In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

テーマ： 【タイ】仲裁手続に関するクラス・アクション制度の創設 【インドネシア】Eコマース事業に関する新たな商業大臣規制の制定 【ミャンマー】 (1)： モン州における新経済特区の開発計画の公表 (2)： 最近の商業省の動き 【マレーシア】COVID-19影響軽減のための暫定措置法案提出 【シンガポール】倒産・リストラクチャリング・解散法の施行 【フィリピン】遠隔地からの株主総会及び取締役会への出席

MHM Asian Legal Insightsは、アジア各国における最新の法律情報をタイムリーにお届けするニュースレターです。

In the recent Federal Court case of Abdul Rashid bin Mohamad Isa v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2024] MLJU 1518, the core issue that arose in the appeal was whether the withdrawal of the Creditor’s Petition constituted a termination of the entire bankruptcy proceedings including the Bankruptcy Notice served on the Judgment Debtor

BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE

Introduction

Typically, once an order has been drawn up and sealed, the court becomes functus officio and has no power to vary or set aside the same. However, an exception to this rule is where an order has been irregularly obtained. This exception was recently expounded on in the leading Federal Court decision of Badiaddin bin Mohd Mahidin v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd.(1)

Introduction

It is well known that directors have a duty to act in good faith and in a company's best interests. This duty takes centre stage, especially in times when a company's survival is threatened.

Introduction

The Federal Court recently addressed the proper construction of Section 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967 in Ambank (M) Berhad v Lim Sue Beng.(1) In this appeal, the Federal Court was requested to decide on the following question of law:

In the recent decision of Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2019] CLJ 723 (“Cubic Electronics”), the apex court of Malaysia revisited the principles on forfeiture of deposits and the treatment of liquidated damages clauses in contracts.  

FACTS

This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.

Facts

Covid-19: Should Malaysia adopt Specific Law?