Wong Chee Chien writes a case update on when an admiralty claim trumps insolvency.
More often than not, a creditor with an admiralty claim would take steps to arrest a ship or vessel of the debtor, for the purposes of selling it so that the proceeds of sale will be held as pre-judgment security for the creditor.
However, if the debtor subsequently goes into liquidation, what happens to the proceeds of sale from the arrested vessel? Should the proceeds be paid to the creditor, or should they be distributed to all unsecured creditors pari passu? These issues were dealt with by the High Court in Dan Bunkering (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel “PDZ Mewah” & Anor (see grounds of judgment dated 9 August 2021).
Although this decision deals with several issues, this case update focuses on the question of whether the creditor’s admiralty claim trumps the insolvency regime of pari passu distribution among unsecured creditors. Continue reading →
Wong Li Qi writes a case update on a recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision granting retrospective leave for lifting of the Riddick undertaking.
The Singapore Court of Appeal in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa  SGCA 63clarified the legal framework on a Riddick undertaking and discussed the relevant considerations in whether to lift the undertaking. In light of the exceptional circumstances, the Court of Appeal had granted the appellant retrospective leave.
While this decision dealt with other facts, this case update focuses only on the key facts and issues on the Riddick undertaking.
Kwan Will Sen and Joyce Lim write about the recent judgment involving AirAsia X’s restructuring and its significance under the Cape Town Convention.
The Malaysian High Court in Kuala Lumpur had on 19 February 2021 handed down a significant judgment (click here for the grounds of judgment) in relation to AirAsia X Berhad (“AAX”)’s application for leave to convene creditors’ meeting for purposes of considering and approving a scheme of arrangement (“Leave Application”).
It analysed and interpreted certain provisions under the Convention on the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“the Convention”) and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (“the Protocol”), in particular that of Article XI(10) of the Protocol. Continue reading →
Joyce Limwrites a case update on this High Court decision on the importance between a personal wrong and a corporate wrong in a shareholder oppression action.
The High Court in the recent case of Dato’ Shabaruddin Bin Ibrahim v Dato’ Ruslan Bin Ali Omar & Ors  MLJU 1744 (with grounds of judgment dated 26 October 2020) (Shabaruddin) dealt with the distinction between a personal wrong committed against shareholders of a company and a corporate wrong committed against the company. Continue reading →
Our guest author, Kevin Wong, writes on the top 5 construction cases in Malaysia for 2020. The areas covered include when does time run for the calculation of liquidated damages, the Controller of Housing, and cases on the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA).