Dr Ling’s son chose wine over woman, court hears


Ling (left) with a friend awaiting the trial this morning. He later agreed to an out-of-court settlement with his ex-girlfriend and business partner. - The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, April 22, 2014.Ling (left) with a friend awaiting the trial this morning. He later agreed to an out-of-court settlement with his ex-girlfriend and business partner. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, April 22, 2014.The son of former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik today reached an out of court settlement with his ex-girlfriend in a breach of contract suit over seven properties registered under their joint names.

Ling Hee Leong and businesswoman Teh Chee Yen agreed to settle out of court after he took the stand briefly and testified that he had chosen “wine over her”.

Ling, who was the first witness, said that their romantic relationship ended in January 2012 when she gave him an ultimatum.

“We were at my brother’s birthday party, it was a dinner party and we had wine.

“Then she said to me either I have the wine or her, and I said I’ll have the wine.

“She said if I chose the wine, I would not be in a position to be in a relationship with her,” Hee Leong testified earlier this morning.

He added that when he sent her home that night, he asked her “not less than five times” if she understood what she had said.

Hee Leong added that he then left her, and their relationship ended with that incident.

In the suit filed by Hee Leong, he alleged that in January 2013, he and Teh decided to terminate their business relationship and agreed to come to an agreement on the division of the joint investments involving seven properties, which included condo units in Sri Hartamas and a townhouse in Bukit Bandaraya.

In his statement of claim, he said Teh breached the settlement agreement they had reached earlier.

Meanwhile, Teh (pic) in her statement of defence said there was no valid settlement agreement between the two of them.

While Hee Leong was in the midst of being cross-examined by Teh’s counsel L.K. Mak at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, judge Datuk Hue Siew Kheng called parties into chambers and urged them to settle out of court.

Hee Leong’s lawyer R. Harikannan confirmed that his client and the defendant reached an out of court settlement, but added that the terms were confidential.

In the statement of claim filed last November, Hee Leong, 45, claimed that an eighth condo unit in Jalan Duta held jointly in both their names, was to be transferred to Teh as the sole beneficial owner while seven properties were to be transferred to his name.

He also claimed that they both agreed to transfer Teh’s shareholding in a company called Award Maritime Sdn Bhd and in exchange Hee Leong paid RM500,000 to the defendant.

In her statement of defence, however, Teh, 34, claimed that Hee Leong was deliberately trivialising their relationship by alleging that it was purely business.

She also said that they were romantically involved for four years from 2007 until the end of 2011 and were headed towards matrimony.

She claimed that the plaintiff abruptly ended the relationship and shortly after married another woman.

Teh further claimed that the eight properties were purchased in both their names as it was her belief that they will get married.

Teh also alleged that she had made financial contributions towards the purchase of the properties and also contributed towards payment of the loan instalments.

During the trial, Hee Leong testified that after the January 2012 incident, their emotional and business relationship had to end as there was no longer mutual respect.

Mak: You chose wine over the defendant?

Hee Leong: You are right.

He also testified that the investment decisions were mostly made by him and that Teh handled the administrative part of their joint purchases.

Mak: How were you going to calculate and split profits?

Hee Leong: When there was profit to be made, capital would be paid up and then the profit would be split.

Mak: Don’t you find it strange that since the main thrust of the investment was to make profits, there wasn’t any thought put into how this profit would be split?

Hee Leong: No, I don’t find it strange.

Mak: You don’t know how profits were to be split, you are the only decision maker, there were no means of tracking performance, I put it to you that this was not a business relationship?

Hee Leong: I don’t agree.

Mak: You were in a romantic relationship with the defendant?

Hee Leong: You are right.

Mak: Is it because of this you were the dominant decision maker?

Hee Leong: Not just because of that, there was a certain amount of trust. –  Malaysia Insider

This entry was posted in Court case. Bookmark the permalink.