Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #40/2021 07 October 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week HEW KUAN YAU v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS [2021] 8 CLJ 911 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 8 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

HEW KUAN YAU v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS [2021] 8 CLJ 911
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-531-11-2019]
24 JUNE 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Application to quash decision of Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister') - Minister issued prohibitory order and banned book ('decision') - Whether decision reasonable/rational - Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that book likely to be prejudicial to public order, security or alarm public opinion - Whether decision bias, made in bad faith and disproportionate - Whether there was actual harm or damage caused to anyone during circulation of book - Whether there was denial of right to be heard - Whether s. 7(1) of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 constitutional

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution - Constitutionality - Application to quash decision of Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister') - Minister issued prohibitory order and banned book ('decision') - Whether decision reasonable/rational - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether there was denial of right to be heard - Whether s. 7(1) of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 constitutional - Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 8 & 10

---

1. Karuppu Samy Rajamohan lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1903 (CA) mengesahkan kes PP lwn. Karuppu Samy a/l Rajamohan [Bicara Jenayah No: 45A-08-08-2016]

2. Wan Mazri Pak Wan Teh lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1909 (CA) mengesahkan kes PP lwn. Wan Mazri bin Pak Wan Teh [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45A-6-02/2015]

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1153	HASHIM JAFFAR & SATU LAGI lwn. RUSNAH JAFFAR & SATU LAGI Tindakan memasukkan kaveat atas hartanah memberi inferens bahawa seorang bapa tidak mempunyai niat untuk memberikan hartanah tersebut kepada anaknya secara percuma atau secara kasih sayang. Hartanah yang telah diberikan secara sementara kepada anak bagi tujuan tertentu harus dikembalikan semula selepas tujuan tersebut telah tercapai. KONTRAK: Perjanjian lisan - Pelaksanaan spesifik - Perjanjian lisan untuk penyerahan semula hak ke atas hartanah - Hartanah diberikan oleh bapa kepada anak untuk membantu urusan pinjaman - Keengganan anak untuk memindahkan semula hartanah kepada bapa selepas pinjaman dilunaskan - Anak mendakwa hartanah diberikan secara percuma - Kaveat dimasukkan ke atas hartanah oleh bapa - Sama ada wujud perjanjian lisan untuk mengembalikan semula hartanah - Sama ada terdapat sebarang nilai kasih sayang istimewa yang menjadi penyebab bapa menyerahkan hartanah kepada anak - Sama ada tindakan bapa memasukkan kaveat menunjukkan penyerahan hartanah kepada anak bersifat sementara KETERANGAN: Inferen - Perlakuan - Niat untuk memindah milik hartanah - Anak mendakwa hartanah dipindah milik oleh bapa secara percuma atas dasar kasih sayang - Kewujudan perjanjian lisan antara bapa dan anak untuk pengembalian semula hartanah - Bapa memasukkan kaveat ke atas hartanah - Sama ada inferen dapat dibuat bahawa bapa tidak berniat untuk memberikan hartanah kepada anak secara percuma dan secara kasih sayang Bagi pihak plaintif pertama - Nik Mohd Faris Syazwan; T/n Naim Mahmud, Faris & Nadia Bagi pihak plaintif kedua - Siti Syaerah; T/n Syaerah & Maryati Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Nor Hayati; T/n Nor Hayati & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 1160	VISNU SATIAMURTHY lwn. THARSHINI SALVARAJU 1. Hak akses adalah bertujuan untuk memberikan kebaikan bersama kepada anak dan ibu atau bapa yang tidak memperolehi hak jagaan. Mahkamah wajar memberikan hak akses dengan frekuensi atau kekerapan akses yang mana difikirkan munasabah untuk memastikan hubungan anak dengan ibu atau bapa dapat dijalin dengan lebih baik demi kepentingan tumbesaran anak tersebut. 2. Suasana persekitaran tempat akses anak memainkan peranan utama. Akses bermalam di rumah adalah lebih selesa buat anak tersebut dan sesuai bagi ibu atau bapa untuk menjalinkan hubungan kasih sayang terhadap anak berbanding dengan akses melalui perjumpaan di tempat awam. UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Anak - Akses - Akses bermalam - Hak jagaan, pemeliharaan dan kawalan diberi kepada isteri - Budi bicara Mahkamah - Anak berumur 9 bulan - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budi bicara untuk membenarkan akses kepada ibu atau bapa yang gagal mendapat hak jagaan anak - Sama ada isteri wajar menghalang dan menghadkan akses suami terhadap anak - Sama ada pemberian hak akses adalah untuk kebaikan dan kebajikan anak - Sama ada akses bermalam yang tidak memberi kesan buruk terhadap anak wajar dibenarkan - Sama ada cadangan untuk berjumpa di tempat awam wajar dibenarkan - Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976, s. 89(2)(d) Bagi pihak plaintif - Pushpa Naidu, T/n Pushpa Naidu & Co Bagi pihak defendan - Piryaa Darshini alp Keasindra; T/n Rastam Singa & Co
[2020] 1 LNS 87	RHB BANK BHD v. LIM CHEE TAT Under the National Land Code, the sale of a charged land by a public auction is conducted by the Court and not by the chargee under the contract between the chargee and chargor. It follows that the reserve price for the public auction of the charged land is to be fixed by the Court and not by the chargee. LAND LAW: Charge - Public auction - Determination of new reserve price on subsequent auction - Chargor disputed reserve price fixed by Court on basis it was below prevailing market value - Whether registrar estopped by doctrine of res judicata from directing second public auction with new reserve price - Whether reserve price for public auction of charged land fixed by chargee or Court - Whether subsequent public auction with new reserve price could be set aside on basis of alleged breach of duty of care by chargee - Whether registrar has discretion to fix reserve price - Whether discretion of registrar in fixing reserve price could be intervened by appellate Court - National Land Code, ss. 257(1)(d), 259(2)(c) For the plaintiff - Hapizi Hashim; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis For the defendant - Chong Hang Lim; M/s The Chambers of Cheong
[2020] 1 LNS 88	TRT ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD v. HANSOL KNM GREENTECH SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE 1. The unsuccessful party in an adjudication proceeding is entitled to apply for an adjudication decision to be set aside after the application to enforce the adjudication decision has been filed, provided such application is filed before the Court decides to enforce the adjudication decision. In such an event, the Court may hear and determine both applications together. 2. An adjudicator has no discretion to deprive costs of a party who is successful in an adjudication. Once an adjudicator has awarded costs to a successful party in the adjudication as per the 'costs to follow the event' rule, the adjudicator has wide discretion to fix the amount of costs. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Application for setting aside adjudication decision filed after application for enforcement of adjudication decision was filed - Whether setting aside application an afterthought - Whether setting aside application could be filed before Court decides to enforce adjudication decision - Whether Court could hear and determine application to set aside adjudication decision together with application to enforce adjudication decision - Rules of Court 2012, O. 69A r. 3(4) CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Adjudicator granted financing costs, fees, expenses and taxes - Adjudicator awarded amount of costs - Adjudicator refused to amend alleged computation error in adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator empowered under s. 25(o) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Regulations 2014 to grant financing costs in adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator has wide discretion to award amount of costs - Whether Court could review fees, expenses and taxes awarded by adjudicator - Whether adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by refusing to amend adjudication decision CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Applicant seeking remittance order - Whether Court has power to remit adjudication decision for re-adjudication by adjudicator - Whether remittance order contrary to purpose of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Stay - Absence of error in adjudication decision - Whether granting of stay order would deprive successful party in adjudication cash flow to sustain its construction business - Whether granting of stay of adjudication decision was justified For the TRT - Kim Kok Thai; M/s Selva Mookiah & Associates For the Hansol - Gayathri Chandrakasan & Lim Woi Kang; M/s Rao & Kamal
[2020] 1 LNS 89	PERPETUAL NICE VIEW SDN BHD v. PEMBINAAN TUJU SETIA SDN BHD & OTHER CASES To warrant the setting aside of an adjudication decision on the basis of breach of the second rule of natural justice pursuant to s. 15(b) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, such breach must be decisive or material to the adjudication decision. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Breach of second rule of natural justice - Whether adjudicator had prevented parties from tendering evidence - Whether adjudicator had considered plaintiff's evidence and submission in adjudication proceedings - Whether alleged breach of natural justice was decisive and material to adjudication decision which warrant Court to set aside adjudication decision CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Stay - Stay of adjudication decision pending disposal of arbitration proceedings - Whether adjudicator had made a clear error in making adjudication decision which warrant a stay of adjudication decision - Whether stay should be granted when party in favour of adjudication decision was commercially solvent - Whether granting of stay would deprive cash flow of party in favour of adjudication decision - Whether there was real risk that arbitration would be rendered redundant For the PNV - Ben Lee Kam Foo, Joyce Gan Ling Ying & Phang Ting Hong; M/s Gan & Zul For the PTS - Richard Kok Chi Wei & Claire Chok Mann; M/s Rhiza & Richard

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 8 (Part 6)

A solicitor must not accept a brief if it causes him embarrassment or impairs his professional independence and must never abuse the confidence reposed in him by the client. Where a solicitor has at differing times been engaged by different clients who were then engaged in a suit or suits, the relevant question to ask is whether such previous relationship between the solicitor and one or more parties had raised an irrefutable presumption that the solicitor had received confidential information from such of his client or clients; the burden is on the solicitor to show that no such confidential information had been imparted.
Dato’ Azizan Abdul Rahman & Ors v. Pinerains Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 CLJ 839 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The plaintiffs' claim for breach of duty of care against their solicitors was time-barred as the period of limitation had begun to run from the first clear and unequivocal threat to the plaintiffs' right to purchase the property, free from all liens and encumbrances, arising from the solicitors' failure to conduct a proper land search on the property. The plaintiffs ought to have brought a claim on tort against the solicitors within six years from the date of cause of action but had only filed this suit 11 years from the date when the cause of action accrued.
Lee Kim Noor & Anor v. Julian Chong Sook Keong & Anor [2021] 8 CLJ 852 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A civil marriage solemnised under the law, custom or usage of the parties of the marriage prior to 1 March 1982 is a valid customary marriage and is deemed to be registered under s. 4 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Whether such a marriage has taken place prior to the date must, however, be proved by evidence, oral or documentary; where the evidence adduced or the probability, improbability or totality of such evidence did not reasonably support the existence of such a marriage, the court has no option but to dismiss any assertion of such a marriage. It is untenable to suggest that the law recognises as valid all customary marriages contracted before 1 March 1982, or that they are all deemed validly registered under the LRA 1976.
Loo Boo Cheai v. Chen Yuh Feng & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 867 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The press statements made by the respondent, the Deputy Minister, addressing the issues relating to a dubious transfer of FELDA lands for a development project were only to call for accountability and were clearly directed at the internal management of FELDA and other statutory bodies. Read in its entirety and construed objectively in their natural and ordinary meaning, the statements were incapable of bearing any defamatory meaning and did not in any way impute any malicious intent on the plaintiff's part. The plaintiff's claim for defamation thus disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was obviously unsustainable.
Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd v. Datuk Seri Hj Razali Hj Ibrahim [2021] 8 CLJ 891 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The liberty of person prescribed in art. 5 of the Federal Constitution does not include the right to be heard in the Minister's decision-making process pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 ('Act'). The Act does not provide the right to be heard as Parliament found it appropriate to restrict such right in the interest of the security of the Federation and public order. There is no denial of one's right to be heard as the rights prescribed by the Federal Constitution are not absolute.
Hew Kuan Yau v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 911 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In a criminal trial, a plea in mitigation cannot merely be a statement of the accused's antecedent and family background; the court must only consider circumstances that mitigate the crime and not those that are personal to the offender and unconnected to the crime.
James Jeffery v. PP & Another Case [2021] 8 CLJ 935 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A director may personally be held liable for the tort committed by the company if he has ordered, procured or directed the commission of the tort. This, of necessity, warrants the piercing of the corporate veil.
Janet Ooi Hui Ming v. STC Management Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 8 CLJ 952 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) Within the setting of a housing development contract, when a sale and purchase agreement stipulates a purchaser is not entitled to claim for damages or compensation for any alteration to the condition, state and nature of the lot purchased, whether arising out of land development works, erosion or other like cause, a duty of care by the developer to the purchaser to ensure rainwater does not flood the purchaser's land cannot possibly arise. Parties must be bound by the contract and cannot be permitted to renege the same.
(2) A claim for easement presupposes the recognition of an easement on the purchaser's land granted by the plaintiff to the defendant developer, which is not the case here, as the latter is not an adjoining landowner. As such, it was not legally possible for the developer to be treated as the dominant landowner using the plaintiff's servient land as easement to discharge the water. An easement cannot not be presumed based on mere usage; it needs to be expressly granted and registered.
Karak Land Sdn Bhd v. Chia Soo Nee [2021] 8 CLJ 974 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. DIGITAL SIGNATURES & ITS FUNCTIONALITY IN MALAYSIA* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Low Khye Yen** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxi

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxi



MALAYSIA

---

DIGITAL SIGNATURES & ITS FUNCTIONALITY IN MALAYSIA*

by
Low Khye Yen**

In light of the Covid-19 outbreak, many countries have taken significant precautions including but not limited to the imposition of movement restriction orders to prevent the transmission of the virus. As the Covid-19 threat becomes apparent and the reported cases spike up in Malaysia, Movement Control Order ("MCO") and Enhanced Movement Control Order ("EMCO") have been implemented by the government to curb the spread of Covid-19.

A signature is an important element to ensure the acceptance of a party to be bound by a contract. By placing a signature on a contract, it indicates the act of willingness of the parties and it implies that the parties have read through and agreed to the contents of it.

. . .

*© 2021 Halim Hong & Quek. This Article was first published in issue July 2021, Vol. 7 of Empower, a monthly newsletter jointly published by Halim Hong & Quek and Harold & Lam Partnership. Reproduced with permission of Halim Hong & Quek (https://hhq.com.my/article/).

**Low Khye Yen is a Senior Associate at Halim Hong & Quek. Her main practice areas include banking and finance, estate and trust, and real estate and project development. Email: kylow@hhq.com.my.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. TOWARDS AN ACCESSIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS MECHANISM^{+ [Read excerpt]}
   by Dr Helen Watchirs* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxii



AUSTRALIA

---

TOWARDS AN ACCESSIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS MECHANISM⁺

by
Dr Helen Watchirs*

The ACT Human Rights Act (the HR Act) came into force on 1 July 2004 and will very soon be seventeen years old - it has come of age, and has had several reviews and amendments over that time.

Covid-19 has caused us to reflect more deeply on issues facing people experiencing vulnerability even more than usual and is timely to consider scaling up the protection afforded by the HR Act, particularly in relation to creating an accessible and affordable mechanism for complaints, similar to the existing discrimination jurisdiction exercised by the ACT Human Rights Commission (HRC), with recourse to the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), which has determinative powers. The HRC was substantially expanded in 2016 by merging with the Public Advocate and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, and with complaints handling now focussed on one Commissioner, my colleague Karen Toohey.

. . .

+Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 260 Winter 2021.

*Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, ACT President and Human Rights Commissioner.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert