Author: nickvooi

On lifting the corporate veil, Professor Gower in his Principles of Modern Company Law, (7th Ed), under the heading 'Interests of Justice' says the followings: Although the interests of justice may provide the policy impetus for creating exceptions to the doctrines of separate legal personality and limited liability, as an exception in itself it suffers … Continue reading Lifting the corporate veil →

Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752 CA per Abdul Malik Ishak JCA: You cannot simply raise the, veil of incorporation just because you feel that it is in the interest of justice. But if there is fraud, then the veil of incorporation may be lifted. But here, there was … Continue reading Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752 CA →

Law Kam Loy v Boltex Sdn Bhd[2005] 3 CLJ 355 per Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was): In my judgment, in the light of the more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries Plc, it is not open to the courts to disregard the corporate veil purely on the ground that … Continue reading Law Kam Loy v Boltex Sdn Bhd[2005] 3 CLJ 355 →

In Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] 1 Ch 1 at p. 18, Millet LJ made the following observation on the question of who is a fiduciary: A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a … Continue reading Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] 1 Ch 1 →

Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Bin Murid [1981] 1 MLJ 143 FC, per Chang Min Tat FJ “Clearly the court has no power under any application in the same action to alter vary or set aside a judgment regularly obtained after it has been entered or an order after it is drawn up, except … Continue reading Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Bin Murid [1981] 1 MLJ 143 FC →

"[8] Where documents are served by post, there is a rebuttable presumption of law under section 12 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 that service of the document has been effected in the ordinary course of postage. To my mind, the presumption of service is obviously necessitated by the fact that service was not … Continue reading Clarion (Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad v Permintex Sanko Technologies Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 401 →

"To conjure or add something out of that brief 'second portion', which had not been provided for, would tantamount to importing certain ingredients that were not envisaged by Parliament. In fact under sub-r 1(1) of O 10, nothing is indicated that the plaintiff must evidentially prove that the named person in the writ must be … Continue reading Pengkalen Concrete Sdn Bhd v. Chow Mooi & Anor [2003] 3 MLJ 67 →

"It makes no difference that the AR card bore the signature of someone ostensibly on behalf of Material Handling and Engineering Sdn Bhd. No explanation was vouchsafed to this court as to why if this individual was not authorized to receive mail on behalf of the first defendant he had signed the AR card concerned. … Continue reading Malaysian Building Society Bhd v Lim Kheng Kim [1988] 3 MLJ 175 →

"I regret I find no merit in this argument of the first defendant. In the case of a locally incorporated company, the law allows for at least four modes of service of a writ against it, namely, by leaving a copy of it at the registered office, or by sending a copy of it by … Continue reading Mayban Finance Bhd v Umas Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 4 MLJ 276 →