|
Issue #13/2020
19 March 2020
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
GJH AVENUE SDN BHD v.
TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH, KEMENTERIAN KESEJAHTERAAN BANDAR, PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS [2020] 3 CLJ 307
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA; ZALEHA YUSOF JCA; YAACOB MD SAM JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: M-01(A)-388-10-2017, M-01(A)-389-10-2017,
M-01(A)-450-11-2017 & M-01(A)-451-11-2017]
20 AUGUST 2019
Where the meaning of statutory words is plain and unambiguous, it is not open for judges or tribunals to sieve through the authorities and try to give a different meaning to the words or to seek to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for not giving effect to the plain meaning. The phrase "vacant possession is to be delivered within 24 calendar months from the date of this agreement" as appearing in the schedule G-statutory contract prescribed by reg. 11(1) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 is plain and means only what it says. It follows that for the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims to have construed the date to be considered to calculate the liquidated ascertained damages is not the date as appearing on the sale and purchase agreement but the date on which the booking fee was paid, is utterly wrong and perverse to the jurisdiction he is clothed with. It follows further that any award arising from such a decision is tainted with illegality and amenable to judicial review.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Challenge against Tribunal's award in favour of purchasers of bungalow units - Late delivery of vacant possession - Tribunal allowed purchasers' claim for liquidated ascertained damages - Whether Tribunal contravened reg. 11 of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether Tribunal committed statutory breach tantamount to error of law - Whether Tribunal acted ultra vires - Whether Tribunal acted beyond scope of lawful powers in making award - Whether award tainted with illegality - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, ss. 16B, 24 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, reg. 11
PP v. MUHAMMAD AZRUL ZAINAL [2020] 3 CLJ 386
HIGH COURT MALAYA, GEORGETOWN
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
[CRIMINAL REVISION NO: PA-43-4-03-2019]
24 JUNE 2019
An accused person has a legitimate expectation that when he is charged in court that the administration of justice will ensure that he would not be charged wantonly without clear facts as to the essential ingredients of the offence. And, whilst it must be the duty of the prosecution to see to it that the charges that they preferred were not procedurally or substantively flawed, it also falls on the court to take the necessary proactive measures to ensure that all pre-trial processes before it come within the four corners of the law.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Sentence - 23-year old accused convicted for reckless and dangerous driving - Offence under s. 42(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 - Magistrate sentenced accused under s. 293(1)(e) of Criminal Procedure Code - Sentence of 120 aggregate hours of community service for period of two years - Whether accused 'youth offender' under s. 2 to be qualified for sentence under s. 293(1)(e) - Whether sentence correct - Whether Magistrate erred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective - Accused charged for reckless and dangerous driving - Offence under s. 42(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 - No clear facts stated in police traffic report and facts of case by investigation officer - Whether charge reflected report and facts - Whether there were consistent and clear facts to serve as basis for charge - Whether charge defective - Whether curable under ss. 156 & 422 of Criminal Procedure Code
"It is not in dispute that there are no provisions in the CPC with regard to the time stipulated for filing and service of affidavits in criminal proceedings. However, it cannot be the case that just because there are no provisions in the CPC, there are no rules to be observed with respect to the time within which such affidavits in support or affidavits in reply resulting in time being at large. Such a situation would leave criminal procedural law in a state of uncertainty. This would result in parties to a criminal proceeding choosing to file affidavits whenever they choose to do so or by the courts choosing to impose whatever arbitrary time limits they deemed fit. This would inevitably lead to a situation where no uniformity existed among the courts."
"It therefore stands to reason that in the event of a lacuna in the CPC with regard to the timing of filing and service of affidavits, the Rules of Court 2012 may properly be resorted to in order to properly regulate the orderly handling and disposal of criminal matters which involve the use of affidavits." - per Collin Lawrence Sequerah J in Sangker Sokinggam v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2019] 7 CLJ 247
Legal Network Series
|
APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD v. ENOVENT SDN BHD AND ANOTHER CASE Absence of grounds in an originating summons in an arbitral reference on a question of law is clearly against the provisions O. 69 r. 6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 read with s. 42(2) of the Arbitration Act 2005. ARBITRATION: Award - Question of law - Reference under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA 2005') - Striking out of several paragraphs of final award - Absence of grounds stated in originating summons - Whether mandatory provisions of O. 69 r. 6(2) of Rules of Court 2012 and s. 42(2) AA 2005 had been complied with - Whether application ought to be allowed ARBITRATION: Award - Question of law - Reference under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA 2005') - Powers and jurisdiction of courts to interfere with award - Whether s. 42(4) of AA 2005 allows court to confirm, vary, set aside award or remit same for reconsideration by arbitrator
|
|
|
HONG SENG HOUSING SDN BHD v. NEOH AH BAH SAWMILL SDN BHD There was no sale and purchase agreement executed within the stipulated period as the exact terms of the letter of option has not been fulfilled and as such, the plaintiff cannot rely on the letter of option to substantiate its claim. CONTRACT: Specific performance - Letter of option - Parties were unable to mutually agree on essential contractual terms within time stipulated in letter of option - Dispute on material terms - Whether plaintiff had fulfilled exact provisions of letter of option - Whether plaintiff could rely on letter of option to substantiate its claim
|
|
|
NORAZDI CHE JAAFAR & SATU LAGI lwn. CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION MALAYSIA BERHAD Kuasa dan hak plaintif untuk menuntut keberhutangan terhadap penjamin hanya bermula setelah notis subrogasi dikeluarkan dan bukan pada tarikh kegagalan peminjam untuk membayar keberhutangan sebelum tarikh subrogasi. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Kausa tindakan - Perbankan - Tuntutan keatas keberhutangan yang disubrogasi - Tuntutan terhadap penjamin-penjamin - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap defendan-defendan - Sama ada defendan-defendan sedia maklum tentang hak-hak dan kepentingan plaintif untuk menuntut keberhutangan yang telah disubrogasi - Sama ada penyata akaun adalah bukti yang muktamad untuk menyatakan jumlah keberhutangan - Sama ada kausa tindakan plaintif terhadap defendan-defendan terakru apabila defendan-defendan gagal mematuhi notis tuntutan
|
|
|
PP lwn. MOHD NOIN SARPIN & SATU LAGI Sesuatu sabitan adalah sah meskipun ianya berdasarkan keterangan rakan sejenayah yang tidak disokong. Keterangan saksi rakan sejenayah perlu kredibel dan Mahkamah yakin dengan kebenaran keterangan tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada pembunuhan - Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Mangsa dipukul dan dibelasah keseluruhan anggota badan - Mangsa ditinggalkan di tempat kejadian selepas dibelasah - Kecederaan parah - Kecederaan pendarahan pada selaput otak - Sama ada kecederaan yang dialami tertuduh secara lazimnya cukup untuk mengakibatkan kematian kepada si mati - Sama ada kematian mangsa dilakukan secara niat bersama KETERANGAN: Saksi - Rakan sejenayah - Kebolehterimaan - Sama ada sabitan adalah sah meskipun ianya berdasarkan keterangan rakan sejenayah yang tidak disokong - Sama ada keterangan saksi rakan sejenayah perlu kredibel dan Mahkamah yakin dengan kebenaran keterangan
|
|
|
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
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 3)
Where the meaning of statutory words is plain and unambiguous, it is not open for judges or tribunals to sieve through the authorities and try to give a different meaning to the words or to seek to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for not giving effect to the plain meaning. The phrase "vacant possession is to be delivered within 24 calendar months from the date of this agreement" as appearing in the schedule G-statutory contract prescribed by reg. 11(1) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 is plain and means only what it says. It follows that for the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims to have construed the date to be considered to calculate the liquidated ascertained damages is not the date as appearing on the sale and purchase agreement but the date on which the booking fee was paid, is utterly wrong and perverse to the jurisdiction he is clothed with. It follows further that any award arising from such a decision is tainted with illegality and amenable to judicial review.
GJH Avenue Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah, Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Ors And Other Appeals [2020] 3 CLJ 307 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Challenge against Tribunal's award in favour of purchasers of bungalow units - Late delivery of vacant possession - Tribunal allowed purchasers' claim for liquidated ascertained damages - Whether Tribunal contravened reg. 11 of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether Tribunal committed statutory breach tantamount to error of law - Whether Tribunal acted ultra vires - Whether Tribunal acted beyond scope of lawful powers in making award - Whether award tainted with illegality - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, ss. 16B, 24 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, reg. 11
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
- For the appellant - Sheena Sinnappah & Valerie Fernando; M/s Sheena Valerie & Partners
- For the respondents - Mae Taye Wei Keen & Zaidah Ibrahimi Hussaimi; M/s Taye & Co
Order 37 of the Rules of Court 2012 which speaks of assessment of damages before the Registrar is not relevant nor applicable to an assessment of damages before a Judge or a Judicial Commissioner. The scheme of the Rules of Court 2012 differentiates between a Judge and a Registrar and a reference to a Registrar therein does not include or equate to a reference to a Judge. An assessment before a Judge or a Judical Commissioner is just not the same as an assessment before the Registrar.
Lucy Wong Nyuk King & Anor v. Hwang Mee Hiong [2020] 3 CLJ 317 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal against - Appeal against striking out of notice of assessment of damages - Preliminary objection raised - Whether O. 37 of Rules of Court 2012 applicable to assessment by High Court Judge - Whether assessment before High Court Judge similar to assessment before Senior Assistant Registrar - Whether Judicial Commissioner required to fully hear notice of assessment and ought not to entertain further preliminary objections - Whether appeal ought to be allowed
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
STEPHEN CHUNG JCA
- For the appellants - Tai Choi Yu; M/s Tai Choi Yu & Co Advocs
- For the respondent - Henry Ling; M/s Ling & Wong Advocs
The land office, including the Registrar of Titles, has a duty of care toward landowners to ensure that their interests are well-protected and safeguarded. Where the Registrar has effected a change of name to a title in favour of a fraudster without the Registered proprietor's knowledge or consent, and a computer printed issue document of title (IDT) issued to the former whilst the original IDT was still in the registered proprietor's possession, then a case of breach of statutory duty and negligence is maintainable against the Registrar at the instance of the Registered proprietor. It is also clear that under such circumstance no recourse could be had to s. 22 of the National Land Code to protect or absolve the Registrar.
Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor v. Caesius Development Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 327 [CA]
LAND LAW: Transfer - Fraud - Claim for damages by land owner - Change of name in register of title for land - Computerised issue document of title ('IDT') issued to fraudster even though land owner in possession of manual IDT - Fraudster sold land to third parties after fraudulently changing name in register - Whether change of name made through fraudulent means - Whether change of name valid and enforceable - Whether third parties had indefeasible title to land - Whether third parties subsequent/immediate purchasers - Whether land office negligent in issuing computerised IDT to fraudster - National Land Code, ss. 340 & 378
TORT: Negligence - Land matter - Land office changed name in register of title for land - Computerised issue document of title ('IDT') issued to fraudster even though land owner in possession of manual IDT - Fraudster sold land to third parties after fraudulently changing name in register - Whether change of name valid and enforceable - Whether land of office had duty of care towards land owner - Whether there was breach of statutory duty of care - Whether third parties entitled to claim for indemnity from land office for losses suffered in purchasing land - Whether third parties proved losses - Whether land office negligent
LIMITATION: Cause of action - Land matter - Land office changed name in register of title for land - Computerised issue document of title ('IDT') issued to fraudster even though land owner in possession of manual IDT at all times - Fraudster sold land to third parties after fraudulently changing name in register - Land owner commenced action four years after change of name took place - When accrual of action commenced - Whether when change of name took place or when land owner discovered about change of name - Whether action filed within stipulated time - Whether action caught by limitation - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a)
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
(Civil Appeal No: B-01(NCVC)(W)-326-09-2017)
- For the appellant - Mohd Syarizal Shah Zakaria & Norfariza Ridzuan; Assistant State Legal Advisor, Selangor
- For the 1st respondent - Rusdy Ishak, Bruce Lim Cheang Nyok & YapYik Yee; M/s Lim & Yeoh
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Brian Ernest Cumming & Teo Qing Qing; M/s Gideon Tan Razali Zaini
(Civil Appeal No: B-01(NCVC)(W)-359-08-2011)
- For the appellants - Brian Ernest Cumming & Teo Qing Qing; M/s Gideon Tan Razali Zaini
- For the 1st respondent - Rusdy Ishak, Bruce Lim Cheang Nyok & Yap Yik Yee; M/s Lim & Yeoh
- For the 6th respondent - Mohd Shahrizal Shah Zakaria & Norfariza Ridzuan; Assistant State Legal Advisor, Selangor
The Rules of Court 2012 was introduced to ensure that cases are heard on merits and that they should not be dismissed for mere non-compliance of rules unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. It is also true to say that in the light of O. 1 r. 2 of the Rules, it is not the option anymore for the court to strike out a matter or dismiss an application for non compliance of rules without giving an opportunity to the litigant to regularize the proceedings.
Tong Kim Soo v. Tirai Prospektif Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 353 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Record of appeal and memorandum of appeal - Application for extension of time to file record of appeal and memorandum of appeal - Whether mandatory to file within one month after date of notice of appeal - Whether there was inordinate delay and non-compliance of statutory provisions - Whether there were honest mistakes and valid reasons warranting delay - Rules of Court 2012, O. 55 r. 5(3)
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
- For the appellant - Charlotte Diana Williams; M/s Jeeva Partnership
- For the respondent - Deborah J Kaur; M/s Soraya Jabid, Deborah & Co
An enterprise that holds a dominant position in a trade or possesses a significant power in a market cannot use its dominance to put its competitors and other like enterprises at a competitive disadvantage or cause them to suffer from unfair business opportunities or in any way harm competition in the relevant market. Abandoning these principles may expose the enterprise to infringing the Competition Act 2010 and it must then bear the financial penalty or penalties prescribed under the Act.
MyEG Services Bhd & Anor v. Competition Commission & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 363 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application to quash decision of Competition Appeal Tribunal - Whether there was infringement of s. 10(2)(d)(iii) of Competition Act 2010 - Whether company held dominant position in upstream and downstream market - Whether company abused dominant position by not ensuring level playing field for other companies - Whether company applied different conditions to equivalent transactions with competitors - Whether acts of company harmed competition in market - Proportionality of penalties imposed on company - Whether in accordance with guidelines - Competition Act 2010, ss. 2, 35, 51
COMPETITION LAW: Anti-competition practices - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether there was infringement of s. 10(2)(d)(iii) of Competition Act 2010 - Whether company held dominant position in upstream and downstream market - Whether company abused dominant position by not ensuring level playing field for other companies - Whether company applied different conditions to equivalent transactions with competitors - Whether acts of company harmed competition in market - Proportionality of penalties imposed on company - Whether in accordance with guidelines - Competition Act 2010, ss. 2,35, 51
AZIZAH NAWAWI J
- For the applicants - Jack Yow, Kwong Chiew Ee, Raymond Yong, Penny Wong & Derek Yap (PDK); M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
- For the 1st respondent - Sharon Chong & Manshan Singh; M/s Skrine
An accused person has a legitimate expectation that when he is charged in court that the administration of justice will ensure that he would not be charged wantonly without clear facts as to the essential ingredients of the offence. And, whilst it must be the duty of the prosecution to see to it that the charges that they preferred were not procedurally or substantively flawed, it also falls on the court to take the necessary proactive measures to ensure that all pre-trial processes before it come within the four corners of the law.
PP v. Muhammad Azrul Zainal [2020] 3 CLJ 386 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Sentence - 23-year old accused convicted for reckless and dangerous driving - Offence under s. 42(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 - Magistrate sentenced accused under s. 293(1)(e) of Criminal Procedure Code - Sentence of 120 aggregate hours of community service for period of two years - Whether accused 'youth offender' under s. 2 to be qualified for sentence under s. 293(1)(e) - Whether sentence correct - Whether Magistrate erred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective - Accused charged for reckless and dangerous driving - Offence under s. 42(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 - No clear facts stated in police traffic report and facts of case by investigation officer - Whether charge reflected report and facts - Whether there were consistent and clear facts to serve as basis for charge - Whether charge defective - Whether curable under ss. 156 & 422 of Criminal Procedure Code
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the prosecution - Farah Aimy Zainul Anuar; DPP
- For the accused - Mohd Khairul Fairuz Rahman; M/s Shaiful Rahman Hajar & Co
Section 13 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 is unconstitutional because it removes from the courts the power to consider bail in cases of security offences relating to terrorism under the Penal Code. As enshrined in Art. 121 of the Federal Constitution, the power to consider bail is a judicial power and therefore any prohibition thereof by Parliament amounts to a usurpation of judicial function by the legislative body.
Saminathan Ganesan v. PP [2020] 3 CLJ 398 [HC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Judicial power - Exercise of judicial power - Power to grant/refuse bail in security offences - Accused charged for security offences relating to terrorism under ss. 130J & 130JB of Penal Code and tried according to procedures provided by Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA') - Section 13 of SOSMA prohibits granting of bail - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA seeks to divest judicial power of Judiciary in granting/refusal of bail - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA usurpation by Parliament - Whether violation of doctrine of separation of powers - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA ultra vires arts. 8 & 121(1) of Federal Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Ultra vires - Accused charged for security offences relating to terrorism under ss. 130J & 130JB of Penal Code and tried according to procedures provided by Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA') - Section 13 of SOSMA prohibits granting of bail - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA seeks to divest judicial power of Judiciary in granting/refusal of bail - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA ultra vires arts. 8 & 121(1) of Federal Constitution
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Granting of - Security offences - Accused charged for security offences relating to terrorism and tried according to procedures provided by Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA') - Section 13 of SOSMA prohibits granting of bail - Whether court has discretion to grant/refuse bail - Whether s. 13 of SOSMA ultra vires arts. 8 & 121(1) of Federal Constitution
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
- For the applicant - Ramkarpal Singh, RSN Rayer, Sangeet Kaur Deo, Harshaan Zamani, Rayveni Asogan, Parkash, RA Ramu, Gayathini & Asheeq Ali; M/s Karpal Singh & Co
- For the respondent - Muhamad Iskandar Ahmad, Azlina Rasdi, Aslinda Ahad, Rohaiza Abdul Rahman & Izhanudin Alias; DPP
Where contempt is not committed in the face of the court, contempt proceedings may be initiated by the Attorney General or any private party who has sufficient interest in the matter. It is also clear, in this regard, that under O. 52 r. 2B Rules of Court 2012 the proposed contemnor shall first be given the opportunity of answering to the notice to show cause before any application for leave to commit is made. Put differently, the procedure from this r. 2B onwards is that, it is intended to be a step by step procedure and that the notice to show cause under it must first be served before any application for leave to court is made under O. 52 r. 3 thereof
The Attorney General v. Lokman Noor Adam [2020] 3 CLJ 429 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Ex parte order - Leave to commence committal proceedings - Whether notice to show cause under O. 52 r. 2B of Rules of Court 2012 defective - Whether procedure from r. 2B onwards intended to be step by step procedure - Whether jurisdiction of court only invoked upon application to court - Whether notice to show cause under r. 2B may be issued by party other than court - Whether fact and nature of alleged contempt brought to respondent's notice - Whether failure to mention s. 13 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 in intitulement fatal - Whether respondent prejudiced
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH J
- For the applicant - Gopal Sri Ram, Ahmad Akram Gharib, Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam, Deepa Nair Thevaharan & Nadia Mohd Izhar; DPP
- For the respondent - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Wan Aizuddin Wan Mohammed & Rahmat Hazlan; M/s Shafee & Co
Lembaga Kelayakan Profesyen Undang-undang Malaysia perlu bertindak adil dan tidak keterlaluan apabila mengambil tindakan disiplin terhadap mana-mana calon yang menduduki peperiksaan kelayakan undang-undang yang mereka kendalikan. Melarang seorang calon yang membawa buku statut yang mengandungi catatan-catatan dari menduduki peperiksaan selama tiga tahun sambil menahan keputusan peperiksaannya, sedangkan buku tersebut telah pun dirampas daripada calon tersebut semasa peperiksaan sedang berjalan, adalah satu hukuman yang keterlaluan beratnya, serta tidak sepadan, tidak munasabah dan tidak rasional, memandangkan unsur-unsur penipuan sudah lagi tidak wujud ataupun berlaku. Maka campurtangan mahkamah adalah wajar dan keputusan Lembaga sedemikian itu adalah dibatalkan.
Yap Hon Ken lwn. Lembaga Kelayakan Profesyen Undang-undang Malaysia [2020] 3 CLJ 439 [HC]
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Permohonan perintah certiorari membatalkan keputusan responden menahan pemohon menduduki Peperiksaan Sijil Amalan Guaman selama tiga tahun - Pemohon didakwa membawa masuk buku statut yang mempunyai catatan dan nota ke dalam dewan peperiksaan - Sama ada terdapat unsur-unsur meniru atau menipu oleh pemohon - Sama ada surat tunjuk sebab responden kepada pemohon menyatakan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh pemohon bawah peraturan 14(i) hingga (v) Kaedah Peperiksaan CLP - Sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan atas pemohon keterlaluan, menindas dan terlalu keras - Sama ada responden membuat keputusan luar bidang kuasa yang diperuntukkan
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Permohonan perintah mandamus mengarahkan responden melepaskan keputusan peperiksaan pemohon yang didudukinya - Pemohon didakwa membawa masuk buku statut yang mempunyai catatan dan nota ke dalam dewan peperiksaan - Sama ada terdapat unsur-unsur meniru atau menipu oleh pemohon - Sama ada surat tunjuk sebab responden kepada pemohon menyatakan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh pemohon bawah peraturan 14(i) hingga (v) Kaedah Peperiksaan CLP - Sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan atas pemohon keterlaluan, menindas dan terlalu keras - Sama ada responden membuat keputusan luar bidang kuasa yang diperuntukkan
MARIANA YAHYA H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Sundra Anath & Rosliza Abdul Rahim; T/n Chew & Yap
- Bagi pihak responden - Sean Tan & Chia Ka Mun; T/n Wong Kian Kheong
LNS Article(s)
DIGITAL ECONOMY - IS OUR TAX SYSTEM SMART ENOUGH?* [Read excerpt]
by YEOH YU XIAN [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxiiRIGHT TO WATER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A CRITICAL REVIEW [Read excerpt]
by Nehaluddin Ahmad [i] Hjh Hanan Binti Pehin Dato Hj Abdul Aziz [ii] Hjh Masnoorani bt Hj Mohidin [iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxiii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | - |
| ACT 826 | Food Donors Protection Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | - |
| ACT 825 | Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 | 31 January 2020 | - |
| ACT 824 | Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 | 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] | - |
| ACT 823 | Finance Act 2019 | Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1617 | Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 590 |
| ACT A1616 | Central Bank of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 701 |
| ACT A1615 | Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 177 |
| ACT A1614 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 | ACT 445 |
| ACT A1613 | Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Foce | ACT 527 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 91/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within the Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2020 | 18 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 | ACT 342 |
| PU(A) 90/2020 | Weights and Measures (Compounding of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 17 March 2020 | 1 April 2020 | PU(A) 208/1990 |
| PU(A) 89/2020 | Weights and Measures (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 17 March 2020 | 1 April 2020 | PU(A) 292/1981 |
| PU(A) 88/2020 | Control of Supplies (Prohibition on Export) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 | PU(A) 86/2011 |
| PU(A) 87/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Declaration of Infected Local Areas) Order 2020 | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 | ACT 342 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 178/2020 | Notice of Extension of Period of Objection | 18 March 2020 | 19 March 2020 | ACT 267 |
| PU(B) 177/2020 | Notice of Initiation of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Flat Rolled Product of Non-Alloy Steel Plated or Coated With Aluminium and Zinc Originating or Exported from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 | ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994 |
| PU(B) 176/2020 | Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Cellulose Fibre Reinforced Cement Flat and Pattern Sheet Originating or Exported from the Republic of Indonesia | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 | ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994 |
| PU(B) 175/2020 | Notice Under Section 70 | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 174/2020 | Appointment of Member of the Board | 17 March 2020 | 18 March 2020 | ACT 656 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 195/2016 | Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (East Coast Expressway-Phase 2) Order 2016 | PU(A) 41/2020 | 1 February 2020 | Paragraph 2 and First Schedule |
| PU(A) 326/2004 | Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Seremban-Port Dickson Expressway) Order 2004 | PU(A) 40/2020 | 1 February 2020 | Paragraph 2 and First Schedule |
| AKTA 452 | Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 | AKTA A1611 | 15 Mac 2020 [PU(B) 158/2020] kecuali s. 6, 8 dan 11 | Seksyen 4, 6, 9, 18, 43, 55A dan 55B |
| ACT 452 | Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 | ACT A1611 | 15 March 2020 [PU(B) 158/2020] except s. 6, 8 and 11 | Sections 4, 6, 9, 18, 43, 55A and 55B |
| PU(A) 564/1996 | Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth-Kulim Expressway) Order 1996 | PU(A) 38/2020 | 1 February 2020 | Paragraph 2 and First Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 225/2010 | Postal Services (Postage Rates) Rules 2010 | PU(A) 44/2020 | 1 February 2020 |
| PU(A) 359/2019 | Excise (Determination of Value of Locally Manufactured Goods For the Purpose of Levying Excise Duty) Regulations 2019 | PU(A) 402/2019 | 1 January 2020 |
| PU(A) 162/1977 | Customs Regulations 1977 | PU(A) 397/2019 | 1 January 2020 |
| ACT 803 | Anti-Fake News Act 2018 | ACT 825 | 31 January 2020 |
| AKTA 803 | Akta Antiberita Tidak Benar 2018 | AKTA 825 | 31 Januari 2020 |