Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
Berita Terkini
This update delves into a case where two individuals received substantial sentences for their roles in a violent home invasion, highlighting the judicial rationale behind consecutive sentences and the balance between public safety and offender rehabilitation.
This legal update examines the complexities of issuing bankruptcy notices on judgments older than six years, highlighting the necessity of obtaining court leave under Order 46 rule 2(1)(a).
This legal update addresses the critical importance of complying with procedural requirements under Section 348 of the Companies Act 2016 in statutory derivative actions. It highlights the consequences of failing to provide mandatory notice and the necessity of naming alleged wrongdoer directors in the leave application, which could result in the Leave Order being set aside.
Illustrative Scenario X and Y own adjacent properties with a common border. X constructed buildings on his land, which encroached onto 0.28 hectares of Y’s
Illustrative Scenario X accompanied his friend, SP4, to the IPK Melaka in connection with an investigation involving a fight with a Police Officer. While waiting,
Illustrative Scenario In this scenario, the property in question was registered under the name of X (the “deceased”). Y alleged that X owed him a
Illustrative Scenario X and Y are siblings. In 1980, their father started a sundry shop business and used the earnings to purchase a piece of
Illustrative Scenario X was caught with two slabs of plant material in his sling bag, which was later identified as cannabis. X’s defense was that
This analysis examines the legal interplay between strata management by-laws and state mandates, particularly focusing on the regulation of short-term rentals within managed communities.
X’s manual operation of boom gates due to unpaid fees does not constitute an actionable nuisance under common law, focusing on community security over individual inconvenience.
In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.
In maritime charterparty agreements, fouling clauses outline who is responsible for the costs and time associated with hull cleaning when marine organisms accumulate due to specific operating conditions. These clauses are crucial for clarifying liabilities, particularly when charterers operate in warm, bio-rich waters or leave vessels idle, as fouling can significantly impact performance and fuel efficiency. Understanding the scope of a fouling clause helps charterers navigate potential costs and ensure clear terms for post-redelivery responsibilities, as highlighted in cases like The “Globe Danae” [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309.
In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.
In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.
In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.
In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.
MY 
EN 
ZH