Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #24/2021 17 June 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week FAEKAH HJ HUSIN & ORS v. MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBADANAN) [2021] 5 CLJ 733 LOGESHVARAN SEGARAN lwn. PP [2021] 5 CLJ 841 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 5 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

FAEKAH HJ HUSIN & ORS v. MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBADANAN) [2021] 5 CLJ 733
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-31-04-2019(B)]
19 APRIL 2021

COMPANY LAW: Corporation sole - Characteristics - Working and operational dynamics - Whether strikingly different from corporate aggregate - Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) - Whether corporation sole - Whether not subjected to any Board of Directors ('BOD') - Voluntary Separation Scheme ('VSS') - Payment of monies to ex-employees approved by Menteri Besar under VSS without sanction of BOD - Whether valid - Whether lawful - Menteri Besar Selangor (Incorporation) Enactment 1994 ss. 4 & 5

---

LOGESHVARAN SEGARAN lwn. PP [2021] 5 CLJ 841
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
ABU BAKAR KATAR H
[RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: JA-42(R)-13-12-2019 & JA-42(R)-14-12-2019]
11 APRIL 2021

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Seksyen 16(a)(B) - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') tidak bergantung pada s. 50 Akta semasa memutuskan kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan - Sama ada HMS tersalah arah meletakkan dua beban pembuktian di peringkat kes pembelaan - Sama ada salah arah beban pembuktian boleh dipulihkan bawah s. 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 165 - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') tidak bergantung pada s. 50 Akta semasa memutuskan kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan - Sama ada HMS tersalah arah meletakkan dua beban pembuktian - Sama ada salah arah beban pembuktian boleh dipulihkan bawah s. 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah

---

“We observe that the meaning ascribed to the words 'due date' (in s. 32(1C) Land Acquisition Act 1960) are explicitly defined for s. 32 only. It envisages two alternative situations - (i) the date of taking possession, and (ii) a date three months after the service of the Land Administrator's award in Form H. We do not think that it can be interpreted to mean that the 'due date' refers to the date of formal possession of the land after issuance of the notice in Form K as contended by the respondent; we say this because there is no stipulation to say that the taking of possession must be by the Land Administrator. Therefore, on the facts and on the law, such an interpretation cannot stand against the clear wordings of sub-s. (1C). As such, we are in agreement with the appellants that for the purposes of computation of late payment charges under s. 32, the phrase 'taking possession of the land' in sub-s. (1C) means taking physical possession of the land by SILK.” - per Vernon Ong Lam Kiat FCJ in Amitabha Guha & Anor v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2021] 3 CLJ 1

---

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1621	RIKY RINALDI MOHD YUNUS lwn. PP Kesempatan yang telah diambil oleh tertuduh untuk melakukan jenayah rompak berkumpulan dan bersenjata terhadap mangsa-mangsa perempuan di tempat mangsa-mangsa mencari rezeki berserta dengan perbuatan tertuduh yang mendatangkan kerugian besar kepada mangsa-mangsa mewajarkan satu hukuman yang berat dijatuhkan terhadap tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Jenayah serius - Kesalahan rompak berkumpulan dan bersenjata - Hukuman penjara 14 tahun dan 5 sebatan rotan - Rompakan dilakukan di tempat awam - Tertuduh mengambil kesempatan atas faktor bahawa mangsa-mangsa adalah perempuan - Mangsa mengalami kerugian yang besar - Hukuman dijatuhkan selepas perbicaraan penuh - Sama ada kesan dari perlakuan jenayah telah dipertimbangkan - Sama ada ketakutan dan kesan trauma yang dialami oleh mangsa telah diambil kira - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan memberikan pengajaran kepada tertuduh Bagi pihak perayu - Izleen; T/n Izleen Advocates & Solicitors Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Ahmad Nazneen Zulkifli; TPR
[2019] 1 LNS 1632	PP lwn. MOHD FAZLE OMAR 1. Percanggahan dalam laporan polis dengan keterangan lisan mangsa yang menyentuh secara langsung kepada perbuatan salah laku tertuduh yang menjadi intipati sesuatu pertuduhan merupakan satu faktor yang sangat relevan dan ia bukan sekadar suatu kesilapan semata-mata. Keadaan percanggahan menjadi lebih serius apabila percanggahan tersebut tidak dijelaskan. Percanggahan sedemikian akan kekal menjadi suatu kelompangan di dalam kes pendakwaan. 2. Kegagalan tertuduh untuk menjalankan pemeriksaan balas terhadap saksi-saksi pendakwaan tidak boleh dianggap sebagai suatu penerimaan segala keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan tersebut apabila tertuduh tidak diwakili oleh seorang peguam ketika bicara dan apabila tertuduh tidak mempunyai kemampuan untuk mengendalikan soal balas terhadap saksi-saksi pendakwaan tersebut. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Kesalahan seksual di bawah s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Tertuduh merupakan bapa kepada mangsa - Keterangan mangsa bercanggah dengan laporan polis - Percanggahan tidak dijelaskan sewaktu bicara - Sama ada kredibiliti dan kebolehpercayaan keterangan mangsa masih relevan untuk dipertimbangkan - Sama ada percanggahan keterangan lisan mangsa dengan laporan polisnya berkenaan perbuatan salah laku tertuduh yang menjadi intipati sesuatu pertuduhan adalah material - Sama ada percanggahan keterangan telah menimbulkan keraguan dalam kes pendakwaan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Bicara - Prosiding - Tertuduh tidak diwakili peguam ketika mangsa dipanggil sebagai saksi kes pendakwaan - Tertuduh menjalankan pemeriksaan balas dengan sendiri tanpa peguambela - Tertuduh tidak berpendidikan - Hakim bicara tidak memberikan panduan kepada tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh mengetahui dan memahami fungsi dan objektif pemeriksaaan balas - Sama ada tertuduh mampu untuk meletakkan apa-apa asas kes pembelaan terhadap kes pendakwaan sekiranya pembelaan dipanggil - Sama ada telah berlaku kegagalan keadilan kepada tertuduh - Sama ada kegagalan tertuduh menjalankan pemeriksaan balas terhadap saksi-saksi pendakwaan boleh dianggap sebagai suatu penerimaan segala keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan tersebut UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan seksual - Kesalahan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 ('Akta 2017') - Pembuktian intipati kesalahan - Elemen ketegangan kemaluan - Sama ada kemampuan seseorang pelaku salah menegangkan kemaluannya merupakan satu intipati di bawah s. 14(a) Akta 2017 - Sama ada tindakan pegawai siasatan yang tidak menyiasat isu ketegangan kemaluan tertuduh dengan sendirinya menyebabkan kelompangan di dalam kes pendakwaan KETERANGAN: Dokumen - Pesanan Whatsapp - Pesanan Whatsapp antara kakak dan ibu mangsa - Sama ada keterangan dokumentari tentang kandungan pesanan Whatsapp hanya bersifat keterangan sokongan - Sama ada ketiadaan keterangan dokumentasi Whatsapp memberi kesan kepada kes pendakwaan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Kes kesalahan seksual - Penarikan balik laporan polis - Tertuduh merupakan bapa kepada mangsa - Mangsa membuat laporan polis kedua untuk menarik balik laporan polis pertama ketika perjalanan bicara - Sama ada penarikan balik laporan polis pertama telah menyebabkan sebarang kepincangan dan memberi kesan kepada kes pendakwaan Bagi pihak perayu - Mohammad Nazri Abdul Rahim, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Bagi pihak responden - Anbanathan Yathiraju; M/s Anba & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 1684	WEALTHY CARE CONSORTIUM SDN BHD lwn. KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF SURUHANJAYA PERSAINGAN MALAYSIA (MyCC) & SATU LAGI Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia ('Suruhanjaya') mempunyai kuasa di bawah s. 14(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Persaingan 2010 ('Akta') untuk menjalankan siasatan terhadap perusahaan yang disyaki melakukan larangan di bawah Akta tersebut. Suruhanjaya boleh mengeluarkan notis kepada perusahaan berkenaan untuk memberikan maklumat serta dokumen bagi melengkapkan siasatannya. Pengeluaran notis sedemikian oleh Suruhanjaya bukan merupakan satu keputusan yang boleh dicabar melalui satu permohonan semakan kehakiman. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Permohonan untuk membatalkan notis yang dikeluarkan oleh Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia ('Suruhanjaya') yang memerlukan pemohon memberikan maklumat dan dokumen bagi tujuan siasatan - Suruhanjaya mengesyaki pemohon telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s. 4(2)(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Persaingan 2010 ('Akta') - Pemohon hanya mematuhi sebahagian notis yang dikeluarkan oleh Suruhanjaya - Sama ada Suruhanjaya mempunyai kuasa untuk menjalankan siasatan di bawah s. 14(1) Akta - Sama ada Suruhanjaya perlu memberikan sebab-sebab atau bukti kerana mengesyaki pemohon - Sama ada Suruhanjaya memerlukan maklumat dan dokumen untuk melengkapkan siasatan - Sama ada pemohon adalah dihalang daripada mencabar notis - Sama ada permohonan pemohon adalah pra-matang Bagi pihak pemohon - Siti Rafidah & Mohammad Irwan Shah; T/n Aswandi Hashim & Co Bagi pihak responden - Karin Lim, Dominic & Nicholas Lim; T/n Presgrave & Matthews
[2020] 1 LNS 37	LETCHUMY RAMACHANDRAN v. SOO CHEE MING & ORS A party who denies executing a sale and purchase agreement and all other instruments of transfer has the onus to prove that he was elsewhere at the time when the said documents were executed and to tender supporting evidence to show that the signatures on the said documents were forged. Where there is a serious allegation in pleadings concerning the involvement of a particular person who had allegedly played a bigger role in the transfer of property by fraudulent means, such party ought to be made a party in the proceedings. LAND LAW: Recovery of land - Fraudulent transfer of land - Plaintiff denied selling land to 1st defendant and appointing 2nd defendant as solicitors to handle sale of property - Plaintiff alleged she lost property as a result of giving original title of property to her friend - Plaintiff failed to name her friend as a party in proceedings despite claiming to have been cheated by friend - Solicitor was adamant that plaintiff signed sale and purchase agreement and other necessary instruments - Whether plaintiff was able to prove that she was elsewhere at time sale and purchase agreement was signed - Whether plaintiff was able to dispute signatures on instrument of transfer - Whether plaintiff received payments for sale of property - Whether plaintiff had discharged onus of proof LAND LAW: Transfer - Fraud - Transfer of property to subsequent purchaser - Arrangement to sell property to subsequent purchaser entered two years after 1st defendant purchased property from plaintiff - Plaintiff disputed transfer of property to 1st defendant - Full payments were made on same day when arrangement to sell property took place - Whether any element of fraud could be attached to sale of property with subsequent purchaser EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Fraud - Fraudulent transfer of land - Forgery - Plaintiff denied selling land to 1st defendant and appointing 2nd defendant as solicitors to handle sale of property - Plaintiff denied signing sale and purchase agreement and all necessary instruments to effect a transfer - Whether plaintiff had discharged onus to prove that 1st defendant committed fraud and forgery - Whether plaintiff was able to prove that she was elsewhere at time when sale and purchase agreement and all necessary instrument were executed - Whether plaintiff was able to tender supporting evidence to challenge signatures on instrument of transfer For the appellant - Govin T Durai; M/s Govin T Durai & Co For the 1st respondent - Vasanthi Sathasivam; M/s K Sugu & Associates For the 2nd respondent - Asmawi Ismail; M/s I Asmawi & Co For the 4th respondent - Husna Abdul Halim; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
[2020] 1 LNS 38	LUSTER INDUSTRIES BERHAD v. CITI-CHAMP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS Where a solicitor becomes aware of any irregularities or fraud surrounding instructions from a director of a company, more so when he is aware of a plan by the director, together with several other parties, to siphon company's assets, he will be in breach of his stakeholder's duties if he releases stakeholder monies acting upon the instructions of the said director. In such circumstances, the solicitor ought to make inquiries with the company prior to releasing the stakeholder monies, failing which, the solicitor is not entitled to rely on the Turquand rule. COMPANY: Directors - Breach of fiduciary duties - Wrongful release of stakeholder monies - Director instructed solicitors to release stakeholder monies allegedly on behalf of company - Instruction to release stakeholder monies came as soon as money deposited with solicitors as stakeholders - Director intended to siphon company's assets - Whether director stood in as a trustee of company's assets - Whether director had acted in best interests of company when he instructed solicitors to release stakeholder monies - Whether director breached his fiduciary duties when he caused the solicitors to release stakeholder monies LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Stakeholder - Breach of stake holding terms - Wrongful release of stakeholder monies - Stakeholder monies released at instruction of company's director - Instruction to release monies came shortly after monies were deposited with solicitors as stakeholder - Solicitor admitted knowing concocted plan involving several parties, including director of company to siphon stake holding sums from company - Whether solicitor was aware of stake holding terms - Whether solicitor was entitled to rely on Turquand rule - Whether solicitors ought to have inquired from company on existence of letter of instruction - Whether solicitor had breached his stakeholder's duties CIVIL PROCEDURE: Third party proceedings - Indemnity - Right to be indemnified - Trust monies - Defendants seeking to claim monies paid to third party - Monies paid to third party was in respect of share sale agreement - Third party had no notice that monies paid were trust monies - Defendants wrongfully and unlawfully caused trust monies to be released - Whether third party was bona fide acquirer for value - Whether tracing could be relied upon to render an innocent recipient a wrongdoer - Whether defendants entitled to claim indemnity For the plaintiff - Wong Yee Chue, Ho Hui Ying & Jean Ang; M/s YC Wong For the 2nd, 3rd & 4th defendant - Adrian Silvarajoo, Mohd Muqri Khairi & Elfira Rosellini; M/s Jinny & Lee For the 5th defendant - Sandosh JN Anandan, David Soosay & Debra Allison Beaty; M/s Sandosh Anandan For the third party - Goh Chee Sun & Chen Theng Keat; M/s Cheng Lee & Goh

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 5 (Part 6)

The Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) is a corporation sole and not a corporate aggregate bearing in mind the distinctions between the two, the common thread running through the definition of a corporation sole, and the Perbadanan's founding Act. It is a body politic constituted in one member, the Menteri Besar, exists in perpetuity and may sue or be sued, and as disclosed by this case, is able to function and carry out its statutory duties independently of the Board of Directors ('BOD'). It follows that the Menteri Besar herein, in signing and sanctioning a Voluntary Separation Scheme with the Perbadanan's former employees on his own accord and without the consent of the BOD, had not transgressed any law. The Court of Appeal had thus erred when it ruled otherwise, or in accepting the Perbadanan as a corporation sole but imposing on it the requirement of accountability to the BOD as if it were a corporate aggregate.
Faekah Hj Husin & Ors v. Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) [2021] 5 CLJ 733 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Order 37 r. 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 does not provide for the dismissal of a claim for damages after the completion of the evidentiary hearing and hence, the Deputy Registrar, in an application for assessment of damages consequent from a wrongful entry of private caveat, ought to certify the amount.
AEON Co (M) Bhd v. Asia Plywood Company Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 5 CLJ 751 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 gives the discretion to the High Court when a reference is made for referral of a constitutional question to the Federal Court. However, in exercising its original, appellate or revisionary jurisdiction, the High Court need not immediately refer a constitutional question of law raised before it. It can proceed to dismiss the application for referral to the Federal Court under the said s. 84 and continue with the trial in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
(2) In a trial at the High Court where the prosecution has not closed its case and an objection is raised on an allegedly unfair and unconstitutional procedure of allowing some witnesses to give evidence without their identities being disclosed, the decision to dismiss the application of the applicants for the questions of law to be referred to the Federal Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA'), and to proceed with the trial, at this stage, does not amount to an appealable 'decision' within the meaning of s. 50(1) read with s. 3 of the CJA.
Aizz Amidie Aziz & Ors v. PP [2021] 5 CLJ 766 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) In an agreement between two parties, when one clause is clear that it does not provide a freestanding right to terminate an agreement, a unilateral termination ought not to be invoked. Further, so long as there is part performance of a contract, the innocent party could not terminate the contract as the test is not what the plaintiff received, but whether the defendant had failed to perform its obligation in its entirety.
(2) When there is no failure on the part of the defendant to deliver its services in accordance with the terms and conditions of an agreement, the defendant is entitled to enforce its rights and be put in a position as if the contract had been performed.
Century Software (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Northport (Malaysia) Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 5 CLJ 796 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1976 ('Act') is applicable for rates to be imposed by the local authority if the 'building' is situated on State or reserved land. Where there is a failure by the local authority to state whether the pylons are situated on State land or reserved land, and where the status of the lands are unknown, the local authority could not use s. 163 of the Act to mount its claim.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Majlis Daerah Segamat [2021] 5 CLJ 833 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Hakim bicara, dalam mendapati pertuduhan bawah ss. 16(a) dan 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('Akta 2009'), serta pertuduhan alternatif kedua bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan telah dibuktikan secara prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa perlu bergantung pada anggapan s. 50 Akta 2009, tidak boleh, apabila membuat keputusan di akhir kes pembelaan, membuat dapatan bahawa kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut telah dibuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah setelah dan dengan mengambil kira anggapan s. 50 Akta 2009. Ini samalah seperti menuntut tertuduh memikul dua beban bukti dalam pembelaaannya, iaitu menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan dan mematahkan anggapan s. 50 atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Ini adalah suatu salah arahan yang tidak boleh dipulihkan oleh s. 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.
Logeshvaran Segaran lwn. PP [2021] 5 CLJ 841 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The police have no duty in law to blacklist and publicise a car that was reported missing or stolen by its owner and failure to do so would not amount to negligence, statutory or otherwise, on their part. Consequently, a person who is involved in the business of selling and buying used cars, having sold a stolen car to a customer, cannot mount a negligence suit against the police or claim any damages arising from the detention and seizure of the car by the police.
Yaw Fun Fun v. Ketua Polis Daerah Gombak, Selangor & Ors [2021] 5 CLJ 852 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. COVID-19 FROM THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (PART 2)* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Mohammad Hashim Kamali [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxviii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxviii



MALAYSIA

---

COVID-19 FROM THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (PART 2)*

by
Mohammad Hashim Kamali

This being the second of the two parts continues to explore Islamic teachings on social isolation, illness and hardship, cleanliness and hygiene, faith and reason – all in relationship to COVID-19.

The hadith restrictions on Ta‘un we reviewed in Part 1 ordering the people not to enter the afflicted place is, according to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, underlined by the following rationale:

1. To keep a distance from the causes of the disease.

2. To take to safety as safety is the elixir of life and human wellbeing.

3. To avoid breathing convoluted air that may contribute to bodily corruption and disease.

4. Not to go near the afflicted persons so as to avoid contracting the disease.

5. To protect the people against contagious diseases.

As for the directive that people who reside in the afflicted place should stay there and not leave – is for fear that the afflicted persons may infect others.

. . .

* 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.

2. CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN SPORT ON THE FIELD OF PLAY IN THE POST COVID-19 ERA: MOVING FROM DRESS REHEARSAL TO THEATER OF PLAY ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Dr Emmanuel Olowononi* [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxvi

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxvi



INTERNATIONAL

---

CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN SPORT ON THE FIELD OF PLAY IN THE POST COVID-19 ERA:
MOVING FROM DRESS REHEARSAL TO THEATER OF PLAY

by
Dr Emmanuel Olowononi*

Abstract

Many of the sports today developed from warfare, recreational activities, religious rites and military training. Sports are played whether at a beginner's level, recreational or professional level. The recent commercialization of sports, media scrutiny and sport disputes have further challenged the legal regime and occasioned the need to take stock of how it has been done, how it may be done and how it should be done.

One of the commonest controversial discourses in sport is the attitude of the state to criminal conduct in the field of play and criminal prosecution of same before the regular courts. This article considers and discusses the legal aspect of criminal liability, personal injury and sport accident in the sport industry within the field of play. Bodily contact, deliberate fouls and accidental acts, especially in the game of football and others, do occasion injury, grievous bodily hurt and accidents, whether such sport is played at a recreational, amateur or professional level. Therefore, this article considers how criminal law deals with personal injury, accident and grievous bodily hurt occasioned by the negligence of a player, organizers or federation in the sport industry. It is important to investigate the legal regime and provide academic discourse in view of many cases of permanent incapacitation, fracture injuries, career-terminating injuries and death resulting from injuries in the sport industry.

. . .

*Dr Emmanuel Olowononi, Senior Lecturer, Nigerian Law School, Headquarters, Bwari Abuja, Nigeria.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. ISSUES ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINTS
   CASE STUDY: SECURE EXPRESS INSTRUCTIONS WHEN DEALING WITH TRUST MONEY^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by Rob Reis* [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxvii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxvii



AUSTRALIA

---

ISSUES ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINTS
CASE STUDY: SECURE EXPRESS INSTRUCTIONS WHEN DEALING WITH TRUST MONEY⁺

by
Rob Reis*

When acting for more than one client in relation to a common fund held in trust on behalf of those joint clients, a law practice must obtain express instructions (and more prudently in writing) from all clients in the matter before dealing with the funds held in trust. This is particularly relevant when a government agency issues a demand notice on a portion or all those funds held in trust.

Background

In a family law matter involving property, the Court made orders dealing with the sale and distribution of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. The parties to the family law matter were both legally represented. Another law practice was appointed to act on behalf of the ex-husband and ex-wife on the sale of the matrimonial home.

. . .

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

* Professional Standards Manager, ACT Law Society.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert