The case dealt with the statutory right of a shareholder under section 310(b) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) to hold a general meeting of the company. This right is especially significant here since the general meeting was to replace the directors of the public-listed company, Tiger Synergy Berhad.
[This is a guest post by Kwan Will Sen. He is a litigation partner focusing on commercial litigation and arbitration, and fraud and asset recovery.]
Idrus Harun was a Judge of the apex Court of Malaysia, the Federal Court. He has been appointed as the Attorney General (AG) effective 6 March 2020, replacing Tommy Thomas.
I discuss three significant decisions by Idrus Harun FCJ (as he then was). He wrote the Federal Court’s grounds of judgment for the first two cases (Ireka/ Jack-In Pile and Nautical Supreme), and was part of the minority for the third case (JRI Resources). Continue reading →
The High Court decision in Gue See Sew & 2 others v Heng Tang Hai & 2 others (see the Grounds of Judgment dated 2 January 2020 and at Gue See Sew & Ors v Heng Tang Hai & Ors  MLJU 46) deals with important legal issues on whether a beneficial owner of shares can initiate an oppression action and whether breaches of a shareholders’ agreement can be grounds for oppression.
I set out a case update on the Federal Court decision of Tee Siew Kai v Machang Indah Development Sdn Bhd (see the Grounds of Judgment dated 17 February 2020). The decision is on the law applicable to the grant of leave to sue a liquidator in his personal capacity. This decision reverses the Court of Appeal decision in Tee Siew Kai (as liquidator for Merger Acceptance Sdn Bhd) (in liquidation) v Machang Indah Development Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) (previously known as Rakyat Corp Sdn Bhd  2 MLJ 514.
This decision reiterates the importance of leave of the Court in order to avoid wasteful litigation against liquidators and to preclude unwarranted interference with the winding up process. There must be a prima facie case made out, the Court must evaluate the evidence to see if this has been met, and pecuniary loss suffered by the company must be shown. Continue reading →
The Federal Court in its grounds of judgment dated 16 October 2019 in Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd held that the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) applies only prospectively to construction contracts. CIPAA came into effect on 15 April 2014. Therefore, CIPAA only applies to construction contracts signed after this date.
Prior to this decision, there were High Court and Court of Appeal decisions holding that CIPAA could apply retrospectively to construction contracts. So if there were unpaid amounts arising from pre-15 April 2014 construction contracts, contracting parties could invoke CIPAA, had obtained adjudication decisions and had enforced payment.
It is now uncertain what will be the impact of this Federal Court decision on already decided adjudication matters based on pre-15 April 2014 construction contracts. Continue reading →
The Court of Appeal issued its grounds of judgment dated 20 August 2019 for GJH Avenue Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & 2 Others. The case has essentially decided that the Tribunal of Homebuyer Claims should have applied the plain language of the Schedule G format of sale and purchase agreements under the Housing Development laws. Delivery of vacant possession is to be calculated from the date of the agreement and not from the date of the payment of the booking fee.