Ong Thye Peng v Loo Choo Teng & 7 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 757 [FC]

Section 60 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1959 ("the Act") is concerned with the manner of disposal of the property of a deceased person by his personal representative. An executor is a trustee of the property of the beneficiaries just as an administrator is. Their duty was to ensure that the estate, of which they are trustees, benefits as much as possible when they deal with trust property. Thus, the obligation of executors and administrators towards the estate of which they are personal representatives must be the same because their primary duty was to protect the rights and interests of the beneficiaries. There can therefore be no difference in the duty of administrators and executors in the sale of estate property.
It followed that even in the case of a sale of property by an executor, the relevant date to determine whether the price for the property is fair is not at the time of the offer but at the time of the hearing of the application for approval of the proposed sale.

The Co-operative Central Bank Limited v KGV & Associates Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 789 [FC]

There was no duty of care owed by a registered valuer of a property to a financier (akin to a professional who ought not on policy grounds to be held to owe a duty to persons unknown).

See Teow Guan & 12 Ors v Liquidators of Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) & 3 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 811 [COA]

It is quite established that an injunction for the preservation of property and other mandatory orders may only be granted in accordance with the principles applicable to the granting of interlocutory injunctions. It may be granted where the court is satisfied that there is a substantial question to be tried, and a case has been made out for the preservation of that property. And as in the American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, smack on the issue of injunctions, there is the requirement that before a court exercises its discretion in favour of granting an injunction:-
(1) there must be a serious question to be tried;
(2) there must not be any delay by the appellants in making the application;
(3) that if the appellant were to succeed at the appeal, damages would not be adequate compensation for its loss;
(4) that the balance of convenience lies in its favour;
(5) the appellants must demonstrate evidence that its financial undertaking given to court is solid and worth powder and shot; and
(6) there are special circumstances in its favour including the justice of the case.
At this interlocutory stage, it is not the function of the court to resolve the issues on conflicting affidavit evidence, inclusive of difficult questions of law that require detailed argument or mature considerations.
Mere fear and sentimentality certainly do not qualify as persuasive grounds construable as special circumstances.

Chee Kuat Fong & 3 Ors v Lee Wai Yen [2008] 2 AMR 1 [COA]

Based on the judgment in Liew Yew Tiam & 3 Ors v Cheah Cheng Hoc & 2 Ors [2001] 2 AMR 2320, the trial court had erred in awarding separate awards for the joint tortfeasors, i.e., the defendants. However, the total amount awarded in relation to the libel by the learned judge was not outrageously exorbitant or shockingly excessive or even manifestly unreasonable, unjust or irrational. It was a fair and just compensation. In the circumstances, there should be no appellate interference.

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

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

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