Latest news with #TanBeeGeok
Free Malaysia Today
3 days ago
- 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.
