Interim Payment under Order 22A of the ROC

Order 22A rule 3 of the ROC provides for interim payment in respect of damages. The High Court in its recent decision of Tiew Sai Hong v Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors allowed interim payment of part of the outstanding medical bills owed by the Plaintiff. The High Court dissected Order 22A rule 3(1)(c) of the ROC where interim payment was allowed as the Court was of the opinion that the 1st Defendant would obtain judgment for substantial damages against the Plaintiff if the counterclaim proceeds to trial. … More Interim Payment under Order 22A of the ROC

Duty of Care to Protect Whistleblowers

In April 2020, the High Court of England and Wales held in the decision of Amjad Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Limited & Others [2020] EWHC 901 that there exists a duty of care to protect whistleblowers in circumstances that fall outside the scope of statutory protection regimes.

This article then dissects this decision and discusses the scenarios in which such a duty of care exists and the narrow factual matrix that such duty may be imposed to protect whistleblowers. … More Duty of Care to Protect Whistleblowers

Is a Company Allowed to Suspend Its Directors?

I previously wrote on recent issues relating to removal of directors of a private company. Unlike removal of directors which is expressly provided for under the Companies Act 2016 (“CA”), the CA is silent on suspension of directors. Is a company then allowed in law, to suspend its directors? Can a company argue that it has an implied power under the CA to suspend its directors?

In this article, I will cover two recent High Court decisions which held that a company is not allowed to suspend its directors and there is no implied power to do so. … More Is a Company Allowed to Suspend Its Directors?

Testifying on Behalf of a Company: No Express Authorisation Required

The Court of Appeal in Alliance Connext Sdn Bhd v Wangsa Budimas Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 CLJ 173 held that it is not mandatory for a person appearing for and on behalf of a company as its witness to be its current officers or expressly authorised by an officer of the company. It is also not a requirement under the law for an authorisation letter or a resolution from the company to be produced for such witness to testify on behalf of the company. … More Testifying on Behalf of a Company: No Express Authorisation Required

Battle of the Biscuits – Trade Mark Infringement Dispute

In early October, the Federal Court solved the battle of the biscuits by ruling that the Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd LEX biscuits have infringed the trademark held by Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd for its LEXUS biscuits. The court was set aside the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated that of the High Court.

This case update will provide an overview of the Federal Court decision of Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 407 regarding trade mark infringement. … More Battle of the Biscuits – Trade Mark Infringement Dispute

Pre-Trial Case Management: Bundle of Documents (Part 1)

With the introduction of Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012, the progress of a case is no longer left in the hands of the litigants but with the Court in the driver’s seat. Order 34 rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides for directions that the Court can make at a pre-trial case management, to ensure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings. This pre-trial case management series will come in two parts. The series will cover pre-trial documents that are typically contentious. The first series will cover bundle of documents. The upcoming series will cover the agreed facts and issues to be tried. … More Pre-Trial Case Management: Bundle of Documents (Part 1)