|
Introduction: To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=subscription Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=bulletinsubscribe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DATO' SERI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH v. MAJLIS PEGUAM [2015] 7 CLJ 705 LEGAL PROFESSION: Practice of law - Misconduct - Publicity - Newspaper articles on appellant and his profession as advocate and solicitor - Remarks and allusions made thereof - Whether laudatory - Whether beyond scope of 'approved information' allowed by law - Whether in breach of rules against publicity - Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 rr. 2, 5, 15, 24 - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 r. 48 - Legal Profession Act 1976 s. 94(3)(k), (o) WORDS AND PHRASES: 'approved information' - Rules 2(g) and (m), Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 - Scope of WORDS AND PHRASES: 'in the opinion of the Bar Council' - Rule 15, Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 - Whether to be construed narrowly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2015 Volume 7 (Part 6) COURT COURT OF APPEAL Dato' Seri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah v. Majlis Peguam Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang Malaysia v. Saiman Umar Menteri Bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor v. Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill & Another Appeal Proton Edar Sdn Bhd v. Multioto Assist Sdn Bhd HIGH COURT CB Land Sdn Bhd v. Syarikat Perumahan Negara Bhd Dato' Joseph Lai Khee Sin & Ors v. Fong Wai Heng Lau Poh Lee v. Dato Dr Kamalasothy Kandiah & Ors Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim v. Norina Zainol Abidin & Ors PP lwn. Sukveer Singh Bealdave Singh Sabaruddin Md Hashim lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Certiorari - Application for - EPF Board dismissed applicant's application to withdraw funds - Application to quash decision of EPF Board - Applicant claimed to be physically incapacitated from being further employed - Medical examination by three medical practitioners appointed by EPF Board - Application for withdrawal - Findings that applicant physically or mentally fit to engage in employment rejected - Failure to notify applicant regarding rejection of application - Whether EPF Board acted ultra vires its powers in requiring applicant be examined by three medical practitioners - Whether there was procedural unfairness on account of EPF Board's failure to notify applicant in writing that his application was rejected - Whether EPF Board acted contrary to mandatory requirements imposed by EPF Rules Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Eight publications in form of Audio CD carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated - Whether power to withhold and confiscate publications exercised lawfully and legally - Whether there was clear demarcation between power given to Minister under s. 9 of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (the Act) and power bestowed upon senior authorised officer under s. 9A of the Act - Letter purporting to confiscate publication signed by person other than Minister and not envisaged by Parliament as empowered to make order - Whether ultra vires s. 9 of the Act - Prayer sought to challenge prohibition of the use of the word 'Allah' - Whether could be done in collateral manner or to be challenged in isolation - Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Public servants - Dismissal - Whether unlawful, null and void - Failure to comply with Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1994 (Disciplinary Rules) - Allegation of - Whether disciplinary proceedings tainted - Whether there was failure to consider issues raised in submissions - Whether court had jurisdiction to grant declaration of unlawful dismissal sought by respondent - Whether respondent given reasonable opportunity to be heard - Whether pre-requisites of rr. 25 & 28 of Disciplinary Rules complied with CIVIL PROCEDURE Jurisdiction - Magistrate - First Class Magistrate - Jurisdiction to try charge under s. 5(1) of Film Censorship Act 2002 - Whether Magistrate fully seized with jurisdiction to try charge - Film Censorship Act 2002, s. 44 Parties - Locus standi - Plaintiff claimed for general and special damages on behalf of wife - Whether action misconceived in law - Whether plaintiff had standing to bring action in his name on behalf of his wife Pleadings - Matters not pleaded - Findings by judge on matters not pleaded - Dispute arising from agreement - Judge ordered assessment of damages on quantum meruit basis - Whether a contract was executed between parties - Whether damages on quantum meruit basis pleaded - Whether there was evidence of benefit Striking out - Writ and statement of claim - Allegation of invasion of privacy and malicious prosecution - Whether invasion of privacy an actionable wrong - Whether pleadings disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether there was reasonable and probable cause for charge against plaintiff - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d) Summary judgment - Triable issues - Whether plaintiff established prima facie case against defendant - Whether defendant raised any bona fide issues to be tried - Whether plain and obvious case for granting summary judgment - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Constitution - Infringement of - Eight publications in form of Audio CD carrying word of 'Allah' seized and confiscated - Whether there was deprivation of freedom of religion - Whether there was right to equality or freedom from discrimination - Whether case to be remitted back to High Court to ensure parties not deprived of constitutional right to appeal - Federal Constitution, arts. 8 & 11 CONTRACT Indemnity - Construction of - Development agreement and general conditions of contract - Development of housing project within stipulated time - Application for extension of time for completion date - Late payment of delivery charges to affected purchasers upon delivery of vacant possession - Claim for indemnity of late delivery charge - Reasons for delay - Whether defendant could be indemnified by plaintiff - Contracts Act 1950, s. 77 LABOUR LAW Provident fund - Liability to contribute - Employer paid employee's EPF contribution and not deducted from wages - Whether employee liable to pay employee's EPF contributions - Whether employer entitled to claim for refund from employee - Whether amounted to unjust enrichment to employee LEGAL PROFESSION Practice of law - Misconduct - Publicity - Newspaper articles on appellant and his profession as advocate and solicitor - Remarks and allusions made thereof - Whether laudatory - Whether beyond scope of 'approved information' allowed by law - Whether in breach of rules against publicity - Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 rr. 2, 5, 15, 24 - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 r. 48 - Legal Profession Act 1976 s. 94(3)(k), (o) WORDS AND PHRASES 'approved information' - Rules 2(g) and (m), Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 - Scope of 'in the opinion of the Bar Council' - Rule 15, Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 - Whether to be construed narrowly PROVIDENT FUND Withdrawal of fund - Application for - Applicant claimed to be physically incapacitated from being further employed - Medical examination by three medical practitioners appointed by Employees Provident Fund Board (EPF Board) - Findings that applicant physically or mentally fit to engage in employment - Application for withdrawal rejected - Failure to notify applicant regarding rejection of application - Whether EPF Board acted ultra vires its powers in requiring applicant be examined by three medical practitioners - Whether EPF Board acted contrary to mandatory requirements imposed by EPF Rules INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Anggapan bertentangan - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi material - Kegagalan memanggil individu lain yang turut ditangkap bersama tertuduh sebagai saksi - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan Kawad cam - Pengendalian kawad cam - Sama ada teratur - Sama ada pengecaman tertuduh boleh diterima - Sama ada tertuduh harus dilepaskan dan dibebaskan PROSEDUR JENAYAH Hukuman - Pecah amanah jenayah - Rayuan balas terhadap hukuman oleh pihak pendakwaan - Perayu sebagai pengurus menyalahgunakan cek yang diamanahkan untuk kepentingan sendiri - Sama ada hukuman di bawah s. 294 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah memadai - Faktor-faktor mitigasi - Sama ada hukuman harus ditingkatkan Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pembebasan dan pelepasan - Rayuan oleh pendakwaan - Tertuduh dan dua orang yang lain dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan di bawah s. 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan - Pembelaan - Alibi - Kegagalan memberi notis berdasarkan s. 402A(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terkhilaf apabila membebaskan dan melepaskan tertuduh UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 395/397 - Rompakan berkumpulan - Tertuduh dan dua orang yang lain merompak wang gaji yang dibawa mangsa-mangsa - Pembelaan - Alibi - Kegagalan memberi notis berdasarkan s. 402A(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terkhilaf apabila membebaskan dan melepaskan tertuduh Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 409 - Pecah amanah jenayah - Rayuan terhadap sabitan - Perayu sebagai pengurus menyalahgunakan cek yang diamanahkan untuk kepentingan sendiri - Elemen-elemen yang perlu dibuktikan - Sama ada hukuman di bawah s. 294 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah memadai - Sama ada hukuman harus ditingkatkan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
