Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue #41/2024
10 October 2024
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE SPOTLIGHTS
LOW CHENG TEIK & ORS v. LOW EAN NEE [2024] 9 CLJ 171 The central distinction between the oppression action and the derivative action lies in the nature of the claim. What is the legal test to determine whether a shareholder's complaint is actionable by way of oppression action or a derivative action? Where the nature of the act, omission or misconduct is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder, and the resulting injury and loss may be classified as having been suffered directly and specially or separately and distinctly by the shareholder in such capacity, as opposed to loss or injury suffered by the company or all the other shareholders, then oppression is made out and the cause of action vests in the shareholder. In such an instance, s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016 provides the remedies available. If, however, the act, omission or misconduct is an injury done to the company, resulting in a loss to the company, then the cause of action vests in the company and s. 347 is the proper remedy to be utilised. COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Acts and conducts amounting to oppression - Director assigned company's trademarks to company co-founded by him for nominal consideration without authorisation of Board of Directors - Shareholder filed oppression action against director - Whether shareholder's complaint actionable by way of oppression or derivative action - Whether claim should have not been brought by way of oppression action - Legal test to ascertain whether shareholder's complaint actionable under ss. 346 or 347 of Companies Act 2016 COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Wrongful assignment of trademarks - Director assigned company's trademarks to company co-founded by him for nominal consideration without authorisation of Board of Directors - Shareholder filed oppression action against director - Whether shareholder's complaint actionable by way of oppression or derivative action - Proper plaintiff to initiate action - Legal test to ascertain whether shareholder's complaint actionable under ss. 346 or 347 of Companies Act 2016 - What was wrong or infraction complained of - Whether wrongful act oppressive or unfairly discriminatory or otherwise prejudicial to shareholder/complainant alone or affected all shareholders - Whether cause of action vested in company or shareholder/complainant - Whether loss or damage suffered by company or shareholder/complainant alone - Whether loss suffered by all shareholders APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2024 Volume 9 (Part 1) (i) An arbitration award, which involves only the shareholders of a company, does not bind the company itself as the company is a separate legal entity that could not be bound by proceedings to which it is not made a party; (ii) The court's power to award pre-judgment interest, pursuant to s. 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956, is subject to contractual provisions. When a contract expressly deals with the issue of interest, the court's discretion to award interest shall then be limited to the terms of the contract; (iii) Clear and unequivocal written admission of debt may prevent the operation of the limitation period. The limitation period for a claim of debt restarts if a debtor acknowledges such debt in writing. ARBITRATION | CIVIL PROCEDURE | COMPANY LAW
ARBITRATION: Award - Company matter - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether company party to arbitration - Whether company separate legal entity CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interest - Award - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - High Court ordered company to pay interest on dividends on basis that interest was awarded in arbitral award - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether High Court could exercise discretion to award pre-judgment interest pursuant to s. 11 of Civil Law Act 1956 COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Petition - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Matter referred to arbitration - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether company party to arbitration - Whether company separate legal entity Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
Dalam kes rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi, apabila terdapat juga rayuan terdahulu di Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Tinggi kedua tidak wajar membuat apa-apa ulasan tentang dapatan dan keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi pertama kerana kedua-duanya mempunyai bidang kuasa yang sama. PROSEDUR JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Tertuduh-tertuduh disabitkan atas empat pertuduhan berasingan bawah s. 24(2) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Mahkamah Sesyen menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan denda RM10,000 jika gagal bayar lapan bulan penjara untuk setiap pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh masing-masing - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan kemustahilan fakta dan undang-undang - Sama ada pihak pembelaan membangkitkan keraguan munasabah - Sama ada pihak Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memberikan penghakiman beralasan
Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas H
The role of the Shariah Advisory Council, appointed by Bank Negara, is limited to providing guidance on Shariah compliance. It does not have the authority to make binding decisions regarding the financial liabilities of borrowers. This responsibility remains with the court, specifically the presiding judge, who evaluates the evidence and legal arguments presented in the case to make a final ruling on the borrower's liability. BANKING | LAND LAW
BANKING: Islamic banking - Financing facility - Borrower received financing facilities from bank - Facilities under principles of bai al-inah and murabahah - Creation of charges over borrower's properties as securities for financing facilities - Borrower failed to make payments to bank - Bank issued 16D notice pursuant to s. 254 of National Land Code to commence foreclosure proceedings against charged properties - Declaration sought by borrower to invalidate charges on properties - Argument that financing facilities not compliant with Shariah principles - Whether financing facilities contradicted Shariah principles - Whether court must enforce Shariah Advisory Council's rulings without exercising its own judicial discretion based on statutes and common law LAND LAW: Charge - Validity - Borrower received financing facilities from bank - Facilities under Islamic banking principles of bai al-inah and murabahah - Creation of charges over borrower's properties as securities for financing facilities - Borrower failed to make payments to bank - Bank issued 16D notice pursuant to s. 254 of National Land Code to commence foreclosure proceedings against charged properties - Declaration sought by borrower to invalidate charges on properties - Argument that financing facilities not compliant with Shariah principles - Whether charges valid - National Land Code, ss. 241 & 256(3)
Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
(i) Walaupun tidak digariskan dalam mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang, Arahan Pentadbiran Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Bil. 2 Tahun 2018 menetapkan bahawa mod permohonan untuk semakan jenayah adalah melalui surat permohonan. Ini memberi Hakim/Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman, yang membaca surat permohonan, pilihan untuk melaksanakan kuasa semakan beliau atau sebaliknya. Notis usul, seperti dalam kes ini, bukan mod yang betul untuk membuat permohonan semakan jenayah namun, demi keadilan, boleh dipertimbangkan berdasarkan merit, merujuk pada s. 325(1) Kanun Tatataca Jenayah; (ii) Kuasa memulakan, menjalankan atau memberhentikan apa-apa prosiding untuk satu-satu kesalahan terletak hak pada Pendakwa Raya. Perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan (DNAA) atau pelepasan yang terjumlah sebagai pembebasan (DAA) hanya akan diberi oleh mahkamah atas permohonan oleh Pendakwa Raya. PROSEDUR JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan - Permohonan - Mod - Mod untuk memulakan permohonan semakan jenayah - Semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Pemohon memfailkan permohonan semakan melalui notis usul - Sama ada notis usul mod yang betul - Sama ada teratur - Sama ada notis usul boleh dipertimbangkan berdasarkan merit - Arahan Pentadbiran Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Bil. 2 Tahun 2018 - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 325(1) & 326 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pelepasan atau pembebasan - Perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan - Semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Tertuduh berhadapan dengan lima pertuduhan bawah s. 4(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 - Kesalahan menyembunyikan harta yang dia mempunyai sebab untuk percayai adalah harta yang menyalahi undang-undang - Saksi enggan hadir - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memerintahkan tertuduh dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan memohon perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang dirangka tidak berasas - Sama ada perintah yang dibuat betul - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 173(g) & 254
Fathiyah Idris PK
(i) Once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case for corruption under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of corruption on a balance of probabilities. Mere denial or afterthought is insufficient to rebut the presumption as the accused must adduce evidence to the contrary; (ii) In a case involving coordinate jurisdiction, the High Court's previous decision, in this case, to order an accused to enter a defence at the Sessions Court, remains intact and cannot be revisited by the subsequent High Court. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal by prosecution - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Accused charged for offences of corruption - Payments for job assignments to company for projects - Charges under s. 17(a) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Accused acquitted and discharged from charges at end of prosecution's case - Whether elements of charge proven - Whether prosecution made out prima facie case against accused - Whether accused corruptly received gratification - Whether defence raised reasonable doubt CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Courts - Jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Accused charged for offences of corruption - Payments for job assignments to company for projects - Charges under s. 17(a) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Sessions Court acquitted and discharged accused of charges at end of prosecution's case on ground prosecution had not made out prima facie case against accused - Decision of Sessions Court reversed by High Court ('first High Court') upon appeal - First High Court ordered accused to enter defence and to proceed to trial at Sessions Court - Sessions Court continued to hear defence of accused and again acquitted and discharged accused - Prosecution appealed against decision at High Court ('second High Court') - Extent and/or limit of second High Court's appellate jurisdiction - Whether entire case was before second High Court for hearing - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 26
Muniandy Kannyappan J
Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') diwujudkan untuk menggariskan tatacara pengendalian, pendengaran, perbicaraan dan rayuan kes. Pihak yang ingin mendapatkan keadilan dalam prosiding sivil, dengan mengemukakan rayuan, hendaklah memastikan peruntukan-peruntukan bawah KKM dipatuhi dengan sewajarnya. Jika tidak dilakukan, ini akan menyebabkan KKM tidak akan membawa apa-apa makna pada pihak-pihak. Lanjutan masa tidak boleh diberikan sewenang-wenangnya tanpa alasan wajar kerana tempoh masa yang ditetapkan seumpama barang hiasan sahaja jika tidak dipatuhi. PROSEDUR SIVIL
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Notis rayuan - Penyampaian dan serahan - Permohonan membatalkan notis rayuan - Notis rayuan diserahkan luar tempoh had masa yang dibenarkan - Sama ada lanjutan masa wajar diberikan - Sama ada akan menyebabkan prejudis dan ketidakadilan - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 55 k. 3(4), A. 62 & A. 63A k. 17
Roslan Mat Nor H
In a transfer application pursuant to O. 57 r. 1(4) of the Rules of Court 2012, the cause of action that ought to be considered as a predominant cause of action is the one that arose in an original statement of claim, and not one that arose in a counterclaim. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Courts - Transfer of action - From one High Court to another - Application to transfer trial of suit from Penang High Court to Kuala Lumpur High Court - Whether transfer application ought to be allowed - Whether cause of action arose in Penang or Kuala Lumpur - Whether cause of action that arose in original statement of claim, and not in counterclaim, that ought to be considered as predominant cause of action - Whether jurisdiction to hear suit fell to court where leave order was granted - Rules of Court 2012, O. 57 r. 1(4)
Anand Ponnudurai J
There is no conflict between r. 74 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 ('DPMR') and O. 52 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). Vide the doctrine of harmonious construction, the procedural requirements under O. 52 of the ROC ought to be seen as complementary to those under r. 74 of the DPMR. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Application for - Former husband refused to pay maintenance to former wife, contrary to court order - Former wife applied for order of committal - Whether former wife correct in applying for order of committal vide r. 74 of Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 instead of O. 52 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether r. 74 of DPMR prevails over O. 52 of ROC - Whether r. 74 of DPMR only applicable to applications for order of committal in matrimonial proceedings pending in High Court
Evrol Mariette Peters J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|