KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 3 — The application of legal firm, Zaid Ibrahim & Co (ZICO) to suspend the High Court’s decision which allowed former minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim to obtain documents from ZICO relating to his suit against the legal firm, would be heard at the High Court here on October 29.
Mohd Zaid as the plaintiff filed the originating suit on December 18 last year by naming ZICO Holdings Inc (Singapore company) managing director Chew Seng Kok, legal firm’s executive director Datuk Seri Nik Norzrul Thani Nik Hassan Thani and ZICO as the first to the third defendants.
Counsel Mervyn Lai who is representing all three defendants when contacted by Bernama said the court ordered the plaintiff (Mohd Zaid) and the defendants to file their written arguments by October 8 and the submission of counter-argument by October 5.
Today was set for case management, conducted online before High Court deputy registrar Maslinda Selamat who was joined by counsel Romario Jonoi for Mohd Zaid.
Based on the application notice, which was filed by all defendants on May 18, they are seeking for the decision on May 10 to be suspended until the end of the hearing and disposal of appeal by all defendants in the Court of Appeal on the decision.
Mohd Zaid filed the originating suit on December 18 last year by alleging that around 2014, the defendants launched an exercise to exploit the brand “ZICO” by setting up a separate company incorporated in Singapore and is known as ZICO Holdings Inc which acquired important operating divisions for the firm for a consideration in which the first defendant became the largest shareholder in ZICO Holdings Inc.
The plaintiff alleged that in the incorporation of ZICO Holdings Inc as a company around 2014, the first defendant had entered into an agreement to transfer 10 per cent interest rights in the shares of ZICO Holdings Inc to the plaintiff in return for deducting the outstanding balance of payments to the plaintiff for the transfer of the equity shares of the firm which were transferred in 2008.
He claimed that after the transfer of equity shares in 2004 and 2008, the plaintiff still retained five per cent equity shares in the firm, yet the shares were still unpaid and the plaintiff had never received any report or profit for the shares so far.
Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendants to disclose the documents required by the plaintiff to make his claim based on the causes of action in the contract, tort and breach of trust against all the defendants and sought appropriate remedies such as a perpetual injunction to prevent the firm from continuing to use its name as a practice name, lawsuits and other relief. — Bernama
