|
Issue #30/2021
29 July 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
|
SSN MEDICAL PRODUCTS SDN BHD v. CHIN HIN HELMET SDN BHD [2021] 7 CLJ 51
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARY LIM JCA; HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-02(NCVC)(W)-1370-07-2018]
16 APRIL 2021
A landlord should not be allowed to claim the market rental for the entire premises when part of it contains an illegal structure with no approved plan or Certificate of Fitness under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 or the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984. The court cannot ignore the presence of the illegality and the terms of s. 24 of the Contracts Act 1950, or the fact that the 'user principle' could not in the circumstances be relied upon to justify the rental.
LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Wrongful occupation of premises - Assessment - Appeal against - Part of premises not issued with certificate of fitness - Whether should be excluded from assessment - Whether assessment should be made on whole premises or part of premises - Whether user principle applied - Presence of illegality - Whether claim allowed for market rental for entire premises despite part of premises an illegal structure under Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of - Appeal against - Wrongful occupation of premises - Certificate of fitness not issued to some part of premises - Whether some parts of building should be excluded from assessment - Whether user principle applied - Presence of illegality - Whether claim allowed for market rental for entire premises despite part of premises an illegal structure under Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
CONTRACT: Tenancy agreement - Part of premises not issued with certificate of fitness - Presence of illegality - Whether user principle applied - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
FERMPRO SDN BHD lwn. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 66
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KANGAR
ARIK SANUSI YEOP JOHARI PK
[RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: RA-42ES-1-12-2019]
16 APRIL 2021
Perkataan 'berbahaya' dan frasa 'alam sekeliling, pencemar atau buangan' yang terdapat di dalam ungkapan 'jika mana-mana benda yang berbahaya kepada alam sekeliling, pencemar atau buangan' di s. 31(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 hendaklah dibaca secara disjunktif; ini bermakna perkataan 'berbahaya' tersebut hanya terpakai kepada elemen pertama 'alam sekeliling' sahaja, iaitu 'mana-mana benda yang berbahaya kepada alam sekeliling', dan tidak kepada elemen kedua 'pencemar' dan elemen ketiga 'buangan'. Undang-undang adalah mantap apabila terdapat tanda baca (,) dan perkataan 'atau' dalam sesuatu frasa, seperti yang berlaku kepada s. 31(1) di sini, maka perkataan-perkataan yang terdapat selepas tanda baca (,) dan perkataan 'atau' itu hendaklah dibaca secara disjunktif.
PENTAFSIRAN BERKANUN: Statut - Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974, s. 31(1) - Sama ada perkataan 'berbahaya' terpakai pada elemen 'buangan' dan perlu dibuktikan dalam pertuduhan - Penggunaan koma (,) dan perkataan 'atau' dalam frasa - Sama ada peruntukan dibaca secara disjunktif atau konjunktif
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Pembuktian kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Tertuduh dituduh bawah s. 31(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 - Pelanggaran notis arahan - Kegagalan meleraikan semua komponen pemasangan unit pam di kolam terakhir untuk tujuan pemindahan efluen ke lori tangki - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah terhadap tertuduh
-
Hairul Fazli Mokhtar v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1603 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Hairul Fazli Mokhtar [2017] 1 LNS 1019
-
Yap Sin Thai v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2019] 1 LNS 1598 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Yap Sin Thai v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [Land Reference No: BA-15-58-05/2016]
Legal Network Series
|
LEE TING SAN LORRY TRANSPORT SDN BHD lwn. KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF SURUHANJAYA PERSAINGAN MALAYSIA (MyCC) & SATU LAGI Perbuatan mengesyaki dan disusuli dengan tindakan meminta dokumen serta maklumat bagi tujuan siasatan oleh Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia bukan merupakan satu keputusan yang boleh dibuat semakan kehakiman. Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia tidak boleh dihalang atau disekat daripada menjalankan tanggungjawab statutorinya di bawah Akta Suruhanjaya Persaingan 2010 melalui semakan kehakiman. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Permohonan untuk membatalkan rujukan siasatan bagi penyediaan maklumat dan dokumen yang dibuat oleh Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia ('Suruhanjaya') - Suruhanjaya mengesyaki pemohon telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s. 4(2)(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Persaingan 2010 ('Akta') - Sama ada Suruhanjaya mempunyai tanggungjawab statutori untuk menjalankan siasatan terhadap pemohon - Sama ada perbuatan mengesyaki oleh Suruhanjaya merupakan satu keputusan - Sama ada siasatan Suruhanjaya wajar disekat melalui semakan kehakiman - Sama ada alasan-alasan pemohon untuk menyekat siasatan Suruhanjaya adalah remeh
|
|
|
PP lwn. CHAI YOON HIN Hukuman bon berkelakuan baik adalah tidak wajar dijatuhkan bagi kesalahan-kesalahan serius di bawah s. 379 dan s. 379A Kanun Keseksaan. Sebaliknya, hukuman penjara adalah wajib bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah s. 379 dan s. 379A Kanun Keseksaan tersebut yang dapat mencerminkan kepentingan awam dan mampu memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh serta orang awam. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pendakwa raya - Kesalahan mencuri - Hakim bicara menjatuhkan hukuman bon berkelakuan baik bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah s. 379 dan s. 379A Kanun Keseksaan ('KK') - Sama ada hukuman bon berkelakuan baik yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara mencerminkan faktor kepentingan awam - Sama ada hukuman penjara adalah wajib bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 379 dan s. 379A KK - Sama ada hukuman yang lebih berat mampu memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh dan orang awam - Sama ada faktor keseriusan kesalahan perlu menjadi perkara utama dalam pertimbangan Mahkamah
|
|
|
TAI THONG FLOWER NURSERY SDN BHD v. MASTER PYRODOR SDN BHD & ORS A squatter and trespasser on a piece of land has the locus standi to set aside a consent judgment entered in subsequent court proceedings between the parties to a sale and purchase agreement relating to the land where it was made without the knowledge of the squatter and was intended to oust the squatter from the said land despite the existence of a prior court order that upheld the squatter's right to challenge the title to the land. Failure to make the squatter a party in the said subsequent proceedings concerning the same land amounts to a breach of natural justice giving rise to a cause of action for the squatter to set aside the said consent judgment. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Locus standi - Action to set aside consent judgment - Consent judgment obtained to declare sale and purchase agreement of land between 1st and 2nd defendants legally valid - Existence of prior litigation between parties where court held agreement between 1st and 2nd defendants void for illegality - Application for vacant possession and eviction of plaintiff from land in prior litigation dismissed and court upholding plaintiff's right to challenge title to land although a trespasser - Consent judgment recorded between 1st and 2nd defendants without plaintiff's knowledge and intended to oust plaintiff from land - Whether there was a breach of natural justice in obtaining of consent judgment without plaintiff being heard - Whether plaintiff has locus standi to initiate action to set aside consent judgment - Whether defendant could strike out plaintiff's claim on basis that plaintiff was a squatter and trespasser
|
|
|
ROXWELL GROUP SDN BHD v. IRIS CORPORATION BERHAD & ORS Where alleged conspiracy is inextricably intertwined with an alleged breach of agreement, it follows that the alleged conspiracy is dependent on whether the alleged breach of agreement is established. Thus, no unlawful act or means can be proven when the breach of agreement is not established. CONTRACT: Agreement - Breach - Cooperation agreement - Agreement for expansion of defendant's business and plaintiff to introduce defendant to persons in authority abroad - Plaintiff appointed as non-exclusive commission agent in several territories abroad to help defendant secure various commission business projects - Allegation that defendant circumvented its obligation to pay plaintiff's commission and solicited or enticed it away from plaintiff - Whether plaintiff fulfilled requirements of cooperation agreement to warrant payment of commission - Whether failure to agree on terms of payment of commission amounts to a breach - Whether alleged breach proven TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to injure - Conspiracy to injure by use of unlawful means - Conspiracy to breach agreement and deny entitlement under agreement - Conspiracy intertwined with breach of agreement - Breach of agreement unproven - Whether there was reliable evidence of conspiracy - Whether element of unlawful act disclosed - Whether conspiracy proven
|
|
|
TAN KIM LIN v. WANG SING FOE Where an agreement is entered for a specific purpose and the promisor is required to carry out certain acts or obligations subsequent to the agreement but fails to perform any part of the promise thereafter, such scenario amounts to a total failure of consideration. Following such total failure of consideration, the promisee has a quasi-contractual right to recover all the monies paid under the agreement. CONTRACT: Consideration - Total failure of consideration - Recovery of money paid - Quasi contractual right - Agreement entered for a specific purpose - Plaintiff was required to surrender its investment for value ascribed to them and their conversion as credit to defendant - Defendant failed to perform any part of promise under agreement - Whether there was total failure of consideration - Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover all monies paid - Whether there were material facts pleaded in statement of claim to sustain a claim for total failure of consideration
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 7 (Part 1)
The proviso to s. 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 prohibits appeals against decisions of the High Court, as the Land Reference Court, on compensation. How the compensation was arrived at and how such amount was wrong are issues of fact, and not questions of law, and ought not to be entertained by the Court of Appeal.
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor v. Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd [2021] 7 CLJ 1 [FC]
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Appeal against - Land owner dissatisfied with compensation awarded by Land Administrator - Land owner appealed against decision to High Court then to Court of Appeal - Whether appeal to Court of Appeal barred and prohibited - Whether issues/questions raised questions of fact/law - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 49(1)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellant - Khoo Guan Huat, Madihah Zainol, Vijay Raj & Tan Hui Wen; State Legal Advisor, Johor
- For the respondent - Gopal Sri Ram, Clarence Edwin, Margaret Tan Hui Ling, R Paramanandan, How Lee Ming & Marcus Lee; M/s Clarence Edwin Law Offices
The words 'during the period' in s. 75A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 make it clear that a company director should only be held liable for tax in respect of the year of assessment where he or she had already been appointed as a director, and not otherwise.
Government Of Malaysia v. Mahawira Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 7 CLJ 34 [CA]
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Years of assessment - Liability - Claim against company and director for outstanding tax amount for years of assessment 2001 to 2004 - Director only became director in late 2003 - Whether tax became due and payable by director even though years of assessment referred to may well be before that - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 75A(1)(a) & 103
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Liability - Claim against director of company for outstanding tax amount - Statutory threshold - Director held 20% shares - Whether director liable to pay tax - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 75A(2)(b)
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Assessment - Notices of assessment - Claim against director of company for outstanding tax amount - Whether notices of assessment served to director - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 96(1) & 103(2)
LIMITATION: Revenue - Income tax - Claim against company and director for outstanding tax amount for years of assessment 2001 to 2004 - Claim initiated in 2014 - Whether claim caught by limitation - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(d) - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 106(1)
LAU BEE LAN JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
- For the appellant - Norzilah N Hamod & Al-Hummidallah Idrus; Inland Revenue Board
- For the 2nd respondent - Ramesh Kanapathy & Aminruddin Salleh; M/s Chellam Wong
A landlord should not be allowed to claim the market rental for the entire premises when part of it contains an illegal structure with no approved plan or Certificate of Fitness under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 or the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984. The court cannot ignore the presence of the illegality and the terms of s. 24 of the Contracts Act 1950, or the fact that the 'user principle' could not in the circumstances be relied upon to justify the rental.
SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd v. Chin Hin Helmet Sdn Bhd [2021] 7 CLJ 51 [CA]
LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Wrongful occupation of premises - Assessment - Appeal against - Part of premises not issued with certificate of fitness - Whether should be excluded from assessment - Whether assessment should be made on whole premises or part of premises - Whether user principle applied - Presence of illegality - Whether claim allowed for market rental for entire premises despite part of premises an illegal structure under Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of - Appeal against - Wrongful occupation of premises - Certificate of fitness not issued to some part of premises - Whether some parts of building should be excluded from assessment - Whether user principle applied - Presence of illegality - Whether claim allowed for market rental for entire premises despite part of premises an illegal structure under Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
CONTRACT: Tenancy agreement - Part of premises not issued with certificate of fitness - Presence of illegality - Whether user principle applied - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24
MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
- For the appellant - Chong Ian Shin; M/s Arulampalam & Co
- For the respondent - HL Teh; M/s HL Teh & Assocs
Perkataan 'berbahaya' dan frasa 'alam sekeliling, pencemar atau buangan' yang terdapat di dalam ungkapan 'jika mana-mana benda yang berbahaya kepada alam sekeliling, pencemar atau buangan' di s. 31(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 hendaklah dibaca secara disjunktif; ini bermakna perkataan 'berbahaya' tersebut hanya terpakai kepada elemen pertama 'alam sekeliling' sahaja, iaitu 'mana-mana benda yang berbahaya kepada alam sekeliling', dan tidak kepada elemen kedua 'pencemar' dan elemen ketiga 'buangan'. Undang-undang adalah mantap apabila terdapat tanda baca (,) dan perkataan 'atau' dalam sesuatu frasa, seperti yang berlaku kepada s. 31(1) di sini, maka perkataan-perkataan yang terdapat selepas tanda baca (,) dan perkataan 'atau' itu hendaklah dibaca secara disjunktif.
Fermpro Sdn Bhd lwn. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 66 [HC]
PENTAFSIRAN BERKANUN: Statut - Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974, s. 31(1) - Sama ada perkataan 'berbahaya' terpakai pada elemen 'buangan' dan perlu dibuktikan dalam pertuduhan - Penggunaan koma (,) dan perkataan 'atau' dalam frasa - Sama ada peruntukan dibaca secara disjunktif atau konjunktif
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Pembuktian kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Tertuduh dituduh bawah s. 31(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 - Pelanggaran notis arahan - Kegagalan meleraikan semua komponen pemasangan unit pam di kolam terakhir untuk tujuan pemindahan efluen ke lori tangki - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah terhadap tertuduh
ARIK SANUSI YEOP JOHARI PK
- Bagi pihak perayu - Asmaniza Abdullah; T/n Yasmeen Hajar & Hairudin
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Mohd Izham Ali; TPR
(i) Protection of legal professional privilege as afforded under s. 126 of Evidence Act 1950 does not protect from disclosure, bank statements of client or office accounts of a solicitor especially when they merely provide the movement of monies in the accounts and does not contain any confidential information of clients; (ii) the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 permits disclosure of confidential documents if it is for compliance with any legal obligation, administration of justice or for the purpose of any court order or judgment; and (iii) res judicata would not operate to bar a subsequent decision, if the earlier decision was decided based on the issue of relevancy, for the purposes of a discovery application made under O. 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 while the latter was on the issue of relevancy and admissibility under the Evidence Act 1950.
Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v. Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd & Ors (No 2) [2021] 7 CLJ 88 [HC]
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Admissibility of - Admission of evidence already tendered in other suit - Bank statements - Whether relevant and necessary - Whether contained communication between solicitor and client - Whether contained confidential information of clients - Whether afforded protection of legal professional privilege under s. 126 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether prevented from disclosure by provisions of Personal Data Protection Act 2010 - Whether question of admissibility and relevancy had been determined in other suits - Whether admission barred by doctrine of res judicata
QUAY CHEW SOON JC
- For the 1st & 4th defendants - Ravindran Nekoo, Lee Kian Yuan & Nathan Narayasamy; M/s KY Lee & Partners
- For the 2nd & 3rd defendants - Wong Hok Mun & Eng Kar Wei; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong
By virtue of s. 99(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948, a Justice of the Peace in Sabah falls within the definition of Registrar under s. 11 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and is therefore competent to attest an affidavit for any legal proceedings in the Subordinate Court and the High Court.
Shim Yen Lin v. Cedric Wong King Ti [2021] 7 CLJ 104 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva injunction - Application for - Judgment on liability entered - Whether there were assets within jurisdiction of court - Whether there was real risk of dissipation of assets to defeat judgment
EVIDENCE: Affidavit - Affidavit in support - Admissibility - Affidavit in support affirmed before Justice of the Peace - Whether Justice of the Peace competent to administer oath in respect of affidavits filed in High Court proceedings - Whether affidavit in support properly affirmed - Whether affidavit in support defective - Whether curable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 41 r. 1, O. 2 r. 1 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 11 - Subordinate Courts Act 1948, s. 99(2)
LEONARD DAVID SHIM JC
- For the plaintiff - Alex Decena, Jordan Kong & Leslie Chaw; M/s Jayasuriya Kah & Co
- For the defendant - Jeyan Marimuttu & Eric Chong; M/s J Marimuttu & Partners
The Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board, in seeking to impose a greater or lesser penalty or punishment than that recommended by the Disciplinary Committee upon an advocate and solicitor, ought to notify the advocate and solicitor of its intention to do so and give him a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as such an order may have an adverse effect on the said advocate and solicitor.
