Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #4/2021 28 January 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week YONG TSHU KHIN & ANOR V. DAHAN CIPTA SDN BHD & ANOR AND OTHER APPLICATIONS [2021] 1 CLJ 631 NG YEE HONG v. MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS [2021] 1 CLJ 666 MUHAMAD SUKERI MAHUDIN v. HICOM AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 1 CLJ 825 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 1 (Part 5) CLJ 2021 Volume 1 (Part 6) Articles CLJ Article(s) LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

YONG TSHU KHIN & ANOR V. DAHAN CIPTA SDN BHD & ANOR AND OTHER APPLICATIONS [2021] 1 CLJ 631
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ZABARIAH YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ;
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO: 08(RS)-3-08-2018(W), 08(RS)-6-08-2018(W), 08(RS)-7-08-2018(W),
08(RS)-12-10-2018(B), 08(RS)-13-11-2018(W), 08(RS)-14-11-2018(A) & 08(RS)-17-12-2018(W)]
30 NOVEMBER 2020
[2020] CLJ JT(15)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Federal Court - Review motions - Coram failure - Appointments of Federal Court Judges - Whether appointments could be collaterally challenged - Application of de facto doctrine - Whether doctrine preserves integrity of judicial decisions - Whether validity of appointments should have been raised during appeal - Whether de facto doctrine applies to constitutional appointments - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Federal Court - Review motions - Coram failure - Judge prepared minority judgment before retirement - Another judge in panel 'adopted' minority judgment of retired judge - Whether majority judgment stands independently of minority judgment - Whether judgment read and agreed upon by all judges in panel was judgment of court - Whether judgment pronounced by another judge in physical absence of judge signing judgment affected coram - Whether Federal Court obligated to provide written ground in all appeals - Whether failure to provide grounds amounted to coram failure - Whether Federal Court could abstain from answering leave question upon considering merits of appeal - Whether coram failure established - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 78(1)

---

NG YEE HONG v. MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS [2021] 1 CLJ 666
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LAU BEE LAN JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; MOHD SOFIAN ABD RAZAK JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(IM)-2232-12-2019]
20 NOVEMBER 2020

LEGAL PROFESSION: Conflict of interest - Professional conduct - Application for recusal of solicitor from firm representing client in judicial review proceedings - Preliminary objections - Whether issues raised academic - Whether there was live controversy existing between parties - Whether objectivity of firm in defending charge at judicial review hearing open to question - Whether there was apparent conflict of interest

---

MUHAMAD SUKERI MAHUDIN v.
HICOM AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 1 CLJ 825
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: W-01(A)-618-10-2019, W-01(A)-619-10-2019, W-01(A)-622-11-2019,
W-01(A)-623-11-2019 & W-01(A)-624-11-2019]
23 NOVEMBER 2020

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Whether with just cause or excuse - Misconduct - Participation in assembly of workers' union - Whether illegal picket - Whether participation in union activity immunise employees from disciplinary action - Whether punishment proportionate with misconduct - Whether misconduct proven - Whether warranted punishment of dismissal

LABOUR LAW: Trade Union - Collective agreement - Negotiation on proposed collective agreement - Whether there was deadlock - Whether there was trade dispute - Termination of employment for participation in assembly organised by worker's union - Whether proportionate with misconduct - Whether misconduct proven - Whether warranted punishment of dismissal 

---

“The offence under s. 317 of the Penal Code is premised on a criminal breach of duty of a person having care of the child whether that person is the father, mother or a third party. Care of child is not defined. However, guided by the provision of s. 31(1) of the Child Act 2001, it is the considered view of this court that care of a child under s. 317 of the Penal Code means to dutifully protect a child from any form of physical, mental and emotional injury and that duty to protect includes the duty to not expose or leave that child in any place with the intention of abandoning such child. The younger the child is, the greater is the gravity of the offence.”

“In this appeal, the child was a newborn baby who was completely helpless and vulnerable. After considering the facts this court finds that the sentence passed against both respondents (a month’s jail) was manifestly inadequate and disproportionate to the offence committed. Notwithstanding that the child was saved and did not suffer any physical harm or injury, the sentence passed by the Magistrate would not serve as a deterrent to other members of society's intent on committing the same offence. The abandonment of a newborn baby breaks down the moral value of a civilised society and threatens to reduce the life of a newborn child to one that is worthless and dispensable.”

“Taking into account the one month imprisonment that has already been served by both respondents, the first and second respondents are hereby sentenced to eight months' imprisonment to run from the date of this decision.” – per Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC in PP v. Norhayati Hashim & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 246

---

1. Chiong Swee Ling v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 2150 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Chiong Swee Ling [Criminal Case No: KCH 45A-1-10/2013]

2. Pacific-V Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tampin Theme Park Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2018] 1 LNS 2007 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Pacific-V Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tampin Theme Park Sdn Bhd [Originating Summons Nos: 24-1390-2009 & 22-172-2010]

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2233	CHIA SWEE LIAN & YANG LAIN lwn. WONG CHEE FOONG DAN/ATAU PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI LAIN 1. Pihak yang menduduki hartanah secara tidak sah adalah tidak dilindungi undang-undang dan tidak boleh menuntut sebarang kepentingan ekuiti terhadap hartanah tersebut. Pembayaran cukai tanah atau cukai pintu semata-mata tidak mewujudkan hak atau kepentingan ekuiti terhadap sesuatu hartanah yang tidak dimiliki. 2. Perjanjian jual beli yang dimasuki oleh penjual yang bukan pemilik tanah telah menafikan hak yang tidak boleh sangkal oleh pemilik berdaftar hartanah. Perjanjian yang menafikan hak yang tidak boleh sangkal pemilik berdaftar adalah tidak sah. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik - Hakmilik ekuiti - Kepentingan ekuiti - Sama ada defendan dan keluarga defendan mempunyai hak dan kepentingan ekuiti terhadap hartanah - Sama ada bukti pembayaran cukai tanah atau cukai pintu oleh defendan semata-mata mewujudkan hak atau kepentingan ekuiti terhadap hartanah - Kanun Tanah Negara, s. 48 UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik - Tak boleh sangkal - Hak pemilik berdaftar - Sama ada pendaftaran hakmilik adalah sah di sisi undang-undang - Sama ada plaintif-plaintif mempunyai hak milik yang sah terhadap hartanah KONTRAK: Perjanjian jual beli - Kesahihan - Penjual bukan pemilik tanah - Penjual menduduki tanah secara tidak sah - Sama ada perjanjian yang ditandatangani telah menafikan hak yang tidak boleh sangkal oleh pemilik berdaftar hartanah di bawah s. 340 Kanun Tanah Negara - Sama ada perjanjian jual beli adalah sah - Sama ada perjanjian boleh dilaksanakan - Akta Kontrak 1950, ss 24, 57(1), 57(2) Bagi pihak plaintif-plaintif - Siti Saliah Salim; T/n Peter Goh & Nor Jaswa Bagi pihak defendan - Harold Tan Kok Leng; T/n Harold & Lam Partnership
[2018] 1 LNS 2237	DATO' HUSAM MUSA lwn. MASRI CHE YUSOFF 1. Setelah perkataan-perkataan yang didakwa oleh defendan dalam maksud semulajadinya adalah jelas merendahkan maruah dan integriti plaintif di mata masyarakat dan telah diterbitkan, maka hadir satu tanggapan bahawa dakwaan perkataan-perkataan tersebut adalah tidak benar. Justeru, plaintif tidak perlu membuktikan bahawa perkataan-perkataan defendan adalah tidak benar. Sebaliknya, defendan mempunyai beban untuk membuktikan bahawa perkataan-perkataan tersebut adalah benar. 2. Penerbitan perkataan-perkataan adalah bersifat niat jahat apabila defendan gagal memastikan dan mengambil langkah yang perlu dan munasabah bagi memastikan kesahihan penerbitan beliau sebelum penerbitan tersebut diterbitkan. TORT: Fitnah - Libel - Penerbitan kata-kata fitnah di laman social Facebook - Penerbitan dalam bentuk gambar dan penulisan - Plaintif merupakan ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri dan ahli parti politik dan pernah menjadi pemimpin kanan parti - Dakwaan penyelewengan, pecah amanah dan salah guna kuasa dengan mengambil aset dan harta kerajaan bagi kepentingan peribadi dan kroni - Sama ada tajuk penerbitan juga wajar dipertimbangkan - Sama ada pernyataan defendan di dalam maksud semula jadinya adalah jelas merendahkan maruah dan integriti plaintif di mata masyarakat - Sama ada pernyataan di laman Facebook kepunyaan defendan berbentuk fitnah - Sama ada doktrin 'presumption of falsehood' terpakai TORT: Fitnah - Pembelaan - Justifikasi - Dakwaan penyelewengan, pecah amanah dan salah guna kuasa dengan mengambil aset dan harta kerajaan bagi kepentingan peribadi dan kroni - Sama ada defendan telah membuktikan kebenaran perkataan-perkataan yang didakwanya - Sama ada defendan telah menjelaskan sumber maklumatnya TORT: Fitnah - Pembelaan - Perlindungan bersyarat - Plaintif merupakan ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri dan ahli parti politik dan pernah menjadi pemimpin kanan parti - Dakwaan penyelewengan, pecah amanah dan salah guna kuasa dengan mengambil aset dan harta kerajaan bagi kepentingan peribadi dan kroni - Sama ada defendan mempunyai tanggungjawab undang-undang, moral atau sosial untuk memuat naik penerbitan pernyataan yang mengaitkan plaintif di laman sosial Facebook - Sama ada penerbitan perkataan-perkataan defendan berbentuk satu pertanyaan semata-mata atau berbentuk tuduhan - Sama ada defendan telah memastikan kesahihan penerbitan - Sama ada perkataan-perkataan defendan bersifat niat jahat Bagi pihak plaintif - Muhammad Faiz Fadzil & Hisham Fauzi; T/n Faiz Fadzil & Co Bagi pihak defendan - Wan Rohimi Wan Daud & Nik Asma' Bahrum Nik Abdullah; T/n Wan Rohimi & Associates
[2018] 1 LNS 2239	MOHAMAD SYAFIQ SULAIMAN lwn. DATUK WIRA HAJI WAN MOHD NOR HAJI IBRAHIM & YANG LAIN 1. Pegawai awam yang terlibat di dalam jenayah dadah dan telah mengaku bersalah boleh dilucuthak untuk diberikan surat tunjuk sebab dan peluang untuk didengar sebelum tindakan tatatertib pembuangan kerja diambil. Justeru, permohonan semakan kehakiman tidak wajar difailkan terhadap keputusan pembuangan kerja pegawai awam tersebut. 2. Pemohon dalam suatu permohonan semakan kehakiman perlu memastikan keterangan afidavit yang difailkan adalah menyeluruh dan mengandungi segala fakta material yang relevan terhadap kes. Kegagalan membuat pendedahan fakta secara sepenuhnya dan sebenarnya boleh menyebabkan permohonan semakan kehakiman ditolak. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Pegawai awam - Tindakan tatatertib - Pembuangan kerja setelah pemohon mengaku bersalah terlibat di dalam jenayah dadah - Sama ada pemohon boleh dilucuthak untuk diberikan surat tunjuk sebab dan peluang untuk didengar - Sama ada pemohon boleh membuat permohonan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan pembuangan kerja - Sama ada pembuangan kerja telah mematuhi prosedur yang ditetapkan di dalam peraturan 28, 29 dan 33 Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per 135(2)(a) UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan kebenaran - Pembatalan tindakan tatatertib pembuangan kerja anggota perkhidmatan awam - Bantahan awal - Kegagalan mendedahkan fakta material yang relevan di dalam afidavit sokongan - Permohonan di luar tempoh masa - Sama ada permohonan semakan kehakiman telah dibawa di luar tempoh masa yang ditetapkan di bawah A 53 k 3(6) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada pemohon telah gagal untuk mendedahkan fakta secara sepenuhnya dan sebenarnya - Sama ada bantahan awal wajar dibenarkan Bagi pihak pemohon/perayu - Mohd Shaharuddin Mohamed; T/n Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz Bagi pihak responden - Sharda Shienha Mohd Suleiman; Peguam Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan
[2019] 1 LNS 1226	POH CHEE LENG & ANOR v. CHEAH SIEW HUEN & ANOR The plaintiffs' application to amend their writ and statement of claim after having full knowledge of the defendants defence is a tactical manoeuvre to change the character of their pleadings and lacks good faith. The plaintiffs' amendment application should not be allowed when the proposed amendment abandons a part of the original cause of action and involves new substantial alteration of facts which is contradictory in nature. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Writ and statement of claim - Abandonment of part of original cause of action - Substantial alteration of facts - Plaintiffs taking a substantial contradictory position in proposed amendments - Application made after having full knowledge of defendants defence - Whether plaintiffs were seeking to introduce an entirely new statement of claim - Whether proposed amendments will change character of plaintiffs' claim to a claim of inconsistent character - Whether application was a tactical manoeuvre to change character of pleadings - Whether application was made bona fide - Whether amounts to abuse of process of court CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Joinder - Joinder of additional defendants - Defendants were intended to be joined to support plaintiffs' cause of action premised on fraud - Allegation of fraud not fully expounded in writ and statement of claim - Whether joinder must be accurately particularized at inception of pleading - Whether joinder application was bona fide For the plaintiff - CM Owee & Andrew Chee; M/s Owee & Ho For the 1st defendant - DS Kanaga Sundram & PY Ng; M/s Raja Seelan & Associates For the 2nd defendant - Naveen Sri Kantha; M/s Thomas Philip
[2019] 1 LNS 1270	BLACKSTREAM INVESTMENTS PTE LTD & ANOR v. D' NONCE TECHNOLOGY BHD 1. Resolutions passed at a continued extraordinary general meeting (EGM) were valid as the adjournment of the EGM without any reason, voting on a resolution for adjournment by way of poll and exclusion of proxy holders from voting on the resolution for adjournment were not proper and valid. 2. The Court derives jurisdiction to make additional or consequential orders under the omnibus prayer and thus has ample jurisdiction to grant additional or consequential declaratory orders or reliefs which may be appropriate and necessary to give effect to the declarations made, and to ensure declarations made are not defeated by intervening events. COMPANY LAW: Meetings - Extraordinary general meeting (EGM) - Adjournment - Validity of adjournment - Chairman decided that voting on resolution for adjournment be by way of poll instead of show of hands - Proxy holders permitted to vote on resolution for adjournment - Whether decision to adjourn EGM valid - Whether adjournment of EGM was proper and valid - Whether proxy holder was authorised to vote on question of adjournment COMPANY LAW: Meetings - Extraordinary general meeting (EGM) - Validity of continued EGM despite existence of resolution for adjournment - Invalid adjournment - Whether continued EGM was competent - Whether resolutions passed at continued EGM were valid CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consequential orders - Omnibus prayer - Jurisdiction of court - Granting of reliefs not pleaded - Consequential declaratory order - Whether court has power to grant consequential orders - Whether consequential orders are necessary to give effect to court's judgment or order - Whether court could grant additional declaratory orders under omnibus prayer - Whether consequential declaratory order required to ensure declarations made are not defeated by intervening events For the plaintiffs - Matthew Thomas Philip & Yong Kok Yew; M/s Thomas Philip For the defendant - Michael Chow, Jason Chan, Audrey Tan & Wong Zhi Khung; M/s S Mathews & Assoc

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 1 (Part 5)

Under s. 368(1) of the Companies Act 2016, an ex parte application may be granted to preserve the status quo and to prevent efforts to develop and approve a scheme of arrangement from being thwarted by a dissipation of the company's assets. Bearing in mind the necessity for immediate action and speedy procedures, such an ex parte application is suitable and appropriate to achieve the legislative purpose. Where however such an ex parte order is granted, the affected creditors still retain the right to intervene in the proceedings or to apply to set aside the order, and hence, no prejudice or breach of natural justice could be said to have been occasioned to any party by reason of the ex parte nature of the application or the omission to serve the application before the hearing.
Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd v. Sham Chin Yen & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 609 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The validity of a decision of a court, a judge or a judicial arbiter cannot be collaterally challenged on the ground that the judge's appointment is invalid as, even if his appointment is deemed invalid, his decision is saved by the application of the de facto doctrine which exists to preserve the integrity of judicial decisions. Where therefore the validity of the decision of the apex court and its coram is being challenged on the ground of alleged invalidity or unconstitutionality of the appointment of the Chief Justice who empaneled the court, or for that matter too of the appointment of the President of the Court of Appeal, the argument that the panel is in the circumstances suffering from a coram failure cannot be sustained or assented to; even if the appointment of the CJ or the PCA, as the case may be, were set aside de jure, they were not usurpers in the real sense of the word, as there were some legal basis for their appointments, and therefore, the decisions that they made, whether judicial or administrative, are protected by the aforesaid doctrine, whose primary existence, it bears reemphasis, is to save the integrity of the judgments of the court.
Yong Tshu Khin & Anor v. Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd & Anor And Other Applications [2021] 1 CLJ 631 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The court has the inherent power to prevent an advocate from acting as counsel in a matter in which he had or appeared to have a conflict of interest such that justice would not be seen to be done. The right to counsel of choice is not absolute and in appropriate cases has to give in to the overriding principles of fairness and the broader interests of the administration of justice.
Ng Yee Hong v. Malaysian Institute Of Accountants [2021] 1 CLJ 666 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The claim by the insurer for a declaration under s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 that the insurance policy was void and unenforceable would not be available once the claimant had successfully obtained judgment in his favour. The 'special exception' for setting aside or striking out a final judgment of a High Court could only be done by another High Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, upon grounds of breach of the rules of natural justice, illegality or lack of jurisdiction.
Shahrul Iman Abdullah v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 1 CLJ 680 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) In a forfeiture proceeding under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 that relates to an action in rem where there is no prosecution or conviction for an offence, the standard of proof to be applied by the court in determining whether the properties claimed are the subject matter of or have been used in the commission of an offence, is on a balance of probabilities.
(2) There must be clear identification of what is ill-gotten money and legally obtained money as well as a substantial connection between the money and offence under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. Reliance on witness statements, unsupported by documentary evidence, to conclude that the money had been obtained by the applicant as a result of or in connection with an offence under the said Act is insufficient.
Mohd Arif Ab Rahman v. PP [2021] 1 CLJ 703 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(1) The powers of the Sessions Court are limited and clearly spelt out under s. 20 of the Extradition Act 1992. In considering the application for a warrant of committal, the Sessions Court is not at liberty to be concerned with the question of the evidence constituting the offence in the requesting State of which it had no jurisdiction. That is a matter to be dealt with by the trial court in the requesting State. The Sessions Court must only be concerned with whether the conditions for committal as stipulated under the Act have been met by the detaining authority. Extradition proceedings are sui generis and could not be likened to a criminal trial.
(2) When an accused is accused of extradition offences in the United States of America and was at the material time in Malaysia, he is thus considered a 'fugitive criminal' within the meaning of s. 2 of the Extradition Act 1992. Further, where the supporting documents demonstrate a violation of the criminal law in the requesting State and the request for extradition is clearly connected with the effort of the requesting State to enforce the violation of that criminal law, it could not by any means be described as an offence of a political character.
Mun Chol Myong v. Minister Of Home Affairs & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 725 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

An application to amend pleadings, pursuant to O. 20 of the Rules of Court 2012, at any stage of the proceedings, ought to be granted if the proposed amendment is bona fide and does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party. However, the court should scrutinise the probable consequences of the proposed amendment; if the amendment is useless and would be ineffectual to the applicant's case, it ought not to be allowed.
Pentamaster Smart Solution Sdn Bhd v. Velocity Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd & Another Case [2021] 1 CLJ 747 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 1 (Part 6)

The Attorney General, being empowered to protect a public charitable trust from abuse, may refuse consent under s. 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 for an association to be made trustee of the charitable funds; appointment of the association, in the absence of any misconduct by the existing trustees warranting their removal, would defeat the purpose of the trust which would only benefit its members and not the intended public.
Chin Chee Kow v. Peguam Negara Malaysia [2021] 1 CLJ 761 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Although an advance Ruling issued by the Director General of Inland Revenue is a decision that is final, binding and unappealable, a company has a choice whether or not to be bound by the Advance Ruling. However, if the company chooses to be bound by the Advance Ruling, it has to comply with the Advance Ruling. If there is any material change to the arrangement to which the Advance Ruling applied, an aggrieved company may appeal to the Special Commissioners against the notice of assessment, under s. 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967, and ventilate the issues relating to the tax return stated in the Advance Ruling before the Special Commissioners.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 CLJ 776 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A former High Officer of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation, who is a Malaysian citizen, enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution in respect of acts done by him in his capacity as a High Officer. However, this immunity would no longer be available after his resignation; he would no longer have the status of a diplomatic agent for actions taken during his time in office and he would not be immune from criminal jurisdiction. The Attorney General, whose discretion is unfettered in relation to the prosecution of criminal offences, may institute criminal proceedings against such former High Officer and such decision by the Attorney General shall not be amenable to judicial review.
Menteri Hal Ehwal Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors v. Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah [2021] 1 CLJ 791 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Members of a trade union who seek to oppose a proposed collective agreement and to that end have participated in an assembly prematurely organised for the purpose, namely before any deadlock has occurred with respect to the collective agreement, may have mounted an illegal picket in law, and committed a misconduct, and may, if the misconduct has destroyed the trust and confidence the employer placed on them, lead to their just dismissal.
Muhamad Sukeri Mahudin v. HICOM Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 1 CLJ 825 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Legal fees of counsel representing a client cannot be paid from property that has been seized under ss. 50(1) and 51(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ('Act'). The scheme and purpose of the Act is to prevent money laundering and to facilitate forfeiture of proceeds from any unlawful activity; this includes preventing any person or body from obtaining any benefit from the proceeds of the unlawful activity. However, all is not lost as counsel may seek recourse and claim for unpaid legal fees under the client-solicitor contract if judgment has been obtained against the client for the payment of the legal fees.
PP v. Amar Asyraf Zolkepli; Public Islamic Bank Bhd (Third Party); Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co (Intervener) [2021] 1 CLJ 843 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The action by a director and shareholder of company based on the torts of conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, undue influence and conversion, resulting in losses to a company in relation to an acquisition agreement, is bound to fail for want of locus standi. The action ought to have been commenced in the name of the company as the rightful party to the claim.
Deepak Jaikishan Jaikishan Rewachand v. Dato' Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 860 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

CLJ Article(s)

1. IMPORTANT CLAUSES IN A CLINICAL TRIAL AGREEMENT ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by NURUL ATIQAH ABD RAHMAN, SITI NURALIS ABD MUIS & SITI NUR HAFIZAH ADNAN* [2021] 1 CLJ(A) xiii

[2021] 1 CLJ(A) xiii



MALAYSIA

---

IMPORTANT CLAUSES IN A CLINICAL TRIAL AGREEMENT

by
NURUL ATIQAH ABD RAHMAN SITI NURALIS ABD MUIS & SITI NUR HAFIZAH ADNAN*

Introduction

An agreement plays a vital role in any transaction including, clinical trial. It must be made in writing and is voluntarily entered into by the parties involved. The agreement that governed the clinical trial is known as clinical trial agreement (`CTA'). CTA is an essential document that must be negotiated in detail, finalised, and signed before any clinical trial/study can commence at the selected clinical trial/study sites. This article emphasome of the necessary provisions or clauses that should be included in the sponsored research CTA to address the clinical trial/study, and clear expression of the parties' rights and obligations in the CTA.

Parties To Clinical Trial Agreement And Related Concerns

CTA is a legally binding document that regulates the relationship between the pharmaceutical company as the sponsor of the study drug or the medical device or an organisation who initiates the clinical trial/study along with financial support to do so, the institution as the clinical trial/study site where its equipment and facility shall be utilised in furtherance of a clinical trial/study and the principal investigator (`PI') who plays the most prominent role that determines the success of a study in terms of providing reliable study data and result.

. . .

* Legal Executives; Legal & Regulatory Affairs Department, Clinical Research Malaysia.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LNS Article(s)

1. PERKEMBANGAN PRINSIP PENGKAYAAN TAK PATUT (UNJUST ENRICHMENT)^[1] DI MALAYSIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
   oleh Mohd Taufik Bin Mohd@Mohd Yusoff* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xii



MALAYSIA

---

PERKEMBANGAN PRINSIP PENGKAYAAN TAK PATUT (UNJUST ENRICHMENT)^[1] DI MALAYSIA

oleh
Mohd Taufik Bin Mohd@Mohd Yusoff*

Mukadimah

[1] Pengkayaan tak patut ialah satu prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai di Malaysia. Prinsip ini selalunya terpakai di dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan kontrak: lihat kes Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453 dan tort: lihat Novaviro Technology Sdn Bhd v. QL Plantation Sdn Bhd & Anor (Watermech Engineering Sdn Bhd, third party) [2018] 7 CLJ 119. Tujuan relif ini untuk membenarkan pihak penuntut menuntut manfaat (benefit) dari pihak yang dituntut yang telah memperolehi manfaat tersebut sehingga menjejaskan^[2] (at the expense of) pihak penuntut (nemo debet locupletari aliena jactura).^[3] Di Malaysia, prinsip undang-undang ini masih lagi di peringkat pembentukan (formative) dan telah sampai masa mahkamah di Malaysia untuk mengiktiraf prinsip undang-undang ini: lihat Dream Property Sdn Bhd (supra).

[2] Di England, Lord Templeman, di dalam kes Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 512 (HL), semasa membincangkan isu pengkayaan tak patut, melibatkan wang yang dicuri dari firma peguam oleh salah seorang rakan kongsi yang telah membelanjakan wang yang dicuri di meja judi di kelab yang dikendalikan oleh defendan, telah memetik keputusan oleh Lord Wright di dalam kes Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122, dan telah memutuskan seperti berikut:

. . .

* Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, Miri.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE AND FIXED TERM EMPLOYEES ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Donovan Cheah* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xiii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xiii



MALAYSIA

---

MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE AND FIXED TERM EMPLOYEES

by
Donovan Cheah*

In Wong Mei Yoke v. Tien Wah Press Malaya Sdn Bhd^[1] (“Wong Mei Yoke’s case”) (which was upheld by the High Court on judicial review)^[2], the Industrial Court dealt with the issue of an employee who was placed on a fixed term contract after being retired. The Industrial Court held that as the employee was retired before the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 (“MRAA”) came into force, and subsequently placed on a fixed term contract within the purview of the MRAA, she therefore had the right to work until she attained the age of 60. This is notwithstanding that her contract of employment was on a fixed term basis that would have expired at the end of the agreed term.

As the decision of this case has wider implications on fixed term contracts generally, it warrants a careful study of the court’s findings and reasoning, which will be discussed in this article.

. . .

* This article was written by Donovan Cheah, with assistance from Adryenne Lim. Donovan is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. Republished with permission from Donovan & Ho (www.dnh.com.my).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. AN ANALYSIS OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2020 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Arun Kumar* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xiv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xiv



MALAYSIA

---

AN ANALYSIS OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2020

by
Arun Kumar*

Effective 1 January 2021, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020^[1] has come into effect, bringing with it, what the writer considers to be significant changes to the laws on industrial relations in this country. The writer will analyse some of the key amendments, which has come into effect on 1 January 2021.

1. One of the most radical and progressive changes brought about by the amendments^[2] is if a worker is dismissed due to his union activities and he is successful in his case, the factors listed under the Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“IRA 67”)^[3] would not apply. The significance of this is that there would not be any limit to backwages which at present is based on the Second Schedule which states that it shall not exceed 24 months.^[4] This now ensures that an employer who dismisses a worker just because he is involved with union activities would be subject to the Industrial Court’s full powers to not only award full backwages, without any restrictions of a maximum of 24 months, but also possibly compensation for loss of future earnings, which is one of the factors stated in the Second Schedule of the IRA 67.

. . .

* Copyright © 2021 Arun Kumar, Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya/ Tutor in Laws of Equity at Brickfields Asia College.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

4. MANAGING TAX ISSUES DURING COVID-19 & BEYOND* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by LHAG's Tax SST & Customs Practice** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) xv



MALAYSIA

---

MANAGING TAX ISSUES DURING COVID-19 & BEYOND*

by
LHAG's Tax SST & Customs Practice**

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing Movement Control Orders (MCO) have indubitably had a detrimental effect on the economy and the livelihood of Malaysians. Over the past eight months, the government had announced four economic stimulus packages in an effort to aid taxpayers, culminating in a string of tax reliefs and measures introduced by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) and the Royal Malaysian Customs Department (Customs). Among the welcome measures introduced were: extension of time for filing of tax returns, deferment of payment of taxes for the tourism industry and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), import duty and sales tax exemptions for port operators on equipment and machineries imported or purchased locally, and import duty and sales tax exemptions for face masks.

. . .

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

** The team: Senior associates Ivy Ling Yieng Ping (il@lh-ag.com) and Keith Lim Boon Long (bll@lh-ag.com), and associates, Chris Toh Pei Roo (tpr@lh-ag.com), Edmund Yee Chung Hoong (ych@lh-ag.com), Steward Lee Wai Foong (slw@lh-ag.com), Katryne Chia Phei Shan (kc@lh-ag.com), Jay Fong Jia Sheng (fjs@lh-ag.com) and Wong Eu Ca (wec@lh-ag.com) are part of a team headed by Dato' Nitin Nadkarni (nn@lh-ag.com) and Jason Tan Jia Xin (tjx@lh-ag.com).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert