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.
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.
