Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 329 views

    Lee Ah Tee V Ong Tiow Pheng

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    The appellant filed a petition alleging mismanagement of a company. The case was adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. On the final adjournment request, the Judicial Commissioner refused, citing the numerous previous delays. The appellant argued this was wrong. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Judicial Commissioner correctly exercised discretion given the multiple prior adjournments. The Court outlined principles of judicial discretion around granting adjournments and found no basis to interfere with how discretion was applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lee Ah Tee V Ong Tiow Pheng

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    329 views2 pages
    The appellant filed a petition alleging mismanagement of a company. The case was adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. On the final adjournment request, the Judicial Commissioner refused, citing the numerous previous delays. The appellant argued this was wrong. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Judicial Commissioner correctly exercised discretion given the multiple prior adjournments. The Court outlined principles of judicial discretion around granting adjournments and found no basis to interfere with how discretion was applied in this case.

    Original Description:

    kes

    Original Title

    Lee Ah Tee v Ong Tiow Pheng

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant filed a petition alleging mismanagement of a company. The case was adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. On the final adjournment request, the Judicial Commissioner refused, citing the numerous previous delays. The appellant argued this was wrong. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Judicial Commissioner correctly exercised discretion given the multiple prior adjournments. The Court outlined principles of judicial discretion around granting adjournments and found no basis to interfere with how discretion was applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    329 views2 pages

    Lee Ah Tee V Ong Tiow Pheng

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    The appellant filed a petition alleging mismanagement of a company. The case was adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. On the final adjournment request, the Judicial Commissioner refused, citing the numerous previous delays. The appellant argued this was wrong. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Judicial Commissioner correctly exercised discretion given the multiple prior adjournments. The Court outlined principles of judicial discretion around granting adjournments and found no basis to interfere with how discretion was applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LEE AH TEE v ONG TIOW PHENG & ORS

    FEDERAL COURT
    WAN SULEIMAN, MOHAMED AZMI & HASHIM YEOP A SANI FJJ
    Summary of Fact of the Case
    1. Appellant took out a petition under section 181 of the Companies Act, 1965 as a
    shareholder of a company and alleged mismanagement, misappropriation of company
    funds, fraud, embezzlement and general disregard for the rules of the company.
    2 March 1982 : First Hearing
    3 March 1982 : Hearing commenced and continued, and then adjourned to 17 March
    1982 and then adjourned again to 7 April 1982 for continued hearing.
    7 April 1982 : Appellant lost his counsel who had discharged themselves. The
    appellant new counsel applied for adjournment which was granted and fixed to be on 7
    June 1982.
    7 June 1982 : Appellants counsel applied for adjournment and was fixed on 24 June
    1982.
    24 June 1982 : Appellant again applied for an adjournment apparently to engage a new
    counsel.
    2. Judicial Commissioner refuses to give an adjournment after a series of adjournment
    made before this.
    Issue:
    Whether tthe learned Judicial Commissioner was wrong to deny him the adjournment he
    asked for.
    Appellants Arguments
    Respondents Arguments

    Courts decision and reasoning

    The respondent opposed the application on the grounds


    that like all the previous applications for adjournments
    by the appellant this was also applied for at the last
    minute
    1. On the facts of this case, the Court found no
    ground to disagree with the learned Judicial
    Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the
    appeal on the question of adjournment. The
    learned Judicial Commissioner exercised his
    discretion correctly in refusing a further
    adjournment after all the previous adjournments.
    2. The Court has adopt the following principles as

    regards the discretion in allowing or refusing an


    adjournment:(1) 1

    Whether or not a party should be granted an


    adjournment is wholly at the discretion of
    the Judge. He would exercise the discretion
    solely upon his view of the facts.

    (2) 1

    Prima facie this discretion is unfettered.

    (3) 1

    The question to ask in any particular case is


    whether on the facts there are adequate or
    sufficient reasons to refuse the adjournment.

    (4) 1

    Although an appellate court has power to


    interfere with the Judge's decision in regard
    to the granting of an adjournment, it would
    refrain from doing so unless it appears that
    such discretion has been exercised in a way
    which tended to show that all necessary
    matters were not taken into consideration or
    the decision was otherwise arbitrarily made.

    (5) 1

    An appellate court ought to be very slow to


    interfere with the exercise of the discretion.
    But if it appears that the result of the order
    made below would be to defeat the rights of
    the parties altogether or that there would be
    an injustice to one or the other of the parties
    then the appellate court has power and
    indeed a duty to review the exercise of the
    discretion.

    3. This is not really a case of refusing an


    application for adjournment but a case of
    refusing to further adjourn the hearing after a
    number of adjournments granted previously.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy