|
Issue #31/2021
05 August 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
|
JASMINE MOHD HANEEF v. AMANDA JAYNE SPINKS & ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 7 CLJ 327
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA; YAACOB MD SAM JCA; NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-02(IM)-2417-12-2019 & W-02(IM)-2332-12-2019]
21 JUNE 2021
The petition for judicial separation filed by the wife in this case whereby she cited a Muslim as a co-respondent and alleged that the latter had committed adultery with her husband and should be condemned to damages pursuant to s. 58 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, is destined to fail. The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, upon a proper construction of its s. 3(3), has no jurisdiction over, does not apply to and excludes all Muslims. The clear, categoric and mandatory language of s. 3(3) shows that it is a blanket exclusion of Muslims from the entire Act, whether in relation to marriage or divorce or in any manner whatsoever. And it censures, quite decidedly, the argument that it is 'Muslim marriages' and not 'Muslims' that is exempted from the Act.
FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('Act') applies to Muslims - Whether sub-s. 3(3) blanket exclusion of all Muslims from entire Act - Whether Act applies to Muslim alleged to have committed adultery with non-Muslim
FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Claim for damages - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent and claimed for damages - Whether claim for damages against co-respondent on ground of adultery applies in petition for divorce only - Whether could apply in petition for judicial separation - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 58
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 3(3) - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('Act') applies to Muslims - Whether sub-s. 3(3) blanket exclusion of Muslims from entire Act - Whether language of s. 3(3) plain, unambiguous and unequivocal - Rule of construction - Whether required literal or purposive approach of interpretation - Legislative intent behind enactment of Act
SUBRAMANIAM LETCHIMANAN v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA & ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 7 CLJ 371
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; LEE SWEE SENG JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-66-01-2020 & W-01(A)-59-01-2020]
18 MAY 2021
[2021] CLJ JT(11)
The law of sovereign immunity that applies in Malaysia is that of the doctrine of restrictive immunity. It follows that not all acts of the sovereign foreign state are immune from legal action, and actions that are immune are only those that are governmental or diplomatic in nature and which bring into question the foreign state's legislative or international transactions or the policy of its executive. It follows that the decision of the Minister of Human Resource in referring the matter of the appellant's dismissal by the USA to the Industrial Court for adjudication was not wrong in law. The Industrial Court, within this prism, bears the duty of determining the exact nature of the appellant's role as a security guard at the Embassy, the truth or otherwise of the argument that the appellant's job was of a menial character and one which had nothing to do with confidential information or documents, and whether the defence of state immunity applied. The High Court cannot assume such functions without breaching the scheme of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 or the principles of judicial review. The USA's challenge against the Minister's decision being patently premature, the same must, on that score, stand dismissed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Whether Minister wrong in law to refer dispute to Industrial Court - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether there was undue delay on Minister's part in making reference - Whether long lapse of time caused serious prejudice to USA - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Whether judicial review application premature - Whether ran contrary to scheme of Industrial Relations Act 1967 and basic principles of judicial review - Whether Minister's reference tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
LABOUR LAW: Industrial Court - Jurisdiction - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)
“Numerous authors and cases hasten to explain that goodwill and reputation are not one and the same. Something which is reputable and popular may not necessarily have goodwill. It is in this sense that Lord Macnaghten's dicta that goodwill is 'the attractive force which brings in custom' sheds some light. Goodwill is proprietary whereas reputation is not.”
“What is clear from the cases is that goodwill, if it exists, is always attached to a business or trade. The evidence in the present appeal is quite overwhelming that there is goodwill attached to the name 'Hafiz Hamidun' such that any misrepresentation of it will cause or is likely to cause damage to the goodwill of a business conducted using it.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in Mohammad Hafiz Hamidun v. Kamdar Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 CLJ 799
Legal Network Series
|
LEE BOON KEONG & YANG LAIN lwn. YEW KOK CHOOI & SATU LAGI Sekiranya tanah dimiliki oleh beberapa pemilik dan pemilik-pemilik tersebut mengetahui pembahagian tanah mereka masing-masing, sebelum pecah bahagian tanah dibuat, dan apabila salah satu pemilik melakukan sebarang kegiatan di atas bahagian tanahnya tersebut, maka pemilik bahagian tanah yang lain adalah tidak wajar membawa tindakan pencerobohan dan menuntut untuk keuntungan daripada pemilik yang melakukan kegiatan di atas bahagian tanah tersebut melainkan jika wujud sebarang perjanjian kerjasama dan perkongsian keuntungan antara semua pemilik-pemilik. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Ganti rugi - Tindakan oleh perayu sebagai pemilik 1/2 bahagian tanah terhadap responden sebagai pemilik 1/2 bahagian tanah yang lain - Pihak-pihak mengetahui pembahagian tanah sebelum pecah bahagian tanah - Responden memasuki projek pengeluaran pasir di atas tanah miliknya - Perayu tidak mengeluarkan sebarang perbelanjaan tetapi menuntut ganti rugi dan keuntungan - Sama ada wujud sebarang perjanjian kerjasama antara perayu dan responden berkaitan projek pengeluaran tanah dan perkongsian keuntungan - Sama ada wujud pencerobohan ke atas tanah
|
|
|
PP lwn. MOHD FARID AZIZAN Hukuman maksima bagi kesalahan pemilikan dadah jenis cannabis ialah 30 tahun. Tren penghukuman semasa bagi kesalahan pemilikan dadah berbahaya jenis cannabis berjumlah antara 340.1 gram hingga 4,500 gram adalah 18 tahun penjara dan 10 kali sebatan rotan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pendakwa raya - Hukuman penjara 12 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 10 kali sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan pemilikan dadah berbahaya - Dadah jenis cannabis berjumlah 411g - Pembelaan tidak menunjukkan penyesalan tertuduh - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah terlampau tidak memadai - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam sewajarnya dipertimbangkan berbanding dengan faktor kepentingan peribadi tertuduh - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan mencerminkan tren penghukuman semasa
|
|
|
PP v. CHOU MAU & ANOR 1. When a prima facie case had been established by the appellate court, then the trial court's duty at the conclusion of the trial was merely to determine whether the explanation of the accused had cast a real and reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and not to determine whether the prosecution witnesses were credible or otherwise. 2. Testimony of a witness should not be rejected merely on the ground of his drug addiction. A drug addict who has taken his oath in the Court is entitled to credence like any other witness, unless proven otherwise. CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Common intention - Formation - Accused did not inflict fatal injury on deceased but was armed with a dangerous weapon and had actively participated together with other accused in attack against deceased - Whether there was a concerted attack by accused persons on deceased - Whether common intention formed on spur of moment - Whether an accused who did not inflict fatal injury on deceased was equally liable for the act of other accused - Penal Code, s. 34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Trial court revisited issue on credibility of prosecution's witnesses at conclusion of trial - Trial court rejected testimonies of prosecution's witnesses because they were drug addicts - Finding of prima facie case by appellate court - Whether finding by appellate court that a prima facie case had been established must be taken as if it was a finding by trial court itself - Whether trial court was free to revisit issue on credibility of prosecution's witness at conclusion of trial EVIDENCE: Witnesses - Competency - Admissibility of - Testimony of drug addict - Whether drug addiction per se could be a ground for rejecting testimonies of drug addict - Whether drug addict could be regarded as an incompetent witness - Whether drug addict who has taken his oath is entitled to credence like any other witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 118
|
|
|
SUN HOLDING (SUN PARK HOTEL) CO LTD & ORS v. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD A counterclaim which had been remitted back to the lower court for determination by the apex court must be decided on its substantive merits rather than through an interlocutory application. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Application for striking out filed after counterclaim was remitted back to lower court for determination - Apex court reversed decision of lower court dismissing counterclaim on a threshold jurisdictional point - Whether counterclaim should be decided on its substantive merits - Whether application to strike out counterclaim ought to be entertained
|
|
|
MATHAN RAJ PARAMASIVAM lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN 1. Lembaga Penasihat tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan sapina ke atas saksi yang berada dalam tahanan pusat pemulihan akhlak. Sebaliknya, peguam pemohon boleh menguruskan sendiri kehadiran saksi yang berada dalam tahanan pemulihan akhlak dengan membuat permohonan terus kepada pegawai yang menjaga pusat pemulihan akhlak untuk membawa saksi yang berada di bawah jagaannya tersebut ketika pendengaran representasi pemohon di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat. 2. Pemohon sewajarnya diberikan kertas yang mencukupi bagi membolehkan pemohon mencatatkan representasinya bagi pertimbangan Lembaga Penasihat. Justeru, pemberian borang representasi tambahan terjumlah kepada kertas berasingan bagi maksud k. 4(2) Kaedah-Kaedah Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) (Prosedur Lembaga Penasihat) 1987. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Dakwaan bahawa Lembaga Penasihat gagal mengemukakan sapina kepada saksi - Saksi ditahan di pusat pemulihan akhlak - Sama ada pendengaran representasi pemohon terjejas - Sama ada wujud ketidak patuhan prosedur mandatori - Sama ada Lembaga Penasihat mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan sapina kepada saksi yang berada dalam tahanan pusat pemulihan akhlak - Sama ada Lembaga Penasihat telah meminta pihak peguam pemohon untuk menguruskan sendiri kehadiran saksi PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Ketidak patuhan prosedur - Tertuduh diberi tambahan Borang 1 untuk menulis representasinya - Pemohon tidak mempertikaikan penerimaan Borang 1 - Sama ada tambahan Borang 1 terjumlah kepada kertas berasingan bagi maksud k. 4(2) Kaedah-Kaedah Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) (Prosedur Lembaga Penasihat) 1987 - Sama ada pemohon telah diberi peluang yang mencukupi untuk mengemukakan representasi ke Lembaga Penasihat berkaitan perintah tahanan PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Ketidak patuhan prosedur - Pertikaian berkenaan tatacara percakapan yang diambil oleh pegawai penyiasat - Laporan lengkap penyiasatan diserahkan melalui Bukit Aman - Sama ada pegawai penyiasat telah memperincikan percakapan saksi-saksi - Sama ada pegawai penyiasat telah mematuhi peruntukan s. 4(5) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Sama ada pegawai penyiasat harus secara peribadi menyerahkan laporan lengkap penyiasatan kepada Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri - Sama ada wujud ketidak patuhan peruntukan s. 3(3) Akta dalam penyerahan laporan lengkap penyiasat
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 7 (Part 3)
Rules of court are subsidiary legislations that regulate the court procedures and therefore do not give rise to substantive right in law. Hence, the claim for post-judgment interest, purportedly on contractual basis, is bound to fail where the party failed to establish a valid cause of action to claim under O. 42 r. 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or r. 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Desa Samudra Sdn Bhd v. Bandar Teknik Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 7 CLJ 311 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interest - Post-judgment interest - Power of court to direct interest to be paid - Whether to be exercised in accordance with rules of court - Whether s. 25 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 vests rights to post-judgment interest - Whether only empowers court to direct interest on judgment debt - Whether court rules give rise to substantive right in law - Whether stakeholder and consent agreements give rise to right to post-judgment interest - Whether agreements merely preserved respective position of parties - Rules of Court 2012, O. 42 r. 12 - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 15
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
- For the appellant - Malik lmtiaz, Yvonne Lim & Roobini S; M/s Weng & Co
- For the respondents - CP Mahendran & G Suritha; M/s RR Chelliah Brothers
The petition for judicial separation filed by the wife in this case whereby she cited a Muslim as a co-respondent and alleged that the latter had committed adultery with her husband and should be condemned to damages pursuant to s. 58 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, is destined to fail. The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, upon a proper construction of its s. 3(3), has no jurisdiction over, does not apply to and excludes all Muslims. The clear, categoric and mandatory language of s. 3(3) shows that it is a blanket exclusion of Muslims from the entire Act, whether in relation to marriage or divorce or in any manner whatsoever. And it censures, quite decidedly, the argument that it is 'Muslim marriages' and not 'Muslims' that is exempted from the Act.
Jasmine Mohd Haneef v. Amanda Jayne Spinks & Another Appeal [2021] 7 CLJ 327 [CA]
FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('Act') applies to Muslims - Whether sub-s. 3(3) blanket exclusion of all Muslims from entire Act - Whether Act applies to Muslim alleged to have committed adultery with non-Muslim
FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Claim for damages - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent and claimed for damages - Whether claim for damages against co-respondent on ground of adultery applies in petition for divorce only - Whether could apply in petition for judicial separation - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 58
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 3(3) - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('Act') applies to Muslims - Whether sub-s. 3(3) blanket exclusion of Muslims from entire Act - Whether language of s. 3(3) plain, unambiguous and unequivocal - Rule of construction - Whether required literal or purposive approach of interpretation - Legislative intent behind enactment of Act
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
- For the appellant - Siew Choon Jern & Ong Chern Yii; M/s Douglas Yee
- For the respondent - Ravi Nekoo, Puspha Ratnam & Parvinder Kaur; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
- For the appellant - Ravi Nekoo, Puspha Ratnam & Parvinder Kaur; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
- For the respondent - Siew Choon Jern & Ong Chern Yii; M/s Douglas Yee
(1) Although several statements against the plaintiffs' products made by the defendant in her Facebook account, which was for public consumption, were disparaging and were sufficient to constitute defamation, the element of being 'malicious' per se was not present. So long as the person believes in the truth of what he/she said and was not reckless, 'malice' could not be inferred from the fact that his/her belief was unreasonable, prejudiced or unfair.
(2) A judge can make any orders he/she thinks fit in the event directions given to parties are not complied with. However, treating the same fault of not adhering to instructions differently between the parties and taking drastic action against one party and not the other would be inappropriate and unfair. Further, a failure to furnish a written grounds of judgment would make it difficult for an appellate court to hear the appeal effectively. Ordering a retrial of the case would be best in the interest of justice.
Rekha Munisamy v. Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 7 CLJ 353 [CA]
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Statements made in Facebook - Whether disparaging statements amounting to libel and malicious falsehood - Whether statements sufficient to constitute defamation - Whether statements made for public consumption
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Statements made in Facebook - Whether disparaging statements amounting to libel and malicious falsehood - Element of being malicious - Whether present - Whether statements made in bad faith in trying to destroy one's reputation and standing - Whether maliciously done without just cause and excuse - Whether claim for malicious falsehood proved
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Procedures - High Court Judge struck out claim and retracting it - Whether decision of High Court not yet perfected could be subjected to review by same judge - Whether order yet to be finalised - Whether High Court functus officio
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Procedures - Failure of parties in adhering to instructions - Whether High Court Judge can make orders in event directions not complied with - Whether High Court Judge erred in exercising discretion pursuant to O. 34 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether High Court Judge ought to be appropriate and fair
LAU BEE LAN JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - Shaik Jireh Rizal; M/s Shaik Jireh Rizal
- For the respondents - Gurdev Singh Jagjit Singh; M/s Esther Ong, Tengku Saiful & Sree
The law of sovereign immunity that applies in Malaysia is that of the doctrine of restrictive immunity. It follows that not all acts of the sovereign foreign state are immune from legal action, and actions that are immune are only those that are governmental or diplomatic in nature and which bring into question the foreign state's legislative or international transactions or the policy of its executive. It follows that the decision of the Minister of Human Resource in referring the matter of the appellant's dismissal by the USA to the Industrial Court for adjudication was not wrong in law. The Industrial Court, within this prism, bears the duty of determining the exact nature of the appellant's role as a security guard at the Embassy, the truth or otherwise of the argument that the appellant's job was of a menial character and one which had nothing to do with confidential information or documents, and whether the defence of state immunity applied. The High Court cannot assume such functions without breaching the scheme of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 or the principles of judicial review. The USA's challenge against the Minister's decision being patently premature, the same must, on that score, stand dismissed.
Subramaniam Letchimanan v. The United States Of America & Another Appeal [2021] 7 CLJ 371 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Whether Minister wrong in law to refer dispute to Industrial Court - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether there was undue delay on Minister's part in making reference - Whether long lapse of time caused serious prejudice to USA - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Whether judicial review application premature - Whether ran contrary to scheme of Industrial Relations Act 1967 and basic principles of judicial review - Whether Minister's reference tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
LABOUR LAW: Industrial Court - Jurisdiction - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Workman working as security guard dismissed by USA Embassy ('USA') - Whether USA's decision to dismiss workman made in its governmental function as sovereign state - Whether sovereign immunity applied - Whether issues ought to be determined by Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant minister - Liew Horng Bin; SFC
- For the appellant workman - Ragunath Kesavan & Merie Chen Mong Yi; M/s Kesavan
- For the respondent The United States of America - Lim Heng Seng, Amardeep Singh & Tan Wei Wenn; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill
(1) A judge ought not to have to recuse himself from hearing a money laundering case under the Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 when he has heard a forfeiture application under s. 41(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 in respect of the cash monies in the possession of the accused. The judge, who did not make any finding on the credibility of the accused beyond having access to the competing affidavits of the accused and the prosecution in the forfeiture application, could not have formed an opinion or was prejudiced against the accused. There was therefore no 'real danger of bias'.
(2) In money laundering or corruption cases that involve several persons and an elaborate scheme, the common link between accused persons would be 'unity of purpose and design' to commit the crimes. It would thus involve common witnesses and a joint trial would indeed expedite matters for the benefit of all.
Teo Chee Kong v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 414 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judge - Recusal - Application for - Judge read submissions and affidavits in previous forfeiture application involving accused - Accused subsequently charged under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether judge would form prejudicial opinion against accused - Whether there was 'real danger of bias'
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Joint trial - Whether there was common link between accused persons - Whether there was unity of purpose or design to commit crime - Whether involved common witnesses - Whether order for joint trial would expedite trial for benefit of all
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
- For the appellant - Roland Cheng, Ram Singh, Kimberly Ye Wan Chuin & Michele Yee; M/s Roland Cheng & Co
- For the respondent - Allan Suman Pillai & Mohd Sophian Zakaria; DPPs
(1) A solicitor is not in a position to initiate a suit to claim for outstanding legal fees in his name only, without naming his partners in the firm. If the partnership is no longer in existence, it is improper for the suit to be brought in the name of the partnership. Further, on the assessment, valuation and judicial appreciation of the evidence, gaps in the solicitor's case would render it one which fails to reach the threshold of proof required in a civil case.
(2) Section 124 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 requires a bill of costs to be delivered to the chargeable person before an action can be commenced for recovery of costs. A failure to tender any evidence, whether in the form of correspondence or otherwise, to show that invoices which purportedly contain the amount of legal fees owed, shows that no demand has been made. The solicitor thus would not be in a position to initiate a suit for outstanding legal fees.
Bandari Simma Realty Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan [2021] 7 CLJ 429 [HC]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitor - Fees - Claim for outstanding legal fees - Solicitor commenced action as former partner of firm - Whether solicitor proper party to initiate suit - Whether there was privity of contract - Whether there was admission of liability on chargeable person's part - Failure to call material witness - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked - Failure to deliver bill of costs to chargeable person before action could be commenced for recovery of costs - Whether solicitor had made demands from chargeable party for him to be in position to initiate suit - Whether case proved on balance of probabilities - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 124
EVROL MARIETTE PETERS JC
- For the appellants - Nadesh Baskaran & MK Saw; M/s Teo Saw & Partners
- For the respondent - C Sivasankar & Aida Hassan; M/s G Ravi
The affidavit by a solicitor affirmed on behalf of the client, is inadmissible and hence, should be rejected, as any deponent of affidavits may be cross-examined by the adversary.
Lim Liah Wee v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 448 [HC]
EVIDENCE: Affidavit - Affidavit-in-support - Solicitor affirmed affidavit on behalf of client - Whether proper - Whether should be rejected - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 28
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Stay of execution - Application for - Stay of execution pending appeal - Applicant found guilty under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment and one stroke of rotan - Whether back door application for bail - Whether applicant should apply for bail pending appeal - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 57
AWG ARMADAJAYA AWG MAHMUD JC
- For the appellant - Mohd Ismail Mohamed; M/s Ismail Khoo & Assocs
- For the respondent - Mustaqim Sukarno; DPP
Permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri mengenakan cukai tambahan harus dibenarkan apabila terdapat isu-isu persoalan undang-undang yang menjadi pertikaian untuk ditentukan oleh mahkamah ini, khususnya mengenai pemakaian s. 44(6) Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967. Pemohon berjaya menunjukkan keadaan khas yang membolehkan kebenaran memulakan prosiding semakan kehakiman diberikan.
Setia Indah Sdn Bhd lwn. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2021] 7 CLJ 475 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Permohonan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri ('responden') mengeluarkan notis-notis taksiran - Audit cukai dijalankan terhadap pemohon - Pemohon membuat sumbangan kepada Kerajaan Negeri untuk tujuan pelepasan unit berstatus Bumiputera - Sama ada sumbangan layak untuk potongan cukai - Sama ada responden berhak mengabaikan peruntukan s. 44(6) Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 dan keputusan kes Sabah Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri - Sama ada responden bertindak luar bidang kuasanya dalam mengenakan cukai tambahan terhadap pemohon - Sama ada terdapat keadaan khas membolehkan kebenaran memulakan prosiding semakan kehakiman
UNDANG-UNDANG HASIL: Cukai - Pengenaan cukai tambahan - Audit cukai dijalankan terhadap pemohon - Pemohon membuat sumbangan pada Kerajaan Negeri untuk tujuan pelepasan unit berstatus Bumiputera - Sama ada sumbangan layak untuk potongan cukai - Sama ada responden berhak mengabaikan peruntukan s. 44(6) Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 dan keputusan kes Sabah Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri - Sama ada responden bertindak luar bidang kuasanya dalam mengenakan cukai tambahan terhadap pemohon
MARIANA YAHYA H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - S Saravana Kumar & Nur Hanina Mohd Azhan; T/n Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
- Bagi pihak Peguam Negara - Aisaf Falina Abdullah; PKP
- Bagi pihak responden putatif - Ridzuan Othman; Peguam Negara & Nordiana Sham; Peguam, LHDN
LNS Article(s)
IS GOD'S KINGDOM KERAJAAN TUHAN OR KERAJAAN ALLAH? – A PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSLATION [Read excerpt]
by Dr Abraham Mathew* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xcviiFORUM NON CONVENIENS - A CONVENIENT SOLUTION TO AN INCONVENIENT PROBLEM [COMPARATIVE STUDIES] [Read excerpt]
by Alex Anton Netto* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xcviiiLESSONS LEARNED FROM HONG KONG: THE POTENTIAL FOR THIRD PARTY FUNDING IN MALAYSIA'S INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LANDSCAPE+ [Read excerpt]
by Anita Natalia* Arif Umar Faruq Bin Faiz** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xcixVALUE-BASED INTERMEDIATION (VBI) ADOPTION IN ISLAMIC BANKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAQASID AL-SHARIAH [Read excerpt]
by Noraida Shahliza Md Ghani* Asma Hakimah Ab. Halim** [2021] 1 LNS(A) c
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) 329/2021 | Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 7) Order 2021 | 4 August 2021 | 1 September 2020 | ACT 378 |
| PU(A) 328/2021 | Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 6) Order 2021 | 4 August 2021 | 30 July 2020 | ACT 378 |
| PU(A) 327/2021 | Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021 | 4 Ogos 2021 | 7 July 2021 - Subsubparagraphs 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii) and subparagraphs 2(b) and 2(c); 1 July 2021 - Subsubparagraph 2(a)(iii) and subparagraph 2(d) | PU(A) 201/2020 |
| PU(A) 326/2021 | Federal Territory (Planning) (Fee For Purchase of Local Plan (Alteration 3) (Part II)) Rules 2021 | 3 August 2021 | 9 August 2021 | ACT 267 |
| PU(A) 325/2021 | Income Tax (Deduction For Expenditure On Industry4wrd Readiness Assessment) (Amendment) Rules 2021 | 2 August 2021 | 3 August 2021 | PU(A) 272/2020 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 410/2021 | Appointment of Probation Officers | 4 August 2021 | 15 August 2021 | ACT 611 |
| PU(B) 409/2021 | Appointment of Authorized Officers | 4 August 2021 | 15 August 2021 | ACT 308 |
| PU(B) 408/2021 | Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor | 3 August 2021 | Specified in column (2) of Schedule | ACT 593 |
| PU(B) 407/2021 | Notification of Adoption of The Draft Proposal For Alteration of Local Plan For The Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur | 3 August 2021 | 4 August 2021 | ACT 267 |
| PU(B) 406/2021 | Appointment of Chairman of a Division of The Industrial Court | 3 August 2021 | 15 April 2021 | ACT 177 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 201/2020 | Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 3) 2020 | PU(A) 327/2021 | 7 Julai 2021 - Subsubperenggan 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii) dan subperenggan 2(b) dan 2(c); 1 Julai 2021 - Subsubperenggan 2(a)(iii) dan subperenggan 2(d) | Jadual |
| PU(A) 201/2020 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 3) Order 2020 | PU(A) 327/2021 | 7 July 2021 - Subsubparagraphs 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii) and subparagraphs 2(b) and 2(c); 1 July 2021 - Subsubparagraph 2(a)(iii) and subparagraph 2(d) | Schedule |
| PU(A) 272/2020 | Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Potongan Bagi Perbelanjaan Ke Atas Penilaian Kesediaan Industry4wrd) 2020 | PU(A) 325/2021 | 3 Ogos 2021 | Kaedah 1 dan 3 |
| PU(A) 272/2020 | Income Tax (Deduction For Expenditure on Industry4wrd Readiness Assessment) Rules 2020 | PU(A) 325/2021 | 3 August 2021 | Rules 1 and 3 |
| PU(A) 449/1991 | Perintah Jalan Persekutuan (Skim Felda) 1991 | PU(A) 319/2021 | 30 Julai 2021 | Jadual Pertama & Jadual Kedua |
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 |