PUTRAJAYA (Sept 23): The Court of Appeal on Tuesday delivered three unanimous rulings in the ongoing marital dispute between Supermax Corp Bhd (KL:SUPERMX) founders Datuk Seri Stanley Thai and his wife Datin Seri Cheryl Tan Bee Geok.

It set aside Thai's contempt conviction and RM60,000 fine imposed over alleged failure to disclose his assets, and lifted an injunction that prevented Tan from pursuing a winding-up petition against Supermax's holding company — Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd — and from accessing her assets.

The three-member bench, however, dismissed Tan’s appeal for the payment of a monthly interim maintenance, which she sought following the removal of her RM1.3 million monthly salary for the positions she held at Supermax.

These were decided during a six-hour marathon court session, with the proceedings presided over by the bench led by Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid. Two other members of the bench were: Datuk Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman and Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh.

The rulings overturned or modified several decisions issued since 2024 by then High Court (Family Division) judicial commissioner Datin Evrol Mariette Peters — now a Court of Appeal judge.

Thai was present throughout Tuesday’s proceedings, but Tan was not.

Both Thai and Tan have filed separate divorce and judicial separation proceedings, which remain pending. The core contention is the division of their matrimonial assets.

Tan wants an equal share of the assets between them — including their stake in Supermax Holdings — while Thai said the division should be 70:30.

Presently, Thai holds a 57.5% stake in Supermax Holdings while Tan owns 42.5%. Supermax Holdings owns 40.3% of the Main Market-listed Supermax, which gives Thai an effective 23.2% stake in Supermax, and Tan 17.1%.

As of Tuesday's market close, Supermax had a market value of RM1.27 billion, based on its last traded share price of 39 sen.

In setting aside the contempt order and fine previously imposed on Thai by the Family Court, the bench also dismissed Tan's cross-appeal for a harsher penalty against her husband.

In the broad grounds, Judge Ahmad Shahrir said the High Court's order for the disclosure of assets to determine joint matrimonial properties was ambiguous.

The court held that the original order did not explicitly mandate disclosure of bank account balances, and did not specify Thai's Employees Provident Fund (EPY) account. The court also held that the operative date for full disclosure in April 2022 was not properly specified, saying the phrase "within 14 days of the order" was not valid.

Ahmad Shahrir also noted that Thai had disclosed every account he held by number, along with his shareholdings and properties, as of the date of separation.

While the EPF account was initially omitted because Thai was uncertain if it constituted a matrimonial asset, the judge noted that he had, in good faith, subsequently rectified the omission by disclosing the account before the formal contempt hearing.

As contempt carries penal consequences, allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the judge said. Hence, when an order is open to interpretation, the alleged contemptor should be given the benefit of the doubt, he said.

In allowing Thai's appeal, the bench ordered Tan to pay RM30,000 costs.

In a win for Tan, the appellate court lifted the injunction that barred Tan from accessing her assets and pursuing a winding-up petition against Supermax Holdings and two of its subsidiaries.

In delivering the grounds of the ruling, Shahnaz said the Family Court judge had erred in invoking section 50 and 51 of the Specific Relief Act to restrain Tan from the winding-up petition.

Shahnaz said winding-up proceedings is under the jurisdiction of the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) and cannot be circumvented by the Family Court. Denying Tan access to her assets without an adequate opportunity to be heard is a violation of the rules of natural justice, the judge noted.

In allowing Tan's appeal, Thai was ordered to pay RM30,000 in costs. The winding-up petition remains pending before the Commercial Court, awaiting the resolution of the couple's matrimonial dispute.

The court, meanwhile, upheld the Family Court's refusal to grant Tan's application for payment of interim maintenance from Thai. Tan had sought a monthly income of RM3 million after her previous RM1.3 million salary was halted in August 2024.

Delivering the grounds, judge Ahmad Kamal noted that Tan had failed to provide receipts or an itemised breakdown of her living expenses requiring maintenance from Thai, as required by law.

The court also noted that there is undisputed evidence demonstrating Tan holds RM47.49 million in personal assets and substantial EPF savings. She also acquired four properties between 2022 and 2023, and placed RM2.87 million into fixed deposits in July 2024.

Tan was ordered to pay RM30,000 in costs following the dismissal of the appeal.

Thai was represented by P Gananathan, Chris Chin Shang Yoon, Tan Han Ruii, and Karamveer Singh. Tan was represented by Frederic Kong, Avinash Kamalanathan, Jessica Leong and Ng Soo Peng.