Highlights

Some of the reported/published cases where we had appeared include:

M9 Complete Technology Sdn Bhd (formerly known as M7 Complete Technology Sdn Bhd) v Kum Meng Wai & Ors [2025] CLJU 1363 (High Court) On deciding whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a sum under the profit guarantee in a Shareholders Agreement, the Court emphasised the importance of contemporaneous documents/evidence to corroborate a claim. Documents such as a Statement of Accounts, payment vouchers and a letter to the company secretary, that contained the signatures of the parties, effectively proved the transfer of shares to the Plaintiff. The Defendants were thus found jointly and severally liable to pay the shortfall in the profit guarantee owed to the Plaintiff.
Alexia Genevieve E Hennaut v Lycee Francais De Kuala Lumpur Henri Fauconnier Bhd [2025] ILRU 0196 (Industrial Court) The Industrial Court had to consider the lawfulness of the Claimant’s dismissal by her previous company of employment, which stated that said dismissal was due to retrenchment policies and redundancy of the Claimant’s role. It was emphasised by the Court that the standard and burden of proof lie with the employer in proving the termination was done with just cause. Here, the employer had failed to substantiate its assertions. As there was incontrovertible proof that there was no actual redundancy of the Claimant’s services, she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse.
RHB Bank Bhd v Legion Public Relations Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 693 This is a petition by the petitioner to wind up the respondent company on the basis that it is unable to pay its debts. The petitioner originally granted credit facilities to the respondent who later defaulted on payments. The parties then entered into a consent judgment. The respondent argued that a consent judgment is a contract between the parties and not a final judgment. The Court held that a consent judgment is valid and binding unless it has been set aside or reversed by a higher court.
Metropolitan Square Joint Management Body v Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd & Ors [2024] CLJU 1095 (High Court) The Defendant had applied for an extension of time to file their affidavit in reply and written submission pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012. Upon balancing the interests of both parties and any prejudicial effect following the grant of extension, the Court found that the reasons for delay provided by the Defendant were not justified. The Court reiterated that it should not dismiss an application based on mere technicalities, but unjustified reasons for non-compliance would be an intentional disregard of the rules.
Merry Apple Taruc Achico v Softenger (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. [2023] ILRU 1293 (Industrial Court) The Industrial Court emphasised its role pursuant to section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to determine matters on the alleged misconduct of employees. The two-fold question to bear in mind on such issues was whether the misconduct had been proven and whether dismissal following the proven misconduct was justified. In this case, the Court found that the employer company had not adduced compelling evidence of the Claimant’s alleged misconduct, nor was she given sufficient notice of her dismissal or a chance to improve on her performance. The Court held the claimant to be wrongfully terminated.
T/N S K Koh & Co. v Kerk Han Meng & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 857 (High Court) This is an appeal by the appellant solicitor whose claim for payment of legal fees was dismissed in the Sessions Court after full trial. The issue is whether an implied retainer had been established in the absence of a formal appointment in writing. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s decision, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove an implied retainer and lacked substantial supporting documents. The High Court also noted that the informal nature of the WhatsApp conversation and unverified attendance at the meeting contributed to the dismissal of the appeal. There is an insufficiency of evidence and credibility in the plaintiffs’ claim.
Hermes & Co & Satu Lagi lwn. Karine Low & Yang Lain [2021] 5 LNS 92 (Sessions Court) In this case, the plaintiffs filed an application in the Sessions Court to disqualify Jamie Wong | Advocates & Solicitors from representing the defendants in this suit on the grounds that it has a personal interest with the defendants and would be a material witness for the plaintiffs’ claim. The Sessions Court judge held that he is obliged to critically examine any assertion of fact made by the parties, thus placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to prove their claims. The Sessions Court dismissed this application on the grounds that, amongst others, the plaintiffs’ allegations of Jamie Wong | Advocates & Solicitors being in a conflict of interest and having lost its professional independence for having personal and financial interest with the defendants while representing the defendants are unmeritorious.
Yong Tshu Khin & Anor v Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2021] 1 MLJ 478 The Federal Court considered seven motions seeking to review previous decisions under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995. The central issue concerned the validity of 2 judges’ appointments during those decisions. The court upheld the “de facto doctrine”, which validates judicial decisions made under lawful authority even if appointments were later found to be invalid. The Court unanimously dismissed the motions, asserting that reviews are intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, not to act as an extra layer of appeal. The Court clarified the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and emphasised finality in litigation. This ruling reaffirmed the application of the doctrine, maintaining a high threshold for review, and underscored the importance of stability in judicial decisions.
Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd[2021] 8 CLJ 409 (Federal Court) This case concerns the granting of a Bai’ Bhamin Ajil facility executed through an Asset Purchase Agreement and Asset Sale Agreement. When the borrower defaulted on the BBA agreement, the bank terminated the same. Thereafter, the parties were entangled in a series of suits at the High Court. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the BBA transaction is invalid for being in violation of s. 214A National Land Code. The Court of Appeal held that since there was no actual transfer of ownership, the borrower never, in law or in equity, became the owner of the subject matter land as the arrangement was merely a means to finance an Islamic facility. Thus, the agreement was not caught by the terms of s. 214A National Land Code.
Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd & Anor v HKS Realty Sdn Bhd & Anor; Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad (Interveners)[2021] 1 LNS 608 (High Court) The dispute in this case is premised on an order for sale by way of an auction granted by the Court. The registered owner of the land commenced a legal action contending, amongst others, that their rights will be greatly prejudiced which cannot be compensated with damages if the sale is allowed. The Court held that leave is required before a company in liquidation can make any application to Court. Further, such application must be served on the liquidation. It was not done in this case. The Court further held that the chargor of the land has the right to deal with the security in the manner they deem fit including selling the land by way of an auction.
Satin Straits Sdn Bhd v Seng San Bing[2020] 8 MLJ 553 (High Court) This is a commercial dispute involving a breach of representations and warranties arising from a contract for the acquisition of shares. In this case, the High Court held that the failure of the defendant to communicate significant information to the plaintiff amounted to a breach of the warranties contained in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
Million Westlink Sdn. Bhd. v Alliance Investment Bank Berhad & Ors [2020] MLJU 1212 (High Court) This is a corporate insolvency matter involving, among others, the position of an unsecured creditor and its rights to be heard in the making of a judicial management order. In this case, the High Court held that unsecured creditors did not have locus to oppose the making of a judicial management order. This issue is currently pending in the Federal Court.
Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad [2020] MLJU 382 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court which dismissed an application to invalidate, inter alia, a legal charge over a parcel of land for breach of Section 214A of the National Land Code 1965. It was held that the chargee’s act of financing the purchase of the property in a Bai Bithamin Ajil transaction militates against any suggestion that it had intended to vest in itself ownership of the property, as its remedy, in the event of default, lies more in realizing the charge than owning the property.
Greenpower Value Sdn Bhd v Universal Trustee & Ors [2020] MLJU 1051 (High Court) This is a committal proceeding arising from an alleged breach of the Consent Order recorded before the High Court. In this case, the High Court held that the Consent Order was essentially contractual in nature, and once it has been superseded by a private agreement, it was no longer enforceable.
Wu Sor Hwa & Ors v Dato’ Seri Dr Abdullah Fadzil Che Wan & Ors [2019] MLJU 1724 (High Court) This is a shareholders dispute. In this case, the High Court gave effect to the express intention of the parties set out in the Shareholders’ Agreement and held that if a party to a contract that contains an entire agreement clause wants to rely on a representation from the other party, that representation ought to be expressly set out in the contract. A claim for misrepresentation which predicated on an oral representation operating outside the confines of the written agreement would fail. It is not the role of the court to save a party from the bargain that it has struck, nor to re-write the terms of the parties’ contract.
Solid Invention Sdn Bhd v Lai Kim Fong & Ors [2019] MLJU 595 (High Court) In this matter, the executrix had agreed to sell a property to the purchaser plaintiff. However, the sale could not be completed as the consent of one of the beneficiaries could not be obtained. A consent judgment was later entered into by the plaintiff, the executrix, one of the beneficiaries and the other co-proprietors of the property, wherein all parties agreed to sign and perform their respective obligations under the Sale and Purchase Agreement. This Sale and Purchase Agreement did not materialise. Upon the conclusion of a full trial, the Court held that based on the facts of the case, the consent of the beneficiary need not be obtained by the executrix before executing the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Further, there is no need to obtain an order of court to sanction such a sale.
P Selvaraj a/l SKP Palani v Penaarasy a/p Sivalingam & Anor [2019] MLJU 1722 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal against the High Court’s decision which dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Board. A complaint was lodged against the appellant for filing a civil suit for the respondent without the latter’s authorisation / written agreement. The appellant later withdrew the civil suit with costs to be paid by the respondent to the defendant in that suit without the respondent’s knowledge. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced by the complainant before the Disciplinary Committee was insufficient to establish a case against theppellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Million Westlink Sdn Bhd & Anor v Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Ors [2019] MLJU 1721 (High Court) This is an application for an order for judicial management. The creditors of the Company applied to intervene to oppose the judicial management application. The High Court held that as unsecured creditors, they have no right to express their objection to the making of the judicial management order. As the right to oppose the judicial management order is only limited to the nomination of the proposed Judicial Manager pursuant to the Companies Act. The inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked to override a specific rule as even courts of unlimited jurisdiction have no authority to act in contravention of written law.
Loke Yeu Loong & Ors v Edmund Bon Tai Soon & Ors [2018] MLJU 2159 (High Court) This case is premised on an earlier suit where the 2nd to 4th Defendants obtained an order for the shares in the Company, belonging to the Plaintiffs, to be bought out in accordance with the terms of the Shareholders’ Agreement. The Plaintiffs commenced this action based on the ground of tort of abuse of process and conspiracy claiming that, inter alia, the Defendants made threats to the Plaintiffs to buy-out shares owned by the 2nd to 4th defendants, and was done with the sole purpose of injuring the Plaintiffs. The Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiffs action and the High Court allowed the striking out application holding that since the Defendants filed the prior suit and committal proceedings to protect their rights, the use of all remedies afforded to them by the law cannot be an abuse of the court’s process.
Builtamont International Sdn Bhd v RHB Bank Bhd [2019] 8 MLJ 787 (High Court) The plaintiff took out a writ action against the defendant bank for wrongful reversal of the credit in the sum of RM4,500,000.00 deposited in the plaintiff’s account pursuant to a third party’s cheque. On the defendant’s application to strike out the plaintiff’s claim, the High Court held that since the plaintiff had knowledge that the payment on the cheque drawn was stopped, the plaintiff cannot be said to have altered its position in good faith. Thus, the claim was obviously and conspicuously unsustainable.
Kong Hon Kay v. Ire-Tex Corporation Berhad [2018] 2 LNS 0207 (Industrial Court)In this case, the plaintiff sought to file an action pursuant to s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 after being dismissed by his former employer. Following a sequence of proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement. As a result, the Court decreed the case to be struck out without the possibility of subsequent filing. This scenario underscored the effectiveness of mutual resolution, culminating in claim withdrawal.
Million Westlink Sdn Bhd & Anor v Maybank Investment Bank Bhd & Ors and other appeals [2018] 4 MLJ 392 (Court of Appeal) The is an appeal against the High Court decision in granting summary judgment for breach of a sale and purchase agreement, whereby the appellant agreed to purchase redeemable convertible secured notes (RCSNs) issued by a public listed company (in liquidation). The Court of Appeal, in affirming the High Court’s decision, found that the respondents were entitled to damages equivalent to the purchase price. At the same time, the respondents were also entitled to proceed with various foreclosure proceedings in relation to the assets / properties charged by the issuer of the RCSNs. The Court of Appeal found that compensation would be adequate remedy and as such, no specific performance ought not to be ordered.
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] MLJU 993 ; [2018] 5 CLJ 299 (Court of Appeal) The essence of these appeals turns to the law governing a stay of proceedings in relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal, in considering the factual premise of the case, allowed the appeal holding that the suit was to proceed to trial in the High Court and the arbitration proceedings between the parties to the SPA are to be stayed until after the adjudication of the non-parties’ claims in the High Court.
Wu Sor Hwa & Ors v Dato’ Seri Abdullah Fadzil Che Wan & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 123 (High Court) The legal question for determination in this case is whether it was necessary for the litigation representative of the mentally disordered person to obtain leave of court for that person to be made a party to a court proceeding. The High Court held that it is the plaintiffs who must obtain leave of court pursuant to Order 76 Rule 1A(1) Rules of Court 2012 as specified in the provision, whereby anyone who wishes to bring a proceeding against a mentally disordered person must first obtain a leave of court.
Gula Perak Bhd v Datuk Lim Sue Beng & other appeals[2018] MLJU 2107 (Federal Court) These appeals relate to the interpretation of s. 214A of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC). One of the questions to be determined by the Federal Court was whether, in a conditional agreement to sell an estate land to a purchaser, the condition precedent that the sale was subject to obtaining the approval of the Estate Land Board was in breach of s. 214A(1) of the NLC when no prior approval was obtained before entering into the said agreement. The Federal Court held that s. 214A(1) of the NLC does not prohibit a conditional agreement to be entered into so long as no transfer of the said land was to be effected until approval was obtained.
P Selvaraj a/l SKP Palani v Penaarasy a/p Sivalingam & Anor (Majlis Peguam Malaysia, intervener) [2017] MLJU 1032 (High Court) This is an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Board made pursuant to s. 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976. The High Court was satisfied that the Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) had made a finding of fact based on the evidence presented before the DC that the appellant had filed a legal action on behalf of the 1st respondent without the latter’s instructions. The High Court further held that based on the case of Keith Sellar v Lee Kwang and Tennakoon v Lee Kwang (1980) 2 MLJ 191, it cannot be said that the DC’s decision is wrong simply because it has failed to mention the standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt) in its finding.
Thye Seng & Company Sdn Bhd & Ors v Universal Trustee (Malaysia) Berhad & Anor [2017] MLJU 834 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court which dismissed an application for, amongst, others, an order to declare that the charge registered by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent is defective. The Court of Appeal held that the interest of the appellants cannot prevail over that of the 1st respondent as the registered charge of the lands since the appellants were unable to prove that they had made payments for the purchase of the lands. The Court of Appeal also found that there is no proof of fraud/ collusion between the respondents. Accordingly, the 1st respondent’s interest under the registered charge is indefeasible.
Dato Chiong Sheng Fan v Wong Hur Shiaw & Anor [2017] MLJU 418 (High Court) In this case, the appellant claimed for the refund of an overpayment to the respondents at the time of the dissolution of the firm. In the Sessions Court, the appellant relied on the Audit Report which was initially agreed as a Part A document. On the day of the trial, the 1st respondent requested for the Audited Report to be placed under Part B document. The Sessions Court dismissed the appellant’s claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce the supporting documents of the Audited Report. The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the change in classification of the Audit Report from Part A to Part B during trial has caused a serious miscarriage of justice. The High Court was satisfied that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof in his claim against the respondents.
Gideon Tan v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2017] 1 MLJ 352 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal against the High Court’s decision which expunged certain paragraphs in the appellant’s affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings. The question for determination in this appeal is whether legal professional privilege is absolute. The Court of Appeal held that the right of a solicitor to defend himself in the committal proceedings did not create an exception to the rule of solicitor-client privilege as the factual matrix did not fall within the statutory exceptions.
