WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD V RONALD ONG CHEO

Date and Time: Friday, 22 December 2023 2:34:00PM MYT
Job Number: 213208376
Document (1)
1. WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD v RONALD ONG CHEOW JOON
Client/Matter: -NoneSearch Terms: pledge tort
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type
MY Cases
Narrowed by
-None-
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2023

LexisNexis
WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD v RONALD ONG CHEOW JOON
CaseAnalysis
| [2010] 8 MLJ 297 | [2010] MLJU 288

[2010] 8 MLJ 297;
[2010] MLJU 288
Court: MALAYSIA HIGH COURT

Judges:
ABDUL MALIK ISHAK J
Judgment Date:
25/2/2010
Catchwords & Digest
Labour Law— Employment— Employee’s duty— Duty of fidelity and good faith—
Confidential information
and trade secrets — Confidential information in form of list of customers, cost
prices, specificneeds and
requirements of customers — Employee utilising and revealing confidential
information to
employer’scompetitor — Whether employee in breach
Evidence— Adverse inference— Failure of plaintiff to call certain witness to
support plaintiff’sevidence—
Existence of documentary evidence and admission by defendant supportingplaintiff’s
evidence— Whether
adverse inference drawn — Evidence Act 1950 s 114(g)
Contract— Breach— Damages— Exemplary damages— Whether defendant’s conduct tainted
by malice,
fraud, cruelty and insolence — Whether defendant profiting from breaches — Whether
defendant utilising
trade secrets to detriment of plaintiff
Contract— Restraint of trade— Validity of restraint of trade clause— Whether
restraint of trade clause valid
and enforceable— Whether restraint permissible to prevent misuse of trade secrets
or business connexion
— Whether reasonable to extend restraint across globe — Whether restraint of trade
clause reasonable —
Whether s 28 of the Contracts Act 1950 to be considered flexibly and with regard to
commercial reality —
Contracts Act 1950 s 28
Held, allowing the plaintiff’s claim with costs: (1) By enticing, encouraging
and influencing the
plaintiff’s employees to leave the employment of the plaintiff to join Alpha
while the defendant was still in the
employment of the plaintiff, the defendant had acted in conflict and was therefore
guilty of breach of contract. The
defendant himself did not dispute that he took 50% of the staff strength of the
plaintiff to Alpha when he joined
Alpha (see para 53). (2) The defendant had utilised the plaintiff’s list of
customers by pinching the
plaintiff’s customers. This was done by the defendant notwithstanding the
injunctive court order dated 6
October 1997 which expressly prohibited the defendant from pinching the
plaintiff’s customers. At the
subsequent contempt proceedings, the learned judge had warned the defendant that he
was to cease contravening
the court order but the defendant continued to defy the court order (see paras 57 &
59). (3) Confidential information
would also cover information relating to customers, cost prices together with the
specific needs and requirements of
customers. The defendant had access to all these and he did not deny them. The
irresistible inference could be
drawn that the defendant was guilty of revealing and utilising the confidential
secrets of the plaintiff when the
defendant joined Alpha. This amounted to breaching cll 8 and 9 of the letter of
offer (see para 83). (4) Section
114(g) of the EA could not be invoked against the plaintiff because there was a
letter from Alpha showing
Page 2 of 28
Alpha’s list of customers (’exh D23’) that supported PW1’s
evidence that the
defendant pinched the plaintiff’s customers. The defendant had also admitted
that he had secured 12 of the
plaintiff’s customers as reflected in exh D23. That admission put an end to
the s 114(g) submission (see
paras 88-89). (5) The express duty imposed by a contract of employment to maintain
confidence is at its peak while
the employment is continuing. But that does not give the employee the right to
disseminate confidential information
belonging to the employer after the employee has left the employment (see para 95).
(6) The defendant had
committed the tort of unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s trade for
the following reasons: (a) by
encouraging and/or influencing the plaintiff’s employees to leave the
employment of the plaintiff; (b) by
failing to keep all information obtained in the course of his employment
confidential; (c) by divulging the
plaintiff’s confidential information to the plaintiff’s competitor; and
(d) by misrepresenting to the
plaintiff’s customers with the sole aim of damaging the plaintiff’s
reputation and/or business (see para
106). (7) Restraint is permissible if it is fashioned in such a way as to prevent a
misuse of trade secrets or business
connexion. In what form the restraint of trade is to be incorporated is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the contents of
that restraint. The restraint may be contained in an agreement or in a letter. The
geographical area of the restraint
must be viewed in the context of the ease of travel and the character of the
business that is under scrutiny. And in
the world where companies operate globally, it would be reasonable to extend the
restraint across the globe (see
paras 116-117 & 119). (8) The restraint of trade clause in this case as agreed by
the defendant was not draconian
and was not in breach of the rules of natural justice. Based on the facts of this
case, the restraint of trade clause
was reasonable (see para 123). (9) In considering s 28 of the Act, there must be
some measure of flexibility. The
commercial reality of the matter dictates this kind of approach. Regard must always
be had to the nature of the
business conducted by the employer. The test of reasonableness must be applied in
construing a restraint of trade
clause (see para 126). (10) Whenever the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently
outrageous to merit
punishment in situations where the defendant’s conduct discloses malice,
fraud, cruelty, insolence or the
like, then exemplary damages would be granted. The defendant had profited from the
breaches in the present case.
The plaintiff’s trade secrets had been utilised by the defendant to the
detriment of the plaintiff (see paras
138, 140 & 153). (11) In cases of trade secrets and confidential information,
damages will not be an adequate
remedy because it is always difficult to quantify them. If the plaintiff can show
that there exists a real risk of future
injury, the plaintiff would be granted a permanent injunction (see para 154)
Summary : Madam Tan (‘PW1’), the general manager of the plaintiff by way of a
letter of offer of
appointment dated 21 August 1995 offered to the defendant the position of marketing
manager of the plaintiff. The
defendant accepted that job offer and signed an acceptance pledging his loyalty to
the plaintiff. By way of another
letter dated 30 July 1996 addressed to the defendant, PW1 confirmed the defendant’s
appointment and again the
defendant pledged his loyalty to the plaintiff. Clause 7 of the letter provided
that the defendant was not permitted
whilst in the employment of the plaintiff to engage in any private business which
could tantamount to any conflict of
interest. Clauses 8 and 9 provided that the defendant had to, at all times, ensure
confidentiality of the plaintiff’s
proprietary and other confidential information. Such information was to remain as
the property of the plaintiff and
cannot be divulged to any outside party. Clause 10 provided that upon the
defendant’s resignation, he sh
Cases referring to this case
SPROUTYPOD, INC & ANOR v DANIEL PAUL

SCHURER
[2023] MLJU 2773
Referred
18/9/2023
MYHC
Page 3 of 28
WAN NUR SITI AISYAH BT WAN HASAN DAN

SATU LAGI v ANES AYUNIE BT OSMAN
3/8/2023
MYMT
[2023] MLJU 1759

Referred
KAREN YAP CHEW LING v BINARY GROUP

SERVICES BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL
4/7/2023
MYCA
[2023] MLJU 1389

Referred
OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS (MALAYSIA)

SDN BHD v NG SYEN UUN & ORS
5/12/2022
MYHC
[2022] MLJU 3317

Referred
AREM (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v BADAN

PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PANGSAPURI SERI
INTAN & ORS
1/10/2022
MYSESSC
[2022] MLJU 2854

Referred
ATOMY MALAYSIA SDN BHD v FIRDAUS WONG

WAI HUNG
7/3/2022
MYHC
[2022] MLJU 745

Referred
HASNIDA BT ABDUL WAHAB v FARAH AMIRA

BT KASIM
[2021] MLJU 1677
Referred
2/9/2021
MYMC
Page 4 of 28
MR A INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v SPC

DIATECH, LCC
28/5/2021
MYHC
[2021] MLJU 1052

Referred
CENTEK LIMITED v FARRAH DHEEBA SHAIFUL

RIDZUAN & ORS
[2021] 9 MLJ 548;
25/1/2021
MYHC
[2021] MLJU 77
Referred
WORX PRINTING & PACKAGING SDN. BHD. v

CHONG KOK KOW & ANOR
24/11/2020
MYHC
[2020] MLJU 2182

Referred
PUANESWARAN A/L RENGANATHAN

(BERNIAGA DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA TSR
HERBAL WORLD) & ORS v JYOTHY
LABORATORIES LTD AND ANOTHER APPEAL
9/11/2020
MYCA
[2020] MLJU 2566

Referred
NG KIM FONG v MENANG CORPORATION (M)

SDN BHD
3/2/2020
MYCA
[2020] MLJU 644

Referred
TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ANOR v CA

MULTIMEDIA SDN BHD & ORS
[2019] MLJU 1664
30/12/2019
MYHC
Page 5 of 28
Referred
CHAN AH KIEN v BRITE-TECH BERHAD & ANOR
14/10/2019
MYHC
[2019] MLJU 2017

Referred
REVOLUSI RANCAK SDN BHD v BUKIT MELITA

SDN BHD & 1 LAGI
1/9/2017
MYHC
[2017] MLJU 1497

Referred
LIONEX (M) SDN BHD v ALLEN LIM LAI WAH &

ORS
30/9/2016
MYHC
[2016] MLJU 967

Referred
SCOMI TRANSIT PROJECTS SDN BHD v

PRASARANA MALAYSIA BERHAD
13/9/2016
MYHC
[2016] MLJU 622

Referred
GANESH RAJA A/L NAGAIAH & ORS v NR

RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.
31/5/2016
MYHC
[2016] MLJU 607

Referred
GANESH RAJA A/L NAGAIAH & ORS v NR

RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN BHD
[2016] 12 mlj 461
Referred
31/5/2016
MYHC
Page 6 of 28
YEOH TAI CHUAN & ORS v TAN CHONG KEAN
11/3/2016
MYHC
[2016] 4 MLJ 769

Referred
VISION CAST SDN BHD & ANOR v DYNACAST

(MELAKA) SDN BHD & ORS
16/5/2014
MYCA
[2015] 1 MLJ 424

Referred
LIFESTYLE ENTERPRISE (USA) INC & ANOR v

LY FURNITURE SDN BHD & ANOR AND
ANOTHER SUIT
[2013] 4 AMR 159;
[2013] 10 MLJ 181;
29/3/2013
MYHC
[2013] MLJU 245
Referred
KEN HOLDINGS BHD & ORS v SRI SELTRA SDN

BHD & ORS
[2014] 9 MLJ 858;
12/2/2013
MYHC
[2013] MLJU 1452
Referred
ECCOILS SDN BHD v RAGHUNATH RAMAIAH

KANDIKERI
[2012] 1 LNS 1262;
[2014] 7 MLJ 309;
17/10/2012
MYHC
[2012] MLJU 1682
Considered
BT ENGINEERING SDN BHD v TEAM UNITED

RESOURCES SDN BHD & ANOR,
[2012] 2 AMCR 165;
[2012] MLJU 351
Referred
[2012] 5 CLJ 800;
[2012] 5 MLJ 720;
2/5/2012
MYHC
Page 7 of 28
MAYFLOWER ACME TOURS SDN BHD v NGIAM

FOON AND ANOTHER SUIT
[2012] 5 CLJ 851;
[2012] MLJU 145
[2012] 1 LNS 119;
10/2/2012
MYHC
[2012] 9 MLJ 42;
Referred
REPCO (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v TAN TOH

FATT & OTHERS
[2013] 7 MLJ 408;
18/1/2012
MYHC
[2012] MLJU 186
Distinguished
SHAIFUBAHRIM BIN MOHD v EM EXHIBITIONS

(M) SDN BHD & ANOR
24/11/2011
MYHC
[2012] 1 AMCR 988;

[2012] 4 AMR 549;
[2012] 5 CLJ
360;
[2012] 9 MLJ 84;
[2011] MLJU 1272
Referred
Cases considered by this case
SVENSON HAIR CENTER SDN BHD v IRENE

CHIN ZEE LING
[2008] 7 MLJ 903;
31/1/2007
MYHC
[2007] MLJU 801
Referred
ABN-AMRO BANK BHD v ISMAIL BIN MYDINSAH

(T/A ISMY CLASSIC)
[2004] 7 MLJ 30
Referred
23/9/2004
MYHC
Page 8 of 28
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL SA v MUNAWAR ALI
[2002] 1 AC 251;
[2001] 2 WLR 735
[2001] 1 All ER 961;
1/3/2001
UKHL
[2001] UKHL 8;
Referred
26/6/1997
MYHC
BHD v ONG HAN SUAN

[1997] 5 MLJ 632
Referred
TAHA BIN ALI v HAJI ABDUL WAHEED
5/6/1997
MYHC
[1997] MLJU 263

Referred
TAN BOK SEONG @ TAN LEONG TIAN v SIN

BEE SENG & CO (PORT WELD) SDN BHD & ORS
19/5/1995
MYHC
[1995] MLJU 384

Referred
2/3/1984
NZCA
VAN CAMP CHOCOLATES LTD v

AULSEBROOKS LTD
[1984] 2 IPR 337;
[1984] 1 NZLR 354
Referred
HADMOR PRODUCTIONS LTD v HAMILTON

[1983] 1 AC 191;
[1982] 1 All ER 1042;
11/2/1982
UKHL
[1982] 2 WLR 322
Referred
(LONRHO v SHELL PETROLEUM
4/6/1981
UKHL
Page 9 of 28
[1982] AC 173;
[1981] 2 All ER 456;
[1981] 3 WLR 33
Referred
LEVISON v PATENT STEAM CARPET CLEANING

CO LTD
[1977] 3 All ER 498;
[1978] QB 69;
22/4/1977
EWCACIV
[1977] 3 WLR 90
Referred
17/7/1962
-
FINANCINGS LTD. v STIMSON

[1962] 3 All ER 386;
[1962] 1 WLR 1184
Referred
STEVENSON (OR STEPHENSON) JORDAN &

HARRISON LTD v MACDONALD & EVANS
[1951] 69 RPC 10;
3/12/1951
-
[1952] 1 TLR 101
Referred
8/5/1935
EWCACIV
WESSEX DAIRIES LTD v SMITH

[1935] 2 KB 80
Referred
28/3/1930
EWCACIV
BLAY v POLLARD & MORRIS

[1930] 1 KB 628
Referred
8/2/1916
UKHL
HERBERT MORRIS LTD v SAXELBY

[1916] 1 AC 688;
297
Referred
[1916] All ER Rep 305;
[1916] 32 TLR
Page 10 of 28
EXCHANGE TELEGRAPH CO v GREGORY & CO
2/11/1895
EWCACIV
[1896] 1 QB 147
Referred
10/7/1895
EWCACIV
ROBB v GREEN
[1895] 2 QB 315
Referred
ACROW (AUTOMATION) LTD v REX CHAIN BELT

INC
[1971] 3 All ER 1175;
[1971] 1 WLR 1676
Referred
AF COLVERD & CO LTD v ANGLO OVERSEAS

TRANSPORT CO LTD AND POPE & SONS
[1961] 2 LloydsRep 352

Referred
AF COLVERD & CO LTD v ANGLO OVERSEAS

TRANSPORT CO LTD AND POPE & SONS
[1961] 2 LLOYD 352

Referred
EWCA
ALLEN v FLOOD
[1898] AC 1;
[1895] All ER Rep 52;
[1897] 67 LJQB 119;
[1897] 77 LT 717;
125;
[1898] 14 TLR 125
[1897] 62 JP 595;
[1897] 14 TLR
Referred
AMBER SIZE AND CHEMICAL CO LTD v
-
Page 11 of 28
MENZEL
[1913] 2 CH 239
Referred
ATTORNEY GENERAL v BLAKE

[2001] 1 AC 268;
[2000] 3 WLR 625
[2000] 4 All ER 385;
[2000] UKHL 45;
Referred
ATTORNEY GENERAL v BLAKE

[2000] 4 ALLER 385
Referred
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v OBSERVER LTD AND

OTHERS
[1990] 1 AC 109;
[1988] 3 All ER 545;
;
[1988] 2 WLR 805
[1990] 3 WLR 776
Followed
BAHNER v MARWEST HOTEL CO LTD ET AL
[1969] 6 DLR_3d 322

Referred
BAHNER v MARWEST HOTEL CO. LTD. ET AL.
Referred
BARRETTS & BAIRD (WHOLESALE) LTD v

INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL CIVIL
SERVANTS
-
Page 12 of 28
[1987] IRLR 3
Referred
BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL v SMITH
[1966] 120 CLR 145

Referred
BENTS BREWERY CO LTD & ORS v LUKE

HOGAN
[1945] 2 ALLER 570

Referred
BENTS BREWERY CO LTD & ORS v LUKE

HOGAN
[1945] 2 All ER 570

Referred
BENTS BREWERY CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v

LUKE HOGAN
[1945] 2 KB 570
Referred
CARIBONUM CO LTD v LE COUCH

[1913] 109 LT 587
Referred
CASSEL & CO v BROOME

[1972] AC 1027;
Referred
[1972] 1 All ER 801;
[1972] 2 WLR 645

Page 13 of 28
CASSELL & CO LTD v BROOME

[1972] AC 1027
Referred
CBS SONGS LTD v AMSTRAD CONSUMER

ELECTRONICS PLC
[1988] AC 1013;
[1988] 11 IPR 1;
[1988] 2 WLR 1191
[1988] 2 All ER 484;

[1988] RPC 567;
[1988] 1 CH 61
;
[1988] 2 WLR 1191;
Referred
CBS SONGS LTD & ORS v AMSTRAD

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PLC & ANOR
[1988] 1 AC 1013
Referred
CERTACT PTE LTD v TANG SIEW CHOY & ORS
[1991] 4 CLJ 716

Referred
CERTACT PTE LTD v TANG SIEW CHOY & ORS
[1991] 4 CLJ_Rep 716

Referred
CERTACT PTE. LTD. v TANG SIEW CHOY &

ORS.
[1991] 4 CLJREP 716

Referred
COCO v AN CLARK (ENGINEERS) LTD
EWHCCH
Page 14 of 28
[1968] FSR 415;
[1968] 1A IPR 587;
[1969] RPC 41
Referred
COMMERCIAL PLASTICS LTD v VINCENT

[1964] 3 All ER 546;
[1965] 1 QB 623;
[1964] 3 WLR 820
Referred
COMMERCIAL PLASTICS LTD v VINCENT
[1964] 3 ALLER 546

Referred
COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE ET COMMISSION,

SARL v PARKINSON STOVE CO LTD

Referred
COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE ET COMMISSION,

SARL v PARKINSON STOVE CO LTD
[1953] 2 LLOYD 487

Referred
EWCA
CONWAY v WADE
[1909] AC 506
Referred
CURTIS v CHEMICAL CLEANING AND DYEING

CO LTD
[1951] 1 All ER 631;
[1951] 1 KB 805
-
Page 15 of 28
Referred
CURTIS v CHEMICAL CLEANING AND DYEING

CO LTD
[1951] 1 ALLER 631

Referred
CUTLER v WANDSWORTH STADIUM LTD

[1949] AC 398;
[1949] 1 All ER 544
Referred
DAYS MEDICAL AIDS LTD v (1) PIHSIANG

MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CO LTD (2)
PIHSIANG WU (ALSO KNOWN AS DONALD P H
WU) (3) CHIANG CHING-MING WU (ALSO
KNOWN AS JENNY WU)
[2004] EWHC 44
Referred
E UNDERWOOD & SON LTD v BARKER
[1899] 1 Ch 300
Referred
ESSO PETROLEUM CO LTD v HARPER'S

GARAGE (STOURPORT) LTD
[1968] AC 269;
[1967] 1 All ER 699;
[1967] 2 WLR 871
Referred
EX PARTE ISLAND RECORDS LTD & ORS

[1978] 1 CH 122
-
Page 16 of 28
Referred
EX PARTE ISLAND RECORDS LTD AND

OTHERS
[1978] 3 All ER 824;
[1978] 3 WLR 23
[1978] CH 122;
[1978] FSR 505;
Referred
FACCENDA CHICKEN LTD v FOWLER

[1986] 1 All ER 617;
[1986] ICR 297;
[1987] Ch 117;
[1986] IRLR 69;
[1986] FSR 291;

[1986] 3 WLR 288
Referred
FACCENDA CHICKEN LTD v FOWLER & ORS;

FOWLER V FACCENDA CHICKEN LTD
[1987] 1 CH 117
Referred
FACCENDA CHICKEN LTD v FOWLER AND

OTHERS CA
[1986] 1 ALLER 617

Referred
FAIRBAIRN, WRIGHT & CO v LEVIN & CO LTD
Referred
FINANCINGS LTD v STIMSON
[1962] 3 ALLER 386

Referred
FORSTER & SONS (LTD) v SUGGETT
-
Page 17 of 28
[1918] 35 TLR 87
Referred
FRANCHI v FRANCHI
[1967] RPC 149

Referred
G.W.K. LIMITED, AND OTHERS v DUNLOP

RUBBER COMPANY, LIMITED
[1925] 42 TLR 376

Referred
GILFORD MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED v HOME
[1933] 1 CH 935
Referred
GILFORD MOTOR COMPANY LTD. v HORNE
EWHCCH
[1933] Ch 935
Referred
GOLDSOLL v GOLDMAN
[1914] 2 Ch 603
Followed
GWK LTD & ORS v DUNLOP RUBBER CO LTD

[1926] 42 TLR 376
Referred
-
Page 18 of 28
HADMOR PRODUCTIONS LTD. v HAMILTON
[1983] 1 AC 228
Referred
HAGG v DARLEY
[1878] 47 LJ Ch 567
Referred
HAGG v DARLEY
[1878] 47 LJCH 567
Referred
HAYNES v DOMAN
[1899] 2 Ch 13;
[1899] 15 TLR 354
Referred
HERBERT MORRIS LTD v SAXELBY
[1916] ALLERREP 305

Referred
HOWATSON v WEBB
[1908] 1 Ch 1;
[1907] 77 LJ Ch 32;
[1907] 97 LT 730
Referred
HUA KHIOW STEAMSHIP CO LTD, THE v CHOP

GUAN HIN
[1930] 1 JLR 33;
Referred
[1930] 1 MC 175;
-
Page 19 of 28
IN NORTH WESTERN SALT COMPANY, LIMITED

v ELECTROLYTIC ALKALI COMPANY, LIMITED
[1914] AC 461;
[1914] All ER Rep 752;
EWCA
[1914] 30 TLR 313
Referred
IPC MAGAZINES LTD & ANOR v WADE

[1979] ICR 664;
[1979] 1 WLR 697
Referred
JH SAPHIR (MERCHANTS) LTD v AL ZISSIMOS

& ANOR (TRADING AS CYPRUS SOIL
PRODUCTS CO)

Referred
JH SAPHIR (MERCHANTS) LTD v AL ZISSIMOS

& ANOR (TRADING AS CYPRUS SOIL
PRODUCTS CO)
[1960] 1 LLOYD 490

Referred
JONES v FABBI
[1973] 37 DLR (3d) 27

Referred
JONES v FABBI ET AL, JONES V FLECK ET AL
[1973] 37 DLR_3d 27
Referred
JT STRATFORD AND SONS LTD v LINDLEY
EWCA
Page 20 of 28
[1965] AC 269;
[1964] 3 WLR 541
[1964] 3 All ER 102;
[1964] 2 LLOYD 133;
Referred
L’ESTRANGE v F GRAUCOB, LTD

[1934] 2 KB 394
Referred
LAMSON PNEUMATIC TUBE CO v PHILLIPS
[1904] 91 LT 363
Referred
LENNON v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD

AND TWIST
[1978] FSR 573

Referred
L'ESTRANGE v F GRAUCOB LTD

[1934] All ER Rep 16;
[1934] 2 KB 394;
730;
[1934] 152 LT 164
[1934] 103 LJKB
Referred
LEVISON & ANOR v PATENT STEAM CARPET

CLEANING CO LTD
[1977] 3 ALLER 498

Referred
LITTLEWOODS ORGANISATION LTD v HARRIS

[1977] 1 WLR 1472
-
Page 21 of 28
Referred
LITTLEWOODS ORGANISATION LTD v HARRIS
[1978] 1 ALLER 1026

Referred
LONRHO LTD. v SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD.

(NO. 2)
[1982] AC 187
Referred
LONRHO PLC v FAYED & ORS

[1989] 2 All ER 65;
[1990] 2 QB 479;
[1989] 3 WLR 631
Referred
LORD ADVOCATE v THE SCOTSMAN

PUBLICATIONS LTD & ORS
[1990] 1 AC 812;
[1989] 3 WLR 358
[1989] 2 All ER 852;
[1989] 15 IPR 597;
Referred
LUMLEY v GYE
Referred
LUMLEY v GYE
[1853] 2 E_B 216

Referred
LUMLEY v GYE
-
Page 22 of 28
[1853] 2 El_Bl 216

Referred
MERKUR ISLAND SHIPPING CORP v

LAUGHTON & ORS
[1983] 2 ALLER 189
Referred
MERKUR ISLAND SHIPPING CORPN v

LAUGHTON
[1983] 2 AC 570;
[1983] IRLR 26;
[1983] 1 All ER 334;

[1983] 1 LLOYD 154;
[1983] ICR 178;

[1983] 2 WLR 45
Referred
MOORGATE TOBACCO CO LTD v PHILIP

MORRIS LTD (NO 2)
Referred
MORRIS & ORS v CROWN OFFICE

[1970] 1 All ER 1079;
[1970] 2 QB 114;
[1970] 2 WLR 792
Referred
MORRIS & ORS v THE CROWN OFFICE
[1970] 1 ALLER 1079

Referred
NATIONAL PHONOGRAPH CO, LTD v EDISONBELL CONSOLIDATED PHONOGRAPH CO, LTD

[1908] 1 CH 335
Referred
-
Page 23 of 28
NORMALEC LTD v BRITTON

[1983] FSR 318
Referred
O MUSTAD & SON v S ALLCOCK & CO, LTD

AND DOSEN
[1963] 3 ALLER 416

Referred
O MUSTAD & SON v S ALLCOCK & CO, LTD

AND DOSEN
[1963] 3 All ER 416;
[1964] 1 WLR 109
[1928] 1B IPR 773;
[1963] RPC 41;
Referred
PETER PAN MANUFACTURING CORP v

CORSETS SILHOUETTE LTD
[1963] 3 All ER 402;
[1964] 1 WLR 96
[1962] 1B IPR 795;
[1963] RPC 45;
Referred
POSLUNS v TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE AND

GARDINER
[1966] 1 OR 285
Referred

GARDINER
[1965] 46 DLR_2d 210
Referred
-
Page 24 of 28

GARDINER
[1964] 2 OR 547
Referred
PRATT v BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
[1919] 1 KB 244
Referred
QUINN v LEATHEM
Referred
R.C.A. CORPORATION v POLLARD
[1983] Ch 135
Referred
RE BSB HOLDINGS LTD (NO 2) v SCHWARTZ

[1996] 1 BCLC 155;
[1995] TLR 452
Referred
REID SIGRIST LTD v MOSS MECHANISM
[1932] 49 RPC 461

Referred
ROOKES v BARNARD (NO 1)

[1964] AC 1129;
Referred
[1964] 1 All ER 367
-
Page 25 of 28
ROOKES v BARNARD AND OTHERS
[1964] AC 1129
Referred
ROUTH & ANOR v JONES
[1947] 1 ALLER 179

Referred
ROUTH & ANOR v JONES
[1947] 1 All ER 179

Referred
SALTMAN ENGINEERING CO, LTD AND OTHERS

v CAMPBELL ENGINEERING CO, LTD
[1963] 3 All ER 413;
[1948] 65 RPC 203
Referred
SALTMAN ENGINEERING CO., LTD. AND

OTHERS v CAMPBELL ENGINEERING CO., LTD.
[1963] 3 ALLER 413

Referred
SANDERS v PARRY
[1967] 2 All ER 803;
[1967] 1 WLR 753
Referred
SCHMIDT SCIENTIFIC SDN BHD v ONG HAN

SUAN
-
Page 26 of 28
[1998] 1 CLJ 685

Referred
SEAGER v COPYDEX LTD

[1967] 2 All ER 415;
[1967] RPC 349;
[1967] 1 WLR 923
Referred
SEAGER v COPYDEX LTD

[1967] 2 ALLER 416
Referred
STEPHENS v AVERY & ORS

[1988] 2 All ER 477;
[1988] 11 IPR 439;
[1988] Ch 449;
[1988] 2 WLR 1280
[1988] FSR 510;
Referred
SVENSON HAIR CENTER SDN BHD v IRENE

CHIN ZEE LING
[2008] 8 CLJ 386

Referred
TAHA BIN ALI v HAJI ABDUL WAHEED
[1997] 1 LNS 306

Referred
TAKARO PROPERTIES LTD v ROWLING
[1978] 2 NZLR 314

Referred
TAN BOK SEONG @ TAN LEONG TIAN v SIN

-
Page 27 of 28
BEE SENG & CO (PORT WELD) SDN BHD & ORS

[1995] 4 BLJ 362
Referred
THOMAS MARSHALL (EXPORTS) LTD v GUINLE
[1978] 3 ALLER 193

Referred
TIPPING v CLARKE
[1843] 67 ER 157;
[1843] 2 Hare 383
Referred
VOKES LTD v HEADER

[1945] 62 RPC 135
Referred
WADDINGTON IN THE CASE OF HERBERT

MORRIS, LIMITED v SAXELBY
[1916] AC 688
Referred
WESSEX DAIRIES LTD v SMITH

[1935] ALLERREP 75
Referred
Legislation considered by this case

Legislation Name & Jurisdiction
Provisions
s 114(g)
Akta Keterangan 1950

Page 28 of 28
Legislation Name & Jurisdiction
Provisions
s 28
Akta Kontrak 1950
Companies Act 1965
Contracts Act 1950
ss 1(2), 28, Ex, section 1(2), section 28, ss 1(2), s

28
s 114(g), section 114(g)
Evidence Act 1950

section 13(2), Seksyen 114(g)
Peraturan-Peraturan (Am) Keselamatan Sosial (Acara Jemaah Rayuan
Keselamatan Sosial) 1976
Trade Disputes Act 1906
End of Document

WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD V RONALD ONG CHEO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD V RONALD ONG CHEO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date and Time: Friday, 22 December 2023 2:34:00PM MYT

Job Number: 213208376

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2023

WORLDWIDE ROTA DIES SDN BHD v RONALD ONG CHEOW JOON

[2010] MLJU 288

Court: MALAYSIA HIGH COURT

ABDUL MALIK ISHAK J

Catchwords & Digest

Cases referring to this case

SPROUTYPOD, INC & ANOR v DANIEL PAUL

WAN NUR SITI AISYAH BT WAN HASAN DAN

[2023] MLJU 1759

KAREN YAP CHEW LING v BINARY GROUP

[2023] MLJU 1389

OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS (MALAYSIA)

[2022] MLJU 3317

AREM (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v BADAN

[2022] MLJU 2854

ATOMY MALAYSIA SDN BHD v FIRDAUS WONG

[2022] MLJU 745

HASNIDA BT ABDUL WAHAB v FARAH AMIRA

MR A INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v SPC

[2021] MLJU 1052

CENTEK LIMITED v FARRAH DHEEBA SHAIFUL

WORX PRINTING & PACKAGING SDN. BHD. v

[2020] MLJU 2182

PUANESWARAN A/L RENGANATHAN

[2020] MLJU 2566

NG KIM FONG v MENANG CORPORATION (M)

[2020] MLJU 644

TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ANOR v CA

CHAN AH KIEN v BRITE-TECH BERHAD & ANOR

[2019] MLJU 2017

REVOLUSI RANCAK SDN BHD v BUKIT MELITA

[2017] MLJU 1497

LIONEX (M) SDN BHD v ALLEN LIM LAI WAH &

[2016] MLJU 967

SCOMI TRANSIT PROJECTS SDN BHD v

[2016] MLJU 622

GANESH RAJA A/L NAGAIAH & ORS v NR

[2016] MLJU 607

GANESH RAJA A/L NAGAIAH & ORS v NR

YEOH TAI CHUAN & ORS v TAN CHONG KEAN

[2016] 4 MLJ 769

VISION CAST SDN BHD & ANOR v DYNACAST

[2015] 1 MLJ 424

LIFESTYLE ENTERPRISE (USA) INC & ANOR v

[2013] 10 MLJ 181;

[2013] MLJU 245

KEN HOLDINGS BHD & ORS v SRI SELTRA SDN

[2013] MLJU 1452

ECCOILS SDN BHD v RAGHUNATH RAMAIAH

[2014] 7 MLJ 309;

[2012] MLJU 1682

BT ENGINEERING SDN BHD v TEAM UNITED

[2012] 5 CLJ 800;

[2012] 5 MLJ 720;

MAYFLOWER ACME TOURS SDN BHD v NGIAM

[2012] 1 LNS 119;

[2012] 9 MLJ 42;

REPCO (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v TAN TOH

[2012] MLJU 186

SHAIFUBAHRIM BIN MOHD v EM EXHIBITIONS