Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
News and Updates
WILL – SECRET TRUST – TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
Can you challenge the validity of a will on the grounds that it was not made with a conscious mind?
LAND LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION
Termination of co-proprietorship – Land office or court?
MAREVA INJUNCTION – FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE JUDGMENT
How can I freeze a bank account? – Mareva Injunction.
SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA
The Hague-Visby Rules were recently on 15.7.2021 incorporated to replace the Hague Rules used in Malaysia. However, not all the provisions in Hague-Visby Rules apply. The following table will set out the relevant changes made in the amended COGSA.
ADMIRALTY – SHIP ARREST – JUDICIAL SALE PENDENTE LITE – WASTING ASSET
When will an arrested vessel become a wasting asset? An analysis of the condition on MV Yih Shen, one of the first few vessels sold by the court in a judicial sale pendente lite proceeding.
ADMIRALTY – SHIP ARREST – SHERIFF’S EXPENSES
What is Admiralty Sheriff’s expenses? Who pays the Sheriff’s Expenses? The pitfall of Admiralty arrest.
ADMIRALTY – MARITIME LIEN
What is maritime lien? What type of claim is classed as Maritime Lien? What is the significant of having a maritime lien?
COMPANY LAW – DIRECTOR – TRANSFER OR DIVERSION OF FUNDS TO THIRD PARTY – WINDING UP
Can a director of a company make payments to himself or divert funds to third party after a winding up petition is presented and served?
CONTRACT LAW – EXCLUSION CLAUSE –UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER
What can you do when one party relies on an exclusion clause that absolves any liability against them in the event of a dispute?
Categories
Recent Legal Updates
STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?
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.
ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY
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.
ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS
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.
COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS
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.
COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT
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.
JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD
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.
EN 
ZH 
MY