FAMILY LAW- DIVORCE- MAINTENANCE
Can an ex-spouse be entitled to additional maintenance after a Decree Nisi has been ordered by the court?
News and Updates
Can an ex-spouse be entitled to additional maintenance after a Decree Nisi has been ordered by the court?
A contract was formed between two corporate entities. Can a third party jump in and claim there is a contract with the third party?
What amounts to misrepresentation in a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). If there is misrepresentation, can the purchaser terminate the contract?
What can the adopted parents of an abandoned child rely on to get citizenship?
Is my business eligible for an increased export allowance?
Do fair comments made based on facts are not defamatory in nature?
Does a doctor owe a duty of care to his patients?
You were charged being in possession of a non-schedule weapon to which you pleaded guilty. The charge term was subsequently modified and was not communicated back to you. What are your legal rights?
When a breach of contract occurs, the parties have mutually agreed to hire an independent auditor to evaluate and assess the damages. If you are later unhappy with the auditor’s report, can you challenge it?
Can you be held accountable for outstanding tax due by the company for the year of assessment before you were appointed as a director?
In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.
Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.
In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.
In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.
In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.
In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.