Syed Ahmad Imdadz Said Abas v. Imej Muhibah Sdn Bhd; Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Intervener) [2021] 7 CLJ 125 [HC]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Right to be heard - Disciplinary Committee ('DC') found advocate and solicitor guilty of misconduct - DC recommended to Disciplinary Board ('DB') that advocate and solicitor be subjected to s. 103C(1)(c)(iii) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') and be suspended from practice for two years - DB affirmed DC's finding on liability but rejected DC's recommended punishment - DB ordered advocate and solicitor to pay fine and, in default, s. 103(1) of LPA shall apply - Whether further order made in event of default of payment of fine - Whether finding of liability of DC, affirmed by DB, ought to be set aside - Whether advocate and solicitor ought to be given reasonable opportunity to be heard before DB makes order likely to be adverse against him
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the appellant - Ahmad Yani Aminuddin, Mior Muhammad Fadhli Mior Shaifuddin & Nurul Jannah Mohd Joaini; M/s Nurul Fadhli & Partners
- For the respondent - Ranjan N Chandran; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
- For the intervener - Robin Lim Fang Say; M/s Chan & Assocs
CLJ 2021 Volume 7 (Part 2)
1. A news reporter who relies on the defence of reportage, a common law defence against defamation action, must specifically plead reportage, the defence being distinct and separate from the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism. The defence of reportage cannot be reconciled as part of the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism or qualified privilege as the gulf between the two defences is too wide to be abridged as defences of the same specie; both must be treated as mutually exclusive. The defence of reportage will become forfeited as soon as the vital element of reportage, ie, that the reporter's denial of having subscribed to a belief in the truth and accuracy of the defamatory imputations, is omitted from the pleadings.
2. Loss of good will is recoverable as a component of defamatory damages; a company's insolvency is inconsequential.
Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd [2021] 7 CLJ 145 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Defence - Defamatory articles and videos published in news portal - Defence of reportage - Whether separate defence from qualified privilege or Reynolds defence of responsible journalism - Whether to be treated as mutually exclusive - Whether off-shoot of Reynolds defence of responsible journalism - Whether must be specifically pleaded - Whether could be pleaded in alternative to Reynolds defence - Whether reportage sufficiently pleaded
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Defamatory articles and videos published in news portal - Defence - Defence of reportage - Whether sufficiently pleaded - Whether separate defence from qualified privilege or Reynolds defence of responsible journalism - Whether off-shoot of Reynolds defence of responsible journalism - Whether tone of articles and videos accusatory, damaging and disparaging - Whether publisher subscribed to belief in truth and accuracy of defamatory imputations - Whether breached reportage rule - Whether failure to report story in fair, disinterested and neutral way negated protection of reportage
TORT: Defamation - Damages - Defamatory articles and videos published in news portal about company - Loss of goodwill and vindication of reputation - Company insolvent - Whether defamation led to winding-up of company - Whether loss of goodwill could be recovered as component of defamatory damages - Whether damages recoverable without proving actual loss
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
- For the appellants - Cyrus Das, James Khong, Syahredzan Johan & Edwin Lim; M/s James Khong
- For the respondent - Cecil Abraham, Sunil Abraham, Noor Muzalifah Shabudin & Anne Sangeetha Sebastian; M/s Cecil Abraham & Partners
(1) Unless expressly provided for in the memorandum and articles of association of a company, the suspension of a director could not be implied. The power to suspend a company director which is not specifically provided in the Companies Act 2016 could not be implied given the extensiveness of the said Act. Further, if the company's own articles did not provide for it, be it Board appointed or member appointed, then Parliament did not intend for such power to be included.
(2) If the directors of a company fail to show actual proof that they had been deliberately excluded from a Company Board Meeting, the exclusion is a mere irregularity and is capable of being ratifiable. It can be cured by a subsequent meeting of the company's board which can be done by a Directors' Circulation Resolution which seeks to ratify, confirm, accept and/or approve all decisions made at the Board Meeting. Thus, in such a scenario, decisions made by the company's Board are valid and lawful.
Dato' Shun Leong Kwong & Anor v. Menang Corporation (M) Bhd & Ors [2021] 7 CLJ 232 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Suspension - Whether company had power, express or implied, to suspend directors - Whether provisions of Companies Act 2016 expressly provide for suspension of director - Whether memorandum and articles of association of company expressly provide for power to suspend director - Whether Parliament intended for such power to be included
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Meetings - Whether directors deliberately excluded from board meeting - Whether directors' exclusion from board meeting mere irregularity - Whether ratifiable - Whether company duty bound to summon meeting under ss. 311 and 312 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether there was abuse of power - Whether decisions made by company's board valid and lawful
WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA JC
- For the plaintiffs - Michael Chow & Wong Zhi Khung; M/s Michael Chow
- For the defendants - Yap Boon Hau & Yeap Chi Cheng; M/s Mah-Kamariyah & Philip Koh
A Distribution Order issued by the Land Administrator under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 based on false information provided by the beneficiaries of the deceased's estate is null and void, unenforceable in law and liable to be set aside. A fortiori, such an order is defeasible at the instance of the holder of a valid Power of Attorney issued by the deceased to a beneficiary, effectively gifting the impugned landed property to the latter.
Mulia Ab Samat v. Hussien Abd Shukor & Ors [2021] 7 CLJ 271 [HC]
LAND LAW: Transfer - Validity - Power of attorney - Distribution Order - Plaintiff transferring land to her name by way of power of attorney - Defendants obtaining Distribution Order for same land as beneficiaries - Distribution Order obtained upon false information to Land Administrator - Whether invalid - Whether could not defeat power of attorney - Whether plaintiff wrongly dispossessed of land - Damages - Powers of Attorney Act 1949 (Revised 1990), ss. 5, 6, 7 - Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, s. 13
CHOO KAH SING J
- For the plaintiff - Mohaji Selamat & Halijah; M/s Mohaji Hazury & Ismail
- For the defendants - Samry Masri; M/s Sam Masri & Assocs
The law will not protect an incompetent road user, who had not taken sufficient steps to comply with the legal responsibilities and duties before he was allowed to drive on the road; more so, where such incompetency caused loss and damage to other road users; in a case of a road accident, such incompetent driver would be contributorily negligent.
Nui Chai Kian v. Hasbi Omar [2021] 7 CLJ 281 [HC]
ROAD TRAFFIC: Accident - Liability - Finding of 100% liability against defendant - Whether right of way to be given to traffic on or approaching from right at roundabout - Whether trial judge interpreted r. 3(2)(a) of Road Traffic Rules 1959 correctly - Whether there was roundabout where accident occurred - Whether plaintiff liable for contributory negligence - Whether plaintiff held valid driving licence - Whether completed two-year probationary period for grant of driving licence - Whether plaintiff adjusted speed of vehicle while travelling - Whether findings on liability against defendant ought to be varied
TORT: Negligence - Contributory negligence - Plaintiff failed to equip himself with necessary skill and competence to drive on road - Whether failed to use reasonable care for own safety - Whether contributory cause of accident - Whether reasonably foreseeable that failure to adjust speed of motor vehicle at busy intersection would result in collision with another motor vehicle - Whether plaintiff liable for contributory negligence
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
- For the appellant/defendant - Vishnukumar Ramalingam & Shila Mookerji; M/s Syed Alwi Ng & Co
- For the respondent/plaintiff - Kumari Kamala N Krishnan; M/s Naht, Guna & Partners
A company may appoint a solicitor to act on its behalf without a formal board resolution provided that it was done in writing and signed by a majority of the company's directors in accordance with its articles of association.
Yee Teck Fah v. Worthy Builders Sdn Bhd [2021] 7 CLJ 301 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Suit by company - Solicitor - Appointment - Appointment without formal board resolution - One of directors bankrupt - Warrant to act on behalf of company - Warrant to act not executed by majority of directors - Whether in accordance with Companies Act 1965 and articles of association - Whether warrant to act constitutes resolution in writing - Whether board of directors duly authorised to appoint solicitor - Whether separate acts of executing notice of appointment of solicitors and warrant to act by different directors amounted to unanimous appointment of solicitor by board of directors - Companies Act 1965, ss. 122(1) & 131B
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JC
- For the petitioner - Yee Teck Fah & Ong Gek Lin; M/s Yee Teck Fah & Co
- For the respondent - Oommen Koshy; M/s NK Menon & Assocs
CLJ Article(s)
HOW SHOULD EPF CONTRIBUTION BE DEALT WITH IN ASSESSING CLAIMS FOR DEPENDENCY CLAIMS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS? [Read excerpt]
by SANTHANA DASS SAVARINATHAN* [2021] 7 CLJ(A) i
LNS Article(s)
THE PARADIGM SHIFT IN ESTABLISHING STANDARD OF CARE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES IN MALAYSIA: THE RELEVANCY AND CLARITY OF THE BOLAM'S TEST TODAY [Read excerpt]
by Marini Arumugam* Heama Latha Nair** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xcvCRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATE BODIES IN NIGERIA: HAS THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015 CHANGED THE LAW? [Read excerpt]
by Okanyi, D.O.[i] Egemonu, J.[ii] Abdulgani, M.T.[iii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) xcvi
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) 319/2021 | Federal Roads (Felda Scheme) (Amendment) Order 2021 | 29 July 2021 | 30 July 2021 | PU(A) 449/1991 |
| PU(A) 318/2021 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 8) Order 2021 | 28 July 2021 | 1 August 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 317/2021 | Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) (No. 6) Order 2021 | 26 July 2021 | 27 July 2021 | ACT 50 |
| PU(A) 316/2021 | Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (Exemption of Levy) (No. 4) Order 2021 | 26 July 2021 | 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021 | ACT 612 |
| PU(A) 315/2021 | Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (Exemption of Levy) (No. 3) Order 2021 | 26 July 2021 | 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021 | ACT 612 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 385/2021 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 29 July 2021 | 30 July 2021 to 12 August 2021 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 384/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 461 Precinct 10 Putrajaya | 28 July 2021 | 29 July 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 383/2021 | Free Zones (Amendment of Second Schedule) Notification (No. 2) 2021 | 26 July 2021 | 1 August 2021 | ACT 438 |
| PU(B) 382/2021 | Free Zones (Declared Area) Notification (No. 2) 2021 | 26 July 2021 | 1 August 2021 | ACT 438 |
| PU(B) 381/2021 | Notification of Application For Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right | 26 July 2021 | 27 July 2021 | ACT 634 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| AKTA 50 | Akta Perubatan 1971 | PU(A) 317/2021 | 27 Julai 2021 | Jadual Kedua |
| ACT 50 | Medical Act 1971 | PU(A) 317/2021 | 27 July 2021 | Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 5/2017 | Customs Duties Order 2017 | PU(A) 314/2021 | 1 August 2021 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 493/1991 | Employees Provident Fund Rules 1991 | PU(A) 308/2021 | 15 July 2021 | Rule 41 |
| PU(A) 409/2001 | Peraturan-Peraturan Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 2001 | PU(A) 307/2021 | 15 Julai 2021 | Peraturan 5A |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 278/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 4) 2021 [Dibatalkan Oleh Pu(A) 293/2021] | PU(A) 293/2021 | 5 Julai 2021 |
| PU(A) 278/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 [Revoked By Pu(A) 293/2021] | PU(A) 293/2021 | 5 July 2021 |
| PU(B) 454/2020 | Pelantikan Anggota Lembaga | PU(B) 341/2021 | 19 Jun 2021 |
| PU(B) 454/2020 | Appointment of Member of the Authority | PU(B) 341/2021 | 19 June 2021 |
| PU(B) 402/2016 | Appointment of Registrar | PU(B) 314/2021 | 12 April 2021 |