|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH lwn. PP [2016] 5 CLJ 428 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Tuduhan - Pembatalan - Kuasa mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan - Kegagalan memberi notis pemberitahuan perhimpunan aman sepuluh hari sebelum perhimpunan diadakan - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan s. 9(1) Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012 - Sama ada s. 9(5) diisytiharkan batal dan tidak berperlembagaan pada masa kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada mahkamah terikat dengan keputusan PP v. Yuneswaran Ramaraj yang diputuskan selepas kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada s. 9(5) bertentangan dengan per. 10(2)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mempunyai kesan retrospektif - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan per. 7(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mahkamah menggunakan kuasa sedia ada untuk membatalkan pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Mahkamah - Kuasa mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan - Kegagalan memberi notis pemberitahuan perhimpunan aman sepuluh hari sebelum perhimpunan diadakan - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan s. 9(1) Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012 - Sama ada s. 9(5) diisytiharkan batal dan tidak berperlembagaan pada masa kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada mahkamah terikat dengan keputusan PP v. Yuneswaran Ramaraj yang diputuskan selepas kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada s. 9(5) bertentangan dengan per. 10(2)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mempunyai kesan retrospektif - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan per. 7(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mahkamah menggunakan kuasa sedia ada untuk membatalkan pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2016 Volume 5 (Part 3) FEDERAL COURT Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Ketua Polis Negara COURT OF APPEAL Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd v. JMC- Kelana Square & Another Appeal Superintendent Of Lands And Surveys, Kota Samarahan Division & Anor v. Luking Uding & Ors; TH Pelita Sadong Sdn Bhd & Anor (Interveners) And Other Appeals HIGH COURT Ahmad Shahrir Nazi v. Nashrul Hazimie Ab Halim & Ors Maria Chin Abdullah lwn. PP PP v. Chua Beng Seong & Another Case PP v. Kamaruzaman Mohamed Shah & Ors SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd v. Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Bhd Uthayakumar Ponnusamy lwn. YAB Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak & Yang Lain SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Remedies - Mandamus - Order of mandamus to compel Inspector General of Police (IGP) to execute warrant of committal - Whether related to enforcement of court process involving private rights - Whether within scope of public duties - Court's order wilfully disobeyed by party against whom warrant of committal was issued - Whether warrant of committal needs to be executed CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgments and orders - Judgment in default - Sale and purchase agreement - Purchase of property - Purchaser initiated almost similar proceedings and successfully obtained judgment in default against vendors - Whether judgment in default regular - Whether court of concurrent jurisdiction could set aside judgment in default - Whether judgment in default enforceable CONTRACT Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Purchase of property - Sale and purchase agreement made no mention of time frame or date of completion - Whether sale and purchase agreement null and void - Whether void for uncertainties - Whether enforceable - Whether deposit paid to be refunded or forfeited - Contracts Act 1950, s. 66 CRIMINAL LAW Corruption - Corruptly receiving gratification - Gratification for helping secure tender for project for company - Amendment of charge pursuant to s. 158(1) of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether occasioned prejudice to appellant - Whether appellant represented to company that he could help secure tender for project by submitting favourable report - Whether evidence showed appellant requested money from company in exchange for not disturbing works on site - Discovery of marked notes with appellant - Whether constituted independent corroborative evidence leading to irresistible conclusion of appellant receiving money corruptly - Whether prima facie case proved against appellant - Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss. 16(a)(A), 50(1) & 52(1) Corruption - Corruptly soliciting gratification - Gratification as inducement to help company obtain tender for project - Amount of gratification solicited unclear - Whether presumption under s. 42(1) of Anti-Corruption Act 1997 arose - Whether essential element of offence under s. 10(a)(aa) of Anti-Corruption Act 1997 proven - Whether prosecution failed to make out prima facie case against appellant Kidnapping Act 1961 - Section 3 - Accused persons jointly charged for kidnapping victim - Prima facie case - Whether established - Circumstantial evidence - Whether sufficient to establish case for offence charged - Whether vehicle rented by accused person used for kidnapping - Whether there was evidence to connect accused persons to commission of offence based on phone records - Whether there was conclusive evidence of fingerprints of accused persons found on premises where kidnapped victim was held - Identification of accused persons - Whether reliable - Non-calling of material witnesses - Whether caused serious gaps in prosecution's case - Whether benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused persons FAMILY LAW Children - Custody - Recovery order - Conversion of one parent to Islam - Child taken away by converting parent from custody of other parent - Conflicting custody orders granted by civil and Syariah courts - Whether orders complied with - Whether civil court could grant recovery order in face of custody order by Syariah court - Whether civil court could order Inspector General of Police to execute recovery order against converting parent - Requirements under ss. 52 and 53 of Child Act 2001 - Whether fulfilled LAND LAW Strata title - Common property - Developer excluded car parks from being common property in sale and purchase agreements in 1995 - Whether developer exercised rights pursuant to concept of 'freedom of contract' - Fundamental rights - Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ('Act') made car parks common property - Whether Act had retrospective effect Transfer - Alienated land - Application to nullify registration of transfer of property and to register property in name of applicant - Whether court had jurisdiction to give order of transfer without prior consent of State Authority - Whether would tantamount to usurping exclusive power and jurisdiction of State Authority - National Land Code, s. 120 NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM Land dispute - Native customary rights ('NCR') - Existence of - Whether 'pemakai menoa' recognised under Sarawak native customary law - Whether creation of 'pemakai menoa' had force of law as envisaged under art. 160(2) Federal Constitution - Whether NCR claims established - Whether grant of provisional lease subject to NCR over lands - Nor Anak Nyawai & Ors v. Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Construction of statutes - Intention of Parliament - Contract entered into before Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ('Act') came into effect - Whether Act had retrospective effect - Whether court must give regard to Federal Constitution - Whether contract legal at time it was entered into - Federal Constitution, art. 13 TORT Defamation - Libel - Provision of wrongful credit information to Central Credit Reference Information System ('CCRIS') - Whether there were defamatory imputations against plaintiff - Whether there was publication to third party - Whether obviously referred to plaintiff and no other entity or person - Whether continuous publication of false information malicious - Elements of libel - Whether satisfied Negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Allegation of - Whether defendant's role to provide necessary guarantee coverage to banks and act as guarantor for small medium enterprises ('SME') - Whether defendant had duty of care to manage loan with reasonable care - Whether defendant had sole obligation to ensure credit information entered into Central Credit Reference Information System ('CCRIS') was accurate and correct - Defendant provided false information regarding plaintiff's credit information to CCRIS - Whether caused serious prejudice and harm to plaintiff - Whether plaintiff's loan applications to other financial institutions rejected due to defendant's misreporting - Whether damages suffered by plaintiff foreseeable INDEKS PERKARA PROSEDUR JENAYAH Tuduhan - Pembatalan - Kuasa mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan - Kegagalan memberi notis pemberitahuan perhimpunan aman sepuluh hari sebelum perhimpunan diadakan - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan s. 9(1) Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012 - Sama ada s. 9(5) diisytiharkan batal dan tidak berperlembagaan pada masa kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada mahkamah terikat dengan keputusan PP v. Yuneswaran Ramaraj yang diputuskan selepas kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada s. 9(5) bertentangan dengan per. 10(2)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mempunyai kesan retrospektif - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan per. 7(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mahkamah menggunakan kuasa sedia ada untuk membatalkan pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh PROSEDUR SIVIL Bidang kuasa - Permohonan untuk relif - Sama ada permohonan mengikut kehendak undang-undang - Tajuk perkara atau 'intitulement' tidak dinyatakan dalam permohonan - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar permohonan berkenaan permohonan relif-relif - Kuasa-kuasa tambahan di bawah s. 25(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Sama ada terpakai - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 53 - Akta Relif Spesifik 1950, ss. 44, 45 UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN Mahkamah - Kuasa mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan - Kegagalan memberi notis pemberitahuan perhimpunan aman sepuluh hari sebelum perhimpunan diadakan - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan s. 9(1) Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012 - Sama ada s. 9(5) diisytiharkan batal dan tidak berperlembagaan pada masa kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada mahkamah terikat dengan keputusan PP v. Yuneswaran Ramaraj yang diputuskan selepas kesalahan dilakukan - Sama ada s. 9(5) bertentangan dengan per. 10(2)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mempunyai kesan retrospektif - Sama ada melanggar peruntukan per. 7(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada mahkamah menggunakan kuasa sedia ada untuk membatalkan pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
