Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Bhd v Hisham Sobri & Kadir (being sued as a firm) [2018] MLJU 110

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kiang Leong (Foo Siew Yin with him) for the Defendant.

HIGH COURT

Setting Aside – Strike out Writ of summons and Amended Statement of Claim – O.77 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether Court has the discretion to determine whether the New Partners were partners of the Defendant or liable at the material time – Whether action is statute-barred – Whether action barred by Res Judicata

Sabarudin bin Othman & Anor v Malayan Banking Bhd and another appeal [2018] MLJU 304

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Chan Kah Meng (Tan Wei Wei with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the appellant.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

Whether Plaintiff’s claim for items of the Third Party Notice should be allowed – Whether res judicata apply to preclude Third Party B from raising limitation as a defence against the plaintiff’s claim – Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred – Whether Plaintiff can approbate and reprobate – Whether the learned judge’s finding of negligence against Third Party A and B is sustainable – Whether the alleged forgery of the 3rd defendant’s signature of the impugned documents has been established – Distinction between documents required by law to be attested and documents not required by law to be attested

Voon Jou Iong v Katherine Loh Lou Yen & Anor [2018] MLJU 445

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

HIGH COURT

Plaintiff entered into Agreement to sell 2 pieces of land – Said Land contain restriction that they cannot be transferred, leased or charged without obtaining written consent from the Menteri Besar of the State of Negeri Sembilan (“MB”) – Whether the said Consent was sent out – Termination by Plaintiff

TRA Mining (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Thien Hong Teck & Ors and Another Appeal [2018] MLJU 1262

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 bin Badrul (t/a in the name and style of ATS Agency Enterprise) v Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd [2018] MLJU 1234

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

Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd and another appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Tan Wei Wei, Chris Lim Su Heng, Nur Khidmah bt Hazaisham and Colin Liew with him) (Chris Lim Su Heng) for the respondent.

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)

Company Law — Directors’ duties to act in best interest of company in divestments company’s shareholding — Whether directors acted in breach of statutory duties as set out in s 132(1) of the Companies Act 1965 — Whether there was dishonest assistance in various breaches of duty owed — Whether there was conspiracy by lawful and/or unlawful means to injure company vide divestments — Whether there were acts or omissions that caused company to suffer loss and damage in relation to divestments — Whether directors in breach of fiduciary, statutory or common law duties — Whether directors failed to act in best interest of company — Whether such failure caused losses and damages to company