|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AMRI IBRAHIM & ANOR v. PP [2017] 1 CLJ 617 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Fact, finding of - High Court and Court of Appeal - Whether correct in rejecting defence of accused persons - Whether there were substantial and compelling reasons to depart - Whether failure to call witness attracted invocation of s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether essential or material witness to prosecution - Whether discrepancy in witness evidence material - Whether affected substance of prosecution's case - Whether Federal Court agreed with findings of courts below - Whether convictions safe EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure of prosecution to call witness - Whether power of court to draw adverse inference discretionary - Whether prosecution correct in not calling witness - Whether essential or material witness to prosecution - Whether non-calling of witness left gap in prosecution's case - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) EVIDENCE: Witness - Conflicting evidence - Whether court fully competent to accept one part of testimony - Whether discrepancy in witness evidence material - Whether affected substance of prosecution's case
PP lwn. TAN YEAN SIANG & SATU LAGI [2017] 1 CLJ 606 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 302 - Membunuh hingga menyebabkan kematian - Kematian kanak-kanak jagaan di pusat asuhan - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada si mati meninggal dunia - Sama ada kematian si mati disebabkan oleh perbuatan tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh-tertuduh yang menyebabkan kematian si mati dilakukan bawah mana-mana cabang s. 300(a), (b), (c) atau (d) Kanun Keseksaan dengan niat atau pengetahuan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Niat bersama - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 34 - Tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh membunuh hingga menyebabkan kematian di bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Kematian kanak-kanak jagaan di pusat asuhan - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama - Sama ada terdapat perancangan awal antara tertuduh-tertuduh untuk melakukan kesalahan di bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada elemen niat bersama berjaya dibuktikan KETERANGAN: Saksi - Saksi kanak-kanak - Keterangan lisan saksi kanak-kanak dalam Bahasa Mandarin dirakam melalui rakaman video - Rakaman video dipindah dalam cakera padat berserta transkrip dalam Bahasa Malaysia - Sama ada transkrip bahasa asal perlu disertakan - Sama ada rakaman video dan transkrip Bahasa Malaysia boleh diterima masuk - Sama ada memenuhi kehendak s. 6 Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2017 Volume 1 (Part 5) FEDERAL COURT Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP (No 2) COURT OF APPEAL Yeo Ing King v. Melawangi Sdn Bhd Gideon Tan v. Tey Por Yee & Another Appeal Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur lwn. Hasan Abd Rahman & Rayuan-Rayuan Lain PP v. Ebrahim Mirzaie Hj Ebrahim Deh Mokhtar HIGH COURT Simpang Maju Enterprises Sdn Bhd v. Soh Yen Ling (As Administrator Of The Estate Of Chan Yau Seng, Deceased); Malayan Banking Bhd (Third Party) PP lwn. Tan Yean Siang & Satu Lagi SUBJECT INDEX CIVIL PROCEDURE Affidavits - Expunging of - Application to expunge averments and exhibits in affidavit - Whether averments and exhibits made in breach of client-solicitor privilege - Solicitor's defence in committal proceedings - Whether created exception to rule of solicitor-client privilege - Whether proviso under s. 126 of Evidence Act 1950 applicable Documents - Agreed bundle - Classification of bundle of documents - Defamation - Parties agreed to include statement alleged to be defamatory in Part A of bundle of documents - Whether suing party deemed to have agreed not only to authenticity of documents but also to truth of contents - Whether signified agreement to truth of statements - Whether suing party estopped from disputing truth of statements - Rules of Court 2012, O. 34 r. 2(d) Third party proceedings - Contribution from third party - Claim against third party (financier) for failure to disburse loan sum - Whether financier gave undertaking to pay loan sum - Whether financier breached loan agreement by failing to disburse loan sum - Whether financier breached loan agreement by unilaterally terminating loan agreement - Whether action against third party could be sustained CONTRACT Termination - Validity - Termination of sale and purchase agreement for non-payment of balance purchase price - Third party claim against financier for failure to disburse loan sum after death of purchaser (deceased) - Whether financier gave undertaking to pay loan sum - Whether financier breached loan agreement by failing to disburse loan sum - Whether obligation to pay balance purchase price vested on estate of deceased - Whether non-payment constituted fundamental breach of sale and purchase agreement - Whether termination of sale and purchase agreement valid and lawful - Whether plaintiff entitled to revesting of property as registered and beneficial owner CRIMINAL LAW Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in methamphetamine - Appeal against acquittal - Prima facie case - Whether established - Trial judge revisited earlier findings and concluded there were still issues regarding identity and colour of bag containing drugs - Whether trial judge should direct his mind on whether evidence posited by respondent created reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal - Whether trial judge misdirected himself on different approach - Evidence of witnesses - Whether uncontroverted - Whether trial judge rejected testimonies of witnesses without assigning any reason - Whether bag containing drugs the same bag carried by accused - Whether defence of accused an afterthought - Whether appellate intervention warranted - Whether accused ought to be sentenced to death under s. 39B(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Prima facie case - Whether established - Trial judge revisited earlier findings and concluded there were still issues regarding identity and colour of bag containing drugs - Whether trial judge should direct his mind on whether evidence posited by respondent created reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal - Whether trial judge misdirected himself on different approach - Evidence of witnesses - Whether uncontroverted - Whether trial judge rejected testimonies of witnesses without assigning any reason - Whether bag containing drugs the same bag carried by accused - Whether defence of accused an afterthought - Whether appellate intervention warranted - Whether accused ought to be sentenced to death under s. 39B(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Courts - Jurisdiction - Inherent jurisdiction - Federal Court - Power to review own decision - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137 - Whether to be exercised sparingly - Whether there was basis to invoke r. 137 - Whether fit and proper case to exercise jurisdiction JURISDICTION Courts - Jurisdiction - Inherent jurisdiction - Federal Court - Application to review own decision - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137 - Whether fit and proper case to exercise jurisdiction LAND LAW Sale and purchase of land - Termination - Non-payment of balance purchase price - Third party claim against financier for failure to disburse loan sum after death of purchaser (deceased) - Whether financier gave undertaking to pay loan sum - Whether financier breached loan agreement by failing to disburse loan sum - Whether obligation to pay balance purchase price vested on estate of deceased - Whether non-payment constituted fundamental breach of sale and purchase agreement - Whether termination of sale and purchase agreement valid and lawful TORT Defamation - Libel - Alleged defamatory statements contained in letters - Parties agreed to include letters in agreed bundle of documents - Whether suing party deemed to have agreed not only to authenticity of documents but also to truth of contents - Whether suing party estopped from disputing truth of statements INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Saksi - Saksi kanak-kanak - Keterangan lisan saksi kanak-kanak dalam Bahasa Mandarin dirakam melalui rakaman video - Rakaman video dipindah dalam cakera padat berserta transkrip dalam Bahasa Malaysia - Sama ada transkrip bahasa asal perlu disertakan - Sama ada rakaman video dan transkrip Bahasa Malaysia boleh diterima masuk - Sama ada memenuhi kehendak s. 6 Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007 UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 302 - Membunuh hingga menyebabkan kematian - Kematian kanak-kanak jagaan di pusat asuhan - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada si mati meninggal dunia - Sama ada kematian si mati disebabkan oleh perbuatan tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh-tertuduh yang menyebabkan kematian si mati dilakukan bawah mana-mana cabang s. 300(a), (b), (c) atau (d) Kanun Keseksaan dengan niat atau pengetahuan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie Niat bersama - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 34 - Tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh membunuh hingga menyebabkan kematian di bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Kematian kanak-kanak jagaan di pusat asuhan - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama - Sama ada terdapat perancangan awal antara tertuduh-tertuduh untuk melakukan kesalahan di bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada elemen niat bersama berjaya dibuktikan UNDANG-UNDANG HASIL Cukai harta - Cukai pintu - Cukai pintu tertunggak - Sama ada kadar taksiran tertunggak yang dituntut tepat - Sama ada terdapat bukti prima facie untuk membuktikan kadar taksiran tertunggak - Sama ada peruntukan s. 148 Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 dipatuhi - 'Pendapat' yang dibentuk oleh pegawai yang melaksanakan waran - Sama ada hartanah berkunci, kosong dan tidak berpenghuni - Sama ada 'pendapat' yang dibentuk oleh pegawai yang melaksanakan waran di bawah proviso kepada s. 148(2) Akta 1976 boleh disemak semula oleh mahkamah - Sama ada senarai inventori perlu disediakan CLJ 2017 Volume 1 (Part 6) FEDERAL COURT Amri Ibrahim & Anor v. PP COURT OF APPEAL Abdul Rahim Suleiman & Anor v. Faridah Md Lazim & Ors PP v. Bayati Heidar View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Bhd HIGH COURT Macro Prosperity Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd World Grand Dynamic Marketing Sdn Bhd v. FJVAA SPA Sdn Bhd & Ors WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd SUBJECT INDEX CIVIL PROCEDURE Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Repeated findings of meter-tampering - Whether provider of electricity supply had statutory right to disconnect - Consumer challenged validity of findings of meter-tampering and statutory right of provider of electricity supply - Application for interlocutory injunction pending outcome of trial - Whether there was bona fide serious issue to be tried - Whether damages were adequate remedy - Whether interlocutory injunction ought to be granted - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) Subpoena - Setting aside - Application for - Whether subpoenas issued to Registrar of Trade Marks' officers frivolous - Whether subpoenaed witnesses in position to give evidence relevant to case - Evidence Act 1950, s. 136(1) - Whether s. 62(1) and (2) of Trade Marks Act 1976 applicable - Whether maker of documents called to fulfil rule against documentary hearsay evidence and to tender primary evidence - Whether subpoenas constitute an abuse of court process - Whether court has discretion under O. 59 r. 3(2) Rules of Court 2012 to award costs of application COMPANY LAW Directors - Proceedings on behalf of company - Companies Act 1965 ('Act'), s. 181A - Leave of court - Whether directors were complainants within meaning of s. 181(4)(a) & (b) of Act - Whether directors gave 30 days notice to other directors of intention to apply for leave of court - Whether application for leave made in good faith - Whether leave of court ought to be granted in interest of company CONSTRUCTION LAW Adjudication - Setting aside - Application to set aside award of adjudicator - Dispute over interim payment claims - Whether adjudication proceedings void for want of jurisdiction - Challenging jurisdiction of adjudicator - Whether s. 41 of Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') applicable - Remedy to question adjudication process or jurisdiction - Whether only pursuant to s. 15 read with s. 13 of CIPAA - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether single application to set aside adjudicating order and stay of adjudication decision flawed - Whether stay available only in limited circumstances as set out under s. 16 of CIPAA - Whether application ought to be dismissed in limine - Whether enforcement of adjudication award allowed CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Appeal by prosecution - Capsules excreted by accused contained dangerous drugs - Accused told that capsules contained expensive medicine prohibited in certain countries - Whether accused had knowledge that capsules contained drugs - Whether defence successfully raised reasonable doubt on element of knowledge - Whether prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) Appeal - Fact, finding of - High Court and Court of Appeal - Whether correct in rejecting defence of accused persons - Whether there were substantial and compelling reasons to depart - Whether failure to call witness attracted invocation of s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether essential or material witness to prosecution - Whether discrepancy in witness evidence material - Whether affected substance of prosecution's case - Whether Federal Court agreed with findings of courts below - Whether convictions safe EVIDENCE Adverse inference - Failure of prosecution to call witness - Whether power of court to draw adverse inference discretionary - Whether prosecution correct in not calling witness - Whether essential or material witness to prosecution - Whether non-calling of witness left gap in prosecution's case - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Witness - Conflicting evidence - Whether court fully competent to accept one part of testimony - Whether discrepancy in witness evidence material - Whether affected substance of prosecution's case PUBLIC UTILITIES Electricity - Disconnection of electricity supply - Repeated findings of meter-tampering - Statutory right of provider of electricity supply to disconnect electricity supply - Whether discretionary or mandatory - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) TORT Damages - Trespass - Tenancy - Factory rented to company - Company placed machine in factory - Bank debenture holder of machine - Company wound up and instructed to remove machine - Failure to remove machine despite extension of time - Landlord claimed against bank for rental and double rental - Whether there was tenancy agreement between landlord and bank - Whether landlord entitled to claim for double rental under s. 28(4)(a) of Civil Law Act 1956 Trespass - Tenancy - Factory rented to company - Company placed machine in factory - Bank debenture holder of machine - Company wound up and instructed to remove machine - Failure to remove machine despite extension of time - Whether bank was trespasser due to failure to remove machine - Whether liable to pay damages to landlord |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
