|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ROKIAH MHD NOOR v. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal to Court of Appeal - Appellants co-authored letter that caused negative impression on Companies Commission of Malaysia - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal and demotion of appellants - Whether disciplinary committee complied with Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000 - Whether appellants entitled to protection accorded by s. 10(1) of Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 - Whether appeal ought to be allowed ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Dismissal of - Appeal against dismissal of judicial review - Appellants co-authored letter that caused negative impression on Companies Commission of Malaysia - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal and demotion of appellants - Whether disciplinary committee complied with Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000 - Whether appellants entitled to protection accorded by s. 10(1) of Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 - Whether appeal ought to be allowed |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2016 Volume 8 (Part 5) COURT OF APPEAL Angkutera Sdn Bhd v. Jurimba Sdn Bhd & Anor Malpac Capital Sdn Bhd v. Yong Toi Mee & Ors And Another Appeal MTD Prime Sdn Bhd v. See Hwee Keong & Ors And Another Appeal Rokiah Mhd Noor v. Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi & Kepenggunaan Malaysia & Ors And Another Appeal HIGH COURT DJ Auto Components Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. FBK Systems Sdn Bhd Malaysian Airports Holdings Bhd v. Abdul Hamid Mydin Muhamad Elias Muhamed Yusoff v. PP RHB Bank Bhd v. Multi Resources Trading Sdn Bhd Wu Siying & Ors v. Malaysian Airline System Bhd & Ors SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Application for - Order of certiorari to quash decision of Industrial Court - Preliminary objection - Whether application ran foul of O. 53 r. 3(6) of Rules of Court 2012 - Employee medically boarded out by company due to allegations that he was unfit to work - Industrial Court held that employee could have been assigned to a less strenuous job - Whether employee could have continued employment by making adjustments or transfers - Principle of industrial jurisprudence - Whether company failed in its obligation to continue employee's employment - Whether employee consented to being medically boarded out - Failure to call material witness - Whether adverse inference under s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 invoked - Whether Industrial Court erred warranting exercise of judicial review Judicial review - Dismissal of - Appeal against dismissal of judicial review - Appellants co-authored letter that caused negative impression on Companies Commission of Malaysia - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal and demotion of appellants - Whether disciplinary committee complied with Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000 - Whether appellants entitled to protection accorded by s. 10(1) of Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 - Whether appeal ought to be allowed CIVIL PROCEDURE Appeal - Appeal to Court of Appeal - Appellants co-authored letter that caused negative impression on Companies Commission of Malaysia - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal and demotion of appellants - Whether disciplinary committee complied with Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000 - Whether appellants entitled to protection accorded by s. 10(1) of Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 - Whether appeal ought to be allowed Discovery - General discovery - Documents - Application for - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 r. 3 - Information paucity - Whether documents in possession, custody or power of party against whom order for discovery sought - Whether discovery sought relevant for purposes of ascertaining liability - Whether claims made under Montreal Convention 1999 - Whether application a mere fishing expedition based on speculation - Application not accompanied by affidavit in support - Whether application failed on procedural point - Whether grounds for application baseless - Applicable test to determine whether discovery ought to be granted - Whether fulfilled Res judicata - Final judgment obtained - Apex court affirmed findings of trial judge - Revisiting issues after perfection of order - Whether party can re-litigate or raise issues conclusively decided - Whether decision of apex court rendered matter final COMPANY LAW Petition - Winding up - Opposition to winding up petition - Proper procedure - Whether by filing summons in chambers supported by affidavit in support to strike out petition - Whether abuse of court process - Whether hearing of petition ought to be deferred pending outcome of summons in chambers - Companies Act 1965, s. 218 - Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, rr. 28(1) & 30(1) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1) & O. 42 r. 2 Winding up - Liquidator - Sale of property by liquidator - Appellants claiming ownership in property developed by company in liquidation - Application to vary vesting order - Test to be applied - Whether only properties legally belonging to company in liquidation could vest in liquidator - Where liquidator properly obtained vesting order - Whether applicants failed to act expeditiously to protect their alleged interest - Whether doctrine of laches applied against applicants - Companies Act 1965, ss. 233(2), 279 CRIMINAL LAW Penal Code - Sections 392 & 397 - Appeal against sentence - Imposition of whipping - Mandatory or discretionary - Conflict between English version and Bahasa Malaysia version of Penal Code - Whether English version prevailed over Bahasa Malaysia version INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Expungement of - Plaintiff's marks consisting of alphabets `FBK' - Whether there was abandonment of plaintiff's FBK marks - Whether defendant had grievance cognisable in law to have plaintiff's `FBK' marks expunged Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Infringement of - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of marks consisting of alphabets `FBK' - Whether defendant registered proprietor or registered user of plaintiff's FBK marks - Defendant's admission to using marks identical to plaintiff's FBK marks - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's FBK marks under provisions of s. 38(1) of Trade Marks Act 1976 Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Passing off - Plaintiff's marks consisting of alphabets `FBK' - Whether identifying or essential features of plaintiff's marks used on goods adopted by defendant - Whether there was likelihood of confusion - Whether there was misrepresentation to public - Whether plaintiff would suffer damage by defendant's actions - Whether marks `FBK' distinctive of plaintiff's business - Whether there was passing off Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Plaintiff's marks consisting of alphabets `FBK' - Whether plaintiff acquiesced or consented to defendant's alleged use of trade mark - Principle of estoppel - Whether applicable Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Rectification - Whether defendant using marks in Class 16 registration as instrument of fraud - Whether would injure plaintiff - Whether marks in Class 16 registration allowed to remain on register - Whether plaintiff aggrieved person for purposes of ss. 45(1) & 46(1) of Trade Marks Act 1976 - Whether defendant's marks in Class 16 registration deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's FBK marks - Whether contrary to s. 14(a) of Trade Marks Act 1976 - Whether marks in Class 16 registration registered without intention in good faith - Whether defendant's Class 16 registration should be expunged Trade marks - Registered trade marks - Plaintiff's marks consisting of alphabets `FBK' - Deed of assignment assigning property, rights, title and interest in FBK marks to plaintiff by plaintiff's predecessor in title - Whether plaintiff bound by burden or liabilities - Whether deed of assignment valid - Whether proprietary rights in FBK mark successfully transferred to plaintiff LABOUR LAW Employment - Dismissal - Medically boarded out - Employee medically boarded out by company due to allegations that he was unfit to work - Industrial Court held that employee could have been assigned to a less strenuous job - Whether employee could have continued employment by making adjustments or transfers - Principle of industrial jurisprudence - Whether company failed in its obligation to continue employee's employment - Whether employee consented to being medically boarded out - Failure to call material witness - Whether adverse inference under s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 invoked TORT Negligence - Contributory negligence - Determination of - Whether prior establishment of negligence necessary before establishing contributory negligence - Whether finding of contributory negligence justified on evidence Trespasser - Road under construction - Use of road for construction works - Whether user could be construed as trespasser as road not gazetted as highway Vicarious liability - Subcontractor - Use of road for construction works - Accident - Claim for damages - Whether subcontractor an independent contractor - Whether main contractor vicariously liable for negligence of independent subcontractor |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
