COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the company – KM Chan & Veronica Ong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Labour Law – Employment – Whether employee – Whether company exercised control over claimant as employer – Whether proof of payment of salary by itself inconclusive evidence of employer-employee relationship
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff – KM Chan; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
HIGH COURT
EMPLOYMENT: Contract of Employment – Terms and conditions of service – Employee gave Employer three months’ notice of resignation as provided in Contract – Whether compensation payable to Employee – Whether Employee’s suit against Employer for compensation time-barred – Whether time computed from date of resignation letter or after expiry of three months’ notice – Whether Employer’s conduct gave Employee legitimate expectation compensation would be paid
LIMITATION: Contract – Accrual of cause of action – Notice of termination of Employment – Claim for compensation – Whether time-barred – Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a)
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Bagi pihak defendan – Lim Kean Leong; T/n Lim Kian Leong & Co
MAHKAMAH TINGGI
Dakwaan pecah amanah (breach of trust) atau mungkir tanggungjawab fidusiari sebagai ‘stakeholder’
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the respondent – K M Chan (Veronica Ong Together with him); T/n Lim Kian Leong & Co
COURT OF APPEAL
Breach of agreement between the parties
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the respondent – Chai Jia Hui; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
INDUSTRIAL COURT
section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967- dismissal of employee by the employer(respondent)- Claimant informed the Court that he has decided to withdraw the case with no liberty to reinstate the case
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the defendant – Law Chi Cheng (Sharifah Nadia Al-Jafri with her); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
HIGH COURT
Issue -Plaintiffs a firm of civil and structural consulting engineers’ entitlement to make claim for negligence under Professional Indemnity Policy issued by the Defendant- failure on Plaintiff’s part, to carry out a review of the design drawings prior to issuance of the construction drawings in 2007 onwards-
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff – Lim Kian Leong, (Cheah Kit Yee, Lui Kar Yee with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
HIGH COURT
SECURITIES: General mandatory offer – Control of more than 33{ea522eb49183a839418867043b740453be090fcd3d73faedf82b9b22b788b398} of shares in company – Defendants acquiring more than 33{ea522eb49183a839418867043b740453be090fcd3d73faedf82b9b22b788b398} shares in company but failing to carry out mandatory general offer – Whether minority shareholder of company could compel defendants to make mandatory take-over offer to all shareholders – Failure to lodge complaint with Securities Commission – Whether shareholders possess cause of action – Whether only Securities Commission entitled to secure compliance of provisions of Take-over Code and Securities Commission Act 1993 – Securities Commission Act 1993, ss. 33(2), 33A(4), (5); 33D(1)(a) to (g), (2), (3)
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the Intervener – K T Tan (Vincent Tan with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
HIGH COURT
Evidence-Land Reference proceedings-raising the issue of ‘admin error’ in the Forms G & H as per the Schedule Land Acquisition Act (‘LAA’) -is the intervenor allowed to raise the objection after 7 years
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff – Lim Kian Leong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
Application to strike out under O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), or (b) or (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 or the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Bagi pihak responden – Lim Kian Leong (Cheah Kit Yee bersamanya) ; T/n Lim Kian Leong & Co
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN
Taksiran cukai -adakah Responden gagal untuk membayar cukai yang ditaksirkan dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan tanpa mengira sama ada terdapat atau tidak rayuan terhadap taksiran itu-subseksyen 103(1) Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967-Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan membuat dapatan fakta dan membuat Perintah Pemutus yang menyatakan bahawa hasil jualan tanah di Langkawi itu bukan pendapatan yang tertakluk pada Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 tetapi pada Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976, asas bagi pengeluaran Notis Taksiran bertarikh 27/12/2004 itu gagal dan tidak lagi wujud.-Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju dengan keputusan ini -menolak rayuan Perayu dengan kos. Perayu telah diperintahkan membayar kos sebanyak RM10 ribu kepada Responden.