$AUMAS (0098.MY)$ TAWAU: The civil case trial involving the gold mining company, AuMas Resources Berhad (formerly Bahvest Resources Berhad) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Wullersdof Resources Sdn. Bhd., resumed today at the High Court here.
The proceedings took place before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos, who issued several case management directions involving several undecided applications.
The lawsuit names Lo Fui Ming, Lo Teck Yong, Chong Khing Xhung, and Southsea Gold Sdn. Bhd. as defendants.
In the same proceeding, counsel for the fourth and fifth defendants informed the court that an application to strike out the action, along with supporting affidavits, had been served to the relevant parties last week.
The court then set February 26, 2026, as the deadline for filing Counter-Statement Affidavits, while Reply Affidavits must be filed no later than March 12, 2026.
The respective counsel also informed that they represent the fifth defendant and will file another striking-out application in the near future.
The court decided that the new application will follow the same timeline as Annexes 15 and 55, meaning Counter-Statement Affidavits by March 2, 2026, and Reply Affidavits by March 16, 2026.
In addition, the court has set written arguments for three applications, including Annex 50, Annex 55, and a new application by the fifth defendant.
All parties have been directed to file written arguments simultaneously before March 31, 2026, while rebuttal arguments must be submitted no later than April 14, 2026.
The hearing date is set for April 29, 2026, and will also involve the public hearing of Annex 4. The earlier date on March 18, 2026, has been canceled.
Meanwhile, Yapp's counsel informed that arguments for the injunction application have yet to be filed.
The court ordered that the same timeline as the other four applications should also apply to the injunction application in question.
Plaintiff’s counsel also noted that representatives of the sixth, seventh, and ninth defendants intend to file for an extension of time, with no objections raised.
However, the court emphasized that any extension request must be filed within the stipulated timeframe.
Disclaimer: Community is offered by Moomoo Technologies Inc. and is for educational purposes only.Read more
Comments
to post a comment