Marina bte Mohd Yusoff v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd (receiver and manager appointed) (and 3 Other Appeals) [2008] 1 AMR 687 [COA]

Marina bte Mohd Yusoff ("MY"), as a shareholder, has no legal right to any item of property owned by Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd ("PTSB") other than a share in the profits while the company continue to carry out business. PTSB as the registered proprietor has priority of interest on the property over MY who is only a shareholder.
By virtue of Sections 60 and 72 of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act, 1998 ("the Act"), the court is precluded from granting any injunction or other restraining orders against Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad ("the corporation") or Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd ("Danaharta Urus") (a subsidiary of the corporation).
Apart from the test whether there is a likelihood of a successful appeal being rendered nugatory, the principle governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction are equally applicable to the grant of an Erinford injunction. Any application of an Erinford injunction must involve considerations of the overall justice of the case and as to whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
The grant of an Erinford injunction by the learned high court judge fell foul of Section 72 of the Act as it had the effect of restraining the action taken or proposed to be taken by Danaharta Urus or its servants or agents over the assets.

Neoh Hong Sang (t/a Neoh Hong sang Contractor) v Lye Weng Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 703 [COA]

It was clear from Nancy Ooi's affidavit that she was the secretary to one of the directors of the respondent and not the secretary of the respondent as claimed by the appellant. Thus, she had no authority to sign anything on behalf of the respondent, more so an agreement on behalf of the respondent. Further, from her affidavit, it was shown that she signed the document as a witness and not as the respondent's agent.
To allow or not to allow the application of striking out under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 on the ground of delay is a matter of discretion of the trial judge. In the absence of anything to show that the trial judge had exercised his discretion wrongly to the prejudice of another party, the appellate court would not interfere.

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