|
Issue #22/2021
03 June 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
|
PENTADBIR TANAH DAN DAERAH PETALING & ORS v.
BANDAR UTAMA CITY CORPORATION SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 5 CLJ 480
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA; ZALEHA YUSOF JCA; YAACOB MD SAM JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: B-01(A)-151-04-2016 & B-01(A)-152-04-2016]
24 FEBRUARY 2021
A land owner who seeks to review a decision of the State Authority or a public body acquiring its land on the ground of legitimate expectation that the land would not be acquired must show that it stands in direct relationship to the decision maker, that the application does not extend to claiming to get the 'substance' of the expectation itself and that it pertains only to the right to be given a fair hearing; and it must also show that there was a direct and clear undertaking given that the subject land would not be so acquired. The appellants land owners here, in challenging the re-acquisition of their land (on which they built a temporary access road to an adjoining land) even after the construction of a permanent access thereto, failed to prove the existence of these prerequisites, or of any assurance that the temporary access was never meant to be permanent and acquisition thereof was never intended, or that the acquiring authorities, in amending their planning policies to facilitate the acquisition, had transgressed any law. The respondents, having acted within their statutory powers, their decision did not suffer from illegality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and irrationality and the application for judicial review must therefore fail.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Acquisition of land - Whether affected rights and legitimate expectation of land owner - Unilateral amendment of development plan to provide temporary access - Whether temporary access meant to be permanent road - Whether decision makers acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether there was undertaking by decision-maker that amended layout plan would not be affected by compulsory acquisition exercise - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation could operate as bar to exercise of statutory powers to acquire land - Whether acquisition for public usage and benefits public as a whole - Whether acquisition in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compulsory acquisition - Whether affected rights and legitimate expectation of land owner - Unilateral amendment of development plan to provide temporary access - Whether temporary access meant to be permanent road - Whether decision makers acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether there was undertaking by decision-maker that amended layout plan would not be affected by compulsory acquisition exercise - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation could operate as bar to exercise of statutory powers to acquire land - Whether acquisition for public usage and benefits public as a whole - Whether acquisition in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960
KONSORTIUM JARINGAN SELANGOR SDN BHD v.
PROJEK LINTASAN SUNGAI BESI-ULU KLANG SDN BHD [2021] 5 CLJ 527
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
[SUIT NO: BA-22NCVC-651-12-2018]
29 MAY 2020
The plaintiff, having been granted a "use permit" by the Director of Forestry under the National Forestry Act 1984 to build a Telecommunications Transmitter Tower in the Forest Reserve, upon the revocation of such permit, cannot challenge the decision by way of a collateral attack against the Director's exercise of statutory powers in an ordinary civil suit. The challenge has to be made by way of a judicial review proceeding and attacking it collaterally constitutes an abuse of process. The Tower has also statutorily reverted to the State Authority upon such revocation, and the plaintiff has no legal right or locus standi to sue the defendant for damages for dismantling the Tower post such revocation or reversion. The plaintiff's action is thus liable to be struck out.
LAND LAW: License - Forest reserved land - Use permit - Use permit granted to plaintiff under National Forestry Act 1984 to erect telecommunications tower - Revocation of use permit - Demolition of tower by defendant - Whether unlawful and amounted to breach of s. 235 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 - Locus standi - Whether plaintiff had cause of action or right to claim compensation for demolition of tower - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ss. 126 , 271 - Federal Constitution, art. 13
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary disposal - Application for - Whether suit found to be appropriate and suitable for O. 14A disposal by determination of question of law - Whether question of law suitable for summary disposal - Whether question of law would dispose whole or substantial part of suit - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A
“The main issue for determination in the judicial review is the legality, validity and appropriateness of the appointment of GSR as Senior DPP by the AG. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply in this case as the applications involved different considerations and different reliefs. In the criminal motion, the court did not deal with the justiciability of the AG's decision to appoint GSR as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor. The issue of justiciability of GSR's appointment will be considered by the court in the substantive hearing of the judicial review.”
“The nature and jurisdiction of the judicial review applications and the disqualification motions before the criminal court are clearly separate and distinct. The former is a public law remedy to challenge the legality of AG's appointment of GSR. The latter is a private law remedy to seek GSR to be disqualified on grounds of conflict, bias and unfitness. The issue of multiplicity and duplicity does not arise as the remedies sought are different.” – per Hasnah Mohammed Hashim JCA in Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak v. Peguam Negara & Ors And Another Appeal [2020] 2 CLJ 73
Legal Network Series
|
PP lwn. RAHAYU HASSAN DAN RAYUAN YANG LAIN Keterangan mangsa kanak-kanak yang masih mentah masih boleh diterima masuk sebagai keterangan, walaupun kehendak syarat-syarat di bawah s. 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak berjaya dipenuhi, sekiranya keterangan mangsa tersebut adalah disokong oleh keterangan-keterangan yang lain dan setelah Mahkamah mendapati keterangan mangsa adalah kukuh, teguh dan konsisten serta mangsa adalah seorang saksi yang bercakap benar dan kredibel. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 - Seksyen 31(1) - Pertuduhan penganiayaan dan pengabaian dengan menyebabkan kanak-kanak mengalami kecederaan fizikal dan emosi - Tertuduh adalah ibu tiri dan bapa kandung mangsa - Penderaan oleh ibu tiri - Bapa kandung mengetahui kecederaan yang dialami oleh mangsa tetapi tidak mengendahkan - Ibu kandung mangsa, guru dan pengasuh telah melihat sendiri keadaan mangsa - Keterangan mangsa disokong oleh saksi pegawai perubatan dan doktor pakar - Sama ada kesan kecederaan pada mangsa adalah akibat perbuatan tertuduh - Sama ada wujud keterangan sokongan yang mengukuhkan keterangan mangsa - Sama ada saksi pegawai perubatan telah mengesahkan mangsa telah didera secara fizikal dan emosi UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 325 - Pertuduhan dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan yang parah - Penderaan mangsa kanak-kanak - Tertuduh adalah ibu tiri - Mangsa mengalami kecederaan anggota badan akibat dicubit, digigit dan dipijak - Sama ada keterangan mangsa telah dipijak sehingga menyebabkan kecederaan pada anggota badan disokong oleh keterangan saksi pakar PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan pengabaian, penganiayaan atau mengakibatkan kecederaan parah kepada mangsa - Mangsa adalah kanak-kanak - Versi pembelaan tertuduh disokong oleh saksi berkepentingan - Sama ada kecederaan yang dialami mangsa adalah satu kemalangan semata-mata - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah satu penafian semata-mata KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kanak-kanak - Saksi kanak-kanak yang masih mentah - Mangsa memberikan keterangan melalui rakaman video dan juga melalui keterangan lisan di Mahkamah - Sama ada keterangan lisan mangsa di dalam Mahkamah adalah kukuh, teguh dan konsisten dengan keterangannya melalui video - Sama ada mangsa mengetahui kewajipannya untuk bercakap benar - Sama ada keterangan saksi kanak-kanak boleh diterima masuk sebagai keterangan walaupun syarat-syarat di bawah s. 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak berjaya dipenuhi - Sama ada wujud keterangan sokongan yang lain yang menyokong keterangan mangsa - Sama ada mangsa adalah seorang saksi yang bercakap benar dan kredibel PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 4 tahun bagi kesalahan penderaan dan penganiayaan kanak-kanak - Penginsafan - Kesalahan pertama - Tertuduh merupakan ibu tiri mangsa - Tertuduh mempunyai anak kecil yang lain - Mangsa telah diserahkan kembali kepada ibu kandungnya - Pendekatan imbangan - Sama ada kepentingan seseorang tertuduh boleh diketepikan - Sama ada hukuman yang berpanjangan akan memberi kesan negatif kepada perkembangan mental dan emosi anak tertuduh yang masih kecil - Sama ada pengorbanan tertuduh dalam menjaga mangsa wajar diambil kira dalam menentukan hukuman - Sama ada tertuduh berpeluang untuk melakukan kesalahan yang sama ke atas mangsa
|
|
|
KENG YING GLASS SDN BHD lwn. PRISMA HEBAT SDN BHD & SATU LAGI Pemilik kenderaan adalah bertangunggan cuai 100% dalam kemalangan jalan raya apabila pemilik kenderaan tersebut gagal untuk mengambil langkah-langkah yang sewajarnya untuk memastikan kenderaannya berfungsi dengan baik sebelum kemalangan. Kehadiran kenderaan yang daif di atas jalan raya akan mengundang bahaya kepada pengguna jalan raya yang lain dan pemilik kenderaan tidak boleh bersandar kepada pembelaan 'inevitable accident' dan 'agony of the moment' apabila kemalangan adalah berpunca daripada kegagalan kenderaan berfungsi dengan baik. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Perlanggaran antara motolori plaintif dan motolori defendan - Kemalangan berlaku ketika motolori defendan memintas motolori plaintif tanpa sebarang amaran - Brek motolori defendan rosak - Kegagalan untuk mengambil langkah-langkah dalam memastikan fungsi brek berada dalam keadaan baik sebelum kemalangan - Sama ada motolori defendan wajar berada di atas jalan raya - Sama ada kehadiran kenderaan yang daif di atas jalan raya mengundang bahaya kepada pengguna jalan raya yang lain - Sama ada defendan adalah bertanggungan cuai 100% dalam kemalangan - Sama ada pembelaan 'inevitable accident' dan 'agony of the moment' wajar diterima GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Kemalangan jalan raya - Kos muatan yang dibawa dalam kenderaan - Tuntutan untuk produk-produk cermin yang hancur - Pegawai penyiasat mengesahkan serpihan gelas yang bertaburan di atas jalan raya tetapi gagal mengemukakan gambar akibat kehilangan dalam data komputer - Pegawai penyiasat gagal melukis taburan kaca dalam rajah kasar - Sama ada plaintif boleh dipersalahkan semata-mata atas kegagalan pegawai penyiasat untuk menjalankan tugasnya dengan sempurna dan efisen - Sama ada keterangan pegawai penyiasat wajar ditolak - Sama ada pesanan pembelian dan invois wajar diterima sebagai ekshibit untuk membuktikan ganti rugi kerosakan produk muatan cermin
|
|
|
ABDUL MAJID AHMAD lwn. PP 1. Keterangan mangsa kesalahan seksual yang merupakan kanak-kanak memerlukan keterangan sokongan. Keterangan oleh saksi kanak-kanak lain yang bukan merupakan pengadu atau mangsa merupakan satu keterangan sokongan. 2. Mangsa kanak-kanak yang memahami sumpah dan mempunyai kecerdikan yang mencukupi wajar dibenarkan untuk memberikan keterangan atas sumpah. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan - Kesalahan melakukan kekerasan jenayah dengan niat hendak mencabul kehormatan - Hakim bicara menolak pembelaan penafian tertuduh dan memutuskan ia bersifat pemkiran terkemudian - Tertuduh dalam pembelaan hanya mengemukakan keterangan yang bertentangan dengan kes pihak pendakwaan tanpa sokongan saksi-saksi lain - Sama ada hakim bicara wajar menolak pembelaan dan keterangan tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah meragukan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman penjara 1 tahun bagi kesalahan melakukan kekerasan jenayah dengan niat hendak mencabul kehormatan - Kesalahan seksual dilakukan oleh guru terhadap anak murid di dalam kelas - Tertuduh nekad melakukan kesalahan walaupun dengan kehadiran pelajar-pelajar lain - Sama ada kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh adalah serius - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah setimpal dan boleh memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh dan orang awam KETERANGAN: Perlakuan - Kebolehterimaan - Kerelevanan - Kesalahan melakukan kekerasan jenayah dengan niat hendak mencabul kehormatan - Tertuduh meminta untuk berjumpa mangsa untuk memohon maaf - Sama ada kesediaan tertuduh untuk meminta maaf adalah keterangan yang relevan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 8 KETERANGAN: Sokongan - Kesalahan seksual - Mangsa seorang kanak-kanak - Sama ada keterangan mangsa kanak-kanak dalam kes-kes kesalahan seksual memerlukan sokongan - Sama ada keterangan pengadu atau mangsa lain merupakan satu keterangan sokongan KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kredibiliti - Keterangan mangsa seksual - Mangsa kanak-kanak memberikan keterangan atas sumpah - Perbuatan tertuduh tidak dinyatakan di dalam laporan polis - Sama ada mangsa wajar dibenarkan untuk memberikan keterangan atas sumpah apabila mangsa memahami sumpah dan mempunyai kecerdikan yang mencukupi - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menolak keterangan mangsa berkaitan dengan perbuatan tertuduh yang tidak dinyatakan di dalam laporan polis - Sama ada laporan polis yang dibuat oleh mangsa 3 hari selepas kejadian terjumlah kepada satu kelewatan
|
|
|
TAY SENG YONG v. HENG SHU HUI & ANOR A purchaser who has paid the full purchase price of a property has the equivalent privilege of a legal owner although he is not the registered proprietor of the property. Such purchaser is an aggrieved party and is entitled to remove any caveat that has been lodged on the said property. LAND LAW: Caveat - Removal - Application filed by purchaser - Purchase price fully paid by purchaser but property yet to be registered in his name - Caveat entered by a party who alleged to have entered into a sale and purchase agreement with vendor in respect of same property but failed to show proof of payment of purchase price - Purchaser sought Court order declaring vendor as bare trustee - Whether issue of competing interests arose - Whether grounds in statutory declaration for caveat disclosed any caveatable interest - Whether purchaser who has proved payment of full purchase price has privilege equivalent to a legal owner - Whether purchaser was an aggrieved party - Whether caveat should be removed
|
|
|
NADARAJAN T KUPPUSAMY & ANOR v. FOO PANG LUI & ORS 1. Where there is no title to land issued at the time of execution of a sale and purchase agreement and where the purchaser has paid the full purchase price, this would render the vendor a bare trustee for the purchaser and his successors in title in relation to the said land. A vendor's rights and interests over the land is extinguished upon payment of the full purchase price by the purchaser. 2. The legality of a sale and purchase agreement of land will not be affected merely on the basis that there was breach of an express condition on the usage of the said land and where there was no consent obtained to use the land for purposes other than what was stated in the said express condition. SUCCESSION: Probate - Validity of will - Discrepancies of particulars in will and probate - Surname of deceased in will and probate different from what was stated in National Registration Department - Identity card number of deceased was always same - Whether discrepancy in name could affect validity of probate EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Admissibility - Agreement marked as ID during trial - Original agreement produced in court - Makers of agreement had all passed on - Whether agreement should be admitted as evidence - Whether contents of agreement ought to be admitted as truth thereof - Whether exception in s. 73A of Evidence Act 1950 was applicable TRUSTS: Creation of trusts - Bare trust - Sale of land - Title to land had not been issued at time when sale and purchase agreement was entered - Full purchase price duly paid to vendor - Whether rights and interests of vendor over land had been extinguished - Whether land was held by vendor as bare trustee for purchaser and his successors in title CONTRACT: Sale of land - Agreement - Validity - Breach of express condition of land - Consent not obtained to use land for purposes other than what was stated in express condition of land - Whether legality of sale and purchase agreement affected LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Claim for recovery of land - Land held under trust - Whether there was limitation for causes of action in respect of land held under trust - Limitation Act 1953, s. 22
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 5 (Part 4)
A corporate representative of a holding company of a wholly owned subsidiary may requisition for an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary. Resolutions passed at such extraordinary general meeting would be valid by reason of ss. 152A and 147(6) of the Companies Act 1965 .
Zung Zang Trading Sdn Bhd v. Kwan Hung Cheong & Anor [2021] 5 CLJ 433 [FC]
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Removal - Resolution passed during extraordinary general meeting ('EGM') for removal of directors - Whether EGM properly requisitioned and convened - Whether resolution passed during EGM valid in law
COMPANY LAW: Meetings - Extraordinary general meeting (EGM) - Validity - Corporate representative requisitioned Board of Directors of company to hold EGM - Whether corporate representative authorised to make requisition - Whether EGM properly and validly requisitioned - Whether EGM and resolutions passed valid in law - Companies Act 1965, s. 147(3)
COMPANY LAW: Ownership - Evidence of - Company's register - Federal Court ordering shareholdings of members of company to be restored to date prior to fraudulent transfer of shares - Whether list of members in company's register conclusive evidence of ownership given the full effect of the Federal Court order
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
- For the appellant - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs
- For the respondents - Chung Jiun Dau; M/s Chung & Assocs
It is not within the purview of the High Court in a judicial review to reassess and reevaluate the evidence. The High Court would be committing a fundamental error of law if it overturns the findings of fact of the Industrial Court made upon the credibility of witnesses and an analysis of evidence adduced before it; more so, when the findings were wholly reasonable and not tainted by manifest errors of law or fact.
Lini Feinita Muhammad Feisol v. Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 459 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Quashing award handed down by Industrial Court - Appeal against - Dismissal of employee - Whether with just cause and excuse - Domestic inquiry panel found employee not guilty of certain charges - Whether Industrial Court correct in considering findings made by domestic inquiry panel - Whether there was flaw or manifest error in approach taken by Industrial Court - Whether Industrial Court committed error of law in award warranting interference on judicial review - Whether High Court fell into error by exceeding jurisdiction in judicial review proceeding by overturning findings of Industrial Court - Whether award of Industrial Court ought to be reinstated
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Whether with just cause and excuse - Domestic inquiry panel found employee not guilty of certain charges - Company unilaterally dismissed employee contrary to verdict of domestic inquiry panel - Whether allegation of employee neglecting or failing to perform duties without basis - Whether severe penalty of dismissal without justification - Doctrine of proportionality - Whether dismissal of employee unduly harsh, unreasonable and wholly disproportionate to offence committed
LAU BEE LAN JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - Alex De Silva & Tan Yang Qian; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva
- For the respondent - TM Varughese; M/s TM Varughese & Co
A land owner who seeks to review a decision of the State Authority or a public body acquiring its land on the ground of legitimate expectation that the land would not be acquired must show that it stands in direct relationship to the decision maker, that the application does not extend to claiming to get the 'substance' of the expectation itself and that it pertains only to the right to be given a fair hearing; and it must also show that there was a direct and clear undertaking given that the subject land would not be so acquired. The appellants land owners here, in challenging the re-acquisition of their land (on which they built a temporary access road to an adjoining land) even after the construction of a permanent access thereto, failed to prove the existence of these prerequisites, or of any assurance that the temporary access was never meant to be permanent and acquisition thereof was never intended, or that the acquiring authorities, in amending their planning policies to facilitate the acquisition, had transgressed any law. The respondents, having acted within their statutory powers, their decision did not suffer from illegality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and irrationality and the application for judicial review must therefore fail.
Pentadbir Tanah Dan Daerah Petaling & Ors v. Bandar Utama City Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2021] 5 CLJ 480 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Acquisition of land - Whether affected rights and legitimate expectation of land owner - Unilateral amendment of development plan to provide temporary access - Whether temporary access meant to be permanent road - Whether decision makers acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether there was undertaking by decision-maker that amended layout plan would not be affected by compulsory acquisition exercise - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation could operate as bar to exercise of statutory powers to acquire land - Whether acquisition for public usage and benefits public as a whole - Whether acquisition in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compulsory acquisition - Whether affected rights and legitimate expectation of land owner - Unilateral amendment of development plan to provide temporary access - Whether temporary access meant to be permanent road - Whether decision makers acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether there was undertaking by decision-maker that amended layout plan would not be affected by compulsory acquisition exercise - Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation could operate as bar to exercise of statutory powers to acquire land - Whether acquisition for public usage and benefits public as a whole - Whether acquisition in accordance with Land Acquisition Act 1960
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
- For the appellants - Mohd Syahrizal Syah Zakaria; Assistant State Legal Advisor, Selangor
- For the respondents - Gopal Sri Ram, Lim Choo Khim, Emily Wong & Chin Yan Leng; M/s Chooi, Saw & Lim
- For the appellant - Kamaruzaman Arif; M/s Kamaruzaman Arif, Amran & Chong
- For the respondents - Gopal Sri Ram, Lim Choo Khim, Emily Wong & Chin Yan Leng; M/s Chooi, Saw & Lim
In an application for summary judgment, the deposition on the affidavit that there is 'no defence with merits' is equivalent to saying there is 'no defence'; the addition of the words 'with merits' is mere surplusage to highlight the point being made that there was no defence.
Kerajaan Malaysia v. Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 5 CLJ 510 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Income tax - Claimant stated 'no defence with merits' in affidavit instead of 'no defence to claim' - Whether acceptable - Whether 'no defence with merits' equivalent to 'no defence to claim' - Whether application ought to be allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14 r. 2(1) , Form 13 & O. 73 r. 5(2)
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Notices of assessment and additional assessment - Whether accurate - Whether proper service
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the plaintiff - Norhidayah Anas; FC
- For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd defendants - CT Tenh & SK Tenh; M/s CK Lim, Tenh & Chong
The plaintiff, having been granted a "use permit" by the Director of Forestry under the National Forestry Act 1984 to build a Telecommunications Transmitter Tower in the Forest Reserve, upon the revocation of such permit, cannot challenge the decision by way of a collateral attack against the Director's exercise of statutory powers in an ordinary civil suit. The challenge has to be made by way of a judicial review proceeding and attacking it collaterally constitutes an abuse of process. The Tower has also statutorily reverted to the State Authority upon such revocation, and the plaintiff has no legal right or locus standi to sue the defendant for damages for dismantling the Tower post such revocation or reversion. The plaintiff's action is thus liable to be struck out.
Konsortium Jaringan Selangor Sdn Bhd v. Projek Lintasan Sungai Besi-Ulu Klang Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 527 [HC]
LAND LAW: License - Forest reserved land - Use permit - Use permit granted to plaintiff under National Forestry Act 1984 to erect telecommunications tower - Revocation of use permit - Demolition of tower by defendant - Whether unlawful and amounted to breach of s. 235 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 - Locus standi - Whether plaintiff had cause of action or right to claim compensation for demolition of tower - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ss. 126 , 271 - Federal Constitution, art. 13
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary disposal - Application for - Whether suit found to be appropriate and suitable for O. 14A disposal by determination of question of law - Whether question of law suitable for summary disposal - Whether question of law would dispose whole or substantial part of suit - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
- For the plaintiff - WT Low & Ng Seng Yi; M/s Weng & Co
- For the defendant - Vatsala Ratnasabapathy & Dennis HK Khong; M/s Zain & Co
Perintah ganti rugi yang diberi berikutan tindakan peguam memfailkan taksiran ganti rugi sekali lagi, setelah jumlah sama ditolak sebelum itu diperingkat bil kos, adalah berbentuk 'double claim' dan penyalahgunaan mahkamah yang wajar diketepikan ex debito atau dipinda untuk menzahirkan jumlah sebenar.
Lai King Lung lwn. Perbadanan Pengurusan Anjung Hijau (PPAH) & Satu Lagi [2021] 5 CLJ 554 [HC]
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Ganti rugi - Taksiran ganti rugi - Tuntutan berganda - Jumlah dituntut dalam taksiran ganti rugi apabila tuntutan dalam bil kos gagal - Sama ada fakta disembunyikan untuk mengelirukan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar - Sama ada luar aturan - Sama ada penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Sama ada jumlah dituntut wajar dibetulkan
AZIMAH OMAR H
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Justin TY Voon; T/n Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
- Bagi pihak defendan pertama - CP Mahendran; T/n RR Chelliah Brothers
LNS Article(s)
REPAYMENT MORATORIUM FROM A SHARIAH PERSPECTIVE* [Read excerpt]
by MOHAMMAD MAHBUBI ALI [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxREGARDING JUSTICE: HAS JUSTICE BEEN DISREGARDED? [Read excerpt]
by DATO' FION WONG SOOK LING* [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxiNEW DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT AND COPYRIGHT: A CASE NOTE ON SUNGEI KAHANG PALM OIL SDN BHD v. YKL ENGINEERING SDN BHD* [Read excerpt]
by Elisia Engku Kangon [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxii
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 (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 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) 253/2021 | Employees Provident Fund (Modification To The Purposes For Withdrawal Under Subsection 54(6)) (No. 2) Order 2021 | 1 June 2021 | 8 June 2021 | ACT 452 |
| PU(A) 252/2021 | Motor Vehicles (Exemption) (No. 3) Rules 2021 | 1 June 2021 | 1 June 2021 to 31 July 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 251/2021 | Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (Exemption of Levy) (No. 2) Order 2021 | 31 May 2021 | 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2021 | ACT 612 |
| PU(A) 250/2021 | Employment Insurance System (Exemption) Order 2021 | 31 May 2021 | 1 June 2021 | ACT 800 |
| PU(A) 249/2021 | Employment Insurance System (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2021 | 31 May 2021 | 1 June 2021 | ACT 800 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 323/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 10017 Town Putrajaya | 3 June 2021 | 4 June 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 322/2021 | Notice of Intention To Designate Site As Heritage Site | 3 June 2021 | 4 June 2021 | ACT 645 |
| PU(B) 321/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of The Board | 2 June 2021 | 3 June 2021 | ACT 343 |
| PU(B) 320/2021 | Delegation of Powers Under Section | 1 June 2021 | 8 June 2021 | ACT 358 |
| PU(B) 319/2021 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 1 June 2021 | 2 June 2021 | ACT A1300 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(B) 185/2019 | Pelantikan Anggota Dan Anggota Silih Ganti Lembaga | PU(B) 321/2021 | 3 Jun 2021 | Jadual |
| PU(B) 185/2019 | Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of the Board | PU(B) 321/2021 | 3 June 2021 | Schedule |
| AKTA 452 | Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 | PU(A) 253/2021 | 8 Jun 2021 | Seksyen 54 |
| ACT 452 | Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 | PU(A) 253/2021 | 8 June 2021 | Section 54 |
| AKTA 452 | Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 | AKTA A1300 | 1 September 2007 - Seksyen 2, perenggan 3(a) dan (c), seksyen 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, perenggan 16(a) dan (c), seksyen 18, 19, perenggan 23(b) dan (c), subperenggan 23(f)(ii), seksyen 24, 25, 31, 32, 34 dan perenggan 35(a), (b), (d) dan (e); 1 November 2007 - Perenggan 3(b), subperenggan 23(f)(i), perenggan (i) yang terdapat dalam subperenggan 23(f)(iv), seksyen 26, 28, 29 dan 30; 1 Februari 2008 - Perenggan 16(b), seksyen 20, 21, perenggan 23(a), (d), (e), seksyen 27, 33, 37, 38 dan 39; 1 Julai 2008 - Seksyen 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22 dan perenggan 36(b); 8 Jun 2021 - Subperenggan 23(f)(iv) | Seksyen 54 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 402/2016 | Appointment of Registrar | PU(B) 314/2021 | 12 April 2021 |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) 2021 | PU(A) 243/2021 | 1 Jun 2021 hingga 14 Jun 2021 |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 243/2021 | 1 June 2021 to 14 June 2021 |
| PU(B) 463/2016 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Registrar of Credit Reporting Agencies | PU(B) 297/2021 | 16 March 2021 |
| PU(A) 260/2013 | Income Tax (Deduction For Training Costs Under Skim Latihan 1Malaysia For Unemployed Graduates) Rules 2013 | PU(A) 228/2021 | 11 September 2019 |