|
Issue #48/2021
02 December 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
|
CCH & SATU LAGI lwn. PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN, MALAYSIA [2021] 10 CLJ 352
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, PUTRAJAYA
KAMARDIN HASHIM HMR; HAS ZANAH MEHAT HMR; AZIZAH NAWAWI HMR
[RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(A)-390-08-2019]
12 SEPTEMBER 2021
Kelayakan untuk memperoleh kewarganegaraan melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang ditentukan semasa kelahiran. Sekiranya kelayakan tidak dipenuhi, mahkamah tiada kuasa menambah, membuang atau menimbangkan kelayakan-kelayakan lain yang tidak diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Undang-undang tentang kewarganegaraan di Malaysia hanya terdapat dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, iaitu undang-undang tertinggi Persekutuan. Oleh itu, hak terhadap kewarganegaraan tidak boleh diberi kecuali dengan peruntukan yang jelas dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan tidak boleh ditambah oleh Akta Parlimen. Peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, terutama yang berkaitan kewarganegaraan, hendaklah diberi tafsiran ketat dengan menghayati bahawa penggubal berniat untuk melindungi hak istimewa ini kepada orang-orang yang benar-benar layak. (Catitan Editor: Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan bagi kes ini boleh diakses melalui [2021] 1 LNS 1759; [2021] CLJ JT (16)).
UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Kewarganegaraan - Kewarganegaraan melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang - Suami isteri warganegara Malaysia mengambil anak angkat - Ibu bapa dan kewarganegaraan ibu bapa tidak diketahui - Sama ada ibu bapa angkat adalah ibu bapa bagi maksud per. 4(1)(b) dan s. 1(a) dibaca bersama-sama s. 2(3) Bahagian II, Jadual Kedua, Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada perintah pengangkatan bawah Akta Pengangkatan 1952 memberi hak pada anak angkat untuk memperoleh kewarganegaraan dengan kuat kuasa undang-undang - Sama ada anak tersebut dilahirkan di Malaysia - Sama ada warganegara mana-mana negara lain - Sama ada warganegara Malaysia melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 14(1)
DELL GLOBAL BUSINESS CENTER SDN BHD v.
KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI [2021] 10 CLJ 411
HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH JC
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: PA-25-17-03-2021]
19 AUGUST 2021
A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Director General of Inland Revenue may not appeal against the decision and at the same time seek a judicial review of the same. Where therefore the DGIR has carried out a tax audit on the applicant here with respect to its trading and manufacturing activities, and decided that the relevant special incentive packages that the applicant was claiming did not make it eligible to any tax exemption under s. 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967, the applicant, having filed an appeal to the Special Commissioners, cannot further or simultaneously seek a judicial review of the decision; such a course of action is inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of process.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Judicial review against additional tax assessments by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - Whether DGIR committed 'very exceptional circumstances' in imposing additional tax assessments - Whether DGIR taken all relevant circumstances into account - Whether what DGIR did was authorised under statute - Whether power included making determination whether taxpayer brought himself within ambit of any exemption claimed - Whether taxpayer given right to be heard - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 99
REVENUE LAW: Income Tax - Additional assessments - Application to quash decision of Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - Whether DGIR taken all relevant circumstances into account - Whether what DGIR did was authorised under statute - Whether power included making determination whether taxpayer brought himself within ambit of any exemption claimed - Whether taxpayer given right to be heard - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 99
"In my judgment, the trading prohibition contained in s. 89E(2) does not create a strict liability offence. That this is so is clear from the plain words of the statute. Under s. 89E(2), a person who is an "insider" is subject to the trading prohibition. Under s. 89E(1), a person is an insider if he is in possession of material non-public information, and if he knew or ought reasonably to know that the information in his possession was not in the public domain - ie that it was not generally available within the meaning of s. 89A. It must therefore be proven that an accused or defendant knew or ought to have known that the information in question was not generally available. This knowledge of the accused or defendant constitutes the mens rea element of the insider trading prohibitions." - per Azizul Azmi Adnan J in Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia v. Sreesanthan Eliathamby [2021] 7 CLJ 913
Legal Network Series
|
PP lwn. MAHMAD YASIN Aktiviti penyeludupan migran mempunyai impak besar atas keselamatan, keamanan dan ekonomi negara. Namun demikian, Mahkamah masih boleh mengambil kira faktor-faktor peringanan dalam menimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai terhadap tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Peringanan - Kesalahan bawah s. 26H Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Kesalahan melindungi migran yang diseludup secara haram dengan memberikan tempat perlindungan - Pengakuan bersalah sebelum bicara - Mangsa tidak diancam atau dicederakan - Kesalahan tidak melibatkan kanak-kanak dan gangguan seksual terhadap migran wanita - Sama ada kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh adalah serius - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh mempertimbangkan peringanan hukuman
|
|
|
PENGERUSI PERSATUAN PENGANUT DEWI SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN DEVASTHANAM lwn. SELVARAJAN JAGANATHAN Mahkamah adalah terikat dengan peruntukan tersurat dan nyata dalam perlembagaan persatuan dan tidak boleh membuat sebarang keputusan bersandarkan perkara yang tidak dinyatakan dalam sesuatu undang-undang persatuan. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak - Locus standi - Tindakan dimulakan atas nama pengerusi persatuan penganut kuil - Tindakan dimulakan terhadap sami yang menjaga kuil daripada memasuki dan menguruskan ibadat di kuil - Persatuan ditubuhkan untuk menjaga kebajikan ahli-ahli persatuan dan bukan untuk menguruskan atau mentadbir kuil - Sama ada plaintif layak untuk membawa tindakan terhadap defendan - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh membuat keputusan bersandarkan perkara yang tidak dinyatakan dalam perlembagaan persatuan PERSATUAN TAK DIPERBADAN: Persatuan - Undang-undang persatuan - Tindakan dimulakan atas nama pengerusi persatuan penganut kuil - Tindakan dimulakan terhadap sami yang menjaga kuil daripada memasuki dan menguruskan ibadat di kuil - Perlembagaan persatuan menyatakan penubuhan persatuan adalah untuk menjaga kebajikan ahli-ahli persatuan dan bukan untuk menguruskan atau mentadbir kuil - Sama ada plaintif boleh menghalang defendan daripada memasuki dan menguruskan kuil - Sama ada defendan termasuk dalam erti kata kakitangan atau pegawai seperti yang ditakrifkan dalam perlembagaan persatuan plaintif - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh membuat keputusan bersandarkan perkara yang tidak dinyatakan dalam perlembagaan persatuan
|
|
|
PP lwn. LIM YIH CHUAN & SATU LAGI Kehadiran tertuduh di premis di mana dadah berbahaya dijumpai, sebagai tetamu dan bukan sebagai penghuni, ketika serbuan semata-mata tidak membuktikan bahawa tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan, milikan dan kawalan atas dadah tersebut dan keterangan sedemikian adalah tidak cukup untuk menyabitkan tertuduh atas kesalahan yang melibatkan dadah tersebut UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam sebuah bilik premis kediaman - Tertuduh di ruang tamu ketika serbuan - Tertuduh merupakan tetamu - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atas premis di mana dadah dijumpai - Sama ada milikan dan kawalan atas dadah yang dijumpai di dalam bilik telah dibuktikan - Sama ada kehadiran tertuduh di premis semata-mata cukup untuk menyabitkan tertuduh - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan
|
|
|
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SUBANG PARKHOMES v. ZEN ESTATES SDN BHD Order 18 r. 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides strict compliance to file a statement of defence within the prescribed time. A mere delay of one day entitles the plaintiff to file a leave to enter judgment in default of defence against the defendant. Hence, the defendant who genuinely requires more time to prepare the statement of defence must file a formal application for abridgment of time when the expiry date for filing the statement of defence approaches. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Default judgment - Default of defence - Defence not filed within time as directed by court - Defence filed and served after office hours - Request for further extension rejected by plaintiff - Defence filed without application for abridgment of time - Whether defence filed out of time - Whether mandatory requirement to file statement of defence within prescribed time - Whether plaintiff entitled in ordinary course of events to enter judgment in default against defendant - Whether few hours of delay matters - Whether formal application for extension of time required - Whether busy schedule of solicitor a reason for Court to exercise its discretion to grant further extension - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 2(1), O. 62 r. 8
|
|
|
INVESTLAND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. LEE CHEE KHONG Stay of proceedings in the Sessions Court pending disposal of issues in the High Court suit should not be granted where the issues being determined in the High Court suit has no bearing in the suit before the Sessions Court. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Appeal against - Sessions Court proceeding was stayed pending disposal of an issue in High Court suit - Special circumstances - Applicant was not a party in High Court suit - Whether determination of issue in High Court suit has any bearing in suit before Sessions Court - Whether there were any special circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings - Whether stay was granted on wrong premises
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 10 (Part 3)
A case of trademark infringement is established once the requirements under s. 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1976 are proven and hence, the court ought not to have suggested that the owner of the registered trademark vary its registered trademark, that has been in use for many years before the infringing trademark was registered, as an option before commencing an action for trademark infringement and/or passing-off.
Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 329 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Failure to plead - Trademark infringement - Defence of honest concurrent use - Whether court disregarded failure to plead - Whether decision inconsistent with basic principles - Whether court should confine decision to questions raised in pleadings
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Infringement of - Proof of infringement - Whether unlawful use of trademark without consent in course of trade caused deception/confusion among prospective customers - Whether honest concurrent use of trademark pleaded - Whether bona fide use of trademark - Whether aware of existence of registered trademark - Whether option of variation of trademark ought to have been considered before commencement of action - Whether registered owner of trademark had exclusivity over trademark - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 38 & 82(2)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
- For the appellant - Indran Shanmuganathan, Sim Sook Eng, Elisia Engku Kangon; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the respondent - Khoo Guan Huat, Kuek Pei Yee, Melissa Long Lai Peng & Gooi Yang Shuh; M/s Skrine
Kelayakan untuk memperoleh kewarganegaraan melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang ditentukan semasa kelahiran. Sekiranya kelayakan tidak dipenuhi, mahkamah tiada kuasa menambah, membuang atau menimbangkan kelayakan-kelayakan lain yang tidak diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Undang-undang tentang kewarganegaraan di Malaysia hanya terdapat dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, iaitu undang-undang tertinggi Persekutuan. Oleh itu, hak terhadap kewarganegaraan tidak boleh diberi kecuali dengan peruntukan yang jelas dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan tidak boleh ditambah oleh Akta Parlimen. Peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, terutama yang berkaitan kewarganegaraan, hendaklah diberi tafsiran ketat dengan menghayati bahawa penggubal berniat untuk melindungi hak istimewa ini kepada orang-orang yang benar-benar layak. (Catitan Editor: Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan bagi kes ini boleh diakses melalui [2021] 1 LNS 1759; [2021] CLJ JT (16)).
CCH & Satu Lagi lwn. Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran Dan Kematian, Malaysia [2021] 10 CLJ 352 [CA]
UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Kewarganegaraan - Kewarganegaraan melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang - Suami isteri warganegara Malaysia mengambil anak angkat - Ibu bapa dan kewarganegaraan ibu bapa tidak diketahui - Sama ada ibu bapa angkat adalah ibu bapa bagi maksud per. 4(1)(b) dan s. 1(a) dibaca bersama-sama s. 2(3) Bahagian II, Jadual Kedua, Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada perintah pengangkatan bawah Akta Pengangkatan 1952 memberi hak pada anak angkat untuk memperoleh kewarganegaraan dengan kuat kuasa undang-undang - Sama ada anak tersebut dilahirkan di Malaysia - Sama ada warganegara mana-mana negara lain - Sama ada warganegara Malaysia melalui kuat kuasa undang-undang - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 14(1)
KAMARDIN HASHIM HMR
HAS ZANAH MEHAT HMR
AZIZAH NAWAWI HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Raymond Mah & Jasmine Wong; T/n Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
- Bagi pihak responden - Mazlifah Ayob; PKP
In granting an order for sale of land, the 'cause to the contrary' test in s. 256 of the National Land Code has no application to Sarawak and the courts in Sarawak have no option but to apply the 'as in the circumstances seems just' test so spoken of in s. 148 of the Sarawak Land Code. Be that as it may, in cases where the charge in favour of the bank has been obtained by misrepresentation or undue influence or inducement or has been vitiated by a total failure of consideration, or in cases where the bank has acted so unconscionably as to have gravely affected the chargee, the effect could only be that it does not 'seem just in the circumstances' to grant the order for sale.
Zecon Capital Ventures Sdn Bhd v. Affin Hwang Investment Bank Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 380 [CA]
LAND LAW: Charge - Order for sale - Validity - Challenge against - Whether charge produced by means of misrepresentation, undue influence and total failure of consideration - Whether inducement proved - Banker and customer relationship - Whether there was equal bargaining power - Whether respondent acted unconscionably - Whether transaction fair and just - Whether charge had grave effect - Whether just in circumstances to grant order for sale
LAND LAW: Charge - Order for sale - Distinction between application under s. 256 of National Land Code and s. 148 of Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81) - Whether s. 256 with 'cause to the contrary' test applicable in Sarawak - Whether courts in Sarawak ought to apply test 'as in the circumstances seems just' in s. 148
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
- For the appellant - Kilat Beriak & Daisy Tham Yek Ngo; M/s Beriak Tham Assocs
- For the respondent - Chan Yin Xi & Adrian Chew; M/s Battenberg & Talma
In an application for summary judgment under O. 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, where a party denies or disputes an assertion of fact by the other, and where such denial or dispute is equivocal or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with the undisputed contemporary documents or is inherently improbable, the presiding judge must reject the assertion; the issue has been totally rendered not triable.
Deka Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Shopee Mobile Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 395 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Triable issues - Main action on infringement of trademark - Whether issues raised fell squarely within meaning of triable issues - Whether issues could be decided summarily - Whether court ought to hear evidence from witnesses - Whether requirements for summary disposal of case met - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14 & O. 14A
MOHD RADZI HARUN J
- For the plaintiffs - YC Pang & Adrian Ng Chen Yip; M/s YC Pang, Chong & Gordon
- For the defendant - Shanti Mogan, Lilien Wong & Yiew De Quan; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Director General of Inland Revenue may not appeal against the decision and at the same time seek a judicial review of the same. Where therefore the DGIR has carried out a tax audit on the applicant here with respect to its trading and manufacturing activities, and decided that the relevant special incentive packages that the applicant was claiming did not make it eligible to any tax exemption under s. 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967, the applicant, having filed an appeal to the Special Commissioners, cannot further or simultaneously seek a judicial review of the decision; such a course of action is inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of process.
Dell Global Business Center Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2021] 10 CLJ 411 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Judicial review against additional tax assessments by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - Whether DGIR committed 'very exceptional circumstances' in imposing additional tax assessments - Whether DGIR taken all relevant circumstances into account - Whether what DGIR did was authorised under statute - Whether power included making determination whether taxpayer brought himself within ambit of any exemption claimed - Whether taxpayer given right to be heard - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 99
REVENUE LAW: Income Tax - Additional assessments - Application to quash decision of Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - Whether DGIR taken all relevant circumstances into account - Whether what DGIR did was authorised under statute - Whether power included making determination whether taxpayer brought himself within ambit of any exemption claimed - Whether taxpayer given right to be heard - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 99
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH JC
- For the applicant - Anand Raj, Abhilaash Subramaniam; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the Attorney General - Norashikin Ibrahim; SFC
- For the respondent - Ashrina Ramzan Ali; SRC
1. The exercise of the court's discretion to grant leave for interrogatories, pursuant to O. 26 rr. 1(3) and (4) of the Rules of Court 2012, will only be positively affirmed if it is necessary and it will dispose the cause in a fair manner or if it saves costs.
2. For an application for discovery to succeed, the documents sought to be discovered must be identified, relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the matter and must be, or have been, in the possession, custody or power of the party against whom the order is sought.
M Wealth Corridor Sdn Bhd v. BJ Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 10 CLJ 432 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interrogatories - Leave - Application for - Sale and purchase of land - Failure to pay balance purchase price within stipulated time - Forfeiture of deposit - Claim of conspiracy - Applicant sought leave to serve interrogatories to trace deposit - Whether application necessary - Whether will dispose of cause in fair manner - Whether costs and time saving - Whether questions posed would obtain admission that would reduce issues - Whether interrogatories related to matter - Whether court ought to exercise discretion to allow application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 26
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Application for - Sale and purchase of land - Failure to pay balance purchase price within stipulated time - Forfeiture of deposit - Claim of conspiracy - Applicant sought discovery of documents - Whether documents sought relevant to suit - Whether items sought due to presumption - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 rr. 3 & 7
JOHAN LEE KIEN HOW JC
- For the plaintiff - Conrad Young & PL Leong; M/s Sreenevasan Young
- For the 1st & 2nd defendants - B Thangaraj & Nashilla; M/s Thangaraj & Assocs
- For the 3rd defendant - T Sudhar & Tania Edward; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
- For the 4th defendant - Muhammad Shafiee Afendi; M/s K C Tang & Co
Mahkamah, sebelum mendengar inkuiri pelucuthakan untuk barangan yang disita bawah s. 47(6) Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, hendaklah terlebih dahulu mengeluarkan saman kepada pihak-pihak yang berkaitan, satu kewajipan mandatori mahkamah bersandarkan pada penggunaan perkataan 'hendaklah' atau 'shall' dalam seksyen ini. Mahkamah khilaf apabila meneruskan inkuiri pelucuthakan dengan hanya bergantung semata-mata pada notis permohonan dan afidavit sokongan.
Ma Hoa Trading Co Ltd lwn. PP & Satu Rayuan Lain [2021] 10 CLJ 460 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') - Harta intelek - Cap dagangan - Inkuiri pelucuthakan - Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, s. 47(6) - Sama ada HMS terkhilaf apabila memutuskan inkuiri pelucuthakan boleh diteruskan tanpa saman dikeluarkan kepada pihak-pihak berkaitan terlebih dahulu - Sama ada tugas mandatori hakim - Inkuiri pelucuthakan cuma berpandukan notis permohonan dan afidavit sokongan - Sama ada keputusan HMS bawah s. 47(5) Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011 wajar diakas - Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, s. 47(5) & (6)
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, s. 47(6) - Cap dagangan - Inkuiri pelucuthakan - Sama ada Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ('HMS') terkhilaf apabila memutuskan inkuiri pelucuthakan boleh diteruskan tanpa saman dikeluarkan kepada pihak-pihak berkaitan terlebih dahulu - Sama ada tugas mandatori hakim - Inkuiri pelucuthakan berpandukan notis permohonan dan afidavit sokongan - Sama ada keputusan HMS bawah s. 47(5) Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011 wajar diakas - Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, s. 47(5) & (6)
ABU BAKAR KATAR H
- Bagi pihak perayu - P S Segaran; T/n P S segaran & Co.
- Bagi pihak responden - Atiqah Abdul Karim; TPR
1. An intervener in protecting its interests could enter appearance only in the capacity of an intervener. An intervener who is not a 'relevant person' cannot enter appearance and set up a defence that is available to the real defendant. In other words, an intervener cannot step into the shoes of a defendant to defend a plaintiff's claim against the said defendant.
2. When a bank provides a trade facility, and the customer pledges a bill of lading as security, the bank does not need to go behind the bill of lading to find out whether it was procured by the fraud of the customer.
3. A judgment in default of appearance, when granted, does not amount to a denial of natural justice especially when the papers are properly issued and served but the defendant shows no interest nor make attempts to defend itself.
The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. The Owners And/Or The Demise Charterers Of, And/Or Other Persons Interested In The Ship “Sea Coral” (IMO No. 9077886) Of The Port Of Cook Islands; An Zhong Shipping Pte Ltd & Ors (Interveners) [2021] 10 CLJ 473 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Bank filed writ in rem on in rem action - Misdelivery of cargo - Demise charterer of vessel ('real defendant') did not enter appearance - Owner of vessel ('intervener') entered appearance and set up defence available to real defendant - Question as to real defendant in action - Whether intervener real defendant and 'relevant person' - Whether intervener liable to bank on action in personam - Whether could enter appearance as of right in capacity of defendant - Whether intervener attempting to step into shoes of real defendant to defend claim by bank - Whether intervener had locus standi to raise issues available to real defendant
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment-in-default - Judgment-in-default of appearance - Application for - Bank provided trade facility to finance purchase of oil and oil-related products - Trade facility secured by general pledge - Bank exercised pledge over bills of lading following customer's default on trade facility - Bank filed writ in rem on in rem action for misdelivery of cargo - Whether there were attempts made to defend bank's claim - Whether judgement-in-default of appearance ought to be entered
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD JC
- For the plaintiff - Rajasingam Gothandapani, Nik Azila Shuhada Nik Abdullah & Koay Qiu Yin; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the 1st intervener - Jeremy Mark Joseph; M/s Joseph & Partners
LNS Article(s)
THE BLOSSOMING OF PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION [Read excerpt]
by Mohd Bahrin bin Othman[i] Hariz Sufi bin Zahari[ii] Atikah binti Awis Qurni[iii] Ayman Haziqah binti Azman[iv] Nurkhairina binti Noor Sureani[v] [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxlviINTERNET VIGILANTE JUSTICE: THE LEGALITY OF DOXING IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Parveen Kaur Harnam Singh* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxlviiCAN NON-MEMBERS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE AFFAIRS OF A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY?* [Read excerpt]
by SM Shanmugam, Hooi Chung Wai and Siew Hui Yi** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxlviii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealed | Superseded |
| ACT 832 | Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021) | 1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987) | - | Societies Act 1966 (Revised 1987) [ACT 335] |
| 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 | - | National Land Code [ACT 56 of 1965] |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1637 | National Trust Fund (Amendment) Act 2021 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 339 |
| ACT A1636 | Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2021 | 1 December 2021 [PU(B) 614/2021] | ACT 592 |
| ACT A1635 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) (Amendment) Act 2021 | 18 November 2021 | ACT 830 |
| 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 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 432/2021 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021 | 30 November 2021 | 31 July 2021 | PU(A) 322/2021 |
| PU(A) 431/2021 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 14) Order 2021 | 26 November 2021 | 29 November 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 430/2021 | Control of Supplies (Controlled Articles) (No. 6) Order 2021 | 25 November 2021 | 1 December 2021 | ACT 122 |
| PU(A) 429/2021 | Dental (Amendment of Second Schedule) (No. 3) Order 2021 | 25 November 2021 | 26 November 2021 | ACT 51 |
| PU(A) 428/2021 | Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2021 | 25 November 2021 | 28 December 2018 | ACT 378 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 616/2021 | Appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and Officer for the Federal Territory of Labuan | 1 December 2021 | Appointment - 29 March 2021; Revocation - Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 757 |
| PU(B) 615/2021 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 1 December 2021 | 2 December 2021 | ACT A1603 |
| PU(B) 614/2021 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 30 November 2021 | 1 December 2021 | ACT A1636 |
| PU(B) 613/2021 | Appointment Under Subsection 6A(1A) | 29 November 2021 | 15 November 2021 | ACT 533 |
| PU(B) 612/2021 | Appointment of Member of the Commission | 29 November 2021 | 30 August 2021 to 15 July 2022 | ACT 695 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 322/2021 | Perintah Jaminan Pinjaman (Pertubuhan Perbadanan) (Peremitan Cukai Dan Duti Setem) (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 432/2021 | 31 Julai 2021 | Perenggan 2 dan 3 |
| PU(A) 322/2021 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 2) Order 2021 | PU(A) 432/2021 | 31 July 2021 | Paragraphs 2 and 3 |
| AKTA 592 | Akta Levi Keuntungan Luar Biasa 1998 | AKTA A1636 | 1 Disember 2021 [PU(B) 614/2021] | Seksyen 13, 14, & 14A |
| ACT 592 | Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 | ACT A1636 | 1 December 2021 [PU(B) 614/2021] | Sections 13, 14 & 14A |
| AKTA 51 | Akta Pergigian 1971 | PU(A) 429/2021 | 26 November 2021 | Jadual Kedua |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 476/2010 | Stamp Duty (Remission) (No. 4) Order 2010 | PU(A) 428/2021 | 28 December 2018 |
| PU(A) 392/2018 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Requirements For Labuan Business Activity) Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 423/2021 | 1 January 2019 except for regulation 3; 1 January 2021 - regulation 3 |
| PU(A) 323/2021 | Proklamasi Darurat (Sarawak) | PU(A) 413/2021 | 4 November 2021 |
| PU(A) 323/2021 | Proclamation of Emergency (Sarawak) | PU(A) 413/2021 | 4 November 2021 |
| PU(B) 485/2021 | Notis Di Bawah Seksyen 70 | PU(B) 516/2021 | 27 Oktober 2021 |