Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #1/2020 26 December 2019

New This Week Case(s) of the Week PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1 CLJ 1 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 1) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v.
MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-70-08-2018(P)]
21 OCTOBER 2019

A statutory provision that delegates power to make regulations to the Executive ought to be strictly construed. It must also be borne in mind that, save in exceptional circumstances, a subsidiary or delegated legislation ought not to override and infringe the parent Act.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Local authority - Dismissal from service - Failure of local authority to give reasonable opportunity to be heard - Whether clear breach of s. 16(4) of Local Government Act 1976 ('LGA') and reg. 29(1) of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Municipal Council of the Province Wellesley Regulations 1995 ('1995 Regulations') - Whether right to be heard nullified by reg. 25(2)(a) of 1995 Regulations - Whether reg. 25(2)(a) in conflict with s. 16(4) of LGA - Whether Employee denied procedural fairness provided under Federal Constitution - Whether mandatory for Employee to be served with show cause notice - Whether reg. 25(2) of 1995 Regulations void and ultra vires s. 16(4) of LGA

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Rule of construction - Right to be heard - Conflict between reg. 25(2)(a) of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Municipal Council of the Province Wellesley Regulations 1995 ('1995 Regulations') with s. 16(4) of Local Government Act 1976 ('LGA') and reg. 29(1) of 1995 Regulations - Whether subsidiary legislation could be inconsistent with or override Act of Parliament - Whether harmonious construction ought to be given to provisions - Whether reg. 25(2) of 1995 Regulations void and ultra vires s. 16(4) of LGA

---

1. AGTrade Sdn Bhd v. Ee Chong Kok [2018] 1 LNS 1503 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Ee Chong Kok v. AGTrade Sdn Bhd [Companies (Winding-up) No: BA-28NCC-24-01/2017]

2. Gan Cheng Khuan v. Gan Kah Yang & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 1501 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Gan Cheng Khuan v. Gan Kah Yang & Ors [Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-995-06/2017]

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 13	CHOO KAH CHONG lwn. PP Pihak pendakwaan boleh bergantung kepada anggapan di bawah s. 37(k) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') untuk membuktikan kesalahan di bawah s. 15(1)(a) ADB. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Penggunaan - Dadah jenis morphine - Kesalahan di bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Ujian air kencing mengesahkan kandungan dadah - Sama ada tertuduh dianggap telah menggunakan dan memasukkan dadah berbahaya ke dalam badannya - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(k) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada kemasukan tertuduh ke pusat rawatan pemulihan dadah di bawah s. 6(1)(a) Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan dan Pemulihan) 1983 telah berjaya dibuktikan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Pengendalian sampel air kencing - Botol sampel air kencing disimpan di peti sejuk berkunci sementara membuat ujian pengesahan - Sama ada rantaian keterangan mengenai kawalan dan jagaan botol sampel air kencing terputus - Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan botol sampel air kencing dan teststripe memudaratkan kes pendakwaan Bagi pihak perayu - Rajit Gill, T/n Rajit Gill & Co Bagi pihak responden - Muhammad Azfar Mahmod; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak
[2019] 1 LNS 62	ROSMAN MAT & SATU LAGI lwn. MOHD FAREEZ ZAMAN OTHMAN Bayaran SOCSO tidak menghalang penerimaan pampasan kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Tempat kejadian gelap - Perlanggaran antara motorlori dan motorsikal - Ketiadaan kesan perlanggaran pada bahagian motorlori - Sama ada terdapat kecuaian di pihak pemandu motorlori GANTIRUGI: Rayuan - Pampasan - Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan - Kecacatan kekal - Lumpuh tangan kanan - Sama ada bayaran bulanan SOCSO boleh menghalang penerimaan pampasan kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan Bagi pihak perayu - S Ganesh; T/n Abdul Rahim & Co Bagi pihak responden - S Sivakumaresan; T/n Naicker & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 267	PJD REGENCY SDN BHD v. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & ANOR The Applicant cannot apply for certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision on the ground of lack of reasons for its decision under s. 16AA of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. The Applicant should have filed for a mandamus instead against the Tribunal seeking for reasons for its decision. Damages for delay in delivery of vacant possession of the Property can be calculated from the date when the booking fee was paid (and not the date of the SPA). Similarly, damages for delay in delivery of the Common Facilities can be computed from the date when the Certificate of Completion and Compliance was issued (and not the Certificate of Practical Completion). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial Review - Certiorari - Application to quash the decision of the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah which allowed the 2nd Respondent's claim for liquidated damages for delay in the delivery of vacant possession of the property - Illegality - Irrationality - Whether the Tribunal has breached s. 16AA of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 in failing to give its reasons for its award - Whether damages for late delivery of vacant possession is calculated from the date when the booking fee was paid or from the date of the SPA - Whether damages for late delivery of the Common Facilities is calculated from the date when the Certificate of Completion and Compliance was issued or from when the Certificate of Practical Completion was issued For the applicant - Bahari Yeow Tien Hong & Ong Wei Shen; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill For the 2nd respondent - KL Wong; M/s KL Wong
[2019] 1 LNS 268	SUMITHRA V THANIGASALAM v. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA & ORS The letter issued by the Education Department regarding the Applicant's lack of entitlement to the benefits under the Pensions Act 1980 is not a decision that affected the Applicant which is reviewable under Order 53 Rules of Court 2012. The said letter merely states the opinion or stand taken by the Education Department. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial Review - Certiorari - Application to quash the decision of the Education Department which rejected the Applicant's right to receive pension - Mandamus - Application to amend the Applicant's resignation to optional retirement - Whether there was a decision within the ambit of Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether the Applicant who had voluntarily resigned is entitled to pensionable benefits - Whether there is a statutory duty imposed on the Respondents for which a mandamus order may be granted For the applicant - Geetha T; M/s Kamarudin & Partners For the AGC - SFC, Noor Fadzila Ishak; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2019] 1 LNS 273	ABYRES SDN BHD & ANOR v. SYARORANY ABDUL RAZAK & ORS A claim premised on misuse of confidential information by former employees is not obviously unsustainable and should be determined at trial. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking Out - Action premised on breach of contract and conspiracy to injure through unlawful and fraudulent means - Misuse of confidential information by former employees - Whether the plaintiffs' action is speculative and based on assumptions - Failure to plead the specific confidential information misused - Whether there was a link between the DSRA pilot project awarded to the plaintiffs and Projects 1 and 2 awarded to D9 and D10 For the plaintiff - Jaqdesh Singh Johal; M/s Mohana Krishnan For D2-D4 & D6-D8 - Fatima Zulaikha Ahmad Bashri; M/s Faizal Rahman & Co For D10 - Nur Izzah Mohd Tahir; M/s Zainul Rijal Talha & Amir

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 1)

A statutory provision that delegates power to make regulations to the Executive ought to be strictly construed. It must also be borne in mind that, save in exceptional circumstances, a subsidiary or delegated legislation ought not to override and infringe the parent Act.
Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor v. Muziadi Mukhtar [2020] 1 CLJ 1 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The provision of s. 70A of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, that no one should carry out any earthworks without submitting an earthworks plan to the local authority and obtaining its approval, is not prohibitory but regulatory in character. It does not apply to quarry activities on a land whose title is issued pursuant to the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963 and carries a condition that the land shall not be affected by any provision of the National Land Code or any written law prohibiting mining or the removal of specific materials beyond the boundaries of the land.
Weng Lee Granite Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai [2020] 1 CLJ 34 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

To convict an accused for an offence under s. 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987, the prosecution must show that the accused was driving in a manner dangerous to the public and that there was a disregard of the safety of other road users. Merely because an accident happened which led to fatal consequences may not necessarily equate to driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
Cantona Lim Xiang Kim v. PP [2020] 1 CLJ 63 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 creates an independent statutory obligation on the developer as a principal in its own right to pay the subcontractor any outstanding amount due under an adjudication decision. Despite a main contractor’s status as a bankrupt, such principal is still bound by s. 30(3) of the Act to make direct payment of the adjudicated sum to the subcontractor.
CT Indah Construction Sdn Bhd v. BHL Gemilang Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 75 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Even if a contempt complained of emanates from a criminal proceeding, this does not make it a criminal contempt. Regardless of whether the main matter is civil or criminal, contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from the main proceedings. If contempt proceedings are initiated by an aggrieved party against a party in breach to enforce an order, then it would, with limited exceptions, be a civil contempt. Consequently, the proceedings are civil in nature.
Uthayakumar Ponnusamy v. Abdul Wahab Abdul Kassim (Pengarah Penjara Kajang) & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 82 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

To establish locus standi to bring an application for an injunction to prohibit Tenaga Nasional Berhad from continuing with its action to disconnect electricity supply to a premise, an applicant must show that it has a legitimate interest and business at the said premise. It must also fulfil the threshold of being adversely affected by the intended disconnection as propounded by the Court of Appeal in QSR Brands Bhd v Suruhanjaya Sekuriti & Anor.
Chew Thai Kay & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 97 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Apabila pengadu adalah Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara dan juga merupakan Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara yang memutuskan pekerja dibuang kerja atas salah laku, terdapat kekhilafan undang-undang dan ketidakaturan prosedur kerana ini jelas bertentangan dengan Peraturan 2(2) dan mendedahkan kepada unsur berat sebelah (bias) dalam keputusan yang dicapai Lembaga Tatatertib tersebut.
Mariani Ramli lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No. 1) Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar Dan Taman Negara & Yang Lain [2020] 1 CLJ 109 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An application under s. 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code to produce additional evidence in a criminal appeal is confined to evidence that was not available at trial, relevant to the appeal and one which is credible; the court will not allow additional evidence that is not relevant and not capable of creating a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused person.
Thai Kim Sim v. PP [2020] 1 CLJ 128 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. INDIVIDUAL PATIENT'S RIGHT TO AUTONOMY IN UK AND MALAYSIA: ARE WE PLACING PATIENTS AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER? ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Lahveenya Panchalingam* Dr. Saravanabavan Mathialagan** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlvi

[2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlvi



MALAYSIA

---

INDIVIDUAL PATIENT'S RIGHT TO AUTONOMY IN UK AND MALAYSIA:
ARE WE PLACING PATIENTS AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER?

by
Lahveenya Panchalingam*
Dr. Saravanabavan Mathialagan**

Abstract

The paternalistic belief that “doctor knows best” was a historically embedded attitude within the practice of medicine. Whilst this view may no longer reflect the culture-shift that has taken place in medical thinking, English law and Malaysian Law traditionally endorsed the paternalistic attitudes associated with the medical profession and was inclined to show considerable deference to doctors when it came to judging their conduct. This was particularly the case in respect of assessing the provision of pre-operative information. In a dramatic turn of events, this attitude within the law of negligence has recently changed and as a consequence important headway has been made into redressing the imbalance of power between doctors and patients. The decision of the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board^[1] and the Malaysian Federal Court in Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Assunta Hospital^[2] has arguably redefined the entire basis of the doctor-patient relationship in the eyes of the law and it is against this backdrop that this article seeks to explore the changing landscape of consent and information disclosure.

. . .

* LL.B (Hons.) (London), LL.M (Northumbria) Lecturer, Department of Law, Brickfields Asia College

** LL.B (Hons) (Cardiff), LL.M (Malaya), Ph.D (UUM). Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), Barrister at Law (Lincolns Inn)

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. CONTEMPORARY DEBATE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION CONCERNING FILM CENSORSHIP LAWS IN MALAYSIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by MD. ZAHIDUL ISLAM* [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlvii

[2019] 1 LNS(A) cxlvii



MALAYSIA

---

CONTEMPORARY DEBATE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION CONCERNING FILM CENSORSHIP LAWS IN MALAYSIA

by
MD. ZAHIDUL ISLAM*

ABSTRACT

Freedom of speech is a vital element to humanity and for the foundation of a free society. The making and exhibition of films also falls under the free speech clause. Like other fundamental liberties, freedom of speech does not have any absolute form and it is related to the reputation of others like national security issues, public mental health and moral instincts. It is a contemporary debate that freedom of speech is restricted by censorship laws. The aim of this paper is to identify the relationship between freedom of speech and expression concerning censorship laws of Malaysia. It is a qualitative research. The information has been collected studying articles, books, newspapers and statutes. The restrictions on freedom of speech are acceptable for the interest of security of a state, public order and to establish friendly relationships with other foreign countries. In this case, censorship plays an important role to protect moral values, and law and order in a country.

. . .

*Assistant Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia, 53100 Jalan Gombak Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Email: zahidul@iium.edu.my.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert