Category: Current Law Journal

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Bagi pihak defendan pertama, defendan ketiga & defendan keempat – Lim Kian Leong (KY Cheah bersamanya); T/n Lim Kian Leong & Co

MAHKAMAH TINGGI

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Afidavit – Pengikraran – Afidavit sokongan – Permohonan membatalkan tuntutan balas disokong oleh afidavit yang diikrarkan oleh peguam – Sama ada peguam yang mewakili anakguam tidak boleh ikrarkan afidavit bagi anakguamnya – Sama ada satu ketidakaturan – Sama ada afidavit sokongan boleh diterima – Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980, A. 41 k. 6

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding – Pemfailan – Kelewatan memfailkan pliding – Sama ada kelewatan yang melampau tanpa apa-apa penjelasan – Sama ada memprejudiskan plaintif-plaintif – Sama ada satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 1st defendant – Chan Kah Meng (Veronica Elenia Ong with her); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

HIGH COURT

Plaintiff’s application to strike out the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 1st, 3rd & 4th defendant (originating motion), plaintiffs (tuntutan balas); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

Civil procedure – Striking out – Order 18 rule 19 (1) (a),(c),(d) Rules of the High Court 1980 – dismissed

Preliminary objection allowed-delay and personal knowledge

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the respondent – Veronica Ong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

Industrial Court

Wrongful termination – Claimant a Clerk of Works located in Saudi Arabia – case settled between parties in the sum of RM100,000

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 1st respondent – Lim Kian Leong (Paul Ngooi with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

HIGH COURT

COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS: Schemes of arrangement – Unsecured creditors – Whether better for court to wind up debtor than approve schemes of arrangement – Whether question one of commercial sensibility which scheme creditors were better positioned than court to decide – Whether schemes fair equitable and bona fide

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the company -KM Chan; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

Industrial Court

Dismissal – S 20(3), Industrial Relations Act 1967

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 1st, 2nd, 7th-10th respondents – KM Chan; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

COMPANY LAW: Oppression – Relief – s.181 Companies Act 1965 – Whether petition could be maintained when companies had been wound up – Whether petition could be filed against two or more companies

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the 2nd defendant -Terence KM Chan & Vincent Tan; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

Whether the 1st defendant’s failure to take possession of the raised skid beams and to make payment of the same constituted a breach of contract on the part of the 1st defendant with the plaintiff –

Whether the 2nd defendant’s conduct amounted to wrongful interference with the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. (Cause of Action against 2nd Defendant)

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the defendants -Lim Kian Leong & Cheah Kit Yee; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

Whether the Defendants had breached their duty of care to the Plantiff during the Extended Completion Date period and beyond –

Whether the Termination of the SPA by the Vendor was lawful and reasonable in the circumstances of the case –

Whether the assumption of liability by the Plaintiff in her settlement with the Vendor breaks the chain of causation –

Whether the evidence of PW 1 in Court being interpreted by a private Chinese interpreter engaged by the Plaintiff should be disregarded totally

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the respondent -KM Chan; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

Industrial Court

Dismissal – S 20(3), Industrial Relations Act 1967