In The United States of America v Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia, the high court judge ruled in favour of the United States (for further details please see “Embassy dismisses employee: exercise of jure imperii or act of jure gestionis?”). However, this decision has now been set aside by the Court of Appeal.
The rule against hearsay evidence prevents the admission of evidence of information from a third party. The evidence from a third party will generally be regarded as hearsay evidence and thus inadmissible, unless the third party him/herself testifies on the said evidence. This rule has been applied to witnesses of fact and opinion.
However, to what extent should this rule be relaxed when experts seek to rely on hearsay evidence in their reports, and in what circumstances should such evidence be admissible? This was the question that arose, amongst many others, for the determination of the Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’) in Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another.
Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 has been set in motion today by seeing the first charge made against an offshore vessel company, since the provision came into force on 1 June 2020.
These FAQs focus on the impacts of two Parts of the COVID-19 Act – the ‘Inability to Perform Contractual Obligation’ and the ‘Modification made to Distress Act 1951’ – concerning leases and tenancy agreements of non-residential immovable properties.
In the long-running battle between Europe’s $1 trillion creative industry and online platforms, the European Court of Justice ruled that Google’s YouTube and other online platforms are not liable for copyright-infringing works uploaded by users.
Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) provides wide powers to the Court to grant remedies as it deems necessary to bring an end to the matters complained of in an oppression action. In Lee Kai Wuen v Lee Yee Wuen, the Federal Court refused leave…
A statutory duty to “properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair” shifts between a developer, a joint management committee and a management corporation subject to the timeline provided in the Strata Management Act 2013. However, when the baton is passed to a management corporation, does the management corporation have standing to sue the developer for any defects in the common property?