|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
KILO ASSET SDN BHD v. HEW TAI HONG [2016] 2 CLJ 365 COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Filing of affidavit in reply - Whether filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time ought to be granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavit - Filing and service - Winding up petition - Filing of affidavit in reply to affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether affidavit filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time ought to be granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Extension of time - Application for leave - Winding up petition - Filing of affidavit in reply to affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether affidavit in reply filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time ought to be granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) WORDS & PHRASES: 'shall' - Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r. 30(2) - Application for extension of time - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) mandatory in nature ROSLIZAWATI HARUN lwn. MAHASAN HARUN [2015] 2 SMC 299 UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Milikan kosong - Tuntutan untuk - Defendan telah mendirikan rumah dan membuat pengubahsuaian ke atas bengkel yang didirikan atas tanah plaintif - Sama ada defendan melanggar syarat kebenaran untuk menduduki tanah plaintif - Sama ada defendan seorang setinggan - Sama ada Mahkamah Majistret mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar tuntutan ini - Sama ada isu hak milik dipertikaikan - Tuntutan balas - Sama ada defendan perlu dibayar ganti rugi apabila diperintah untuk mengembalikan tanah kepada plaintif - Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948, ss. 70(1) & 93(1) - Kanun Tanah Negara, s. 417(1) BIDANG KUASA: Mahkamah Majistret - Milikan kosong - Tuntutan untuk - Sama ada isu hak milik tanah dipertikaikan - Sama ada nilai tanah tidak melebihi RM100,000 - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk menentukan tuntutan ini - Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948, ss. 70(1) & 93(1) - Kanun Tanah Negara, s. 417(1) 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 2016 Volume 2 (Part 3) FEDERAL COURT Kilo Asset Sdn Bhd v. Hew Tai Hong COURT OF APPEAL CCI Technology Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Pernec Ebiz Sdn Bhd Ekwe Sampson Odii v. PP Luke Nnaemeka Ugwu lwn. PP Yeohata Machineries Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Coil Master Sdn Bhd & Ors HIGH COURT Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v. Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v. Mazlan Ahmad & Ors Rodziah Abd Rahim lwn. Mohamed Zubir Hassan & Yang Lain Wak Kuari Sdn Bhd lwn. Harapan Ramai Sdn Bhd SUBJECT INDEX ARBITRATION Award - Setting aside - Time limit - Whether application filed out of time - Whether there was inordinate delay - Change in judgment - Whether court had power to grant extension - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 8, 37(4) CIVIL PROCEDURE Affidavit - Filing and service - Winding up petition - Filing of affidavit in reply to affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether affidavit filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time ought to be granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) Extension of time - Application for leave - Winding up petition - Filing of affidavit in reply to affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether affidavit in reply filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) Injunction - Ad interim injunction - Plaintiff obtained ad interim injunction order against defendants - Plaintiff seized goods and monies belonging to defendants - Ad interim injunction order set aside by High Court - Absence of specific order of High Court in respect of return of goods and monies seized - Whether appellate court had power to order return of seized goods and monies to defendants as consequential relief Judgments and orders - Declaratory order - Declaratory order pertaining to insurer's statutory liability - Whether insurer legally bound to pay insured - Whether motor vehicle involved in accident insured by insurer - Whether insurer had notice of liability suit within seven days after its commencement - Whether notice contained correct particulars of motor vehicle - Whether court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory order - Whether court has jurisdiction to grant ancillary monetary judgments - Road Transport Act 1987, ss. 91 & 96 - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 41 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 16 COMPANY LAW Winding up - Filing of affidavit in reply - Whether filed within three days from date of service of affidavit in opposition - Application for extension of time - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 mandatory in nature - Whether non-compliance caused substantial injustice - Whether court has discretion to cure non-compliance of r. 30(2) - Whether extension of time granted - Whether rr. 193 and 194 considered by trial court - Companies Act 1965, ss. 221(2) & 355(1) Winding-up - Insurance company - Service of notice under s. 218(a) of Companies Act 1965 against insurance company - Whether insurance company is an 'institution' - Whether s. 195 of Financial Services Act 2013 applicable - Whether Bank Negara Malaysia's written approval must be obtained before winding-up petition could be presented against an institution - Whether presentation of s. 218(a) notice constituted an offence - Financial Services Act 2013, ss. 10(4), 195(1) & 254(1) CRIMINAL LAW Dangerous Drugs 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Defence - Drugs encapsulated and concealed in body - Defence of accused that he was told that capsules contained diamonds - Whether defence an afterthought - Whether accused had knowledge of what he was carrying EVIDENCE Admissibility - Statements of opinion - Infringement of patent - Whether statements made by experts - Whether statements relevant and admissible - Failure to call material witness to prove prior art - Whether fatal to defendant's counterclaim - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Exhibits - Break in chain of evidence - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Capsules containing drugs recovered from body of accused - Failure of prosecution to tender search list - Whether search list was corroborative in nature - Whether failure to produce fatal to prosecution case - Whether there was break in chain of evidence - Whether created doubt as to identity of exhibits Exhibits - Identity of exhibits - Capsules containing drugs recovered from body of accused - Whether drugs seized from accused and handed to chemist same with exhibits produced before court - Disparity in weight of drugs - Whether due to different weighing methods and weighing apparatus used by police and chemist - Whether exhibits properly handled - Whether there was break in chain of evidence - Whether created doubt as to identity of drugs exhibits INSURANCE Motor insurance - Insurer's liability - Statutory liability - Notice under s. 96(2)(a) of Road Transport Act 1987 - Mistake as to particulars of registration number of vehicle - Whether detrimental to claimant - Whether mistake negated insurer's statutory liability INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent - Infringement - Apparatus and process for manufacture of mosquito coils - Whether defendants acquired confidential information from plaintiffs - Whether defendants incorporated company to sell mosquito coil making machine based on information acquired - Whether breach of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to injure established - Whether there was infringement of patent - Whether patent was based on prior art - Whether trial judge erred in invalidating patent JURISDICTION Courts - High Court - Whether one High Court has jurisdiction to set aside another High Court's perfected judgment - Whether only in rare and exceptional circumstances - Whether jurisdiction to set aside is statutory - Section 44 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether particular mode of procedure prescribed - Whether final judgment could be set aside if proved to be null and void on ground of illegality or lack of jurisdiction WORDS & PHRASES 'authorised person' - Financial Services Act 2013, s. 195(1) 'may not' - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 37(4) - Scope of - Whether directory or mandatory in nature 'not entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property' - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 41 'shall' - Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r. 30(2) - Application for extension of time - Whether time limit prescribed in r. 30(2) mandatory in nature INDEKS PERKARA KONTRAK Perjanjian - Perjanjian kuari - Sama ada terdapat kemungkiran terma-terma - Tuntutan bagi kerja-kerja yang telah disiapkan - Sama ada dibuat dalam tempoh perjanjian sah - Sama ada tuntutan harus dibenarkan PROSEDUR JENAYAH Sabitan dan hukuman - Rayuan - Sama ada tertuduh diberi perbicaraan adil - Sama ada tertuduh diberi masa yang mencukupi untuk membuat pembelaan berkesan - Sama ada terdapat percanggahan material tentang warna bagasi oleh saksi pendakwaan dan borang bongkar - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat TORT Ganti rugi - Ganti rugi am dan khas - Tuntutan balas - Sama ada tuntutan balas terhadap ganti rugi dan pampasan harus dibenarkan Liabiliti - Kecuaian - Kerja-kerja kuari - Letupan batu di tempat kerja - Sama ada terdapat kegagalan menjalankan letupan terkawal dan selamat - Sama ada pembedil bertauliah hadir pada masa kerja letupan dilakukan - Ketidakpatuhan regulasi dan arahan-arahan - Sama ada terdapat kemungkiran klausa perjanjian - Sama ada plaintif bertanggungan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Methamphetamine seberat 725.4g dijumpai dalam bagasi tertuduh - Tertuduh disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman mati - Rayuan - Sama ada tertuduh diberi perbicaraan adil - Sama ada tertuduh diberi masa yang mencukupi untuk membuat pembelaan berkesan - Sama ada terdapat percanggahan material tentang warna bagasi oleh saksi pendakwaan dan borang bongkar - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH Pindah milik - Pelaksanaan spesifik - Permohonan pelaksanaan spesifik perjanjian jual beli - Sama ada tanah dipindah milik kepada plaintif secara 'hibah' - Sama ada perjanjian jual beli muktamad - Sama ada penerimaan wang deposit yang dikembalikan menunjukkan plaintif tidak berminat meneruskan pembelian tanah - Sama ada permohonan spesifik boleh dibenarkan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
