Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #5/2020 23 January 2020

New This Week Case(s) of the Week KOK KON SANG v. INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA [2020] 1 CLJ 702 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 5) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

KOK KON SANG v. INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA [2020] 1 CLJ 702
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ALIZA SULAIMAN JC
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-11ANCvC-75-06-2018]
25 APRIL 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Appeal against two distinct orders - Whether appellant should have filed separate appeal instead of single notice appeal against both orders - Non-compliance with Form 111A - Ambiguity in notice of appeal - Whether nature and scope of decision appealed against unclear - Whether prejudicial to respondent - Whether attempt to relitigate matter already decided by court - Whether notice of appeal defective - Rules of Court 2012, O. 55 r. 5(2)

---

1. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 592 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case of Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [Civil Suit No: WA-22IP-12-03/2016]

2. Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Zakaria Yahaya & Anor [2018] 1 LNS 1151 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Zakaria Yahaya & Anor [Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-107-2015]

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 438	AYU ABDULLAH lwn. ELDZUKIF MOHD RAIS & SATU LAGI Di dalam tindakan pencerobohan tanah, Aturan 89 k. 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 merupakan prosedur ringkas yang diperuntukkan oleh Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk digunapakai dalam situasi tuntutan milikan tanah yang tidak melibatkan suatu pertikaian fakta dan isu-isu. Oleh kerana geran hakmilik muktamad telah dikeluarkan kepada plaintif, maka plaintif berhak ke atas keseluruhan tanahnya. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Milikan - Tuntutan untuk - Prosiding terus untuk mendapatkan pemilikan tanah di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada digunapakai dalam situasi tuntutan milikan tanah yang tidak melibatkan pertikaian fakta dan isu-isu Bagi pihak plaintif - Yazmin Chan Abdullah; T/n Yazmin Chan & Associates Bagi pihak defendan - RS Sodhi; T/n Sodhi Chambers
[2018] 1 LNS 481	PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD v. SULAIMAN MOHD SAID & ANOR A defendant is bound by the obligations and terms of a Consent Order it has drawn up and agreed upon with the plaintiff; the defendant cannot rely upon the terms of a separate contract to deny its obligations under the Consent Order and neither can the defendant rely on events subsequent to the execution of the Consent Order to support its interpretation of the Consent Order. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Interpretation of terms - Whether defendant can rely on separate contract to deny obligations under Consent Order executed with plaintiff - Whether defendant can rely on events subsequent to execution of Consent Order to support its interpretation of the Consent Order executed with plaintiff For the defendant/appellant - PS Koh; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong For the plaintiff/respondent - Lau Kee Sern & Heng Chia Leng; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
[2018] 1 LNS 616	MATTIJAH NOR MOHAMED v. KARAM BIBI SETRU DEEN & ORS Where the plaintiff complains that the sale and subsequent registration of the transfer of a property sanctioned by the High Court through an order made in an Originating Summons ("the OS Order") is tainted by forgery, the plaintiff must first set aside the OS Order in the very Court that granted the Order before seeking a consequential order for the registration of the transfer of the property to be declared null and void; the plaintiff cannot set aside such OS Order in a separate fresh proceeding. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Complaint that OS order of Court sanctioning the sale and subsequent registration of the transfer of property is tainted with fraud - Whether such OS Order must first be set aside in the very Court that granted the Order before a consequential order to declare the transfer null and void is obtained - Whether the OS Order may be set aside in a separate fresh proceeding For the plaintiff - Mohd Fadly Zakariya; M/s Zuraidah Naziha & Fadly For the third & fourth defendants - Krishnan Papoo; M/s Krishan Papoo & Associates For the fifth defendant - Norulhuda Badiruzaman; M/s Rashidah Shahriman
[2018] 1 LNS 620	PROTOREKA PERUNDING SDN BHD v. BAU MAJU RESOURCES SDN BHD In an action for the tort of trespass where the defence is that the plaintiff had given its consent to access the plaintiff's land to use a road, the issue of consent is a triable issue that can only be resolved at trial; the O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 summary provision seeks to prevent a plaintiff entitled to money from being deprived of his judgment where there is no fairly arguable case. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Plaintiff's case based on trespass to its land - Defendant's defence that it had plaintiff's consent to access plaintiff's land - Whether issue of consent a triable issue for trial - Whether such issue suitable to be tried summarily under the O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 provision For the plaintiff - Ronald Ong; M/s Sandhu & Company For the defendant - Gabriel Koo; M/s Thomas Ong
[2018] 1 LNS 915	NOOR AZLINDA ZAINUDDIN lwn. ZAINAL ABIDIN LAJAT Sesuatu fakta yang dinyatakan Plaintif di dalam Penyataan Tuntutannya merupakan satu pengakuan Plaintif sendiri di bawah s. 17 Akta Keterangan 1950 KETERANGAN: Pengakuan-pengakuan - Kenyataan dalam Penyata Tuntutan - Sama ada satu pengakuan di bawah s. 17 Akta Keterangan 1950 Bagi pihak perayu - V Rajadevan; T/n Rajadevan & Associates Bagi pihak responden - Yukasliza Che Kar; T/n Dass, Jainab & Associates

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 5)

The dismissal of public employees is regulated by statute and governed by public law and is thus amenable to public law remedies; in that respect there is no practical distinction between those employed in public services and those in statutory authorities.
Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor v. Mohd Sobri Che Hassan [2020] 1 CLJ 595 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of a tenant is not a condition precedent to found a claim for double rent under s. 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956. The rent is chargeable upon the tenant's failure per se to give up possession and upon his continuing to hold over without the landlord's consent.
Rohasassets Sdn Bhd v. Weatherford (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 638 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A landowner whose land has been acquired is only entitled to compensation for damages to his property at the time the Land Administrator acquires the land, which is when the land is gazetted under s. 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. It follows that any structure on the land which was destroyed prior to the acquisition will not attract any compensation for the landowner.
Afeef Abdulqader Mansoor v. Pentadbir Tanah WPKL [2020] 1 CLJ 665 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A judge trying a drug trafficking case under s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is guilty of misdirection if he makes a finding of actual trafficking under s. 2 of the Act and simultaneously invokes the statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37 (da) thereof. Such misdirection will seriously prejudice the accused as he is left wondering on the burden of proof he should take to administer his defence. Consequently, a conviction recorded in such circumstance is unsafe and liable to be set aside.
Khalid Mehmood v. PP & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 683 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The filing of a single notice of appeal against two different and distinct orders of the court violates the mandatory and fundamental requirement of O. 55 r. 5(2) Rules of Court 2012. Such a non-compliant notice would leave the respondent in a state of uncertainty as to the case it has to meet in the appeal, and is consequentially defective and ineffectual in law and liable to be struck out.
Kok Kon Sang v. Institut Akauntan Malaysia [2020] 1 CLJ 702 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

At law, the liability of a guarantor is co-extensive with that of the borrower. Under s. 81 of the Contracts Act 1950, the bank has a right to sue the guarantor upon his personal guarantee and is not required to first exhaust its remedies against the borrower before proceeding against the guarantor.
RHB Bank Bhd v. Singlefine (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 721 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. TUNTUTAN GANTI RUGI KEHILANGAN PENDAPATAN MASA HADAPAN DI MALAYSIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam* Rubendraan Kunasegaran** [2020] 1 LNS(A) vii

[2020] 1 LNS(A) vii



MALAYSIA

---

TUNTUTAN GANTI RUGI KEHILANGAN PENDAPATAN MASA HADAPAN DI MALAYSIA

by
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam*
Rubendraan Kunasegaran**

1. PENGENALAN

Risiko merupakan suatu elemen yang wujud dalam semua kehidupan manusia. Segala aktiviti seharian seseorang mempunyai tahap risikonya yang tersendiri. Terdapat beberapa aktiviti yang mempunyai tahap risiko yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan aktiviti-aktiviti yang lain. Golongan masyarakat yang menghadapi tahap risiko yang tinggi ialah golongan bekerja. Golongan ini selalu menggunakan jalan raya untuk perjalanan pergi dan balik dari rumah ke tempat kerja. Oleh itu, mereka terdedah kepada risiko di tempat kerja dan juga di jalan raya. Jika seseorang itu tidak bernasib baik dan ditimpa kemalangan, maka sudah pastinya mangsa akan mengambil masa untuk sembuh dan kembali bekerja dalam keadaan yang baik dan sihat.

. . .

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

** Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rubenkuna97@gmail.com

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. TRADEMARKS ACT 2019 - A BIRD'S EYE VIEW ON THE KEY CHANGES (PART 1) ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Bahari Yeow^[i] Lim Zhi Jian^[ii] Alex Choo^[iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) viii

[2020] 1 LNS(A) viii



MALAYSIA

---

TRADEMARKS ACT 2019 - A BIRD'S EYE VIEW ON THE KEY CHANGES
(PART 1)

by
Bahari Yeow^[i]
Lim Zhi Jian^[ii]
Alex Choo^[iii]

27 December 2019 marks a significant milestone for the development of trademark laws in Malaysia – the coming into force of the Trademarks Act 2019 (“TMA 2019”). With the coming into force of the TMA 2019, an act which once contained 84 provisions^[1] was replaced by a new act that now contains 183 provisions.

In this edition, we endeavor to provide readers with a palatable brief overview on some of key changes that the TMA 2019 introduces to the Malaysian trademark regime.

. . .

[i] Bahari Yeow, LLB, CLP, LLM; Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

[ii] Lim Zhi Jian, LLB, CLP; Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

[iii] Alex Choo, LLB, Associate, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

The authors are members of the IP & TMT Practice at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert