Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #14/2017 06 April 2017

New This Week Case(s) of the Week HONG LEONG MSIG TAKAFUL BHD v. SHANTAWOOD MANUFACTURING SDN BHD [2017] 3 CLJ 650 Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2017 Volume 3 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) CLJ Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

HONG LEONG MSIG TAKAFUL BHD v. SHANTAWOOD MANUFACTURING SDN BHD [2017] 3 CLJ 650
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LIM YEE LAN JCA, VARGHESE GEORGE JCA, IDRUS HARUN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-02(NCVC)(W)-1798-10-2014]
23 AUGUST 2016

INSURANCE: Fire insurance - Claim on policy - Appointment of adjusters - Request for detailed documents - Whether documents provided by insured company - Whether insured company provided full cooperation - Whether reasonable time given to insured company to provide documents - Insurer declared that insured company unwilling to cooperate - Repudiation of liability by insurer - Allegation of fraud - Standard of proof - Whether fire due to insured company's connivance

---

Legal Network Series

[2015] 1 LNS 1217	LUSHING TRADERS PTE LTD v. MEWAH-OILS SDN BHD	CIVIL PROCEDURE: Estoppel - Cause of action estoppel - Separate claims against multiple tortfeasors in conversion - Plaintiff's action against defendant in relation to tort of conversion of crude palm oil cargo - Existence of separate action against defendant by different party for price of crude palm oil cargo - Whether law recognizes and allows right to claim against separate tortfeasors independently TORT: Conversion - Damages - Claim for value of cargo - Unlawful retention of cargo - Retention and disposal of crude palm oil by defendant without knowledge and consent of plaintiff as owner of crude palm oil cargo - Strict liability - Defendant accepting defective bill of lading and further receiving crude palm oil cargo into their shore tanks and processing crude palm oil - Whether amounts to conversion - Whether plaintiff was entitled to value of cargo
[2015] 1 LNS 1362	ZAMRI IBRAHIM lwn. HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD	PROSEDUR SIVIL: Injunksi - Injunksi interim ex parte - Kebenaran lanjutan injunksi interim ex parte - Lanjutan injunksi interim ex parte sehingga pelupusan guaman - Kausa tindakan plaintif terhadap defendan berdasarkan instrumen sekuriti - Pertikaian berkenaan terma-terma instrumen sekuriti - Pertikaian berkenaan tanggungjawab pindah milik hartanah dan kesahihan pembatalan instrumen sekuriti - Sama ada terdapat isu-isu untuk dibicarakan - Sama ada imbangan kesenangan memihak kepada plaintif agar status quo dikekalkan sehingga guaman diputuskan - Sama ada plaintif boleh dipampas dengan ganti rugi PROSEDUR SIVIL: Injunksi - Injunksi interim ex parte - Permohonan pengenepian injunksi interim ex parte - Kausa tindakan plaintif terhadap defendan berdasarkan instrumen sekuriti - Kewujudan isu-isu untuk dibicarakan - Pertikaian berkenaan terma-terma instrumen sekuriti - Pertikaian berkenaan tanggungjawab pindah milik hartanah dan kesahihan pembatalan instrumen sekuriti - Sama ada imbangan kesenangan memihak kepada plaintif agar status quo dikekalkan sehingga guaman diputuskan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak - Ketakcantuman - Tindakan oleh peminjam terhadap bank - Tindakan hanya diambil oleh salah seorang peminjam - Kegagalan menamakan semua peminjam di dalam tindakan - Peminjam yang lain adalah seorang yang telah dijatuhkan bankrap - Sama ada tindakan plaintif telah memprejudiskan defendan - Sama ada kegagalan menjadikan peminjam lain sebagai pihak boleh menjejaskan guaman
[2016] 1 LNS 316	PP lwn. CHUCKS CHEDRECK	PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Keterangan tertuduh konsisten dengan rakaman percakapan - Tertuduh mendakwa datang ke Malaysia untuk mencari pekerjaan - Tertuduh mendakwa telah dipergunakan - Sama ada keterangan pembelaan bersifat penafian semata-mata - Sama ada tertuduh berupaya menangkis anggapan dibawah s. 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah jenis methamphetamine seberat 1,001.7 g - Pemilikan terus - Tertuduh ditahan di balai ketibaan lapangan terbang - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg yang dibawa oleh tertuduh - Dadah disembunyikan disisi beg - Tag bagasi atas nama tertuduh masih terlekat pada beg - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan eksklusif terhadap dadah - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan kewujudan dadah di dalam beg - Sama ada anggapan dibawah s. 37(da)(xvi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai
[2016] 1 LNS 410	ABD HAMID ZAKARIA & ANOR v. RIMAU INDAH SDN BHD	COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Stay of order - Procedure and principles - Applicant failed to show his name appeared on register of members of respondent company - Application opposed by petitioners and liquidators - Applicant failed to show proof that respondent was solvent - Director's failure to submit statement of affairs - Whether applicant was a contributory within ambit of s. 4(1) Companies Act 1965 ('CA') - Whether applicant had locus under s. 243(1) of CA to make application for stay of winding up - Whether a stay of winding up order would be prejudicial to commercial interests of petitioner
[2016] 1 LNS 525	AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD v. RAVINDREN RAGAVAN & ORS	CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Findings of fact - Road accident - Claim tainted with fraud - Delay in making police report - Existence of concoction of facts - Lack of judicial appreciation by trial judge - Trial judge took simplistic and uncritical approach analysis - Whether trial judge failed to direct mind to issues of fraud - Whether appellate intervention justified - Whether retrial was warranted

---

CLJ 2017 Volume 3 (Part 6)

FEDERAL COURT

Positive Vision Labuan Limited v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals
Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi JCA
(Revenue Law; Civil Procedure; Statutory Interpretation; Words & Phrases - Income tax - Exempt income - Whether denial of right to exemption ultra vires, illegal or void) [2017] 3 CLJ 629 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Hong Leong MSIG Takaful Bhd v. Shantawood Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
Lim Yee Lan, Varghese George, Idrus Harun JJCA
(Insurance - Fire insurance - Claim on policy - Appointment of adjusters) [2017] 3 CLJ 650 [CA]

Tokio Marine Insurance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Rathakrisnan Ramatasu & Anor And Another Appeal
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA
(Evidence; Insurance - Conflicting testimony - Road accident - Collision between motorcar and motorcycle) [2017] 3 CLJ 678 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Lawkir Singh Hari Singh lwn. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Yang Lain
Hassan Abdul Ghani PK
(Undang-undang Pentadbiran; Prosedur Jenayah - Tahanan salah - Dakwaan - Cabaran terhadap keesahan perintah perubahan pengawasan) [2017] 3 CLJ 692 [HC]

Mohamad Alhamdu Zainuddin v. ACP Khaw Kok Chin Pengerusi, Lembaga Tatatertib Briged Utara Pasukan Gerakan Am, PDRM, Ulu Kinta, Perak & Ors
Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC
(Civil Procedure; Administrative Law - Discovery - Inspection of documents - Application for) [2017] 3 CLJ 709 [HC]

PP v. Choo Soon Onn
Zulkifli Bakar J
(Criminal Law; Intellectual Property - Copyright - Infringement - Use of same copy of CD for installation on 33 computers) [2017] 3 CLJ 728 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review - Discovery - Inspection of documents - Application for - Whether documents formed basis of charges against applicant - Whether applicant entitled to documents to assist in fair adjudication and disposal of case - Relevancy and importance of documents - Whether documents classified under Official Secrets Act 1972 - Whether ingredients for application for discovery proved - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 & O. 53 r. 6
Mohamad Alhamdu Zainuddin v. ACP Khaw Kok Chin Pengerusi, Lembaga Tatatertib Briged Utara Pasukan Gerakan Am, PDRM, Ulu Kinta, Perak & Ors
(Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC) [2017] 3 CLJ 709 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Discovery - Inspection of documents - Application for - Whether documents formed basis of charges against applicant - Whether applicant entitled to documents to assist in fair adjudication and disposal of case - Relevancy and importance of documents - Whether documents classified under Official Secrets Act 1972 - Whether ingredients for application for discovery proved - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 & O. 53 r. 6
Mohamad Alhamdu Zainuddin v. ACP Khaw Kok Chin Pengerusi, Lembaga Tatatertib Briged Utara Pasukan Gerakan Am, PDRM, Ulu Kinta, Perak & Ors
(Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC) [2017] 3 CLJ 709 [HC]

Judicial review - Income tax - Exemption order exempting from income tax various types of income - Income tax dividends received by offshore company - Whether offshore company qualified for exemption from income tax - Whether Director of Inland Revenue correct in law to disallow tax exemption available under Income Tax (Exemption) (No 22) Order 2007 - Whether Ministry of Finance could by policy or administrative decision declare Exemption Order ceased to apply - Whether s. 3A of Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 expressly states offshore companies are eligible or denied exemption - Whether Exemption Order has legal status of subsidiary legislation - Whether s. 127(5) of Income Tax Act 1967 gives offshore company vested rights - Whether Ministry of Finance or Director of Inland Revenue has jurisdiction to rely arbitrarily on policy to deny offshore company's entitlement to tax exemption - Whether time frame prescribed on exemption order - Whether denial of right to exemption ultra vires, illegal or void
Positive Vision Labuan Limited v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals
(Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi JCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 629 [FC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Copyright Act 1987 - Section 41(1)(d) - Offence of using same copy of CD for installation on 33 computers - Purchaser purchased original CDs supported by end-user agreement - Supplier agreed to supply copies and grant licences and rights to use to purchaser - CD-Key used to install copies in 33 computers - Whether must be installed by different CD-Keys - Whether there was infringement of copyright - Whether defence of good faith available
PP v. Choo Soon Onn
(Zulkifli Bakar J) [2017] 3 CLJ 728 [HC]

EVIDENCE

Conflicting testimony - Road accident - Collision between motorcar and motorcycle - Claim for damages against motorcar driver - Motorcar driver subpoenaed as claimant's witness - Motorcar driver admitted to involvement in accident but later pleaded that no collision occurred - Whether motorcar driver credible witness - Whether accident occurred - Whether motorcar driver involved - Evidence Act 1950, s. 153
Tokio Marine Insurance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Rathakrisnan Ramatasu & Anor And Another Appeal
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 678 [CA]

Witness - Competency - Road accident and insurance claim - Collision between motorcar and motorcycle - Claim against motorcar driver - Motorcycle rider/claimant suffered severe head injuries and could not remember details of accident - Motorcar driver subpoenaed as claimant's witness - Whether claimant could call motorcar driver as witness in suit involving accident and insurance claim - Whether motorcar driver competent witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 120
Tokio Marine Insurance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Rathakrisnan Ramatasu & Anor And Another Appeal
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 678 [CA]

INSURANCE

Fire insurance - Claim on policy - Appointment of adjusters - Request for detailed documents - Whether documents provided by insured company - Whether insured company provided full cooperation - Whether reasonable time given to insured company to provide documents - Insurer declared that insured company unwilling to cooperate - Repudiation of liability by insurer - Allegation of fraud - Standard of proof - Whether fire due to insured company's connivance
Hong Leong Msig Takaful Bhd v. Shantawood Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
(Lim Yee Lan, Varghese George, Idrus Harun JJCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 650 [CA]

Third party's rights against insurer - Claim under policy - Road accident - Insurance claim - Allegations that insured driver breached condition precedent to policy - Whether insurer could avoid risk under policy - Whether insurer could avoid liability against third party
Tokio Marine Insurance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Rathakrisnan Ramatasu & Anor And Another Appeal
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 678 [CA]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Copyright - Infringement - Use of same copy of CD for installation on 33 computers - Purchaser purchased original CDs supported by end-user agreement - Supplier agreed to supply copies and grant licences and rights to use to purchaser - CD-Key used to install copies in all 33 computers - Whether must be installed by different CD-Keys - Whether there was infringement of copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 41(1)(d)
PP v. Choo Soon Onn
(Zulkifli Bakar J) [2017] 3 CLJ 728 [HC]

REVENUE LAW

Income tax - Exempt income - Exemption order exempting from income tax various types of income - Income tax dividends received by offshore company - Whether offshore company qualified for exemption from income tax - Whether Director of Inland Revenue correct in law to disallow tax exemption available under Income Tax (Exemption) (No 22) Order 2007 - Whether Ministry of Finance could by policy or administrative decision declare Exemption Order ceased to apply - Whether s. 3A of Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 expressly states offshore companies are eligible or denied exemption - Whether Exemption Order has legal status of subsidiary legislation - Whether s. 127(5) of Income Tax Act 1967 gives offshore company vested rights - Whether Ministry of Finance or Director of Inland Revenue has jurisdiction to rely arbitrarily on policy to deny offshore company's entitlement to tax exemption - Whether time frame prescribed on exemption order - Whether denial of right to exemption ultra vires, illegal or void
Positive Vision Labuan Limited v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals
(Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi JCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 629 [CA]

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Subsidiary legislation - Validity - Exemption order - Whether made by statutory order - Whether an order having legislative effect - Whether to be read subject to and consistent with provisions of substantive or parent Act - Whether exemption order has legal status of subsidiary legislation - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 3 & 24
Positive Vision Labuan Limited v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals
(Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi JCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 629 [FC]

WORDS & PHRASES

'Chargeable offshore company' - Whether referred to offshore companies which had made election to be subject to tax - Whether companies fell under s. 3A of Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 and s. 3B of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether companies proved that exemption order applied to them
Positive Vision Labuan Limited v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals
(Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi JCA) [2017] 3 CLJ 629 [FC]

INDEKS PERKARA

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

Tahanan salah - Dakwaan - Cabaran terhadap keesahan perintah perubahan pengawasan - Sama ada terdapat kekaburan dan kekeliruan dalam perintah - Kelewatan penyerahan perintah perubahan pengawasan selama 144 hari - Sama ada satu kecacatan prosedur mandatori - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan s. 15(1) & (3) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959
Lawkir Singh Hari Singh lwn. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Yang Lain
(Hassan Abdul Ghani PK) [2017] 3 CLJ 692 [CA]

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN

Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 53 - Tahanan salah - Cabaran terhadap keesahan perintah perubahan pengawasan - Sama ada terdapat kekaburan dan kekeliruan dalam perintah - Kelewatan penyerahan perintah perubahan pengawasan selama 144 hari - Sama ada satu kecacatan prosedur mandatori - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan s. 15(1) & (3) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959
Lawkir Singh Hari Singh lwn. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Yang Lain
(Hassan Abdul Ghani PK) [2017] 3 CLJ 692 [CA]

---

LNS Article(s)

1. CASE OF DR V THURAISINGAM V. SANMARKANGANAPATHY* AND A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES IN SINGAPORE,MALAYSIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS** ^{[Read excerpt]}
   ARUN KASI*** [2017] 1 LNS(A) xxvii

[2017] 1 LNS(A) xxvii



MALAYSIA

---

CASE OF DR V THURAISINGAM V. SANMARKANGANAPATHY*
AND
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES IN SINGAPORE,
MALAYSIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS**

ARUN KASI***

Abstract

Medical negligence jurisprudence has been a subject of controversy. Malaysia’s Dr V Thuraisingam’s turns a spot light onto the jurisdiction. It sets out the important distinction between ‘medical judgment’ and ‘judicial determination’ and points out it is for experts to state their opinions and for the court to evaluate them and make judgement. Medical negligence cases should be decided by judicial determination and not medical judgment. Medical opinion is more relevant when dealing with medical treatment issues than with medical advice issues. These distinctions were not observed in Singapore Dr Khoo’s case when it subscribed to a position whereby Bolam as qualified by Bolitho applies both to medical treatment cases and to medical advice cases.

. . .

* [2015] 8 CLJ 248

** Landmark cases in medical negligence jurisprudence dealt with in detail in this paper includes Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority decided by UK courts, Rogers v. Whitaker decided by Australian court, Dr Khoo James and Another v. Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and another appeal decided by Singapore court and Foo Fio Na v. Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor decided by Malaysian court.

