The Federal Court decision in Auspicious Journey Sdn Bhd v Ebony Ritz Sdn Bhd confirms that remedies in a statutory oppression action may extend to the directors of the subject company and third parties.
Author Archives: glawadmin
A separate legal entity – or rather, a ‘corporate veil’ – exists to separate a corporate entity from its incorporators upon incorporation. Citing the century-old case Solomon v A Solomon & Co Ltd, Justice Nallini Pathmanathan stated the following in Ong Leong Chiou v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd…
It is a well-known fact in Malaysia that the governing law of legal profession for Peninsular and East Malaysia differ from one another. Should one wish to commence a court action in the East Malaysia, an advocate qualified under the Sabah or Sarawak Advocates Ordinance would have to be appointed. However, what about adjudication proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) which allows parties to “be represented by any representative appointed by the party”. The High Court case of Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd v Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd had recently shed light on this matter.
“The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) has been legislated to facilitate cash flow in the construction industry.” – a sentiment readily resonated nationally amongst judges and legal practitioners in the construction industry alike, amongst others.
In Sunrise Megaway Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Kathryn Ma Wai Fong, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a liquidator’s decision to admit a proof of debt (POD) could be challenged.