TORT – TO COMPEL THE RETURN OF GOODS TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNER

A and B entered into a business agreement. To save up start-up costs, A brought his own equipment to the business premises owned by B. However, the agreement broke down and B refused to allow A to enter into the premises to take back his goods.

Q: Can A get back his goods and how?

A: Yes. However, A must first prove he is the rightful owner of the goods. He can support his ownership by showing the invoices, proof of purchases and delivery orders of the goods.

Q: What happens if B refused to return the property to A?

A: A can apply to court for mandatory injunction to compel B to return the goods. A mandatory injunction is a form of specific relief that redresses the losses suffered by rightful owner. As long as there is evidence that B has actual possession and control of the goods belonging to A, he is bound to return the property to the rightful owner A. Saying I don’t know where the good is isn’t enough.

Q: What are the relevant sections that govern mandatory injunction in Malaysia? A: Sections 4, 9 & 53 of Specific Relief Act 1950.

Recent Post

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »

TIME’S UP: NAVIGATING THE 12-YEAR LIMITATION

In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Read More »

OVERVIEW OF TORRENS SYSTEMS IN MALAYSIA

Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code 1965, Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?