Foreign vs. local company company in Malaysia
how foreigners can start a company in Malaysia, and the benefits of each types of business entities permit foreign-ownership.
Berita Terkini
how foreigners can start a company in Malaysia, and the benefits of each types of business entities permit foreign-ownership.
What are the consequences if a company refused to give true and accurate information to shareholder and director? Can shareholder and director compel the company to furnish the relevant documents?
What is mandatory injunction? Under what circumstances a person can be compelled to perform certain act? What are the evidence that the rightful owner needs to show in order to claim his goods back?
ALL ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS ARE BOUND TO RETURN THE STAKEHOLDER SUM TO CLIENTS
What is specific relief? How can properties be recovered under the rule of equity? Part 1: Recovery possession of Immovable property
What amounts to sexual harassment and what can I do when it happens at my workplace?
Corruption has the potential to harm our country’s economy. What measures has our Malaysian government made to address this problem?
What is the right to citizenship of children born overseas to Malaysian mothers? Can they apply for their Malaysian citizenship?
Defamation – Parliamentary proceeding is protected by absolute privilege
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.
The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.
In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.
In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.
In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.
In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.