Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #29/2021 22 July 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week ZAIDI MOHD ZAIN & ANOR v. PP [2021] 6 CLJ 905 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 6 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

ZAIDI MOHD ZAIN & ANOR v. PP [2021] 6 CLJ 905
HIGH COURT, PULAU PINANG
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
[CRIMINAL REVISION NO: PA-43-2-03-2021]
06 MAY 2021

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Inquest - Revision - Death in police custody - Discovery - Discovery of documents relating to custody and death - Whether allowable - Whether s. 51A of Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Inquests - Retnarasa Annarasa v. PP - Whether no longer good law - Whether Coroner to consider s. 51 - Whether to allow delivery - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 51 , 51A , 325 , 334 , 337 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 31

---

“In order for the defendant to succeed in resisting an item of costs, the defendant would need to satisfy the court that the item in question has been unreasonably incurred, or that the amount billed for that item was unreasonable. Furthermore, where the item or the amount billed in respect of them was approved by the client, whether expressly or impliedly, a legal presumption will arise that the item was reasonably incurred and that the amount billed for the item was reasonable. In my view, this legal presumption is irrebuttable.” – per Azizul Azmi Adnan J in Skrine (Claiming As A Firm) v. NS Water Consortium Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 571

---

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1504	MOHAMAD ALIMIN ROSLI lwn. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS Arahan untuk tunjuk sebab terhadap pegawai berkuasa yang mana perintah untuk mengemukakan orang dalam jagaannya telah dikeluarkan adalah wajar dibatalkan apabila wujud kesilapan dalam penyerahan perintah keatas pegawai berkuasa yang betul. Permohonan maaf oleh pegawai berkuasa yang sebenarnya telah menerima perintah tersebut yang terlepas pandang dalam mengemukakan pemohon ke Mahkamah merupakan satu penjelasan tunjuk sebab yang boleh diterima. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Bicara - Arahan tunjuk sebab - Kegagalan pegawai berkuasa membawa orang dalam jagaannya ke Mahkamah pada hari perbicaraan - Mahkamah telah memerintahkan pegawai berkuasa untuk mengemukakan orang dalam jagaan ke Mahkamah - Pegawai berkuasa yang telah menerima perintah telah terlepas pandang akan keperluan untuk membawa pemohon ke Mahkamah - Sama ada perintah bagi mengemukakan pemohon telah diserahkan keatas pegawai yang betul - Sama ada terdapat penjelasan yang boleh diterima atas kegagalan untuk mengemukakan pemohon ke Mahkamah - Sama ada arahan tunjuk sebab wajar dibatalkan Bagi pihak pemohon - Mohamad Azrul Hasyimi; T/n Azrul Hasyimi & Co Bagi pihak responden - Raihana Maimunah Rushdi; Peguam Persekutuan
[2019] 1 LNS 1586	KOLONEL DR. FAIZ AZRAAI ABDUL AZIZ lwn. MAHKAMAH TENTERA DIVISYEN KEEMPAT INFANTRI MALAYSIA 1. Apabila seorang anggota pasukan angkatan tentera meninggalkan tugasannya, maka satu kesalahan adalah terbukti bagi pertuduhan di bawah s. 54(1)(a) Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 ('Akta') manakala ketidakhadiran untuk bertugas tanpa cuti merupakan satu lagi pertuduhan alternatif yang boleh dikenakan keatas anggota tersebut di bawah s. 55 Akta tersebut. 2. Mahkamah di dalam prosiding semakan kehakiman adalah tidak wajar mencampuri tindakan yang telah dilaksanakan oleh Mahkamah Tentera keatas anggota angkatan tentera apabila tindakan Mahkamah Tentera tersebut adalah bertujuan untuk memastikan setiap anggota tentera mengekalkan disiplin yang tinggi. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Pembatalan keputusan Mahkamah Tentera - Mahkamah Tentera mendapati pemohon bersalah bagi kesalahan meninggalkan tugas - Pemohon dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 3 bulan dan dibuang kerja dari perkhidmatan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang dikenakan terhadap pemohon bagi kesalahan meninggalkan tugas di bawah s. 54(1)(a) Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 adalah defektif - Sama ada kesalahan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti merupakan pertuduhan alternatif - Sama ada dapatan fakta yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tentera wajar diganggu - Sama ada Mahkamah di dalam prosiding semakan kehakiman wajar mencampuri tindakan yang telah dilaksanakan oleh Mahkamah Tentera Bagi pihak pemohon - Mohammed Nasser Yusof & Rejinder Singh; M/s The Law Chambers of Fauzi & Nasser Bagi pihak responden - Istisyad Ismail; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan
[2019] 1 LNS 1587	DALAM PERKARA HARTA PUSAKA MENDIANG TAN HOK LOW Pentadbir seharusnya diberi peluang untuk menyempurnakan pentadbiran harta pusaka sebelum sebarang permohonan dapat dibuat untuk menuntut ganti rugi atau pampasan daripada pentadbir terhadap sebarang perlanggaran tanggungjawab statutori dan fidusiari pentadbir. Persoalan berkenaan perlanggaran tanggungjawab pentadbir hanya boleh diputuskan dalam prosiding baru melalui satu tindakan writ selepas penyempurnaan pentadbiran oleh pentadbir. PERWARISAN: Pentadbir - Perlanggaran tanggungjawab - Pentadbiran harta pusaka - Kewujudan perintah persetujuan dalam prosiding terdahulu yang menyelesaikan pertikaian benefisiari-benefisiari dan melantik pentadbir - Dakwaan bahawa pentadbir telah lalai dalam tanggungjawabnya untuk memperoleh harta-harta tertentu si mati - Sama ada pentadbir harus diberi peluang untuk menyempurnakan pentadbiran harta pusaka mengikut perintah persetujuan - Sama ada pemohon dan benefisiari-benefisiari berhak untuk menuntut ganti rugi terhadap pentadbir atas sebarang perlanggaran tanggungjawab sebelum pentadbir menyempurnakan pentadbiran PERWARISAN: Pentadbir - Perlanggaran tanggungjawab - Penentuan persoalan berkenaan perlanggaran tanggungjawab pentadbir - Notis permohonan difailkan untuk menentukan persoalan berkenaan perlanggaran tanggungjawab pentadbir - Sama ada persoalan berkenaan perlanggaran tanggungjawab pentadbir boleh diputuskan melalui notis permohonan dan berdasarkan keterangan afidavit semata-mata - Sama ada tindakan writ baru wajar difailkan terhadap pentadbir selepas penyempurnaan pentadbiran Bagi pihak pemohon - Zulkepli Omar; T/n Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli Bagi pihak Pacific Trustee Bhd - Vilasini Chandrasekaran & Sumathi N. Govindasamy; T/n Sumathi & Associates
[2020] 1 LNS 12	KAY CORPORATION SDN BHD v. SAFESIDEPOWER SDN BHD A seller has the right to recover from a purchaser the balance purchase price of goods supplied to the purchaser when a settlement arrangement entered between the seller, purchaser and third party requiring the third party to pay the seller fails to materialise. The mere existence of a settlement arrangement will not absolve the purchaser's obligation to pay the seller, especially when the purchaser admitted owing the debt to the seller prior to the settlement arrangement. SALE OF GOODS: Goods sold and delivered - Action for - Claim for balance of purchase price of goods supplied to defendant - Previous suits withdrawn by seller following settlement arrangements between seller, purchaser and third party requiring third party to pay seller directly - Payment by third party conditional upon fulfilment of certain obligations by purchaser to third party - Purchaser did not dispute it owed seller in previous suits - Whether cause of action accrued when purchaser failed to pay balance of purchase price within 60 days as per delivery order - Whether seller had reserved its right to recover from purchaser if settlement arrangements failed to materialise - Whether purchaser could absolve itself from paying balance of purchase price to seller based on existence of settlement arrangement For the appellant - Andrew Davis & Pavithara Thevi Ramachandran; M/s Andrew Davis & Co For the respondent - K.A. Niu, M/s WA Lau & Partners
[2020] 1 LNS 13	MOHAMMAD ZAKI ABD HAMID v. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA & ORS A detention order can be made against a person even when his detention is irregular. The legality of the detention of a person is therefore not a condition precedent to the making of a detention order. Any irregularity or defects concerning arrest and investigation are irrelevant once the detention order has been issued. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 1985') - Allegation made against mode of arrest, detention and investigation - Whether detention order was made upon consideration of investigation report submitted to deputy minister in accordance with s. 3(3) and s. 5(4) of Act 1985 - Whether vagueness, sufficiency or relevancy of grounds of detention are matters to be taken into account in a habeas corpus application - Whether court could delve into merits of case against applicant - Whether court could question subjective findings and decisions of deputy minister For the plaintiff - M/s Scivetti & Associates For the defendant - Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang; Kementerian Dalam Negeri

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 6 (Part 6)

An artist, having established goodwill in the label, to wit, his own name, generated by his own achievements and popularity, and having proven that the unregistered mark had been passed off by a third party, has the locus standi to commence an action in passing off; the goodwill in the trademark was identified with the artist and not the company.
Mohammad Hafiz Hamidun v. Kamdar Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 CLJ 799 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

As a property development company, any profit that the company made in disposing its real property would be likely to attract income tax. As such, any gain made in such disposal would not be regarded as a 'gain' under the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 ('Act') as 'gain' is given the meaning '(a) gain other than gain or profit chargeable with or exempted from income tax under the income tax law ...'.
Continental Choice Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2021] 6 CLJ 820 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The Industrial Court was correct in finding that the dismissal of the employee, who, in his capacity as the President of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia had committed gross misconduct by issuing a press statement against the interest of the employer and thus breached the relationship of confidence and trust between the parties, was with just cause. The failure by the employee to exhaust the procedures for settlement of disputes was contrary to the statutory provisions.
Malaysian Airline System Bhd v. Ismail Nasaruddin Abdul Wahab [2021] 6 CLJ 840 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) In a situation where the Public Prosecutor ('PP) first instituted forfeiture proceedings against an accused person and later on initiated criminal charges, the prosecutorial discretion of the PP in instituting charges could only be said to be made in bad faith if it could be shown that both were instituted not in accordance with the law; and (ii) also in such situation, the only legitimate expectation an accused person would possess would be the legitimate expectation to have a right to procedural fairness. In other words, the accused person has the legitimate expectation that the PP would be fair to him procedurally; and (iii) section 30(7) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 does not give immunity against prosecution to any person for disclosing information to an investigating officer.
Teo Chee Kong v. PP [2021] 6 CLJ 883 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A criminal court, in sentencing an accused for an offence under s. 14(a) read with s. 16(1) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (where the relationship between the offender and the victim is one of trust as defined in s. 16(2) thereof), must consider the penalty under s. 14(a) and the enhanced penalty under s. 16(1) separately. The Sessions Court, in sentencing the accused to 6 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of whipping for each of the 21 charges under s. 14(a) read with s. 16(1) but without considering the enhanced sentence under s. 16(1) notwithstanding the grandfather-granddaughter relationship between the accused and the victim, had committed a misdirection in law. The 42 strokes of whipping imposed was also unlawful as it offended s. 288(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The sentence should be enhanced to 8 years imprisonment to run concurrently in each of the charges, the additional 2 years imposed pursuant to s. 16(1) of the Act. The punishment of 2 strokes each for the charges is in order but the number of strokes should be capped at 24 pursuant to s. 288(1) of the CPC.
PP v. Sigol Singki & Other Appeals [2021] 6 CLJ 897 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for automatic disclosure of documents to assist an accused in the preparation of his defence only applies to a criminal trial and not to an inquest before a Coroner. A Coroner, however, is empowered under s. 51 CPC read with Arahan Amalan No. 2 of 2014 and ss. 334 and 337 CPC to provide such documents to an "interested person" as the term is defined in the Arahan Amalan. This being so, the application by the deceased's parents herein for delivery of documents relating to the deceased's death in police custody such as the police reports, the lock-up diary, photographs and sketch plan, and the post-mortem photographs, is allowable in law. It ought also to be noted that whilst an application for documents under s. 51 CPC can be made at any stage of the inquiry, s. 51A cannot be read together with or as an extension of s. 51. The two sections needing to be read separately, it must follow that Retnarasa Annarasa v. PP [2008] 4 CLJ 90, for pronouncing that s. 51A may be read with s. 51 to empower a Coroner to order disclosure of documents in an inquest, is no longer good law.
Zaidi Mohd Zain & Anor v. PP [2021] 6 CLJ 905 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Jurisdictional conflicts among regulatory bodies or government agencies are not uncommon. However, when the jurisdictional conflict places a party in a difficult position to choose one against the other, and that choice, either way, has a repercussion on the interest of the public, then that jurisdictional conflict would not be taken lightly. It would be best to maintain the status quo, by allowing stay of proceedings, while the appeal process takes its course.
Chubb Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors v. Competition Commission [2021] 6 CLJ 918 [CC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. MORAL POLICING, RULE OF LAW AND TA'ZIR* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Muhammad Sayuti bin Mansor [2021] 1 LNS(A) xciii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xciii



MALAYSIA

---

MORAL POLICING, RULE OF LAW AND TA'ZIR*

by
Muhammad Sayuti bin Mansor

What is the difference between sins and crimes? Are all sins considered as crimes? Is the state obligated to intervene and regulate personal and private matters of its citizens such as sexuality and religious obligations? Or should it be left to the individual to decide?

These questions on the legal enforcement of morality have been debated since long in the field of legal philosophy. It also became a heated polemic in Malaysia where some of the offences put under the Shariah Criminal Offences Act such as the punishment for abandoning the Friday prayer and khalwat have raised concerns over the encroachment of the state into the private lives of its citizens.

In the West, the question of whether it is the business of the state to regulate and enforce morality has been debated by Lord Patrick Devlin and H.L.A. Hart. In defending the concept of "moral policing", Devlin argued that society has every right to punish conduct that in their view is grossly immoral. While Hart objected it by restating John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle'; that the only legitimate cause for the state to use enforcement against an individual is to 'prevent harm to other'. Since then, the 'Harm Principle' is accepted as the basis to define crime in Western criminal law. An action will only be considered as a crime, if and only if it brings harm to others.

From the Islamic perspective, the discussion is more complicated, as the differentiation between the legal and moral aspect of the shariah is quite ambiguous. Islamic law covers both legal and moral wrong and its spectrum for classification of actions differs from Western legal thought. Thus, we have to limit our discussion into the enforceable part of Islamic law, most notably the Islamic criminal law, since the legal enforcement of morality is claimed to be the responsibility of the Muslim ruler under the principle of ta'zir.

. . .

* 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. THE SHAREHOLDER'S RIGHT TO VOTE: CORPORATE DEMOCRACY STATUTORILY GUARANTEED, JUDICIALLY SAFEGUARDED ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Bryan Wang* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xciv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xciv



MALAYSIA

---

THE SHAREHOLDER'S RIGHT TO VOTE:
CORPORATE DEMOCRACY STATUTORILY GUARANTEED, JUDICIALLY SAFEGUARDED

by
Bryan Wang*

Introduction

At the heart of corporate democracy lies the fundamental process of shareholder participation in the affairs and direction of companies. In the case of publicly listed companies, the vast majority of shareholding rights encompass a right to vote exercisable at a general meeting.^[1] Shareholders make and influence important decisions which include the appointment and removal of directors to the board,^[2] the allotment of additional shares,^[3] and amendments to the company's constitution^[4] to name a few.

In most modern economies, voting by proxy has become a mainstay feature of capital markets and corporate governance. Proxy voting facilitates efficient and effective shareholders participation in situations where shareholders themselves are unable to attend general meetings or prefer to delegate their vote to someone who may be more informed of the company's affairs. In other cases, proxies are often used as vehicles for consolidating power and control over a company by amalgamating blocks of shareholders' votes.

Irrespective of whether this fundamental right is exercised personally or by proxy, the right to vote remains guaranteed under statute^[5] and buttressed by common law safeguards. This article explores the supremacy of the right to vote as guaranteed by statute, as well as the lengths to which courts will go to in safeguarding this fundamental right.

. . .

*Advocate and Solicitor (High Court of Malaya); Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn); LLB (Hons) (University of Bristol).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert