Category: Uncategorized

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 →

"As it is undisputed that on 11 July 2019, the Respondent sent the cause papers via registered post, it is deemed good service.Hence, for the purpose of a body corporate, the date when the service is deemed to be effected is the date when the cause papers were sent via prepaid registered post to address … Continue reading Syarikat Muar Quarry Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1597 →

"... In the present case the guarantee contains a clause which enables the bank by producing a certificate of indebtedness by its officer to dispense with legal proof of the actual indebtedness of the respondents. Clause 19 provides thus "A certificate by an officer of the bank as to the money and liabilities for the … Continue reading Citibank NA v Ooi Boon Leong & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 282 FC →

“Their Lordships must therefore turn to the evidence that was before the High Court on the hearing of the application, bearing in mind that if there appears to be any conflict of evidence which is not on the face of it implausible, such a conflict ought not to be disposed of on affidavit evidence only. … Continue reading Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan [1979] 1 MLJ 212 PC →

[9] Obviously, the intention behind the provision [Aturan 10 & 13 KKM 2012] is to ensure that the action has been brought to the knowledge of the defendant or someone authorised by him to accept service of the writ before the court takes the drastic step of sealing the JID with all the attendant consequences. [10] … Continue reading Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 FC →