News by Hafiz Yatim

Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd's request for an enlarged panel of more than five judges to hear its motion for leave to appeal its case has been dismissed by the Federal Court.

Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd that operate the iconic 60-storey Ilham Tower, located on prime land in the city centre, have filed an originating summons (OS) to bar its company secretary from sharing information about the companies with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

A three-member Court of Appeal bench has dismissed a motion by former operators of the iconic KL Tower—Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd—for the court to grant permission to institute contempt proceedings against Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, the government, and three companies that took over the operation of the tower.

The Federal Court has fixed Aug 29 to hear Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd’s stay application on the Court of Appeal’s decision in June that had ordered for the case to be sent back to the High Court for valuation of compensation of the 1956 “trespass” acquisition of the prime land in Kuala Lumpur.

The High Court last month dismissed a suit filed by 37 parcel owners of K Residence against developer KL Landmark Sdn Bhd, landowner City Properties Sdn Bhd, and its directors Tan Sri Yap Yong Seong and Sean Yap.

He said the matter had not crossed the stage where the matter needs to be heard before the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal (COA) has upheld the broader principle of administrative law applied to protect public entities, particularly when they risk disrupting public administration and governmental functions, a judge who allowed the Government’s appeal in the Semantan case, said.

The notice of motion, filed via the company’s solicitors Messrs Chooi & Co, is understood to have been served on the Attorney General's Chambers on Monday.

The court allowed three KL Tower concessionaires—LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd, and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd—to be removed from the suit.

Biswas said Tuesday’s Court of Appeal decision does not follow the 2009 High Court decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court—namely that the company "retains beneficial ownership of the land".