Category: Current Law Journal

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Lui Kar Yee with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the 1st respondent.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings – Action against company directors for breach of fiduciary duties – Jurisdiction – Forum non conveniens – Company incorporated in United Kingdom with business address in Malaysia – Whether internal management of company governed by law of place of incorporation – Dealing of company shares – Whether issuance and tradability of shares governed by laws of United Kingdom – Whether dispute should be heard in Malaysian courts – Whether United Kingdom a more suitable and appropriate forum to determine dispute

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Tan Keng Teck (Keneth VK Liew with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the appellants.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Petition – Filing of more than one petition – Whether a company could be wound up twice – Whether second winding up order ought to be set aside – Whether second order rendered nugatory and superfluous – Whether trial judge erred in application of s. 219(2) of Companies Act 1965

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kiang Leong (Tan Wei Wei with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the respondent.

COURT OFAPPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

COMPANY LAW: Winding up – Petition – Just and equitable grounds – Restructuring of company to comply with statutory requirements – Majority of shares vested in Bumiputeras – Whether restructuring agreement intended to circumvent statute and illegal – Petitioner participated and benefited from illegal arrangement – Whether just and equitable for company to be wound up – Registration of Engineers Act 1967, ss. 7A(3), 10(4)

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kiang Leong (Justin Voon, Alvin Lai & Goh Gin Jhen with him) (M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing) for the appellant.

Federal Court (PUTRAJAYA)

Arbitration — Arbitration clause — Insurance policy — Interpretation — Arbitration Act 2005 s 10 — Whether arbitration clause part of contract of insurance — Whether null — Whether capable of being performed — Whether all matters capable of being subjected to arbitration — Whether disputes came within scope of s 10(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Tan Keng Teck (Marcus Tan with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the defendant.

HIGH COURT

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction against government and its officers – Whether injunction could be imposed against government and its officers – Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 29 – Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 54(d) – Whether calling of performance bond was within contractual parameter – Whether calling of performance bond was actuated by bad faith – Whether unconscionability needs to be established in strict sense

CONTRACT: Whether there was necessity on part of beneficiary to prove default of contractor in performance of contract – Whether insurer was obliged to investigate validity of demand made by beneficiary – Whether liability of insurer arose upon receipt of demand

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 1st defendant – Lim Kian Leong (Tan Wei Wei with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

HIGH COURT

TRUSTS: Trustees – Breach of Trust – Plaintiff’s claim against fund manager and custodian of funds for missing funds – Fraud by fund manager’s employee – Breach of fiduciary duties – Whether fund manager liable for missing funds caused by fraudulent acts of employee – Whether there was fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and first defendant custodian – Whether custodian breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff by failing to take steps to verify false instructions from fund manager’s employee

TORT: Negligence – Duty of care – Failure to exercise due care and diligence – Economic loss – Plaintiff’s claim against fund manager and custodian of funds for missing funds – Vicarious liability – Whether fund manager vicariously liable for fraudulent acts of employee – Whether employee’s actions were necessary link that caused loss of plaintiff’s funds – Custodian – Fund manager appointed first defendant as custodian of funds – Whether first defendant owed plaintiff duty of care – Damage, remoteness of – Whether fund manager was wholly liable for loss suffered by plaintiff – Claim for contribution and indemnity – Apportionment of liability – Whether blame should be apportioned between fund manager and custodian

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the defendant – Lim Kian Leong (Goh Gin Jhen with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

HIGH COURT

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors – Breach of duty – Professional Negligence – Whether solicitors liable in Negligence for failure to file suit within time – Whether causal link existed between solicitor’s Negligence and loss suffered by client – Whether client entitled to recover professional fees and Taxed cost

UTILITIES: Electricity – Charge for supply – Claim for shortfall due to faulty meter – Whether proviso to reg. 11(2) Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 applied to limit retrospective adjustment – Whether plaintiff’s claim limited to period not exceeding three months

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the defendant – Lim Kian Leong (Jolene Loy & Tan Wei Wei with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

Misrepresentation-more specifically,innocent misrepresentation,and alternatively,negligent misrepresentation.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Bagi pihak defendan – KM Chan (Veronica Ong bersamanya); T/n Lim Kian Leong & Co

MAHKAMAH TINGGI

(s. 34(1)(c) Akta Perkongsian 1961)- partnership-s. 4 of the Partnership Act 1961-whether Plaintiff is a partner in his firm

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the defendant – Paul Ngooi Shin Han; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

HIGH COURT

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors – Stakeholders – Duties of a stakeholder – Whether all three conditions fulfilled when 3rd defendant released the documents to 1st defendant – Whether 3rd defendant breached their undertaking and stakeholder duties under the Agreement in respect of the release of documents to 1st defendant – Whether 3rd defendant remained in a neutral position when he acted as a stakeholder – 3rd defendant aware of contractual dispute between plaintiffs and 1st defendant – Whether 3rd defendant should have taken an interpleader proceeding instead of forming a view on the dispute in favour of 1st defendant