Bila Salah Alamat, Siapa Sebenarnya Bertanggungjawab?
MADHI INDRAN A/L SINNAYYA v SBS TOTAL LOGISTICS MALAYSIA SDN BHD (TRANSWAYS LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD, THIRD PARTY) [2023] MLJU 1139. Dalam bisnes dan logistik ni, bila barang hilang ke rosak ke, instinct orang memang sama. Cari siapa paling dekat. Siapa pegang barang. Siapa buat delivery. Siapa last sentuh. Itu yang kena dulu. Senang cerita, […]
When the Wrong Party is Named — Who is Actually Responsible?
MADHI INDRAN A/L SINNAYYA v SBS TOTAL LOGISTICS MALAYSIA SDN BHD (TRANSWAYS LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD, THIRD PARTY) [2023] MLJU 1139. In business and logistics, when something goes wrong, the first reaction is usually very simple. Find the nearest person and blame them. Who handled the goods. Who did the delivery. Who touched it last. […]
Liquidated Damages Bukan Auto — Tapi Tak Perlu Bukti Rugi Pun
MARWIYA BT MISWAN v DEDE RESOURCES SDN BHD [2025] MLJU 2805 Liquidated damages dalam kontrak ni selalu jadi benda yang buat orang keliru, especially bila berlaku breach. Ada yang terus assume boleh claim jumlah yang tertulis tu tanpa banyak soal, ada juga yang yakin selagi tak boleh tunjuk kerugian sebenar, tuntutan memang takkan lepas. Dua-dua […]
Liquidated Damages Are Not Automatic — But No Proof of Loss is Needed
MARWIYA BT MISWAN v DEDE RESOURCES SDN BHD [2025] MLJU 2805 Liquidated damages clauses often create confusion once a breach happens. Some assume that once the clause exists, the stated amount can be claimed straight away without question. Others are just as confident that without proof of actual loss, the claim must fail. Both assumptions […]
When a Loan is Disguised as a Sale — When Valid Documents Are Used to Deceive
GHANDI RAJAN A/I ARJUNAN & ANOR v YOW MAN KONG @ SENTHIL KUMAR [2022] MLJU 681 When there’s a written agreement, all the signatures are in place, documents are registered, and lawyers are involved, most people will assume everything is secure. There’s a Sale and Purchase Agreement, transfer forms, proper paperwork. On the surface, it […]
Bila Pemegang Saham Minoriti Ditekan — Dan Bila Janji Saham Jadi Pertikaian Undang-Undang
VENKATESWARA RAO A/L KRISHNAN v FWG GLOBAL SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER SUIT Pegang saham minoriti bukan bermakna kena diam dan telan semua keputusan majoriti. Bukan juga lesen untuk majoriti buat apa sahaja atas nama “kami lebih ramai”. Dalam undang-undang syarikat, kuasa majoriti ada hadnya. Bila kuasa itu digunakan untuk menindas, meminggir atau menekan […]
When Minority Shareholders Are Pressured — And When Share Promises Turn into Legal Disputes
VENKATESWARA RAO A/L KRISHNAN v FWG GLOBAL SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER SUIT Holding a minority shareholding does not mean having to stay silent and swallow every decision made by the majority. Nor does it give the majority a free licence to do whatever they please under the excuse of “we have the numbers.” […]
Beli tanah daripada salah seorang pemilik bersama — belum tentu selamat
PETER CHONG & ANOR v KHATIJAH BT MD IBRAHIM & ANOR Ramai orang sangka, bila nama seseorang ada dalam geran sebagai pemilik, dia bebas jual bahagian dia sesuka hati. Tapi undang-undang tanah tak semudah itu — terutamanya bila tanah dipegang sebagai joint tenancy. Kes ini bermula dengan sebidang tanah yang dihadiahkan oleh seorang bapa kepada […]
Buying land from just one co-owner — not always safe
PETER CHONG & ANOR v KHATIJAH BT MD IBRAHIM & ANOR Many people assume that if someone’s name appears on the land title as an owner, they are free to sell their portion as they wish. But land law is not that simple — especially when the land is held under joint tenancy. This case […]
Janji bisnes bukan automatik jadi fitnah atau penipuan
IJM CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v LINGKARAN LUAR BUTTERWORTH (PENANG) SDN BHD & ANOR IJM CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v LINGKARAN LUAR BUTTERWORTH (PENANG) SDN BHD & ANOR [2024] Ramai orang fikir, bila satu pihak janji sesuatu dalam rundingan bisnes tapi akhirnya tak jadi, itu terus bermaksud menipu. Hakikatnya, undang-undang tak semudah itu. Kes ini bermula apabila […]