Business Law-Review Case free essay sample

An applicant for an order under that section must satisfy the Court: (a) that he has a good cause of action and (b) that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any judgment has removed or is about to remove or has concealed or is concealing or making away with or handing over to others any of his movable or immovable property but there was not a piece of evidence on oath that proved this two circumstances. We will go through the reason of the judgment on the next sheet. 4.The reasons for the judgment (ratio decidendi) As stated by Thomson CJ the main reason for the judgment is it’s not fulfill Sections 19 Debtors Ordinance as that was the only provision of the law enabling such an attachment. We know obviously, to fulfill the sections, the respondent have to satisfy the Court by evidence on oath of two things. We will write a custom essay sample on Business Law-Review Case or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page First, he (Schmidt) has to prove to court that he has a good cause of action. In this case, there is not a scrap of evidence on oath that Kepong Prospecting has any cause of action at all.It is irrelevant to speculate as to what the position would have been had the proceedings been commenced. This may appear to be a somewhat technical and cursory way of disposing of the point. The judge does not wish to appear to be unduly technical as they were agree with the appellant company’s lawyer this requirement is sufficiently fulfilled if the applicant satisfies the Court of the existence of facts from which the inference should be drawn that there has been the required intent. But, they failed to do so.Secondly, respondent’s (Schmidt) has to provide evidence to court that the appellant company (Kepong Prospecting) purposely obstruct or delay the execution of any judgment made by court. In this case, there is no question of concealing property or anything of that sort as Kepong Prospecting freely confessed that their company has handed a great deal of its property over to others, in that it has handed over a great deal of its money over to its shareholders who are of course different persons from itself.The real issue here is did respondent’s (Schmidt) had any evidence on oath that the handing over made by appellant company (Kepong Prospecting) was done with intent to impede or delay any judgment the respondent’s might obtain. There is nothing whatever to show that the companies have altered their course of business by reason of the present proceedings, there is nothing to show that they have done anything they were not in the way of doing before and irrespective of the respondents (Schmidt) claim.All that has been shown is that they have not specifically put aside a sum of money against the eventuality that claim may succeed, a point on which they ha ve most probably taken professional advice, and it would be wrong to say that there was any obligation upon them to do so, far less that failure to do so would make out the sort of intention that the section requires.These decision made based on Sir Norman Macleod quote in the case of Nowroji Pudumjee Siradar v The Deccan Bank Ltd ILR 45 Bom 1256, 1258, AIR 1921 Bom 69 in considering a similar provision in the law of India that are: â€Å"A man is not debarred from dealing with his property because a suit has been filed against him. Otherwise, in every case in which a suit is brought against a man, if during the pendency of the proceedings he sells some of his property, that would be at once a sufficient ground to satisfy the Court that he is disposing of his property with intent to defraud the plaintiff.Clearly there must be additional circumstances before the Court can be satisfied that such an intention exists. † Apparently, the appellant company (Kepong Prospecting) did not hide or sells its property that can be declared as intend to obstruct the judgment made by court. Respondent’s (Schmidt) also failed to prove the two conditions that lay under Section 19, Debtors Ordinance. 5. Our comments or opinion on the decisionBefore we discuss about our opinion on the decision of this case, we would like to discuss certain things that we found in this case. There are: I. There are no agreements that stated Kepong Prospecting Ltd had to pay certain money to Schmidt although Schmidt is a consulting engineer for them. II. Although Kepong Prospecting Ltd distributes their money to the shareholders on the big sum, it doesn’t mean that they did not want to pay Schmidt for the consulting.There is no evidence on that and Schmidt claim was unreasonable. III. Schmidt took out summons in chambers issued ex parte against Kepong Prospecting Ltd to seize the amount of $180,000 in the United Oversea Bank and Bank of Canton on two reasons, first, there is a petition had been presented in Singapore Court for compulsory winding up of Kepong Prospecting Limited and the second reason is Kepong Prospecting Ltd had been distributing greater part of its dividends o the shareholders, that Schmidt felt that they intent not to pay him. IV. Schmidt thoughts are not an evidence for court. The petition that he claimed was later withdrawn and he did not prove the second reason. Kepong Prospecting did not deny what Schmidt said however they claim that they have never at any time intent to obstruct or delay the judgment. They said the company had cash on hand amounting $458,000 which is more than the money seized by Schmidt claim. Obviously, those things make we say that Schmidt claim was awkward.In our opinion, we totally agree with the decision of this case made by Thomson CJJ because it’s not fulfilling the section required that they used. Section 19, Debtors Ordinance as we discussed before require two conditions, he has good cause of action and Kepong Prospecting Ltd with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any judgment. As we all observe through this case, we found that the respondent (Schmidt) had failed to attest the two conditions to satisfy the court. He has to prove how is that he had a good cause of action?What is the good cause of action? None of these questions is being answered. Besides that, there are no such agreement can related to the respondent’s (Schmidt) claim. He just a consulting engineer for Kepong Prospecting Ltd. and that doesn’t mean that he is entitled to the tribute that Kepong Prospecting Ltd gets through their land. Finally, we fell glad that we could review this case as it’s not easy as we thought. We enjoy review this case as we get a lot of knowledge through that.