Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #50/2021 16 December 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week MARITIME INTELLIGENCE SDN BHD v. TAN AH GEK [2021] 10 CLJ 663 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 5) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

MARITIME INTELLIGENCE SDN BHD v. TAN AH GEK [2021] 10 CLJ 663
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-60-10-2020(J)]
22 OCTOBER 2021

LABOUR LAW: Industrial Court - Jurisdiction - Dismissal of workman - Representations - Whether term 'representations' ties jurisdiction of Industrial Court to reasons, factors or events operating in mind of employer at time of dismissal - Whether focus of enquiry of Industrial Court premised on matters and events which occurred at time of dismissal - Whether wording of s. 20 of Industrial Relations Act 1967 prescribes or allows overarching survey by Industrial Court of any and all matters both pre and post-dismissal - Whether 'just cause or excuse' only refer to reason resonating in employer's mind prior to decision to dismiss - Whether subsequent and fresh evidence could be utilised retrospectively to justify termination - Literal and purposive statutory construction of s. 20 - Whether envisages employer seeking to justify termination utilising post-dismissal reasons - Whether Industrial Court has right to enquire into reasons subsequently put up by employer via pleadings to justify dismissal when such reasons were not given at time of dismissal - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1), (3)

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal of workman - Industrial Court - Jurisdiction - Representations - Whether term 'representations' ties jurisdiction of Industrial Court to reasons, factors or events operating in mind of employer at time of dismissal - Whether focus of enquiry of Industrial Court premised on matters and events which occurred at time of dismissal - Whether wording of s. 20 of Industrial Relations Act 1967 prescribes or allows overarching survey by Industrial Court of any and all matters both pre and post-dismissal - Whether 'just cause or excuse' only refer to reason resonating in employer's mind prior to decision to dismiss - Whether subsequent and fresh evidence could be utilised retrospectively to justify termination - Literal and purposive statutory construction of s. 20 - Whether envisages employer seeking to justify termination utilising post-dismissal reasons - Whether Industrial Court has right to enquire into reasons subsequently put up by employer via pleadings to justify dismissal when such reasons were not given at time of dismissal - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1), (3)

---

“The public policy consideration in respect of recognition of a foreign judgment under the common law rule is mainly centred on the nature of the judgment. Judgment based on laws which are objectively disgraceful, or on laws which produce an outcome which is equally repellent, for example, will be denied recognition.”

“This court has to refrain from probing into the merits of the claim tried and decided by the foreign court. This court in exercising its judicial discretion has to be guided by the common law rule principles in recognising a foreign judgment. As such, a complaint under this head has to be so blatantly clear that it would "shock the conscience" of this court, or that the complaint is so "clearly injurious to the public good, or wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public". Unfortunately, this court could not see this element in any of these in the defendant's complaints. This court also could not find the foreign judgment was based on laws which are objectively disgraceful, neither has it produced an outcome which is equally repellent.” – per Choo Kah Sing J in PT Sandipala Arthaputra v. Muehlbauer Technologies Sdn Bhd [2021] 9 CLJ 484

---

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 85	FOONG YOK KOK v. PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. Filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal without obtaining the requisite leave of the Court of Appeal as envisaged by s. 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is fatal and to allow such appeal to proceed on its merits will cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. 2. Damages to be assessed as prayed for in the claim in an action cannot be factored into the value of the claim for the purpose of construction of s. 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 because such damages are consequential and not the subject matter of the claim. The amount or value as stated under s. 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 refers to the total amount of the claim in an action which has been adjudged to be payable or the value of the subject matter of the claim in the action which has been adjudged as recoverable. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal to Court of Appeal - Leave - Non-appealable matters - Appeal filed without leave - Subject matter of appeal below statutory trigger of RM250,000 - Subject matter of claim had been quantified and adjudged by trial judge - Appellant prayed for damages to be assessed in claim - Objection raised by respondent through preliminary objection premised on O. 33 r. 2 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether appeal was incompetent - Whether there was mandatory non-compliance of s. 68(1)(a) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether to allow appeal to proceed on its merits will cause substantial miscarriage of justice to respondent WORDS AND PHRASES: 'amount or value of the subject matter of the claim' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 68(1)(a) - Whether refers to total amount of the claim in action which has been adjudged to be payable - Whether refers to value of subject matter of claim in action which has been adjudged as recoverable - Whether includes damages to be assessed - Whether damages to be assessed are consequential in nature For the appellant/plaintiff - David Siaw Ting Chang; M/s David Siaw & Co Advocates For the respondent/defendant - Adrian L Chew Chan Yin Xi; M/s Battenberg & Talma
[2020] 1 LNS 94	TAN YIN WAH v. CHOO FONG YEN 1. The fact that the parties had consummated their first marriage or are capable of having intercourse with other partners is irrelevant to determine their capacity of consummating the second marriage. 2. The parties' deliberate refusal to consummate their marriage, as a result of a psychological or sexual aversion, is evident of quoad hunc et quoad hanc, owing to the incapacity of either party to have sexual intercourse within the meaning of s. 70(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage And Divorce) Act 1967 and renders such marriage voidable. FAMILY LAW: Nullity - Marriage - Second marriage - Second marriage between parties not consummated - Incapacity to have sexual intercourse - Both parties deliberately refused to consummate marriage - Whether failure to live together could be ground to nullify marriage - Whether fact that parties had consummated their first marriage is relevant to determine parties' capacity to consummate their second marriage - Whether there was element of psychological or sexual aversion between parties making them incapable of consummating their second marriage - Whether parties' deliberate refusal to consummate is evident of quoad hunc et quoad hanc - Whether marriage was voidable under s. 70(a) of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 For the petitioner - Azinuddin Karim; M/s Zainal & Associates For the respondent - LH Chua; M/s LH Chua
[2020] 1 LNS 95	NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD v. PENTADBIR TANAH JOHOR BAHRU The correct approach in determining the market value of a scheduled land pursuant to compulsory acquisition is to consider the land's market value from the perspective of a hypothetical person actively seeking land to fulfil needs that the scheduled land could fulfil. LAND LAW: Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Market value - Approach in determining market value - Scheduled land larger in size - Whether proper inquiry required and expert evidence must be called before finding is made on market value - Whether correct approach was to consider market value of land from perspective of hypothetical person actively seeking land to fulfil needs which scheduled land could fulfil - Whether size of scheduled land was a negative factor - Whether location, access and layer were similar characteristic of scheduled land and separate deductions made for each characteristic amounts to double-counting - Whether development potential of scheduled land must be considered For the appellant - Clarence Edwin & R Paramanandan; M/s Clarence Edwin Law Offices For the respondent - Madihah Zainol; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor
[2019] 1 LNS 1199	PP lwn. TAN CHIN HAN 1. Pertuduhan bagi kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah bawah s. 408 Kanun Keseksaan atas dakwaan kegagalan tertuduh sebagai penyelia jualan syarikat untuk mengembalikan wang hasil jualan syarikat tidak boleh dipertahankan apabila tertuduh tidak diamanahkan dan dipertanggungjawabkan dengan tugas untuk mengendalikan kutipan hasil jualan tersebut atau mempunyai penguasaan atas wang hasil jualan syarikat. 2. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan akaun bank dan laporan audit syarikat untuk membuktikan kehilangan wang hasil jualan syarikat yang didakwa mengakibatkan prejudis dan salah laksana keadilan yang substantial kepada pihak pembelaan. Kegagalan sedemikian menyebabkan wujudnya jurang yang material dalam kes pendakwaan dan secara langsung menjejaskan naratif kes pendakwaan. KETERANGAN: Inferens bertentangan - Kes pendakwaan - Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Pertuduhan pecah amanah jenayah bawah s. 408 Kanun Keseksaan - Tertuduh didakwa tidak mengembalikan wang hasil jualan syarikat - Syarikat gagal mengemukakan bukti akaun bank dan laporan audit syarikat - Sama ada kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan bukti akaun bank dan laporan audit syarikat mengakibatkan prejudis dan salah laksana keadilan yang substantial terhadap pihak pembelaan - Sama ada wujud jurang yang material dalam kes pendakwaan - Sama ada menjejaskan naratif kes pendakwaan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Jenayah Pecah Amanah - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 408 - Dakwaan pecah amanah oleh penyelia jualan syarikat - Tertuduh didakwa tidak mengembalikan wang hasil jualan syarikat - Syarikat gagal menetapkan peraturan yang jelas mengenai kaedah kutipan hasil jualan yang perlu dipatuhi oleh tertuduh - Kehilangan wang hasil jualan syarikat tidak disokong oleh bukti dokumentar - Percanggahan dalam jumlah kehilangan hasil jualan - Sama ada wujud keraguan munasabah mengenai dakwaan syarikat - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kewajipan memastikan pentadbiran kewangan syarikat teratur - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dipertanggungjawabkan atas kehilangan wang hasil jualan beras - Sama ada pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh boleh dipertahankan Bagi pihak perayu - TPR Mohd Raimi Mohd Ramli, Bahagian Pendakwaan; Jabatan Peguam Negara Bagi pihak responden - K Annamalai Ramu Kandasamy; T/n KA Ramu Vasanthi & Associates
[2019] 1 LNS 1200	PP lwn. SAIFUL AFFENDY ZAIRULLIZA Tarikh dan masa kejadian adalah material untuk dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan kerana tanpa tarikh dan masa kejadian, tertuduh akan dinafikan haknya untuk mengemukakan pembelaan khususnya memasukkan notis alibi. Beban pembuktian berkenaan tarikh dan masa kejadian masih terletak pada pihak pendakwaan dan tidak sama sekali beralih kepada pembelaan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Kesalahan liwat - Perlakuan persetubuhan yang bertentangan dengan aturan tabii terhadap kanak-kanak - Tertuduh mendakwa ibubapa mangsa mempunyai motif jahat terhadap tertuduh - Versi pembelaan tidak pernah dibangkitkan atau dicadangkan kepada saksi-saksi pendakwaan sepanjang kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh bersifat pemikiran semula - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh telah membangkitkan keraguan munasabah dalam kes pendakwaan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 14 tahun dan 3 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan liwat - Mangsa kanak-kanak - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah berat - Sama ada hakim bicara sewajarnya memberi pertimbangan adil dan saksama kepada rayuan mitigasi tertuduh - Sama ada pengurangan hukuman dapat memberi peluang yang lebih awal kepada tertuduh untuk dipulihkan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 377C - Liwat - Perlakuan persetubuhan yang bertentangan dengan aturan tabii terhadap kanak-kanak - Laporan kima menunjukkan kewujudan DNA tertuduh dan DNA campuran mangsa dan tertuduh - Sama ada mangsa adalah matang dalam memberikan keterangan - Sama ada keterangan mengikut keadaan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan telah dicabar oleh tertuduh - Sama ada terdapat keterangan yang kukuh berkenaan perlakuan tertuduh - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 377E - Perbuatan kelucahan melampau - Mangsa berusia 8 tahun semasa memberi keterangan - Tarikh dan masa sebenar kejadian dipertikaikan - Pihak pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan keterangan sokongan berkenaan tarikh dan masa kejadian - Mangsa ditunjuk ajar untuk memberi keterangan di mahkamah berkenaan tarikh kejadian - Sama ada keterangan mangsa diragui - Sama ada pembuktian tarikh dan masa kejadian adalah material - Sama ada tertuduh telah dinafikan hak untuk mengemukakan notis alibi apabila pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan tarikh dan masa kejadian Bagi pihak perayu - TPR Mohd Raimi Mohd Ramli; Bahagian Pendakwaan; Jabatan Peguam Negara Bagi pihak responden - Hadir sendiri

---

CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 5)

A literal and purposive statutory construction of the provisions of s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 clearly support the legal position that the Industrial Court is statutorily circumscribed in its jurisdiction to examine, adjudicate and hand down an award as to whether the dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse premised on matters operating in the minds of the employer at the time of the dismissal. As such, the underlying matters relied upon as comprising 'just cause or excuse' cannot and do not refer to matters discovered or chosen to be utilised post-dismissal, in order to justify the dismissal at the Industrial Court.
Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v. Tan Ah Gek [2021] 10 CLJ 663 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In the absence of intention on the part of the accused to commit murder and the injuries inflicted being accidental and necessary to prevent the deceased from causing harm to the accused, the charge against the accused ought to be substituted from one for murder under s. 302 of the Penal Code to one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s. 304(b) of the same Code.
Mickelson Gerald Wayne v. PP [2021] 10 CLJ 700 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The decisions of tribunals or decision-making bodies, such as the Civil Service Commission of Malaysia, are not the exclusive prerogative and discretion of that body; the merits of the decisions could be probed, scrutinised, questioned and reviewed by the courts.
Nazrul Imran Mohd Nor v. Civil Service Commission Malaysia & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 737 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In an application to compel answers for interrogatories, the proper approach would be for the plaintiff to first serve the interrogatories on the defendants pursuant to O. 26 r. 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 and, if dissatisfied with the answers furnished, to first file an application under O. 26 r. 1, or to seek further and better particulars. The plaintiff in this case was wrong to have by-passed O. 26 r. 1 and apply for the invocation of O. 26 r. 6, which was inapplicable in this particular application, rendering it irregular. It was essential for the plaintiff to refer to the correct provision in such application. Further, when an application is found to be a form of a fishing expedition, and is redundant and oppressive, the interrogatories as applied for is unmeritorious.
Industrial Property Management Sdn Bhd v. Forebase Property Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 763 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Untuk ganti rugi ditaksir mahkamah dalam satu kausa saman fitnah yang telah dibuktikan secara muktamad, memadai jika mahkamah bersandar pada keterangan-keterangan afidavit; tiada keperluan untuk pembuktian ketat seperti dalam saman fitnah. Manakala, untuk taksiran bil kos, walaupun tidak melibatkan perbicaraan penuh, mahkamah masih perlu mempertimbangkan jumlah yang wajar dan munasabah apabila persediaan ke arah perbicaraan telah dibuat.
Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan Sdn Bhd lwn. Dato’ Husam Musa [2021] 10 CLJ 783 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The decision of the Minister of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change, in instructing the necessary party to take action relating to the imposition of the pre-conditions in the renewal of license, is in line with s. 32 of the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 ('AELA'), as it falls under the third category of the decision under sub-s. 32(5) of the AELA ie, to make any order as he thinks fit. Such a decision is final and not amenable to judicial review, as provided by the ouster clause under s. 32(5) of the AELA.
Tan Bun Teet & Ors v. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Perdana Menteri Malaysia & Ors [2021] 10 CLJ 799 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

This application for an order of certiorari to quash the Department of Director General of Lands and Mines' decision to impose yearly temporary occupation licence of RM500 per every utility box ('UB') placed on State lands by the electric utility company ('charges'), after the passing of amendments toward the Malacca Land Rules 1996 ('amendments') was allowed as the decision was tainted with irregularity, irrationality and procedural impropriety because: (i) the UB was placed prior to the amendments and at the time the lands were still under private hands and there was tacit approval from the State Authorities at the time of the placement; (ii) the imposition of charges would be against public policy; (iii) the UB was installed in accordance with Federal Acts; and (iv) the enforcement of the charges would usurp the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Melaka & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 823 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. HOLDING HOSPITALS LIABLE: THE IMPOSITION OF A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY ON PRIVATE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN MEDICOLEGAL CLAIMS* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Harish Nair** Loh Kah Hey*** [2021] 1 LNS(A) clii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) clii



MALAYSIA

---

HOLDING HOSPITALS LIABLE:
THE IMPOSITION OF A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY ON PRIVATE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN MEDICOLEGAL CLAIMS*

by
Harish Nair**
Loh Kah Hey***

EXCERPT

The Federal Court approved the applicability of the doctrine of non-delegable duty as enunciated in Woodland v. Swimming Teachers Association [2014] AC 537 in the case of Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal [2017] 10 CLJ 529. This article critically analyses the benefits and drawbacks of the imposition of a non-delegable duty on private healthcare institutions and considers whether the imposition of such a duty on private healthcare institutions in medicolegal claims is appropriate. The article examines and draws from recent cases in Malaysia as well as several other common law countries. The authors conclude that the Federal Court's approval of the Woodland's framework is a positive yet precarious development of the law. Caution must be exercised in imposing such a duty on private healthcare institutions.

. . .

*This article is prepared based on the research and course related work carried out as a part of Ms Loh Kah Hey's LLM course on Healthcare Law and Ethics at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. The authors wish to place on record their utmost gratitude for the guidance given by Dr Sharon Kaur during the LLM course.

**LLB (Hons) (London), CLP.

***LLB (Hons) (Queensland), GDLP (Australian National), CLP, LLM (Malaya).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. NEW ARBITRATION RULES OF AIAC 2021 AND ARBITRATOR'S INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Amanda Yee Weng Kay* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cliii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cliii



MALAYSIA

---

NEW ARBITRATION RULES OF AIAC 2021 AND ARBITRATOR'S INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

by
Amanda Yee Weng Kay*

INTRODUCTION

'In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity'.^[1] In light of unprecedented times where the only constant is change, Asian International Arbitration Centre (hereafter "AIAC") pronounces Arbitration Rules 2021, which highlight the current trends of international and domestic arbitration proceedings and shed light on duties of arbitrators to remain independent and impartial in executing their role as an adjudicator.

IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE AND AVAILABILITY OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

The arbitral tribunal consists of a panel of one or more arbitrators responsible for adjudicating private disputes between parties. The tribunal's task is to conduct arbitral proceedings between the parties to the proceedings.

. . .

*LLB (Hons), Certificate In Legal Practice Programme Candidate. The article was reviewed and endorsed by Kang Mei Yee (Partner) of Arbitration, Corporate Litigation and Construction Practice of Messrs Gan Partnership. Contact email: meiyee@ganlaw.my.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

3. INCREASE OF SHARE CAPITAL — A CASE FOR OPPRESSION?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by SM Shanmugam and Hooi Chung Wai** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cliv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) cliv



MALAYSIA

---

INCREASE OF SHARE CAPITAL — A CASE FOR OPPRESSION?*

by
SM Shanmugam and Hooi Chung Wai**

It has been awhile now since COVID-19 first surfaced. The ongoing pandemic and its transition to endemic continue to take its toll on many industries and businesses both locally and abroad. Many ailing businesses are still struggling to ensure they remain a going concern.

In order to maintain a healthy cash flow and liquidity, many private limited companies are resorting to increasing their share capital. The injection of capital by subscription of the companies' newly issued shares will provide a much-needed lifeline to them.

Unless otherwise provided by the constitution of a company limited by shares, each existing shareholder is entitled to subscribe to the newly issued shares proportionate to his respective shareholding. If, however, the offer to subscribe to the new shares is not accepted by the existing shareholders, the company can then dispose of those shares to interested third parties. By doing so, the shareholding of the existing shareholders who refuse to subscribe to the company's new shares will be diluted, and, in some instances, can even prompt a shift of power in the company.

. . .

*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