Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
法律资讯
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………..
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.
Often business owners find themselves vulnerable when dealing with employees who had turned rogue and took confidential information from the company. What are the legal protection against these employees?
There are two types of dissolution of a Company under Companies Act 2016, namely striking off and winding up. The process for striking off is fairly straightforward and cost effective where a company is highly advisable to go for this alternative if it is able to meet the requirement of striking off. On the other hand, the winding up process is lengthy and carries a relatively higher cost compared to striking off application. The company only goes to this alternative if it cannot meet the requirement to strike off.
Can I sue directors of the company for cheating? Can the directors claim that you are to sue the company and not them by relying on the principle of separate legal personality?
Can a director of a company make payments to himself or divert funds to third party after a winding up petition is presented and served?
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.
Summary and Facts In Smart Gain Shipping Co Ltd v Langlois Enterprises Ltd [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309, the English
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.
ZH 
EN 
MY