Latest news with #TanBeeGeok
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Wife of Supermax boss wins key appeal over asset dissipation order
Supermax co-founders Stanley Thai and Tan Bee Geok are in the midst of a divorce battle. PUTRAJAYA : Tan Bee Geok, the estranged wife of Supermax chairman Stanley Thai, scored a significant legal victory in their ongoing divorce proceedings on Friday, after the Court of Appeal ruled that banks may freeze his accounts under a High Court order issued in January last year. Announcing the unanimous decision, Justice Supang Lian said the High Court fell into error by amending its initial order following an application Thai made to clarify its terms. 'The learned High Court judge erred in allowing the clarification application which had the effect of changing the entire nature of the original order. 'The High Court judge's decision in amending the order to state that the banks did not have the power to freeze (Thai's) accounts was erroneous,' the judge said. Supang said banks did indeed have the power and obligation to freeze Thai's accounts pursuant to the original intent of the order. The Court of Appeal also ruled that Justice Evrol Mariette Peters was wrong to delete the phrase 'Supermax Corporation Berhad, if any,' from the text of the original order. Supang said any shares held by Thai in the publicly listed entity would also be subject to the freezing effect of the order. 'The appeal is allowed in part, with costs of RM10,000 payable by the husband to the wife, subject to allocatur,' said Supang, chairing a three-member panel which included Justices Choo Kah Sing and Alwi Abdul Wahab. The court, however, left intact an amendment Peters made stating that the order was to take effect on Jan 10, 2024, as the matter had not been challenged by Tan in the appeal. Tan was represented by lawyers Frederic Kong, Avinash Kamalanatan and Jessica Leong, while Chris Chin appeared for Thai. Peters had on Jan 10 last year issued an order preventing Thai from dissipating more than half of his assets as at that date. The order covered land in Ijok, Selangor; a condominium in Subang Jaya; multiple bank accounts; EPF funds; and shares held in 'Supermax Corporation, if any,' Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, and Global Charm Corporate Ltd, a corporation based in Hong Kong. Tan's application was made under Section 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The section provides that a court may prevent a spouse from disposing assets with the intention of depriving the other spouse's right to any part of their matrimonial property. Peters subsequently amended the order to remove Supermax Corporation from the list. She also inserted a clause to stipulate that her order was not intended to empower banks to freeze Thai's accounts. The amended order further permitted Thai to continue receiving his salary, bonuses and dividends in a particular bank account provided it retained at least half of its funds as at Jan 10, 2024. Tan appealed to have those amendments removed. Thai and Tan are co-founders of Supermax, one of the world's leading glovemakers. They were married in 1987, but saw their relationship deteriorate amid allegations from both sides. In 2022, Tan sought a judicial separation. Thai filed for divorce in April last year. Proceedings are ongoing in the family court in Kuala Lumpur. Peters presided over the case until her recent promotion to the Court of Appeal.
Free Malaysia Today
04-08-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Supermax co-founder to oppose husband Stanley Thai's media blackout bid
Tan Bee Geok is suing Stanley Thai over statements he made three years ago which she claims were calculated to shame her as a mother, relative and business leader. PETALING JAYA : The estranged wife of Supermax founder Stanley Thai is opposing his application to bar the media and public from their high-stakes defamation suit. Tan Bee Geok, co-founder of the glovemaking giant, will contend at the hearing that Thai has no grounds to oppose a public hearing since he claims his impugned statements are true. Tan also claims that Thai's statements were circulated beyond their household. For that reason, she says, it would be fundamentally unjust to shut the courtroom doors in a lawsuit brought to seek redress for harm allegedly suffered in the public domain. Tan will argue that an open trial is a fundamental principle of Malaysia's legal system and that any discomfort felt is normal to all litigants. She is also expected to take issue with the late filing of Thai's application, saying it disrupted the trial which had been scheduled to start last month. On Wednesday, Tan filed an affidavit setting out her reasons for opposing the application. Thai has until Aug 6 to file his reply. Judicial Commissioner Eddie Yeo will hear the application on Sept 19. Tan is suing Thai over a series of text messages and verbal remarks allegedly made to family and friends three years ago—statements, she claims, were calculated to shame her as a mother, relative and business leader. With the trial set to begin on July 23, Thai made an eleventh-hour application for a sweeping gag order to limit any potential harm to his personal and professional reputation. He said he was also looking to shield several high-profile witnesses he intended to call to testify on his behalf. In his application, Thai asked for the court to hold the trial behind closed doors, seal all court documents, and impose a media blackout of the proceedings. He said the trial touches on matters that are confidential and private, and that they only involve familial matters that do not warrant public interest. Thai, 65, is also understood to be calling several well-known individuals to testify, including a former national badminton player, a distinguished businessman and the manager of a renowned international artiste. The tycoon did not name them but said one witness was about to get married and would not want past romantic relationships brought out into the open. Thai also seeks other protective measures, including an order that all court transcripts remain confidential and be made available only to the parties and their lawyers. He also wants all transcribers to sign non-disclosure agreements. Tan, 64, is represented in the suit by S Ravenesan, while Shearn Delamore & Co acts for Thai. Thai and Tan jointly own Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, a substantial shareholder in Supermax Corporation Berhad, one of the world's leading producers of rubber gloves. They were married in 1987, but saw their relationship deteriorate amid allegations from both sides. In 2022, Tan sought a judicial separation. Thai filed for divorce in April last year. Those proceedings are ongoing in the family court.
Free Malaysia Today
29-07-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Court to hear Thai's media blackout bid before defamation trial begins
Supermax co-founders Stanley Thai and Tan Bee Geok were married in 1987, but are in the midst of divorce proceedings. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court today ruled that it will hear Supermax founder Stanley Thai's bid to exclude the media and public from a high-profile defamation suit brought by his estranged wife, Tan Bee Geok, before proceeding with its trial. Judicial Commissioner Eddie Yeo said there was a need for the court to uphold the interests of justice, adding that the law vests judicial discretion with the courts as regards the grant of adjournments. 'The application in Enclosure 176 (the protective order application) shall be dealt with expeditiously, with sufficient time afforded to both parties to ventilate their positions,' said Yeo. He directed Tan to file her affidavit opposing the application by July 30, and Thai to put in his reply by Aug 8. Both parties were ordered to file their written submissions simultaneously on Aug 13, and their respective replies by Aug 20. Yeo then fixed the application for hearing on Sept 19. He also struck off a stay application filed by Thai two days ago with no order as to costs. The trial, originally scheduled to begin today, was paused to address a notice of application filed on July 11 seeking to bar the media and public from access to proceedings over concerns about privacy and reputational harm. Tan, 64, co-founder of the glovemaking giant, is suing Thai over a series of statements allegedly made to family and friends three years ago, which she claims were calculated to shame her as a mother, relative and business leader. Thai, 65, argues that the trial involves sensitive familial matters and is not of public interest. He is also seeking confidentiality over court transcripts and wants transcribers to sign non-disclosure agreements. Thai's application raises a novel legal question: can a defendant in a defamation suit, accused of damaging the plaintiff's public reputation, restrict public access to proceedings initiated to restore that reputation?. Thai is also understood to be calling several well-known individuals to testify, including a former national badminton player, a distinguished businessman and the manager of a renowned international artiste. The tycoon did not name his witnesses, but said one of them was about to get married and would not want past romantic relationships brought out into the open. The application filed by Thai's solicitors, Shearn Delamore & Co, also seeks other protective measures, including an order that all court transcripts remain confidential and be made available only to the parties and their lawyers. He also wants all transcribers to sign non-disclosure agreements. Thai was represented by lawyer G Rajasingam today, while Tan was represented by S Ravenesan. Thai and Tan jointly own Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, a substantial shareholder in Supermax Corporation Berhad, one of the world's leading producers of rubber gloves. They were married in 1987, but saw their relationship deteriorate amid allegations from both sides. In 2022, Tan sought a judicial separation. Thai filed for divorce in April last year. Those proceedings are ongoing in the family court.
Free Malaysia Today
19-07-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Supermax boss wants court's doors shut in bitter legal spat with wife
The trial of Tan Bee Geok's defamation suit against husband Stanley Thai is scheduled to begin in the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 23. KUALA LUMPUR : Supermax founder and chairman Stanley Thai wants the High Court to conduct the trial of a defamation suit brought against him by his estranged wife behind closed doors. Tan Bee Geok, 64, co-founder and deputy chairman of the glovemaking giant, is suing Thai over a series of text messages and verbal remarks allegedly made to family and friends three years ago – statements, she claims, that were calculated to shame her as a mother, relative and business leader. With the trial set to begin on July 23, Thai wants the High Court to impose a sweeping gag order to limit any potential harm to his personal and professional reputation. He is also looking to shield several high-profile witnesses he intends to call to testify on his behalf. The application raises a significant and potentially unprecedented legal question in Malaysia: can a defendant, accused in a defamation suit of damaging the plaintiff's public reputation, restrict the public from proceedings initiated by the plaintiff to restore that reputation? FMT understands that Thai had, in the application filed last week, asked for the court to hold the trial behind closed doors, seal all court documents, and impose a media blackout of the proceedings. He claims that the trial touches on matters that are confidential and private. He says they only involve familial matters and are not of public interest. Thai, 65, is also understood to be calling several well-known individuals to testify, including a former national badminton player, a distinguished businessman and the manager of a renowned international artiste. The tycoon did not name his witnesses, but said one of them was about to get married and would not want past romantic relationships brought out into the open. The application filed by Thai's solicitors, Shearn Delamore & Co, also seeks other protective measures, including an order that all court transcripts remain confidential and be made available only to the parties and their lawyers. He also wants all transcribers to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA). It is fixed for case management before Judicial Commissioner Eddie Yeo on July 23. Tan is represented in the suit by S Ravenesan. Thai and Tan jointly own Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd, a substantial shareholder in Supermax Corporation Berhad, one of the world's leading producers of rubber gloves. They were married in 1987, but saw their relationship deteriorate amid allegations from both sides. In 2022, Tan sought a judicial separation. Thai filed for divorce in April last year. Those proceedings are ongoing in the family court.
Free Malaysia Today
07-06-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Stanley Thai's wife appeals order blocking Supermax Holdings winding-up
Married in 1987, Supermax co-founders Stanley Thai and Tan Bee Geok are in the midst of divorce proceedings. KUALA LUMPUR : Stanley Thai's estranged wife has appealed a High Court ruling that bars her from pursuing a winding-up petition against Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd until their divorce proceedings are resolved. FMT understands Tan Bee Geok disagrees with the reasons given by Justice Evrol Mariette Peters in a written judgment handed down last week. Peters had on May 31 issued an order restraining Tan from pursuing the winding-up of Supermax Holdings – a company she jointly owns with Thai – until their divorce proceedings are fully resolved. In her judgment, the judge acknowledged that the family court does not generally have jurisdiction to intervene in matters that fall exclusively under the purview of the winding-up court. 'These are matters expressly governed by the Companies Act 2016 and fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the commercial or insolvency courts, specifically designated to oversee winding-up proceedings,' she said. However, the judge said the limitation on subject-matter jurisdiction did not exclude the family court from exercising its authority, particularly where the parties have voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction. 'The authority of the family court in the present case arose not from an intrusion into the winding-up court's domain, but over the parties' conduct in the matrimonial dispute before it,' Peters said. She added that the family court was in this case acting as a court of equity to ensure that the parties did not undermine or frustrate the objectives of matrimonial proceedings – particularly in cases involving financial remedies, asset division or preservation orders – by taking unilateral steps in parallel forums. 'This exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the family court's mandate to regulate the conduct of parties before it, and to ensure that the integrity of its orders and processes is maintained,' she said. Married in 1987, Tan and Thai have endured a rocky marriage. In April 2022, Tan petitioned for judicial separation from her businessman husband. In her petition, she sought a division of matrimonial assets, including shares in Supermax, and early last year secured an injunction restraining Thai from dealing with them. In April last year Thai filed a divorce petition, and, in August, Tan responded with a cross-petition, again praying for the division of assets, including the Supermax shares. By doing so, Peters said Tan had expressly invited the family court to assume jurisdiction over, and determine, the appropriate division or disposition of those shares. The judge also said it was inherently inconsistent and inequitable for Tan to now pursue the winding-up petition in another court when she had earlier sought judicial intervention to preserve the status quo. 'Her current course of action undermined the integrity of the judicial process and suggested a tactical shift that was both disingenuous and abusive of the court's process,' she said. Peters said the inference was that the winding-up petition was filed to prevent the family court from potentially adjusting Tan's shareholding to her detriment. The judge said Tan's petition to wind up Supermax was also an attempt to interfere with the family court's division of matrimonial assets, thus constituting an abuse of process. She said this was especially so since Supermax's assets were liable to be sold off or liquidated – possibly below their true market value – if the company was wound up, particularly if the liquidator was looking to settle its debts swiftly. 'This process could significantly reduce the overall value of Supermax and consequently, diminish the total pool of matrimonial assets available for division between the parties in the context of a divorce,' she added. Peters said Tan's conduct in attempting to wind up Supermax was indicative that there was a real and substantial risk that she would continue in her attempt to dissipate the other matrimonial assets that have been prayed for in the divorce petition and judicial separation. Accordingly, the judge inserted an order restraining the dissipation of assets on identical terms to one issued against Thai in January last year. 'In my view, the principle of fairness requires that the clause in the court order be applied consistently across both the judicial separation and divorce petitions. 'As the saying goes, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Fairness demands that the same rules apply equally to both parties to ensure parity in legal obligations and treatment,' she said.
