Wu Siew Ying (t/a Fuh Lin Bud-Grafting Centre) v Gunung Tunggal Quarry & Construction Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 496 [COA]

It has been a generally accepted principle that amendments to pleadings can be made at any stage of the proceeding before the pronouncement of the decision. Therefore, it was not unlawful for the third defendant to apply for the amendment at this late stage even after the submission of parties had been made.

Dato' Seri Dr Kok Mew Soon & 3 Ors v Mustapha bin Mohamed & 2 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 537 [HC]

Pursuant to Section 72(a) of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act, 1998 and the relevant authorities, the court is prohibited from granting an injunction order against Danaharta as a corporation.
As receivers and managers, the 1st and 2nd respondents could be equated as special administrators as they were appointed by Danaharta as their agents and acting pursuant to their power as provided under the Danaharta Act. As such, they were protected from liability against any action or proceedings in a court of law for any loss or damage whilst exercising their function and power in good faith. Though Section 72 of the Act does not specifically mention the word "receiver and manager", by implication, a receiver and manager should also have the same immunity under Section 66 of the Act as accorded to a special administrator or an independent advisor and therefore, protected against any legal action such as injunction.

Popular posts from this blog

Law updates - Insurance (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited v Indra Janardhana Menon (dilantik menurut Perintah bertarikh 17-1-2005 untuk mewakili harta pusaka NVJ Menon, Si Mati) [FC]   The court of appeal was correct to hold that Menon was entitled to the overriding commission as paragraph II(A)(I) of the circular makes provision for the payment of overriding commission to an immediate superior at the rate of 10% of the group scheme agent's commission. In the circumstances of the case, Menon was Indrani's immediate superior as he was the one who recruited Indrani. From the facts, there was no evidence identified by the court of appeal to establish the parties intention that the obligation to pay overriding commission was a continuous one and not from time to time as and when payment became due. There was also nothing to show in any of the agreements that the parties had agreed to prolong the obligation to
Read more

Law updates - General (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   Ngu Toh Tung & 7 Ors v Superintendent of Lands & Survey, Kuching Division, Kuching & Anor [COA] administrative law; land acquisition J & C New Poly Catering Sdn Bhd v TTMP Bakun Consortium Sdn Bhd [HC] The general rule is that a high court will not issue an injunction to restrain the execution of another high court order. However, the high court possesses inherent jurisdiction to do justice in each case. Thus, an interim injunction could be issued to restrain execution of a decree if it could be shown that the execution would result in an injury to the party against whom the execution was directed at. As a matter of practice, applications for a garnishee order are made before the sar or dr and the decision is appealable to a judge in chambers. Even though under the rules of the high court 1980, service of originating process or other court documents on a corporation or company should
Read more

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?

In LSSC Development Sdn Bhd v Thomas Iruthayam & Anor [2007] 2 CLJ 434, the Court of Appeal held that where purchasers were given a defective house out of time by the developer, for the defects, that was something for which they were entitled to be compensated. As for the delay in delivery, the contract itself contained a clause which provided the formula for the compensation that the developer must pay for its lateness. This was the clause to which the purchasers have recourse as it created a contractual obligation to pay a single sum by way of liquidated damages for the period during which they were kept out of the building for which they had already paid, such sum being calculated upon the basis set out in the sale and purchase agreement.
Read more