Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #29/2020 09 July 2020

New This Week Case(s) of the Week IKI PUTRA MUBARRAK v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR [2020] 6 CLJ 133 YOGANANTHY A S THAMBAIYA v. HARTA PUSAKA IDRIS OSMAN [2020] 6 CLJ 151 PP lwn. LEE KIM TUYEN [2020] 6 CLJ 378 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 6 (Part 2) CLJ 2020 Volume 6 (Part 3) Articles CLJ Article(s) LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

IKI PUTRA MUBARRAK v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR [2020] 6 CLJ 133
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ
[ORIGINAL JURISDICTION NO: BKA-3-11-2019(W)]
14 MAY 2020

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Leave - Application for leave to commence proceedings - Application under art. 4(4) of Federal Constitution - Constitutionality of impugned provision under s. 28 of Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 - Allegation that impugned provision made by State Legislature invalid - Complaint involved question of competency of State Government to legislate matter on Federal List - Whether a constitutional requirement that State Government be heard in defence of validity of statutory provision being impugned - Whether leave required and necessary - Whether application frivolous and an abuse of court process - Whether application fulfilled requirements of art. 4(3) of Federal Constitution - Whether application for leave ought to be granted

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislature - Impugned provision - Constitutionality of impugned provision under s. 28 of Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 - Allegation that impugned provision made by State Legislature invalid - Whether impugned provision consistent with item 1, List II (State List), Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether Legislature of State of Selangor ('LSS') made provision with respect to matter to which it had no power to make laws - Whether null and void - Whether a constitutional requirement that State Government be heard in defence of validity of statutory provision being impugned - Federal Constitution, arts. 3, 11(4) & 74 - Penal Code, s. 377A

---

YOGANANTHY A S THAMBAIYA v. HARTA PUSAKA IDRIS OSMAN [2020] 6 CLJ 151
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD MAAROP PCA; RAMLY ALI FCJ; ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ;
ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO 02(f)-25-04-2018(J)]
20 NOVEMBER 2019

CONTRACT: Construction - Intention of parties - Loan agreement - Claim for shareholding in stock broking company in consideration for loan - Company under receivership - Whether contract void - Whether consideration illegal for being immoral or opposed to public policy - Whether statutory declaration between lender and shareholder secured in haste - Whether signed by shareholder voluntarily - Whether agreement documents a sham - Whether court could go behind agreement to ascertain true nature of transaction - Whether there were elements of fraud and deception - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(a) & (e)

CONTRACT: Agreement - Void - Loan agreement - Claim for shareholding in stock broking company in consideration for loan - Company under receivership - Whether contract void - Whether consideration illegal for being immoral or opposed to public policy - Whether statutory declaration between lender and shareholder secured in haste - Whether signed by shareholder voluntarily - Whether agreement documents a sham - Whether court could go behind agreement to ascertain true nature of transaction - Whether there were elements of fraud and deception - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(a) & (e)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleading - Failure to plead - Claim for shareholding in stock broking company in consideration for loan - Allegation that agreement documents a sham and against public policy - Issues of sham documents and public policy not pleaded but ventilated during examination of witness - Non-objection by witness of introduction of non-pleaded issue - Whether non-pleading of issues militated against rule that parties are bound by pleadings

---

PP lwn. LEE KIM TUYEN [2020] 6 CLJ 378
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
ABU BAKAR KATAR H
[PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN JENAYAH NO: JA-43-9-04-2020]
06 MAY 2020

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan - Semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Majistret - Permohonan jaminan ditolak oleh Majistret - Sama ada kesalahan tertuduh boleh dijamin - Sama ada jaminan sepatutnya diberi - Sama ada Majistret terkhilaf - Sama ada permohonan jaminan ditolak atas alasan kukuh - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 323(1) & 387(1) - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, ss. 12(2) & 15(1)(a) - Peraturan-peraturan Pencegahan dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 2) 2020, peraturan 3(1)

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Jaminan - Permohonan - Tertuduh dituduh atas beberapa kesalahan di Mahkamah Majistret - Permohonan jaminan ditolak oleh Majistret - Sama ada kesalahan tertuduh boleh dijamin - Sama ada jaminan sepatutnya diberi - Sama ada Majistret terkhilaf - Sama ada permohonan jaminan ditolak atas alasan kukuh - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 323(1) & 387(1) - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, ss. 12(2) & 15(1)(a) - Peraturan-peraturan Pencegahan dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 2) 2020, peraturan 3(1)

---

“Based on the above principles and considering exhs. P1 and P2, I find that the charge was badly framed. It was not consistent with facts. Notwithstanding that the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge in presence of his counsel, all the three court officers who are the Deputy Public Prosecutor, the defense counsel and the Magistrate partook in a comedy of not just errors but cursory conduct. The Deputy Public Prosecutor was careless in ensuring that the charge was consistent with facts, the defense counsel failed in discharging his duty in ensuring that his client did not plead guilty to an offence that was based on unclear facts and the Magistrate failed in discharging her duties as laid out in Chin Ban Keat v. Rex [1949] 1 LNS 14.”

“When recording the facts the Magistrate will also have to record the accused's admission or denial of them and if the facts admitted do not constitute the offence charged the Magistrate will then have to consider whether to discharge the accused or enter a plea of not guilty and proceed to trial.” – per Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC in PP v. Muhammad Azrul Zainal [2020] 3 CLJ 386

---

1. Ezeamama Chijioke Chidi Darlington v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 8 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Ezeamama Chijioke Chidi Darlington [Criminal Trial No: 45A-176-08/2012]

2. Tetuan Putra Gill v. Shencourt Properties Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 6 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Hew Kiang Hoe & Anor v. Shencourt Properties Sdn Bhd [2011] 7 CLJ 158

