Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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 3rd 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.

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

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.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

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.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

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.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

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.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

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.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们