TML and Legal Logic Asia Talk: Post Implementation Challenges of the Companies Act 2016

On 20 April 2018, I will be speaking at the Legal Logic Asia talk on The Companies Act 2016: Post Implementation Challenges, New Corporate Rescue Mechanism Rules 2018 & Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance.

My co-speaker, Kenneth Foo, and I designed the course contents and the programme should be very enriching for the audience. We will using practical examples and real-life case studies to flesh out the issues we have come across. You can access the registration form here and with an early bird rate of RM800 if you sign up by 13 April 2018.

Continue reading

Advertisements 1,000,000 views (and counting…)

TML one million

On 12 October 2015, following up on an idea that came up during a chat between lawyers (and soon-to-be TML co-founders) Lee Shih and Marcus van Geyzel over a midweek duck noodle lunch in Midvalley a few days earlier, the first post was published on

What started off as a fun side project with the intention of featuring practical, high-quality, and relevant legal content, has taken on a life of its own. TML has opened many doors for us as its co-founders, and earlier this week we hit another milestone — 1,000,000 views.

Continue reading

Companies Act 2016: Corporate Rescue Mechanism is in force on 1 March 2018

By the gazetting of the notice P.U. (B) 106/2018 dated 27 February 2018, the corporate rescue mechanism under Division 8 Part III of the Companies Act 2016 has come into force on 1 March 2018. The corporate rescue mechanism allows for financially distressed companies to consider two options: (1) corporate voluntary arrangement and (2) judicial management.

I set out only some brief key features of these two mechanisms. Along with the coming into force of the corporate rescue mechanism provisions, the new Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 have also come into force on 1 March 2018. Continue reading

Companies Act 2016: Absence of the Security for Costs Provision

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

Case Update: Federal Court Decides on Extent of Directors’ Duties – Key Lessons for Directors

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

12-Step Checklist for Drafting Court Papers

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