The Federal Court s decision in the case of
Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd v Sham Chin Yen,(1) 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 welcome decision. It has provided clarity on the previously rather ambiguous procedure to be adopted when making such applications.
Facts
The appellant, Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd, the developer of a housing project known as D Maison, failed to deliver vacant possession of the condominium units of D Maison within the stipulated time. The respondents, purchasers of the condominium units, filed a claim against the appellant for liquidated ascertained damages in 2017.
This monthly report is compiled and briefly summarised by a group of lawyers on a voluntary basis for the benefit of readers of The Edge.
Please consult your own lawyers if you need advice on the cases, issues and related matters highlighted here.
Federal Court (‘FC’) sets guidelines with respect to its power to review its own decisions
The FC, being the apex Court of the country, is not bound by its own decisions. In hearing an appeal proper, the FC may depart from its earlier decisions. In reviewing its own decisions, the FC must be satisfied that the case is fit for review in that it falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances. Examples include coram failure or the panel of the FC was improperly constituted, breach of natural justice, or when bias is established. These examples fall within the meaning of ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’. To expand the category of cases beyond ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’, or giving a broad or unrest