|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HONG LEONG FINANCE BHD v. LOW THIAM HOE & ANOTHER APPEAL [2015] 8 CLJ 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Defence - Amendment to statement of defence - Application made on eve of trial - Whether prejudicial - Whether proposed amendment introduced a new and different defence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying principles in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v. Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors
AMIN RAVAN v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS [2015] 8 CLJ 165 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Extradition - Order of committal - Appeal against - Detention of appellant pending issuance of extradition order - Whether lawful - Appellant allegedly a fugitive criminal required to attend hearing in United States of America (US) - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant extraterritorial offences in US but not in Malaysia - Whether there was corresponding offence in Malaysia which has extraterritorial effect - Dual criminality requirements under s. 6(2) and s. 20(1) of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether complied with - Effect approach and continuing approach - Whether only rationalises jurisdiction of requesting state - Whether changes an extraterritorial offence to territorial offence - Whether requested state may refuse extradition when there is no corresponding extraterritorial jurisdiction - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant had no extraterritorial application under s. 4 of Penal Code - Whether appellant could be extradited - Whether habeas corpus should be granted - Extra-Territorial Offences Act 1976, s. 2(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Extradition - Order of committal - Appeal against - Detention of appellant pending issuance of extradition order - Whether lawful - Appellant allegedly a fugitive criminal required to attend hearing in United States of America (US) - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant extraterritorial offences in US but not in Malaysia - Whether there was corresponding offence in Malaysia which has extraterritorial effect - Dual criminality requirements under s. 6(2) and s. 20(1) of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether complied with - Effect approach and continuing approach - Whether only rationalises jurisdiction of requesting state - Whether changes an extraterritorial offence to territorial offence - Whether requested state may refuse extradition when there is no corresponding extraterritorial jurisdiction - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant had no extraterritorial application under s. 4 of Penal Code - Whether appellant could be extradited - Whether habeas corpus should be granted - Extra-Territorial Offences Act 1976, s. 2(1) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2015 Volume 8 (Part 1) COURT FEDERAL COURT Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe & Another Appeal S & M Jewellery Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Fui Lian-Kwong Hing Sdn Bhd COURT OF APPEAL Far East Holdings Bhd & Anor v. Majlis Ugama Islam Dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang & Another Appeal Ketua Pengarah Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia & Anor v. Dr Ghandi Rajan Arjunun HIGH COURT Pacific World Destination East Sdn Bhd v. Ngiam Geok Mooi & Anor Shen & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Jutawarna Development Sdn Bhd & Ors SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Certiorari - Industrial Court - Industrial Court disallowing summary dismissal of Regional General Manager on grounds of insubordination - Whether Industrial Court committed error warranting decision being quashed by certiorari - Whether decision of Industrial Court unreasonable in "Wednesbury" sense - Whether certiorari should be granted ARBITRATION Award - Setting aside - Application for - Shareholding structure - Allotment of shares - Construction of agreement - Whether arbitrator adopted proper approach in construing agreement - Whether assessment of value of shares by arbitrator correct - Whether intervention warranted - Whether arbitrator erred in awarding pre and post award interest - Whether arbitrator committed error of law in awarding final award - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 33(6) CIVIL PROCEDURE Amendment - Defence - Amendment to statement of defence - Application made on eve of trial - Whether prejudicial - Whether proposed amendment introduced a new and different defence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying principles in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v. Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors Damages - Assessment of damages - Appeal against damages awarded by senior assistant registrar (SAR) - Failure to object to evidence on special damages adduced during hearing of assessment before SAR - Whether amounted to waiver - Whether defendants precluded from raising objections during appeal before judge in chambers - Rules of Court 2012, O. 56 r. 1 Judgments and orders - Declaratory order - Application for - Applications for renewal of licence for private hospital repeatedly refused by Jabatan Kesihatan Negeri Selangor - Premises inspected and notice of offence and seal of premises issued - Whether closure of premises consistent with provisions of Medical Act 1971 and Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 - Whether closure of premises lawful - Whether premises should be allowed to continue to operate Judicial review - Principles - Whether judicial review not confined to process but also includes review of substance - Whether judicial review court may enquire into merits and substance of decisions Pleadings - Statement of claim - Failure to plead - Aggravated and exemplary damages - Whether should be claimed as specific relief in statement of claim - Whether failure to provide particulars for aggravated and exemplary damages fatal Pleadings - Statement of claim - Failure to plead special damages - Whether fatal - Whether O. 18 r. 12(1) and (2) of Rules of Court 2012 complied with - Lack of objection by defendants - Whether evidence of loss and expense could be adduced during hearing of assessment of damages although not pleaded in statement of claim LABOUR LAW Employment - Termination - Insubordination - Regional General manager summarily dismissed on grounds of insubordination - Nature and limit of employee's duty to obey orders of superior - Whether insubordination strikes at root of employment contract - Whether serious enough to justify summary dismissal - Test for determining whether employee should be dismissed - Whether punishment of termination proportionate - Whether Industrial Court committed error warranting its decision being quashed by certiorari - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1) Employment - Termination - Proportionality - Whether punishment of termination proportionate - Test of reasonable employer in British Leyland UK Ltd v. Swift LANDLORD AND TENANT Lease - Agreement - Termination of sub-lease on ground of non-registration - Whether rendered sub-lease void - Whether registration of sub-lease was root of agreement - Whether delay in registration amounted to fundamental breach - Whether parties regulated by terms of unregistered sub-lease - Whether tenant entitled to terminate agreement - Whether notice of termination amounted to repudiatory breach Lease - Non-registration - Whether becomes tenancy at will - Whether tenancy at will changes into periodic tenancy upon payment of rent - Whether unregistered lease treated as sub-lease in equity - Whether equity could compel specific performance of sub-lease - Whether rights of proprietor was as per lease Lease - Termination - Unregistered sub-lease - Whether registration was root of agreement - Whether notice of termination amounted to repudiatory breach - Whether loss suffered by landlord was periodic tenancy from year to year - Whether lease could be specifically enforced - Whether landlord was only entitled to damages in lieu of notice of termination CLJ 2015 Volume 8 (Part 2) COURT
FEDERAL COURT Amin Ravan v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dato' Shazryl Eskay Abdullah COURT OF APPEAL Dato' Dr V Thuraisingam & Anor v. Sanmarkan Ganapathy & Anor Loo Chooi Ting v. United Overseas Bank Ltd Leong Ah Kew & Ors v. Prisma Suria Sdn Bhd Tan Sri Dato' Paduka (Dr) Ting Pek Khiing v. CIMB Bank Bhd SUBJECT INDEX
BANKRUPTCY Public examination - Appearance - Appeal by bankrupt against decision of Senior Assistant Registrar for leave that persons named ordered to appear for purpose of public examination - Whether leave of court obtained prior to application - Whether there was reasonable belief that potential witnesses must be called to give information on dealings with properties of the bankrupt - Bankruptcy Act 1967, s. 31 - Bankruptcy Rules 1969, rr. 53(1) & 54 CIVIL PROCEDURE Cause of action - Loan facilities - Claim for payment - Judgment in default obtained against defendant for outstanding sum - Whether cause of action against defendant merged in judgment of High Court in Singapore - Doctrine of merger - Whether applicable to foreign judgments - Whether default judgment binding as judgment given after trial on merits - Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability - Whether plaintiff barred from relitigating action - Whether High Court of Singapore's judgment acted as final prohibition to any other proceedings - Whether proceedings for recovery sum payable under judgment must be by way of registration - Reciprocal Enforcement Of Judgments Act 1958, s. 7 Judgments and orders - Judgment in default - Judgment in default obtained against defendant for outstanding sum - Whether cause of action against defendant merged in judgment of High Court in Singapore - Doctrine of merger - Whether applicable to foreign judgments - Whether default judgment binding as judgment given after trial on merits - Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability - Whether plaintiff barred from relitigating action - Whether High Court of Singapore's judgment acted as final prohibition to any other proceedings - Whether proceedings for recovery sum payable under judgment must be by way of registration - Reciprocal Enforcement Of Judgments Act 1958, s. 7 Preliminary objection - Issues raised - Whether there were live issues between parties - Whether issues had become academic - Whether appeal would be a mere exercise in futility - Whether preliminary objection overruled CONTRACT Breach - Agreement - Joint venture agreement (JVA) - Failure by defendants to develop land within stipulated time - Construction of clauses in JVA - Whether defendant's failure to develop land was due to plaintiffs' failure to evict squatters and demolish buildings on land (evict and demolish) - Whether plaintiff's obligation to evict and demolish was a condition precedent for defendants to commence development works - Whether plaintiffs entitled to terminate JVA Illegality and public policy - Whether provision of services illegal under Malaysian law - Claim for payment - Undertaking to use influence and good relationship with Government of Malaysia and Federal Ministers to secure tender of intergovernmental project - Whether letter of undertaking enforceable - Whether agreement to provide services to influence decision of public decision maker to award contract against public policy - Whether contractual consideration was lawful - Whether agreement void - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(e) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Extradition - Order of committal - Appeal against - Detention of appellant pending issuance of extradition order - Whether lawful - Appellant allegedly a fugitive criminal required to attend hearing in United States of America (US) - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant extraterritorial offences in US but not in Malaysia - Whether there was corresponding offence in Malaysia which has extraterritorial effect - Dual criminality requirements under s. 6(2) and s. 20(1) of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether complied with - Effect approach and continuing approach - Whether only rationalises jurisdiction of requesting state - Whether changes an extraterritorial offence to territorial offence - Whether requested state may refuse extradition when there is no corresponding extraterritorial jurisdiction - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant had no extraterritorial application under s. 4 of Penal Code - Whether appellant could be extradited - Whether habeas corpus should be granted - Extra-Territorial Offences Act 1976, s. 2(1) Habeas corpus - Application for - Extradition - Order of committal - Appeal against - Detention of appellant pending issuance of extradition order - Whether lawful - Appellant allegedly a fugitive criminal required to attend hearing in United States of America (US) - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant extraterritorial offences in US but not in Malaysia - Whether there was corresponding offence in Malaysia which has extraterritorial effect - Dual criminality requirements under s. 6(2) and s. 20(1) of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether complied with - Effect approach and continuing approach - Whether only rationalises jurisdiction of requesting state - Whether changes an extraterritorial offence to territorial offence - Whether requested state may refuse extradition when there is no corresponding extraterritorial jurisdiction - Whether offences allegedly committed by appellant had no extraterritorial application under s. 4 of Penal Code - Whether appellant could be extradited - Whether habeas corpus should be granted - Extra-Territorial Offences Act 1976, s. 2(1) PROFESSIONS Medical practitioners - Negligence - Standard of care - Test to be applied - Misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose - Principles and tests to be applied - Whether tests are merely guidelines - Whether high threshold applicable - Whether evidential burden shifts to doctor once breach is established - Whether trial court bound by medical opinion - Whether trial judge erred in rejecting expert evidence in finding negligence - Whether breach of duty of care established TORT Negligence - Professional negligence - Standard of care - Test to be applied - Consultant physicians failing to diagnose or misdiagnosing deceased's colon cancer - Whether test to be applied is Bolam test, Bolitho test, Rogers v. Whitaker test or Foo Fio Na test - Whether tests are merely guidelines only to arrive at just decision based on facts - Whether high threshold applicable - Whether evidential burden shifts to doctor once breach is established - Whether trial court bound by medical opinion - Whether trial judge erred in rejecting expert evidence in finding negligence - Whether breach of duty of care established Negligence - Standard of care - Medical negligence - Consultant physicians failing to diagnose or misdiagnosing deceased's colon cancer - Misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose - Whether tests are merely guidelines only to arrive at just decision based on facts - Whether high threshold applicable - Whether evidential burden shifts to doctor once breach is established - Whether trial court bound by medical opinion - Whether trial judge erred in rejecting expert evidence in finding negligence - Whether breach of duty of care established |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
