Case Update: Court of Appeal on Staying the Dismissal of Judicial Management Application

The Court of Appeal in the Wellcom Communications case has decided on certain significant issues relating to a judicial management application (see the grounds of judgment dated 13 February 2019). This is Malaysia’s first appellate decision relating to judicial management.

In summary, upon the filing of a judicial management application, an automatic moratorium applies. This will stay all legal proceedings from continuing or from being commenced against the applicant company. The Court of Appeal has held that once the judicial management application is dismissed, there cannot be a grant of any stay order to stay the dismissal of the application in order to revive the moratorium effect. Continue reading

Case Update: Court of Appeal Clarifies Leave for Bankruptcy against Guarantors under the Insolvency Act 1967

The Court of Appeal decision in Hong Leong Bank Berhad v Ong Moon Huat [2018] 1 LNS 1612 has clarified two important points under the new Insolvency Act 1967 on bankruptcy actions against guarantors.

The first issue is to clarify the protection for guarantors where all modes of execution and enforcement must be first exhausted against the principal debtor alone. The second issue is that when seeking leave to proceed against the guarantor, the judgment creditor can apply for leave to proceed either upon the issuance of the bankruptcy notice or even prior to that, up to and immediately prior to the filing of a creditor’s petition. Continue reading

Case Update: Court of Appeal Decision on Sale by Tender by Receivers

SALE BY TENDER: WHEN DOES A CONTRACT ARISE?

Nathalie Ker discusses a Court of Appeal case on a sale by tender by receivers and managers. This article was originally published in Skrine’s Legal Insights Issue 03/2018.

It is common practice for the receivers or liquidators selling the assets of a company to conduct a sale by tender, issuing an Information Memorandum and inviting tenders from various parties. In such a situation, when does acceptance take place and when is a contract formed?

The Court of Appeal delved into these issues in the recent case of Emas Kiara Sdn Bhd v Michael Joseph Monteiro & Ors; Farcoll Estate Sdn Bhd & Ors (Interveners) [2018] 8 CLJ 17 (“Emas Kiara v Monteiro”).

The Court applied the principles of formation of contract to the issue as to whether a contract existed between the Appellant, Emas Kiara Sdn Bhd (“Emas Kiara”), and the 1st and 2nd Respondents who were receivers and managers (“R&M”) of the 3rd Respondent, Lembah Beringin Sdn Bhd (“Lembah Beringin”). Continue reading

Bankruptcy and Directors: Vacating Seat and Potential Illegality

There can be legal repercussions to a company when one of its directors is adjudged bankrupt. It is common in the constitution or articles of association to provide that the office of the director will become vacant if the director becomes bankrupt. I set out below three interesting legal issues that arise from bankruptcy and directors.

First, I will deal with the potential adverse impact of bankruptcy on directors’ resolutions and legal proceedings. This in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Sazean Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v Bumi Bersatu Resources Sdn Bhd [2018] 5 AMR 443; [2018] MLJU 839. This decision was under the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965). Secondly, I interpret these issues in light of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). Thirdly, potential ways to overcome such arguments. Continue reading

Case Update: Federal Court decides whether punishable misconduct in employment law is distinguishable from criminal conduct

Case Updates - red

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.

Misconduct is one of the reasons which would qualify as “just cause” for an employer to dismiss an employee.

However, it’s not straightforward to pin down an exact definition of what constitutes “misconduct”. Even in instances where actions can be broadly categorised as misconduct, there is often confusion as to whether —

  • a misconduct is serious enough to justify dismissal instead of a lighter sanction; and
  • the standards to be applied to misconduct in the context of employment law are the same as those in respect of criminal wrongdoing.

This potential for confusion was illustrated in a recent case dealing with an employee dismissal for misconduct which went from the Industrial Court (“IC”) through to the High Court (“HC”), Court of Appeal (“COA”), and was ultimately decided by the Federal Court (“FC”). The issues were fully considered in the recent grounds of judgment of the FC dated 8 January 2018 in Akira Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v Nadiah Zee binti Abdullah and Another Appeal (Federal Court Civil Appeal Nos. 01-15-05/2016 and 01-16-05/2016).

Continue reading