Simon A. Lo

𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹. 𝗪𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁. The law will apply solely to corporations (excluding LLPs and business trusts), with the Government indicating that expansion to individual insolvency may follow in a later phase. Clause 21 (mirroring Article 21 of the Model Law) allows courts to permit a foreign representative to transfer a debtor’s property abroad. But with safeguards of obtaining leave of Court, and where claims of creditors in Malaysia up to a threshold sum must first be satisfied locally. Deputy Minister M. Kulasegaran explained that: "At present, the study is ongoing to determine a fair threshold by taking into account all input and perspectives, ensuring the final value set is truly balanced, in line with the objectives of the Bill, while protecting creditors' interests and safeguarding micro, small and medium enterprises in Malaysia," he said. https://lnkd.in/gNYgJCKF

83

1 Comment

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀? In 𝘒𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘪 𝘛𝘢𝘯𝘫𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘒𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘷 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘢𝘥 & 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘳, the franchisee, i.e., the plaintiff, terminated the franchise agreement as the defendants had failed to prevent another franchisee from operating within its exclusive 3-kilometre territory in Kuala Lumpur. The High Court found that such action resulted in a fundamental breach of the franchise agreement and thus, the termination by the franchisee was valid. The defendants' conduct in permitting the other franchisee to operate within the exclusive territory struck at the heart of the plaintiff’s commercial viability. The defendants’ actions undermined the plaintiff's competitive advantage and vitiated the core assurance of market protection, which is central to any franchise relationship. In determining whether the other franchisee operated within the exclusive territory, the Court relied on Google Maps as evidence. The Court took judicial notice of established facts such as the location of properties and the distances between them, particularly where such information is readily available and objectively verifiable. This is one of the many cases where our Courts have relied on Google Maps results to determine geographical facts. Other than distance, there have been cases where the Court relied on satellite images from Google Maps and even street view photographs. Follow me for more cyberlaw and legal history updates!

260

9 Comments

As Singapore prepares for the implementation of the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), Jonathan Yuen, Head of our Employment Practice, offers a timely reminder: compliance isn’t just about ticking boxes, it’s about building trust. In an interview with HRD Asia, Jonathan unpacks the WFA’s implications for internal investigations, whistleblower protections, and the importance of due process. His message is clear: fairness must be felt, not just enforced. Read the full HRD Asia article here: https://bit.ly/47kWfOY Connect with our Employment Practice Heads to learn more about how your organisation can prepare for the WFA and strengthen workplace fairness. Jonathan Yuen: https://lnkd.in/g732ahh Desmond Wee: https://lnkd.in/gAWJwaeJ Learn more about our top-ranked Employment Practice: https://lnkd.in/gegkAYbh #WorkplaceFairnessAct #EmploymentLaw #WorkplaceInvestigations #WhistleblowerProtection #HRCompliance #RajahTannAsia #RTA #LawyersWhoKnowAsia

58

Which Mainland Judgment to Register: Lessons from Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Company Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Company Ltd [2025] HKCA 434 (“Hang Pin”) 🌟 Practitioners assisting clients in registering #MainlandJudgments under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (“#MJREO”) and the new Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (“Cap. 645”) often face a critical issue: which PRC judgment to register when one is subject to appeal. In Hang Pin, the Court of Appeal clarified the registration requirements and illustrated the consequences of registering the wrong judgment, providing important guidance on registration under both MJREO and Cap. 645. 📜 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 The Defendant was a guarantor of loans taken out by the Plaintiff. At first instance, the Intermediate People’s Court of Huzhou City (“IPC”) held that the guarantee was invalid due to lack of authority, but ordered the Defendant to bear 50% compensation liability for any portion of the debt the primary borrowers (“Borrowers”) could not repay (“PRC Judgment”). Subsequently, the Defendant appealed to the High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (“HPC”), which affirmed the PRC Judgment. In Hong Kong, the registration of the PRC Judgment was successfully set aside by the Defendant at first instance. The Plaintiff appealed the setting-aside decision. 🔍 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 The Court of Appeal examined the following issues relevant to s.5(2) MJREO: 1.  Whether the PRC Judgment orders a “payment of a sum of money” under s.5(2)(e); and 2.  Whether the PRC Judgment is “final and conclusive as between the parties to the judgment” under s.5(2)(c). 💡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 1.  Sum of Money Readily Apparent. Under s.5(2)(e) MJREO, a Mainland judgment must be for a definite sum of money or ascertainable via a simple arithmetical process. Given MJREO’s summary nature, the amount should not require extensive evaluation by the Hong Kong Court, although extrinsic evidence may be considered by the Court. In Hang Pin, as the assets of the Borrowers had not been fully enforced against, the Defendant’s liability remained uncertain. Thus, the “sum of money” requirement was not met. 2.  S.6(1) MJREO Exhaustive Definition of “final and conclusive”. Only Mainland judgments strictly falling within s.6(1) MJREO—for example, second-instance judgments from designated courts (s.6(1)(c))—qualify as final and conclusive. There are no residual categories outside s.6(1). As the PRC Judgment was appealed to the HPC, it was not final and conclusive as defined in s.6(1) MJREO, and the “final and conclusive” requirement was not met. 👉 Read the judgment here at: https://lnkd.in/gp2t8KQd Mr. John Hui and Mr. Joshua Y. were instructed by CLKW Lawyers for the Defendant at first instance and on appeal.

35

Disguised retrenchments, unreasonable performance improvement plans and redeployment without support may be considered steps to unlawful termination. On the Work It podcast, Tiffany Ang and Gerald Tan Zi Ping Tan speak with Clarence Ding, partner and head of employment at global law firm Ashurst, to unpack the questions to ask during an exit conversation and what to do when a termination feels unfair. 🎧 https://cna.asia/4mAqAgp

72

2 Comments