Yakin Tenggara Sdn Bhd v RHB Bank Bhd & Ors and other appeals [2017] 2 MLJ 774 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal against a compromise order for the purchase of land which was opposed by the contributories and creditors on the grounds that prior approval of the land board was not obtained. The Court of Appeal held that pursuant to s. 214A(A) of the National Land Code, where a contact for the sale of estate land was conditional upon approval by the land board, the contract was only enforceable if that condition was fulfilled. It was therefore held that the compromise order is void and unenforceable as it would be against public policy to allow a party to enforce an illegal argument. It was further noted that it is also an offence under s. 214A(10A)(a) of the National Land Code to attempt a transfer of land (including conditional contracts) without first obtaining the approval of the land board.
Pavilion Yields Sdn Bhd v Universal Trustee (M) Bhd & Ors [2017] 1 LNS 1394 (Court of Appeal) The contention in this appeal is whether the proposed resolutions can be approved by way of an ordinary resolution in the context of the trust deed. The appellant contended that since there is no specific provision in the trust deed requiring a special resolution to revoke the resolution, the natural implication is that an ordinary resolution can be revoked by way of an ordinary resolution. The Court of Appeal looked at the construction of the trust deed provisions by viewing the contextual background and from a commercial perspective and found that the respondents had only invested premised on the agreement that the investments are secured by the charged properties. The Court dismissed the appeal holding that to deprive the respondents of the rights to enforce the securities borders on taking away a fundamental right to the contract.
Pavilion Yields Sdn Bhd v Universal Trustee (M) Bhd & Ors [2017] 11 MLJ 92 (High Court) When payment for the redeemable convertible secured notes were defaulted by Gula Perak Berhad (“GPB”), the noteholders by an ordinary resolution pursuant to the trust deed, directed the trustee to declare that an event of default had occurred requiring GPB to immediately pay the full nominal value of the notes, failing which the trustee was to realise the charged land. The trustee and the bank counterclaimed that a special resolution was necessary to revoke the ordinary resolution. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the High Court held that the proposed resolutions would be prejudicial to the interests of the noteholders and substantially encroach upon the discretion of the trustees. As such, these can only be carried through special resolution and not by ordinary resolution.
Koh Chong Wooi & Anor v Sime Darby Ara Damansara Development Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 1857 ; [2017] 1 LNS 1807 (High Court) In this case, the plaintiffs brought an action against the developer for specific performance of the purchase of two condominium units. The plaintiffs relied on the purchase forms, containing the particulars of the units and respective purchase considerations, which were both accepted and signed by the defendant. The issue for the Court’s determination is whether they constituted a legally binding contract where the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce them. The High Court held that the said purchase forms do not constitute a valid and binding contract as no sale and purchase agreement was signed.
Protasco Bhd v PT Anglo Slavic Utama & Ors [2016] 7 MLJ 523 (High Court) The crux of this case concerns certain disclosures made by 3rd solicitor in an affidavit. In an application to expunge the impugned paragraphs in the solicitor’s affidavit, the 2nd and 3rd defendants argued that these impugned paragraphs and affidavits were thought to be protected by legal professional privilege, whereas the solicitor 3rd respondent contented that the privilege should not apply if there was a duty on him to reveal all information in a committal proceeding. The High Court held that legal professional privilege is absolute and can only be waived by the client.
Salim Investments Pte Ltd v Sutrasegi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 10 MLJ 496 (High Court) In this case, the plaintiff sought to recover their investment in preference shares. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the dividends paid by the 1st defendant for the preference shares and claimed that their agreement had been breached. The plaintiff demanded immediate redemption of the preference shares, but the 1st defendant failed to act upon it hence leading to this suit. The Court found that the 1st defendant had indeed breached the agreement, with an adverse inference drawn against them, for failure to explain the absence of profit for the redemption of the preference shares. As a result, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who acted as guarantors, were also found to be liable.
Jasmy Shahdi bin Jasmin Bok (t/a Extreme Power Enterprise) v Petron Malaysia Refining & Marketing Bhd (known as Esso Malaysia Bhd) [2016] 10 MLJ 436 (High Court) This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court in allowing the respondent’s claim against the appellant, who was not a party to the agreement executed between the respondent and the appellant’s partner. The High Court held that the agreement was not binding upon the appellant as he had resigned from his partnership with his partner before the execution of the agreement. The Sessions Court, when arriving at its decision, had failed to consider whether the appellant was an apparent member of the company, and that the respondent’s witness testified that he did not deal with the appellant at all material times. The High Court judge also ruled that the appellant could not be liable for the company’s debt as he had retired from the firm as a partner.
Peter Ola Blomqvist v Zavarco Plc (previously known as Vasseti (UK) PLC) & Ors and other appeals [2016] MLJU 1717 (Court of Appeal) This matter concerns an application to stay the respondent’s action against the appellants on the ground of ‘forum non conveniens’. The respondent is a company incorporated in the UK with its business address in Kuala Lumpur. The respondent initiated this action against the appellants for, amongst others, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, and unlawful disposal of the unpaid shares to various parties without ensuring that they were fully paid. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and held that the UK is the best forum for the dispute to be heard as it is the forum where the substantial, closest, and most real connection lies.
RHB Bank Berhad v Gula Perak Berhad (Datuk Lim Sue Beng, applicant) [2016] MLJU 668 (High Court) This case concerned a stay of execution pending the final disposal of the applicant’s appeal against an Order pursuant to s. 236 Companies Act 1965. The Court granted the stay noting that the applicant had shown “special circumstances” based on their arguments, that if the land in dispute was eventually transferred to a third party, the appeal would be pointless even if successful.
Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Badan Peguam Malaysia [2015] 7 CLJ 301 (Court of Appeal) This case involved a situation where the appellant’s officer had removed the banners hung at the respondent’s premises on the ground that they were put up without a permit. In the appeal, the appellant sought to interpret By-Law 2 of the Advertisements (Federal Territory) By-Laws 1982 to be wide enough to apply. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, noted concerns over selective enforcement of the By-Law, and held the By-Law regulates only commercial advertisements.
Yeoh Eng Kong v Goh Bak Ming & Ors [2015] 1 LNS 675 (High Court) The plaintiff applied to re-amend their amended statement of claim during the trial. The defendants objected on the grounds that the amendments would alter the nature of the case and cause prejudice to the defendants. The Court held that the proposed amendments were only clarifications and elaborations rather than radical departures from the case. The Court was satisfied that the amendments were made in good faith and did not substantially prejudice the defendants. The application was accordingly allowed as courts are inclined to allow parties to present their case truthfully and effectively.
Rusd Investment Bank Inc & Ors v Qatar Islamic Bank & Ors [2015] MLJU 2352 (High Court) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order that allowed for the stay of all future proceedings, including the plaintiff’s committal application. The main issue present before the High Court was whether the dispute in question was covered under the arbitration clause. The Court concluded that the matter was indeed covered under the arbitration clause and therefore, the parties should have first attempted to settle the dispute amicably through private dispute resolution before approaching the Court.
Maybank Investment Bank Berhad & Ors v Million Westlink Sdn Bhd &Anor [2015] MLJU 2252 (High Court) This is a corporate insolvency matter wherein the contention was whether a purchaser of redeemable convertible security notes can apply for an interlocutory injunction to, inter alia, restrain the public auctions of lands and the enforcement of a High Court judgment obtained against the Guarantor by way of executor and bankruptcy proceedings. The Court dismissed the interlocutory applications on the grounds that, inter alia, the 2nd defendant is barred by the issue estoppel principle from applying for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Public Actions, and had not raised any bona fide and serious question to be tried. In respect of the Counterclaim and damages would constitute an adequate remedy for the defendants.
Kingdom Seekers Ventures Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Sri Chong Ket Pen & Ors [2015] MLJU 390 (High Court) This is a striking out application filed by the defendants premised on the issue of the right to bring legal action to a Court (locus standi) against the plaintiff. The High Court here first considered the law governing derivative actions which requires the plaintiff to show that the wrongdoers were able ‘by means of manipulation of their position in the company’ to ensure that action is not brought by the company, and it is a requirement for the wrongdoers to be cited as defendants. The Court held that the plaintiff has no right as the action was not brought in good faith, but with an ulterior purpose of a reprisal reaction as the 7th defendant had earlier filed a suit against him and thus, ordered to be struck out.
Krishnan Kuppanan v. Kuldeep Singh Hari Singh & Ors [2014] 9 CLJ 208 (High Court) The High Court had to determine if the Defendant’s striking out application against the Plaintiff’s claim, pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012, should be granted. The Court had considered various factors in determining this, namely that the Plaintiff had sought to relitigate a duplicity of issues which had already been tried in another suit, and the doctrine of res judicata was applicable. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s claim was also time-barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1953, and there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Court allowed the claim to be struck out.
Mohandas Gandhi v. Tay May Chean & Ors [2014] 1 LNS 149 (High Court) This case is premised on seeking indemnity for a breach of duty that resulted in misconduct. The High Court discovered that the plaintiff was trying to re-litigate the issues that had been tried and dismissed in a previous suit, resulting in duplicates raised. The Court thus allowed the striking out application further making a finding that the present action was time barred.
Datuk Mohd Ali bin Hj Abdul Majid & Anor (both practising as Messrs Mohd Ali & Co) v Public Bank Bhd [2014] 4 MLJ 465 (Federal Court) This is an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. The main issue is whether a summary judgment may be entered for the amount prayed for in the statement of claim and as affirmed in the affidavit in support without the need for any assessment. The Federal Court in this instance set aside the Court of Appeal’s order, reinstated the High Court’s order, and remitted the case back to the High Court for assessment of damages. The decision was based on the fact that the burden of proof rests on the respondent (plaintiff) to prove that they have in fact suffered losses from a breach of contract and/or negligence to the satisfaction of the court, rather than simply stating the amount of damages they wish to claim.
Public Bank Bhd v Datuk Mohd Ali bin Hj Abdul Majid & Anor [2013] 2 MLJ 759 (Court of Appeal) This is an appeal from the High Court where the appellant sought damages for professional negligence from the respondents. The respondents denied liability and argued that the damages were unliquidated. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, affirmed the summary judgment and held that the claims were clear and sufficient, without a need for damages to be assessed.
Victoria Jayaseele Martin v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2013] 6 MLJ 646 (Court of Appeal) This appeal concerns the question of whether Rule 10 of the Peguam Syarie Rules 1993 which stipulates only Muslims could be admitted as Syariah lawyers is ultra vires the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993. The Court of Appeal ruled that s. 59 of the 1993 Act expressly permits the Majlis to admit any person having sufficient knowledge of Islamic law to be a Syariah lawyer, without any restriction on their religion. Therefore, the High Court’s order which dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review is set aside since Rule 10 is inconsistent with s.59 of the 1993 Act.
Sunrise West Sdn Bhd & Ors v Pravin Mahtaney Ramchand & Anor [2012] 1 MLJ 414 (High Court) In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the 1st defendant, who was appointed as the managing director of the 1st plaintiff, breached his fiduciary duties when he started a similar textile business to the 1st plaintiff. However, the 1st defendant claimed to have obtained consent from the 4th plaintiff, who is the director of the 1st plaintiff, before starting his business. In this claim, the 4th plaintiff has disputed giving his consent. The Court expressed scepticism about the 4th plaintiff’s credibility and noted a breach of the Companies Act 1965 due to the absence of a resident director in the 1st plaintiff. Additionally, the Court emphasised that the plaintiffs failed to produce a valid resolution for initiating the action. No evidence was presented to establish the alleged breach of fiduciary duties of the 1st defendant, who, according to the Court, functioned solely as a salesman under the close monitoring of the 4th plaintiff. The Court allowed the 1st defendant’s counterclaim for loss of income.The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants was for loss and damages arising from an alleged breach of fiduciary duties. In turn, the 1st defendant counterclaimed against the 1st plaintiff for loss of income. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and held that there was no evidence adduced to show that the 1st defendant had breached the so-called fiduciary duties as his role was in essence a salesman. Additionally, the 1st defendant’s counterclaim for remuneration was allowed as there was sufficient evidence to support his claim.
Malaysia Plastics Sdn Bhd v United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd and another suit [2012] 9 MLJ 336 (High Court) These suits concern the liability of two banks for honouring and paying out monies from their respective customers’ accounts when presented with forged cheques and letters of instructions. The authorised signatories were the directors of the plaintiff’s companies. An executive of the plaintiff was entrusted with possession and control of, amongst others, cheque-books and bank statements, and often the person the banks called to verify the plaintiff’s cheques. Although the plaintiff proved that the signatures on the impugned documents were forged, the High Court held that the plaintiff negligently contributed to the forgery by giving the executive full custody and control over all accounts, coupled with the failure to check or audit the cheque-books and bank statements which contributed directly to the forgery.
Puncak Permata Sdn Bhd (under creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Tham Weng Hong & Anor [2011] 5 MLJ 78 (Court of Appeal) The appellant was the owner of a piece of land. The liquidators discovered that the property was registered under the 1st respondent’s name. The appellant then initiated this action for a declaration that the appellant was the legal and beneficial owner of the land on the ground that the 1st respondent had fraudulently transferred and registered the land. The 2nd respondent then applied to intervene in this action and claimed that he had entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the 1st respondent, where the full purchase price was paid and vacant possession was given to the 2nd respondent. The High Court allowed the 2nd respondent to intervene in the action. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, it was too late for the 2nd respondent to intervene as the final order had already been drawn up and perfected.
Victoria Jayaseele Martin v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2011] 9 MLJ 194 (High Court) This applicant applied for judicial review against the 1st respondent’s decision in rejecting the applicant’s application to be admitted as a Syarie lawyer on the basis that she was not a Muslim. The applicant’s contention, among others, was that Rule 10 of the Peguam Syarie Rules 1993 (which mandates that only Muslims may be admitted as Syarie lawyer) was ultra vires the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (Act) and it contravened Articles 8(1), 8(2), 5, 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. In dismissing the applicant’s application, the High Court held that the 1st respondent has the discretion under Section 59(1) of the Act to admit any person with sufficient knowledge of Islamic law to be a Syarie lawyer and to regulate the qualification of a Syarie lawyer. It was further held that there have not been any threats of unconstitutionality.
Feller Resources Sdn Bhd v Contramec Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 106 (High Court) In this matter, the plaintiff sought for an injunction to restrain the defendant from presenting a winding-up petition against the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had failed to make payment for two payment certificates. The plaintiff, however, contended that it had been a practice to advance payment even before the issuance of payment certificates. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant was overpaid. The High Court allowed in part the plaintiff’s application – the general rule is that payment certificates relating to a construction dispute must be honoured. However, it does not mean a party can present a winding-up petition as of right for its breach, as winding-up a company is only a discretionary relief.
Qatar Islamic Bank v Asian Finance Bank Bhd & Ors [2015] 7 MLJ 445 (High Court) In this case, the plaintiff was the majority shareholder of the 1st defendant bank. The High Court was to decide whether the plaintiff has a right to vote against the re-election of a director who represented another shareholder pursuant to a shareholder agreement (SA). There were conflicting provisions under the SA, deeds of adherence (DA), the 1st defendant bank’s Articles of Association (AA) and Memorandum of Association (MA). It was held that if the plaintiff was allowed to vote against the re-election, it would effectively be re-writing the AA. It was further decided that even if the provisions under the SA and the second DA (which binds the plaintiff, 4th to 6th defendants) were contrary to the AA, they are bound by the terms of the same.

MENU

CAREERS

CONTACT

Terms Of Use
PDPA Notice

D2-3A-8 Solaris Dutamas
No. 1 Jalan Dutamas 1
Hartamas Heights 50480
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

T +603 6419 0918
F +603 6419 0928
E ask@jamiewong.com.my

If you share our vision, have the grit and skills to strive, apply now.

2026 OPENING

Paralegal / Intern

APPLY NOW