|
Issue #43/2021
28 October 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
|
PROTASCO BHD v. TEY POR YEE & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 9 CLJ 349
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 02(i)-47-09-2020(W); 02(i)-48-09-2020(W) & 02(i)-49-09-2020(W)]
23 AUGUST 2021
The court's power to make orders for discovery inspection and production of bankers' books pursuant to s. 7 of the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 operates quite independently from its power to order discovery of documents under O. 24 r. 7 of the Rules of Court 2012. Given the co-existence of the two legislations on an almost identical subject matter, the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies as would make the 1949 Act, and not the 2012 Rules, the law to govern the inspection and production of banking documents. Whilst the provisions of the 1949 Act do not create any new power of discovery, the oneness of discovery process with disclosure or production of documents is manifest in s. 7. And whilst the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Evidence Act 1950 make it an offence to disclose a person's banking transactions, a leeway was clearly provided by the words "except as provided by the law relating to bankers' books" in s. 130(3) of the latter Act; s. 7, hence, is not subject to O. 24 r. 7.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Pre-trial discovery of documents - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 ('BBEA'), ss. 6 & 7 - Rules governing discovery - Whether court empowered to order discovery independently of O. 24 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Objective of BBEA - Whether word 'inspect' in s. 7 of BBEA equated with 'discovery' - Whether principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applicable - Whether inspection and production of document under s. 7 of BBEA part and parcel of discovery process - Whether s. 7 of BBEA subject to O. 24 r. 7A of ROC
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Discovery - Pre-trial discovery of documents - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 ('BBEA'), ss. 6 & 7 - Rules governing discovery - Whether court empowered to order discovery independently of O. 24 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether s. 7 of BBEA subject to O. 24 r. 7A of ROC - Whether relevancy is cornerstone of s. 7 of BBEA and all other discovery applications - Whether emphasis on relevancy of banking document
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - 'Banker's book' under s. 2 of Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 - Whether to be construed by taking into account current practices in ordinary business of bank - Whether to be given purposive interpretation - Whether meaning of 'other books' confined to 'ledger, day book, cash book and account book' - Whether recorded transactions between customer and bank qualify under record or entries kept in 'ledger, day book, cash book and account book' - Whether 'entry' the ones recorded in book of account regularly kept in course of bank's business - Evidence Act 1950, s. 34
YAHYA HUSSEIN MOHSEN ABDULRAB v. PP [2021] 9 CLJ 414
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(M)-43-04-2020(S)]
05 SEPTEMBER 2021
An accused has a constitutional right to receive a fair trial and is entitled to be acquitted and discharged if there is an infraction of that right; one instance is when his conviction was attributable to the flagrant incompetence of his counsel. Where, therefore, an accused has been convicted of an offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the evidence showed that his counsel, in prosecuting his defence, has failed to advance the accused's narrative which stood a good chance of exonerating him and instead, chose to mount another defence for the accused, and has further failed to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses on the defence proffered, then a breach of fair trial resulting from counsel's flagrant incompetence has clearly occurred; the incompetence warrants the acquittal of the accused if it occasions a miscarriage of justice.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused convicted for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death - Allegation that trial counsel flagrantly incompetent - Trial counsel met accused twice - Trial counsel did not raise narrative of defence briefed by accused - Whether resulted in breach of accused's right to fair trial - Whether actual narrative/defence would have raised reasonable doubt - Whether accused ought to be acquitted and discharged - Whether retrial ought to be ordered - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Drugs found in luggage - Whether ingredients proved - Defence of no knowledge - Whether defence raised reasonable doubt - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to fair trial - Accused convicted for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death - Allegation that trial counsel flagrantly incompetent - Trial counsel met accused twice - Trial counsel did not raise narrative of defence briefed by accused - Whether accused accorded fair trial - Whether constitutional right to fair trial breached - Whether occasioned miscarriage of justice - Federal Constitution, art. 5(1)
-
Nazaruddin Mohd Shariff @ Masari & Anor v. Pejabat Tanah & Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 101 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Nazaruddin Mohd Shariff @ Masari & Anor v. Pejabat Tanah & Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors [Originating Summons No: BA-24NCVC-439-04/2018]
-
Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2020] 1 LNS 92 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [Application for Judicial Review No: JA-25-42-07/2018]
Legal Network Series
|
ABDUL RAHIM MOHAMAD lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI Laporan penyiasatan yang lengkap berhubung penglibatan pemohon dengan kegiatan pengedaran dadah merupakan faktor untuk dipertimbangkan sebelum suatu perintah tahanan atau sekatan dikeluarkan. Laporan penyiasatan yang mempunyai versi-versi yang bercanggah tentang penglibatan pemohon dalam kegiatan pengedaran dadah menyebabkan laporan penyiasatan tersebut menjadi tidak tepat dan tidak teratur. Perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan bersandarkan kepada laporan penyiasatan yang tidak tepat dan tidak teratur adalah defektif. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Laporan lengkap penyiasatan yang disediakan oleh pegawai penyiasat mempunyai percanggahan - Versi bercanggah tentang penglibatan pemohon dalam kegiatan pengedaran dadah - Sama ada laporan penyiasatan perlu teratur dan tepat sebelum perintah tahanan dikeluarkan - Sama ada perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan adalah defektif - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985, s. 3(3)
|
|
|
UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN BHD lwn. ROZZANA CHUNG ABDULLAH & YANG LAIN Pembatalan suatu perintah adjudikasi kebankrapan akan melupuskan kebankrapan sama sekali dan akan meletakkan si bankrap dalam kedudukan yang sama seolah-olah tiada sebarang adjudikasi. Pembatalan dan pemansuhan perintah adjudikasi kebankrapan mempunyai kesan retrospektif. TORT: Fitnah - Libel - Notis dikeluarkan oleh pengerusi badan pengurusan bersama berkenaan tanggungjawab pemaju terhadap keruntuhan cerun bukit dan tanggungan membaiki cerun bukit - Projek perumahan pemaju mengalami tanah runtuh - Sama ada pengataan-pengataan yang diterbitkan dalam notis berbentuk fitnah - Sama ada pemaju bertanggungan untuk memperkukuhkan cerun bukit pada masa material - Sama ada pengataan-pengataan dalam notis telah mendedahkan pemaju kepada kebencian, cemuhan dan penghinaan serta merendahkan pemaju dalam pemikiran orang yang munasabah TORT: Fitnah - Libel - Surat pekeliling dikeluarkan oleh pengarah urusan dan pemaju kepada pembeli-pembeli berkenaan kebankrapan ahli jawatankuasa badan pengurusan bersama ('JMB') - Ahli jawatankuasa dikaitkan dengan dakwaan penyalahgunaan wang JMB untuk kegunaan sendiri - Kebankrapan dibatalkan sebelum surat pekeliling dikeluarkan - Pengarah urusan dan pemaju mendakwa tidak mengetahui pembatalan kebankrapan - Sama ada defendan sedia maklum plaintif bukan seorang bankrap pada masa surat pekeliling dikeluarkan - Sama ada defendan mempunyai hak untuk menerbitkan isu berkenaan kebankrapan plaintif dalam surat pekeliling - Sama ada dakwaan salah guna wang JMB adalah fitnah - Sama ada perbuatan defendan bertujuan memalukan dan menjatuhkan maruah plaintif TORT: Fitnah - Pembelaan - Justifikasi dan perlindungan bersyarat - Surat pekeliling dikeluarkan oleh pengarah urusan dan pemaju kepada pembeli-pembeli berkenaan kebankrapan ahli jawatankuasa badan pengurusan bersama ('JMB') - Kebankrapan dibatalkan sebelum surat pekeliling dikeluarkan - Sama ada status kebankrapan plaintif wajar dibangkit oleh defendan - Sama ada defendan mempunyai kewajipan untuk menyebarkan perkara berkenaan kebankrapan plaintif selepas adjudikasi kebankrapan plaintif telah dibatalkan dan dimansuhkan - Sama ada pembelaan defendan bermerit KEBANKRAPAN: Perintah penghukuman dan penerimaan - Pembatalan - Kesan pembatalan dan pemansuhan - Kesan retrospektif - Sama ada kesan pembatalan adjudikasi kebankrapan akan melupuskan kebankrapan sama sekali - Sama ada si bankrap akan diletakkan dalam kedudukan yang sama seolah-olah tiada sebarang adjudikasi
|
|
|
PP lwn. PIANG CHUN CHIAT & YANG LAIN DAN KES YANG LAIN 1. Kedudukan tertuduh berhampiran dengan barang kes tidak memberi inferens mudah bahawa tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dijumpai. 2. Keterangan forensik seperti bukti cap jari dan kliping kuku adalah penting untuk menunjukkan jagaan, kawalan dan pemilikan dadah-dadah oleh tertuduh. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah dijumpai di dalam rumah di mana tertuduh ditangkap - Kedudukan tertuduh hampir dengan barang kes - Dadah ditemukan dengan mudah tanpa bantuan tertuduh - Pasukan serbuan mengambil masa untuk membuka pintu rumah - Tertuduh tidak melarikan diri - Penyewa rumah menghilangkan diri dan gagal dikesan selepas serbuan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan pengetahuan berkenaan dadah - Sama ada tertuduh merupakan tetamu di rumah di mana dadah ditemui - Sama ada terdapat akses oleh orang lain ke dalam rumah sebelum serbuan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah ditemukan di dalam rumah bersama tertuduh - Keterangan forensik seperti bukti cap jari dan kliping kuku tidak diambil - Sama ada keterangan forensik dapat membantu pembuktian tertuduh - Sama ada bukti cap jari dan kliping daripada analisis forensik dapat menunjukkan jagaan, kawalan dan pemilikan dadah-dadah oleh tertuduh
|
|
|
BALDEV SINGH SHAGINDER SINGH v. PENTADBIR TANAH GOMBAK & ORS The intention to accept an offer by an offeree must be definite, unqualified and conclusive, failing which no consensus can be reached to form a contract. A contract is not concluded when the offeree fails to communicate acceptance to the offer within the stipulated time and in the manner expressly provided in the letter of offer. CONTRACT: Formation - Concluded contract - Absence of communication of acceptance by offeree - Acceptance not communicated within time and manner or mode provided in letter of offer - Whether rendered contract as not having been concluded - Whether there was clear and unequivocal acceptance of offer - Whether intention to accept offer must be definite, unqualified and conclusive - Whether consensus between parties reached - Whether there was valid and effective acceptance
|
|
|
SKYWORLD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR v. SKYWORLD HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ORS The purpose of registering a business name is not to distinguish goods and services but instead to ensure that prospective consumers and businesses that one deals with can identify or ascertain the operator or actual legal owner of the business. In contrast, a trademark is registered to brand a product or service and registered trademarks enjoy the protection of the Trade Marks Act 1976 as well as the protection of the general law. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade Marks - Infringement - Infringement of business name, company name and website domain - Names are aurally and visually similar - Similarities in business or project - Coincidental usage of corporate and project name - Whether plaintiffs required to establish that infringing mark is identical - Whether there was likelihood of confusion or deception between two competing marks - Whether proof of actual confusion necessary - Whether use of registered trademark as company name would amount to trademark infringement - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 38 TORT: Passing off - Trade Marks - Goodwill - Use of confusingly similar corporate or trade name - Misrepresentation - Whether plaintiffs acquired requisite and sufficient goodwill in company name and trademark through extensive and substantial advertising and promotional activities and investments - Whether plaintiffs possess requisite goodwill and reputation at all material times - Whether defendants had discharged its obligation as business newcomer to ensure that no confusion would arise from use of infringing names or marks - Whether tort of unlawful interference with trade has been made out
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 9 (Part 3)
The court's power to make orders for discovery inspection and production of bankers' books pursuant to s. 7 of the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 operates quite independently from its power to order discovery of documents under O. 24 r. 7 of the Rules of Court 2012. Given the co-existence of the two legislations on an almost identical subject matter, the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies as would make the 1949 Act, and not the 2012 Rules, the law to govern the inspection and production of banking documents. Whilst the provisions of the 1949 Act do not create any new power of discovery, the oneness of discovery process with disclosure or production of documents is manifest in s. 7. And whilst the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Evidence Act 1950 make it an offence to disclose a person's banking transactions, a leeway was clearly provided by the words "except as provided by the law relating to bankers' books" in s. 130(3) of the latter Act; s. 7, hence, is not subject to O. 24 r. 7.
Protasco Bhd v. Tey Por Yee & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 349 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Pre-trial discovery of documents - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 ('BBEA'), ss. 6 & 7 - Rules governing discovery - Whether court empowered to order discovery independently of O. 24 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Objective of BBEA - Whether word 'inspect' in s. 7 of BBEA equated with 'discovery' - Whether principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applicable - Whether inspection and production of document under s. 7 of BBEA part and parcel of discovery process - Whether s. 7 of BBEA subject to O. 24 r. 7A of ROC
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Discovery - Pre-trial discovery of documents - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 ('BBEA'), ss. 6 & 7 - Rules governing discovery - Whether court empowered to order discovery independently of O. 24 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether s. 7 of BBEA subject to O. 24 r. 7A of ROC - Whether relevancy is cornerstone of s. 7 of BBEA and all other discovery applications - Whether emphasis on relevancy of banking document
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - 'Banker's book' under s. 2 of Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 - Whether to be construed by taking into account current practices in ordinary business of bank - Whether to be given purposive interpretation - Whether meaning of 'other books' confined to 'ledger, day book, cash book and account book' - Whether recorded transactions between customer and bank qualify under record or entries kept in 'ledger, day book, cash book and account book' - Whether 'entry' the ones recorded in book of account regularly kept in course of bank's business - Evidence Act 1950, s. 34
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
- For the appellants - S Sivaneindiren, Peter Skelchy & Joycelyn Teoh; M/s Cheah Teh and Su
- For the respondents - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Khoo Suk Chyi, Lim Yvonne & Ng Keng Yeng; M/s BH Lawrence & Co
An accused has a constitutional right to receive a fair trial and is entitled to be acquitted and discharged if there is an infraction of that right; one instance is when his conviction was attributable to the flagrant incompetence of his counsel. Where, therefore, an accused has been convicted of an offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and the evidence showed that his counsel, in prosecuting his defence, has failed to advance the accused's narrative which stood a good chance of exonerating him and instead, chose to mount another defence for the accused, and has further failed to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses on the defence proffered, then a breach of fair trial resulting from counsel's flagrant incompetence has clearly occurred; the incompetence warrants the acquittal of the accused if it occasions a miscarriage of justice.
Yahya Hussein Mohsen Abdulrab v. PP [2021] 9 CLJ 414 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused convicted for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death - Allegation that trial counsel flagrantly incompetent - Trial counsel met accused twice - Trial counsel did not raise narrative of defence briefed by accused - Whether resulted in breach of accused's right to fair trial - Whether actual narrative/defence would have raised reasonable doubt - Whether accused ought to be acquitted and discharged - Whether retrial ought to be ordered - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Drugs found in luggage - Whether ingredients proved - Defence of no knowledge - Whether defence raised reasonable doubt - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to fair trial - Accused convicted for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to death - Allegation that trial counsel flagrantly incompetent - Trial counsel met accused twice - Trial counsel did not raise narrative of defence briefed by accused - Whether accused accorded fair trial - Whether constitutional right to fair trial breached - Whether occasioned miscarriage of justice - Federal Constitution, art. 5(1)
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
- For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Wan Aizuddin Wan Mohammed & Rahmat Mohamed Hazlan; M/s Shafee & Co
- For the respondent - Hanim Mohd Rashid; DPP
Although copyright work should be the source of the infringing work for one to establish infringement of copyright, it need not be the direct source; a causal connection between the copyrighted work and infringing work is sufficient.
Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mforce Bike Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 9 CLJ 438 [CA]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Copyright - Infringement - Artistic works in motorcycle - Reproducing or causing reproduction of works or substantial part thereof - Whether there were similarities between infringing work and copyright work - Whether infringement of copyright covers direct and indirect copying - Whether copying copy of original work amounted to infringement - Whether there was prior opportunity and access to copy of copyright work - Whether infringing work proven to be substantially similar to copy of original work - Whether original work was source from which copy derived - Whether causal connection established - Copyright Act 1987, ss. 13(1)(a), 13A & 13B
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellant - Linda Wang Chaw Ling & Kwok Tat Wai; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
- For the respondents - Khoo Guan Huat, Kuek Pei Yee, Melissa Long, Joshua Teng & Hazmi Arifin; M/s Skrine
A licensed moneylender cannot recover the outstanding principal sum under an illegal moneylending transaction based on a cause of action for money had and received or unjust enrichment. To permit the recovery of the loan sums, even its outstanding capital, would make a mockery of the provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1951. With regard to a claim for unjust enrichment, where the moneylending contract is void and unenforceable, the issue of illegality can only be raised as a defence and not in its contractual sense.
Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v. Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2021] 9 CLJ 461 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Parties entered into moneylending agreements for capital expenditure - Moneylending agreements executed with director and shareholder of company but not company - Claim by moneylender for balance outstanding - Moneylender initiated action based on cause of action for money had and received and/or unjust enrichment - Whether moneylender could recover outstanding principal sum under illegal moneylending transaction based on cause of action for money had and received and/or unjust enrichment - Whether moneylender seeking to enforce illegal contract - Moneylenders Act 1951
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
- For the plaintiff - Lai Choong Wui & Nur Fatehah Roslan; M/s Alfred Lai & Partners
- For the defendant - Lim Kean Lam; M/s K L Lim & Lee
In an application for the enforcement of a foreign judgment via common law rule, four defences can be raised to resist such application. In this case, three defences were raised, namely: (i) the foreign court had no jurisdiction; (ii) the foreign judgment would be contrary to Malaysian public policy; and (iii) the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was obtained opposed the rule of natural justice. However, all the three defences had not been accepted, as: (i) an international jurisdiction of the foreign court could be established over the defendant; (ii) the defendant had been afforded a fair trial in the foreign court proceedings; and (iii) it had not been shown the foreign judgment had the nature, that it would (a) shock the conscience of this court; and (b) clearly be injurious to the public good.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v. Muehlbauer Technologies Sdn Bhd [2021] 9 CLJ 484 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Foreign judgment - Application to enforce and recognise Indonesian court judgment for enforcement of judgment debt against Malaysian company in Malaysia - Common law rule - Whether defences raised sufficient to oppose recognition of foreign judgment - Whether Indonesian court had international jurisdiction over Malaysian company - Whether Malaysian company had submitted to Indonesian court's jurisdiction - Whether Indonesian court breached rules of natural justice in arriving at its decision - Whether Indonesian court judgment against Malaysian public policy
CHOO KAH SING J
- For the plaintiff - Siva Kumar Kanagasabai & Trishelea Ann Sandosam; M/s Skrine
- For the defendant - Dhinesh Bhaskaran, Serena Isabella Azizuddin & Wong Jia Jing; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
Section 517 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 does not apply to a negligence suit by a passenger in Vessel B who has suffered personal injuries due to the negligence of the skippers of Vessels A and/or B. As s. 517 does not prescribe a limitation period within the meaning of s. 3 of the Limitation Act 1953, the six-year limitation period, and not the two-year limitation period, applies.
Tan Wek Piau & Anor v. Hin Wong Huat Speed Boat & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 501 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Order to dispense from lodging with 'Registry' 'preliminary act' within two months after service of writ - Claim for damages arising from negligence - Boat collision resulted in passenger's brain injury - Whether court could resort to O. 18 r. 19(1) and O. 92 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 as well as court's inherent jurisdiction and/or inherent power - Rules of Court 2012, O. 70 r. 17(1)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out action - Claim for damages arising from negligence - Boat collision resulted in passenger's brain injury - Whether limitation period for action based on tort of negligence - Whether action time-barred under s. 517 of Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 - Whether court should exercise discretion under first limb of proviso to s. 517 to extend two-year limitation period - Whether claimant failed to lodge preliminary act within two-month period required by O. 70 r. 18(1) of Rules of Court 2012
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
- For the plaintiffs - Jason Ng Kau & Clarence Hng Ying Hui; M/s Jason Ng & Partners
- For 1st to 7th defendants - Omar Kutty Abdul Aziz & Ooi Hean Ping; M/s Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi
- For 8th & 9th defendants - Murad Ali Abdullah & Amathavally Krishnan Nair; M/s K'Mura & Co
LNS Article(s)
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY: LESSONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES [Read excerpt]
by Mohd Bahrin Bin Othman[i] Bryan Francis[ii] Mohammad Asyraf Bin Mohd Tasrib[iii] Muhammad Ashraf Bin Mohd Nor[iv] Nurul Izzah Binti Hesham[v] [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxviiiHOW TO FIGHT A CLAIM OF FORCED RESIGNATION? [Read excerpt]
by Louis Liaw Vern Xien* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxixSHADOW DIRECTOR – THE PUPPET MASTER* [Read excerpt]
by SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxx
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 | 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and s 10 (only for new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791]); 1 July 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 10 (except for the provision of new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the principal Act) and 21 | 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) 408/2021 | Credit Reporting Agencies (Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 | 27 October 2021 | 1 November 2021 | PU(A) 142/2014 |
| PU(A) 407/2021 | Sales Tax (Imposition of Sales Tax In Respect of Designated Area) (Amendment) Order 2021 | 21 October 2021 | 25 October 2021 | PU(A) 206/2018 |
| PU(A) 406/2021 | Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2021 | 21 October 2021 | 22 October 2021 | ACT 605 |
| PU(A) 405/2021 | Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) (Tauliah to Teach The Religion of Islam) (Amendment) Rules 2021 | 20 October 2021 | 21 October 2021 | PU(A) 74/2006 |
| PU(A) 404/2021 | Income Tax (Deduction for Expenses In Relation fo The Cost of Detection Test of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for Employees) Rules 2021 | 20 October 2021 | Year of assessment 2021 | ACT 53 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 518/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | 27 October 2021 | 28 October 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 517/2021 | Notice To Third Parties | 27 Oktober 2021 | 28 October 2021 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 516/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | 26 October 2021 | 27 October 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 515/2021 | Appointment of Members of The Competition Commission | 26 October 2021 | Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 713 |
| PU(B) 514/2021 | Declaration of Quarantine Stations (No. 3) 2021 | 22 October 2021 | 23 October 2021 | ACT 342 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 438/2007 | Water Services Industry (Permit) Rules 2007 | PU(A) 392/2021 | 13 October 202 | Rules 2, 3, 4, new rules 4A and 4B, amendment of rules 5, 6, 7, new rule 7A, deletion of rule 8, amendment of rule 10, deletion of rule 11, new rule 11A, amendment of rule 13, new rules 15 and 16, deletion of First Schedule, Third Schedule and Fourth Schedule, substitution of Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 397/2019 | Peraturan-Peraturan Kastam 2019 | PU(A) 389/2021 | 15 Oktober 2021 | Jadual Pertama dan Jadual Kedua |
| PU(A) 397/2019 | Customs Regulations 2019 | PU(A) 389/2021 | 15 October 2021 | First Schedule and Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 189/2007 | Kaedah-Kaedah Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 2007 | PU(A) 388/2021 | 12 Oktober 2021 | Kaedah 1 dan kaedah 2 |
| PU(A) 189/2007 | Education Service Commission Rules 2007 | PU(A) 388/2021 | 12 October 2021 | Rule 1 and rule 2 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 485/2021 | Notis Di Bawah Seksyen 70 | PU(B) 516/2021 | 27 Oktober 2021 |
| PU(B) 485/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | PU(B) 516/2021 | 27 October 2021 |
| PU(A) 343/2021 | Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 383/2021 | Lihat perenggan 1(2) |
| PU(A) 343/2021 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2021 | PU(A) 383/2021 | See paragraph 1(2) of this Order |
| PU(B) 101/2015 | Notification of Scale of Rates 2015 | PU(B) 457/2021 | 9 September 2021 |