Back to Top

Issue #16/2021
22 April 2021

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

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS & ANOR v.
NS WATER KONSORTIUM SDN BHD & ORS
[2021] 4 CLJ 395
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: N-01-02(W)-305-08-2017]
07 JANUARY 2021

Bearing in mind ss. 3 and 9 of the Government Contracts Act 1949, an agreement between a State Government and a private entity involving public interest, public policy and public funds of hundreds of millions of ringgit, such as an agreement to privatise the management of water resources, supply and services in the State of Negeri Sembilan in this case, cannot possibly be reduced to a few pieces of paper in the description of a Letter of Intent and or a Letter of Award, more so when such documents provide for parties to execute a formal Concession Agreement in respect of such privatisation. The respondents' argument on the existence of a binding contract based on these documents cannot thus be supported or countenanced. However, even if such of the respondents' argument is to be sustained, the fact that the agreement has been frustrated by a constitutional amendment, as happened here, has caused the contract to come to an end and discharged the parties from their performances. Clearly too, in such an eventuality, the amount of damages claimable if any, is limited to what is provided for by s. 15 of the Civil Law Act 1956.

CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Allegation of - Whether there was concluded contract between parties - Letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') - Whether 'subject to contract' to enter future contract - Whether subjected to final and formal concession agreement between parties - Conduct of parties - Whether intention of parties to execute formal concession agreement - Parties did not sign concession agreement - Whether contract binding and enforceable - Government Contracts Act 1949, ss. 3 & 9

CONTRACT: Formation - Agreement - 'subject to contract' - Whether there was concluded contract between parties - Letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') - Whether 'subject to contract' to enter future contract - Whether subjected to final and formal concession agreement between parties - Conduct of parties - Whether intention of parties to execute formal concession agreement - Parties did not sign concession agreement - Whether contract binding and enforceable - Government Contracts Act 1949, ss. 3 & 9

CONTRACT: Frustration - Agreement - Concession agreement - Whether alleged concession agreement in form of letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') frustrated due to constitutional amendment pursuant to s. 57 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether parties discharged from their performances - Remedies - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 15


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“From that statement of the law it is this court's view that since a revision is postured as a step in aid and not a continuation of a trial or an appeal, the court’s powers of revision should be accessible to an accused at any stage of the proceedings provided that its purpose is to correct any miscarriage of justice at the lower courts. Based on established decisions, the access to the court's power cannot however, be used as a back door access to an appeal when the matter in dispute is appealable and no appeal was filed. Whilst the over-riding consideration is whether there was a miscarriage of justice occasioned on the accused resulting from an error, incorrectness or impropriety of a conviction or sentence, in asking the court to exercise its powers of revision, the accused must come with clean hands in that the matter complained of is truly tainted with illegality, incorrectness or impropriety. The accused cannot abuse the process of law to merely vent a dissatisfaction.” – per Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC in Ooi Hun Seng v. PP [2021] 1 CLJ 413

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1110

LEGENDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD lwn. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & YANG LAIN

1. Pihak-pihak dalam suatu prosiding semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ('Tribunal') hanya terikat dengan fakta-fakta dan isu-isu yang telah diplidkan di hadapan Tribunal. Isu-isu yang tidak diplidkan secara spesifik di hadapan Tribunal adalah tidak wajar dibangkitkan ketika prosiding semakan kehakiman.

2. Apabila pemaju perumahan telah mengambil bahagian di dalam prosiding di hadapan Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ('Tribunal') maka pemaju adalah dihalang daripada mempertikaikan hak pemilik rumah untuk menuntut kos pembaikan kecacatan rumah semata-mata kerana pemilik rumah telah gagal memberikan notis seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam perjanjian jual beli sebelum memulakan tindakan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Prosiding - Pliding - Permohonan oleh pemaju perumahan untuk membatalkan awad Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ('Tribunal') - Isu-isu yang tidak dibawa di hadapan Tribunal dibangkitkan ketika prosiding semakan kehakiman - Sama ada pihak-pihak adalah terikat dengan pliding - Sama ada isu-isu yang tidak dibangkitkan di hadapan Tribunal boleh dipertimbangkan dalam prosiding semakan kehakiman

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Permohonan oleh pemaju perumahan untuk membatalkan awad Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ('Tribunal') - Pemilik rumah menuntut terhadap pemaju kos pembaikan kecacatan rumah - Pemaju mendakwa pemilik gagal mematuhi keperluan untuk memberikan notis sebelum memulakan tindakan - Sama ada keputusan Tribunal adalah sah - Sama ada pemaju adalah dihalang daripada membangkitkan isu berkenaan penyerahan notis setelah mengambil bahagian dalam prosiding Tribunal

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Wan Salina Wan Ismail; T/n Rosni, Francis Tan & Ho
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama - Penasihat Undang-Undang; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang
  • Bagi pihak responden kedua & responden ketiga - HC Yong & ZY Hong; T/n Gary Lee & Partners

[2019] 1 LNS 1113

MUHAMMAD FIKRI ASLAM ISHAK & SATU LAGI lwn. PP DAN SATU LAGI KES

Mahkamah boleh bergantung kepada prinsip satu transaksi dalam menentukan perjalanan sesuatu hukuman secara serentak atau berasingan bagi dua atau lebih kesalahan yang telah dilakukan dalam satu transaksi. Namun demikian, pemakaian prinsip satu transaksi ini adalah tidak mutlak tetapi bergantung kepada fakta dan latar belakang sesuatu kes. Hukuman secara berasingan wajar dijatuhkan apabila mangsa-mangsa adalah orang yang berbeza.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Hukuman - Rayuan terhadap perjalanan hukuman secara berasingan - Prinsip satu transaksi - Hakim bicara menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 6 tahun dan 2 kali sebatan bagi setiap kesalahan di bawah s. 372(1)(f) Kanun Keseksaan- Mangsa adalah berbeza - Sama ada prinsip satu transaksi terpakai dalam menentukan perjalanan hukuman secara serentak atau berasingan - Sama ada pemakaian prinsip satu transaksi adalah mutlak - Sama ada hukuman-hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan untuk berjalan secara berasingan adalah keterlaluan

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Edelynn Wong, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor
  • Bagi pihak responden - Vimala Arunasalam, Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan

[2019] 1 LNS 1122

MD ZAIN MUHAMMAD lwn. KAMARULZAMAN AB HAMID

Pemilikan bahagian tanah defendan boleh disangkal apabila tanah dibeli menggunakan wang syarikat perkongsian antara plaintif dan defendan dan defendan hanya dinamakan sebagai wakil bagi pihak syarikat atas amanah semasa membuat proses pindah milik.

PERKONGSIAN: Harta perkongsian - Harta di bawah amanah - Pertikaian - Defendan menafikan hak plaintif ke atas tanah dan mendakwa tanah dibeli olehnya menggunakan duit sendiri selepas plaintif keluar daripada perkongsian - Plaintif mendakwa telah memasukkan nama defendan sebagai wakil bagi pihak syarikat atas amanah semasa membuat proses pindah milik - Pihak penjual mengesahkan kehadiran kedua-dua plaintif dan defendan sebagai pembeli - Wang jual beli tanah direkodkan di dalam buku belanja syarikat - Sama ada kedua-dua plaintif dan defendan telah membeli tanah bagi pihak syarikat perkongsian - Sama ada tanah dibeli menggunakan wang syarikat atau wang simpanan defendan semata-mata - Sama ada tanah dibeli semasa pihak-pihak masih dalam perkongsian - Sama ada pemilikan bahagian tanah defendan boleh disangkal

PERKONGSIAN: Pembubaran - Pertikaian - Plaintif mempertikaikan pembubaran perkongsian - Defendan mengemukakan surat akuan bersumpah yang kononnya ditandatangani dan diikrarkan oleh plaintif dengan kenyataan hendak keluar daripada syarikat - Plaintif menafikan ada menandatangani surat akaun bersumpah - Sama ada pembubaran perkongsian telah berlaku - Sama ada keesahan surat akuan bersumpah telah menjadi satu persoalan

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Abqary Abdul Aziz; T/n Abqary Aziz & Co
  • Bagi pihak defendan - Noradilah Othman; T/n Fauzana Nurihan & Harwani

[2019] 1 LNS 1623

BALAKRISHNAN GUNASAKARAN v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS

Failure to serve a copy of the inquiry officer's report on a detainee does not amount to a non-compliance as the amendment to s. 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 removed such a requirement.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Objection on non-service of report of inquiry officer on detainee - Whether s. 10 POCA requires detainee to be served with a copy of report of inquiry officer - Interpretation of "registrable categories" under s. 2 POCA - Whether inquiry officer needs to possess skill in interpreting legal provisions - Whether failure to produce report of inquiry officer was fatal - Whether detention was lawful

  • For the applicant - Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • For the respondents - Siti Hajar Mat Radzi; Federal Counsel of the Ministry of Home Affairs

[2019] 1 LNS 1627

SHANTA GANESAN v. SHANTI GOVINDEN & ANOR

Evidence relating to the preconditions which were orally agreed upon by parties prior to the execution of a sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') is admissible although the said preconditions were not included in the SPA, and provided that the said preconditions were not inconsistent with any of the terms of the SPA.

LAND LAW: Sale and purchase of property - Agreement - Conditions precedent - Preconditions were not incorporated in sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - Preconditions were orally agreed - Family arrangements - Whether SPA entered was for an outright sale and purchase of property - Whether existence of preconditions proven - Whether SPA was executed after preconditions were agreed upon

EVIDENCE: Admissibility - Oral agreement - Preconditions to sale of land - Preconditions not included into sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - SPA was signed once preconditions were agreed upon - Preconditions were not inconsistent with any terms of SPA - Whether evidence relating to preconditions were admissible - Evidence Act 1950, s. 92, proviso (b) & (c)

  • For the appellant - Chandrasegar Subramaniam & Annamalai Vairavan; M/s Chandran Partners
  • For the respondent - Shantiran Mogan; M/s Mogan & Co
  • For the respondent - Shantini Koshi; M/s Yong & Rakan-Rakan

CLJ 2021 Volume 4 (Part 3)

In a claim for defamation where the defamatory expression is imputed to a composite statement i.e. statement where some parts are defamatory while others are not, the claimant cannot isolate or pick or choose parts of the publication which, standing alone and by itself, would be defamatory. The determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of such a statement must relate to the entire publication, and to the impression created in the mind of the ordinary reasonable man upon reading or viewing the whole statement. Hence, the plaintiffs herein, in harping on a single sentence in a long press statement given by the first defendant as defamatory of them, cannot possibly succeed in the claim; the major part of the statement, it would be seen, has ameliorated the effect of the subject matter of complaint borne out in the said one sentence.
Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor v. Nurul Izzah Anwar & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 327 [FC]

TORT: Defamation - Damages - Claim for - Press conference contained statements alleged to be defamatory of complainants - Allegations of misappropriation of funds - Whether statements defamatory of complainants - Whether defence of justification proven - Whether effects of statements considered separately - Whether court applied rule of relevancy - Whether composite statement - Whether parts of statements referred only to complainants in separate and distinct matter from some other parts that referred to distinct and separate entity dealing with subject matters that had no nexus or relevance - Whether 'bane and antidote' maxim applied - Whether there was more than one sting in entire statement

 

 

 

MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMED HASHIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ

  • For the appellants - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Sarah Abishegam, Noor Farhah Mustaffa, Wan Arfan Wan Osman, Iskandar Nor Zulkarnain & Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondents - Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, Joshua Kevin, Damien Chan, William Lee, Danny Soong Hou Ming & Chai Tze Jing; M/s Kevin & Co

Where service of a writ is alleged to have been effected by way of sending the same to a defendant by A.R. Registered post pursuant to O. 10 r. 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, the court cannot seal a judgment in default of appearance where the affidavit of service does not exhibit the A.R. Registered card containing an endorsement as to receipt by the defendant himself or someone authorised to accept service of the same on his behalf. It is anathema to the concept of justice and fair play that a defendant who has no knowledge of the action is attached with liability without being given the opportunity to explain why the default judgment should not be entered against him.
Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service - Writ of summons and statement of claim - Service by AR registered post - Failure to exhibit AR cards containing endorsement as to receipt by defendant himself or someone authorised to accept service on his behalf - Whether presumption of service under s. 12 of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 rebutted - Whether proof of posting conclusive proof of service - Whether court could seal judgment in default of appearance - Whether judgment in default irregularly entered and ought to be set aside

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment in default - Setting aside - Application for - Service of writ of summons and statement of claim - Service by AR registered post - Failure to exhibit AR cards containing endorsement as to receipt by defendant himself or someone authorised to accept service on his behalf - Whether presumption of service under s. 12 of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 rebutted - Whether proof of posting conclusive proof of service - Whether court could seal judgment in default of appearance - Whether judgment in default irregularly entered and ought to be set aside

 

 

 

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ

  • For the appellants - Kirubakaran & Jasvinjit Singh; M/s Au & Jasvinjit
  • For the respondent - Mansur Ussaimi Mohd Salleh & Mohd Shahir Mohd Isa; M/s Mansur & Yazrudin

A decision by a panel of the Court of Appeal on the merits of an appeal ought to be taken as final. It follows that in the absence of an exceptional circumstance warranting a re-opening and a re-examination of such decision or appeal, an application for a review by another panel, more so on grounds already canvassed by the earlier panel, ought not to be entertained, as it would negate the principle of finality of court decisions.
Chin Wai Leong & Ors v. PP [2021] 4 CLJ 364 [CA]

JURISDICTION: Courts - Inherent jurisdiction - Application to review decision by appeal panel - Application for second review - Invocation of inherent power - Whether only allowed in very limited and exceptional circumstances - Whether application revolved around issues already canvassed by first panel - Whether there was complaint against constitution of first review panel - Whether second review ought to be disallowed to prevent injustice

 

 

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA

  • For the appellants - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Wee Yeong Kang & Zahria Eleena Ahmad Redza; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondent - Umar Saifuddin Jaafar, Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Faizah Mohd Salleh & Alvin Ong; DPPs

A property which has been absolutely assigned to a bank on account of a loan granted to a borrower essentially belongs to the bank until full payment thereof is made by the borrower, and the bank has an absolute discretion in dealing with the property as it deems necessary. There is further no requirement for the bank to notify the borrower of any proclamation of sale by public auction of the property, and any letter of notification, if sent out, is only part of the courtesy and service provided by the bank to its customers.
CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd v. Khairuddin Abu Hassan [2021] 4 CLJ 375 [CA]

| |

BANKING: Facility - Default - Bank granted facility to borrower - Borrower defaulted in instalment payments - Bank terminated financing and auctioned property - Borrower commenced action against bank premised on contract and tort - Allegation that bank failed to provide notice of proclamation of sale and did not sell property at proper price - Whether bank obliged to notify borrower about proclamation of sale - Whether bank's valuation report could be used for auction - Whether borrower could maintain case since bidders have been given vacant possession

CONTRACT: Agreement - Banking agreement - Breach of - Bank granted facility to borrower - Default in instalment payments - Bank terminated financing and auctioned property - Borrower commenced action against bank premised on breach of contract - Allegation that bank failed to provide notice of proclamation of sale and did not sell property at proper price - Whether bank had duty to notify borrower about proclamation - Whether bank breached contractual obligation to borrower

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Banker-customer - Bank granted facility to borrower - Borrower defaulted in instalment payments - Bank terminated financing and auctioned property - Borrower commenced action against bank premised on tort - Allegation that bank failed to provide notice of proclamation of sale and did not sell property at proper price - Whether bank had duty of care under tort to notify borrower about proclamation

 

LAU BEE LAN JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the appellant - Jeyanthini Kannateran & Pauline Koh; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the respondent - Ashok Athimulan, Muniandy Vestanathan & Fiona Aurelia Culas; M/s Andy & Co

Bearing in mind ss. 3 and 9 of the Government Contracts Act 1949, an agreement between a State Government and a private entity involving public interest, public policy and public funds of hundreds of millions of ringgit, such as an agreement to privatise the management of water resources, supply and services in the State of Negeri Sembilan in this case, cannot possibly be reduced to a few pieces of paper in the description of a Letter of Intent and or a Letter of Award, more so when such documents provide for parties to execute a formal Concession Agreement in respect of such privatisation. The respondents' argument on the existence of a binding contract based on these documents cannot thus be supported or countenanced. However, even if such of the respondents' argument is to be sustained, the fact that the agreement has been frustrated by a constitutional amendment, as happened here, has caused the contract to come to an end and discharged the parties from their performances. Clearly too, in such an eventuality, the amount of damages claimable if any, is limited to what is provided for by s. 15 of the Civil Law Act 1956.
Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus & Anor v. NS Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 397 [CA]

CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Allegation of - Whether there was concluded contract between parties - Letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') - Whether 'subject to contract' to enter future contract - Whether subjected to final and formal concession agreement between parties - Conduct of parties - Whether intention of parties to execute formal concession agreement - Parties did not sign concession agreement - Whether contract binding and enforceable - Government Contracts Act 1949, ss. 3 & 9

CONTRACT: Formation - Agreement - 'subject to contract' - Whether there was concluded contract between parties - Letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') - Whether 'subject to contract' to enter future contract - Whether subjected to final and formal concession agreement between parties - Conduct of parties - Whether intention of parties to execute formal concession agreement - Parties did not sign concession agreement - Whether contract binding and enforceable - Government Contracts Act 1949, ss. 3 & 9

CONTRACT: Frustration - Agreement - Concession agreement - Whether alleged concession agreement in form of letter of intent ('LOI') and letter of award ('LOA') frustrated due to constitutional amendment pursuant to s. 57 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether parties discharged from their performances - Remedies - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 15

 

 

 

HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA

  • For the appellants - GK Ganesan, Marsilawati Mohamad Shah, Muhammad Fairuz Iskandar Zainal Abidin, Karthigesan Shanmugam & KN Geetha; State Legal Advisor's Office, Negeri Sembilan
  • For the respondents - Cyrus Das, Krishna Dallumah, K Terrance & YH Yong; M/s Kassim Tadin Wai & Co

Even though the prerequisites for the issuance of a certificate under s. 33(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ('GPA') has been satisfied, and a valid judgment against officers of the State Government in the third party has been obtained, s. 33(3) of the GPA allows the payment of the amount adjudged payable to be suspended pending an appeal. Whilst an application for a stay or suspension of an execution of a judgment ought not to be entertained on the mere ground that recovery may be doubtful in the event of a successful appeal, the amount involved is nonetheless a relevant consideration. The likelihood of the applicants being put to some inconvenience in recovering ought not to be dismissed.
Cheong Wai Kwan & Anor v. Pentadbir Tanah Petaling & Anor; Pentadbir Hakmilik Tanah Negeri Selangor & Anor (Third Parties) [2021] 4 CLJ 422 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Government proceedings - Satisfaction of orders - Application for certificate under s. 33(1) of Government Proceedings Act 1956 against third parties - Whether prerequisites satisfied - Whether there were legal impediments to issuance of certificate

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of execution - Application for - Application for suspension of execution of judgment - Whether plaintiffs would be prejudiced by granting of suspension of payment of certificate issued under s. 33(1) of Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Whether appeal rendered nugatory if amount adjudged paid - Whether there would be difficulty in recovery - Whether expedient to grant suspension of effect of s. 33 certificate - Whether balance of convenience in favour of applicants

 

 

 

ALICE LOKE YEE CHING JC

  • For the plaintiff - Vijay Kumar Natarajan & Diana Chee Vun Hsai; M/s Natarajan & Chee
  • For the 2nd defendant - Krishna V Dallumah; M/s Krishna Dallumah & Indran
  • For the 1st defendant & 3rd parties - Muhammad Haziq Hashim; State Legal Officer, Selangor

In cases involving medical negligence, the events befalling a claimant has to be viewed in its entirety. The court will scrutinise the interconnected facts to form a series of events before arriving at the conclusion of breach of duty of care to form a finding of medical negligence. The damages suffered must be the direct result of the negligence.
Mariesosela Anthony v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 434 [HC]

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Duty of care - Breach of - Claimant admitted to hospital and moved from intensive care unit to normal ward - Claimant placed on bed without railing and later fell over - Medical officer on duty not informed - Claimant suffered from cardiac arrest and medical attention came late - Whether duty of care established - Whether there was breach of duty of care

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Damages - Claim for - Claimant admitted to hospital and moved from intensive care unit to normal ward - Claimant placed on bed without railing and later fell over and suffered from cardiac arrest - Whether medical negligence established - Whether claimant entitled to damages

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Vicarious liability - Claimant admitted to hospital and moved from intensive care unit to normal ward - Claimant placed on bed without railing and later fell over - Medical officer on duty not informed - Claimant suffered from cardiac arrest and medical attention came late - Vicarious liability of Government of Malaysia as employer of medical personnel involved

 

 

 

AKHTAR TAHIR J

  • For the plaintiff - Dhillon & KB Karthi; M/s P S Ranjan & Co
  • For the defendants - Mohd Izham Mohd Marzuki; AG's Chambers

(i) Where the plaintiff is a victim of a cross-border cyber fraud known as a 'push payment fraud' and is tricked over emails to make a payment for a legitimate transaction into a different bank account under the control of a fraudster, parallel reliefs of a proprietary injunction and a Mareva freezing injunction ought to be granted, especially when one's proprietary interest should be preserved, there was a good and arguable case that the victim had been deceived or had wrongly paid out the monies under a false pretence, and that all the requirements under O. 29 r. 1(2A) of the Rules of Court 2012 had been met.
(ii) When it is impracticable to effect personal service on 'Persons Unknown', service could be effected through an order for substituted service by way of email and by inserting an advertisement in local newspapers (O. 62 r. 5(1) of the Rules of Court 2012).
Zschimmer & Schwarz Gmbh & Co KG Chemische Fabriken v. Persons Unknown & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 446 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Proprietary injunction - Application for - Plaintiff victim of cyber fraud and deceived into making payment for legitimate transaction into different bank account under fraudster's control - Whether plaintiff's proprietary interest should be preserved by proprietary injunction - Whether there was serious issue to be tried - Whether balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction - Whether monies should be injuncted pending determination of full writ action - Whether just and convenient to grant proprietary injunction - Whether requirements of O. 29 r. 1(2A) of Rules of Court 2012 met

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva injunction - Application for - Plaintiff victim of cyber fraud and deceived into making payment for legitimate transaction into a different bank account under fraudster's control - Whether there was good and arguable case that plaintiff wrongly paid out monies under false pretence - Whether defendants had assets within jurisdiction - Whether there was risk of assets being removed before judgment satisfied - Whether requirements of O. 29 r. 1(2A) of Rules of Court 2012 met

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service - Substituted service - Order for substituted service by way of email and advertisement - Grounds for - Whether impracticable to effect personal service on Persons Unknown - Rules of Court 2012, O. 62 r. 5(1)

CYBER LAW: Fraud - Push payment fraud - Plaintiff victim of cyber fraud and deceived into making payment for legitimate transaction into different bank account under fraudster's control - Cases involved fake email addresses and fraudster or fraudsters unknown - Whether court could grant interlocutory orders against Persons Unknown

 

 

ONG CHEE KWAN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Lee Shih & Pang Huey Lynn; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. BEWARE HOUSING DEVELOPERS: THE CALCULATION OF THE LIQUIDATED ASCERTAINED DAMAGES FOR LATE DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION [Read excerpt]
    by WILLIAM TING SIEW CHON* [2021] 1 LNS(A) li

  2. [2021] 1 LNS(A) li
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    BEWARE HOUSING DEVELOPERS:
    THE CALCULATION OF THE LIQUIDATED ASCERTAINED DAMAGES FOR LATE DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION


    by
    WILLIAM TING SIEW CHON*

    INTRODUCTION

    The Federal Court’s decision in the recent case of PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and Other Appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 441 has caused turbulence especially amongst housing developers. The Federal Court established a method of calculating Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”) for late delivery of vacant possession and raised concerns over the current “unhealthy” practices of housing developers.

    COMMENCEMENT OF LAD CALCULATION

    To recapitulate, Section 24 of Schedule G of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 provides:

    (1) Vacant possession of the said Property shall be delivered to the Purchaser in the manner stipulated in clause 26 within twenty-four (24) months from the date of this Agreement.

    (2) If the Developer fails to deliver vacant possession of the said Property in the manner stipulated in clause 26 within the period stipulated in subclause (1), the Developer shall be liable to pay to the Purchaser liquidated damages calculated from day to day at the rate of ten per centum (10%) per annum of the purchase price from the expiry of the period stipulated in subclause (1) until the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Property.

    . . .

    * Partner, Messrs Tang & Partners, Sibu.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. MORATORIUM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAQASID ALSHARIAH [Read excerpt]
    by Noraida Shahliza Md Ghani* Asma Hakimah Ab. Halim** [2021] 1 LNS(A) lii

  4. [2021] 1 LNS(A) lii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    MORATORIUM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAQASID ALSHARIAH

    by
    Noraida Shahliza Md Ghani*
    Asma Hakimah Ab. Halim**

    ABSTRACT

    The moratorium term began to be widely used and understood by the public when Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) announced the issuance of a six-month moratorium for bank borrowers starting 1 April 2020 following the COVID-19 crisis. The issuance of the moratorium was implemented long ago by the banks in Malaysia, only it was not advertised in public and was more on a case-to-case basis. In general, the moratorium is the deferral of repayment of loan/financing instalments due to urgent factors that disallow the debtor to make usual payments. This paper discusses the repayment moratorium from the perspective of Maqasid al-Shariah and recommendations that can be improved for the interest (maslahah) of all parties.

    . . .

    * Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor. Email:imaansoraya@gmail.com.

    ** Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor. hakimah@ukm.edu.my.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. LAWS TO TACKLE THE SPREAD OF FAKE NEWS IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Cassandra Nicole Thomazios[i] Anis Mohd Sohaimi[ii] Tommy Wong[iii] Celinne Teh[iv] [2021] 1 LNS(A) liii

  6. [2021] 1 LNS(A) liii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    LAWS TO TACKLE THE SPREAD OF FAKE NEWS IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Cassandra Nicole Thomazios[i]
    Anis Mohd Sohaimi[ii]
    Tommy Wong[iii]
    Celinne Teh[iv]

    Introduction

    Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms afforded to any and all persons in the world. These rights are defined and protected by law. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    In Malaysia, the freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (“Federal Constitution”). Although the Federal Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right is subject to restrictions including the security of the Federation, public order, morality, and to protect the privileges of Parliament or State Assembly.[1]

    . . .

    [i] Partner, MahWengKwai & Associates.

    [ii]-[iv] Legal Associates, MahWengKwai & Associates.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 831 Finance Act 2020 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 -
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 (COVIDd-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 828 National Land Code (Revised 2020) 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 -
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1634 Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] ACT 502
ACT A1633 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 Not Yet In Force ACT 791
ACT A1632 Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] ACT 807
ACT A1631 Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] ACT 806
ACT A1630 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] ACT 438

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 168/2021 Personal Data Protection (Appeal Tribunal) Regulations 2021 14 April 2021 15 April 2021 ACT 709
PU(A) 167/2021 Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 1975 - Corrigendum 14 April 2021   PU(A) 41/1975
PU(A) 166/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 4) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 12 April 2021 13 April 2021 PU(A) 97/2021
PU(A) 165/2021 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 3) 2020 (Amendment) Order 2021 12 April 2021 12 December 2020 to 11 December 2025 PU(A) 348/2020
PU(A) 164/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021 11 April 2021 11 April 2021 PU(A) 98/2021

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 212/2021 Appointment of Member of Pardons Board 21 April 2021 9 April 2021 until 8 April 2024 ACT 000
PU(B) 211/2021 Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor 21 April 2021 Specified in column (2) of Schedule ACT 593
PU(B) 210/2021 Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 20 April 2021 1 May 2021 to 31 May 2021 ACT 235
PU(B) 209/2021 Notice To Third Parties 19 April 2021 20 April 2021 ACT 613
PU(B) 208/2021 Appointment of Assistant Directors of Industrial Relations 19 April 2021 13 January 2020 ACT 611

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 50 Akta Perubatan 1971 PU(A) 167/2021   Jadual Kedua
ACT 50 Medical Act 1971 PU(A) 167/2021   Second Schedule
PU(B) 472/2020 Pelantikan Di Bawah Subseksyen 134(2) PU(B) 202/2021   Jadual
PU(B) 472/2020 Appointment Under Subsection 134(2) PU(B) 202/2021   Schedule
PU(B) 136/2019 Pelantikan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Dan Timbalan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya PU(B) 201/2021 Tarikh yang dinyatakan dalam ruang (3) Jadual Jadual

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(B) 208/2018 Declaration of Road At Federal Territory of Labuan As Designated Federal Territory Road PU(B) 194/2021 8 April 2021
PU(A) 66/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) (No. 2) 2021 PU(A) 98/2021 5 Mac 2021
PU(A) 66/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 98/2021 5 March 2021
PU(A) 65/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 3) 2021 PU(A) 97/2021 5 Mac 2021
PU(A) 65/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 97/2021 5 March 2021