Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #18/2021 06 May 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL PETALING JAYA) v. KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL, BAR & RESTORAN SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA [2021] 4 CLJ 775 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 4 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL PETALING JAYA) v.
KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL, BAR & RESTORAN SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA [2021] 4 CLJ 775
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-4-01-2018]
24 MARCH 2021

LABOUR LAW: Wages - Minimum wage - Service charge - Whether entrenched part of workman's contract of service - Whether could be unilaterally removed or varied without employees' consent - Whether nature of service charge one of monies held on trust by Hotel for its employees - Whether service charge could comprise part of 'basic wages' under National Wages Council Consultative Act 2011 and Minimum Wages Order(s) 2012 to 2020 - Whether hotelier entitled to utilise employees' service charge to satisfy statutory obligation to pay minimum wage - Whether service charge could be incorporated into clean wage or utilised to top up minimum wage

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Purpose of - National Wages Council Consultative Act 2011 ('NWCCA') and Minimum Wages Order(s) 2012 to 2020 ('MWO') - Whether serves as social legislations implemented to achieve higher equality in income distribution - Whether ss. 26(2) and 30(4) of Industrial Relations Act 1967 could be utilised to alter, modify or vary statutory effect and consequences of NWCCA and MWO - Whether IRA, NWCCA and MWO should be construed harmoniously

---

1. Lee Wee Choong & Anor v. Teh Ching Yan & Anor [2018] 1 LNS 1997 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Teh Ching Yan & Anor v. Lee Wee Choong & Anor [Originating Summons No: BA-24-559-05/2017]

2. Sundar Subramaniam lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2018] 1 LNS 1854 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Sundar & Yang Lain [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45C-07-02/2013]

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1266	LAU WAI YANG lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI 1. Seksyen 9(1) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 tidak memperuntukan tempoh masa spesifik untuk pegawai siasatan menyediakan dan mengemukakan laporan lengkap bertulis yang mengandungi alasan dan dapatan kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah. Oleh yang demikian, peruntukan s. 54(2) Akta Taksiran 1948 dan 1967 tidak boleh disandar untuk menentukan tempoh masa yang perlu diambil oleh pegawai siasatan dalam menjalankan tugas dan tindakan. 2. Perintah tahanan bukan merupakan satu borang statutori atau dokumen untuk menyatakan dengan terperinci tindakan-tindakan yang telah dilakukan oleh Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') sebelum pengeluaran perintah tahanan tetapi merupakan satu formaliti pemakluman sesuatu keputusan atau perintah LPJ kepada pemohon untuk dipatuhi. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Pegawai penyiasat mengambil masa 29 hari untuk menyediakan dan mengemukakan laporan lengkap bertulis kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah - Sama ada laporan siasatan telah disediakan menurut s. 9(1) dan s. 10(2) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 - Sama ada terdapat had masa untuk pegawai siasatan untuk menyediakan laporan siasatan - Sama ada peruntukan s. 54(2) Akta Taksiran 1948 dan 1967 terpakai bagi menentukan tempoh masa untuk pegawai siasatan melengkapkan siasatan PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Pemohon mendakwa Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') gagal menyatakan dengan terperinci tindakan-tindakan yang telah dilakukan sebelum pengeluaran perintah tahanan - Sama ada perintah tahanan merupakan satu dokumen untuk memaklumkan kepada pemohon keputusan dan perintah LPJ yang perlu dipatuhi - Sama ada terdapat keperluan di bawah s. 19A(1) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ('Akta') bagi LPJ untuk menyatakan secara khusus dalam perintah tahanan tindakan-tindakan yang telah dilakukannya Bagi pihak pemohon - Zafran Zafri & Ikram Ibrahim; T/n Zafri & Partners Bagi pihak responden - Norazlin Mohamad Yusof; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang, Kementerian Dalam Negeri
[2019] 1 LNS 1426	AHMAD ALBAB ZAINAL ABIDIN v. MOHAMAD REZWAN ABDUL WAHAB Seseorang pihak tidak wajar bertanggungan cuai sepenuhnya terhadap kemalangan jalan raya semata-mata kerana suatu saman bagi kesalahan lalulintas telah dikeluarkan terhadapnya. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Percanggahan versi kemalangan - Defendan melanggar plaintif dari arah belakang ketika bergerak dari kiri dan berpusing ke kanan - Plaintif bergerak ke kanan - Saman dikeluarkan terhadap plaintif tetapi plaintif mempertikaikan saman yang dikeluarkan terhadapnya - Sama ada perlanggaran berlaku ketika defendan membuat pusingan U - Sama ada plaintif adalah bertanggungan sepenuhnya keatas kemalangan semata-mata kerana plaintif telah dikeluarkan saman - Sama ada defendan adalah bertanggungan 80% dalam kemalangan Bagi pihak perayu - Encik Harjit Singh; T/n Hoe & Ahmad Zaki Peguambela & Peguamcara Bagi pihak responden - Puan Latifah Omar; T/n Sandu & Associates Peguambela & Peguamcara
[2019] 1 LNS 1427	ZAMRI MOHAMAD v. KETUA PENOLONG PEGAWAI DAERAH KOTA SETAR & ORS Pihak yang terkilan dengan sebarang keputusan yang dibuat di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara ('KTN') seharusnya membuat rayuan ke Mahkamah dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan di bawah s. 418(1) KTN. Mahkamah tidak mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk melanjutkan tempoh masa rayuan yang dinyatakan di bawah s. 418(1) KTN tersebut. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Masa - Perlanjutan masa - Bidangkuasa Mahkamah - Permohonan lanjutan masa bagi rayuan di bawah s. 418(1) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 ('KTN') - Permohonan berasaskan A. 3 k. 5(1) dan A. 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') - Sama ada A. 3 k. 5(1) dan A. 92 k. 4 KKM terpakai bagi lanjutan masa rayuan di bawah s. 418(1) KTN - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk melanjutkan tempoh masa rayuan yang dinyatakan di bawah s. 418(1) KTN - Sama ada merit rayuan wajar dipertimbangkan Bagi pihak perayu plaintif - Puan Shahirah (Pelatih Dalam Kamar); T/n Rizal & Co Peguambela dan Peguamcara Bagi pihak defendan 1 hingga defendan 3 - Puan Muna Binti Mohamed Jaafar, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah Darul Aman Bagi pihak defendan 4 hingga defendan 6 - Puan Noorlaili Binti Aziz; T/n Laili & Co Peguambela & Peguamcara
[2019] 1 LNS 1820	LEE KOK KEE v. OOI CHEE WEE 1. Service of a notice of appeal by facsimile is only effective when the appellant subsequently serves a duplicate copy of the notice of appeal on the respondents personally within three days. Service of notice of appeal on the respondent via email is effective provided that there is an agreement between the parties that such service is an accepted mode of service. 2. A record of appeal filed is not defective merely because it does not contain the order or draft order of the decision appealed against. A sealed order can be filed in the supplementary record of appeal without the leave of the High Court. No prejudice is caused to the respondent when the respondent knew exactly the orders that were being appealed against and when those orders are the same as per the sealed order contained in the supplementary record of appeal. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Service of notice of appeal - Sealed or unsealed notice of appeal - Appeal other than a decision made after trial - Service via facsimile and e-mail - Whether Form 111A requires a notice of appeal to be sealed and signed by registrar - Whether appellant had served duplicate copy of notice of appeal by any other modes as prescribed under O. 62 r. 6(1) of Rules of Court 2012 subsequent to service by facsimile - Whether service of notice of appeal via email was valid in absence of agreement by parties CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Extension of time - Service of notice of appeal - Discretion of court - Notice of appeal was served seven days beyond prescribed time - Allegation that delay was caused by sealing of notice of appeal - Whether service of duplicate copy of notice of appeal was effective - Whether there was a need to serve a sealed or endorsed notice of appeal - Whether delay caused by e-filing system was a reasonable explanation CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal - Record of appeal did not contain order appealed against - Whether record of appeal was defective - Whether a sealed order could be filed in supplementary record of appeal - Whether filing of supplementary record of appeal requires leave of court - Whether inherent powers of Court ought to be invoked to do justice by accepting supplementary record of appeal - Whether filing of sealed order in supplementary record of appeal caused any prejudice to respondent For the appellant - Ng Yih Min & M/s Dee, Netto, Fatimah & Ng Kuala lumpur For the Respondent - Lim Kean Leong & M/s Lim, Ho, Cheong & Lok Bukit mertajam
[2019] 1 LNS 1821	MD JAMEL @ JAMALUDDIN SULAIMAN & ANOR v. EFFENDI SYAH NOORDIN Where there is an agreement between solicitor and client on the fees of the solicitor, no application can be made by the client for a bill of costs to be delivered and taxed unless the agreement for fees is first set aside. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Issues to be tried - Action concerning taxation of legal fees - Sham defence - Defendant claimed coercion and undue influence by plaintiff to sign letter of undertaking - Letter of undertaking was signed in presence of witnesses and upon negotiations - New agreements for legal fees entered following changes in description of legal services - Whether defence advanced by defendant was genuine issue to be tried - Whether defendant had used and benefited from legal services rendered by plaintiff without payment of fees - Whether essentials to establish a case of coercion and undue influence had been averred - Whether allegation of coercion and undue influence was a sham defence LEGAL PROFESSION: Remuneration - Bill of costs - Taxation of costs - Fees based on agreement - Absence of bill of costs prepared by solicitors - Agreement on costs undisputed - Application premised on O. 59 r. 12(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether application was misconceived - Whether agreement for costs must be set aside before a bill of costs could be delivered and taxed For the Appellant - V Kumaresan, BK Gunasegaran & M/s Huang Khairun Kumar & Associates Subang jaya For the respondent - Effendi Syah Noordin; M/s Effendi & Co. Prai

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 4 (Part 6)

Personal liability, in an appropriate case, may be imposed on directors and third parties in an oppression action under s. 181 of the Companies Act 1965 (s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016); more so, where the directors and third parties have acted in a manner detrimental to the minority shareholders. The legal test to be applied by the court is what is "fair and just" in all the circumstances of the case.
Auspicious Journey Sdn Bhd v. Ebony Ritz Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 721 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Under the National Wages Council Consultative Act 2011 and its subsidiary legislation, Minimum Wages Order(s) from 2012-2020, hoteliers are not entitled to utilise part or all of the employees' service charge to satisfy their statutory obligations to pay the minimum wage. Neither could the service charge be incorporated into a clean wage or utilised to top up the minimum wage. Service charge, being monies collected from third parties, does not belong to the hotel. When paid by a customer as part of the bill, ownership of those monies does not vest in, or transfer to the hotel. The hotel is holding the monies in trust for eligible employees to be distributed on a specific date as provided for in their contracts. Since the monies do not belong to the hotel, the hotel cannot utilise the service charge to meet the statutory obligation for minimum wage. To allow otherwise would be amounting to ask the employees to "pay themselves from their own monies".
Crystal Crown Hotel & Resort Sdn Bhd (Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya) v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2021] 4 CLJ 775 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A director who has perpetrated abuse of a company is not cocoon-safe. If it is discovered that fraud has been occasioned, specifically by a director of a company, the director cannot seek refuge from liability by hiding under the veil of incorporation; nor can he utilise the company sitting under his control to protect another company controlled by him from liability for the fraud orchestrated by him. The veil of incorporation can be lifted to unravel the fraudulent acts of the puppeteer in order to find, identify and make him, and the vessel utilised by him, liable.
Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 821 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) The individual or cumulative acts of discharging pollutants causing water disruption and supply to millions of consumers is a serious offence of sabotage under s. 124K of the Penal Code which may be considered as a terrorist attack as such act(s) was taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons or affected an "essential service" as defined under s. 130A of the Penal Code resulting in an act prejudicial to public order pursuant to art. 149 para. (f) of the Federal Constitution and para. (3) of the Preamble to the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA').
(2) SOSMA does not define who a sick person is as the legislature deemed it fit and necessary to leave it to the discretion of the courts to determine the degree of sickness of the accused that entitles him to be released on bail. As a general rule, SOSMA's offence is unbailable, unless the case falls within the exception, and the burden is on the applicant to satisfy that it was so. The applicant's omission to depose his health condition in his affidavit, and taking into account the medical reports suggesting that no close medical observation was needed, the accused failed to satisfy the court that he fell under the exception of a 'sick person' that entitled him to be released on bail.
Lim Kian Aik v. PP [2021] 4 CLJ 861 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. CATAJAYA SDN BHD v. SHOPPOINT SDN BHD: INTERPRETATION OF TERMINATION CLAUSE
   A CASE NOTE* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Charlie Wong Jing Xiong [2021] 1 LNS(A) lviii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lviii



MALAYSIA

---

CATAJAYA SDN BHD v. SHOPPOINT SDN BHD: INTERPRETATION OF TERMINATION CLAUSE
A CASE NOTE*

by
Charlie Wong Jing Xiong

Introduction

It is important to deal with the termination of any contract in a delicate manner as there may be far-reaching consequences to the relationship and contractual obligations of the contracting parties. More so if the termination is not mutually agreed to by the contracting parties or is effected unilaterally as it would essentially end the commercial relationship and free parties from their respective future contractual obligations.

Recently, the Federal Court in Catajaya Sdn Bhd v. Shoppoint Sdn Bhd^[1] gave a significant decision on the construction of termination clauses.

. . .

* Published with kind permission of M/s Shearn Delamore & Co.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. DEBATE ON 'ELECTRONIC PERSONHOOD': A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Shahino Mah Abdullah [2021] 1 LNS(A) lix

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lix



MALAYSIA

---

DEBATE ON 'ELECTRONIC PERSONHOOD': A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE*

by
Shahino Mah Abdullah

The increasing use of machines, including robots, equipped with AI has become the main factor, along with Big Data analytics and the Internet-of-Things (IoT), driving a digital disruption leading to the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Autonomous vehicles, for example, have been extensively developed by most tech giants aimed at lowering labour costs, reducing risk, increasing profits, and thus reshaping business strategies.

This has great potential for transportation and logistics management across the world. The adoption of intelligent robots in many industries has had a significant impact on the labour market. It raises a question, however, about the status of AI in society, a topic that is widely discussed in the West, especially in the European Union and United States.

. . .

* Published with kind permission of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. (www.iais.org.my).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. SEARCHING FOR AN ELUSIVE TRUTH
   BRIGINSHAW IN THE WORKPLACE^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by John Wilson* Kieran Pender** [2021] 1 LNS(A) lvii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lvii



AUSTRALIA

---

SEARCHING FOR AN ELUSIVE TRUTH
BRIGINSHAW IN THE WORKPLACE⁺

by
John Wilson*
Kieran Pender**

The Briginshaw decision has become one of Australia's most cited cases. For employment lawyers especially, Briginshaw adds a gloss to the standard of proof required in civil cases involving serious wrongdoing or the potential for particularly harsh consequences. In this article, John Wilson and Kieran Pender revisit the Briginshaw principle and its application in the workplace context.

[Pilate:] ‘Is it true you claim to be a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘They are your words, not mine. I came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.’

‘What is the truth?’ said Pilate, who then turned and left the praetorium. — Justice Gageler AC, paraphrasing the Gospel of John^[1]

I have not forgotten that when Pilate said this he was about to leave the judgment hall. — Justice Dixon, 1965^[2]

. . .

+ Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos Issue 259. Autumn 2021.

* John Wilson is the Managing Legal Director at Bradley Allen Love Lawyers.

**Kieran Pender is a visiting fellow at the ANU College of Law and a consultant at Bradley Allen Love Lawyers.

The views expressed here are their own. They thank Madeleine Castles for her research assistance.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert