Tuesday, 11 September 2012


In Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd v Hew Foong Hin & Anor [2012] MLJU 408, it was held by the Court of Appeal that:-

"...[11] Clause 22(2) provided that if the appellant fails to comply with clause 22(1) then the appellant shall pay immediately to the respondents liquidated damages to be calculated day to day at the rate of 10% per annum of the purchase price. Once the date for delivery of vacant possession had passed, the appellant's liability to pay liquidated damages calculated in accordance with the formula prescribed by the SPA became immediate. There was no further onus on the respondents to prove damages. Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) said as follows in Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd v. Hariram Jayaram & Ors and other appeals [2008] 4 CLJ 618 :
On its proper construction, the clause makes a housing developer immediately liable to a purchaser in liquidated damages once the date for completion passes. Put differently, cl. 22(2) excludes the operation of s. 56(3)..."

Malaysia-Contracting parties cannot contract out of a statutory provision in order to avoid compliance with the statutory requirements

In Seri Alamjaya Sdn Bhd v Repco Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2012] MLJU 325, it was held that:-

"It is trite law that contracting parties cannot contract out of a statutory provision in order to avoid compliance with the statutory requirements. Such agreement would be void as being contrary to public policy: Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd (Appointed receiver and manager) (in liquidation) v Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd & Ors [1997] 2 MLJ 805 SC..."

Malaysia-Online Legal Research for Lawyers

Ad: Online Legal Research for Lawyers

If this e-mail does not display correctly, please click here to view the content online. 

The relentless pressure of time has long been the legal profession's greatest challenge.

Introducing Legal Workbench that lets you get more done in less time. Far more than just an online database, Legal Workbench helps to surface the latest available information relevant to your needs.

The suite of tools available on Legal Workbench provides lawyers practising Malaysian Law with an unmatched combination of information simply not available from any other single portal. This is coupled with unparalleled ease of use that translates into more efficient use of your time.

The inevitable result... real time and cost savings.
Content Available:
    Singapore Cases & Legislation
  • Judgments (Supreme Court since 1991, Subordinate courts since 2001)
  • Singapore Law Reports since 1965
  • Tribunals and Board Decisions
  • Singapore Legislation since 1997
    English Cases
  • Law Reports series since 1865
  • Weekly Law Reports since 1953
    Indian Cases
  • SCC Online: A legal research service offering comprehensive coverage of cases from the Indian Supreme Court from 1969 to current
    Heritage Law Reports
  • Early Law Reports of Malaya and Singapore from 1808-1980
  • Australia's most popular online resource for Australian legal information, with over four million searchable documents can now be directly linked into Legal Workbench
  • Extensive collection of legal materials from Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII) is directly accessible via Legal Workbench due to a partnership arrangement between Singapore academy of Law and HKLII
  • Users can now search across multiple jurisdictions to find leading cases, articles and legislation, see how legal documents cite and relate to each other and link to Legal workbench and over 90 major online legal publisher to access full text documents

Call us at (603) 6201 5607 (Salina) or fax your registration to (603) 6201 5611 or
email to nursalina@crimsonlogic.com to reserve your place today!

This is an advertisement. If you would like to know more about Bar Council's advertising options, please contact us by email at advertise@malaysianbar.org.my.


Malaysia-Striking out and data protection

Subject: Striking out and data protection

Good day to you,
It's great pride and pleasure to share with you our employment law books:
1. Striking Out
Author: Nasser Hamid

2. Personal data protection
Author: Leo Desmond Pointon & Jeong Chun Phuoc

To Purchase, please kindly return back the order form with company stamp and signature.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further enquiry.
Thank you and wish you have a good day ahead!
Best regards,
Mandy Lim
Sales Account Manager
The Malaysia Current Law Journal Sdn Bhd
E1-2(2nd Floor), Jalan Selaman ½, Dataran Palma,
6800 Ampang, Selangor Darul Ehsan,Malaysia

This email is a copyright of MCLJ SDN BHD and may contain confidential information. If you are not the addressed recipient please delete all copies of this email and notify MCLJ SDN BHD. For full disclaimer please contact disclaimer@cljlaw.com


Malaysia-Whether a partnership would qualify as an unregistered company pursuant to Section314 of the Companies Act, 1965

In Thein Hong Teck & Ors v Mohd Afrizan bin Husain and anor appeal [2011] MLJU 944, it was held by the Federal Court that:-

"[31] We are of the view that that s. 314(1) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. As such it must be given its literal interpretation. Under the circumstances it is not the function of the Court to re-write the statute in a way in which it considers reasonable. In other words, the High Court was not entitled to read words into that provision. Where the words of the statute are plain and unambiguous, the Court ought to give effect to its plain meaning (see Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 W.L.R. 142; MBF Holdings Bhd v Emtex Corporation Bhd [1986] 1 MLJ 477). In Vickers. Sons and Maxim, Ltd v Evans [1910] AC 444, which was referred to by the Court of Appeal in United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v UJA Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2010] 6 CLJ 204 at p 208, Lord Loreburn, LC said:
My Lords, this appeal may serve to remind us of a truth sometimes forgotten, that this House sitting judicially does not sit for the purpose of hearing appeals against Acts of Parliament, or of providing by judicial construction what ought to be in an Act, but simply of construing what the Act says. We are considering here not what the Act ought to have said, but what it does say;  The appellants' contention involves reading words into this clause. The clause does not contain them; and we are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself.

[32] We agree with the Court of Appeal that in s. 314 (1) of the Act the term "unregistered company" includes -

(i)          a foreign company; and
(ii)         any partnership, association or company consisting of more than five members,
but does not include a company incorporated under the Act or under any corresponding previous written law.
[33] It is therefore our unanimous view that the words "a foreign company and any partnership, association or company consisting of more than 5 members" in s. 314 (1) of the Act ought to be read disjunctively. It is clear that the word "foreign" qualifies only the word "company'. In our view it is not correct to read the word "foreign" before the word "partnership" in construing that provision. The word "foreign" does not qualify the word "partnership". That is the plain meaning of that provision."

Proview eBook Bi-Weekly Offer - Get your copy at 20% off!

Proview eBook Bi-Weekly Offer - Get your copy at 20% off! ...