KUALA LUMPUR: Former Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Lamin Mohd Yunus obtain-ed a court order to challenge the decision of the appeals committee of Bursa Malaysia Securities Sdn Bhd regarding alleged breaches of listing requirements by a public-listed company.
High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Mohamed Apandi Ali granted leave to Lamin and five others, all directors of Golden Plus Holdings Bhd (GPLUS), in an application for judicial review.
The five other directors of the construction company are former Immigration Depart-ment director-general Datuk Abdul Halim Abdul Rauf, Datuk R. Jeyaraj, Goh Sin Tien, Yeoh Hor San and Low Thiam Hoe.
Justice Mohamed Apandi held that the application by the six was not frivolous and that it was not an abuse of the court process.
The judge made the ruling after hearing submissions by the directors’ lead counsel D. Paramalingam in chambers yesterday.
Speaking to reporters later, Paramalingam said the judge decided that there were issues to be tried by way of judicial review.
“We will file notice for the proper hearing within 14 days,” said Paramalingam, who handled the case with co-counsel Mohd Rizal Bahari.
In the application filed on Nov 11 last year, Lamin, who retired as Court of Appeal president in March 2001, and the five named Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd as sole respondent, claiming that it had issued notices to show cause to them in 2008 due to alleged breaches of its listing requirements.
They stated that the notice to show cause had set out the breaches allegedly committed by GPLUS, including not submitting the company’s annual audited accounts for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2007, on or before April 30, 2008. It stated that the accounts were only submitted on Aug 21, 2008.
They also stated that the Listing Committee of Bursa Malaysia had deliberated the matter on Feb 12 last year. Each director was given a public reprimand and a fine.
The directors said they appealed to the Appeals Committee of Bursa Malaysia against the decision of the Listing Committee last year and on Oct 2, last year, the Appeals Committee upheld the decision of the Listing Committee although it imposed a lesser fine on each director.
In their documents, the six directors claim-ed that the Appeals Committee’s decision ought to be quashed because it had erred in considering certain facts and prejudicial to them as it is made inconsistent with the prevalent laws.
Did you find this article insightful?