|
Issue #46/2020
05 November 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
|
MOHD ISHA AWANG v. MOHAMAD IDRIS SERAMAL BARIS [2020] 9 CLJ 760
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02(NCVC)(W)-2426-12-2018]
05 AUGUST 2020
An order of the Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating that a marriage is not valid under the Syarak must be presumed to have been made according to the legitimate powers of the said court and must be taken as valid until proven otherwise; and more, upon the same being properly tendered and marked as an exhibit, its contents must be taken as true and undisputed. This being the case, it is erroneous of the learned Judicial Commissioner, after having admitted the order and marked it as an exhibit, to have then compelled the defendant adducer to prove the authenticity of the document inter alia by calling or examining the maker(s) thereof. Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 allows the court to presume that such judicial and official act of the Syariah Court of Appeal has been regularly performed with the result that the marriage between the plaintiff and the second defendant herein, on the facts and the evidence, and in consonance with the order of the Syariah Court of Appeal, must be held to be invalid. It follows that the appellant's claim for damages against the first defendant for allegedly enticing his 'wife', the second defendant, must crumble and fail.
TORT: Enticement - Claim for - Plaintiff alleged first defendant enticed his wife from matrimonial home causing breakdown of familial relationship - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether claim for enticement ought to fail
EVIDENCE: Documents - Judicial separation - Order of - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents
FAMILY LAW: Judicial separation - Documents - Whether there was an order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation
ZI PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD & ANOR v. JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR & ORS [2020] 9 CLJ 774
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-01(A)-255-04-2018]
09 JULY 2020
Unlike a natural person, a company is incapable of practising or professing a religion, or assuming the religion of its shareholders. It follows that the sanctions of an Islamic Law Enactment such as the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 cannot apply to a company like the first appellant in this case. It follows further that the action of the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor and the Ketua Penguatkuasa Agama Selangor herein in raiding the first appellant's premises and confiscating 180 copies of books therefrom, and in further prosecuting the first appellant for alleged offences under the said 1995 Enactment, is null and void, unconstitutional and unlawful. The first appellant company having come outside the ambit of the 1995 Enactment and were incapable of committing the crimes so laid out thereunder, the decision to prosecute the company's shareholder, the second appellant, for like offence is also wrong in law.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Exercise of powers in course of criminal investigation - Issuance of search warrant and seizure by enforcement officers - Whether subject to review under O. 53 of Rules of Court 2012
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal and State law - Islamic law enactment - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 16 - Whether ultra vires Federal Constitution - Purpose - To control religious publications contrary to Islam - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly acted within legislative power in enacting s. 16 - Whether s. 16 fell within 'precepts' of Islam within meaning of Item 1, List II-State List, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 16 constitutional
COMPANY LAW: Corporate personality - Corporate veil - Prosecution against director of company at Syariah Court - Validity of - Whether attempt to penalise director for actions of company - Whether company could assume religion of shareholders - Whether Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 ('SCOE') only applicable to natural persons professing religion of Islam - Whether lifting of corporate veil necessary - Whether company could be prosecuted under SCOE
-
Sun Holding (Sun Park Hotel) Co Ltd & Ors v. Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad [2019] 1 LNS 939 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Export - Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad v. Sun Holding (Sun Park Hotel) Co Ltd & Ors [Civil Suit No: 22 - 351- 2010]
-
Nora Hayati Ismayatim v Sam Sau May & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 1702 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Nora Hayati Ismayatim v Sam Sau May; Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Intervener) [2017] 1 LNS 907
Legal Network Series
|
SOON HOE HARDWARE SDN BHD lwn. SATHIYANATHAN RAJOO & SATU LAGI Penyewa seharusnya mengetahui, bersedia dan berpindah mengikut perkiraan masa yang telah dinyatakan di dalam notis penamataan penyewaan. Penyewa yang terus menduduki di atas hartanah selepas tempoh penyewaan tamat serta tanpa kebenaran tuan tanah dan tanpa pembayaran sewaan bulanan terjumlah kepada pendudukan secara haram dan pencerobohan yang mewajarkan milikan kosong tanah diberikan kepada pemilik tanah. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Prosiding terus pemilikan tanah - Tuntutan untuk - Milikan kosong - Penyewa terus menduduki di atas hartanah selepas tempoh penyewaan tamat dan tanpa kebenaran tuan tanah - Penyewa tidak membayar sewa selepas tempoh penyewaan tamat - Penyewa enggan memberikan milikan kosong setelah diserahkan dengan notis penamatan dan notis untuk mengusir - Sama ada penyewa telah menduduki hartanah secara haram - Sama ada pendudukan di atas hartanah selepas tamat tempoh penyewaan terjumlah kepada pencerobohan - Sama ada keadilan memihak kepada pemberian milikan kosong hartanah kepada tuan tanah - Sama ada penyewa seharusnya mengetahui, bersedia dan berpindah mengikut perkiraan masa notis penamatan
|
|
|
MUHAMMAD AMMAR JAWWAD MD BOKHARI & SATU LAGI lwn. CHE MUHAMMAD HAISBULLAH CHE AMAN & SATU LAGI Kos penjagaan di rumah wajar diberikan apabila plaintif memerlukan penjagaan sepanjang hayatnya memandangkan kepada kesan defisit neurologi secara signifikan yang bersifat kekal. Penjagaan lebih daripada seorang penjaga secara bergilir-gilir diperlukan disebabkan keadaan vegetatif dan kelemahan dalam kognisi otak dan komunikasi plaintif. GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kos penjagaan - Kos penjagaan di rumah - Plaintif dalam keadaan vegetatif dan mempunyai kognisi otak dan komunikasi yang lemah akibat kesan defisit neurologi yang bersifat kekal - Keperluan penjaga yang lebih menurut laporan pakar - Ibu plaintif adalah seorang OKU - Sama ada plaintif memerlukan jagaan sepanjang hayatnya - Sama ada plaintif memerlukan penjagaan lebih dari seorang penjaga secara bergilir-gilir GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kos rawatan - Kos rawatan fisioterapi - Sama ada laporan pakar neurologi diperlukan untuk tujuan taksiran kos rawatan fisioterapi
|
|
|
SAJ HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR The Industrial Court did not err in law when it held that the punishment of dismissal for being in conflict of interest was not proportionate taking into consideration a similar situation of an employee being in conflict of interest and given a warning, and to the claimant's long service with no disciplinary record. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Judicial review to quash decision of Industrial Court on basis of illegality and irrationality - Industrial Court held dismissal of employee was without just cause or excuse - Employee dismissed for being in conflict of interest with company - Whether Industrial Court erred in law when it took into account a similar situation of an employee being in a conflict of interest who was given a warning - Whether Industrial Court had erred in deciding there was no conflict of interest situation - Whether decision of Industrial Court was unreasonable or illegal LABOUR LAW: Dismissal - Misconduct - Proportionality of punishment - Acting in conflict of interest - Existence of similar situation of an employee being in conflict of interest and given a warning - Absence of any past disciplinary record - Employee had served company for long period - Whether punishment of dismissal was proportionate - Whether dismissal was with just cause or excuse
|
|
|
KHO KANG YAU v. PP A prima facie case of trafficking in dangerous drugs was established against the accused when the accused had mens rea possession of the bag containing a large amount of drugs. The defence of the accused that the bag containing drugs belonged to his friend was an afterthought and a bare denial when the accused had physical possession of the bag at all material time and when there was no protestation as to the knowledge of the drugs. CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Methamphetamine weighing 1,402.0g - Drugs found inside bag carried by accused - Mens rea possession - Drugs were discovered in presence of accused - Absence of protestation - Whether accused had possession with knowledge of drugs - Whether large amount of drug led to a strong inference that it was for purpose of trafficking - Whether conduct of accused was wholly inconsistent with conduct of an innocent man - Whether presumption under s. 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applicable CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Offence of trafficking dangerous drugs - Drugs found inside bag carried by accused - Accused denied bag belonged to him - Accused alleged his friend called him to pick up bag from toilet - Accused alleged bag was tampered with before he picked it up - Whether accused had physical possession of bag at all material time - Whether defence story was a an afterthought and a bare denial - Whether mere fact that bag was placed in toilet cubicle by accused's friend exonerated accused from offence
|
|
|
SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA v. WONG KOK SEONG & ORS Issues relating to findings and sanctions imposed by the Securities Commission ('SC') raised in the SC's action against the defendant are no longer triable when similar issues had been dealt with and dismissed in the judicial review application commenced by the defendant against the SC that ran parallel to the SC's action against the defendant. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Triable issues - Recovery of civil debt - Action by Securities Commission ('SC') to recover penalties imposed against members of board of directors of a public listed company - Defendants filed judicial review application to quash decision of SC which ran parallel with SC's action - Judicial review application was dismissed - Whether there are triable issues - Whether findings and sanctions imposed by SC remains - Whether defendants could re-litigate validity of SC's findings and sanctions imposed
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 9 (Part 6)
The decision of the Minister of Human Resources that the In-Flight Supervisors of the Malaysia Airlines Berhad were not employed in any managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity and were therefore 'workmen' for the purpose of a Trade Union recognition, having been based on the findings of the Director General of the Industrial Relations (DGIR), cannot be said to have suffered from the infirmities of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The whole process of the Union's complaint herein is governed by s. 9 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA); and since the DGIR had carried out his investigation process by conducting interviews and random questionnaires and taking note of the relevant documents and evidence, as so required of him by s. 9(1B) of the IRA, it must follow that the decision of the Minister is rational and reasonable, and is not susceptible to be reviewed by the court.
Malaysia Airlines Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Ors [2020] 9 CLJ 743 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Appeal - Application to quash decision of Minister of Human Resources ('Minister') - National Union of Flight Attendant sought recognition in relation to workers - Secret ballot carried out without involving certain workers - Minister made decision, based on inquiry carried out by Director General of Industrial Relations Department, that certain workers were not employed in any managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity - Whether Minister's decision suffered from infirmities of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety - Whether Minister's decision ought to be quashed
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
- For the appellant - Thavalingam & Rebecca Sonali Alfred; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Aisyaf Falina Abdullah; DPP
- For the 3rd respondent - Lim Wei Jiet; M/s Sreenevasan
An order of the Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating that a marriage is not valid under the Syarak must be presumed to have been made according to the legitimate powers of the said court and must be taken as valid until proven otherwise; and more, upon the same being properly tendered and marked as an exhibit, its contents must be taken as true and undisputed. This being the case, it is erroneous of the learned Judicial Commissioner, after having admitted the order and marked it as an exhibit, to have then compelled the defendant adducer to prove the authenticity of the document inter alia by calling or examining the maker(s) thereof. Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 allows the court to presume that such judicial and official act of the Syariah Court of Appeal has been regularly performed with the result that the marriage between the plaintiff and the second defendant herein, on the facts and the evidence, and in consonance with the order of the Syariah Court of Appeal, must be held to be invalid. It follows that the appellant's claim for damages against the first defendant for allegedly enticing his 'wife', the second defendant, must crumble and fail.
Mohd Isha Awang v. Mohamad Idris Seramal Baris [2020] 9 CLJ 760 [CA]
TORT: Enticement - Claim for - Plaintiff alleged first defendant enticed his wife from matrimonial home causing breakdown of familial relationship - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether claim for enticement ought to fail
EVIDENCE: Documents - Judicial separation - Order of - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents
FAMILY LAW: Judicial separation - Documents - Whether there was an order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid; M/s Burhan & Co
- For the respondent - Imran Mohd Farok & Roshidah Osman; M/s Roshidah Osman & Partners
Unlike a natural person, a company is incapable of practising or professing a religion, or assuming the religion of its shareholders. It follows that the sanctions of an Islamic Law Enactment such as the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 cannot apply to a company like the first appellant in this case. It follows further that the action of the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor and the Ketua Penguatkuasa Agama Selangor herein in raiding the first appellant's premises and confiscating 180 copies of books therefrom, and in further prosecuting the first appellant for alleged offences under the said 1995 Enactment, is null and void, unconstitutional and unlawful. The first appellant company having come outside the ambit of the 1995 Enactment and were incapable of committing the crimes so laid out thereunder, the decision to prosecute the company's shareholder, the second appellant, for like offence is also wrong in law.
Zi Pu blications Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor & Ors [2020] 9 CLJ 774 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Exercise of powers in course of criminal investigation - Issuance of search warrant and seizure by enforcement officers - Whether subject to review under O. 53 of Rules of Court 2012
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal and State law - Islamic law enactment - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 16 - Whether ultra vires Federal Constitution - Purpose - To control religious publications contrary to Islam - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly acted within legislative power in enacting s. 16 - Whether s. 16 fell within 'precepts' of Islam within meaning of Item 1, List II-State List, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 16 constitutional
COMPANY LAW: Corporate personality - Corporate veil - Prosecution against director of company at Syariah Court - Validity of - Whether attempt to penalise director for actions of company - Whether company could assume religion of shareholders - Whether Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 ('SCOE') only applicable to natural persons professing religion of Islam - Whether lifting of corporate veil necessary - Whether company could be prosecuted under SCOE
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
- For the appellants - Fahri Azzat, K Shanmuga, Maizatul Amalina & Nizam Bashir; M/s Fahri & Co
- For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th respondents - Siti Fatimah Talib, Assistant Legal Advisor; Fakhrul Azman Abu Hassan & Zirwatul Hanan Abdul Rahman; M/s Azaine & Fakhrul
- For the 6th respondent - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC
(1) Where a mortgagee's action is related to a claim or question under s. 20(2)(c) of the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981 read together with s. 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, an action in rem may be brought in any of the High Courts in Malaysia against a vessel without satisfying any of the jurisdictional facts of s. 23 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, notwithstanding the fact that the vessel involved is foreign as provided under s. 20(7) of the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981.
(2) Upon issuance of a writ in rem, a High Court in Malaya already has pre-existing admiralty jurisdiction over a vessel without the need for the admiralty jurisdiction of this court to be invoked by serving and executing the writ in rem and warrant of arrest on the vessel. A writ in rem is enforceable anywhere in Malaysia under s. 7(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and art. 121(3) of the Federal Constitution.
Nassau Maritime Holdings Designated Activity Company v. The Owners Of The Ship Or Vessel “Cape Lambert” (IMO No. 9457555) Of The Port Of Marshall Islands [2020] 9 CLJ 796 [HC]
SHIPPING: Action in rem - Admiralty jurisdiction - Mortgage of ship - Mortgagee filed writ in rem against vessel to claim against owners for breach of loan agreement and mortgage - Owners of vessel applied to set aside service of writ in action in rem and warrant of arrest issued by High Court of Malaya against vessel - Vessel located in Federal Territory of Labuan - Whether admiralty jurisdiction of High Court of Malaya wrongly invoked by mortgagee - Whether mortgagee's action related to mortgage claims may be brought in any High Court in Malaysia against vessel without satisfying jurisdictional facts of s. 23 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether service and execution of writ in rem and warrant of arrest proper by virtue of s. 7(2) of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether court had admiralty jurisdiction to hear mortgagee's claim - Federal Constitution, art. 121(3) - United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981, ss. 3, 20(1)(a), (2)(c), 21(2), (3) - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 3, 24(b)
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD JC
- For the plaintiff - Mathew Kurien & Aaron Siva; M/s Sativale Mathew Arun
- For the defendant - Siva Kumar Kanagasabai, Trishelea Ann Sandosam & Balamurali Tamilwanan; M/s Skrine
Kepentingan awam perlu dipelihara dan keseriusan kesalahan harus dititikberatkan apabila menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh yang telah dengan sengaja mencederakan pengadu dengan senjata parang, iaitu satu kesalahan di bawah s. 324 Kanun Keseksaan. Namun kepentingan tertuduh-tertuduh juga harus dipertimbangkan. Mengambil kira umur muda tertuduh-tertuduh (17 tahun dan 18 tahun masing-masing) dan latar belakang mereka, kepentingan awam dapat dicapai sekiranya tertuduh-tertuduh diberi peluang untuk menjadi orang yang baik dan berguna kepada keluarga. Hukuman bon kelakuan baik selama tiga tahun dan perintah pemantauan terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh adalah cukup sesuai dan adalah satu pertimbangan kepentingan awam dan prinsip rehabilitasi yang memadai.
