A separate legal entity – or rather, a 'corporate veil' – exists to separate a corporate entity from its incorporators. However, the corporate veil can be lifted when the corporation is used for fraudulent, dishonest and unlawful purposes. The leading judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Prest v Prest brought a new dimension to this fundamental principle. The apex court carefully considered the application of Prest in its recent decision in Ong Leong Chiou.
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.
The Court of Appeal recently ruled that Sections 347(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2016, which require leave of court to be obtained before any action may be initiated on behalf of a company and any such action to be brought in the name of the company, are substantive law and not merely procedural. Following this decision, it is clear that violations of Sections 347(1) and (2) are not mere irregularities, but illegalities.
Are the Malaysian courts adopting a minimalist judicial intervention approach when considering anti-arbitration injunctions? This article discusses a recent Federal Court decision which dealt with the issue of competing claims in curial and arbitral proceedings where not all parties were before both forums, and two recent high court decisions that made reference to the Federal Court decision.
A high court recently issued the first decision regarding a constitutional challenge of the legitimacy of statutory adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. In this case, the court was also confronted with a challenge of the appointment of the late Vinayak Pradhan as the then director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) and the immunity asserted by the AIAC, Pradhan and the adjudicator.