|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GIGA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Evidence - Companies and corporations - Lifting of corporate veil - Allegation that contractual obligations avoided due to controlling position of common/connected officers and shareholders in management of companies - Whether companies were 'single' entity - Whether there was evidence of abuse, fraud or any special circumstances by companies to justify lifting of corporate veil COMPANY LAW: Lifting of corporate veil - Dispute arising from failure of joint venture of companies to award subcontract works - Allegation that contractual obligations avoided due to controlling position of common/connected officers and shareholders in management of companies - Whether companies were 'single' entity - Whether there was basis for lifting of corporate veil - Whether there was abuse by companies - Concept of corporate separate entities - Whether failure to award subcontract works resulted from manipulation or abuse of 'single' entity - Whether there was evidence of fraud or any special circumstances to justify lifting of corporate veil CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Pre-tender agreement - Plaintiff to be awarded subcontract works if defendants secured main subcontract works for project with another party - Clause in agreement stipulated that joint venture becomes void if first defendant fails to secure main subcontract works - First defendant failed to secure main subcontract works - Whether defendants in breach of joint venture by failing and/or refusing to award plaintiff's portion - Whether joint venture existed
MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD & ORS v. CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYA & ORS [2015] 9 CLJ 459 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Distribution of business among judges - Powers conferred to Chief Judge of Malaya pursuant to s. 20 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') - Whether directives given by Chief Judge of Malaya under s. 20 of CJA open to challenge - Whether applicants' application for judicial review was frivolous, vexatious and filed out of time - Whether applicants had liberty to apply for recusal against assigned judge FULIJAYA MANUFACTURING SDN BHD lwn. UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA [2015] 2 SMC 16 KONTRAK: Pembentukan - Tiada kontrak bertulis ditandatangani - Perkhidmatan untuk menghasilkan contoh berus gigi ciptaan baru - Tuntutan bayaran bagi perkhidmatan yang diberikan atas pesanan dan permintaan defendan - Sama ada deraf perjanjian dipinda oleh plaintif - Sama ada plaintif menarik diri sebelum perjanjian ditandatangani - Sama ada plaintif tidak akan mengenakan bayaran bagi kerja-kerja yang dibuat sekiranya plaintif diberi hak pengkomersilan berus gigi - Sama ada barangan yang dinyatakan dalam invois dibekalkan kepada defendan - Sama ada kontrak wujud di antara pihak-pihak To view a sample of the Sessions and Magistrates' Cases journal, click here. For product enquiries, contact priority@cljlaw.com. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2015 Volume 9 (Part 4) COURT FEDERAL COURT SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor COURT OF APPEAL Bounty Dynamics Sdn Bhd v. Chow Tat Ming & Ors Mustafa Tambun lwn. PP & Rayuan Yang Lain HIGH COURT Majlis Peguam Malaysia v. Yap Min Ch'ng Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Chief Judge Of Malaya & Ors Norhazlena Abdurani & Ors v. Antonio Sim Peak Khiong & Ors PP lwn. Ahmad Sazali Md Desa Teik Huat Farming Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Megat Ahmad Shahrani Sdn Bhd & Ors Universal Trustee (Malaysia) Bhd v. Dynawell Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Application for - Distribution of business among judges - Powers conferred to Chief Judge of Malaya pursuant to s. 20 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') - Whether directives given by Chief Judge of Malaya under s. 20 of CJA open to challenge - Whether applicants' application for judicial review was frivolous, vexatious and filed out of time - Whether applicants had liberty to apply for recusal against assigned judge CIVIL PROCEDURE Action - Cause of action - Dispute as to transfer of land - Whether transaction tainted with illegality - Whether contravened s. 8(a) and (b) of Land Code (Cap 81) (Sarawak) - Whether plaintiffs entitled to claim for loss and damages Limitation of action - Contract - Breach of letter of undertaking - Whether plaintiffs claim time barred - Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, Schedule item 94 Limitation of action - Contract - Compensation for breach of oral retainer - Rendering negligent advice - Limitation period for breach of oral retainer - Whether action time barred - Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, Schedule item 93 Limitation of action - Malfeasance - Compensation for - Rendering negligent advice - Limitation period of tort of malfeasance - Whether action time barred - Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, Schedule item 19 & 97 Stay of proceedings - Application for - Order of sale - Foreclosure proceedings - Senior Assistant Registrar fixed auction date - Application for stay of foreclosure proceedings including auction - Allegation that there was interested foreign bidder - Averment that proceedings should be stayed until foreign bidder was allowed to obtain requisite consent to acquire property - Whether foreign bidder had financial capability to purchase property at or above fixed reserve price - Whether proceedings and auction should be stayed Summary application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A - Summary determination of claim - Rephrasing of questions of law in notice of application - Discretion of court - Whether court had discretion to draft or re-draft questions of law CONTRACT Breach - Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Purchase of properties in commercial complex due to representations by brochures and newsletters - Whether appellant built complex according to representations - Whether appellant failed to carry out representations made in brochures and newsletters - Whether there was evidence of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation - Whether respondents could claim for damages for misrepresentation and breach of contract - Whether first respondent authorised to act on behalf of other purchasers - Whether there was agreement to limit number of witnesses Contingent contract - Refund - Claim for refund of money depending on contingency of event - Whether plaintiffs allowed to claim for refund - Whether refund subject to contingency of specific event INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Whether lacked novelty and inventive step - Patent comprised of multiple claims - Whether court required to assess claim dependent on independent claims before invalidating patent - Whether product was embodiment of patent claims - Whether claims should be compared with prior art in finding patent invalid - Whether claims could be construed without assistance of skilled persons LAND LAW Valuation report - Conflicting valuation reports - Senior Assistant Registrar ('SAR') fixed reserve price for sale of property at RM210 million in first summons for directions - Auction date fixed by SAR but vacated by plaintiff - Plaintiff applied for second summons for directions and relied on valuation report in first summons for direction - First defendant adduced valuation report that land's value was RM268 million - SAR opted for valuation report by plaintiff - Whether plaintiff's valuation report recent and current - Whether plaintiff's valuation report should prevail over first defendant's valuation report LEGAL PROFESSION Admission - Objection - Petition to be admitted and enrolled as Advocate and Solicitor of High Court of Malaya - Objection by Bar Council - Allegation that petitioner was under police investigation - Petitioner suspected of cheating by personation - Offence under s. 416 of Penal Code - Whether there was concrete evidence of petitioner's bad character - Legal Professions Act 1976, ss. 11(1)(b), 16 & 17 TORT Negligence - Breach of duty of care - Claim for damages due to flooding in plaintiff's prawn farms - Whether flood caused by negligence of defendants in constructing bund and placing of culverts which blocked free flow of water - Whether culverts were of inadequate capacity - Whether floods due to exceptional rainfall - Whether plaintiffs could claim for damages - Whether defendants could rely on defence of volenti non fit injuria Nuisance - Flooding - Claim for damages due to flooding in plaintiff's prawn farms - Whether flood caused by negligence of defendants in constructing bund and placing of culverts which blocked free flow of water - Whether bund potential nuisance due to culvert placed in bund which were of inadequate capacity - Whether bund constructed to build bridge for convenience of residents INDEKS PERKARA PROSEDUR JENAYAH Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Rasuah - Pertuduhan menerima wang suapan - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, s. 17(a) - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memutuskan pihak pembelaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie - Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri - Keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen disahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi - Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan wujud kes prima facie dan memerintahkan tertuduh membela diri di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang sama - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak bersetuju dengan perintah Mahkamah Rayuan agar pembelaan dipanggil - Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan sekali lagi - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersalah arah dalam melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terikat dengan keputusan awal - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bertindak wajar dalam mempersoalkan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Sabitan dan hukuman - Rayuan terhadap - Tertuduh dituduh dengan pertuduhan asal pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pembelaan berjaya mengakas andaian di bawah s. 37(da) tetapi gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesalahan milikan - Tertuduh disabitkan di bawah s. 6 - Sama ada 'mens rea possession' dibuktikan - Karektor ditimbulkan semasa perbicaraan - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf apabila menerima fakta kewujudan karektor - Sama ada terdapat keterangan kukuh untuk pembuktian 'pengedaran' di bawah pertuduhan asal - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dijatuhkan hukuman mati mandatori UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pertuduhan asal pengedaran dadah berbahaya jenis kanabis - Pembelaan berjaya mengakas andaian di bawah s. 37(da) tetapi gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesalahan milikan - Tertuduh disabitkan di bawah s. 6 - Sama ada 'mens rea possession' dibuktikan - Karektor ditimbulkan semasa perbicaraan - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf apabila menerima fakta kewujudan karektor - Sama ada terdapat keterangan kukuh untuk pembuktian 'pengedaran' di bawah pertuduhan asal - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dijatuhkan hukuman mati mandatori Rasuah - Memperoleh wang suapan - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, s. 17(a) - Pekerja-pekerja pengadu ditahan oleh pihak polis kerana tamat tempoh permit - Pegawai polis bertugas meminta bayaran RM2,000 bagi penyerahan laporan, pasport dan pembebasan pekerja-pekerja - Pengadu membuat aduan kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia ('SPRM') - SPRM menyediakan wang perangkap yang bertanda - Sama ada pegawai polis mengambil wang perangkap yang diberikan oleh pengadu - Sama ada tukaran tangan wang perangkap terbukti - Sama ada kes pendakwaan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah CLJ 2015 Volume 9 (Part 5) COURT FEDERAL COURT Giga Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v. Yip Chee Seng & Sons Sdn Bhd & Anor COURT OF APPEAL Jayakumar Rajoo Mohamad v. Cimb Aviva Takaful Bhd Ngu Chee Wui v. PP Suruhanjaya Sekuriti v. Datuk Ishak Ismail Wong Kar Juat & Anor v. S7 Auto Parts (M) Sdn Bhd HIGH COURT Ahmad Abid Abdul Hamid v. Subangi Munusamy GA-Seng Paper Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Percetakan Warni Sdn Bhd Mohd Roziman Saaidon & Anor v. PP SUBJECT INDEX CIVIL PROCEDURE Discovery - Application for - Discovery of investigation papers - Investigation for suspected securities offence - Securities Commission Act 1993, s. 134 - Application for disclosure of investigation papers and statements by witnesses - Whether statements made under s. 134 are privileged documents - Whether must be made admissible as evidence in any proceeding in any court - Whether disclosure would prejudice other party Pleadings - Evidence - Companies and corporations - Lifting of corporate veil - Allegation that contractual obligations avoided due to controlling position of common/connected officers and shareholders in management of companies - Whether companies were 'single' entity - Whether there was evidence of abuse, fraud or any special circumstances by companies to justify lifting of corporate veil COMPANY LAW Directors - Breach of fiduciary duty - Liability - Damages - Claim for - Whether directors committed breach of fiduciary duty - Discovery of discrepancies in company's accounts - Transactions concerning sales of goods to third party not accounted for - Whether testimony and documentary evidence proven sales transactions linked to directors - Whether company bore legal burden of establishing facts pleaded against directors under s. 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Whether there was evidence to connect missing money with directors - Whether finding of liability was against weight of evidence Lifting of corporate veil - Dispute arising from failure of joint venture of companies to award subcontract works - Allegation that contractual obligations avoided due to controlling position of common/connected officers and shareholders in management of companies - Whether companies were 'single' entity - Whether there was basis for lifting of corporate veil - Whether there was abuse by companies - Concept of corporate separate entities - Whether failure to award subcontract works resulted from manipulation or abuse of 'single' entity - Whether there was evidence of fraud or any special circumstances to justify lifting of corporate veil Winding up - Stay of order - Winding up petition filed by petitioner due to company's failure to settle judgment sum - Application for permanent stay of winding up order pursuant to s. 243(1) of Companies Act 1965 - Discretion of court in granting stay - Factors considered - Company's total value of assets exceeded total debts - Payment by company to official receiver to settle judgment sum - Whether circumstances warranted court to exercise discretion to stay winding up order in favour of respondent CONTRACT Breach - Agreement - Pre-tender agreement - Plaintiff to be awarded subcontract works if defendants secured main subcontract works for project with another party - Clause in agreement stipulated that joint venture becomes void if first defendant fails to secure main subcontract works - First defendant failed to secure main subcontract works - Whether defendants in breach of joint venture by failing and/or refusing to award plaintiff's portion - Whether joint venture existed CRIMINAL LAW Dangerous drugs - Trafficking and possession - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Prima facie case - Whether established - Whether proper caution under s. 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 administered to appellant - Conduct of appellant in handing drugs to police officer in response to being questioned - Whether a statement within meaning of s. 37A - Whether admissible - Whether trial judge failed to give proper judicial appreciation to evidence which may be favourable to appellant - Whether a misdirection by trial judge in invoking presumption of trafficking - Whether appropriate for trial judge to use expression 'presumably' in describing fact or inference of fact - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37, 37(da)(xvi), 37A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Charge - Whether defective - Offence under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Applicants discharged not amounting to acquittal under original charge - Urine specimen examination and analysis carried out by Science Officer - Whether Science Officer has jurisdiction to conduct examination - Whether amended provision of s. 31A(1AA) of Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2014 applicable to re-charging of applicants - Whether re-charging of applicants valid Police investigation - Cautioned statement - Administration of - Whether proper caution under s. 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 administered to appellant - Caution must be properly and legally administered using words clearly understood by suspect - Whether sufficient for police officer to testify that caution administered without stating exact words used - Conduct of appellant in handing drugs to police officer in response to question - Whether a statement within meaning of s. 37A - Whether admissible - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37, 37(da)(xvi), 37A EVIDENCE Cautioned statement - Admissibility - Administration of caution - Whether proper caution under s. 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 administered to appellant - Caution must be properly and legally administered using words clearly understood by a suspect - Whether sufficient for police officer to testify that caution administered without stating exact words used - Conduct of appellant in handing drugs to police officer in response to question - Whether a statement within meaning of s. 37A - Whether admissible - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37, 37(da)(xvi), 37A Documentary evidence - Admissibility of - Admissibility of email - Maker of document failed to appear in court as witness - Whether criteria under s. 73A(1) and (2) of Evidence Act 1950 established Exhibit - Admissibility of - Offence under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Urine specimen examination and analysis carried out by Science Officer - Whether Science Officer has jurisdiction to conduct examination - Whether amended provision of s. 31A(1AA) of Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2014 applicable to re-charging of applicants - Whether s. 31A(1AA) has retrospective effect Statement - Statement of person who could not be called as witness - Statement issued in course of employment - Whether statement issued in course of employment admissible as evidence in absence of maker - Evidence Act 1950, s. 32(1)(b) INSURANCE Motor insurance - Repudiation - New owner continued renewing insurance policy in name of previous insured who had passed away - Application by insurance company for declaration that motor insurance was void and unenforceable ('declaration proceedings') - Action initiated by third party for loss and damages in Sessions Court withdrawn - Intervention in declaration proceedings by third party - Whether declaration sought made after liability incurred - Whether insurance company precluded from repudiating liability - Whether proviso to s. 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 applicable - Whether date when liability incurred was date of accident or date when judgment on liability pronounced STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Construction - Statutes - Securities Commission Act 1993, s. 134(4) - Power to call for investigation - Investigation for suspected offences committed under securities laws - Witnesses interviewed by investigating officers - Whether statements made and recorded under s. 134 must be made admissible as evidence in any proceeding in any court - Whether s. 134(4) clear and explicit - Whether ought to be given plain meaning TORT Defamation - Defences - Qualified privilege - Existence of malice on part of tortfeasor - Whether malice defeats defence of qualified privilege Defamation - Malice - Slander - Defamation based on conduct amounting to slander - Unceremonious off-loading of senior flight stewardess at insistence of co-pilot - Existence of personal grudge based on previous incidents - Whether defendant's action actuated by malice Defamation - Slander - Slander by conduct - Whether conduct can amount to slander |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