PP lwn. Thevesh Sashikumar & Satu Lagi [2020] 9 CLJ 817 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 324 - Menyebabkan kecederaan dengan sengaja terhadap pengadu menggunakan senjata parang - Tertuduh-tertuduh didapati bersalah dan diperintahkan menyempurnakan bon berkelakuan baik selama tiga tahun - Tertuduh-tertuduh diklasifikasikan sebagai kanak-kanak dan pesalah muda - Sama ada hukuman setimpal dan melambangkan keseriusan jenayah - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam diambil kira - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh memerlukan pemantauan - Sama ada hukuman terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh dikekalkan
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Rayuan terhadap - Tertuduh-tertuduh didapati bersalah bawah s. 324 Kanun Keseksaan - Menyebabkan kecederaan dengan sengaja terhadap pengadu menggunakan senjata parang - Tertuduh-tertuduh didapati bersalah dan diperintahkan menyempurnakan bon berkelakuan baik selama tiga tahun - Tertuduh-tertuduh diklasifikasikan sebagai kanak-kanak dan pesalah muda - Sama ada hukuman setimpal dan melambangkan keseriusan jenayah - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam diambil kira - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh memerlukan pemantauan - Sama ada hukuman terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh dikekalkan
SHAHNAZ SULAIMAN PK
- Bagi pihak perayu - Suraini Ujang; TPR
- Bagi pihak responden pertama - Bustaman Menon Abdul Hamid Menon; T/n R K Menon & Co
- Bagi pihak responden kedua - Baharudin Baharim
Kekhilafan pihak pendakwaan dalam memfailkan Notis Rayuan terhadap 'sabitan' sedangkan yang hendak dirayui adalah terhadap perintah Mahkamah Sesyen melepas dan membebaskan tertuduh-tertuduh adalah memudaratkan kerana tidak merujuk kepada perintah sebenar mahkamah. Kekhilafan sebegini menjadikan Notis Rayuan salah, cacat, batal dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang, sementelah tiada permohonan dibuat bagi meminda kandungan notis seperti yang diperuntukkan s. 310 Kanun Acara Jenayah. Sekaligus ia menjadikan rayuan tidak berkompeten untuk didengar dan diadili.
PP lwn. Weddrin Mojingkin & Yang Lain [2020] 9 CLJ 838 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Notis rayuan - Kesahan notis rayuan - Mahkamah Sesyen melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh-tertuduh - Notis rayuan merujuk pada sabitan - Sama ada kegagalan merayu terhadap perintah sebenar memudaratkan dan cacat - Sama ada menjadikan rayuan tidak kompeten
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Pertuduhan bawah s. 304(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen membuat pertimbangan sewajarnya terhadap kesemua keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan - Sama ada punca kematian konsisten dengan keterangan saksi - Sama ada pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan selamat
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID H
- Bagi pihak perayu - Faizal @ Amrin Noor Hadi, TPR
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Iskandar Shah Ibrahim; T/n Iskandar Shah & Co
Berdasarkan peruntukan-peruntukan di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Pendaftaran Negara 1990 (Pindaan 2001), iaitu per. 4 dan per. 5 serta Jadual 1A , nama asal pemohon perlu dimasukkan ke dalam kad pengenalan berkomputer cip atau dikenali sebagai MyKad pemohon. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara dan Kerajaan Malaysia tidak mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengeluarkan nama asal pemohon yang terdapat dalam cip MyKad kerana pihak-pihak tersebut wajib mematuhi segala keperluan yang telah ditetapkan di bawah peruntukan-peruntukan yang mengawal selia pengeluaran MyKad.
Sarj Kumar lwn. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara & Satu Lagi [2020] 9 CLJ 861 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Certiorari dan mandamus - Permohonan kebenaran semakan kehakiman untuk relief-relief mengeluarkan nama asal pemohon dalam cip kad pengenalannya dan memasukkan nama betul - Nama asal pemohon tertera pada sijil kelahiran - Sama ada kad pengenalan berkomputer cip, MyKad, perlu mengandungi nama asal pemohon - Sama ada responden-responden mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengeluarkan nama asal pemohon yang terdapat dalam cip MyKad - Sama ada keputusan responden-responden yang enggan mengeluarkan nama asal pemohon rasional dan munasabah - Peraturan-Peraturan Pendaftaran Negara 1990 (Pindaan 2001), peraturan 4, 5(2), Jadual 1A
MARIANA YAHYA H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - M Manoharan; T/n M Manoharan & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Kogilambigai Muthusamy; Peguam Persekutuan
LNS Article(s)
THE SOURCES OF THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM [Read excerpt]
by Nur Syakirah Binti Mohd Adnan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxixTHE REGISTERED CHARGEE A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES
A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURT DECISION IN HE-CON SDN BHD v. BULYAH ISHAK & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2020] 7 CLJ 271 [Read excerpt]
by Kevin De Rozario* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxiVICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME: MEDICAMENT ON THE WOUND
ANALYSIS OF COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR WOMEN VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT/OTHER CRIMES IN INDIA-2018 [Read excerpt]
by Ashwani Tripathi[i] Nikunj Bhatnagar[ii] Anjali Tripathi[iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxx
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
| ACT 826 | Food Donors Protection Act 2020 | 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] | - |
| ACT 825 | Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 | 31 January 2020 | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1625 | National Security Council (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 November 2020 | ACT 776 |
| ACT A1624 | Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 360 |
| ACT A1623 | Subordinate Courts Rules (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 532/2020] | ACT 55 |
| ACT A1622 | Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 531/2020] | ACT 92 |
| ACT A1621 | Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 530/2020] | ACT 91 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 293/2020 | Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 | 5 October 2020 | 6 October 2020 | PU(A) 210/2018 |
| PU(A) 292/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 8) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 2 October 2020 | 3 October 2020 | PU(A) 254/2020 |
| PU(A) 291/2020 | Factories and Machinery (Exemption To Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Kertih, Terengganu) Order 2020 | 1 October 2020 | 2 October 2020 | ACT 139 |
| PU(A) 287/2020 | Currency (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2020 | 30 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | ACT 827 |
| PU(A) 285/2020 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) 2019 Order (Amendment) 2020 | 29 September 2020 | 8 March 2019 until 7 March 2024 | PU(A) 69/2019 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 482/2020 | Amendment of Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of An Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard To The Imports of Flat Rolled Product of Iron Alloy Or Non-Alloy Steel, Plated Or Coated With Zinc, Using Hot Dip Process (Galvanised Iron Coils/sheets Or Galvanised Steel Coils/sheets) Originati | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | PU(B) 126/2019 |
| PU(B) 481/2020 | Declaration of Quarantine Stations (No. 16) 2020 | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT 342 |
| PU(B) 480/2020 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT 701 |
| PU(B) 479/2020 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT A1616 |
| PU(B) 478/2020 | Revocation of Declaration of Roads At Federal Territory of Labuan As Designated Federal Territory Roads | 29 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | ACT 333 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 310/2020 | 27 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 4B |
| AKTA 776 | Akta Majlis Keselamatan Negara 2016 | AKTA A1625 | 1 November 2020 | Seksyen 2, 6, 8, 18, 21, 37, 42, 42A dan 42B |
| ACT 776 | National Security Council Act 2016 | ACT A1625 | 1 November 2020 | Sections 2, 6, 8, 18, 21, 37, 42, 42A and 42B |
| ACT 92 | Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (Revised 1972) | ACT A1622 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 531/2020] | Sections 2, 101B and 107A |
| AKTA 333 | Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 | AKTA A1618 | 22 Oktober 2020 [PU(B) 533/2020] | Seksyen 2, 41 - 45, 45A - 45C, 45G, 54, 88 dan 112 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 97/2020 | Motor Vehicles (Exemption) Rules 2020 | PU(A) 251/2020 | 1 September 2020 |
| PU(A) 248/1998 | Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund (Cess on Rubber Sold to Manufacturers) Order 1998 | PU(A) 232/2020 | 1 October 2020 - Peninsular Malaysia only |
| PU(B) 663/2018 | Appointment of Member of the Advisory Board | PU(B) 388/2020 | 10 August 2020 until 9 August 2022 |
| PU(B) 140/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director General of the Board | PU(B) 373/2020 | 1 June 2020 |
| PU(A) 211/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Medical Attendance and Maintenance of Person Removed to Quarantine Station) Regulations 2020 | PU(A) 233/2020 | 24 July 2020 |