recently ruled against a contract between a Guamanian firm and 203 investors, citing unfair and unreasonable terms. In Kuala Lumpur, the High Court has now suspended the execution of a RM1.55 million order that nullified the RM1.55 million contract between a Guamanian firm and 203 investors, while awaiting the outcome of the firm's appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Michelle Wong, representing Jerald Gomez & Associates, confirmed this. Jared Tee, representing the investors, did not challenge the suspension application without acknowledging the affidavit submitted in support of the application. In their appeal, the Guamanian firm argued that the appeal raises important legal issues regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the terms clause signed on January 16, 2024 by both parties.

The investors had hired the Guamanian firm to take legal action after suffering significant losses in a joint investment venture linked to the founding of MYAirline by Goh Hwan Hua. The firm stated that the hourly rates and billing methods were disclosed and discussed before the contract was signed. According to them, the investors then agreed to all 18 bills without objection and explained 16 of them.

The firm questioned whether the High Court was acting improperly in nullifying the contract and directing that all 18 Guamanian bills should be formally assessed or valued, including the 16 approved and paid bills and the two unpaid bills that were not claimed. The firm argued that the valuation process could result in their appeal becoming futile if the Court of Appeal later rules that the relevant bills cannot be assessed under the Legal Practitioners Act 1976.

The firm stated that RM1,245,825 has already been paid for the relevant bills and that the effort to recover the payment back from over 200 claimants if the appeal is successful would be difficult. The firm also stated the time and cost involved in resuming the archive files and monitoring former staff and witnesses for the valuation process.

According to them, the suspension would maintain the status quo and avoid unnecessary practical costs and difficulties before the appeal is decided. On September 11, Public Prosecutor Nixon Kennedy Kumbong ruled that the contract between the Guamanian firm and the investors was not obtained fairly and contained unreasonable terms.

He also directed that the 18 Guamanian bills amounting to RM1,549,650 should be assessed or valued as if no contract existed, and that the firm should return any excess payment within 30 days after the valuation certificate is issued. Nixon found the investors successful in proving their reasons under Section 118 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1976 to nullify the contract.

He also ruled that the alternative dispute resolution clause in the contract contradicted its purpose.