COMPANIES AND CORPORATION – DIRECTORS – REMOVAL

X and Y were the only two directors in B Sdn Bhd. X was also employed as a paid staff of B Sdn Bhd. However, unhappy with working with Y, X submitted his resignation letter to resign from “all current holding position”.

3 years later, X complained that he was wrongfully removed as director of B Sdn Bhd and was replaced with a 3^rd party.

Q. Can X say that he only resigned as staff but not director?

A. No. Because the wording “all current holding position” in his resignation letter includes directorship and the position as staff. X has to make it clear in his letter of resignation that he is resigning as staff and not director of B Sdn Bhd.

Q. Can X complain that he was wrongfully removed as director after 3 years?

A. No. Since there was a lapse of 3 years, it was deemed unreasonable. Generally, a reasonable person who was wrongfully removed as a director of a company would write to the company promptly to enquire about the reason of him being removed from his position. To lodge a complaint 3 years later appears to be unreasonable. As such, the court will likely presume X’s resignation was voluntary.

Q. Can Y appoint another director to fill the vacancy as a result of X’s resignation?

A. It depends on the Article of Association (“AOA”) of the Company (if the company is set up before 31 January 2017). By default, the Fourth Schedule of the old Companies Act of 1965 (“CA 1965“) provides that the remaining director can appoint any person to be director to fill a casual vacancy when a director resigns (Article 68). If the AOA of B Sdn Bhd is based on the Fourth Schedule, then Y (who is the only remaining director) can appoint another director to fill the vacancy from X’s resignation.

For company that establishes after Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) came into force, Section 208(4) of the CA 2016 also allows the Board to appoint a new director.

Q. Can X insist that his consent is required to appoint new director?

A. No. Because X has tendered his resignation. This is notwithstanding there is a minimum of 2 directors requirement under the old CA 1965.

Sorotan Terkini

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami