Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #6/2020 30 January 2020

New This Week Case(s) of the Week JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN BHD v. STAR MEDIA GROUP BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE [2020] 1 CLJ 839 LAYAR BAIDURI SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI [2020] 1 CLJ 884 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

JAKS ISLAND CIRCLE SDN BHD v.
STAR MEDIA GROUP BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE [2020] 1 CLJ 839
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
LEE SWEE SENG J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24C(ARB)-11-02-2018 & WA-24C(ARB)-12-02-2018]
06 SEPTEMBER 2019

TORT: Damages - Assessment - Application for - Assessment of damages arising from undertaking to pay damages in event injunctions applied for were set aside - Whether undertaking ought to be enforced - Whether application for assessment of damages pursuant to undertaking premature - Whether there was justification for postponing assessment of damages - Whether assessment of damages ought to wait until outcome of arbitration - Whether special circumstances arose - Whether losses arose out of injunction orders proven - Whether assessment of damages foreseeable and fair

---

LAYAR BAIDURI SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI [2020] 1 CLJ 884
HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH JC
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: PA-24NCvC-387-04-2019]
04 JULY 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay - Application for - Application for declaration that decision of Director General Of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') be stayed until full and final determination of appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax - Whether court had inherent power under O. 92 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 to grant stay - Whether special circumstances established - Whether DGIR could be restrained from enforcing decision - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 75A, 103, 104 and 106

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Application for - Application for interim order restraining Director of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') from enforcing decision - Whether DGIR ought to be allowed to carry out enforcement powers and statutory functions - Whether DGIR has role in recovery process - Public interest - Consideration of - Whether DGIR could be restrained by interim injunction - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 29 - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 75A, 103, 104 and 106

---

“The courts in England have consistently held that private individuals may seek judicial review of decisions of the Public Prosecutor not only in matters of initiation or failure to take court proceedings or to discontinue police investigations, but additionally of decisions whether to take over or discontinue ongoing private investigations.”

“Reverting to our present appeals, we have carefully considered the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 58 while keeping in mind the principles of law on the subject as propounded by the courts in other jurisdictions. We found there was no flaw in its reasoning in holding that the power of the Attorney General to give or refuse consent under s. 9(1) of Act 359 is amenable to judicial review.”

“On the issue whether the AG is a public officer, we are of the view that the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court in Tun Dato' Hj Mohamed Salleh Abas v. Tan Sri Dato' Abdul Hamid Omar & Ors [1988] 2 CLJ 739; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 294 where it was held that the AG is indeed a public officer under the Federal Constitution.”

— per Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ in Peguam Negara Malaysia v. Chin Chee Kow & Another Appeal [2019] 4 CLJ 561

---

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 363	PP lwn. MOHD KHAIRUDARWIN NIESHA MOHD SHAFEE PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Hukuman denda sebanyak RM6000 dan jika gagal 6 bulan penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Bahan-Bahan Kakisan dan Letupan dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 - Pemilikan senjata berbahaya tanpa kebenaran yang sah - Sama ada hukuman penjara adalah mandatori - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk denda boleh dijatuhkan bagi menggantikan hukuman penjara - Sama ada kesalahan yang dilakukan amat serius yang mewajarkan hukuman pemenjaraan dan sebatan Bagi pihak perayu - Rahimah Abdul Majid, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Sembilan Bagi pihak responden - Mohammed Badrulzzaman Abu Bakar; T/n Fatin & Zaharman
[2018] 1 LNS 395	MUHAMMAD KHAIDZIR LUCMAN lwn. PP PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghakiman - Pengenepian - Permohonan mengenepikan perintah pembatalan rayuan - Bidang kuasa mahkamah - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar permohonan bagi mengenepikan perintah pembatalan rayuan - Sama ada Mahkamah telah functus officio - Sama ada status kes telah berakhir apabila Mahkamah menguatkuasakan hukuman ke atas pemohon - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk meminda perintah menurut s. 278 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Bagi pihak pemohon - Khairul Naim Rafidi & Muhammad Zufar Elias; T/n Zufar Elias & Co Bagi pihak responden - Siti Hajar Mustaffa, Timbalan Pendakwaraya Temerloh
[2018] 1 LNS 561	JONG MEY SIEN (F) & ANOR v. MOHAMAD ASSRAFF AZIS DAMAGES: Appeal - Assessment of damages - Special damages - Medical bills - Treatment at private hospital - Unavailability of ward at general hospital - Trial judge awarded 1/3 of total bill - Trial judge apportioned liability at 50: 50 - Whether damages should be apportioned on a 50% basis DAMAGES: Appeal - Assessment of damages - Special damages - Claim for personal belongings - Hand phone and watch - Whether personal belongings were in use at time of accident - Whether apportionment should be on a 50% basis - Whether belongings were very personal in nature DAMAGES: Appeal - Assessment of damages - General damages - Magistrate Court found contributory negligence on a 50% basis - Whether awards for general damages ought to be halved For the 1st and 2nd appellants - Desmond Sahathevan; M/s Battenberg & Talma For the respondent - Lim Heng Choo; M/s Lim & Lim
[2018] 1 LNS 565	SGB MY SDN BHD v. SARAFILL SDN BHD & ORS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Goods and services - Claim for goods and services supplied - Defendants had no answer to undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting plaintiff's claims - Defendants merely contended documents did not relate to plaintiff's claim in present action - Whether defence of mere denial was sufficient to defeat summary judgment application CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Guarantee - Claim against guarantors - Claim for goods and services supplied - Whether guarantee was enforceable - Whether defendants agreed to be principal debtors or merely sureties under guarantee CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Principles and procedures - Existence of counterclaim - Plaintiff did not strike out counterclaim - Whether counterclaim precludes court from granting summary judgment for plaintiff's claim - Whether counterclaim ought to be disposed of in an independent action For the plaintiff - Manjit Kaur Gill; M/s Manjit Kaur Gill & Co For the defendants - Nur'atiqah Nasir; M/s Suhaili & Bong
[2018] 1 LNS 605	DR MILTON LUM SIEW WAH v. MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Remedies - Termination of consultancy agreement - Action under s. 15(1)(a) of Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Action taken against whistleblower - Whether application was frivolous and vexatious - Whether either party to contract was at liberty to terminate contract without having to give reasons for such termination - Whether whistleblower entitled to seek remedies of damages or compensation, injunction or any other reliefs from court - Whether application was an abuse of process of court For the applicant - Kamraj Nayagam; M/s Mah-Kamariyah & Philip Koh For the attorney general chambers - Ruzaimah Mohd Ridzuan (SFC); Jabatan Peguam Negara

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 6)

Under the provision of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Measures) Act 1985, non-compliance with any procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detainee since the court is not allowed to go beyond the subjective satisfaction of the Minister. The procedure requirements must be strictly and faithfully complied with and if there is a failure to do so, a writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued and the detainee released forthwith.
Chua Kian Voon v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 747 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

There must be actual fraud to defeat a registered proprietor's title to land. Where a registered proprietor colludes with a vendor to get the land registered in his name and deliberately deprives the prevailing owner of an existing right to the land, he certainly has committed cheating and fraud such that his title becomes defeasible and liable to be set aside.
Yeo Ping Tieng & Ors v. Elitprop Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 776 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Under our legal regime pertaining to copyrights, the works of an employee is deemed to belong to the employer. This is encapsulated in s. 26(2) of the Copyright Act 1987. The provision debunks the notion that the author of a copyright work is of necessity the owner of the same work.
DNC Asiatic Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Honda Giken [2020] 1 CLJ 799 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A bare trustee to landed property is obliged to apply to the court under O. 80 Rules of Court 2012 for a determination of the issue of his rights to dispose of the property, and should refrain from acting unilaterally to transfer the title thereof to another party.
Tan Yoke Mee & Anor v. Tajudin Ibrahim & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 827 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The purpose of an undertaking to pay damages in an application for injunction is to mitigate the risk of unfairness to the party against whom the injunction is ordered as the issues and the facts were yet to be fully determined. It follows that where a plaintiff was granted an ad-interim injunction and an ad-interim Erinford injunction upon an undertaking to pay damages pending the inter-partes hearing of the injunction application, then, whether or not the inter-partes application is eventually allowed or dismissed on merit, the defendant, against whom the interim injunctions were ordered, is at liberty to move the court for the undertaking to pay damages to be enforced and assessed, and to do so without having to first apply for the interim injunctions to be set aside. Likewise, for the purpose of enforcing such undertaking to pay, and assessment of damages, there is no necessity for the court to make a finding that the ad-interim injunctions were wrongly or incorrectly granted.
Jaks Island Circle Sdn Bhd v. Star Media Group Bhd & Anor And Another Case [2020] 1 CLJ 839 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The phrase 'may at any time' in O. 24 rr. 3(1) and 7(1) Rules of Court 2012 gives clear discretion to the court to inter alia grant post-trial discovery order to assist execution of a judgment or order, assessment of damages or account of profits. Additionally, a protective order can be also granted to protect the confidential information thus disclosed by the pre-trial discovery order.
Kingtime International Ltd & Anor v. Petrofac E & C Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 862 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The power to determine whether the tax assessment made by the Director General of Inland Revenue is right or wrong lies with the Special Commissioners of Income Tax and not the High Court. Having had no such jurisdiction, the High Court is consequently not empowered to make a stay order against the decision of the DGIR. More, to so restrain the DGIR is against public interest as it restrains the Government from its statutory duty to collect and recover tax.
Layar Baiduri Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2020] 1 CLJ 884 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. SKOP DAN PEMAKAIAN SEKSYEN 16 AKTA KETERANGAN 1950 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam^[i] Muhammad Muhaimin Mohd Subki^[ii] Melissa Hsu Tzu-Hsin^[iii] Nurasyraf Fahmi Azahari^[iv] Jeevitha Raja^[v] Syaidatul Syaffiqa Muhamad^[vi] [2020] 1 LNS(A) ix

[2020] 1 LNS(A) ix



MALAYSIA

---

SKOP DAN PEMAKAIAN SEKSYEN 16 AKTA KETERANGAN 1950

by
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam^[i] Muhammad Muhaimin Mohd Subki^[ii]
Melissa Hsu Tzu-Hsin^[iii] Nurasyraf Fahmi Azahari^[iv]
Jeevitha Raja^[v] Syaidatul Syaffiqa Muhamad^[vi]

1. PENGENALAN

Seksyen 16 ialah peruntukan yang berkaitan dengan kerelevanan fakta dalam Akta Keterangan 1950.^[1] Seksyen ini memperuntukkan tentang proses sesuatu perbuatan yang apabila dilakukan menurut kelazimannya, perbuatan itu pasti atau lengkap dilakukan dan dengan itu, menjadikan fakta tersebut sebagai fakta yang relevan. Dalam Akta Keterangan 1950, peruntukan seksyen 16 dan misalan-misalannya hanyalah berkisar tentang urusan surat-menyurat. Jadi, timbul persoalan tentang skop dan pemakaian seksyen 16 Akta Keterangan 1950 di Malaysia.

Sehubungan dengan itu, artikel ini akan membincangkan, antaranya, persoalan sama ada urusan tersebut hanyalah terpakai dalam urusan surat-menyurat ataupun perjalanan urusan yang lain. Selain itu, artikel ini akan membincangkan hubungan seksyen 16 dengan seksyen 114 Akta 56 serta had dan kepentingan pemakaian seksyen ini dalam kes-kes sivil dan jenayah.

. . .

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

[ii] Graduan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

[iii] Graduan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

[iv] Graduan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

[v] Graduan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

[vi] Graduan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert