|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GLOMAC RESOURCES SDN BHD v. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judge - Recusal - Application for - Presiding judge and plaintiff's counsel were previous partners in law firm - Whether there was full and frank disclosure of previous partnership by judge or counsel - Whether previous relationship could give undue advantage to plaintiff - Whether could affect fairness of trial - Whether there was real danger of bias - Whether previous partnership a ground for disqualification/recusal of judge |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2016 Volume 5 (Part 4) COURT OF APPEAL PP lwn. Klong K'djoanh & Satu Lagi Rayuan Punj Lloyd Oil & Gas (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Insurance Bhd & Ors Superintendent Of Land And Surveys, Bahagian Mukah & Anor v. Bunyak Gadin & Ors And Another Appeal HIGH COURT AmMetlife Insurance Bhd v. Nandakumar Appu & Anor Glomac Resources Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor Ho Yee Onn & Anor v. PP Mariaton Darussalam & Anor v. Abdul Rahim Omar & Ors MMIP Services Sdn Bhd v. Overseas Assurance Corporation (Malaysia) Bhd Mohd Faiz Zulkifli (A Minor Suing Through His Father And Next Of Kin; Zulkifli Awang Kechik) & Anor v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd Ng Chee Choy v. Towards Rainbow Sdn Bhd & Anor PP lwn. Salihudin Sudin & Yang Lain SUBJECT INDEX AGENCY Authority of agent - Ostensible authority - Misrepresentation by agents of insurance company - Whether insurance agents had ostensible authority to act on behalf of insurance company - Whether insurance company could be held liable for acts of agents CIVIL PROCEDURE Adjournment - Adjournment without liberty to file afresh - Grounds for - Whether abuse of process to allow plaintiff liberty to file afresh - Whether trial judge exercised discretion reasonably - Whether decision based on relevant considerations and established principles - Whether decision justified - Rules of Court 2012, O. 21 rr. 2(1), 3(1) & O. 35 r. 3 Injunction - Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions - Whether injunction could lie against Government or Government department against carrying out public duties - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 29 - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 54 Judge - Recusal - Application for - Presiding judge and plaintiff's counsel were previous partners in law firm - Whether there was full and frank disclosure of previous partnership by judge or counsel - Whether previous relationship could give undue advantage to plaintiff - Whether could affect fairness of trial - Whether there was real danger of bias - Whether previous partnership a ground for disqualification/recusal of judge Locus standi - Want of authority - Plaintiff appointed as administration manager of Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool - Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of High Risks Motor Insurance Pool Collective Agreement ('CA') - Whether plaintiff party to CA - Whether plaintiff had power to sue in its own name - Whether plaintiff agent for parties to CA - Whether CA expressly provided for specific mechanism of enforcement - Whether action an abuse of court process Striking out - Action - Whether statement of claim disclosed causes of action - Whether plaintiff had power to sue in its own name - Whether suit an abuse of court process - Whether application to strike out could succeed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) Third party proceedings - Third party notice - Application to strike out - Whether third party notice lawfully issued under O. 16 r. 1(1)(c) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether questions posed in third party notice unsustainable or unarguable - Whether an abuse of process of court - Whether there was duplicity with arbitral proceedings and third party proceedings - Whether ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) COMPANY LAW Winding up - Provisional liquidator - Appointment of - Circumstances in which court would appoint provisional liquidator - Removal of petitioner as director of company without notice and in contravention of articles of association - Whether a breach of good faith - Failure to maintain mutual confidence - Exclusion of petitioner from management of company and Extraordinary General Meeting ('EGM') - Whether there was a strong prima facie case for winding up - Company affairs improperly conducted - Whether appointment of provisional liquidator warranted and justified - Companies Act 1965, ss. 218(i), (f) & 231 - Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r. 35 CONTRACT Misrepresentation - False representation - Insurance agents - Misrepresentation of insurance policy as investment scheme - Whether insurance agents had ostensible authority to act on behalf of insurance company - Whether insurance company could be held liable for acts of agents - Whether payment of premium could be recovered from insurance company CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Record of appeal - Notes of proceedings - Adding grounds of sentencing into original notes of proceedings after filing of appeal - Alteration of what had been recorded during trial - Whether Magistrate adopted wrong procedure - Whether original notes of proceedings should be kept intact Sentencing - Plea of guilty - Nature and consequences - Whether exact 'nature and consequences' of guilty plea clearly stated and ascertained - Whether requirements under s. 173(b) of Criminal Procedure Code complied with EVIDENCE Documentary evidence - Admissibility of - Irrevocable power of attorney - Claim for rights in land - Failure to secure attendance of attesting witnesses - Whether fatal - Whether conditions under s. 90 of Evidence Act 1950 fulfilled - Whether irrevocable power of attorney for valuable consideration construed as sale and purchase agreement - Whether unstamped sale and purchase agreement valid - Whether admissible as evidence to support claim on land INSURANCE Agents - Insurance policy - Misrepresentation of insurance policy as investment scheme - Whether insurance agents had ostensible authority to act on behalf of insurance company - Whether insurance company could be held liable for acts of agents - Whether payment of premium could be recovered from insurance company - Insurance Act 1996, ss. 150 & 151 Motor insurance - Policy - Avoidance of liability - Insured person involved in accident earlier in morning but purchased policy from insurer's agent later at night - Whether policy only took effect later at night - Whether insured period included past period - Whether insurer could be held liable under policy - Failure of insured person to inform insurer's agent of prior occurrence of accident - Whether non-disclosure misled insurer's agent into believing that vehicle was accident free - Whether insurer's agent accepted payment in utmost good faith - Whether policy should be declared void and unenforceable - Whether insurer protected under s. 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 LAND LAW Ownership - Claim for - Unstamped sale and purchase agreement - Whether valid - Whether admissible as evidence to support claim on land - Whether court had power and responsibility to impound unstamped documents - Whether document admissible on payment of stamp duty or penalty - Stamp Act 1949, s. 52(1)(a) Power of attorney - Admissibility - Irrevocable power of attorney - Claim for rights in land - Failure to secure attendance of attesting witnesses - Whether fatal - Whether conditions under s. 90 of Evidence Act 1950 fulfilled - Whether irrevocable power of attorney for valuable consideration construed as sale and purchase agreement - Whether enforceable as valid contract - Powers of Attorney Act 1949, s. 6 NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM Land dispute - Division of area - Claim for native customary rights ('NCR') within part of provisional lease granted by State Land Authority - Whether NCR proven - Whether NCR land to be excised from provisional lease INDEKS PERKARA PROSEDUR JENAYAH Pertuduhan - Pindaan - Dadah berbahaya - Hakim bicara meminda pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh dari kesalahan pengedaran di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') ke kesalahan milikan di bawah s. 12(2) - Dadah jenis methamphetamine seberat 2,249g dijumpai tersorok dalam beg yang dibawa tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh 'innocent carrier' yang tidak mengetahui kehadiran dadah dalam beg - Prinsip 'wilful blindness' - Sama ada terdapat faktor-faktor yang menimbulkan keraguan dan syak kepada tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah berbahaya - Sama ada s. 37(d) ADB terpakai - Sama ada niat tertuduh untuk melindungi dadah dari pihak berkuasa wujud - Sama ada hakim bicara khilaf apabila meminda pertuduhan - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman di bawah s. 12(2) ADB harus diketepikan dan digantikan dengan sabitan di bawah s. 39B(1) ADB Pertuduhan - Pindaan - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 302 dipinda kepada s. 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Mematikan orang dengan salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh - Si mati dipukul bersama-sama lima yang lain dengan corak pukulan dan pada bahagian yang sama - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama untuk membunuh si mati - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan elemen-elemen di bawah s. 304 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Dadah jenis methamphetamine seberat 2,249g dijumpai tersorok dalam beg yang dibawa tertuduh - Pindaan pertuduhan - Hakim bicara meminda pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh dari kesalahan pengedaran di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') ke kesalahan milikan di bawah s. 12(2) ADB - Sama ada tertuduh 'innocent carrier' yang tidak mengetahui kehadiran dadah dalam beg - Prinsip 'wilful blindness' - Sama ada terdapat faktor-faktor yang menimbulkan keraguan dan syak kepada tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah berbahaya - Sama ada s. 37(d) ADB terpakai - Sama ada niat tertuduh untuk melindungi dadah dari pihak berkuasa wujud - Sama ada hakim bicara khilaf apabila meminda pertuduhan - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman di bawah s. 12(2) harus diketepikan dan digantikan dengan sabitan di bawah s. 39B(1) ADB Membunuh - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 302 - Si mati dipukul bersama-sama lima yang lain dengan corak pukulan dan pada bahagian yang sama - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama untuk membunuh si mati - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat atau pengetahuan untuk membunuh si mati apabila mendatangkan kecederaan yang menyebabkan kematian si mati - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh-tertuduh terjumlah di bawah mana-mana satu skop s. 300(a), (b), (c) atau (d) Kanun Keseksaan - Elemen-elemen di bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
