CASE SUMMARY: PART 19

Ong Keng Huat vs. Hongkong United Co Ltd [1961] 1 MLJ 36
●Law of Partnership●
“It is, of course, quite clear as I understood the law, that in order to make one of the partners individually liable for any loss arising out of the partnership it would be necessary to establish either that he was guilty of fraud or culpable negligence or willful default”



Palmer vs. Simmonds [1854] 2 Drew 221

●TRUST●
“The phrase ‘bulk of my estate’ was held not to be certain as it will not identify the subject matter clearly since it may mean different thing to different people”


Parkin vs. Thorold [1852] 16 Beav 59
●EQUITY●
“Courts of Equity make a distinction in all cases between that which is a matter of substance and that which is a matter of form, and if it finds that by insisting on the form the substance will be defeated, it holds it inequitable to allow a person insisting on such form and thereby defeat the substance”


Paryaq vs. State of Allahabad [1967] 37 AWR 572 (Allahaband HC, India)
●Criminal Law●
“If a man knows that certain consequence will follow from his act it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quite different ulterior motive for performing the act”


Patridge vs. Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, CA
●Contract Law●
“When one is dealing with advertisements and circulars, unless indeed they come from manufactures, there is business sense in their being construed as invitations to treat and not offers for sale”


Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia vs. Lum Choon Realty Sdn [2005] 4 CLJ 345
●Land Law●
“The concept of the English mortgage is not consistent with the Torrens System in Malaysia. This is because in a mortgage the title passes from the mortgagor to the mortgagee whereas a duly registered charge under the NLC only creates a legal interest in the land”




People’s Insurance Co. (M) Sdn. Bhd. vs. People’s Insurace Co. Ltd. & Ors.
[1986] 1 MLJ 68
●Company Law●
“The parent (holding) and subsidiary companies are two separate legal entities and Officers of the parent company who are on the Board of the subsidiary are not representatives of the parent company but sit at the Board Meeting as directors and agent of the subsidiary. A resolution of the Board of directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. The resolution did not constitute a contract between the parties.”

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Storkwain Ltd [1986] 83 Cr App R 359
●Criminal Law●
“It is in my opinion, clear from the Act of 1968 that Parliament must have intended that the presumption of mens rea should be inapplicable to s 58 (2) (a). First of all, it appears from the Act of 1968 that, where Parliament wished to recognize that mens rea should be an ingredient of an offence created by the Act, it has expressly so provided”


Phelps vs. Hillingdon London BC [2000] 4 All ER
●Law of Torts●
“Educational physiologist, education officers, and teachers may owe duty of care to a special pupil, provided sufficient proximity exists between the pupil and the teachers”


Piercy vs. S. Mills & Co [1920] 1 Ch 77
●Company Law●
“Directors (a minority of the voting power), allotted shares to themselves and their friends”



Ponnukon vs. Jebaratnam [1980] 1 MLJ 282
●Law of Partnership●
“The property was held not to be partnership property because, inter alia, it was not paid for by the funds of the partnership but the funds raised by (a partner) on his own separate act independently of the order or of the partnership”