Tag Archives: Foo Joon Liang

Adjudicator is Bias for Unreasonable Deadlines & Failure to Account for MCO Restrictions

Whilst an adjudicator has wide discretionary powers under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, can such discretionary power disregard or bypass the restrictions provided in the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2020 [P.U. (A) 91/2020] more commonly known as the ‘Movement Control Order’?

The High Court upon scrutinising the adjudicator’s conduct in Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd v Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd and other cases held that there was actual bias by the Adjudicator for amongst others, failing to give effect to the MCO.

Winding up petition based on adjudication decision under CIPAA – Court of Appeal reaffirms Likas Bay

Where a party has obtained an adjudication decision in its favour, that party may seek to bring a winding up petition premised on that adjudication decision. Darryl Goon J (as he then was) in ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd previously decided that an injunction may nevertheless be issued to restrain the presentation of such a petition. This has been discussed in an earlier article .

That article looked at two decisions of the High Court made subsequent to ASM, namely, Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd v Spring Energy Sdn Bhd and, RZH Setia Jaya Sdn Bhd v Sime Darby Energy Solutions Sdn Bhd. In the latter decision, the High Court adopted and agreed with the dictum of Darryl Goon J (as His Lordship then was) in ASM.

RZH Setia recently came up for appeal before the Court of Appeal, where the Court of Appeal considered the central question of whether the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in granting the Fortuna injunction sought by RZH Setia.

CIPAA: clash of stay applications and enforcement orders

Once a successful party obtains an adjudication decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA) 2012, the next course of action is usually to enforce the adjudication decision pursuant to section 28 of the CIPAA (enforcement order). Meanwhile, the losing party will often attempt to set aside or stay the adjudication decision under sections 15 or 16 of the CIPAA.

However, what if an application to stay is made after an enforcement order is granted against the adjudication decision and the application to set aside the adjudication decision is dismissed? The court was faced with this scenario in the recent case of MKP Builders Sdn Bhd v PC Geotechnic Sdn Bhd [(2021) MLJU 1061].

Challenging compensation for acquired land: high court is the final avenue

Article 13 of the Federal Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law” and allows for a
lawful acquisition of private land by the government, provided that the acquisition is in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act (LAA)
1960. Under the LAA, landowners (or persons with registered interests) will be compensated by the government for acquired land. That said, landowners often find themselves dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the land administrator. While there is an
opportunity for landowners to object to the compensation, the question remains as to what extent the compensation awarded by the land
administrator can be challenged. The Federal Court recently answered this question in its decision in Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor v Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd. The apex court held that the high court is the highest court that parties can go to when challenging the
awarded compensation.

Hearsay Evidence in Expert Reports – General and Specific Hearsay

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.

Oppression actions: court’s discretion has limits

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…

Statutory oppression action: apex court confirms that remedies may extend to directors and third parties

The Federal Court decision in Auspicious Journey Sdn Bhd v Ebony Ritz Sdn Bhd confirms that remedies in a statutory oppression action may extend to the directors of the subject company and third parties.

CIPAA: Only Qualified Advocates for Adjudications in East Malaysia?

It is a well-known fact in Malaysia that the governing law of legal profession for Peninsular and East Malaysia differ from one another. Should one wish to commence a court action in the East Malaysia, an advocate qualified under the Sabah or Sarawak Advocates Ordinance would have to be appointed. However, what about adjudication proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) which allows parties to “be represented by any representative appointed by the party”. The High Court case of Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd v Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd had recently shed light on this matter.

Wishing our Muslim friends a blessed and prosperous Eid al-Fitr! Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir dan Batin