Friday, 24 March 2017

Malaysia-the standard of proof for a claim under sub-s 304(1) and whether an action against defendants under sub-s 304(1) need to be maintained in the same set of proceedings brought against the company

In the Court of Appeal case of Chin Chee Keong v Toling Corp (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 479, it was held that:-

"[26] Having established the requirements for a claim under sub-s 304(1), the next issue is the standard of proof that is required for such a claim.

[27] The learned High Court judge found the plaintiff's case proved on a balance of probabilities, rejecting the first defendant's submission that a standard of beyond reasonable doubt for a case of fraud in civil proceedings was required as was decided by the Federal Court in Yong Tim v Hoo Kok Chong & Anor [2005] 3 CLJ 229. The judge chose instead to apply the lower degree of proof as established in Siow Yoon Keong v H Rosen Engineering BV [2003] 4 MLJ 569, and followed in a series of decisions such as Cyber Village Sdn Bhd v Illustra IT (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] MLJU 1853; [2011] 4 CLJ 613; LMW Electronics Pte Ltd v Ang Chuang Juay & Ors [2010] 1 MLJ 185; Dato' Gan Ah Tee & Anor (in their capacity as liquidators of Par-Advance Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)) v Kuan Leo Choon & Ors [2012] 10 MLJ 706. It was the court's view that this was because sub-s 304(1) itself uses the terms 'if it appears'.

[28] Again, this point arose and was addressed in Aneka Melor Sdn Bhd v Seri Sabco (M) Sdn Bhd:
[29] Consequently, we agree with the learned High Court judge on the applicable standard of proof for a statutory claim under sub-s 304(1). Not so much because this is the standard under civil fraud but because sub-s 304(1) itself sets the standard of proof that must be met. The term if 'it appears' is deployed in the provision and this clearly indicates that a lower degree of proof is required. That lower degree of proof is on a balance of probabilities. It cannot go any lower than the civil burden of proof.

And, it was further held that:-

"[30] It is the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants that   sub-s 304(1) did not envisage the plaintiff maintaining two separate actions. It is counsel's submission that the wording of   sub-s 304(1) required the evidence of fraudulent trading to be uncovered in the course of winding up proceedings or in any proceedings against the company and, the action taken against the defendants in those same proceedings.
[31] Hence, the use of the words 'the court' as opposed to 'a court'; and the words 'on the application of the liquidator or creditor or contributory of the company' as opposed to words such as 'suit' or 'fresh proceedings'. Learned counsel's point is that this deliberate use of these words meant that the intention of Parliament was that   sub-s 304(1) claims are to be part of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company. The court was urged to read the words 'in the course of' conjunctively and applicable to both instances of winding up proceedings as well as any proceedings against a company.
[32] In essence, the submission here is that the action against both the company and the defendants must be taken in the same single action. That action may be to wind-up of the company; or any other proceedings against the company. It is in the course of either of these proceedings that evidence emerges of the fraudulent trading that the order under   sub-s 304(1) is sought against the defendants. Given that the proceedings before the High Court were not winding up proceedings or any proceedings against a company, the defendants contended that the claim must be dismissed.
[33] This argument was rejected at first instance. The High Court was of the view that   sub-s 304(1) did not require the court to make a declaration against directors of a company in the same action against the company. The application may be made in separate proceedings after proceedings had been taken against the company and judgment had been obtained against the company in those proceedings, as was the case in the present facts. 

