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

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

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)

Conditional Stay Pending Arbitration: Barred from Raising the Defence of Limitation

In this article, I dissect the High Court case of Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd v Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd, where Liza Chan JC granted a stay of all proceedings pending reference to arbitration with the condition that the First Defendant is barred from raising the defence of limitation in the arbitration proceedings. … More Conditional Stay Pending Arbitration: Barred from Raising the Defence of Limitation

Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Are They Exclusive Instead?

Is there a distinction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses? Some may argue that in the latter, parties still have the option to not comply with the jurisdiction clause in the agreement. The Court of Appeal in United Overseas Bank Limited v United Securities Sdn Bhd & 6 Ors shed some light on this issue. It was held that a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is still an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The only distinction between an exclusive and a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is that both parties are bound by the former and only the defendant is bound by the latter. … More Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Are They Exclusive Instead?

Joint Liability vs Joint and Several Liability: Artificial or Real Distinction?

When a judgment creditor obtains a judgment sum against several judgment debtors, the judgment creditor would typically recover the entire judgment sum against each of the judgment debtors. Throughout these years, we have seen some judgment debtors who sought to limit their liability to equal proportions of the judgment sum on the ground that the judgment does not expressly impose joint and several liability but only joint liability instead. This then boils down to the issue of whether there is a real distinction between a judgment which imposes joint liability, as compared to a judgment for joint and several liability. The Federal Court in its recent decision of Edwin Cassian resolved this issue. In this article, we analyse the Federal Court’s reasoning in Edwin Cassian as well as the diverging Court of Appeal authorities before this. … More Joint Liability vs Joint and Several Liability: Artificial or Real Distinction?