Click Here

AGENCY - AUTHORITY OF AGENT

MMC Power Sdn Bhd & Anor v Abdul Fattah B Mogawan & Anor [2001] 1 MLJ 169

The plaintiffs, MMC Power Sdn Bhd and MMC Engineering Sdn Bhd, were the main contractors for the construction of the East Coast Expressway Phase 1 (ECEP). The defendants, Abdul Fattah B Mogawan and Abdul Rahman B Mohamed, were the plaintiffs' employees.

The defendants were responsible for recruiting foreign workers for the project. They were authorized to source workers from Indonesia and the Philippines. However, they were not authorized to pay the workers' recruitment fees.

The defendants paid the recruitment fees for the workers out of their own pockets. They then claimed the fees back from the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs refused to pay the fees, arguing that the defendants had acted outside the scope of their authority.

The defendants argued that they had ostensible authority to pay the recruitment fees. They argued that the plaintiffs had held them out as having authority to pay the fees, and that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have believed that they had authority to do so.

The court held that the defendants had ostensible authority to pay the recruitment fees. The court found that the plaintiffs had held the defendants out as having authority to pay the fees, and that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have believed that they had authority to do so.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants the recruitment fees.

Choo Chin Thye v Concrete Engineering Products Bhd & other appeals [2005] 4 MLJ 14

The plaintiff, Choo Chin Thye, was a director of Concrete Engineering Products Bhd (CEPB). The defendants were CEPB and its other directors.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had wrongfully removed him as a director of CEPB. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants had wrongfully entered into a management contract with a third party.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had no authority to bring the action. They argued that the plaintiff had been removed as a director of CEPB and that he was therefore no longer a member of the company.

The court held that the plaintiff had authority to bring the action. The court found that the plaintiff had been removed as a director of CEPB in breach of the company's articles of association. The court also found that the plaintiff was still a member of the company, as he had not resigned his membership.

The court ordered the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff as a director of CEPB and to cancel the management contract.

Re Syed Eidrus Alsagoff; Syed Mohamed Alsagoff v Poh Kim San & Ors [1966] 1 MLJ 75, High Court, Singapore

The plaintiffs, Syed Eidrus Alsagoff and Syed Mohamed Alsagoff, were the owners of a property in Singapore. The defendants were the plaintiffs' tenants.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had wrongfully refused to pay rent. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of the property.

The defendants argued that they had authority to take possession of the property. They argued that they had been appointed as agents of the plaintiffs to manage the property.

The court held that the defendants did not have authority to take possession of the property. The court found that the defendants had been appointed as agents of the plaintiffs to manage the property, but that they had not been authorized to take possession of the property.

The court ordered the defendants to vacate the property and to pay rent to the plaintiffs.

Chew Hock San & Ors v Connaught Housing Development Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 350, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiffs, Chew Hock San and others, were the purchasers of flats in a housing development project. The defendant, Connaught Housing Development Sdn Bhd (CHDSB), was the developer of the project.

The plaintiffs alleged that CHDSB had wrongfully refused to deliver vacant possession of the flats to them. The plaintiffs also alleged that CHDSB had wrongfully failed to refund the plaintiffs' deposit.

CHDSB argued that it had authority to withhold vacant possession of the flats and to retain the plaintiffs' deposit. CHDSB argued that it had been authorized by the plaintiffs to do so.

The court held that CHDSB did not have authority to withhold vacant possession of the flats or to retain the plaintiffs' deposit. The court found that the plaintiffs had not authorized CHDSB to do so.

The court ordered CHDSB to deliver vacant possession of the flats to the plaintiffs and to refund the plaintiffs' deposit.

Mohamed bin Othman & Anor v Abdul Shattar bin Abdul Rahim & Ors [1987] 2 MLJ 695, Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur**

The plaintiffs, Mohamed bin Othman and another, were the shareholders of a company called Syarikat Perniagaan Maju Sdn Bhd (SPM). The defendants were the directors of SPM.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had wrongfully removed them as shareholders of SPM. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had wrongfully entered into a management contract with a third party.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no authority to bring the action. They argued that the plaintiffs had been removed as shareholders of SPM and that they were therefore no longer members of the company.

The court held that the plaintiffs had authority to bring the action. The court found that the plaintiffs had been removed as shareholders of SPM in breach of the company's articles of association. The court also found that the plaintiffs were still members of the company, as they had not resigned their membership.

The court ordered the defendants to reinstate the plaintiffs as shareholders of SPM and to cancel the management contract.

Annamalai Chettiar v Lassam [1953] MLJ 29, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur**

The plaintiff, Annamalai Chettiar, was the owner of a property in Kuala Lumpur. The defendant, Lassam, was the plaintiff's tenant.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wrongfully refused to pay rent. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had wrongfully taken possession of the property.

The defendant argued that he had authority to take possession of the property. He argued that he had been appointed as agent of the plaintiff to manage the property.

The court held that the defendant did not have authority to take possession of the property. The court found that the defendant had been appointed as agent of the plaintiff to manage the property, but that he had not been authorized to take possession of the property.

The court ordered the defendant to vacate the property and to pay rent to the plaintiff.

Magnum Finance Bhd v Ling Sing Ping [1988] 2 MLJ 403, High Court, Kuala Lumpur**

The plaintiff, Magnum Finance Bhd, was a finance company. The defendant, Ling Sing Ping, was a customer of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wrongfully defaulted on a loan agreement. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had wrongfully refused to surrender the title deeds to the property that had been mortgaged to secure the loan.

The defendant argued that he had authority to retain the title deeds to the property. He argued that he had been authorized by the plaintiff to do so.

The court held that the defendant did not have authority to retain the title deeds to the property. The court found that the plaintiff had not authorized the defendant to do so.

The court ordered the defendant to surrender the title deeds to the property to the plaintiff.

Mohamed bin Othman & Anor v Abdul Shattar bin Abdul Rahim & Ors [1987] 2 MLJ 695, Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiffs, Mohamed bin Othman and another, were the shareholders of a company called Syarikat Perniagaan Maju Sdn Bhd (SPM). The defendants were the directors of SPM.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had wrongfully removed them as shareholders of SPM. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had wrongfully entered into a management contract with a third party.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no authority to bring the action. They argued that the plaintiffs had been removed as shareholders of SPM and that they were therefore no longer members of the company.

The court held that the plaintiffs had authority to bring the action. The court found that the plaintiffs had been removed as shareholders of SPM in breach of the company's articles of association. The court also found that the plaintiffs were still members of the company, as they had not resigned their membership.

The court ordered the defendants to reinstate the plaintiffs as shareholders of SPM and to cancel the management contract.

Annamalai Chettiar v Lassam [1953] MLJ 29, Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiff, Annamalai Chettiar, was the owner of a property in Kuala Lumpur. The defendant, Lassam, was the plaintiff's tenant.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wrongfully refused to pay rent. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had wrongfully taken possession of the property.

The defendant argued that he had authority to take possession of the property. He argued that he had been appointed as agent of the plaintiff to manage the property.

The court held that the defendant did not have authority to take possession of the property. The court found that the defendant had been appointed as agent of the plaintiff to manage the property, but that he had not been authorized to take possession of the property.

The court ordered the defendant to vacate the property and to pay rent to the plaintiff.

Magnum Finance Bhd v Ling Sing Ping [1988] 2 MLJ 403, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiff, Magnum Finance Bhd, was a finance company. The defendant, Ling Sing Ping, was a customer of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wrongfully defaulted on a loan agreement. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had wrongfully refused to surrender the title deeds to the property that had been mortgaged to secure the loan.

The defendant argued that he had authority to retain the title deeds to the property. He argued that he had been authorized by the plaintiff to do so.

The court held that the defendant did not have authority to retain the title deeds to the property. The court found that the plaintiff had not authorized the defendant to do so.

The court ordered the defendant to surrender the title deeds to the property to the plaintiff.

























f