*** Advocate and Solicitor of High Court of Malaya.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. THE JUDICIAL ROLE TODAY* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   LORD JUSTICE GROSS [2017] 1 LNS(A) xxviii

[2017] 1 LNS(A) xxviii



UNITED KINGDOM

---

THE JUDICIAL ROLE TODAY*

LORD JUSTICE GROSS

Introduction^[1]

1. It is a great pleasure to have been invited to give this year's Law and Society Lecture. Earlier this year, in another lecture, I addressed the topic of "Judicial Leadership".^[2] My subject on this occasion is the judicial role today, exploring some of its boundaries

2. A number of different answers might be given to the question as to the judicial role today. Some of course, border on the facetious, the confused and the wry. The caricatures include the irascible Judge; though in times past - we are of course much better today - that was not necessarily a caricature. So the story is told of counsel in an 18^th century Scottish appeal saying "I will now, my Lords proceed to my seventh point...", the Lord Chancellor (Thurlow) riposted, "I'll be damned if you do....this House is adjourned till Monday next".^[3] For some politicians and parts of the media, we veer seamlessly between dinosaurs, hopelessly out of touch to indispensable for our integrity, detachment and judgment. In an age of celebrity, apparently a job in its own right today, the very confused might suggest that was our role. However, despite the popularity of Judge Rinder and his US counterpart, Judge Judy, not to mention reality TV stars, we are not celebrities nor would we want to be. The idea of 'I'm a judge get me out of here' does not bear thinking about.

. . .

* Lord Justice Gross, Queen Mary University, Law And Society Lecture (London, 23 November 2016). Published with kind permission of the Judicial Communications Office, Judiciary of England and Wales (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2016/11/speech-by-gross-lj-the-judicial-rle-today.pdf.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

CLJ Article(s)

1. BACKDATED COVER NOTES AND THE INSURERS' LIABILITY UNDER S. 96 OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   S SANTHANA DASS* [2017] 3 CLJ(A) xiii

[2017] 3 CLJ(A) xiii



MALAYSIA

---

BACKDATED COVER NOTES AND THE INSURERS' LIABILITY UNDER S. 96 OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987

S SANTHANA DASS*

Motor car No. XXX (the insured vehicle) meets with an accident with motorcycle No. YYY at 9am on 30 September 2015. As a result of the accident, the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries. The insured vehicle did not have insurance cover or road tax at the time of the accident. The insured, subsequent to the accident, sees an insurance agent of insurer A who issues a cover note wherein it is stated that the period of insurance is 30 September 2015 to midnight of 29 September 2016. The time of issue of the cover note and/or payment of the premiums for the cover is after the time of the accident.

Is insurer A liable to meet the judgment sum awarded in favour of the motorcyclist under s. 96(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1987 ('the RTA')?

The issue for consideration is whether a policy that was not in existence at the time of accident and issued by the insurer only after the accident but by its terms covers the date of accident unenforceable or void under s. 96(3) of the RTA. Where only the date of the commencement of cover is mentioned in the cover note, is cover retrospective to cover the time of the time of the accident?

Such an issue arose before the Privy Council in Motor & General Insurance Co Ltd and Dorothy Cox and Another,^[1] where it was held that such a policy is valid and effective under the law. The Privy Council unanimously held that there was nothing wrong for a policy to retrospectively cover the time of accident even though at the time of accident no policy of insurance was ever in existence. In this case, the plaintiff was injured by a motor vehicle whose insurance had expired at the time of accident. There was therefore no insurance coverage at the time of accident. The insurer subsequently issued an insurance certificate which was backdated to cover the time of accident. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the driver of the motor vehicle but the insurer refused to satisfy the judgment under s. 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act (Barbados) which is in pari materia with s. 96(1) of the RTA in its material aspects. The insurers argued before the Privy Council that there was no effective policy in existence at the time of accident and that under s. 4(7) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, a policy that is effected for the purposes of Motor Vehicles Insurance Act could not be retrospective in its operation because of the provisions of s. 4(7) which states as follows:

. . .

* Santhana Dass for Dass, Jainab & Associates

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert