Lifting of Corporate Veil – Whether action can be taken against the directors of a company for a company debt. Case: Chin Chee Keong v Toling Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 4 MLRA 180 CA Brief Facts: The plaintiff [Toling] is a supplier of a plastic resin used in the manufacture of plastic products. TheRead more >

Sexual Harassment – Whether there is a valid cause of action for a civil claim on the grounds of sexual harassment under the existing laws of Malaysia. Case: Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v. Asmah Hj Mohd Nor [2016] 6 CLJ 346 FC Brief Facts: The appellant was the General Manager of the Risk Management DepartmentRead more >

Contract – Whether the bank can rely on exclusion and limitation clauses in agreement for hire to dispute liability. Case: United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Lee Yaw Lin & Anor , [2016] 4 CLJ 871 Brief Facts: United Overseas Bank (the “Bank”), entered into an agreement with Lee Yaw Lin and her hus-band (“YawRead more >

Trespass – Whether inspection on restaurant premises is lawful or conducted with mala fide (bad intention). Case: JMJ Food & Beverages Sdn Bhd v Mohamad Zukrillah Ismail & Ors [2016] 4 CLJ 368 Brief Facts: The JMJ Food and Beverages [JMJ] was the owner of a restaurant known as the Tandoor Grill (‘the restaurant’), aRead more >

Legal Employment – Whether a non-Muslim could be admitted as a Peguam Syarie to repre-sent parties in any proceedings before the Syariah Court in Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur. Case: Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan v Victoria Jayaseele Martin and Another [2016] 4 CLJ 12 Brief Facts: The appellants were the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah PersekutuanRead more >

Contract – Whether vacant possession delivered to purchaser before occurrence of fire. Case: Lucy Wong Nyuk King & Anor v Hwang Mee Hiong [2016] 4 CLJ 813 Brief Facts: The appellants (“Lucy”) were the co-proprietors of a double storey intermediate terraced shophouse (“the property”). Lucy agreed to sell the property to the respondent (“Hwang”) forRead more >

Company – Whether it was impracticable to call for a meeting and conduct a meeting. Case: Tamabina Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nakamichi Corporation Berhad [2016] 2 MLRA 649 Brief Facts: The respondent (“Nakamichi”) had purchased 51{17537d436ed2421b601d4e8347a4bca0113a3bc001127a695927b11585f47eb2} of shares in the 1st appellant (“Tamabina”). The 2nd appellant (Lai Yun Fung, “LYF”) was a Director andRead more >