Issues

8 cases · February 2025 to January 2026

Case Volume by Year

7
25
1
26
2025–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

whether D was common solicitor for P and other party i the drawing up of an agreement and whether there was a duty of care and the scope of such duty; whether the failure of P to call an expert was fatal; whether there was a breach of duty of care/negligence and breach of fiduciary duty; whether P suffered loss or damage? 1 Requirements of interpleader proceeding — Applicant has demonstrated and fulfilled. — Whether the First Respondent is entitled to forfeit the earnest deposit. — Issue of the entitlement to the earnest deposit which was paid by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent for the intended purchase. 1 whether the transaction ought to be regarded as a genuine sale — whether it is in substance no more than a loan clothed in the appearance of a sale — whether the Plaintiff’s claim is caught by the law of limitation. 1 a) whether the terms of the sales contracts bind the Directors b) whether the Directors are liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding sum owed by the company c) whether the conduct of the Plaintiff in withdrawing the claim against the company which has since been wound up with no proof of debt filed renders the claim against the Directors fatal as the debt itself has not been proven. — Held — a) there is no pre-condition in Section 540 that the debt against the company must first be proven. All that is required to invoke Section 540 is the intend of the Directors to defraud creditors. b) On the fact of this case the Directors are found to not to be bound by the sales contracts. c) the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Directors had no intention of paying the Plaintiff at the time the contracts were enter into especially since the company had paid a large portion of the debt. — Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 Whether the judgment in default obtained against the 1st Defendant is regular? — Whether the cause papers have been properly served on the 1st Defendant? — Was there an inordinate delay in filing this application? — Whether the 1st Defendant has shown that the defence has merits? 1 Whether the sale of bunker oil is a zero-rated supply and thus not taxable under the GST Act 2014; and 1 Whether the 1st Respondent’s request to the 2nd Respondent to impose a travel ban is amenable to review? — Whether the 1st Respondent committed an error of law when they requested such travel ban? — Whether there was any reason to belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently, or abscond without paying tax? — Whether Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousts this Court’s review jurisdiction? 1

whether D was common solicitor for P and other party i the drawing up of an agreement and whether there was a duty of care and the scope of such duty; whether the failure of P to call an expert was fatal; whether there was a breach of duty of care/negligence and breach of fiduciary duty; whether P suffered loss or damage? 1 case

Requirements of interpleader proceeding — Applicant has demonstrated and fulfilled. — Whether the First Respondent is entitled to forfeit the earnest deposit. — Issue of the entitlement to the earnest deposit which was paid by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent for the intended purchase. 1 case

whether the transaction ought to be regarded as a genuine sale — whether it is in substance no more than a loan clothed in the appearance of a sale — whether the Plaintiff’s claim is caught by the law of limitation. 1 case

a) whether the terms of the sales contracts bind the Directors b) whether the Directors are liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding sum owed by the company c) whether the conduct of the Plaintiff in withdrawing the claim against the company which has since been wound up with no proof of debt filed renders the claim against the Directors fatal as the debt itself has not been proven. — Held — a) there is no pre-condition in Section 540 that the debt against the company must first be proven. All that is required to invoke Section 540 is the intend of the Directors to defraud creditors. b) On the fact of this case the Directors are found to not to be bound by the sales contracts. c) the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Directors had no intention of paying the Plaintiff at the time the contracts were enter into especially since the company had paid a large portion of the debt. — Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs. 1 case

Whether the judgment in default obtained against the 1st Defendant is regular? — Whether the cause papers have been properly served on the 1st Defendant? — Was there an inordinate delay in filing this application? — Whether the 1st Defendant has shown that the defence has merits? 1 case

Whether the sale of bunker oil is a zero-rated supply and thus not taxable under the GST Act 2014; and 1 case

Whether the 1st Respondent’s request to the 2nd Respondent to impose a travel ban is amenable to review? — Whether the 1st Respondent committed an error of law when they requested such travel ban? — Whether there was any reason to belief that the Applicants were about or likely to leave Malaysia permanently, or abscond without paying tax? — Whether Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousts this Court’s review jurisdiction? 1 case

Court Distribution

Key People & Firms

Cases