|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MOHD KHIR TOYO v. PP [2015] 8 CLJ 769 CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 165 - Public servant accepted valuable thing for inadequate consideration from person whom he knew had connections with his official work - Ingredients of charge - Whether proven - Anti-Corruption Act 1997, ss. 2, 42(2), (3) - Penal Code, s. 21(i) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Corruption - Whether imprisonment right and proper punishment for corruption - Whether fine or community service proper punishment - Whether one year imprisonment appropriate - Order of forfeiture - Whether lawful deprivation - Whether appellant could resist forfeiture upon conviction - Penal Code, s. 165 EVIDENCE: Accomplice - Corroboration - Offence under s. 165 of Penal Code - Public servant accepted valuable thing for inadequate consideration from a person whom he knew had connections with his official work - Whether giver could be `regarded as an accomplice' - Whether uncorroborated evidence of accomplice should be set aside - Anti-Corruption Act 1997, s. 44(1)(a)(ii) & (2)
PP v. AZMI SHAROM [2015] 8 CLJ 921 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution - Pre-Merdeka law - Whether Sedition Act 1948 ('Act') valid and enforceable under Federal Constitution ('Constitution') - Whether Act comes within ambit of art. 10(2) of Constitution - Whether term "Parliament may by law" in art. 10(2) should be read restrictively or harmoniously with other provisions - Whether intention of framers of Constitution to provide continuance of all existing laws to bring it into accord with Constitution - Whether Act continues to be valid and enforceable post Merdeka Day - Federal Constitution, art. 162 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity of impugned legislation - Whether s. 4(1) of Sedition Act 1948 ('Act') contravened art. 10(2) of Federal Constitution ('Constitution') - Fundamental liberties - Freedom of speech - Parliament given right to impose restrictions deemed necessary in the interest of security of Federation - Whether restrictions must fall within parameters set out by art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution - Application of 'reasonable' and 'proportionality' tests - Whether for court to determine restrictions imposed reasonable or otherwise - Whether a matter strictly within discretion of Legislature - Section 4(1) of Act directed to any act, word or publication having seditious tendencies - Whether restrictions imposed by s. 4(1) of Act too remote or not sufficiently connected to subjects enumerated in art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2015 Volume 8 (Part 6) COURT FEDERAL COURT Mohd Khir Toyo v. PP COURT OF APPEAL Mohamad Shahrudin Md Isa v. PP & Another Appeal Petra Perdana Bhd v. Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra & Ors Sadiq Batcha Kaja Modeen lwn. PP HIGH COURT Lee Guat Cheow & Co Sdn Bhd v. Wong Soo Ha Maria Rochele Silva Sarabia v. Registrar Of Lands And Surveys & Anor Wong Huang Ing v. PP SUBJECT INDEX COMPANY LAW Directors - Breach of fiduciary duties - Allegation of wrongful divestment of company's shareholding in subsidiary company - Claim by company against ex-directors - Whether divestments made to meet urgent liquidity needs of company - Whether directors acted in breach of fiduciary and statutory duties - Whether there was conspiracy to injure company - Whether divestments were done for best interest of company - Whether conduct of directors in flagrant breach of members' resolution - Whether constituted a breach under s. 132(1) of Companies Act 1965 CRIMINAL LAW Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in total of 426.77g cannabis - First accused personally handed over drugs from dashboard of car to police - Whether looking scared and nervous constituted inference of guilt - Whether first and second accused had knowledge, custody and control of drugs - Whether prima facie case proved against appellants - Principle of double presumption - Whether wrongly invoked - Whether conviction and sentence safe Penal Code - Section 165 - Public servant accepted valuable thing for inadequate consideration from person whom he knew had connections with his official work - Ingredients of charge - Whether proven - Anti-Corruption Act 1997, ss. 2, 42(2), (3) - Penal Code, s. 21(i) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - First accused personally handed over drugs from dashboard of car to police - Whether looking scared and nervous constituted inference of guilt - Whether first and second accused had knowledge, custody and control of drugs - Whether both accused acted in furtherance of common intention - Whether charge against both accused persons alluded to common intention - Whether prima facie case proved against appellants - Whether trial judge wrongly invoked principle of double presumption - Whether conviction and sentence safe Forfeiture - Dangerous drugs - Forfeiture of property under Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 - Statutory presumption under s. 35 of the Act - Whether applied under an inquiry under s. 32 - Claimant's failure to prove on balance of probabilities that property was not illegal and he was entitled to it - Whether Sessions Court Judge correctly dismissed claim to property Sentence - Corruption - Whether imprisonment right and proper punishment for corruption - Whether fine or community service proper punishment - Whether one year imprisonment appropriate - Order of forfeiture - Whether lawful deprivation - Whether appellant could resist forfeiture upon conviction - Penal Code, s. 165 EVIDENCE Accomplice - Corroboration - Offence under s. 165 of Penal Code - Public servant accepted valuable thing for inadequate consideration from a person whom he knew had connections with his official work - Whether giver could be 'regarded as an accomplice' - Whether uncorroborated evidence of accomplice should be set aside - Anti-Corruption Act 1997, s. 44(1)(a)(ii) & (2) Exhibits - Break in chain of evidence - Allegation of - Whether exhibits positively identified LAND LAW Ownership - Dispute - Discovery of occupier on plot of land during land survey - Allegation that there was agreement between land owner and occupier - Agreement allowed occupier to build house on plot of land - Land owner commenced action for vacant possession - Occupier claimed for specific performance to compel land owner to transfer plot of land - Whether ownership of plot of land vested in land owner or occupier - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 28(2) Sale of land - Caveat - Plaintiff purchased land from vendor - Land sold to third party pursuant to auction - Plaintiff entered caveat on land - Land Registrar registered transfer of land although caveat still in existence - Whether Registrar's act caused plaintiff's caveat to be arbitrarily and unilaterally removed - Whether registrar's action deprived plaintiff of equitable interest over land - Whether plaintiff as foreigner could acquire interest or equitable interest over land - Whether interest or equitable interest could pass from vendor to plaintiff - Whether SPA entered was valid - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), ss. 175, 177 & 197 INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Kenyataan bersumpah - Pembelaan - Sama ada tertuduh hendaklah memberi keterangan terlebih dahulu sebelum saksi-saksi lain dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan - Sama ada tertuduh boleh dianggap sebagai saksi pertama setelah saksi kedua selesai memberi keterangan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 173(j)(iii) PROSEDUR JENAYAH Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) - Dadah jenis ketamin seberat 5,830g - Sama ada anggapan mengedar di bawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai kepada dadah jenis ketamin - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf apabila mengguna pakai anggapan tersebut - Sama ada tertuduh harus memberi keterangan bersumpah terlebih dahulu sebelum saksi-saksi lain - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 173(j)(iii) - Sama ada sabitan selamat UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah jenis ketamin seberat 5,830g - Sama ada anggapan mengedar di bawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai kepada dadah jenis ketamin - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf apabila mengguna pakai anggapan tersebut - Sama ada tertuduh harus memberi keterangan bersumpah terlebih dahulu sebelum saksi-saksi lain - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 173(j)(iii) - Sama ada sabitan selamat CLJ 2015 Volume 8 (Part 7) COURT FEDERAL COURT PP v. Azmi Sharom Samuel Naik Siang Ting v. Public Bank Bhd State Government Of Negeri Sembilan & Ors v. Muhammad Juzaili Mohd Khamis & Ors COURT OF APPEAL Abdol Rahim Zamani Mohammad Ali v. PP Ong Siew Hwa v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd PP v. Abuchi Ben James Yung Ing Ing v. Hunfara Construction Sdn Bhd HIGH COURT Government Of The State Of Penang v. Minister Of Home Affairs & Ors Seema Jaya Sdn Bhd & Anor v. CIMB Bank Bhd SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Application for - Establishment of Penang Voluntary Patrol Unit (PPS) by Government of Penang - Declaration by Minister of Home Affairs that PPS an unlawful society - Whether PPS lawfully and properly established pursuant to s. 101(v) of Local Government Act 1976 - Whether PPS a society within meaning of s. 5(1) of Societies Act 1966 - Whether Minister of Home Affairs acted ultra vires the Local Government Act 1976 and Societies Act 1966 CIVIL PROCEDURE Action - Res judicata - Matters which could and should reasonably have been raised in earlier proceedings - Sale of property by way of auction - Challenge as to valuation - Allegation that property sold at undervalue - Whether challenge should have been raised in foreclosure proceedings - Whether chargor estopped from challenging valuation by way of fresh action Pleadings - Unpleaded issues - Whether court had duty to hear and determine unpleaded issues - Whether raising of issue would completely change character of appellant's defence to respondent's claim - Whether issue would be highly prejudicial to respondent's case COMPANY LAW Director - Liabilities - Consent judgment obtained against company - Judgment sum to be paid by way of four instalments - Whole sum due in event of default of any instalment - Cheque issued in company's name by director - Cheque dishonoured when presented for payments - Whether director as officer of company liable for amount specified in cheques - Companies Act 1965, ss. 4, 121(2), 121(2)(c) - Bills of Exchange Act 1949, s. 81A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Constitution - Pre-Merdeka law - Whether Sedition Act 1948 ('Act') valid and enforceable under Federal Constitution ('Constitution') - Whether Act comes within ambit of art. 10(2) of Constitution - Whether term "Parliament may by law" in art. 10(2) should be read restrictively or harmoniously with other provisions - Whether intention of framers of Constitution to provide continuance of all existing laws to bring it into accord with Constitution - Whether Act continues to be valid and enforceable post Merdeka Day - Federal Constitution, art. 162 Courts - High Court - Jurisdiction - Validity and constitutionality of State Law - Challenge thereto - Whether could be questioned by way of collateral attack in judicial review proceeding in High Court - Whether High Court and Court of Appeal fell into jurisdictional error in entertaining application and appeal thereon - Whether judicial review action rendered incompetent - Proper mode of challenge - Whether to comply with specific procedures laid out in cls. (3) and (4) of art. 4 of Federal Constitution - Whether to commence with leave of judge of Federal Court - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(3), (4), 5(1), 8(2), 9(2) & 10(1) - Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992, s. 66 Legislation - Validity of impugned legislation - Whether s. 4(1) of Sedition Act 1948 ('Act') contravened art. 10(2) of Federal Constitution ('Constitution') - Fundamental liberties - Freedom of speech - Parliament given right to impose restrictions deemed necessary in the interest of security of Federation - Whether restrictions must fall within parameters set out by art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution - Application of 'reasonable' and 'proportionality' tests - Whether for court to determine restrictions imposed reasonable or otherwise - Whether a matter strictly within discretion of Legislature - Section 4(1) of Act directed to any act, word or publication having seditious tendencies - Whether restrictions imposed by s. 4(1) of Act too remote or not sufficiently connected to subjects enumerated in art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Acquittal and discharge - Appeal against - Appeal by prosecution - Accused person charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs - Doubts on chemist report of drugs - Chemist not present when drugs were tested - Running of equipments in chemistry lab monitored by science officers - Whether tests carried out by chemist or science officers - Whether prosecution proved nature and weight of drugs - Whether ingredients of charge proved - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) Judge's notes of evidence - Record of proceedings - Discrepancies in notes of proceedings by trial judge with court recording transcription - Whether trial judge responsible for accuracy of notes of proceedings - Whether there was a misdirection by trial judge - Whether defence case prejudiced - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 272, 272C & 272F EVIDENCE Exhibits - Identity of exhibits - Offence of drug trafficking - Challenge as to identity of drugs - Allegation of discrepancy in weight and break in chain of evidence - Whether discrepancy in weight per se sufficient ground to discredit drug identity - Whether break in chain of evidence proven - Whether challenge as to identity of drugs misplaced HIRE PURCHASE Hire purchase agreement - Implied condition - Defective goods - Motorcar purchased by hirer under hire purchase transaction defective - Whether purchaser could claim against vendor - Whether purchaser could only claim against lender - Whether protection afforded by Consumer Protection Act 1999 applied to goods under hire purchase - Consumer Protection Act 1999, ss. 3, 32, 47 LAND LAW Indefeasibility of title and interests - Registered proprietor of land entered into Sale and Purchase Agreements ('SPAS') with two different sets of purchasers - New purchasers of land claimed to have better title than earlier purchasers - Earlier purchasers had entered into loan agreements and deeds of assignment with respondent bank - Whether respondent was equitable mortgagee - Whether original vendors of land had become bare trustees after collecting purchase price from earlier purchasers - Whether original vendors had capacity to enter into SPAs with new purchasers - Insufficient instrument - Whether transfer of title arose from void instrument - Whether registration was obtained by means of insufficient or void instrument - Whether appellant/new purchaser of land was bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration - Whether appellant's title was indefeasible - Failure to enter caveats - Whether respondent's failure to enter caveats fatal Sale of land - Auction - Challenge as to valuation - Allegation that property sold at undervalue - Whether challenge should have been raised in foreclosure proceedings - Whether undervalue was so gross as to indicate fraud or want of proper standards of care STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Construction of statutes - Intention of Parliament - Whether latter limb to s. 121(2) of Companies Act 1965 applied to cheques - Whether cheques could be construed to be included in 'negotiable instruments' - Companies Act 1965, s. 121(2) WORDS AND PHRASES 'Cheque' - Companies Act 1965, s. 121(2) - Whether latter limb to s. 121(2) of Companies Act 1965 applied to cheques |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
CLJ Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