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 169	LIEW CHOO & ANOR v. MILLION PURPOSE PROPERTIES SDN BHD An application under O. 81 of the Rules of Court 2012 is akin to an application under O. 14 of the ROC; matters in dispute that need to be critically investigated and determined as genuine ought to be ventilated at trial in order that substantial justice is done CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Specific performance - Application under O. 81 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether application under O. 81 akin to application under O. 14 of the ROC - Whether there were matters in dispute which had to be critically investigated and determined as genuine - Whether such matters ought to be ventilated at trial For the plaintiffs - Norazali Nordin; M/s Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones For the defendant - Syarifah Amnah Syed Zakaria; M/s LC NG & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 233	PERBADANAN USAHAWAN NASIONAL BERHAD lwn. TAMPAK GEMERLAP SDN BHD & YANG LAIN Sesuatu penghakiman yang telah diperolehi perlu dilaksanakan tanpa berlengah-lengah walaupun s. 6(3) Akta Had Masa 1953 memperuntukkan bahawa penghakiman tersebut boleh dikuatkuasakan dalam tempoh 12 tahun. Satu alasan yang munasabah perlu dikemukakan sekiranya terdapat kelewatan dalam mengambil tindakan penguatkuasaan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pelaksanaan - Kebenaran untuk pelaksanaan penghakiman - Penguatkuassan penghakiman ingkar - Plaintif berdiam diri tanpa mengambil usaha-usaha untuk menguatkuasakan penghakiman - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai alasan yang mencukupi berkenaan dengan kelengahan dalam menguatkuasakan penghakiman - Sama ada peruntukan s. 6(3) Akta Had Masa 1953 boleh ditafsirkan sebagai membolehkan plaintif mengambil masa sesuka hatinya dalam mengambil tindakan penguatkuasaan penghakiman Bagi pihak plaintif - Mohamed Rhiza Ghazi; T/n Rhiza & Richard Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Tidak Hadir
[2019] 1 LNS 276	PP lwn. AMAR ASYRAF ZOLKEPLI; PUBLIC ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD (PIHAK KETIGA); TETUAN WAN SHAHRIZAL, HARI & CO (PENCELAH) Penyerahhakkan hartanah dan sandaran ke atas akaun deposit tetap sebagai jaminan bagi pemberian kemudahan pembiayaan oleh bank dan tuntutan baki yuran guaman dari harta yang disita merupakan tuntutan suci hati di bawah s. 61 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan Dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan Dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 - Seksyen 61(4)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) - Tuntutan harta yang dilucuthakkan kepada kerajaan oleh pihak ketiga - Tuntutan oleh bank/pihak ketiga atas hartanah dan akaun deposit tetap di bawah jaminan - Sama ada pihak ketiga telah membuktikan ia adalah pemegang serahhak suci hati dan untuk pertimbangan bernilai - Tuntutan oleh firma guaman/pencelah untuk baki yuran guaman dari harta yang disita - Kesahan tuntutan pencelah - Sama ada semua kehendak perenggan 61(4) (a) hingga (e) perlu dipenuhi Bagi pihak pemohon - Atiqah Liana, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara Bagi pihak responden & pencelah - Wan Shahrizal; T/n Wan Shahrizal Hari & Co Bagi pihak ketiga (Public Islamic Bank) - Poh Choo Hoe; T/n Shook Lin & Bok
[2019] 1 LNS 313	TRADEWINDS CORPORATION BERHAD v. OXBRIDGE HEIGHT SDN BHD An allegation of variation of the terms of a settlement agreement through an oral agreement must be proven through oral evidence in Court by calling the parties involved in the said oral agreement and through contemporaneous documents. Failure to prove the same would mean that the assertion concerning oral evidence was merely created to avoid liability under the settlement agreement. CONTRACT: Breach - Settlement agreement - Failure of developer to carry out necessary works as stated in settlement agreement - Allegation of variation of settlement agreement through oral agreement - Whether there was breach of the settlement agreement - Whether there was any exception in regard to completion of works under the settlement agreement - Whether developer intended to avoid liability under the settlement agreement by alleging existence of oral agreement to vary the settlement agreement EVIDENCE: Proof of - Oral agreement - Existence of - Allegation of variation in settlement agreement through an oral agreement - Whether existence of oral agreement has been proven through oral evidence and contemporaneous documents EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to call material witness - Proof of oral agreement - Existence of oral agreement disputed - Parties involved in oral agreement were not called to give evidence in Court - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked against party who alleged existence of oral agreement - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) For the plaintiff - Sanjay Mohanasundaram & Adam Lee; M/s Mohanadass Partnership For the defendant - Fadhil Ihsan Mohamad Hassan & Khairulazwad Sariman; M/s Azwad Ihsan & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 314	HELERRY ANAK BUNGKOK v. PP 1. One transaction and the totality principle is not an absolute rule when imposing sentence on different charges involving offences of a similar nature. 2. Sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently for the same offence with the same actions committed on the same victim within a short span of time. In reducing the period of imprisonment, guilty pleas of the accused should be considered. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Conviction on guilty plea - Accused alleged each of the charges were not read and explained to him - Allegation that amendments to brief facts were not read to accused - Whether charges were read out individually during mention - Whether accused had understood consequences of pleading guilty - Whether amendments to brief facts were in favour of accused - Whether there was serious flaw which would warrant a revision of conviction - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 323 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Trial judge ordered sentence to run consecutively - Sexual offences under Penal Code and Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 - Accused was sentenced to a total of 40 years and 13 whippings for 4 charges - Whether one transaction and totality principle is an absolute rule applicable in determining sentence - Whether sentence of imprisonment ought to run concurrently for same offences - Whether guilty plea of accused ought to be considered in reducing period of imprisonment For the appellant - Musa Dinggat; Musa Dinggat For the respondent - Muhammad Tajul Ariffin Musa; Jabatan Peguam Negara

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 6 (Part 2)

A motion to the Federal Court for leave to challenge the legislative competency of the State Legislature to enact Islamic criminal laws or matters pertaining to the precepts of Islam when such laws or matters are already being enacted and spelt out in the federal law, such as an application to challenge the competency of the State Legislature of Selangor to enact s. 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 pertaining to "sexual offences against the order of nature" when such offence has already been dealt with by the Penal Code vide its ss. 377 to 377E, cannot be said to be frivolous or an abuse of process bearing in mind the doctrine of 'pith and substance', the meaning of arts. 4 (3) and 4(4) of the Federal Constitution and the import of Item 1 of the State List and Item 4(h) of the Federal List therein. The issue of whether the enactment of s. 28 has transgressed into the exclusive domain of the Federal Parliament, and therefore as to its constitutionality and validity, certainly deserves mature and comprehensive ventilation before the full court. The application has met the threshold required by art. 4(3) of the Federal Constitution and leave ought therefore to be granted.
Iki Putra Mubarrak v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor [2020] 6 CLJ 133 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An agreement is void if its object is immoral or opposed to public policy, and in that regard s. 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950, which voids a contract for being immoral or opposed to public policy, has no nexus to the element of illegality as so provided for in s. 24(a) of the Act. Be that as it may, one universal element in an agreement that weighs considerably against public policy is that of honesty or the lack of it. Where therefore an employee of a Receiver and Manager, in handling the affairs of a stockbroking company under receivership, has personally through his wife given financial assistance to the company to salvage it from financial difficulties in return for a substantial shareholding in the company, and thereafter, to effectuate the transfer of shares, secured a Statutory Declaration and a Loan Agreement from the company and its shareholder, the transaction is clearly inflicted with conflict of interest and contrary to public policy, and caught by s. 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950. Such a transaction is injurious to the public welfare, is nothing but a sham and is patently void and unenforceable in law.
Yogananthy A S Thambaiya v. Harta Pusaka Idris Osman [2020] 6 CLJ 151 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

To prove the charge of murder under s. 300 of the Penal Code, against the accused, the prosecution must prove all four elements, namely: (i) the death of the deceased; (ii) the deceased suffered injuries that resulted in his/her death; (iii) the injuries were caused by the accused; and (iv) the act by the accused came within the ambit of one or a combination of the limbs under s. 300 of the Penal Code. Failure to prove any of the elements will result in failure to prove a prima facie case.
Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan v. PP [2020] 6 CLJ 187 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A dispute between two co-operative societies regarding trade mark infringement and tort of passing off does not require any reference by the Malaysia Co-operative Societies Commission for it to be heard and adjudicated by the court. The Commission indeed has no jurisdiction, power and capability under s. 82(3)(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 ('CSA') read with ss. 4 and 23 of the Malaysia Co-operative Societies Commission Act 2007 to require such dispute to be referred to court, as the court itself has the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter or matters arising. Sections 82(1)(d), (3)(c), (5) and (7) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1993, further and likewise, does not and cannot oust the court's jurisdiction to hear such an action.
Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Bhd v. Koperasi Amanah Pelaburan Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 203 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In an application for land development involving the subdivision, amalgamation and conversion in the use of the land, the Department of Lands and Surveys is not seized with the power to impose the condition that leasehold tenure for titles to be issued be reduced from 999 years to 99 years.
Chin Kim Phin v. Director Of Lands & Surveys, Sabah & Anor [2020] 6 CLJ 243 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An application for inspection of the company's accounts by a director of the company ought to be presumed to have been made in the best interest of the company and ought therefore be allowed where the director had successfully fulfilled the requirements for inspection and in the absence of any proof of ulterior motive.
James Theophilus Fredericks v. Pelopor Dinamik Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 266 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 6 (Part 3)

The grant of a mining lease is subject to the discretion of the State Minerals Management Authority of Sarawak ('Authority'). In light of the grounds provided by the Authority which were reflective of a responsible authority, the decision rejecting the application for mining leases did not violate the rules of natural justice and were lawful. There cannot be procedural impropriety where all that the Authority has done is to observe the procedural rules of the Minerals Ordinance 2004 (Cap 56).
The State Minerals Management Authority, Sarawak & Ors v. Gegah Optima Resources Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 279 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

1. Section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC'), which provides for compounding of offences, does not bar a claimant from initiating civil proceedings claiming for damages premised on the tort of battery. If it is assumed that s. 260 of the CPC excludes the court's jurisdiction to try a claim for damages, the claimant will be deprived of the fundamental right of access to justice as enshrined in art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution ('FC').

2. The court has the power, under art. 162(6) and (7) of the FC to 'modify' any 'existing law', such as the CPC, as is necessary to bring the existing law into accord with the FC. By virtue of art. 162(6) and (7) of the FC, s. 260 of the CPC can be modified so as to bring it into accord with art. 5(1) of the FC; namely, s. 260 cannot deprive the plaintiff of his fundamental access to justice by way of the original action.

3. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under s. 65(1) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1958 is subject to s. 69 of the same, which expressly states that the Sessions Court 'shall have no jurisdiction' to try any action to enforce any trust.
Ahmad Azhar Othman v. Rozana Misbun [2020] 6 CLJ 314 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The Attorney General is the custodian of public charitable trust. An applicant who wishes to be made a new trustee for a trust property must first receive a recommendation from the present trustees. Without the pre-requisite recommendation, the Attorney General may refuse consent to the applicant.
Chin Chee Kow v. Peguam Negara Malaysia [2020] 6 CLJ 338 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A press statement by an employee in his capacity as President of the Secretariat of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia, being made in the interest of members of a trade union did not involve an illegal act and thus, could not be labelled a misconduct warranting dismissal. That being the case, the decision by the Industrial Court in finding that the dismissal of said employee was with just cause and excuse was tainted with error of law and irrationality.
Ismail Nasaruddin Abdul Wahab v. Malaysia Airline System Bhd & Anor [2020] 6 CLJ 354 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Perkara 8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memberi jaminan 'sama rata di sisi undang-undang' dan hak perlindungan undang-undang tanpa mengira sama ada seseorang itu warganegara Malaysia atau tidak. Oleh itu, hak mendapat tawaran jaminan tidak boleh dinafikan terhadap seseorang tertuduh hanya atas alasan dia seorang warganegara asing, khususnya apabila kesalahan yang dilakukan melibatkan kesalahan yang boleh dijamin.

Jumlah kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh seseorang tertuduh bukan fakta yang diambil kira dalam mempertimbangkan satu permohonan jaminan. Jika kesalahan yang dilakukan tertuduh lebih daripada satu, ini tidak bermakna jaminan tidak dibenarkan sama sekali. Sebaliknya, jumlah jaminan yang lebih tinggi boleh diberi.
PP lwn. Lee Kim Tuyen [2020] 6 CLJ 378 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The application for a joint trial where unity of purpose and design had been established and where the charges against the accused persons arose from the same transaction ought to be allowed, more so, where no prejudice will be caused to the accused person.
PP v. Tan Eng Boon [2020] 6 CLJ 391 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

CLJ Article(s)

1. ONLINE COURT PROCEEDINGS: SELECTED ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by SUBASH JAI DEVARAJ* [2020] 6 CLJ(A) xv

[2020] 6 CLJ(A) xv



MALAYSIA

---

ONLINE COURT PROCEEDINGS: SELECTED ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

by
SUBASH JAI DEVARAJ*

Introduction

The changing times have ascribed different meanings to the well-known attributes - sword, scales, and blindfold - of Lady Justice. The blindfold in particular has traversed from its negative connotations to represent judicial impartiality and fair treatment.^[1] In light of recent events, it is in the author's view that the blindfold has also come to represent the hopeful notion that justice remains 'blind' to even the darkest of times, as it will continue to be done.

To provide some context, even in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and the implementation of the Movement Control Order ('MCO') throughout Malaysia^[2], justice was administered as the Court of Appeal conducted online hearings for three cases.^[3] In a historically significant initiative, the online proceedings were live-streamed on 23 April 2020^[4] at the Official Portal of the Office of The Chief Registrar Federal Court of Malaysia^[5] and YouTube.^[6] As evidenced by the different views^[7] in the media, Covid-19 acted as an effective catalyst to generate discussions regarding online court proceedings as it prompted the live streaming of online court proceedings in Malaysia.

. . .

*LLB Undergraduate, University of London

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LNS Article(s)

1. NEITHER A BORROWER NOR A LENDER BE - COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS FOR MONETARY JUDGMENT DEFAULTS ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Matthew Jerome Van Huizen* John Julian Van Huizen** [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxi

[2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxi



MALAYSIA

---

NEITHER A BORROWER NOR A LENDER BE -
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS FOR MONETARY JUDGMENT DEFAULTS

by
Matthew Jerome Van Huizen*
John Julian Van Huizen**

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this essay is to ascertain and establish the position in Malaysia regarding committal proceedings for monetary debts. It is noted that there exists an unclarity in the law of this area, an unclarity which the author intends to comment upon. This is important because we see an increase of monetary judgments coming from the courts in recent years and therefore the establishment of clear provisions of enforcement of those monetary judgments are solely needed. The author anticipates that this study will benefit countless legal stakeholders especially those currently reading law/undertaking CLP exams in the local universities as the author believes that this essay can be an important resource to aid in the basic understanding of committal proceedings.

. . .

* Advocate and Solicitor, Messrs. Joseph and Partners.

** Pupil-in-Chambers, Messrs. Zul Rafique and Partners.

[The authors wish to place on record their appreciation for the companionship and attentiveness of Siti Munirah binti Zazarin.]

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: FROM NORDIN SALLEH TO KHALIQ MEHTAB ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Reza Rahim* [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxiii

[2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxiii



MALAYSIA

---

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION:
FROM NORDIN SALLEH TO KHALIQ MEHTAB

by
Reza Rahim*

In 1992, the Supreme Court of Malaysia had a novel question of law to be decided before it. A five-member panel of the Supreme Court comprising of Abdul Hamid Omar LP; Harun Hashim SCJ; Mohd Yusoff Mohamed SCJ; Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ and Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ had the duty of deciding if the then newly enacted anti-hopping law by the Kelantan State Government was constitutional.^[1]

The case presented before them involved two elected representatives by the name of Nordin Salleh and Wan Najib Wan Mohamed who had resigned from their party Semangat 46 to join UMNO. They were the elected representatives of Sungai Pinang and Limbongan constituency.

. . .

*Reza Rahim is an advocate & solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and is currently practising law at Messrs. Reza Rahim & Rajivan.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRUISE SHIPS — SAILING INTO STORMY WATERS* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Prof Donald Rothwell FAAL** [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxii

[2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxii



AUSTRALIA

---

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRUISE SHIPS — SAILING INTO STORMY WATERS*

by
Prof Donald Rothwell FAAL**

Professor Donald Rothwell from the ANU discusses the legal implications of allowing, or denying, docking to cruise ships carrying passengers impacted by a pandemic.

The global cruise ship industry has sailed into a storm as a result of the COVID-19 crisis raising a multitude of legal issues. The first inkling of the troubles ahead arose with the Diamond Princess which while on an East Asian cruise was denied access to several ports before arriving in Yokohama on 3 February.^[1] Once there, Japanese authorities were confronted with dealing with outbreaks of COVID-19 amongst passengers and crew, hospitalisation of those who were ill, and eventual repatriation of passengers to their home countries. Similar incidents have now been replayed with cruise ships in ports from Sydney, to Fremantle, to Uruguay, and Florida.

. . .

*Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos Law Week 2020.

**Professor of International Law, ANU College of Law, Law Week Seminar.

[This essay is part of a series, "International law and COVID-19", by legal scholars at The Australian National University. See more essays by international law scholars at law.anu.edu.au.]

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert