Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #46/2021 18 November 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH v. TOMMY THOMAS & ORS [2021] 10 CLJ 1 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 10 (Part 1) Articles CLJ Article(s) LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH v. TOMMY THOMAS & ORS [2021] 10 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-46-09-2020(W)]
20 OCTOBER 2021

LEGAL PROFESSION: Complaint against advocate and solicitor - Disciplinary proceedings - Procedure - Whether prescribed under s. 99(1) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') - Whether complaint of misconduct to be referred first to Disciplinary Board - Whether mandatory requirement - Whether motion proposed through Malaysian Bar under s. 64(6) of LPA against advocate and solicitor amounted to complaint under s. 99 of LPA - Whether lodging of complaint by way of motion violated s. 99(1) - Whether Malaysian Bar acted in breach of statutory duty by tabling motion for members' deliberation at AGM

LEGAL PROFESSION: Malaysian Bar - Misconduct of advocate and solicitor - Whether motion proposed through Malaysian Bar under s. 64(6) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') against advocate and solicitor amounted to complaint under s. 99 of LPA - Whether lodging of complaint by way of motion violated s. 99(1) - Whether motion ought to have been referred as complaint to Disciplinary Board - Whether Malaysian Bar acted in breach of statutory duty by tabling motion for members' deliberation at AGM

TORT: Breach of statutory duty - Duties imposed by statute - Malaysian Bar - Misconduct of advocate and solicitor - Motion proposed through Malaysian Bar under s. 64(6) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') against advocate and solicitor - Whether motion amounted to complaint under s. 99 of LPA - Whether Malaysian Bar aware of correct procedure in dealing with complaint of misconduct - Whether lodging of complaint by way of motion violated s. 99(1) - Whether Malaysian Bar acted in breach of statutory duty by tabling motion for members' deliberation at AGM

---

1. Huang Ziling (W/China) v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1851 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Huang Ziling (W/China) [2017] 1 LNS 1596

2. Muhammad Samri Hashim & Anor v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1855 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case of PP v. Muhamad Samri Hashim & Anor [Criminal Trial No: 45A-31-09/2015]

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 728	KER BOON CHONG lwn. TAN LIAN KENG & YANG LAIN Apabila Mahkamah Tinggi telah memberikan suatu perintah berdasarkan merit kes, maka Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut adalah functus officio dan pihak yang terkilan dengan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut harus memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan dan bukan memfailkan permohonan untuk mengetepikan perintah di Mahkamah Tinggi. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pengenepian - Permohonan difailkan oleh defendan untuk mengenepikan perintah-perintah - Dakwaan bahawa perintah-perintah diperoleh secara frod - Perintah melibatkan merit kes - Functus officio - Sama ada defendan seharusnya memfailkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan sekiranya terkilan dengan perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi - Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi telah functus officio - Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai kuasa untuk mengetepikan perintah yang telah diberikan sebelum ini - Sama ada permohonan defendan di luar aturan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Notis rayuan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan yang tidak dibuat oleh Mahkamah - Sama ada notis rayuan yang telah difailkan mengelirukan - Sama ada rayuan yang difailkan adalah salah Bagi pihak plaintif - Haryanti Othman; T/n Haryanti Othman Associates Bagi pihak defendan defendan - Mohd Ashri Rais; T/n Asreen & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 763	PP lwn. NIK MUHAMMAD NIK SOH & SATU LAGI Pegawai penyiasat perlu membuat siasatan yang menyeluruh dan mengenal pasti punca suatu perbuatan kesalahan. Keputusan yang dibuat hasil daripada siasatan yang tidak meyakinkan merupakan satu kekurangan terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan dan kekurangan tersebut harus menjadi satu kelebihan yang menyebelahi tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Pelepasan dan pembebasan - Kesalahan bawah s. 435 Kanun Keseksaan - Perbuatan khianat dengan membakar kenderaan - Identiti tertuduh gagal dikenal pasti oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan - Percanggahan dalam pengecaman - Siasatan yang tidak lengkap - Pegawai penyiasat tidak mengetahui punca kebakaran - Tangkapan terhadap tertuduh berlaku satu tahun selepas kejadian - Pendakwaan tertumpu kepada motif perbuatan yang bukan intipati pertuduhan - Sama ada kes prima facie gagal dibuktikan - Sama ada kelebihan wajar diberikan kepada tertuduh atas sebarang kekurangan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dibebaskan dan dilepaskan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Tertuduh berada di tempat kejadian selepas kenderaan terbakar - Tertuduh tidak berhampiran kenderaan - Kekecohan di tempat kejadian dengan kewujudan orang-orang lain - Keterangan tertuduh tidak dicabar pendakwaan - Sama ada munasabah untuk tertuduh membakar kenderaan - Sama ada pendakwaan telah membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan yang munasabah - Sama ada tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah atas kes pendakwaan Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Shaharaliza Ab Razak; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan Bagi pihak peguambela - Che Mohd Firdaus Che Soh; T/n Che Firdaus & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 805	PP v. CHOU MAU & ANOR 1. When a prima facie case has been established by the appellate court, the trial court's duty at the conclusion of the trial is merely to determine whether the explanation of the accused has cast a real and reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and not to determine whether the prosecution witnesses are credible or otherwise. 2. The 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 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  dangerous weapon and actively participated together with other accused persons  in attack against deceased - Whether there was concerted attack by accused persons on deceased - Whether common intention formed on spur of moment - Whether  accused who did not inflict fatal injury on deceased equally liable for act of other accused persons - 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 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 grounds for rejecting testimonies of drug addict - Whether drug addict an  incompetent witness - Whether drug addict who has taken his oath entitled to credence like any other witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 118 For the public prosecution - Tetralina Ahmed Fauzi, Deputy Public Prosecutor; Attorney General's Chambers For the 1st respondent - Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali; M/s Law Practice of Rafique For the 2nd respondent - Halim Ashgar Mohd Hilmi; M/s Halim Ashgar
[2019] 1 LNS 819	MUGUNTHAN LURTHUNATHAN lwn. PP Hukuman terhadap tertuduh yang disabitkan bersalah untuk kesalahan bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB'), yang mempunyai rekod kesalahan lampau yang sama, adalah ditentukan bawah s. 39C(1) ADB. Dalam menentukan hukuman bawah s. 39C(1) ADB, Mahkamah tidak mempunyai budi bicara untuk menetapkan tempoh penjara yang lebih ringan daripada tempoh hukuman penjara dan sebatan minima yang telah dinyatakan bawah s. 39C(1) ADB tersebut. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Prinsip-prinsip hukuman - Kesalahan bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') - Pengakuan bersalah - Tertuduh mempunyai kesalahan lampau untuk kesalahan yang sama - Sama ada hukuman terhadap tertuduh ditentukan bawah s. 39C(1) ADB - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara dalam menetapkan hukuman yang lebih ringan daripada tempoh penjara minima dan sebatan minima yang dinyatakan bawah s. 39C(1) Bagi pihak perayu - Hadir Sendiri Tanpa Peguam Bagi pihak responden - Lim Saw Sim
[2019] 1 LNS 1415	LEONG YEU MOI (F) v. NEO AI SI (F) In a friendly loan transaction, it is not the duty of the lender to prove the purpose of the loan given to the borrower. It is sufficient for the lender to prove that the borrower had received the loan from the lender. Post-dated cheques issued by the borrower to the lender can prove that they were given as collateral for a loan. CONTRACT: Loan - Friendly loan - Default in repayment - Claim for repayment of loan - Absence of written agreement - Action against estate of deceased borrower - Dispute regarding capacity of lender to give loan in big sum - Loan was disbursed several times over a period of time - Several post-dated cheques issued by deceased borrower to lender as collateral for loan - Whether there was sufficient evidence to show capacity of lender to give out loan to deceased - Whether lender has duty to prove purpose of loan EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Forgery of signature - Signatory no longer alive - Whether spouse of a deceased signatory could stand in a position to confirm signature of deceased - Whether expert opinion was still required LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual of - Estate claims - Whether limitation would set in against estate within three years after extraction of letter of administration - Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, s. 17(2) For the appellants - Rajesh Jethi; M/s Jethi & Associates For the respondent - Merlyn Toh Ai Mei; M/s Merlyn Toh & Co

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 10 (Part 1)

The tabling of a motion to the Malaysian Bar to prejudge the culpability of the conduct of an advocate and solicitor was in violation of s. 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') and the subsequent complaint to the Disciplinary Board was tainted with biasness and prejudice. The Malaysian Bar, in receiving the motion and publishing the same to its members to condemn the advocate and solicitor, has violated the procedure under s. 99(1) of the LPA, which provides for the procedure to refer a complaint against an advocate and solicitor to the Disciplinary Board, and hence breached its statutory duty under the LPA.
Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah v. Tommy Thomas & Ors [2021] 10 CLJ 1 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The plaintiff, in taking back the possession of the containers and machines it had rented out to the defendants three months into the contract, and, at the same time, suing to recover what it could have obtained from the defendant in terms of the rentals for a five-year period contract, should not be allowed to have the best of both worlds. To allow damages based on the amount to be collected for the entire term of the contract of five years is disproportionate and excessive. Instead of being compensated for its loss, the plaintiff would profit from its loss, which is against the principle of awarding damages upon a breach of contract.
Koperasi Kastam Diraja Malaysia Bhd v. Yi Go Group Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 31 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The administrators of the estate of the deceased who died intestate are in no position to arrogate to themselves the right or authority to decide who, among the family members, should be entitled to the share in the subject property. In law and principle, administrators obtain their authority solely from the Grant of Letters of Administration and not from any declaration of gift, agreements or documents, of which none has testamentary effect. As the Distribution Act 1958 prevails over any contractual agreement which affects the estate of a deceased who dies intestate, the beneficiaries have a statutory right and entitlement as beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased to a distributive share in accordance with the said Distribution Act and not on contract or tort.
Lim Sok Wah v. Lim Boon Cheow & Anor And Another Appeal [2021] 10 CLJ 52 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An employee could not be demoted or re-graded to a post which he had never held before. This act by an employer is a breach of contract of employment and such re-grading and dismissal, despite the acceptance of the employee, entitles the latter to deem himself to have been constructively dismissed.
Ng Teck Fay v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 73 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The shareholders' agreement relied on by the parties was rendered invalid and unenforceable where it: (i) created more than just personal obligations on shareholders; (ii) bound the transferee or new shareholders; and (iii) fettered the subject company's right to remove directors as enumerated under s. 206(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016. Hence, the statement of claim ought to be struck out as the substratum of the claim was unsustainable.
Chan Eng Leong & Anor v. Goh Choon Kim & Ors And Another Case [2021] 10 CLJ 87 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An appeal from a decision of the High Court in a criminal matter is a statutory right provided under s. 51 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which is a statute and not a piece of subsidiary legislation. A practice direction could not override a statutory provision and therefore, the prosecution in a criminal case could not file an appeal out of time by merely relying on a Direction issued by the Chief Justice.
PP v. Mohamad Alraziq Ramli (No 2) [2021] 10 CLJ 112 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment under O. 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, not only because the defendant had failed to raise any triable issues, but also for having successfully proven its case that the defendant's infringing product was identical with or so nearly resembling the plaintiff's registered trademarks and marks and would likely cause confusion, thus establishing the legal thresholds of proof of trademark infringement and the tort of passing off.
Tramontina S/A Cutelaria v. Giant Ace Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 117 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The Malaysian Investment Development Authority ('MIDA'), as a body corporate 'Authority' created by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (Incorporation) Act 1965, does not perform a public duty or function in hiring its employees and in dealing with matters related to their promotions. There is no legal or statutory duty imposed on MIDA, either by statutes or other legal instruments to confirm its employee. As an employer, it is up to MIDA and MIDA alone is best suited to decide on the promotion of its employees. It is not for the court to go behind the reasons as to why a MIDA employee is not promoted and usurp the powers vested with the management of MIDA to make a finding.
Vinodh Mariappa v. Ketua Pengarah Eksekutif, Lembaga Pembangunan Pelaburan Malaysia, Ceo Mida & Ors [2021] 10 CLJ 135 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

CLJ Article(s)

1. CAN I REFUSE THE CORONAVIRUS VACCINE? THE APPLICATION OF THE INFORMED CONSENT IN MALAYSIA - A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Alyaa Nadhirah Dato' Hj Mohd Shariff* Dato' Hjh Asidah Hj Mohd Ali** Mohd Aiman Mutallib Dato' Hj Mohd Shariff*** [2021] 10 CLJ(A) i

[2021] 10 CLJ(A) i



MALAYSIA

---

CAN I REFUSE THE CORONAVIRUS VACCINE?
THE APPLICATION OF THE INFORMED CONSENT IN MALAYSIA - A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

by
Alyaa Nadhirah Dato' Hj Mohd Shariff*
Dato' Hjh Asidah Hj Mohd Ali**
Mohd Aiman Mutallib Dato' Hj Mohd Shariff***

Abstract

Medical experts have been authorised to overrule patient's choice for centuries, usually with the goal of preventing harm. Patients were expected to be patient, docile, and obedient at a time when doctors were granted a 'godlike' reputation and held in the highest regard. Following paternalistic medical decisions is less accepted by society as we approach the modern period and a growth in individual control. This study serves as a preliminary debate on the legal basis for consent to treatment, and utilising the principle of informed consent to see as to whether an adult has the autonomy right to refuse the coronavirus vaccine. The lack of specific comprehensive law on consent to medical and a specific clause on coronavirus vaccination resulted in potential lawsuits in Malaysia. An individual needs to understand the risk and benefits of coronavirus vaccine to reach an informed decision. To emphasise, for the purpose of this paper, a pro-choice refers to vaccination sceptics, whereas pro-life refers to a vaccine supporter.

Introduction

The National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme, referred to as NIP or PICK, is a national vaccination campaign currently being implemented by the Malaysian Government to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and end the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia by achieving herd immunity among the country and its citizens. Since early 2021, the Special Committee for Ensuring Access To COVID-19 Vaccine Supply (JKJAV) has been in charge of administering the country's most extensive vaccination program in its history. The introduction of vaccines raises various questions, including whether an individual can refuse vaccination in the same way they consent to the procedure.

. . .

* LLB (Hons) (UK), PG Cert (Medical Law) (UK), PG Dip (Medical Law) (UK), LLM Master Of Law in Medical Law (UK), Department of Law, Northumbria University, Faculty of Law, UiTM

** LLB (Hons)(UiTM), Advocate & Solicitor

*** DPP, Sarawak

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LNS Article(s)

1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CIPAA: AN ANALYSIS OF CASES FROM 2015 TO 2021 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Elvina Leong* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxlii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxlii



MALAYSIA

---

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CIPAA: AN ANALYSIS OF CASES FROM 2015 TO 2021

by
Elvina Leong*

ABSTRACT

The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA or the Act”) was enacted with the noble intention of alleviating cash flow problems in the construction industry in Malaysia. CIPAA introduced, amongst others, a statutory adjudication mechanism as a speedier and more economical avenue to recover payments within the construction industry. Over the years, there has been a significant increase in the number of cases coming before the courts in challenging adjudication decisions. Construction practitioners and stakeholders alike are bemoaning that the Act has lost its touch, with some even going to the extent of claiming that ‘CIPAA has gone off track’.

This paper sets out to extensively discuss the problems arising from CIPAA and suggest areas for reforms to the Act. The problems surrounding CIPAA are identified from, amongst others, the recent public survey conducted by the Bar Council Construction Committee jointly with the Asian International Arbitration Centre, interviews with notable construction practitioners and adjudicators, as well as an analysis of cases from 2015 to 2021. Against this backdrop, suggestions for reforms to the Act are postulated by examining comparative jurisdictions’ adjudication regimes.

. . .

*The author is an advocate and solicitor and is currently a legal associate at Messrs Malek, Gan & Partners. She is pursuing her Master of Commercial Law degree and this article is an extract from the author's postgraduate research paper.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. DOUBLE RENT: DOES TENANT'S CONDUCT MATTER?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by SM Shanmugam and Hooi Chung Wai** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxliii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cxliii



MALAYSIA

---

DOUBLE RENT: DOES TENANT'S CONDUCT MATTER?*

by
SM Shanmugam and Hooi Chung Wai**

The National House Buyers Association observed that one of the many problems faced by landlords is having to evict recalcitrant tenants who remain in occupation after expiration of tenancy.^[1]

Among the statutory reliefs available to a landlord against a delinquent tenant is to claim for double rent until vacant possession of the demised premises is handed over by the tenant. The specific provision reads:

“Every tenant holding over after the determination of his tenancy shall be chargeable, at the option of his landlord, with double the amount of rent until possession is given up by him or with double the value during the period of detention of the land or premises so detained, whether notice to that effect has been given or not.” ^[2]

While the provision on double rent is easy to understand, its application is not as straightforward.

. . .

*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.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert