TRA Mining (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Thien Hong Teck & Ors and Another Appeal [2018] 10 CLJ 438

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Alvin Oh Seong Yew, Foo Siew Yin & Goh Gin Jhen with him) (M/s Sia Siew Mun & Co) for the respondents.

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)

PARTNERSHIP: Winding-up – Setting aside – Requirement of having more than five members at time of presentation of petition – Whether Bankrupt partner considered member in partnership – Whether remaining partners in partnership had locus standi and cause of action – Whether Winding-up order valid and proper – Companies Act 1965, ss. 314 & 315 – Partnership Act 1961, ss. 41 & 47 – Partner in partnership entered assignment Agreement with assignee – Whether assignee deemed as partner for purpose of ascertaining number of partners during presentation of petition – Companies Act 1965, s. 314(2)

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up – Unregistered Companies – Partnership with more than five members – Whether unregistered Company – Whether creditor’s petition or partner’s petition – Whether partnership could be wound-up – Companies Act 1965, ss. 314 & 315 – Partnership Act 1961, ss. 41 & 47

Hasnul Hanis Badrul v Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) [2018] 1 LNS 1310

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Tan Keng Teck (Foo Siew Yin with him) for the defendant.

HIGH COURT

Whether the Agency Agreement can be terminated as provided in clause 12.2 by giving 14 working days’ written notice and without having to assign any reason therefore – Section 158 & 159 of the Contracts Act – Section 74 of the Contracts Act- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of reputation as a result of a breach of the Agency Agreement – Whether Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages – Whether Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damage

Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli & Ors And Another Case [2017] 7 CLJ 488

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Chai Jia Hui & Janet Tang Yii Chi with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the 1st & 2nd defendants.

HIGH COURT

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings – Allegation that deponent gave false evidence in affidavits – Whether deponent committed act or omission which interfered with due administration of justice – Whether statements and verifying affidavits disclosed prima facie contempt of court that affidavits were false – Whether court should exercise its discretion to grant leave for contempt of court proceedings regarding false affidavits filed in interlocutory applications – Rules of Court, O. 52 r. 3(1)

PWY Mining Bhd v Zufaidi & Associates [2017] 1 LNS 1193

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Goh Gin Jhen (Tobias Lim with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the defendant.

HIGH COURT

Appeal – Law on Interference of Appellate Court – Law on Professional Negligence – Issue of retainer or the duty to honour undertakings – Duty of care for an undertaking – Turquand rule – Principle of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 – Burden and onus of proof

Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli & Ors And Another Case [2017] 1LNS 1184

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Tan Keng Teck & Chai Jai Hui with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the 1st & 2nd defendants.

HIGH COURT

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Re-amendment – Leave to amend amended defence and counterclaim – Whether application was made bona fide – Whether exercise of judicial discretion is dependent on particular evidence adduced in court – Whether consequence of amendment application would delay trial

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties – Joinder – Application to join a party by defendant – Whether non-joinder of parties would cause prejudice to defendant – Whether counterclaim could be defeated by non-joinder of party

Lim Siew Kim v Kien Huat Realty Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 1 LNS 2224

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Fiona Bodipalar with him) (M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva) for the Plaintiff.

HIGH COURT

Appeal – Whether Plaintiff’s action is barred by limitation – S.6 & 22 of the Limitation Act 1953 – Striking Out under O.18 r.19(1)(a)(b)(d) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether there are pleadings alleged to justify the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant as constructive trustee or for lifting the corporate veil – Whether there are facts alleged to justify the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant as constructive trustee or for lifting the corporate veil

Ranjeet Singh Sidhu & Anor v Zavarco Plc & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 975

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Lui Kar Yee & Shim Mong Seng with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the 1st, 2nd, 8th to 12th and 16th defendants.

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR

Civil Procedure- Judgements and orders- Setting aside- Setting aside earlier judgement or order in fresh suit- Fraud or collusion- Whether judgement or order obtained by fraud or collusion could be invalidated- Evidence Act 1950, s.44. Striking out action- Double derivative action- Existence of several cause of action- Non-disclosure of any reasonable cause of action after plaintiff filed application for discovery and interrogatories- whether claim can be struck out- Examination on restitutionary remedy at interlocutory stage- Allegation of illegality- Whether trial needed to determine availability of restitutionary remedy- Company law- Derivative action- Fraud on minority- Multiple derivative actions- Commencement of common law derivative action in Malaysia against company incorporated in England-Whether permission of English High Court required before filing suit in Malaysia- Evidence Act 1950, s.57 (1),(b)- Judicial notice- Foreign law- Opinions on English Law.

Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli & Anor v Technology Resources Industries Berhad [2016] 1 LNS 500

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the appellants

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

Background of facts- The plaintiff was a public listed company in the business of providing telecommunications services under the brand known as Celcom- At the High Court the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendants seeking declarations that the defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and desired the restitution of various payments as well as the return of two vehicles from the defendants- Plaintiff contended that the payments and benefits paid were not in accordance with the Articles of Association (AA) and in contravention of the law- The first and second defendants filed a counter claim contending that they were entitled to payments based on the principle of quantum meruit taking into consideration their services and achievements that had benefitted the plaintiff- Appeal against decision of High Court in which the learned judge allowed the plaintiff/respondent claim’s suit brought against the first appellant/defendant, second appellant/second defendant and the third appellant/defendant for the return of incentive payments pursuant to the corporate restructuring exercise, the return of the compensation payments and the return of the vehicles transferred to the first and second defendants. The third appellant, however, withdrew his appeal prior to the hearing of this appeal- No cogent basis for this court to intervene in its appellate capacity- No judicial misappreciation or evaluation of the evidence by High Court.