[34] The court below observed that in Siow Yoon Keong, separate action by
 way of an originating summons seeking a declaration had been initiated to make Siow, the managing director personally liable. Although this issue was not taken up in that case, the learned High Court judge was of the considered opinion that if the court was of the view that   sub-s 304(1) was inapplicable, it would have ruled accordingly despite no arguments being raised on the point. In fact, the High Court permitted separate proceedings to be taken against the managing director.
[35] This was similarly the case in Cyber Village Sdn Bhd v Illustra IT (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors  [2010] MLJU 1853;  [2011] 4 CLJ 613; LMW Electronics Pte Ltd v Ang Chuang Juay & Ors  [2010] 1 MLJ 185; and Dato' Gan Ah Tee & Anor (in their capacity as liquidators of Par-Advance Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)) v Kuan Leo Choon & Ors  [2012] 10 MLJ 706. In Tang Eng Iron Works Co Ltd v Ting Ling Kiew & Anor  [1990] 2 MLJ 440, the court also agreed with the plaintiff's contention that an application under   sub-s 304(1) may also be initiated prior to winding up of the company.
[36] We agree with the further submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the action against the defendants are in any case, best taken in separate proceedings instead of in the same proceedings against the company. On a practical note,   sub-s 304(1) ought not to be read literally as the court must first make a finding against the company before it can make the declaratory order and other consequential orders against the defendants. The Supreme Court in Ting Ling Kiew & Anor v Tang Eng Iron Works Co Ltd  [1992] 2 MLJ 217;  [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 331 was of the view that actions under   sub-s 304(1) of the  Companies Act 1965 should not be determined by way of affidavit evidence but by writ action. Every opportunity ought to be afforded to defendants to lead evidence to defend themselves. That is best served in trial proceedings after the plaintiff has established itself as a creditor of the company which is precisely the case here.
[37] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn our attention to several decisions from Singapore where the practice and the approach is the same; that the proceedings personally against persons such as directors are launched in separate proceedings from those taken against the company. See M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Leow Tet Sin & Anor  [2015] SGHC 10;  [2015] 2 SLR 271; Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others  [2011] SGHC 228; Amrae Benchuan Trading Pte Ltd (in Liq) v Tan Te Teck Gregory  [2006] 4 SLR 969; Lim Teck Cheng v Wyno Marine Pte Ltd (in liquidation)  [1999] 4 SLR 673; Liquidator of Leong Seng Hin Piling Pte Ltd v Chan Ah Lek & Ors  [2007] 2 SLR 77.
 
[38] The position in the United Kingdom is quite different in several respects. Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 deals with fraudulent trading.
 It reads:



(1)             If in the course of the winding up of a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, the following has effect.
(2)             The Court, on the application of the liquidator may declare that any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of the business above-mentioned are to be liable to make such contributions (if any) to the company's assets as the Court thinks proper.

[39] First of all, it is quite clear that the UK position envisages only one instance when such declaratory orders of personal liability for the company's debts may be made against someone other than the company, and that is in the course of liquidation proceedings.
[40] Further, the application may only be taken by the liquidator. In the Malaysian scenario, the application may be initiated by the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company.
[41] Finally, the orders that may be made are more restricted under s 213. Instead of the orders that one sees under our   sub-s 304(1), the order that may be granted against such persons is to hold such persons liable to make such contributions (if any) to the company's assets as the court thinks proper. This is what happened in the facts in Morphitis v Bernasconi  [2001] 2 BCLC 1;  [2003] Ch 552 cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Aneka Melor.
[42] We have looked at the position in Australia and we agree with learned counsel for the defendant that s 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 is of little assistance. The terms of that provision are markedly different from our   sub-s 304(1).
[43] Having examined our provision very carefully, and bearing in mind the third requirement that must be met before a right of action under   sub-s 304(1) may be invoked, we therefore agree with the learned High Court judge in this regard, that the defendants do not need to be sued in the same suit taken against the company. Indeed, separate proceedings ought to be taken. Since the plaintiff is relying on the second limb of   sub-s 304(1), the plaintiff necessarily has to sue the company first, secure judgment in its favour which renders it the status of 'creditor' before the plaintiff can initiate an action under   sub-s 304(1).
 
[44] Therefore, an action against the defendants under   sub-s 304(1) need not be maintained in the same set of proceedings brought against the company."

Malaysia-Vexatious litigant

In Perak Industrial Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v Tan Boon Lee [2015] MLJU 1970, it was held that:-

"[23] Paragraph 17 of the schedule to CJA reads : 

Power to restrain any person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different persons, from instituting any legal proceedings in any court save by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette.


[24] Paragraph 17 affords clear statutory power for the court to declare a litigant a vexatious litigant and to grant a restraint order where certain conditions are satisfied. The rationale for making an order under paragraph 17 is to protect the public against the expense and inconvenience involved in responding to claims that have no factual or legal foundation and also to reduce or minimise the judicial time spent by courts in dealing with persistent and ill founded claims made without any legal or factual basis. 

[25] There is a long line of decided cases that makes it quite clear that, so long as the right of access to the court is not extinguished, a court is entitled to regulate its affairs so as to protect its process and the interests of other parties against whom vexatious litigation is habitually and persistently brought. 

[26] The characteristics of vexatious proceedings are well-established. They are set out by Abdul Malik Ishak JCA in Sim Kooi Soon v Malaysia Airline System (No. 2) [2011] 4 MLJ. His Lordship enunciated :
What is the hallmark of a vexatious litigant? The claimant who sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, is termed as a vexatious litigant. 
And a vexatious proceeding is one where the vexatious litigant had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience.


[27] In American Express (M) Sdn Bhd v Matthias Chang Wen Chieh [2012] 7 MLJ 489, the court was asked to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant. In allowing the application, Prasad Abraham J (as he then was) observed (at 491) : 

In determining this question the court will have to look at the whole sequence of litigation initiated by the defendant to see whether the defendant fell within the barometers of the said Act bearing in mind, the order being sought is rather draconian in its effects and should be exercised sparingly (see Re Vernazza [1959] 2 All ER 200) particularly at p 202 of the report where it was held: 
In determining whether proceedings were vexatious the court must look at the whole history of the matter, not solely at the question whether the pleadings had throughout disclosed a cause of action, and in the present case, so regarded, the order should be granted.


[28] The authorities illustrate that vexatious litigation concern repeated claims or applications in respect of one particular matter by which the litigant has become obsessed, commonly involving the same defendant or defendants. The real vice is the initiation or launching of proceedings that are ill founded and have no reasonable prospect of success. The court has a discretion under paragraph 17, whether to make an order upon the fulfilment of the statutory preconditions. The exercise of the discretion will depend on its assessment of where the interests of justice lie, taking into account on the one hand a citizen's right to initiate action in court and on the other the need to provide prospective defendants with a measure of protection against abusive and ill-founded claims. 

[29] An order under paragraph 17 does not act as a barrier to any future litigation but rather as a filter for unmeritorious cases. The effect of the order is simply to prevent a defendant from instituting or continuing proceedings without first obtaining the permission of the Court. If the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of the court's process and that there are reasonable grounds for those proceedings, the court will give the defendant permission to institute or continue them.
 Discussion and Decision
 
[30] Consequently my approach to this application against that background is as follows. Before any order can be made ,I must be satisfied that the preconditions have been fulfilled, namely, that the defendant has:

  • (i) 
    Habitually and persistently without any reasonable ground 
  • (ii) 
    Instituted vexatious proceedings and made vexatious applications in these proceedings against the plaintiffs." 


Malaysia-enforceability of confidentiality clauses in an employee or directors' contract of employment, and the further question of whether s 28 of the Contracts Act applies to confidentiality clauses to render them as unenforceable as a restraint of trade'

In Dynacast (Melaka) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Vision Cast Sdn Bhd & Anor [2016] 3 MLJ 417, it was held that:-

"[18] In their respective submissions learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants proposed to deal with leave questions 1, 2 and 4 together as 'they collectively deal with the central issue of the enforceability of confidentiality clauses in an employee or directors' contract of employment, and the further question of whether s 28 of the Contracts Act applies to confidentiality clauses to render them as unenforceable as a restraint of trade'. We agree with such approach.

[19] Hence, in relation to leave question 1 we would at the outset say that the proposition of law in Svenson Hair Center Sdn Bhd v Irene Chin Zee Ling [2008] 7 MLJ 903; [2008] 8 CLJ 386 should be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, in that case the protection of confidential information did not have any time limits because cl 7.02 of the employment agreement expressly stated that the 'Employee agrees that he shall not whether during or after the termination of this agreement without limit in point of time'. As such it depends very much on the term or terms of the agreed contractual obligation or obligations. For instance, in Maggbury Pty Ltd & Anor v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] 4 LRC 395; [2001] HCA 70 the High Court of Australia recognised a contractual term that made one party to observe the obligation of confidence 'forever'. 

[20] Further, in coming up with such proposition of law in Svenson Hair Centre v Irene Chin the learned judge rationalised that a contrary view would mean an ex-employee could exploit confidential information with impunity. All that is needed to do is to wait until the expiry of the restriction period. Such an outcome could not have been intended by any of the contracting parties as it would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality provision in an employment agreement. We wholly agree with the rationale. 

[21] Accordingly subject to the foregoing caveat and other principles of law and equity that may be applicable such as the doctrine of restraint of trade the answer to leave question 1 (should it be necessary to answer later on in this judgment) would be in the affirmative. In fact learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the proposition of law is a settled principle."

Malaysia-malicious prosecution

In Teang Soo Thong & Ors v Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad & Ors [2015] MLJU 1839, it was held that:-

"[12] Saya telah meneliti pliding plaintif dalam guaman ini dan juga pembelaan plaintif-plaintif dalam guaman pertama (defendan-defendan dalam guaman pertama) adalah mengenai subjek yang sama iaitu berkaitan kewajipan kontrak di bawah tiga (3) perjanjian dalam dokumen pelaburan. Isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah dalam kedua-dua guaman pertama dan guaman ini ialah sama ada berlaku kemungkiran terma-terma dokumen pelaburan. Adalah juga didapati berdasarkan penyata tuntutan plaintif dalam guaman ini asas tuntutan adalah kerana plaintif-plaintif tidak berpuas hati terhadap defendan-defendan yang membawa tindakan terhadap mereka dalam guaman pertama kerana plaintif-plaintif didakwa oleh defendan pertama telah memungkiri perjanjian-perjanjian dalam dokumen pelaburan. Tidak terdapat asas undang-undang atau timbulnya kausa tindakan jika sesuatu pihak itu memfailkan tindakan terhadap mana-mana pihak atas kemungkiran kontrak kecualilah tuntutan ganti rugi untuk malicious prosecution. Namun begitu seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes Lim Chee Kuo V The Pacific Bank Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 270 kausa tindakan untuk malicious prosecution hanya akan lengkap atau wujud apabila plaintif-plaintf membuktikan-

  • (i) 
    bahawa pendakwaan oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif di mahkamah yang mempunyai bidang kuasa berakhir dengan memihak kepada plaintif; 
  • (ii) 
    prosiding yang dibawa terhadap plaintif adalah berniat jahat; dan 
  • (iii) 
    prosiding yang dibawa terhadap plaintif adalah tanpa sebab yang munasabah. "

Malaysia-Talk : 'Companies Act 2016 & Directors' Duties'

Talk : 'Companies Act 2016 & Directors' Duties'
To:



SBC/CIR/016/2017
23rd March, 2017


Brochure (Download PDF)    Online Registration (URL Link)

Thank you.

Secretariat
Selangor Bar Committee.


















































Malaysia-Office Bearers of The Selangor Bar Committee 2017/2018, Invitation to Serve The Selangor Bar & Selangor Bar Subscription (2017)

Office Bearers of The Selangor Bar Committee 2017/2018, Invitation to Serve The Selangor Bar & Selangor Bar Subscription (2017)
To:



SBC/CIR/008/2017
03rd March, 2017


OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SELANGOR BAR COMMITTEE 2017/2018

TO : ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SELANGOR BAR


We refer to the above matters and are pleased to inform that the following are the duly elected committee members of the Selangor Bar Committee for the year 2017/18.

Chairman : A.G. Kalidas

Honorary Secretary : Bernard Scott

Bar Representative : Salim Bashir

Sub-committees and Chairpersons :



Please find the following circulars attached :-

1) Invitation To Serve The Selangor Bar & Selangor Bar Subscription

2) Subscription Form for the year 2017


Thank you,

Secretariat,
Selangor Bar Committee.



 






























Malaysia-Third Circular on Parking Arrangement at Shah Alam Court Complex

Third Circular on Parking Arrangement at Shah Alam Court Complex
To:


SBC/CIR/015/2017
23rd March, 2017
Dear Members of the Bar,


Further to our previous circulars, SBC/CIR/012/2017 dated 13th March, 2017 & SBC/CIR/013/2017 dated 16th March, 2017 respectively, the Chairman of the Selangor Bar Committee had actively engaged with the Puan Pengarah of Mahkamah Selangor on the issue of parking for members of the Bar in the areas surrounding the Court  Complex.

As advised previously, the Puan Pengarah in turn met with the MBSA and a resolution was arrived at that meeting as per the enclosed letter dated 22ndMarch, 2017. Also attached herewith the parking location plan.

Kindly take note that this parking arrangement is a temporary measure and in particular, kindly take note of the following with effect from 22nd March, 2017:


a.      Road side parking is only allowed on Jalan Persiaran Pegawai from 8.00 am to 11.00 am (Mondays to Fridays);
b.      Cars are only allowed to be parked on the left and right shoulder of that road only;
c.      No double parking;
d.      No parking on the bicycle lanes;
e.      No parking at the corners along the said road; and
f.        No parking on the kerb

The Selangor Bar Committee will continue to engage with the relevant authorities to reduce the restrictions on the time allowed for parking and to make available other options for parking.


Thank you.

A.G. Kalidas
Chairman,
Selangor Bar Committee



 

Malaysia- Implementation of E-Filing through E-Court System (Phase 2) at Temerloh Court Complex

Implementation of E-Filing through E-Court System (Phase 2) at Temerloh Court Complex





___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Circular No 064/2017
Dated 24 Mar 2017

To Members of the Malaysian Bar

Implementation of E-Filing through E-Court System (Phase 2)
at Temerloh Court Complex

We refer to Bar Council Circular No 275/2016 entitled "Expansion of E-Court System Throughout Malaysia | Briefing Sessions in Ayer Keroh and Kuantan", dated 9 Dec 2016, in which we informed Members regarding the expansion of the e-Court/e-Kehakiman system (Phase 2) to all courts throughout Peninsular Malaysia.

We have been notified by the Deputy Registrar of the e-Court Division of the Federal Court of Malaysia, Hamidah bt Mohamed Deril, that the e-filing system through the e-Court sytem (Phase 2) will be implemented at the Temerloh Court Complex on 3 Apr 2017 (Monday). 

Briefing sessions for Members will be held on 30 and 31 Mar 2017 (Thursday and Friday).

The relevant portion of the notice is reproduced below for your reference.

Should you have any enquiries, please contact Assayidatun Najwa bt Muhammad Nasution by telephone at 03-8880 9527, or by email at ekehakiman@kehakiman.gov.my.

Thank you.

Kenny Lai Choe Ken and Desmond Ho Chee Cheong
Co-Chairpersons
Court Liaison Committee


21 Mac 2017

PELAKSANAAN PEMFAILAN SECARA ONLINE MELALUI SISTEM e-KEHAKIMAN FASA 2 DI MAHKAMAH TEMERLOH

Dengan segala hormatnya saya di arah merujuk kepada perkara di atas.

2.         Untuk makluman Tuan, Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia (PKPMP) akan dijangka melaksanakan Sistem eKehakiman Fasa 2 di Mahkamah Temerloh pada 3 April 2017 (Isnin) dan latihan penggunaan sistem akan diadakan pada 30 hingga 31 Mac 2017 (Khamis-Jumaat). Sistem ini mengkehendaki peguam untuk membuat pemfailan kes jenayah dan sivil ke Mahkamah Temerloh secara online dari pejabat firma guaman masing-masing sebagaimana yang telah dilaksanakan di Kompleks Mahkamah Melaka dan Kompleks Mahkamah Kuantan sebelum ini.

3.         Sebagai persediaan bagi menggunakan sistem tersebut, firma guaman dikehendaki untuk mendapatkan eCourt Personal Certificate (token) dari syarikat pembekal Augmented Technology Sdn. Bhd. sebelum tarikh 3 April 2017 bagi membolehkan peguam membuat pemfailan secara online ke Mahkamah Temerloh sebaik sahaja sistem tersebut dilaksanakan. Permohonan untuk mendapatkan eCourt Personal Certificate (token) tersebut boleh dibuat dengan mengisi borang yang disediakan di laman web syarikat pembekal seperti yang berikut:

    Alamat            :        Augmented Technology Sdn. Bhd. (982056-V)
                                   Head Office & Call Centre
                                   38 & 40, Jalan BM 7/19, Bandar Bukit Mahkota
                                   43000 Kajang, Selangor.
    No. Telefon     :        03-89260550
    Laman web     :       http://ecourt.aug-tech.com/

 4.         Justeru, Bahagian ini memohon kerjasama dari pihak Tuan untuk membuat hebahan selanjutnya berkenaan perkara ini kepada peguam yang beramal di seluruh Malaysia untuk mengelakkan berlakunya sebarang kesulitan dalam memfailkan kes secara online ke Mahkamah Temerloh selepas tarikh 3 April 2017.

5.         Sebarang pertanyaan lanjut boleh dikemukakan dengan menghubungi Puan Assayidatun Najwa binti Muhammad Nasution di talian 03-8880 9527/010-2326535 atau melalui emel ekehakiman@kehakiman.gov.my. Segala kerjasama dan tindakan awal dari pihak Tuan dalam perkara ini amat dihargai dan didahului dengan ucapan terima kasih.

Sekian, terima kasih.

"BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA"

Saya yang menurut perintah,

HAMIDAH BINTI MOHAMED DERIL
Timbalan Pendaftar,
Bahagian e-Kehakiman,
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia,
Aras 3, Istana Kehakiman,
Presint 3, 62506 Putrajaya.
Tel : 03 88803583


This circular may also be accessed here.



MALAYSIA - GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT - SHAH ALAM HIGH COURT COMPANIES WINDING-UP PETITION NO. 28NCC-285-06/2016 TRIP GUARD SDN BHD v IMMANUEL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD












Malaysia-LEXPO — Give Your Law Firm the Leading Edge in Recruitment! (29 April 2017)

LEXPO — Give Your Law Firm the Leading Edge in Recruitment! (29 April 2017)





__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Circular No 063/2017
Dated 23 Mar 2017

To Members of the Malaysian Bar

LEXPO — in Collaboration with UM Law Society 2017 (29 April 2017)
Give Your Law Firm the Leading Edge in Recruitment!

The Bar Council and the Law Society of the Universiti Malaya ("UM Law Society") are delighted to bring you the third instalment of LEXPO ("Malaysian Legal Expo"), details of which are as follows:

Date:     29 Apr 2017 (Saturday)
Time:    10:00 am to 5:00 pm
Venue:  Auditorium Kompleks Perdana Siswa, Universiti Malaya

Background and Objective

"LEXPO — in Collaboration with UM Law Society 2017" ("LEXPO 2017") aims to reach out to a greater range of potential talents and employers.
 
LEXPO 2017 seeks to bring together all aspects of a career in law — from options in education, to job prospects in the legal services, and related sectors.  This one-of-a-kind exposition will provide law firms with concrete and targeted opportunities to network and increase their exposure, while establishing an advantageous platform to connect with, and put a face to, potential talent.

In addition to law firms, exhibitors will include a range of corporate and other entities that have openings for individuals with legal training and experience.  This strategic array of exhibitors will undoubtedly attract a wider and more diverse crowd to LEXPO 2017.

Opportunities for Your Law Firm

We invite law firms to participate in LEXPO 2017 as exhibitors, with the following exclusive and favourable rates for exhibition booths:
  • Type A booth, comprising a table setting of 4 square metres: RM1,590 per booth (inclusive of GST); and
  • Type B booth, comprising a shell scheme booth of 9 square metres: RM2,650 per booth (inclusive of GST).
A 10% discount is available for law firms that take up two or more exhibition booths.

We also welcome participation by law firms as merchandise sponsors.

How to Book

Information regarding the Sponsorship Packages is attached, which includes the Exhibition & Sponsorship Booking Form.  Full payment is required within seven days of the date of booking, and exhibition booths will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis.

Law firms may complete and submit the attached Exhibition & Sponsorship Booking Form by email to erin@malaysianbar.org.my.

Should you have any enquiries, please contact Erin Samuel, Public Relations Assistant, by telephone at 03-2050 2037, or by email at erin@malaysianbar.org.my.

We look forward to your support for LEXPO 2017.

Thank you.

Roger Chan Weng Keng
Secretary
Malaysian Bar


This circular and the attachment may also be accessed here.



School's Out. Let's entertain your kids at dimsum Playland. FREE admission for all dimsum members

School's Out. Let's entertain your kids at dimsum Playland. FREE admission for all dimsum members






If you can't view this newsletter, please click here
Dear SIAW SIONG TIEH,
School is still out and dimsum is in to entertain kids of all ages at dimsum Playland. We've got a lot of fun activities and interactive games to keep your little ones occupied. Get FREE admission for all dimsum members.
Date   : 24 – 26 March 2017 (Friday – Sunday)
Time   : 10am – 10pm
Venue : V Boulevard Entrance, Sunway Velocity Mall, Cheras
Limited to first 1000 participants. Come early for the fun!
If you do not wish to receive further information, updates or rewards from Star Media Group, please click here to unsubscribe.
Copyright© 1995-2016 Star Media Group Berhad (ROC 10894D)
dimsum.my dimsum.my

Poultry feed milling machine; Carbon steel plate; Grinding wheels; and more

Poultry feed milling machine; Carbon steel plate; Grinding wheels; and more






Machinery & Parts: See Top 20 Most Popular products and Hot New Releases
View this e-mail online
Global Sources Machinery & Parts
Global Sources Machinery & Parts
Mar 22, 2017. Issue 55
Forward to a colleague
Updated daily and system-generated ranking
Top 20 Most Popular Products:
» Construction Machinery
» Industrial Machinery
» Industrial Parts
» Industrial Tooling
» Manufacturing Machinery
» All Machinery & Parts
Construction Machinery
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
3.5T diesel forklift truck
3.5T diesel forklift truck
Inquire Now
No.2
Bulldozer
Bulldozer
Inquire Now
Learn how to grow your online business at the Global Sources Summit
Learn how to grow your online business at the Global Sources Summit
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
LB2500Asphalt Mixing Plant
LB2500Asphalt Mixing Plant
Inquire Now
No.2
Blades
Blades
Inquire Now
Industrial Machinery
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
Home Use 10kW Silent Diesel Generator
Home Use 10kW Silent Diesel Generator
Inquire Now
No.2
Walking tractor
Walking tractor
Inquire Now
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
Poultry feed milling machine
Poultry feed milling machine
Inquire Now
No.2
Ceramic simulation eggs
Ceramic simulation eggs
Inquire Now
Industrial Parts
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
Black Steel Tube Scaffolding
Black Steel Tube Scaffolding
Inquire Now
No.2
Carbon Cold Drawn Seamless Steel Boiler Tubes
Carbon Cold Drawn Seamless Steel Boiler Tubes
Inquire Now
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
Z40~Z275 Hot-dipped galvanized steel coil
Z40~Z275 Hot-dipped galvanized steel coil
Inquire Now
No.2
Carbon steel plate
Carbon steel plate
Inquire Now
Industrial Tooling
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
Stamped Bending Part
Stamped Bending Part
Inquire Now
No.2
Grinding wheels
Grinding wheels
Inquire Now
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
CNC Machining Custom Robot Toy Model Prototype
CNC Machining Custom Robot Toy Model Prototype
Inquire Now
No.2
diamond saw blade
diamond saw blade
Inquire Now
Manufacturing Machinery
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
3.7kg multifunction 3D printer
3.7kg multifunction 3D printer
Inquire Now
No.2
A4 printing paper cutting machine
A4 printing paper cutting machine
Inquire Now
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
Semi automatic round bottle labeling machine
Semi automatic round bottle labeling machine
Inquire Now
No.2
Ultraviolet Laser Marking Machine for USB Marking
Ultraviolet Laser Marking Machine for USB Marking
Inquire Now
All Machinery & Parts
Top 20 Most Popular  »
No.1
Stun gun
Stun gun
Inquire Now
No.2
3.7kg multifunction 3D printer
3.7kg multifunction 3D printer
Inquire Now
Top 20 Hot New Releases  »
No.1
Z40~Z275 Hot-dipped galvanized steel coil
Z40~Z275 Hot-dipped galvanized steel coil
Inquire Now
No.2
Carbon steel plate
Carbon steel plate
Inquire Now
Global Sources Gifts & Home show
Analyst's Choice
» Auto Parts & Accessories
» Fashion Accessories & Footwear
» Fashion Apparel & Fabrics
» Gifts & Premiums
» Hardware
» Home Products
» Machinery & Parts
See All
Most read stories
1) 1280x720p body camera supports 4G LTE
2) Headless surveying, mapping UAV
3) Asphalt paver has 12.5m paving width
4) FDM 3D printer has 50 to 100mm/s build speed [Startup Launchpad]
5) Wireless weather station with color LCD
Visit specialized sites
» Auto Parts & Accessories
» Consumer Electronics
» Drones & Robotics
» Electronic Components
» Fashion Accessories & Footwear
» Fashion Apparel & Fabrics
» Gifts & Premiums
» Hardware
» Home Products
» Machinery & Parts
» Mobile Electronics
» Security Products
» Smart Living

Browse Categories
Industrial Machinery

Diesel generators
Gasoline generators
Generator parts
Tractors
High-pressure washers
Livestock equipment
AC/DC switching adapters
Universal AC/DC adapters
Waterproof LED power supplies
Open frame power supplies
Construction Machinery

Concrete mixers
Scissor lifts
Core drilling rigs
Crane trucks
Concrete pumps
Construction machinery parts
Tower cranes
Bulldozers
Road rollers
Plate compactors
Manufacturing Machinery

Liquid filling machines
Bagging & wrapping system
Laser cutting machines
CNC machines
Laser engraving machines
CNC routers
Concrete block & slip forming machines
Laser marking machines
Woodworking machines
3D printers
Industrial Tooling

CNC machined parts
Stainless steel die casting parts
Injection molds
Metal stamping
Plastic molded parts
Precision turned parts
Investment casting
Metal forming parts
Diamond saw blades
Drill bits
Industrial Parts

Steel pipes
Galvanized steel coils
Galvanized steel pipes
Carbon steel pipes
Ball valves
Prepainted coils
Steel coils
Seamless steel pipes
Stainless steel pipes
Stainless steel coils
Industrial Safety

Safety gloves
Smoke detectors/alarms
Reflective safety products
Industrial safety boots
Safety belts & accessories
Construction safety nets
Safety glasses
Safety helmets
Fire alarms
Respirators
Measurement & Analysis Instruments

Precision measuring instruments
Borescopes
Temperature & humidity meters
Nondestructive testing instruments
Liquid level controllers
Single-phase power meters
Moisture meters
Pressure gauges
Voltmeters
Multi-phase power meters

Questions, suggestions? Drop us an email at editor@globalsources.com

Get the GlobalSources.com app

Global Sources 45 years


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

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