5 Things Companies Need to Know About the Amendments to Occupational Safety Laws

Lee ShihLeave a comment

Kwan Will Sen and Muayyad bin Khairulmaini write about the amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Bill 2020 (“OSHA Bill”) was tabled for the first reading in Parliament by the Minister of Human Resources, YB Datuk Seri Saravanan A/L Murugan on 2 November 2020. Once passed, the OSHA Bill will introduce significant amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (“Act” or “OSHA 1994”).

With discussions on reform to Malaysian Occupational Health and Safety laws being mooted as early as 2018, the OSHA Bill 2020 touches on several key areas with a goal to facilitate the provision of a safe working environment for all employees nationwide.

We touch on five key amendments introduced in the OSHA Bill below. In particular, directors of companies must be aware of the risk of their personal liability and the risk of being jointly charged for occupational health violations. Continue reading →

Judicial Management Statistics in Malaysia

Lee ShihLeave a comment

On 26 and 27 October 2020, I spoke at the two-day webinar organised by the Companies Commission of Malaysia Training Academy. I was joined by Norhaslinda Salleh of the Companies Commission of Malaysia, Khoo Poh Poh of Ernst & Young and Jimmy Ng of Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff.

We covered a range of restructuring and insolvency topics. There were some interesting facts shared as well. Continue reading →

Case Update: The Interim Judicial Manager to Protect Assets in Jeopardy

Lee ShihLeave a comment

Lee Shih and Huey Lynn write about the Singapore decision on the appointment of interim judicial managers.

The Singapore High Court in Re KS Energy Ltd and another matter [2020] SGHC 198 granted an order for the appointment of interim judicial managers (IJM) over two companies upon the application by a creditor.

This decision is useful in setting out the principles for the appointment of interim judicial managers. This decision is also persuasive for Malaysian law as Malaysia’s judicial management provisions are modelled after Singapore. Continue reading →

Case Update: Simultaneous Resignation and Appointment of Director

Lee Shih1 Comment

The High Court case of Afandi bin Hussain v Global Advanced Broadband Solutions (M) Sdn Bhd & 3 others (grounds of judgment dated 23 September 2020) dealt with the company law issue concerning resignation and appointment of directors. While the decision dealt with other facts, I only focus on the issue concerning the simultaneous resignation and appointment of a director. Continue reading →

Case Update: Biaxis Decision – Stringent Requirements for a Judicial Management Application

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The High Court decision of Re Biaxis (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 1188 (grounds of judgment dated 12 August 2020) set stringent requirements for a company to successfully apply for judicial management. These requirements may set an unnecessarily high bar for a distressed company to meet. Continue reading →

Case Update: Singapore Court of Appeal Rules on the Riddick Undertaking for Disclosed Documents

Lee ShihLeave a comment

Lee Shih and Nicole Phung write about a Singapore Court of Appeal case on the Riddick undertaking and on the proposed guidelines for the breadth of Anton Piller search orders.

The Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent case of Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another [2020] SGCA 76 dealt with the prospective and retrospective release of the Riddick undertaking for disclosed documents. The Courts will undertake a multifactorial balancing exercise.

The Riddick Undertaking

The Riddick undertaking draws its name from the English case of Riddick v Thames Board Mills [1977] QB 881. Where a party to litigation is ordered to produce documents, the discovering party is under an implied undertaking to not use the produced documents other than for pursuing the action. Therefore, the party who has been provided access to the documents cannot use the documents for any collateral or ulterior purpose.

The rationale for the Riddick undertaking is that public interest requires full and complete disclosure in the interest of justice. But, the production of documents by court order is an intrusion of privacy. This principle strikes a balance between these two interests. The court can release the Riddick undertaking if there are cogent and persuasive reasons. Continue reading →