Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #41/2021 14 October 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week MASENANG SDN BHD v. SABANILAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD [2021] 9 CLJ 1 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 9 (Part 1) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

MASENANG SDN BHD v. SABANILAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD [2021] 9 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-20-03-2020(S)]
03 SEPTEMBER 2021

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application for - Jurisdiction - Seat of arbitration - Whether there exists two separate supervisory jurisdictions over arbitrations and arbitration awards - Whether High Court in Sabah and Sarawak has supervisory jurisdiction to hear application to set aside arbitration award issued in Kuala Lumpur - Whether theory of juridical seat of arbitration has relevance or application in domestic arbitrations within Malaysia - Whether court at seat invested with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate arbitral proceedings arising out of agreement between parties in domestic arbitration - Parties initiated registration and setting aside proceedings separately in two disparate courts ie both at court of seat and court where cause of action arose - Whether issue of duplicity arose - Which court prevailed - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 2(1), 22

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Seat of arbitration - Whether there exists two separate supervisory jurisdictions over arbitrations and arbitration awards - Whether High Court in Sabah and Sarawak has supervisory jurisdiction to hear application to set aside arbitration award issued in Kuala Lumpur - Whether theory of juridical seat of arbitration has relevance or application in domestic arbitrations within Malaysia - Whether court at seat invested with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate arbitral proceedings arising out of agreement between parties in domestic arbitration - Parties initiated registration and setting aside proceedings separately in two disparate courts ie both at court of seat and court where cause of action arose - Whether issue of duplicity arose - Which court prevailed - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 2(1), 22

WORDS & PHRASES: 'either of them, as the case may require' - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 2 - Definition of High Court - Whether envisages that term 'High Court' may refer to one or other of two High Courts - Whether High Court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction - Whether High Courts enjoying supervisory jurisdiction will be court at seat of domestic arbitration

---

1. PP v. Zahra Ahmadvand Aliakbar [2019] 1 LNS 1910 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Zahra Ahmadvand Aliakbar & Anor [2017] 1 LNS 435

2. Pragasam Shger v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 100 (CA) overulling in part the High Court case of PP v. Pragasam a/l Shger [Criminal Trial No: AA-45A-2-02/2017]

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1163	SIVA CHANDRASEGARAN lwn. PP Laporan polis oleh mangsa adalah material dan relevan untuk menyokong laporan polis yang dibuat oleh saksi yang lain berkenaan identiti penyerang dan tertuduh. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk mengemukakan laporan polis tersebut akan menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah dan menyebabkan wujudnya jurang dalam kes pendakwaan. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 307 - Pertuduhan percubaan untuk membunuh - Mangsa mendakwa diserang beberapa orang dengan parang - Keraguan berkenaan identiti penyerang - Rakaman CCTV tidak menunjukkan imej tertuduh sebagai penyerang walaupun tertuduh berada di tempat kejadian - Rakaman CCTV tidak ditunjukkan kepada mangsa - Penyerang sebenar menutup muka dengan kain semasa kejadian - Laporan polis mangsa tidak dikemukakan ketika perbicaraan - Sama ada wujud keraguan yang munasabah mengenai penglibatan tertuduh - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - 'Innocent bystander'- Pertuduhan percubaan untuk membunuh - Tertuduh berada di tempat kejadian dan menafikan telah menyerang mangsa - Sama ada identiti tertuduh sebagai salah seorang penyerang adalah diragukan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh telah menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah dalam kes pendakwaan - Sama ada faedah keraguan harus diberikan kepada tertuduh PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pengecaman - Prinsip dan prosedur - Pengecaman tertuduh melalui kawad cam - Peserta-peserta kawad cam bukan golongan umur yang sama dengan tertuduh - Bilangan peserta-peserta kawad cam yang dinyatakan di dalam borang kawad cam tidak tepat - Kawad cam diadakan hampir 13 bulan selepas kejadian - Sama ada kualiti pengecaman tertuduh oleh saksi diragukan - Sama ada terdapat kecacatan material dari segi prosedur dan cara pengendalian kawad cam - Sama ada keputusan kawad cam terbatal KETERANGAN: Inferens bertentangan - Kes pendakwaan - Pihak pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan laporan polis mangsa - Sama ada kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan laporan polis mangsa telah menyebabkan inferens bertentangan terpakai dan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada laporan polis mangsa relevan untuk menyokong laporan polis saksi yang lain berkenaan identiti penyerang - Sama ada wujud jurang dalam kes pendakwaan KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kredibiliti - Laporan polis saksi tidak menyatakan nama-nama penyerang walaupun saksi mengenali penyerang - Sama ada kegagalan saksi menyatakan nama-nama penyerang dalam laporan polis telah menjejaskan kredibiliti saksi - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 157 Bagi pihak perayu - Geethan Ram; T/n Geethan Ram Bagi pihak responden - TPR Anis Wahidah Muhammad, Bahagian Pendakwaan; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
[2019] 1 LNS 1164	PP lwn. BAHARRUDDIN HAMZAH Rayuan yang difailkan oleh tertuduh terhadap keputusan mahkamah untuk tertuduh membela diri bukanlah suatu perintah atau penghakiman yang muktamad mengenai kebersalahan tertuduh. Keputusan muktamad mengenai kebersalahan tertuduh hanya akan diperolehi setelah tertuduh selesai membela diri dan hakim bicara membuat keputusan muktamad di akhir kes pembelaan. Justeru, rayuan yang difailkan terhadap perintah Mahkamah untuk tertuduh membela diri adalah pra-matang. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Seksyen 12 - Pemerdagangan beberapa orang warganegara Indonesia untuk tujuan eksploitasi kerja paksa - Mangsa tidak diberi cuti rehat dan dipotong gaji jika mengambil cuti sakit - Mangsa dikurung di dalam bilik dan pasport mangsa disimpan oleh tertuduh - Sama ada mangsa telah mengecam tertuduh sebagai orang yang memainkan peranan penting dalam eksploitasi kerja paksa - Sama ada mangsa telah dikenakan sekatan fizikal oleh tertuduh - Sama ada mangsa telah menerima ancaman daripada tertuduh - Sama ada kes prima facie bagi kesemua pertuduhan terhadap responden telah dibuktikan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Pra-matang - Rayuan difailkan awal sebelum keputusan muktamad Mahkamah - Rayuan difailkan terhadap keputusan mahkamah yang memanggil tertuduh membela diri - Sama ada perintah Mahkamah untuk tertuduh membela diri merupakan suatu penghakiman yang muktamad mengenai kebersalahan tertuduh - Sama ada keputusan muktamad hanya akan dibuat di akhir kes pembelaan - Sama ada rayuan yang difailkan adalah pra-matang - Sama ada notis rayuan yang difailkan adalah defektif - Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, ss. 3 & 50 Bagi pihak perayu - TPR Aiza Khairuddin, Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan Bagi pihak responden - Haresh Mahadevan, Jeremy Vinesh, Kingsley Wambeck & Ramzani Idris; T/n Jeremy Vinesh Anthony & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 1210	AZIZ HASHIM lwn. PP Tertuduh tidak akan diprejudis sekiranya pertuduhan bawah s. 376(2)(k) dipinda kepada s. 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan apabila mangsa, sebelum pindaan pertuduhan dibuat, telah menafikan bahawa dia rela dengan perbuatan tertuduh terhadapnya. Justeru, keperluan untuk membenarkan mangsa diperiksa balas sekali lagi selepas pindaan pertuduhan tidak hadir. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Rogol - Pertuduhan asal bawah s. 376(2)(k) dipinda kepada s. 376(1) Kanun Keseksaan - Mangsa semasa pemeriksaan balas menafikan dia rela dengan perbuatan tertuduh - Sama ada pindaan pertuduhan telah memprejudiskan tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh diprejudiskan dengan keengganan untuk membenarkan mangsa diperiksa balas sekali lagi selepas pertuduhan dipinda - Sama ada hakim bicara tersalah arah apabila tidak membenarkan tertuduh untuk memeriksa balas mangsa sekali lagi PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Alibi - Rakaman percakapan tertuduh tidak memberikan maklumat terperinci berkenaan pembelaan alibi - Rakaman percakapan berbentuk penafian semata-mata - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk pihak polis menjalankan siasatan tambahan berkenaan pembelaan alibi - Sama ada kredibiliti pembelaan alibi tertuduh dipertikaikan kebenarannya For the appellant - Luqman Mazlan; T/n Shamsuddin & Co For the respondent - TPR Hajarul Falenna Ittah; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan
[2020] 1 LNS 90	PP v. SAHRUL MAZLEE MOHD KHALID The presence of an enormous quantity of dangerous drugs together with the relevant equipment to pack the drugs gives rise to the irresistible inference that the person who keeps the drugs is involved in its trafficking. CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Possession - Plastic bag containing drugs seized from accused outside his house - Further searches in house led to recovery of large quantity of drugs - Equipment to pack drugs found in house - Whether accused in possession of impugned drugs - Whether accused had power to deal with impugned drugs as owner to exclusion of all other persons - Whether accused had requisite knowledge of impugned drugs - Whether accused in actual possession of drugs - Whether presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 applicable CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Trafficking dangerous drugs - Bag containing drugs seized from accused outside his house and searches in house led to recovery of large quantity of drugs - Witness alleged accused was not carrying anything in hand - Witness failed to lodge police report on event alleged during trial - Accused alleged someone intended to frame him - Whether version of witness reasonable - Whether defence had raised reasonable doubt in prosecution's case for possession - Whether presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 rebutted For the prosecution - Nor Iffa Zarilla Abd Rahman & Faizal@Amrin Noor Hadi; Public Prosecutor, Attorney General's Chambers For the respondent - Sukhaimi Mashud, Lydiana Mansor; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
[2020] 1 LNS 92	COUNTRY GARDEN DANGA BAY SDN BHD v. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & ANOR There can be no breach of the rules of natural justice when parties before the tribunal for home buyers have been given ample time to prepare and state their cases. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of tribunal for homebuyer - Tribunal made decision in favour of homebuyer - Tribunal allowed compensation for delivery of wrong unit - Hearing before tribunal adjourned several times - Appellant's witnesses gave evidence before tribunal - Tribunal made decision after allowing representative of appellant to state its case for 15 minutes - Whether decision-making process of tribunal was flawed - Whether there was breach of rules of natural justice - Whether appellant given ample time to prepare its case - Whether any prejudice has been caused to appellant concerning homebuyer claims For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Leonard Yeoh, Chuah Chong Ping, Yasmeen Soh & Khalis Isma-Alif; M/s Tay & Partners For the second respondent - Viola Lettice De Cruz, Vinobha Anthony Doss & Chua Yi Xie; M/s VL Decruz & Co

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 9 (Part 1)

The exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of a domestic arbitration is to be ascertained from the juridical seat of the arbitration. The court at the seat enjoys exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and the award. The court where the cause of action arose cannot oust the jurisdiction afforded and vested in the seat court. Accordingly, any decision from the court purporting to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arose is void.
Masenang Sdn Bhd v. Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2021] 9 CLJ 1 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

According recognition to a trade union representing the same class of workmen as another existing trade union of employees without hearing or consulting the latter, would have far-reaching implications and such decision is in breach of the rules of natural justice.
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 56 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The phrase 'any proceedings action or other matters required to be done' in s. 60 of the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act 2017, which is a saving provision, is wide and broad enough to cover the situation that presents itself where the bankruptcy notice is issued when the Bankruptcy Act 1967 is in force, whilst the same is served and the creditor's petition is issued after the Insolvency Act 1967 came into force on 6 October 2017. Hence, the bankruptcy proceedings initiated by the issuance of the bankruptcy notice as per s. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 is to be continued and concluded pursuant to the old Bankruptcy Act 1967 and not the Insolvency Act 1967.
Liew Hon Kong v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2021] 9 CLJ 82 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Consistent with settled law that a guarantor only becomes liable to pay on demand, the accrual of the cause of action is calculated from the date the letter of demand is issued to the guarantor, which is the event that triggers the cause of action upon non-compliance. Within the parameters of a moneylending transaction, the conduct of parties in entering into a fresh settlement agreement which extends the time for the debtor to settle the debt, renders the previous letter of demand nugatory and ineffective, thereby entitling the moneylender to issue a fresh letter of demand to the guarantor. As such, in the set circumstances, for purposes of limitation, time should begin to run from the date of the fresh letter of demand and not otherwise.
Mayland Lending Sdn Bhd v. Pua Woon Kee [2021] 9 CLJ 104 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

When there has been insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence as to the circumstances in which a road accident has taken place, appellate intervention is warranted. In this case, on a balance of probabilities, the Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') ought to have found the defendant, as the driver of the motorcar, liable for the accident as she had not taken evasive action to prevent the accident. The stark fact that the defendant saw the motorcyclist approaching in front of her at the material time ought to have tilted the balance in favour of the motorcyclist. The decision of the Sessions Court was therefore reversed and liability is to be apportioned on a 50/50 percentage basis between the driver of the motorcar and the motorcyclist. The Sessions Court had also improperly rejected the evidence that both the deceased victims were gainfully employed and had been contributing to the plaintiffs, their dependants, although there was documentary proof proffered. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for loss of dependency was also allowed.
Aznum Abdul Rahman v. Ghazali Ahmad & Anor [2021] 9 CLJ 121 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The term 'shall be liable' as used in s. 86(1) of the Police Act 1967 for the offence of desertion gives the court discretion whether to pass down probationary orders as prescribed in ss. 294 and 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 294, in particular, allows the court to grant a convicted person probation of good conduct, with or without sureties, for a period decided by the court. Section 294, however, does not apply to serious offences. Bearing in mind the definitions of 'non-serious offence' and 'serious offence' in ss. 52A and 52B of the Penal Code, s. 294 clearly applies only to penal provisions which carry a term of imprisonment of less than 10 years. Hence, since s. 86(1) prescribes a sentence of not exceeding 12 months, the invocation of s. 294  of the CPC by the Magistrate herein was not vitiated by any illegality.
PP v. Mohammad Zulhiznie Zaini [2021] 9 CLJ 141 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Where a registered proprietor of a property is obliged to execute but has not executed the memorandum of transfer to the bank upon full settlement of the purchase price under a facility granted to the purchaser, the bank is entitled in law, upon default and upon a successful auction of the property, to compel the proprietor to execute the Form 14A and transfer the property to the successful bidder.
Sri Muda Corner Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd v. IRDK Land Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 9 CLJ 157 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An insurance policy obtained in the name of a person deceased and who died long before the insurance policy was issued is unenforceable. Hence, the application for the enforcement of a judgment for a third party insurance claim against the insurer of such a policy is bound to fail. Clearly, it was tainted with fraud.
Zamri Othman v. Mohamad Roiff Md Arib & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 167 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. COMPANY DOCUMENTS — TO RETAIN OR DESTROY?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxiii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxiii



MALAYSIA

---

COMPANY DOCUMENTS — TO RETAIN OR DESTROY?*

by
SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi**

As a company grows, so does its volume of documents and consequently costs for storage of those documents. At some point, the company must decide whether to retain or destroy its documents. In this article, we will discuss company documents that must be retained, the necessity to retain them and the consequences of destroying documents.

Documents to retain

There are several laws which state the type of documents that must be retained by a company. Among others, they are minutes of meetings, financial statements, accounting records, records, books of a company, etc.^[1] Under the Companies Act 2016, some of the documents are defined:

• Records: Information stored or recorded by means of a computer, electronic or digital medium or any other means of recording or storage.^[2]

. . .

*This article is reproduced, with permission by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.

**Partner and Associate respectively of the Corporate and Commercial Dispute Practice of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. MANDATING COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR EMPLOYEES ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by John Mark* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxiv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxiv



MALAYSIA

---

MANDATING COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR EMPLOYEES

by
John Mark*

Introduction

The government, through its National Immunisation Programme has encouraged citizens to be vaccinated^[1] in an effort to achieve herd immunity,^[2] with hopes to reduce the transmission of the Covid-19 virus. The government has yet to make vaccination compulsory even though it has the power to do so.^[3] Most countries in the world have not done so. Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) is against mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.^[4]

The Covid-19 pandemic has skewed and blurred the legal lines, especially with regard to employment law. The question arises whether employees can be compelled to vaccinate against COVID-19? Can employers take disciplinary action against employees who refuse vaccination? This is not an easy question to answer as a vaccination mandate involves the dilemma of balancing the employees’ legal rights of bodily autonomy with the employer’s business needs.

. . .

*LL. B (Hons), Industrial and Employment Law Practitioner.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. TOWARD THE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL FINANCES* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Mohammad Mahbubi Ali and Muhammad Rizky Prima Sakti [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxv



MALAYSIA

---

TOWARD THE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL FINANCES*

by
Mohammad Mahbubi Ali and Muhammad Rizky Prima Sakti

The first attempt to introduce the concept of social finance in the ambit of corporations was pioneered by Bowen (1953) in his book 'Corporate Social Responsibility of the Businessman'. Carrol (1991) defines corporate social responsibility (CSR) as discretionary or philanthropic activities by corporations. He further deciphers that CSR consists of the elements of ethics, social, law, economic, and humanitarian. Fifty years later after the pioneering work by Bowen (1953), CSR emerges as an important and progressing topic in the corporate world and raised the attention of both academicians and practitioners to examine whether CSR activities produce positive socioeconomic impacts on the people.

CSR works on an assumption that a corporation is a member of the moral community, thus it gives it social responsibility. The concept underpinning the notion of CSR is known as the triple bottom line introduced by John Elkington in 1994.

. . .

*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.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert