This morning at the court, one lawyer came before the judge with the presence of the second defendant who is also the owner of the business of the 1st defendant which is a trading company (ie not a company registered under the Companies Act, but a business conducted under a trading license).
The second defendant disputed the claim and thus the lawyer asked the court for an order that the second defendant be given some time to file in his defence.
The judge then asked further, what about the first defendant. The lawyer said still unsure of who is the owner of the business but trading license search show that the second defendant owns the business.
The judge: “So, is the first defendant present today?”
(trying to hint to the lawyer that, he should asked for the first defendant to enter defence too because if the second defendant owns the business, the second defendant’s presents and disputing the claim also represents the same for the first defendant)
(if the second defendant does not own the first defendant, then first defendant is considered absent and lawyer could ask for judgement in default of appearance to be entered against the trading company)
But… the lawyer didn’t seem to get what the judge was trying hard to hint to him… so the judge gave up and ordered the case to be adjourned till later.
A business under trading license is not an incorporated company like a Sdn Bhd and as such does not have a separate entity. As such, when you sue a trading company, you are suing the person who owns the business, therefore so long as the owner of the company is present, he represents the business.
No comments:
Post a Comment