Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #12/2020 12 March 2020

New This Week Case(s) of the Week ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHD v. MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA & ANOR [2020] 3 CLJ 153 MOGAN RAJ RAVI & ANOR v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2020] 3 CLJ 240 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 2) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHD v.
MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA & ANOR [2020] 3 CLJ 153
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-91-10-2018(W)]
31 JANUARY 2020

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Application to amend re-amended statement of claim allowed by High Court and affirmed by Court of Appeal - Whether decision on amendment application appealable - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal - Whether question of jurisdiction could be raised at any time even if parties acquiesce/waive right to raise objection as to want of jurisdiction - Whether 'decision', 'judgment' or 'order' - Whether disposed of rights of parties - Whether amendment application made in course of trial - Whether amendment application filed prior to conclusion of trial and before High Court delivered judgment on liability - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('Act'), ss. 3, 50, 67 & 68

TORT: Negligence - Statutory duty - Breach of - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Claim for damages - Whether there was duty of care owed - Whether there was breach of that duty - Whether damages proven

TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Whether medical degree programmes terminated - Whether discretion properly exercised - Whether there was misfeasance in public office

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Decision' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 3 - Whether to be read with ss. 67 and 68 - Whether limiting right of appeal in both criminal and civil appeals 

---

MOGAN RAJ RAVI & ANOR v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2020] 3 CLJ 240
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA; MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEALS NO: W-05(M)-431-09-2017, W-05(M)-434-09-2017 & W-05(M)-435-09-2017]
20 JANUARY 2020

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons charged for four charges under ss. 6, 12(2) and 39B(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and two under s. 8 of Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Whether charges proven - Trial judge invoked double presumptions under ss. 37(d) and 37(da)(vi) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 against accused persons - Whether elements of possession and trafficking proven - Whether invocation of double presumptions constitutional - Decision in Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Anor - Whether conviction safe - Whether ought to be set aside 

---

1. Low Chiew Mun v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 671 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Low Chiew Mun [Criminal Trial No: 45B-09-06/2015]

2. A Sarpian Azmi lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 672 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. A Sarpian Azmi [2017] 1 LNS 2154

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 8	MUSA MAHMOOD & YANG LAIN v. MOHD KHAIRUL ISMAIL Dokumen sokongan tidak semestinya diperlukan untuk membuktikan kewujudan sesuatu pinjaman. Keterangan lisan yang dipercayai adalah memadai untuk membuktikan kewujudan pinjaman tersebut. PENGHUTANG-PENGHUTANG: Pinjaman peribadi - Tuntutan untuk bayaran balik pinjaman - Pertikaian berkenaan kewujudan pinjaman - Pinjaman diberikan pada tarikh-tarikh yang berasingan - Wang pinjaman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun syarikat yang berbeza dengan syarikat yang mengeluarkan resit penerimaan wang - Sama ada bukti pemindahan wang dan penerimaan wang telah dikemukakan - Sama ada keterangan lisan saksi-saksi boleh diterima apabila tiada dokumen sokongan dikemukakan untuk membuktikan pinjaman Bagi pihak perayu - Sharizah Yahya; T/n Mohd Fadzli & Co Bagi pihak responden - Hisyam Yusof; T/n WA Wan Adnan & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 73	KHAIRIL AMIR HUSSAINI lwn. PP Kegagalan tertuduh memberitahu kepada pegawai penyiasat ketika percakapan beramaran direkodkan bahawa beg yang berisi dadah berbahaya yang dipegang olehnya adalah milik orang lain menyebabkan pembelaan ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh menjadi satu pemikiran semula. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Pengetahuan - Beg berisi dadah berbahaya dijumpai dipegang oleh tertuduh ketika ditahan - Ketiadaan percakapan beramaran dikemukakan untuk melihat tertuduh memberitahu pegawai penyiasat bahawa beg yang dipegangnya adalah kepunyaan orang lain - Sama ada elemen pengetahuan telah dibuktikan melalui keterangan ikut keadaan - Sama ada anggapan di bawah ss 37(d) dan 37A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah satu pemikiran semula Bagi pihak perayu - T/n J Kuldeep Kumar & Co Bagi pihak responden - Nurshafini Mustafha, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2018] 1 LNS 2193	NAGARAJ SASULETHARAN v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS The Findings of the Inquiry Officer being a report prepared for the Prevention of Crime Board's contemplation and satisfaction, the Court was not concerned with the use of the report by the Board or Minister and it was not necessary for the Findings by the Inquiry Officer to be exhibited. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 19(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Detention of 2 years - Whether there was a requirement for the Inquiry Officer to exhibit her Findings - Whether there were sufficient averments by the Inquiry Officer to rely on the protection or immunity for non-disclosure under s. 21A of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 For the appellant - Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co For the respondents - Norazlin Mohd Yusof; Senior Federal Council; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri
[2018] 1 LNS 2194	KHAIRUL NIZAM IBRAHIM v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS When there is a delay in the context of fulfilling the requirement of "forthwith" under rule 3(4) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedures) Rules 1987, there must be an explanation for the delay in affording the applicant the right to representation. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Detention for 2 years - Police Investigating Officer failed to provide a copy of applicant's statement despite request - Whether the applicant was prejudiced and prevented from having an effective representation - Whether there was delay of 6 days from when the Officer in Charge of Detention Centre forwarded Borang 1 and when the Secretary of the Advisory Board received the said Borang 1 For the applicant - N Sivananthan & Jasmine Cheong; M/s Sivananthan For the respondents - Adilah Roslan; Senior Federal Council; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri
[2018] 1 LNS 2195	ANUAR ZULKARNAIN v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS (i) The Deputy Minister's affidavit as a whole clearly shows that the Deputy Minister had applied his mind to the relevant considerations and was satisfied that both limbs of the requirements under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 were met before issuing the detention order. (ii) Statements recorded during the investigative stage are not open for the Court to examine, the Court's scrutiny will be directed to the current order of detention. (iii) The failure to obtain acknowledgment as required by rule 3(1)(a) of the Advisory Board Rules was not fatal as there had been substantial compliance. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Detention for 2 years - Alleged non-compliance with ss. 6(1) and 4 of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and s. 3(1)(b) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedures) Rules 1987 - Whether Detention Order was vague and invalid - Whether the Inquiry Officer failed to record statements - Whether the Police Investigating Officer failed to obtain an acknowledgment from the Applicant after handing over Borang 1 For the applicant - KL Chee; M/s KL Chee & Co For the respondents - Siti Hajar Mat Radzi; Senior Federal Counsel; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 2)

The right to appeal in civil matters from the High Court to the Court of Appeal under ss. 67 & 68 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') is subject to the definition of "decision" in s. 3 CJA. Reading the three sections together, it is clear that a litigant is precluded from appealing against a High Court decision in an amendment application made in the course of trial that does not finally dispose of the rights of parties. To rule otherwise would not only allow parties in civil matters to circumvent the restrictions imposed by s. 3, and appeal every decision of the trial court, but delay the trial of cases in the civil courts.
Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 153 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In order to raise the issue that the plaintiff's action for defamation was not maintainable on account of want of locus, it being the incorrect entity to sue, it was incumbent upon the defendants to mandatorily specify, in their pleadings, the alleged facts or acts leading to the said deficiency; To raise it at the appellate stage amounted to a transgression of the elementary principle of law that parties in litigation are bound by their pleadings.
Eagle One Investment Ltd & Ors v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 218 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Whilst it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to secure the attendance of witnesses offered to the defence, failure per se to do so will not automatically attract any adverse inference against the prosecution; it all depends on the effort made to secure such attendance. This said, even where there was a misdirection on the part of the trial judge in dealing with this issue, a conviction could still be upheld if the appellate court is satisfied that a reasonable tribunal would have convicted the accused on the available evidence on a proper direction.
Mogan Raj Ravi & Anor v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 3 CLJ 240 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Section 16U of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 does not clothe the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal with any jurisdiction to hear or entertain third parties when hearing claims for liquidated ascertained damages against the developers, even in their capacity as representatives of the homebuyers, except in circumstances as so exempted under s. 16U(2) and (3) thereof. To do so would constitute procedural impropriety and cause any award made thereat unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Hedgeford Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hee Yean & Anor And Another Application [2020] 3 CLJ 258 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The registered co-operative society in this case need not refer the dispute it had with its members and former office bearers to the Cooperative Commission Malaysia under s. 82(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 before seeking redress in civil courts.
Koperasi Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Ismail Nordin & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 277 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The grant of an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal, which effectively terminates a prosecution proceeding against an accused, is sufficient to afford him with a cause of action for malicious prosecution.
Pang Codan Rubber (M) Sdn Bhd v. Vijay Perumal [2020] 3 CLJ 299 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. PENGECUALIAN RES JUDICATA DALAM AKTA KETERANGAN 1950 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Tan Chun Ming* Ramalinggam Rajamanickam** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxi

[2020] 1 LNS(A) xxi



MALAYSIA

---

PENGECUALIAN RES JUDICATA DALAM AKTA KETERANGAN 1950

by
Tan Chun Ming*
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam**

1. PENGENALAN

Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia digubal berdasarkan model Akta Keterangan 1872 India. Isi kandungan Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia (sebelum itu dikenali sebagai Ordinan Keterangan 1950) telah menerima pakai keseluruhan isi kandungan secara per verbatim untuk Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” tanpa apa-apa pindaan oleh Parlimen Malaysia sebelum dan selepas merdeka sehingga hari ini.

Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” mengandungi lima peruntukan berkenaan dengan kerelevanan penghakiman, perintah dan dekri dengan prosiding yang sedang berlangsung. Seksyen 44 Akta Keterangan 1950 merupakan salah satu daripada peruntukan pengecualian kepada prinsip-prinsip res judicata yang telah diwujudkan di bawah Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” dalam Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia ini. Bab ini meliputi seksyen-seksyen 40 sehingga seksyen 44 Akta Keterangan 1950. Seksyen 44 berbentuk pengecualian kepada seksyen-seksyen 40, 41 dan 42 Akta Keterangan 1950.

. . .

* Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara di Joseph Ting & Co. E-mel: tcming2@gmail.com.

** Profesor Madya (PhD), Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rama@ukm.edu.my.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by John Wilson** Kieran Pender [2020] 1 LNS(A) xx

[2020] 1 LNS(A) xx



AUSTRALIA

---

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS*

by
John Wilson**
Kieran Pender

"No one should risk their reputation or job for exposing illegal behaviours." Anna-Maja Henriksson, Finland's Minister of Justice 2019 has been a busy year for those who follow developments in whistleblower protections. In February, following a protracted legislative process, the Australian Parliament finally passed landmark reform to better protect those who expose misconduct in the private sector. These changes were hailed as heralding a 'new era' for whistleblowers in this country.^[1]

In Europe, the European Union (EU) has promulgated an unprecedented EU-wide directive which will require every member state to implement significant whistleblower protection legislation within the next two years.

. . .

* Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 254 Summer 2019.

** John Wilson is the managing legal director at Bradley Allen Love Lawyers. Kieran Pender is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University's Centre for International and Public Law. The views expressed here are their own.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert