Ms Carissa How

Carissa How

Updates

Litigation

Section 368 of Companies Act: apex court rules ex parte application for restraining proceedings is valid
Malaysia | 12 January 2021

A recent Federal Court decision regarding applications made by a company or its creditors under Section 368 of the Companies Act 2016 to restrain proceedings against the company under a proposed scheme of arrangement appears to be a welcomed decision. Clarity is now proffered on the procedure to be adopted when making such applications. Nevertheless, there may yet still be room for further judicial interpretation on applications concerning a scheme of arrangement.

Court rules former director of AIAC's directorship is non-justiciable
Malaysia | 15 December 2020

The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently struck out two originating summonses against the former director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC). The court's ruling included that the appointment of the director of the AIAC was not justiciable. It is hoped that this decision will provide valuable case law and put similar challenges to rest, as such challenges are not only vexatious but also a waste of judicial time and resources.

Post-ASM: is an adjudication decision a disputed debt?
Malaysia | 13 October 2020

In ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd, Darryl Goon J (now JCA) held that an adjudication decision, even one which has been enforced as if it were a court judgment or order pursuant to Section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, is still a disputable decision. While the high court departed from ASM in one recent case, in another, it agreed with Darryl Goon J's decision. As such, there now appears to be two different schools of thought on this matter.

Courts' discretion to hold virtual hearings
Malaysia | 16 June 2020

In a recent case, the plaintiff obtained a judgment in default of defence against multiple defendants during the enforcement of the Movement Control Order in Malaysia. Subsequently, the judge held that various applications of the plaintiff and the defendants be heard by way of a Skype videoconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Dissatisfied with the videoconference, the plaintiff challenged its validity.