in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

A No
Q Why not
A When they resigned, new people were recruited to
replace their position and because jv partner not
happy with this arrangement salaries were no
longer charged to 1 st respondent. 3 staff resigned
probably 2002 or whatever.
If anything, it shows that unless the Petitioner is constantly on
the alert about how the 2 nd Respondent dealt with the accounts
including how it charged the Company with expenses, the
expenses may simply be loaded to the disadvantage of the
Company and thus affects the bottom line of the account of the
Company. The fact that the 2 nd Respondent had stopped doing
so, that is charging the Company the salaries of the staffs
employed by the 2 nd Respondent, is a clear admission that it
was wrong to do so in the first place. The so-called pro rata
sharing of the expenses, as explained by the 3 rd Respondent, do
not hold water simply because what the 2 nd Respondent alleged
they were doing to justify loading the salaries onto the
Company was already provided for in the form of payment of a
fee of 1% based on the turnover of the Company by the
Petitioner to the Respondent which worked out to be
RM300,000 in one year and RM450,000 in another year. Since
the explanation was obviously untenable, it would have been a
waste of time to examine the 3 rd Respondent on this point when
she testified and therefore that fact that she was not questioned
on this does not mean that what was done was right when it was
admittedly wrong in the 2 nd Respondent discontinuing such
loading of salary expenses onto the Company.
(3) Using Company’s staff to look after Lawas store of 2 nd
Respondent
Again there is no dispute that a staff paid for by the Company
was made use of to look after the Lawas store of the 2 nd
Respondent in which the Company has no interest. But 3 rd
Respondent was dismissive of the issue by saying that: “Too
small an amount to make it an issue.” It was also revealed that
48