Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #50/2019 12 December 2019

New This Week Case(s) of the Week JUSNINAWATI ABDUL GHANI v. PP [2019] 10 CLJ 589 Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2019 Volume 10 (Part 5) Articles LNS Article(s) CLJ Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

JUSNINAWATI ABDUL GHANI v. PP [2019] 10 CLJ 589
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; ROHANA YUSUF FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ;
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-275-11-2017(W)]
18 OCTOBER 2019

The prosecution of an accused under s. 130M of the Penal Code for failing to report the possible commission of an offence under s. 130JA of the Code is misconceived and unsustainable in law, if such offence was alleged to have been committed on a date prior to 23 December 2016. The old s. 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was amended by Act A1521 on 23 December 2016, while imposing a duty on every person who is aware of the commission of the offence enumerated in that section to give information to the nearest police station or penghulu, does not refer to the offence of travelling to a foreign country to commit terrorist acts under s. 130 JA. It follows that such an accused was not obliged to report the information concerned and was indeed charged for an offence not known to law.

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 130JA - Offence of travelling to, through or from Malaysia for commission of terrorist acts in foreign country - Accused person, a police corporal, failed to disclose information on possible terrorist act to superior officers - Whether obliged and legally bound to report information to superior officers - Whether omission to disclose information illegal - Whether possible terrorist act fell under offences prescribed under s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code requiring disclosure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused person a police corporal - Accused convicted for omitting to disclose information on possible terrorist act - Accused person sentenced to seven years' imprisonment - Whether accused person obliged and legally bound to report information to superior officers - Whether omission to disclose information illegal - Whether possible terrorist act fell under offences prescribed under s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code requiring disclosure - Whether s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code or s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2016 applied to appellant's case - Penal Code, s. 130JA

---

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 322	AMTRUSTEE BERHAD & ORS v. ALDWICH BERHAD & ORS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Costs - Taxation - Fees of witness - Expert fees - Reimbursement for advisory and specialist fees - Whether expert fees are claimable - Whether expertise of witness was required due to complexity of case - Whether costs granted was fair and reasonable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 59 rr. 1(1), 3(1) For the plaintiffs - Tommy Thomas, Alan Gomez, Michelle Kummar & Michael Yap; M/s Tommy Thomas For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd defendants - V Manokaran, MR Kumar & N Yohendra; M/s Kumar Associates For the 4th & 5th defendants - Robert Lazar, Lai Wai Fong, TT Toi & Aarti Jeyarajah; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co For the 6th defendant - Kelvin Seet & Vendee Chai; M/s Cheang & Ariff
[2018] 1 LNS 329	PETER JARIT v. ABDUL GHAFUR SHARIFF & ORS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash disciplinary proceedings against public servant - Applicant was reprimanded and surcharge imposed - Disciplinary proceedings was initiated by government through Departmental Disciplinary Committee and Public Service Commission ('Commission') - Whether Commission was empowered to mete out one or more of punishments set out under r. 39 Public Service Commission Rules 1996 - Whether Commission had acted for want or in excess of jurisdiction For the applicant - Trabawan Mandi; M/s Sia Trabawan & Company For the respondents - Beatrice Minda; State Attorney General's Chambers
[2018] 1 LNS 370	HONG LIM TIMBER INDUSTRIES SDN BHD v. KETUA MENTERI PULAU PINANG (PEMERBADANAN) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Claim for compensation for loss of property based on legitimate expectation - Misjoinder - Whether action was so plainly and obviously bound to fail - Whether legitimate expectation is a reasonable cause of action - Whether striking out is appropriate if prospect of success is weak on its merits - Whether defendant was wrongly sued For the plaintiff - Kek Boon Wei; Kek Ooi & Lee Hong For the defendant - Teh Chiew Yin; Ong & Manecksha
[2018] 1 LNS 373	MESTIKA BISTARI SDN BHD & ANOR v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD TORT: Negligence - Damages - Action against developer and main contractor - Allegation of damage caused to underground cables in course of carrying out construction work - Whether cable had been damaged - Whether element of foreseeability established - Whether cause of damage proven For the appellants - Lye Ca-Ryn & Lee Xin Div; M/s Gan Partnership For the respondent - Siti Saliah Salim; M/s Peter Goh & Nor Jaswa
[2018] 1 LNS 841	FOO CHOOI CHEW REALTY SDN BHD lwn. CAYMAN DEVELOPMENT (SP) SDN BHD; CHEN YEE CHOI & SATU LAGI (PENCELAH) PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pengetepian - Perintah kebenaran mencelah - Terma-terma yang dizahirkan dalam perintah kebenaran bercanggah dengan relif yang dipohon oleh pencelah - Sama ada penggantungan kepada 'omnibus prayer' adalah menyimpang - Sama ada perintah adalah teratur - Sama ada perintah wajar diketepikan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pengetepian - Perintah kebenaran mencelah - Kelewatan pemfailan permohonan - Permohonan diluar tempoh masa - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan yang melampau Bagi pihak pempetisyen-pempetisyen - Sabrina Shantini Richards; T/n Ros, Lee & Co Bagi pihak bakal pencelah/responden - Ai Cha Ran Din Chee Ron; T/n Ai Cha Ran & Co

---

CLJ 2019 Volume 10 (Part 5)

The prosecution of an accused under s. 130M of the Penal Code for failing to report the possible commission of an offence under s. 130JA of the Code is misconceived and unsustainable in law, if such offence was alleged to have been committed on a date prior to 23 December 2016. The old s. 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was amended by Act A1521 on 23 December 2016, while imposing a duty on every person who is aware of the commission of the offence enumerated in that section to give information to the nearest police station or penghulu, does not refer to the offence of travelling to a foreign country to commit terrorist acts under s. 130 JA. It follows that such an accused was not obliged to report the information concerned and was indeed charged for an offence not known to law.
Jusninawati Abdul Ghani v. PP [2019] 10 CLJ 589 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A bank's acceptance of the redemption sum from a chargor and its intention to lift the charge as evidenced by documentary evidence constitutes cause to the contrary to warrant the setting aside of an order for sale under s. 256 of the National Land Code.
Tan Swee Thiam v. United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd & Other Appeals [2019] 10 CLJ 602 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The overriding consideration in the exercise of discretion to determine the suitability of a joint trial under s. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code is whether it would be fair and just or prejudicial to the accused. A joint trial which effectively denies the accused the right to cross-examine a material witness who is inexorably linked to the allegation against the accused is prejudicial to the latter, and constitutes a miscarriage of justice.
AFM Shafiqul Hafiz v. PP [2019] 10 CLJ 618 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The offence under s. 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (possession of offensive weapon), being an offence punishable upon conviction to imprisonment of up to 10 years, is defined a 'serious offence' by s. 52B of the Penal Code and s. 172D of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Since s. 294(6) of the CPC bars the grant of a bond of good behaviour under s. 294(1) of the Code to an accused convicted of a 'serious offence', it follow that the court, upon convicting an accused under the said s. 6(1), is not empowered to invoke s. 294(1) CPC and release him on a bond of good behaviour.
PP v. Asri Che Din [2019] 10 CLJ 641 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Where an accused is convicted for consumption or administration of a dangerous drug under s. 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and punished under s. 39C(1), a s. 38B supervision order is applicable as the phrase "punishment imposed upon him in respect thereof" in s. 38B covers both a person charged and punished under s. 15 as well as a person charged under s. 15(1)(a) and punished under s. 39C.
PP v. Samsul Zariman Zulkapli [2019] 10 CLJ 651 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Where the prosecution withdraws the charge against an accused after the court has evaluated all the evidence, ruled for a prima facie case and called for the defence, the appropriate order to make is A Discharge Not Amounting to An Acquittal, and not an outright acquittal.
PP v. Siti Aisyah & Anor And Another Case [2019] 10 CLJ 660 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Specific performance, being a discretionary remedy, cannot be allowed when one party is not ready to perform its part of the bargain and where damages in lieu of specific performance is more appropriate.
Tan Soon Koon v. Dato’ Seri Liow Tiong Lai & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 714 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. STATUS DAN KEDUDUKAN DEKLARASI PERTUBUHAN BANGSA-BANGSA BERSATU MENGENAI HAK ORANG ASAL (DHOA) DI SISI UNDANG-UNDANG ANTARABANGSA ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Muhamad Sayuti bin Hassan @ Yahya* Rohaida Nordin** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlii

[2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlii



MALAYSIA

---

STATUS DAN KEDUDUKAN DEKLARASI PERTUBUHAN BANGSA-BANGSA BERSATU MENGENAI HAK ORANG ASAL (DHOA) DI SISI UNDANG-UNDANG ANTARABANGSA

by
Muhamad Sayuti bin Hassan @ Yahya*
Rohaida Nordin**

ABSTRAK

Pengiktirafan hak orang asal telah diterima di peringkat antarabangsa melalui Deklarasi mengenai Hak Orang Asal (DHOA) oleh Perhimpunan Agung Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu. Sungguhpun begitu, instrumen undang-undang antarabangsa yang berbentuk deklarasi seperti DHOA ini tidak mempunyai kesan perundangan yang mengikat kerana bersifat sebagai "soft law." Oleh yang demikian, objektif utama penulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis status dan kedudukan DHOA di sisi undang-undang antarabangsa. Bagi mencapai objektif tersebut, penulisan ini menggunakan kaedah kualitatif dan kajian perpustakaan bagi memperolehi data premier dan sekunder. Hasil analisis penulisan ini mendapati bahawa DHOA berpotensi untuk menjadi instrumen undang-undang antarabangsa yang mengikat. Selain itu, artikel ini juga berhujah bahawa DHOA mempunyai kesan yang mengikat kerana mempunyai prinsip-prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa dan hak asasi manusia yang memenuhi elemen undang-undang adat antarabangsa. Kesimpulannya, prinsip dan undang-undang yang terkandung dalam DHOA ini wajar diberi perhatian oleh semua pihak kerana mampu untuk memberi perlindungan kepada orang asal dengan lebih baik dan menyeluruh.

. . .

* Pensyarah Kanan, Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim
  sayuti@fsk.upsi.edu.my

** Profesor Madya, Fakulti Undang-undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi
  Rohaidanordin@ukm.edu.my

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. BHARAT AND BITCOIN: LOCATING CRYPTO CURRENCIES WITHIN INDIA'S LEGAL FRAMEWORK ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by PRASHANT KHURANA* [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxli

[2019] 1 LNS(A) cxli



INDIA

---

BHARAT AND BITCOIN: LOCATING CRYPTO CURRENCIES WITHIN INDIA'S LEGAL FRAMEWORK

by
PRASHANT KHURANA*

Fiat and Fedcoin: Exploring the financial and legal viability of state-backed cryptocurrencies

Keywords: Bitcoin; Cryptocurrencies; Blockchain; Peer-to-peer currency; Virtual Currencies; Tax

November 2008 - The world was reeling from the greatest financial calamity since the Great Depression of 1929, the Federal Reserve System and the Congress of the United States of America, in response to the global frenzy triggered by the largest bankruptcy filing^[1] in the history of the country began what would become the largest ever stimulus program the world had ever known. United States of America elected its first African American President who would take over an economy on the brink of collapse. Across the Atlantic, London, Paris, and Berlin witnessed frantic discussions between governments and financial institutions as people in various parts of Europe and the Americas lined up to withdraw their savings from banks that were being considered on the cusp of bankruptcy.^[2] Amidst the gloom, hidden from mainstream media, one or more unknown individuals published a white paper that solved a mathematical conundrum- "The Blockchain"- with significant ramifications for the global finance. This was the beginning of Bitcoin, the oldest and the most well-known cryptocurrency that has over the past nine years or so generated an entirely new dimension of money and spawned the growth of a number of peers with volatile, albeit astonishing returns for investors.

. . .

* Post-graduate LL.M student, UCLA School of Law, United States, Class of 2020. LL.B., Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, Delhi University, 2019. B.A. (Hons). History, Hansraj College, Delhi University, 2016. Email: khurana2020@lawnet.ucla.edu Contact No. : +1(310)954-7294.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

CLJ Article(s)

1. RES JUDICATA IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PAYMENT ADJUDICATION ACT 2012 ('CIPAA') PROCEEDINGS ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by DR SIVASANGARAN NADARAJAH* [2019] 10 CLJ(A) i

[2019] 10 CLJ(A) i



MALAYSIA

---

RES JUDICATA IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PAYMENT ADJUDICATION ACT 2012 ('CIPAA') PROCEEDINGS

by
DR SIVASANGARAN NADARAJAH*

Introduction

In many construction projects, payment for works executed is usually based on the progressed works as found at fixed stages; correspondingly made against the payment claims raised, from time to time, for works which the claimant says progressed from:

(i) the works recognised in the payment certification for the preceding progress claim; or

(ii) the works stated in the preceding progress claim (as there was no payment certificate for this preceding claim or its corresponding certificate is challenged or as the claimant prefers to gauge progress against its own estimate of works completed rather than against that identified by the certifier). If, however, the claimed sum for payment in toto is made against the previously certified total (which is for the acknowledged works), it implies that for this claimed sum, the progress for each works item was calculated against that item as certified for the preceding progress claim and not against the preceding claim itself (as indicated).

Accordingly, where there is no progress for that item of works, the subsequent progress claim should show an identical level of executed works as in the previous progress claim.

. . .

* Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert