The high court recently delivered a significant decision for the construction industry regarding contractors' cash flow. This decision is welcome as it has laid down clear directions for stakeholders in the construction sector when they are faced with payment and financing issues, as well as for litigants. Further, this decision highlights the importance of conducting preliminary assessments to determine suitable dispute resolution avenues – namely, adjudication, litigation or arbitration.
The Federal Court recently delivered a landmark decision on a pertinent issue concerning the interests of house buyers. In arriving at its decision, the court considered Parliament's intention when enacting the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act and held that the minister of urban wellbeing, housing and local government has sole discretion to regulate and prohibit the terms and conditions of a contract of sale under the act – a social legislation protecting and advancing the interests of house buyers.
In the course of the hearing of a direct payment application filed under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, the issue arose as to whether direct payment could be ordered against an employer when winding-up proceedings were underway against its contractor. To avoid protracted arguments, the subcontractor withdrew the winding-up proceedings during the hearing of the direct payment application. However, another creditor served a winding-up petition on the main contractor shortly thereafter.
The Federal Court recently held that Sections 8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act do not apply to a non-party to an arbitration agreement. The appellant in the case was granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court on two questions of law, including whether the requirements of Section 10 of the act must be met by a party litigant seeking an injunction to restrain the prosecution of an arbitration to which it is not a party but which would affect its proprietary rights.
The Federal Court recently addressed the proper construction of Section 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967. In this appeal, the Federal Court was requested to decide whether, in the case of a petition presented by multiple petitioners, the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition could be amended and the deletion of one or more petitioners could be allowed.
The attorney general is a public officer who has been given ample discretionary power under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings. The question is, where a public officer's decision is subject to judicial review, does this equally apply to the attorney general?
The Federal Court recently reaffirmed that where a final court order is proved to be null and void on grounds of illegality or due to a lack of jurisdiction, the court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order, even in the absence of an express enabling provision. However, is the rule different for winding-up orders?
Following a recent Court of Appeal decision on staying proceedings pending appeal, the test as to whether a stay ought to be granted under Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act has been simplified (ie, it now focuses on whether the true purpose of the stay is to preserve the integrity of the appeal). The new threshold to obtain a stay is considerably lower than that of the special circumstances rule under Section 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
A recent Federal Court decision has simply reaffirmed the position of Malaysian law in relation to breaches of trust. The majority of the Federal Court held that imputed constructive knowledge of an assignment is insufficient to hold the debtor liable to the assignee for the debt. The decision also illustrates a disinclination to depart from the established law on the requirement of dishonesty in a breach of trust.
Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 imposes a legal obligation on all solicitors to protect and keep confidential any information obtained from their clients, including any legal advice that has been proffered. However, as much as the importance of this privilege is understood and embraced, it may still have come as a surprise when the Federal Court decided that a breach of this privilege by solicitors could entail a legal action against said solicitors.
The Federal Court recently examined whether the Bolam test or the test in the Australian case of Rogers v Whitaker with regard to the standard of care in medical negligence should apply, following conflicting decisions by the Malaysian Court of Appeal and legislative changes in Australia. The Federal Court's decision provides a clearer legal position with regard to the distinction between diagnosis and treatment on the one hand and the duty to advise of risks on the other hand.
The Federal Court recently examined whether an objection pertaining to the unlawfulness of a notice of appeal could, as a matter of procedural law, be undertaken by way of a mere preliminary objection. Further, the court assessed whether the filing of a single notice of appeal in respect of a decision on eight separate and distinct interlocutory applications complied with the procedural rules set out in the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.
The Federal Court recently restated the Malaysian courts' position in respect of their intervention in arbitration. The decision has clarified that once the parties agree to submit to arbitration in the event of disputes and put that agreement into writing, the courts will be less willing to allow one party to subsequently seek to depart from the arbitration agreement without sufficient justification.
The Federal Court recently set out the circumstances under which a notice of appeal under Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal or a notice of cross-appeal under Rule 8 can be filed. In short, where the respondent wants to reverse or set aside part of a lower-instance finding, decision or judgment which was not appealed in the appellant's notice of appeal, it is incumbent on the respondent to file an independent and separate notice of appeal, rather than a notice of cross-appeal.
The Federal Court recently upheld a Court of Appeal decision which found that a company had failed to identify with sufficient particularity what confidential information its former employee had misused. This case clarifies that despite the existence of confidentiality agreements, companies and employers must prove what confidential information has been misused, as confidentiality agreements are not meant to hinder former employees' ability to compete.
The Federal Court recently ruled that Order 57 of the Rules of Court 2012 does not confer power to the high courts to transfer proceedings to another high court of coordinate jurisdiction. The true position of the law is that a high court has power to transfer proceedings to another high court of coordinate jurisdiction only within its territorial jurisdiction.
The Federal Court was recently invited to reconsider the applicable test for an oppression petition under Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965 in light of recent developments in the English law of oppression. The court held that there was no valid reason to redefine the test for oppression under Section 181.
The Federal Court has clarified an issue which has long plagued the banking industry by holding that a bank with absolute assignment of the rights to land may realise its security under the assignment without having to create a charge, regardless of any subsequent issue of a title document. The decision will prevent future defaulting borrowers from bringing actions against banks despite no charge being created and reduce unnecessary litigation.
The High Court recently considered whether the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act applies retroactively to contracts entered into and disputes arising before the act came into force. In a lengthy judgment, the High Court found that Parliament's intention was to apply the act to all construction contracts – including payment disputes under construction contracts – regardless of when they were made.
In a recent Federal Court case, appeals arose in the context of claims brought by purchasers against a solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty in a solicitor-client relationship in connection with property which the solicitor had purchased for himself instead of on behalf of his clients. The court held that solicitors cannot repudiate or negate the existence of a solicitor-client relationship merely on the contention of the absence of a retainer.