Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #15/2017 13 April 2017

New This Week Case(s) of the Week INSTANTCOLOR SYSTEM SDN BHD v. INKMAKER ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD [2017] 4 CLJ 1 PATHMANABHAN NALLIANNEN v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2017] 4 CLJ 137 Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2017 Volume 4 (Part 1) CLJ 2017 Volume 4 (Part 2) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

INSTANTCOLOR SYSTEM SDN BHD v. INKMAKER ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD [2017] 4 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ, MD RAUS SHARIF PCA, SURIYADI HALIM OMAR FCJ, RAMLY ALI FCJ,
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-85-11-2015(B)]
2 MARCH 2017

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Pleadings - Exception to limitation period - Issues raised for first time during hearing of appeal - Whether radical departure from pleaded case - Whether issues must be specifically pleaded in pleadings - Whether issues should be allowed to be raised - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 6 & 22

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Joinder of parties - Second defendant joined as
co-defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether power of amendment extends to amendment of adding new defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether doctrine of relation back applicable - Whether amendments prejudiced opposing party's rights - Whether second defendant could rely on defence of limitation - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 r. 5(2)

LIMITATION: Pleading, amendment of - Inclusion of parties to action - Second defendant joined as co-defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether power of amendment extends to amendment of adding new defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether doctrine of relation back applicable - Whether amendments prejudiced opposing party's rights - Whether action against second defendant time-barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 r. 5(2)

---

PATHMANABHAN NALLIANNEN v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2017] 4 CLJ 137
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ, RICHARD MALANJUM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK), SURIYADI HALIM OMAR FCJ,
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ, ZAHARAH IBRAHIM FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEALS NO: 05-277-12-2015(B), 05-281-12-2015(B), 05-278-12-2015(B) &
05-280-12-2015(B)]
16 MARCH 2017
[2017] CLJ JT(3)

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Common intention - Irresistible inferences - Whether leading to conclusion that accused persons committed murders in concert and according to pre-arranged plan - Motive, absence of - Whether inconsequential - Defence - Alibi - Whether offences proved beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Witness - Impeachment - Police reports of witness - Whether materially contradicting evidence in court - Police reports not first information reports - Whether irrelevant for purpose of s. 155(c) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether could be used to impeach credit of witness - Credibility of witness - Whether trial judge in better position to evaluate credibility - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 145, 155

EVIDENCE: Information leading to facts discovered - Admissibility - Murder - Information leading to discovery of incriminating items - Whether information given individually and not jointly - Whether information accurate and not oppressively obtained - Issue of voluntariness - Whether irrelevant - Whether not a condition to admissibility - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27

EVIDENCE: Conduct - Previous and subsequent conduct - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conduct subsequent to offence of pointing to places where incriminating items discovered - Whether falling within ambit of s. 8(2) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether admissible evidence

EVIDENCE: Expert evidence - Chemist report - DNA evidence - Test results not conducted or obtained by chemist personally - Laboratory officers who carried required tests not called as witness - Whether chemist report hearsay - Whether admissible in evidence - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 45, 46, 51

WORDS & PHRASES: `statement' - Section s. 155(c) of Evidence Act 1950 - Import and purport - Whether comprehensive enough to include first information reports made under s. 107(1) of Criminal Procedure Code

---

Legal Network Series

[2015] 1 LNS 1359	PP lwn. GAMAT EMAS SDN BHD	PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Kesalahan dibawah Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Dadah dan Kosmetik 1984 - Pengeluaran produk yang mengandungi ekstrak gamat yang tidak didaftarkan - Keraguan munasabah - Kandungan ekstrak gamat dalam produk tidak melebihi 8% - Keterangan berkenaan kandungan ekstrak gamat tidak dicabar oleh pihak pendakwaan - Kewujudan percubaan untuk mendaftarkan produk - Produk tidak dapat didaftar kerana gamat tidak termasuk dalam senarai dadah - Hakim bicara memutuskan produk yang dikeluarkan adalah makanan dan bukan ubat-ubatan - Sama ada keputusan hakim bicara adalah betul
[2016] 1 LNS 483	DR KHAIRUL AZHAR MAT DAUD lwn. DR ZUKERI IBRAHIM	TORT: Fitnah - Libel - Penyebaran - Pernyataan berunsur fitnah disebarkan melalui emel - Tuntutan ganti rugi - Kata-kata fitnah merujuk terus kepada plaintif - Kata-kata fitnah tersebar di laman blog dan sosial - Dakwaan berunsur fitnah terhadap penjawat awam - Sama ada penyebaran kata-kata fitnah telah menyebabkan maruah dan integriti plaintif tercemar - Sama ada kata-kata fitnah menanamkan rasa kebencian dan kehinaan orang ramai terhadap plaintif - Sama ada terdapat penyebaran kepada pihak ketiga TORT: Fitnah - Pembelaan - Justifikasi - Komen berpatutan dan perlindungan bersyarat - Dakwaan berunsur fitnah terhadap penjawat awam - Pendedahan salah laku penjawat awam di laman sosial - Sama ada kebenaran pernyatan yang dikatakan bersifat fitnah berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada komen yang dibuat adalah atas kepentingan awam - Sama ada defendan mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk mendedahkan pernyataan - Sama ada pernyataan defendan adalah berdasarkan komen yang adil - Sama ada pendedahan berkenaan salah laku terhadap plaintif wajar didedahkan melalui penyebaran di laman social
[2016] 1 LNS 540	TAN KIM LOOK v. PP	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Joint trial - Hearing of several cases in one single trial - Illegality - Violation of statutory provisions of Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') - Offences committed beyond twelve month period - All witnesses were called to testify only once - Evidence from one specific case applied in another case - Whether there was violation of statutory provisions of CPC - Whether violation of s. 164 of CPC rendered trial illegal CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Retrial - Alleged offences took place 24 years ago - Material documentary evidence not available - Chances for prosecution to recall witnesses slim - Whether order for retrial would be prejudicial to accused - Whether order for retrial was suitable CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 420 - Cheating - Deception - Whether there was fraudulent and dishonest deception - Whether ingredient under s. 415(a) of Penal Code had been established
[2016] 1 LNS 604	YB KHALID ABDUL SAMAD v. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Leave to commence judicial review - Application for judicial review to determine validity and constitutionality of law - Whether validity of law could be questioned in a judicial review proceeding - Whether application was frivolous or vexatious and abuse of process
[2016] 1 LNS 649	DAYA CMT SDN BHD v. YUK TUNG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD	CONTRACT: Building contract - Performance bond - On demand performance bond - Payment on performance bond - Right of main contractor to call for bank guarantee - Unconscionability - Calling for performance bond following termination of subcontract - Whether dependent on terms of bond or on default of underlying subcontract - Whether main contractor was guilty of unconscionable conduct by terminating subcontract and calling for performance bond - Whether there was basis to call for performance bond - Whether main contractor was contractually entitled to call for performance bond CONTRACT: Building contract - Sub-contract - Termination - Validity of termination - Termination by main contractor - Subcontractor's failure to carry out subcontract works regularly and diligently - Substantial delay in completing project and increasingly frequent strikes and work stoppage on part of subcontractor - Whether main contractor was guilty of unconscionable conduct by terminating subcontract CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Injunction to restrain calling of performance bond - Injunction application by subcontractor to restrain main contractor from calling performance bond pending disposal of suit - Whether there was unjust enrichment on part of main contractor - Whether main contractor was in position to repay subcontractor should subcontractor succeed at trial - Whether subcontractor was able to show prima facie case of unconscionable conduct by main contractor to justify restraint on main contractor from making call on performance bond - Whether damages would be an adequate remedy CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Erinford injunction - Injunction pending appeal - Special circumstances - Recovery of money - Whether payment of money could render a successful appellant's appeal nugatory - Whether plaintiff was able to show special circumstances justifying Erinford injunction pending appeal

---

CLJ 2017 Volume 4 (Part 1)

FEDERAL COURT

Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v. Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed FCJJ
(Civil Procedure; Limitation - Pleadings - Exception to limitation period - Issues raised for first time during hearing of appeal - Whether power of amendment extends to amendment of adding new defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether doctrine of relation back applicable) [2017] 4 CLJ 1 [FC]

Malaysia Building Society Bhd v. KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ
(Land Law - Charge mistakenly registered as first party charge instead of third party charge - Whether charge defeasible) [2017] 4 CLJ 24 [FC]

PP v. Gan Boon Aun
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Jeffrey Tan FCJJ
(Constitutional Law - Constitutionality of statute - Deeming provision under s. 122(1) of Securities Industry Act 1983 - Whether s. 122(1) of Securities Industry Act 1983 violates arts. 5(1) and 8(1) of Federal Constitution - Applicability of principle of autrefois acquit) [2017] 4 CLJ 41 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Muhammad Safwan Anang v. PP & Another Appeal
Mohtarudin Baki, Zakaria Sam, Prasad Sandosham Abraham JJCA
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure - Making seditious comments while giving public speech - Whether statements made had seditious tendency) [2017] 4 CLJ 91 [CA]

Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan & Anor v. Syarikat Sebati Sdn Bhd
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA
(Contract; Trade & Industry - Draft agreement - Whether parties must abide by stipulations in final draft formal agreement) [2017] 4 CLJ 101 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Inpamalar Navaratnam lwn. Datuk Bandar Majlis Bandaraya, Petaling Jaya
Azimah Omar PK
(Undang-Undang Bangunan Dan Pembinaan; Prosedur Sivil - Bangunan - Struktur tambahan - Pihak berkuasa tempatan memohon perintah termesti bagi merobohkan bangunan tambahan/pindaan - Permohonan mengisytiharkan perintah termesti tidak sah dan terbatal) [2017] 4 CLJ 116 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Appeal - Pleadings - Exception to limitation period - Issues raised for first time during hearing of appeal - Whether radical departure from pleaded case - Whether issues must be specifically pleaded in pleadings - Whether issues should be allowed to be raised - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 6 & 22
Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v. Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 1 [FC]

Parties - Joinder of parties - Second defendant joined as co-defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether power of amendment extends to amendment of adding new defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether doctrine of relation back applicable - Whether amendments prejudiced opposing party's rights - Whether second defendant could rely on defence of limitation - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 r. 5(2)
Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v. Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 1 [FC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Autrefois acquit - Applicability of principle - Director of company acquitted of principal offence under s. 86(b) read together with s. 122C(c) of Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA) - Alternatively charged for offence committed by corporate under s. 122B(a)(bb) of SIA - Whether ingredients of principal and alternative charges different in fact and in law - Whether doctrine of autrefois acquit only applies where charge is for same offence for which accused has been acquitted - Whether plea of autrefois acquit would succeed
PP v. Gan Boon Aun
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Jeffrey Tan FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 41 [FC]

Constitution - Doctrine of separation of powers - Deeming provision under s. 122(1) of Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA) - Director, chief executive officer or representative of body corporate deemed to have committed offence where offence committed by body corporate - Whether s. 122(1) of SIA violates art. 121 of Federal Constitution - Whether usurps judicial powers of court
PP v. Gan Boon Aun
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Jeffrey Tan FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 41 [FC]

Legislature - Constitutionality of statute - Section 122(1) of Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA) deemed director, chief executive officer or representative of body corporate to have committed offence where offence committed by body corporate - Whether s. 122(1) of Securities Industry Act 1983 violates arts. 5(1) and 8(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether burden or standard of proof must still be proven by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt before deeming provision could be triggered - Whether abrogates fundamental right of accused person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
PP v. Gan Boon Aun
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Jeffrey Tan FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 41 [FC]

CONTRACT

Agreement - Draft agreement - Logging concession - Whether parties must abide by stipulations in final draft formal agreement - Whether agreement duly executed by government bodies binding - Whether draft agreement and approved letter could become one contract - Whether sustainable in law - Plaintiff's failure to lead evidence on which agreement parties were conducting on day to day affairs - Whether fatal to plaintiff's case - Whether plaintiff entitled to compensation - Whether requirements of ss. 2 & 3 of Government Contracts Act 1949 met
Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan & Anor v. Syarikat Sebati Sdn Bhd
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 101 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW

Sedition Act 1948 - Section 4(1)(b) - Appellant accused of making seditious comments while giving public speech - Whether statements made had seditious tendency - Whether conviction safe
Muhammad Safwan Anang v. PP & Another Appeal
(Mohtarudin Baki, Zakaria Sam, Prasad Sandosham Abraham JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 91 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant accused of making seditious comments while giving public speech - Whether statements made had seditious tendency - Whether conviction safe
Muhammad Safwan Anang v. PP & Another Appeal
(Mohtarudin Baki, Zakaria Sam, Prasad Sandosham Abraham JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 91 [CA]

LAND LAW

Charge - Creation and validity of - Charge instrument in Form 16A filed at land registry - Charge mistakenly registered as first party charge instead of third party charge - Whether contrary to loan agreement and charge annexure - Whether Form 16A filed an insufficient instrument as envisaged by s. 340(2) of National Land Code - Whether charge defeasible - Whether error in Form 16A had effect of transferring charge into any other instrument of dealing - Whether parties prejudiced or misled by error - Whether error could be rectified by Registrar pursuant to s. 380(1)(b) of National Land Code - Whether court vested with power to direct Registrar to give effect to order under s. 417 of National Land Code - Whether charge valid
Malaysia Building Society Bhd v. KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 24 [FC]

Charge - Setting aside - Appeal against - Charge instrument in Form 16A filed at land registry - Charge mistakenly registered as first party charge instead of third party charge - Whether contrary to loan agreement and charge annexure - Whether Form 16A filed an insufficient instrument as envisaged by s. 340(2) of National Land Code - Whether charge defeasible - Whether error in Form 16A had effect of transferring charge into any other instrument of dealing - Whether parties prejudiced or misled by error - Whether error could be rectified by Registrar pursuant to s. 380(1)(b) of National Land Code - Whether court vested with power to direct Registrar to give effect to order under s. 417 of National Land Code - Whether charge valid
Malaysia Building Society Bhd v. KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 24 [FC]

LIMITATION

Pleading, amendment of - Inclusion of parties to action - Second defendant joined as co-defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether power of amendment extends to amendment of adding new defendant after expiry of limitation period - Whether doctrine of relation back applicable - Whether amendments prejudiced opposing party's rights - Whether action against second defendant time-barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 r. 5(2)
Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v. Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 1 [FC]

TRADE & INDUSTRY

Forestry - Logging concession - Agreement - Draft agreement - Whether parties must abide by stipulations in final draft formal agreement - Whether agreement duly executed by government bodies binding - Whether draft agreement and approved letter can become one contract - Whether sustainable in law - Plaintiff's failure to lead evidence on which agreement parties were relying on to conduct day to day affairs - Whether fatal to plaintiff's case - Whether plaintiff entitled to compensation - Whether requirements of ss. 2 & 3 of Government Contracts Act 1949 met
Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan & Anor v. Syarikat Sebati Sdn Bhd
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Zamani A Rahim, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 101 [CA]

INDEKS PERKARA

PROSEDUR SIVIL

Pengisytiharan - Bidang kuasa mahkamah - Pemohon mengemukakan pelan-pelan bangunan tambahan/pindaan setelah bangunan tambahan/pindaan selesai dibina - Pemohon mengaku salah dan disabitkan atas kesalahan bawah s. 70(13)(b) Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 - Membuat tambahan/pindaan bangunan tanpa kelulusan pihak berkuasa tempatan - Pihak berkuasa tempatan memohon perintah termesti memerintahkan plaintif merobohkan bangunan tambahan/pindaan - Permohonan mengisytiharkan pelan-pelan bangunan tambahan/pindaan diluluskan oleh pihak berkuasa tempatan dan perintah termesti tidak sah dan terbatal - Sama ada mahkamah berbidang kuasa membuat pengisytiharan relif-relif yang dipohon
Inpamalar Navaratnam lwn. Datuk Bandar Majlis Bandaraya, Petaling Jaya
(Azimah Omar PK) [2017] 4 CLJ 116 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG BANGUNAN DAN PEMBINAAN

Bangunan - Struktur tambahan - Pemohon mengemukakan pelan-pelan bangunan tambahan/pindaan setelah bangunan tambahan/pindaan selesai dibina - Pemohon disabitkan atas kesalahan bawah s. 70(13)(b) Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 - Membuat tambahan/pindaan bangunan tanpa kelulusan pihak berkuasa tempatan - Pihak berkuasa tempatan memohon perintah termesti bagi menjalankan kerja-kerja merobohkan bangunan tambahan/pindaan - Sama ada pemohon mempunyai jangkaan sah bahawa pihak berkuasa tempatan akan meluluskan pelan bangunan tambahannya
Inpamalar Navaratnam lwn. Datuk Bandar Majlis Bandaraya, Petaling Jaya
(Azimah Omar PK) [2017] 4 CLJ 116 [HC]

---

CLJ 2017 Volume 4 (Part 2)

FEDERAL COURT

Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Evidence - Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Information leading to facts discovered – Admissibility) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Daniel Akachukwu Agbanusi v. PP
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Zamani A Rahim JJCA
(Criminal Law - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Failure of trial judge to specify whether case was premised on actual trafficking or presumed trafficking - Whether conviction safe) [2017] 4 CLJ 200 [CA]

Harapan Ramai Sdn Bhd v. Wak Kuari Sdn Bhd
Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA
(Damages - Measure of damages - Assessment - Explosion at quarry) [2017] 4 CLJ 212 [CA]

Majlis Peguam Malaysia v. Hari Krishnan Jeyapalan
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Prasad Sandosham Abraham, Asmabi Mohamad JJCA
(Legal Profession - Professional discipline - Whether formal charge should be preferred against advocate and solicitor before commencement of disciplinary proceedings) [2017] 4 CLJ 225 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Bank Simpanan Nasional v. Rudysham Abdul Raof
Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JC
(Civil Procedure - Banking - Action - Recovery of loan - Validity and effect of full settlement letter) [2017] 4 CLJ 234 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

BANKING

Banks and banking business - Loan facilities - Recovery of loan - Claim for - Whether borrower's obligations under loan agreement cum assignment ('LACA') released and discharged due to full settlement letter issued by bank - Validity and effect of full settlement letter - Whether full settlement letter constituted a mistake of fact - Suit instituted more than four years after issuance of full settlement letter - Whether bank guilty of laches - Whether full settlement letter and deed of receipt and reassignment constituted strong representation of full release from loan - Whether bank estopped from making claim for payment
Bank Simpanan Nasional v. Rudysham Abdul Raof
(Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JC) [2017] 4 CLJ 234 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Action - Recovery of loan - Claim for - Appeal against dismissal of recovery of loan - Whether borrower's obligations under loan agreement cum assignment ('LACA') released and discharged due to full settlement letter issued by bank - Validity and effect of full settlement letter - Whether full settlement letter constituted a mistake of fact - Suit instituted more than four years after issuance of full settlement letter - Whether bank guilty of laches - Whether full settlement letter and deed of receipt and reassignment constituted strong representation of full release from loan - Whether bank estopped from making claim for payment
Bank Simpanan Nasional v. Rudysham Abdul Raof
(Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JC) [2017] 4 CLJ 234 [HC]

Action - Recovery of loan - Claim for - Loan agreement cum assignment ('LACA') - Whether rendered valid in pursuance of registration of certificate of authentication - Whether registration of revocation of power of attorney had effect of cancelling LACA - Whether loan agreement entirely unaffected by revocation of power of attorney or deed of receipt and reassignment - Whether loan arrangement continued to subsist
Bank Simpanan Nasional v. Rudysham Abdul Raof
(Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JC) [2017] 4 CLJ 234 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in 459.6g of methamphetamine - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Failure of trial judge to specify whether case was premised on actual trafficking or presumed trafficking - Whether conviction safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d)
Daniel Akachukwu Agbanusi v. PP
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Zamani A Rahim JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 200 [CA]

Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Common intention - Irresistible inferences - Whether leading to conclusion that accused persons committed murders in concert and according to pre-arranged plan - Motive, absence of - Whether inconsequential - Defence - Alibi - Whether offences proved beyond reasonable doubt
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Witness - Impeachment - Police reports of witness - Whether materially contradicting evidence in court - Police reports not first information reports - Whether irrelevant for purpose of s. 155(c) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether could be used to impeach credit of witness - Credibility of witness - Whether trial judge in better position to evaluate credibility - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 145, 155
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

DAMAGES

Measure of damages - Assessment - Explosion at defendant's quarry due to plaintiff's negligence - Termination of contract - Counter claim - Nominal damages - Appeal against decision of High Court - Whether receipts produced to prove defendant made payment to relevant parties - Loss of profit - Whether proved - Payment of wages to defendant's employees - Whether payment credited into defendant's employees' account - Whether defendant proved its claim under various heads of damages
Harapan Ramai Sdn Bhd v. Wak Kuari Sdn Bhd
(Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 212 [CA]

EVIDENCE

Conduct - Previous and subsequent conduct - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conduct subsequent to offence of pointing to places where incriminating items discovered - Whether falling within ambit of s. 8(2) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether admissible evidence
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

Expert evidence - Chemist report - DNA evidence - Test results not conducted or obtained by chemist personally - Laboratory officers who carried required tests not called as witness - Whether chemist report hearsay - Whether admissible in evidence - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 45, 46, 51
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

Information leading to facts discovered - Admissibility - Murder - Information leading to discovery of incriminating items - Whether information given individually and not jointly - Whether information accurate and not oppressively obtained - Issue of voluntariness - Whether irrelevant - Whether not a condition to admissibility - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

LEGAL PROFESSION

Professional discipline - Misconduct - Advocate and solicitor acted for client in recovery of sum - Arrangement that debtor will pay total amount owing to client in monthly instalments through lawyer's firm - Cheques drawn from client's account dishonoured - Disciplinary committee found advocate and solicitor guilty of misconduct - Advocate and solicitor struck off from Roll - Whether punishment appropriate - Whether offence proportionate with sentence meted out - Whether formal charge should be preferred against advocate and solicitor before commencement of disciplinary proceedings - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 103
Majlis Peguam Malaysia v. Hari Krishnan Jeyapalan
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Prasad Sandosham Abraham, Asmabi Mohamad JJCA) [2017] 4 CLJ 225 [CA]

WORDS & PHRASES

"statement" - Section s. 155(c) of Evidence Act 1950 - Import and purport - Whether comprehensive enough to include first information reports made under s. 107(1) of Criminal Procedure Code
Pathmanabhan Nalliannen v. PP & Other Appeals
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Suriyadi Halim Omar, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2017] 4 CLJ 137 [FC]

---

LNS Article(s)

1. ISLAMIC FINANCE LITIGATION IN MALAYSIA: AN OVERVIEW ^{[Read excerpt]}
   HIZRI HASSHAN* [2017] 1 LNS(A) xxix

[2017] 1 LNS(A) xxix



MALAYSIA

---

ISLAMIC FINANCE LITIGATION IN MALAYSIA: AN OVERVIEW

HIZRI HASSHAN*

Abstract

Islamic finance litigation is a special area of practice where we can see the Shari’ah issues are litigated and adjudicated within the civil judicial framework. Bank Negara Malaysia in its Malaysian Financial Masterplan 2001-2010 did mention that a sufficient number of competent lawyers and judges equipped with sound knowledge and expertise in both Shari’ah and civil laws is needed. Hence, in this article, the author seeks to explore the scope of the Islamic finance litigation practice in Malaysia.

Keywords: Islamic finance litigation, Islamic finance, dispute resolution, litigation practice

Introduction

Litigation, being the dispute resolution process through the courts of law, is undeniably the most popular method of determining the domestic Islamic financial disputes. According to the Global Islamic Finance Report (GIFR 2011), the Malaysian litigation framework does provide support to the Islamic banking and finance industry. By virtue of the common law system inherited from the British colonialists, the Malaysian courts adopt the doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisis) and publicly report landmark decisions, thereby facilitating the development of certainty and predictability of dispute resolution outcomes for Islamic banking and finance cases.^[1]

. . .

* Fellow, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) [Email: hizri@ukm.edu.my].

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. CUTTING THE CLOTH TO FIT THE DISPUTE:STEPS TOWARDS BETTER PROCEDURES ACROSS THE JURISDICTIONS* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   THE RT HON. THE LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES [2017] 1 LNS(A) xxx

[2017] 1 LNS(A) xxx



UNITED KINGDOM

---

CUTTING THE CLOTH TO FIT THE DISPUTE:
STEPS TOWARDS BETTER PROCEDURES ACROSS THE JURISDICTIONS*

THE RT HON. THE LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES

It is a great privilege and honour to have been invited to deliver the 2016 Singapore Academy of Law lecture, and to follow in the footsteps of so many distinguished judges.^[1]

Introduction

1. There is a view that procedure is not of intrinsic interest; that it is unimportant when compared with substantive law. That was my view when I finished reading law at Cambridge and (a few months later) qualified as a barrister. Hence my knowledge of procedure was then virtually nil. However, at the University of Chicago, where I went immediately after, it was very different. First year law students there had to study civil procedure, taught in 1969 through the perhaps over-tough application of the Socratic method by a great procedural scholar, Professor Geoffrey Hazard. It was the view of the law school that it was as necessary to have a grounding in procedure as it was in the more usual subjects of constitutional law, contract and tort. That view was plainly right.

2. Procedure, in my view, is as central to the delivery of justice as the content of substantive law. It affects access to justice, the cost of obtaining justice, the time proceedings take, their complexity, the enforceability of judgments, jurisdiction and incidental matters, such as the employment of lawyers. Its reform is essential to the challenge faced nationally and internationally by the way our world has changed, and is changing, through the technological revolution. Procedural reform is at the core of the courts and tribunals reform programme on which we have embarked recently in England and Wales. It is, as your Chief Justice has made clear, at the heart of many of his reforms.

. . .

* The Rt Hon. The Lord Thomas Of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Singapore Academy Of Law Annual Lecture 2016 (September 2016). Published with kind permission of the Judicial Communications Office, Judiciary of England and Wales (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/lcj-speech-singapore-academy-of-law.pdf

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert