Category: Malayan Law Journal

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

High Court

Issue : Declaration on true construction of documents

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong for the plaintiffs/respondents

High Court

Contract – Civil engineering works – Subcontracted – Agreement providing for payment in respect of variations – Extra payment demanded for alleged variations

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong for the fourth to eighth defendants

High Court

Trusts and Trustees – Presumption of gift and advancement – Shares allotted to parties – Share certificates retained by donor – Whether donor had intention to give shares to children and wife – Whether evidence given by donor admissible

Civil Procedure – Summary judgment application – Declaration sought – Whether court has jurisdiction to grant declaration

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
C C Low (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the appellant

High Court

Issue : Goods sold and delivered

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Chan Hua Eng ( Lim Kian Leong with him) for 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants

High Court

Contract – Joint venture agreement – Transfer of shares – Pre-emptive procedure – Manufacturing licence – Condition restricting freedom of share transfers – Equity holdings of participating companies – Whether transfers increasing holdings of a company infringe condition – Declarations whether ought to be granted to plaintiffs Companies Act 1965, s 179

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 Kian Leong & Co for the appellants.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

Companies and Corporations — Directors — Compensation — Loss of office — Compensation payments and enhancement of remuneration package made to directors — Whether made with sanction of Board of Directors — Whether directors retired or terminated — Whether there was justification for enhancing remuneration package — Whether directors in breach of fiduciary duties — Companies Act 1965 ss 137(1) & (5)

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Justin Voon, Alvin Lai and Goh Gin Jhen with him) (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:
Terrence Chan Kah Meng (Lui Kar Yee with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the contributory.

HIGH COURT

Winding up Petition – Section 218 Companies Act 1965 – Rule 35 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 – Setting aside ex parte appointment of Provisional Liquidator – Material misrepresentations and non-disclosure of material facts by the Petitioner – Distress –Whether there is risk of dissipation of assets

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