The high court recently set aside interim injunctions which had been granted pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 following an inter partes hearing. With this decision, the high court has confirmed that interim injunctions granted pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act may be set aside on evidence of suppression of material facts leading to the grant of the interim injunctions and if there has been a material change of circumstances since such interim measures were granted.
After much anticipation, the Federal Court has finally confirmed that the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 applies only to construction contracts entered into after the act took effect on 15 April 2014. As such, any adjudication proceedings based on a claim arising from a construction contract which was entered into before that date, including adjudication decisions, are null and void.
A high court recently ruled that the prohibition against third parties publishing, disclosing or communicating information relating to arbitration proceedings does not extend to non-parties to an arbitration. This decision will affect the extent to which the confidential documents used in arbitral proceedings remain confidential.
The Federal Court recently overturned a Court of Appeal decision on the test which applies to applications to restrain arbitration proceedings made by non-parties to the proceedings. The Federal Court concluded its judgment by affirming the findings of the High Court in this case, including that the balance of justice was in favour of the injunction order and that there were serious issues to be tried.
A recent Court of Appeal case addressed whether a negative declaratory arbitration award is enforceable. The decision emphasises the narrow grounds that enable the high courts to refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitration award, as long as the requirements of Section 38(2) of the Arbitration Act are complied with. It also establishes a precedent that there is no barrier to the enforcement of a negative declaratory arbitration award.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and in a move to boost economic activity through medical tourism in Malaysia, the government has announced that it will partially reopen Malaysia's borders to medical tourists from designated green zone countries (eg, Brunei, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand), allowing them to fly in via commercial or chartered flights.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently dismissed an application by AirAsia Berhad and its long-haul sister airline, AirAsia X Berhad, for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against a financial penalty imposed by the Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM). This was the first time that an airline had sought to challenge a penalty imposed by MAVCOM.
On 7 June 2020 the government announced that Malaysia's Movement Control Order would enter a 'recovery phase' beginning on 10 June 2020 and ending on 31 August 2020. As a result, the Malaysian Aviation Commission and the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia recently introduced measures to ease the administrative and regulatory challenges faced by the aviation industry during the Recovery Movement Control Order period.
Drone technology is developing fast and drone popularity is growing even faster. It is crucial that drone regulations keep up to speed by undergoing periodic updates and amendments. The time is right for a comprehensive update to the rather limited drone rules in the Civil Aviation Regulations. It is also hoped that both the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia and the Ministry of Transport will keep a close eye on the development of other aeronautical projects such as the flying car.
In July 2019 the Kuala Lumpur High Court awarded a summary judgment for a combined sum exceeding RM40 million for unpaid passenger service charges in three civil suits brought by Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd against AirAsia Berhad and AirAsia X Berhad. The recently released written grounds of judgment for this matter have provided welcome clarification on several important issues for providers of aviation services.
'Caveat emptor' or 'buyer beware' is a familiar concept. The effects and consequences of caveat emptor have been criticised over time and, as a result, commercial law has slowly developed more stringent protection for consumers and buyers. As such, the ramifications of a recent apex court's decision are far reaching. In short, liability can now be imposed on sellers even if the buyer has previously accepted the same product without qualification.
A recent case suggests that there are limits to the way in which directors can act when taking steps to protect a company. The case is a useful reminder that while directors may avail themselves of the shield provided by the judicial management regime in order to allow a company time to regain its footing, the courts will not hesitate to put checks and balances in place to prevent the misuse of such legislation, albeit for the purpose of safeguarding a company's survival.
It is common for large conglomerates to require customers to execute agreements with standard boilerplate terms and conditions. The fine print of these boilerplate terms and conditions typically contains an exclusion clause which seeks to restrict or limit the liability of the corporations. However, what happens when these corporations default under the agreement and then seek refuge behind the exclusion clause to disclaim liability?
It has long been recognised that where wrongdoers control a company and thus prevent it from bringing an action, the courts will allow shareholders to do so on the company's behalf in order to obtain redress by way of a derivative action. While the courts have recognised a range of scenarios where wrongdoers can be said to control the company, can this concept of wrongdoer control apply where there is a deadlock at both the board and shareholder level obfuscating any clear majority or minority in the company?
In a recent case before the High Court, CIMB Bank Bhd had written to the director general of inland revenue (DGIR) to seek his confirmation on whether certain databases qualified for capital allowances under the Income Tax Act 1967. The DGIR opined that the databases were not 'plant' but 'goodwill' and would not qualify for capital allowances. However, the High Court rejected the DGIR's argument and held that he had had no basis for his submission.
In Malaysia, the Income Tax Act 1967 governs the imposition of income tax. However, in 1990 a separate tax act, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act, was introduced to govern the imposition of tax on Labuan business activities carried out by Labuan entities. The Labuan act has now been substantially revised following Budget 2019. In particular, Labuan entities can no longer elect to pay the RM20,000 flat tax rate; instead, they will be subject to 3% tax on chargeable profits from any Labuan business activity.
In a recent case, IBM Malaysia applied for an advance ruling from the director general of inland revenue (DGIR) to determine whether a payment made by it to IBM Ireland under a software distribution agreement would be considered royalty under the Income Tax Act and thus subject to withholding tax. One of the issues raised by the DGIR for consideration by the court was whether the advance ruling was a decision amenable to judicial review.
This article sets out the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the legal position of migrant workers in Malaysia, particularly in the construction sector, including the risk of deportation of undocumented workers and the current local stigma. This article covers possible restrictions, procedures and challenges faced by documented migrant workers, documented migrant workers with a permit or pass that expired during the Movement Control Order period and undocumented migrant workers in Malaysia.