in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

the staff was also made use of to help in the Marudu store of the
2 nd Respondent.
Conclusions
When you have such a series of incidents as have been adverted
to earlier with each resulting in the detriment of the Petitioner
but to the advantage of the 2 nd Respondent, then the cumulative
effect of them is to make any partner of the 2 nd Respondent very
wary of their behavior and justifiably to lose confidence in
them. This is exactly what has happened with the Petitioner.
The situation is made worse by the attitude of the 3 rd
Respondent, who ran not only the Company but eleven other
stores belonging to the 2 nd Respondent, in saying, what I would
term, what comes to mind without caring for the consequence
or the accuracy and if it was to her advantage; this is a
reflection in the unfair manner she dealt with the Company and
the Petitioner. When the 3 rd Respondent was queried in a
meeting on why the Company was suffering losses as compared
to other profitable years, this was minuted as to what she had
said:
The Board noted Ms Kat Yong’s statement that the
Company has been losing money since day one and that
the old management together with the auditors is
represented the accounts of the Company to reflect profit
making position in the initial years.
That accusation had since been retracted and it was sought to
explain that what the 3 rd Respondent said was a “knee-jerk
reaction” but it reflects adversely on the person making the
statement. Not only did she say what came to mind, she seems
also to say whatever meets her aim which was to justify the
losses irrespective whether it is the truth and how as a result it
unfairly casts aspersion on others by saying the accounts were
fabricated. That being the case, it is difficult to expect the
Petitioner to continue to have confidence and trust in the 3 rd
person and consequently in the 2 nd Respondent, since the 3 rd
Respondent is in effective charge of both the Company and the
2 nd Respondent. Then there is the manner in which the account
was loaded with expenses against the Company’s interest and
49