LEE KAI WUEN & ANOR v. LEE YEE WUEN
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: J-02(IM)(NCC)-1315-09-2020]
26 MAY 2022
In Mareva type of injunction, a real risk of dissipation of assets is an essential ingredient, wherein the injunction purports to prevent a plaintiff from being cheated out of the proceeds of an action, should he be successful, by a defendant transferring his assets abroad or dissipating his assets within the jurisdiction. The need for evidence of a real risk of dissipation lies at the very heart of the jurisdiction and its raison d'etre. There is no exception to the rules, such that this ingredient may be presumed in any identified circumstances. Hence, to hold a real risk of dissipation of assets may be presumed is effectively to negate the need to actually establish that such a risk exists.
JKL v. ABC & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24F-363-11-2021]
24 MAY 2022
Notwithstanding the absence of any legislative provision in Malaysia on the power of the High Court to order DNA tests to determine paternity, a High Court Judge has inherent power to order a DNA test in disputed paternity cases. DNA testing ought to be ordered especially if the party claiming to be the father of the child has strong prima facie evidence that he is the biological father of the said child. It would also be in the best interest of a child to know his/her birth father/mother.
KOH KIEN HOOI & ORS v. KEPONG INDUSTRIAL PARK SDN BHD
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC
[CIVIL ACTION NO: WA-22NCvC-350-05-2021]
23 MAY 2022
Even though the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear claims falling within the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts, the practice of bypassing the lower courts should be frowned upon and should be discouraged. Unless there are cogent reasons as to why a claim should be instituted in the High Court, litigants should file their claims following the jurisdiction provided for in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
NG MIN LIN v. 2HAMPSHIRE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
JOHN LEE KIEN HOW JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22NCVC-700-10-2018]
24 MARCH 2022
The word 'may' under s. 78(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') gives a management corporation the option to either commence an action against a defaulted proprietor or to resort to the mechanism stated in s. 79 of the SMA or any other mechanisms; Section 78(2) provides the management corporations discretion. The filing of a summons in court is not a mandatory mechanism. Hence, the act of executing the mechanism stated in para. 6 of the Third Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 by the management corporation, is not wrong or irregular.
- Ykl Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Anor  1 LNS 1531 [FC]
- Vigny Alfred Raj Vicetor Amratha Raja v. PP  1 LNS 1530 [FC]
- Persatuan Pemandu-Pemandu Perempuan Malaysia lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan  1 LNS 1383 [CA]
- Hemraj & Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Ors  7 CLJ 169 [CA]
- The United States Of America v. Menteri Sumber Manusia & Ors  6 CLJ 493 [FC]
- Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Macon Charter B.V  1 LNS 1126 [CA]
- Guangzhou Light Industry & Trade Group Ltd & Ors v. Lintas Superstore Sdn Bhd  6 CLJ 653 [FC]
“Given the breadth and scope of art. 4(1) FC, it is untenable to describe the entirety of judicial power and the jurisdiction of the courts as being confined to the last two lines of art. 121(1) FC, namely that “... the High Courts... shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.”
While it may well have been the intent of Parliament vide A704/1988 to seek to restrict or curtail judicial powers, that intent was not achieved. On an objective construction of the FC holistically it is evident that it is untenable if not impossible to read art. 121(1) FC in vacuo when deciding on the source, scope and ambit of judicial power. The only tenable construction that can be accorded to judicial power is that it subsists in more than just art. 121(1) FC, the foremost of which is art. 4(1) FC.
But these constitutional provisions do not and cannot abrogate judicial power in terms of the inherent jurisdiction of the court or the constitutional power of judicial review which is contained in art. 4(1) FC. This is borne out by a simple example. If indeed judicial power is confined to, and limited by, federal law as a literal reading of art. 121(1) FC may suggest, then how is that there subsists at the same time, power in the Judiciary or the courts to strike down that very same federal law if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the FC? It is contrary to any form of coherent legal rationale that it can be said on the one hand that judicial power is circumscribed by federal law, but on the other, hand, that self-same judicial power can strike down that very same federal law within the same Constitution.” – Per Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ in Dhinesh Tanaphll v. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors  5 CLJ 1
“Section 2 of the Evidence Act does not expressly state that the Act does not apply to proceedings before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT). However, the SCIT, similar to an arbitral tribunal, is an inferior tribunal; it is not a court. Hence, it follows that the Evidence Act also does not apply to proceedings before the SCIT. As the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before the SCIT, it follows that provisions relating to the examination of witnesses, including cross-examination, in the Evidence Act as well as case law on examination of witnesses do not apply to hearings before the SCIT.” - per Faizah Jamaludin J in Idaman Pelita Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  4 CLJ 744
“Seksyen 48 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 ini harus ditafsirkan secara golden rule dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam dan juga judicial notice. Perlu diambil maklum bahawa jumlah kenderaan bermotor di Kota Bharu khasnya dan Kelantan amnya adalah amat tinggi. Dengan pertambahan jumlah kenderaan ini, maka permintaan untuk tempat parkir yang terhad dalam kawasan bandar adalah amat tinggi dan menyulitkan. Motokar pemohon yang masih di tempat parkir dengan keadaan caj parkir telah habis akan mendatangkan kesusahan yang tidak berpatutan kepada pengguna-pengguna lain. Saya berpendapat keadaan ini adalah termasuk dalam tafsiran peruntukan s. 48 APJ 1987.
Atas penelitian dan penemuan-penemuan tersebut saya mendapati tindakan responden (mengunci tayar kereta pemohon) tidak menimbulkan unsur-unsur irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety. Dengan ini saya menolak relif-relif yang dipohon dalam semakan kehakiman ini.”- Per Roslan Abu Bakar H in Nursyafawati Kasim lwn. Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bharu Bandaraya Islam  6 CLJ 120
“The principles on which an appellate court is allowed to receive additional evidence were earlier enunciated in the case of R v. Parks  3 All ER 633 (“R v. Parks”), which was later approved by the House of Lords in the case of R v. Pendleton  1 WLR 72.
Based on the above-cited cases, the appellant must cumulatively satisfy all the four requirements propounded in R v. Parks and the prerequisite in s. 61 of the CJA that it is necessary for the justice of the case in order to be allowed to adduce the additional evidence. Further, only in the most exceptional circumstances will the court receive additional evidence, and the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the appellate court if necessary in the interest of justice.” – Per Ab Karim Ab Jalil, Has Zanah Mehat, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera JJCA in Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. PP  4 CLJ 231
“Judicial review is not merely procedural but a substantive and immutable component of judicial power - one which is inherent and which defines the very core function of an independent Judiciary. It is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.
Reading s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 as it stands and upon analysing the basis for judicial review in this country, I find that s. 66A of the ARIE 2003 is unconstitutional and void, as it is a provision which the SSLA has no power to make. I accordingly find that the petitioner has overcome the threshold of the presumption of constitutionality.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener)  3 CLJ 339
( as of 16 August 2022)
(as of 02 August 2022)
- PU(A) 228/2022
Control of Supplies (Prohibition on Export) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
- PU(A) 320/2021
Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 6) Order 2021
- PU(A) 449/2021
Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021
- PU(A) 159/2012
Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012
- PU(A) 127/2017
Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Order of Priority For Payments of Different Categories of Islamic Deposits, Determination and Classification of Assets and Application of Disposal Proceeds of Assets in the Winding Up of Deposit-Taking Member) Regulations 2017
- PU(A) 264/2022
Malay Reservations (Federal Territory) (Amendment Of Third Schedule) Order 2022
- PU(A) 263/2022
Malay Reservations (Federal Territory) (Amendment Of Second Schedule) Order 2022
- PU(A) 262/2022
Employment (Amendment Of First Schedule) Order 2022
- PU(A) 261/2022
Ministers Of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022
- PU(A) 260/2022
Service Tax (Digital Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
- PU(B) 372/2022
Notification Of Values Of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12
- PU(B) 371/2022
Notice To Third Parties
- PU(B) 370/2022
Notice To Third Parties
- PU(B) 369/2022
Notice Regarding The Certification And Inspection Of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month Of July 2022
- PU(B) 368/2022
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation
- Bills 2022
- Government Of Kelantan Gazette - Syariah Criminal Code (Ii) (1993) 2015
- Legislation: An Overview
- Legislation: FAQs
- Vegetable seller gets 2 years jail for slashing ex-employer with parang 15/08/2022
- Prosecution rubbishes Najib's bid to introduce fresh evidence 15/08/2022
- Najib ordered changes to 1MDB audit report, MACC officer tells court 12/08/2022
- Single mother fined RM8,000 for Facebook story insulting 'solat hajat' 12/08/2022
- High court rules Rewcastle-Brown's bid to challenge defamation charge premature 12/08/2022
- Labuan MP fails to strike out abuse of power charges against him 11/08/2022
- Prosecution closes its case against Zahid 11/08/2022
- Aug 30 decision on Rosmah's new bid to disqualify Sri Ram 11/08/2022
- MACC completes investigation on several people linked to LCS scandal 11/08/2022
- Unemployed man jailed 12 years, gets 6 strokes for sexual abuse 10/08/2022
FAMILY LAW DISPUTES ABOUT COVID-19 VACCINATION+
by Elizabeth Reardon*
Among the many additional challenges for separated families during the Covid-19 pandemic was whether or not to vaccinate their children. Elizabeth Reardon discusses several cases where parents sought a judicial determination to settle their disagreement.
There is no doubt that the Covid-19 pandemic brought about additional challenges for separated families already struggling with shared decision making and spending time arrangements in relation to their children.
Covid-19 restrictions and state-based laws, which were inconsistent with existing parenting orders, along with parental concerns about containing the spread of infection, led to much uncertainty and in some cases, contravention of parenting orders and escalation of conflict.
Canberrans and families living in the surrounding NSW region faced the same challenges as other 'border residents' all over the country — complying with parenting orders which required them to transport children between residences across state and territory borders when the Government health directives prohibited such movement.
DEEPFAKES AND AUTHENTICATION OF EVIDENCE
by Gita Radhakrishna[i] Mageswary Siva Subramaniam[ii]
The manipulated videos of President Obama, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2017 brought to light the 'deepfakes' technology and the opportunity for mischief and abuse of evidence. Forgery has always been the bane of evidence. The unprecedented development of Artificial Intelligence and its use in digital application technologies to create fake images, text, audio and video is perturbing as it calls into question the authenticity of any evidence presented in court. With the continuous advancement in technologies, deepfakes have become so sophisticated and refined that even forensic experts have difficulties in deciphering the fake from the real. This paper examines the issue of deepfakes and the challenges in authenticating audio-video evidence for use in trials. The methodology adopted is a doctrinal study of the available literature on the subject and reported cases. It also recommends a set of authenticating procedures for the admissibility of audio-video evidence so as to establish its credibility in court.
NUCTECH COMPANY LIMITED v. PAN ASIATIC TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD & ORS; POWERSCAN COMPANY LIMITED (THIRD PARTY) & ANOTHER CASE  1 LNS 398
by Jeong Chun Phuoc*
This case was a decided by Azizah Nawawi J in the High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur in Suit Nos: 22IP-43-11-2013 & 22IP-24-05-2014 dated 27 January 2016. The case involved two consolidated suits before Azizah Nawawi J. Following the judicial disposition of Lord Denning MR, if I may, I would like to focus on the ratio decidendi in this case which, in my mind, is quite remarkable because it sets out a new direction where three key areas of the law are closely intertwined: intellectual property (IP), contract and indemnity elements. For this reason, this case has set a marvellous precedent for subsequent cases for judicial compliance purposes.
by Sree Sudaarshan Sreekumar*
Never before has the Malaysian Government wielded so much power. Today, the government possesses the right to sue individuals for defamation. This is courtesy of the Federal Court's decision in Chong Chieng Jen. In this article, the author argues that the Court, in rendering its holding, erred in law. The question whether the government has the right to sue for defamation is a jurisdictional one. The answer to that question, contrary to popular belief, does not reside in the common law. Instead, the answer finds its roots in Malaysia's federal defamation statute, the Defamation Act 1957. The Act, however, says nothing about the government's right to sue for defamation. Because that conclusion comes from federal law, the government's suit should have been shot down early in the litigation process. In Part I, the article outlines the procedural posture of the suit. In Part II, the article critically examines the Court's legal reasoning. This is the most crucial section, for it discusses key provisions of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. In Part III, the article explores whether the government may rely upon the substantive elements of defamation to maintain its suit. Part IV briefly explains what the author has tentatively come to term common-law pre-emption of federal law. The article concludes in Part V
by Mohamad Fateh Labanieh[i] Mohammad Azam Hussain[ii]
Technological advancement has played a considerable role in introducing a new dispute resolution mechanism called electronic arbitration (hereinafter referred to as e-arbitration) to the dispute resolution industry. Therefore, the Malaysian arbitration system must evolve in tandem with the advancement of modern technologies. Based on doctrinal legal research, this article seeks to analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats ('S.W.O.T') of using e-arbitration. It has been discovered that e-arbitration can supplement the Malaysian dispute resolution industry. Moreover, e-arbitration's weaknesses and threats only relate to operational and initial implementation issues. Finally, it is concluded that the Malaysian Government should strengthen its dispute resolution legal framework with e-arbitration.
Retail staff to get pay increases from Sep 1, with expansion of Progressive Wage Model
Local rank-and-file shop workers are set to receive wage increases over three years under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the retail sector. Wages for these workers are expected to go up by 8.4 per cent to 8.5 per cent annually, starting from Sep 1 this year up to Aug 31, 2025. This was among recommendations announced Monday (Aug 15) by the Tripartite Cluster for Retail Industry (TCR) for workers such as retail assistants, cashiers and assistant retail supervisors. Retail assistants, for instance, will have to be paid at least S$1,850 a month, excluding overtime, from Sep 1. The TCR arrived at this figure after consulting extensively and considering the existing median wage of these jobs.
Huge pay bumps and flexi work policies: How Singapore companies are fighting the war for talent
In a normal year, lawyers at one of Singapore’s top four local law firms could expect to receive an annual increment of between 10% and 15%. The company said employees would get a larger increment this year, one former employee told CNBC. His salary jumped by 40% and the increase was not tied to a promotion, the person said. That law firm isn’t the only company in Singapore adjusting compensation packages in a hot labor market. Southeast Asia’s largest lender DBS told CNBC it increased salaries across the bank in mid-2021. Accounting company KPMG announced in May that the firm will spend 25 million Singapore dollars ($18.23 million) on salary increments.
Rising cost of living sending Johoreans back to Singapore
The majority of locals who returned to Johor when the border with Singapore was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, have gone back to the island republic. Johor business groups say the locals decided to seek employment in Singapore again for various reasons, including the rising cost of living in Malaysia. Johor Indian Muslim Entre-preneur Association (Perusim) secretary Hussein Ibrahim said only a small group of people remained in Johor.
Australia to fast-track visa applications for skilled migrants
The Australian government has announced it will fast-track permanent visa applications for skilled workers. Clare O’Neil minister for home affairs said recently department resources will be diverted to prioritise visa applications for highly skilled workers overseas, reported Xinhua quoting Australian Financial Review (AFR). The Covid-19 pandemic shut off the pipeline for skilled migrants to Australia with borders closed for almost two years creating a significant backlog in visa applications. More than 600,000 temporary visa holders left Australia while borders were closed causing staffing shortages in the health, construction and hospitality industries.
Government opens up more sectors for foreign workers from India
Malaysia has agreed to open up more sectors for foreign workers from India, says Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri M. Saravanan. “Recently, the Home Affairs Ministry and Human Resources Ministry joint committee have approved other sectors,” he said briefly while answering questions from lawmakers during the tabling of the Employees' Social Security (Amendment) 2022 Bill in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday (July 21).
Sign Up for e-Bulletin
Subscribe to our FREE CLJ & LLB Bulletins
Emails sent to you weekly with the latest updates on the law.