The Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965) contained section 351 which allowed for an application for security for costs. The rationale for that section 351 was as follows.
When a company litigates against a party, and if that action were to fail, the defending party could find itself prejudiced if the company did not have enough money to pay the legal costs to that party. Hence, section 351 of the CA 1965 stated that if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe that the company cannot pay the costs of the defendant, then the court can order that the company pay security for those costs.
Unfortunately, section 351 of the CA 1965 was not carried forward under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). It was a useful provision to safeguard the interests of the defendant. Nonetheless, there are still other possible reliefs that a defendant can take to possibly apply for security for costs against a company. Continue reading
On Thursday 8 February 2018, I will be speaking at a one-day seminar organised by the Securities Industry Development Corporation (SIDC). The SIDC is the training and development arm of the Securities Commission Malaysia.
The seminar is titled ‘Changes in the Listing Requirements Post-Companies Act 2016: What to Look Out For’. You can find out more information and also register at the SIDC website.
In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.
As explained in an earlier article (What you need to know about the law on retrenchment of employees), the basic legal position in Malaysia in relation to retrenchments is clear and settled: It is the prerogative of the management to decide on the reorganisation of it business, and the courts will not intervene unless it is shown that the employer’s decision was not in good faith.
One of the accepted reasons for a retrenchment is where the business is experiencing financial difficulties, or where a reorganisation of the workforce is deemed necessary to increase efficiency or cut costs.
What are the factors to be considered when assessing whether cost-effectiveness or financial reasons are sufficient to constitute a genuine reason for retrenching employees?
The Industrial Court considered this in Mohd Azhan Ariffin v. Ranhill Berhad (Award No. 920 of 2017). The claimant (Employee) was retrenched, and paid retrenchment benefits, on the basis that the respondent (Employer) could no longer sustain him in the business due to financial constraints.
Valuable insights from guest writer Eddie Law, as he reflects on his 10-year entrepreneurship journey with eLawyer.
10 years ago, I was going through a challenging period in my legal career. One interviewer even bluntly said to me: “You change jobs like people change clothes”. Although I was very committed and worked hard, my career somehow was not going the way I wanted. I was in a state of despair, and kept asking God where I should go, and what I should do. I was upset, and felt lost.
I experienced a period of not having a stable full-time job. In the “extra free time” that I had, I started reading about e-commerce, blogging, and online businesses. I was fascinated with the power of the internet and the endless possibilities it offered. I started my own blog and exploring what opportunties there were online.
One day, the idea came to me to build a website as an online resource for Malaysian lawyers — this was how eLawyer.com.my was born, in November 2007!
To mark the 10-year anniversary of the launch of eLawyer (my co-founder was another tech entrepreneur, Larry Lam), I would like to share 10 things I have learned over this decade-long entrepreneurship journey:
On Saturday 27 January, Cheng Leong and I are giving a talk on Business Development for Lawyers. We focus on building your career beyond legal skills. The talk is from 10am to 1pm and with a registration fee of RM25.
You can sign up on the KL Bar website here.
The Federal Court issued its grounds of judgment in the Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Berhad case. This is a significant decision explaining the scope of directors’ duties. It gives guidance on when a director acts in the best interest of the company and the discretion afforded to a director when the director makes a business judgment.
This case update will set out the brief background facts of the case and the legal principles that were decided by the Federal Court. I also set out the key takeaways and points that directors should take note of. Continue reading
This post is taken from and expanded from a note I circulated to my team. This is a 12-step checklist I impose on my lawyers whenever they draft their court papers.
#1. Sample Precedent from the Firm / Colleagues
As a starting point, we may ask for a sample precedent from colleagues. That’s fine as an initial step but we must adopt all the other following steps.
#2. Read Atkin’s Forms and Bullen & Leake
Compare with the English Atkin’s Forms. The English civil procedure rules changed significantly post 1999 so if the application is based on civil procedure rules rather than a specific area of the law, go and look back at the older version of Atkin’s. Also read the English Bullen & Leake & Jacob’s Precedent of Pleadings. Both Atkin’s and Bullen will have useful comments and notes, and references to cases.
#3. Read Malaysia Atkin’s Forms and Bullen & Leake Malaysia
Then read the Atkin’s Court Forms Malaysia and Bullen & Leake & Jacob’s Malaysian Precedents of Pleadings. Continue reading