|
Issue #8/2021
25 February 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
|
MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH v. KETUA PENGARAH IMIGRESEN & ANOR [2021] 2 CLJ 579
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(f)-5-03-2019(W)]
08 JANUARY 2021
The appellant, vide an application for judicial review, sought to challenge the decision of the Director General of Immigration ('DG') in imposing a travel ban against her pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63. In holding that the DG was wrong in imposing the travel ban, for allegedly disparaging the government, the Federal Court held there was no positive law, clearly and unequivocally setting out that the respondents had the right to impose the travel ban, hence, the DG's discretion is not unfettered. Despite holding that ss. 59 and 59A of the Immigration Act were not inconsistent with arts. 4(1) and 121 of the Federal Constitution and thus, valid and constitutional, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case rendered the reason for the travel ban given by the DG inappropriate; the appellant's right to travel, a fundamental right guaranteed under art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, had been breached.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Validity of legislation - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG acted in excess of jurisdiction in imposing travel ban - Whether discretionary power amenable to judicial review - Whether purport of s. 59A merely to limit judicial power - Whether procedural non-compliance amenable to judicial review - Whether s. 59A subject to art. 4(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 59A void
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity and constitutionality - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether travel ban valid - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG has duty to provide reasons for imposition of ban - Whether right to travel a fundamental right guaranteed under Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether decision to blacklist breached art. 5(1), 8 and 10(1) of FC - Whether decision unconstitutional and void
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Judicial power - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether travel ban valid - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG has duty to provide reasons for imposition of ban - Whether right to travel a fundamental right guaranteed under Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether s. 59 of Immigration Act excludes right to be heard - Whether decision to blacklist breached arts. 5(1), 8 and 10(1) of FC - Whether ss. 59 & 59A of Immigration Act unconstitutional and void
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Powers under the Act - Immigration Act 1959/63, s. 59A - Whether sanctioned by art. 121(1) of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether valid ouster clause - Whether could be struck down under art. 4(1) of FC - Whether s. 59A valid and constitutional
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN TRELLISES & ORS v.
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS [2021] 2 CLJ 808
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARY LIM JCA; HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-712-12-2018]
27 JANUARY 2021
[2021] CLJ (JT2)
1. A local authority has a duty at common law to notify and hear objections from adjoining landowners in order to be regarded as having acted fairly in making its decision. The outcome of objection hearings must then be communicated with reasons proffered. The absence of an express provision in any statute requiring the decision-maker to give reasons does not however mean that such duty does not exist; the duty remains until the statute states otherwise. This having been said, the relevant r. 5(3) of the Planning (Development) Rules 1970, which is made under the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 and which gives locus standi to landowners of lands adjoining the land proposed to be developed to appear in hearings or inquiries, is irrelevant in determining the locus standi in relation to an application for judicial review pursuant to O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). Under O. 53 r. 2(4) of the ROC, persons who are adversely affected by the decision made by a public authority are allowed to initiate judicial review applications and these persons are not required to establish their right under specific law before they are entitled to initiate judicial review proceedings. Therefore, there is only one test to be applied, and that is whether the applicant is adversely affected by the decision of the public authority.
2. The Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 and the Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2020 should act as a guide for the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur, as the relevant local and planning authorities in charge of control and regulation of proper planning in Kuala Lumpur, to ensure that any planning permission for development granted to any applicant accords and is consistent with such plans. The Datuk Bandar is also duty bound to ensure that any departure therefrom must be for good reasons, and that such failure to abide by the plans be properly explained in writing by him.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Certiorari - Locus standi - Application for judicial review against decision of local authority/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Whether objectors had legitimate expectation that subject land would remain as public open space, recreational, sports and green area and city park - Whether objectors had requisite locus standi to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge decision of Datuk Bandar - Whether objectors adversely affected by development order issued - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Locus standi - Decision of local authority - Application for judicial review against decision of Mayor/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections on proposed development - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Whether objectors had legitimate expectation that subject land would remain as public open space, recreational, sports and green area and city park - Whether objectors had locus standi to attend hearing - Whether objectors had locus standi to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge decision of Datuk Bandar - Whether objectors adversely affected by development order issued - Whether procedures for approval or rejection of planning permission complied with - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Planning (Development) Rules 1970, rr. 5(3) & 5(8)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Decision of local authority - Judicial review against decision of Mayor/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections on proposed development - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Datuk Bandar later issued development order for proposed development without communicating decision to certain objectors and without proffering reasons - Whether Datuk Bandar had duty to inform objectors of decision and proffer reasons - Whether procedures for approval or rejection of application for planning permission complied with - Whether Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 and draft of Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2020 valid and binding - Whether Datuk Bandar took plans into consideration before arriving at decision to issue development order - Whether there was conflict of interest between Datuk Bandar and applicants for development - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision ought to be quashed - Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, ss. 16, 22(1) & 22(4)
“Considering the above statement as pleaded in the O. 53 statement it is clear that the basis of this judicial review application is founded on the fact that the impugned State law ie, the State Sales Tax Ordinance has encroached its legislative perimeter by imposing the sales tax on petroleum product that falls under the Federal List. It is worth mentioning here that 'oil (and oilfield)' and 'petroleum products' are listed in item 8(j) of the Federal List (List I) of the Ninth Schedule Federal Constitution.”
“Hence, it is clear that the crux of the declaratory order sought by the applicant goes directly to challenge the power of the State Legislature in passing the impugned section of the State Sales Tax Ordinance. This challenge falls under art. 4(3)(b) of the Federal Constitution and pursuant to cl. (4) of art. 4, such challenge must be commenced with the leave of the judge of the Federal Court. However, the applicant did not obtain such leave before commencing this application. Consequently, I rule that this court has no jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought for.” – per Azahari Kamal Ramli J in Petroliam Nasional Bhd (PETRONAS) v. Comptroller of State Sales Tax, Sarawak & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 430
-
Shaffarizan Mohamad v. Tan Sri Zulkarnaen Awang & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 2079 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Shaffarizan Bin Mohamad v. Tan Sri Zulkarnaen Bin Haji Awang & Ors [Civil Suit No. KCH-21 NCvC-13/8-2015]
-
Lim Poh Seng v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 701 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP lwn. Lim Poh Seng [2018] 1 LNS 187
Legal Network Series
|
ESMOND LEE CHONG CHERNG & SATU LAGI lwn. CHUA SWEE TIAN 1. Ibubapa boleh membawa tindakan untuk menuntut tanggungan dan perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan yang telah dikeluarkan keatas si mati walaupun surat kuasa mentadbir tidak diperolehi. 2. Pemilik berdaftar kenderaan yang terlibat di dalam kemalangan adalah bertanggungan secara vikarius apabila tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan pemandu memandu kenderaan tanpa keizinannya. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak - Locus standi - Tindakan dibawa oleh ibu atas namanya dan mendakwa sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka si mati - Ketiadaan surat kuasa pentadbir - Sama ada ibubapa boleh membawa tindakan untuk menuntut tanggungan dan perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan yang telah dikeluarkan - Sama ada tindakan boleh dibawa walaupun surat kuasa mentadbir tidak diperolehi - Sama ada isu lokus standi yang tidak diplidkan secara spesifik wajar dipertimbangkan LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Liabiliti vikarius terhadap pemilik berdaftar kenderaan - Tindakan diambil atas nama pemandu dan pemilik berdaftar kenderaan - Pemilik kenderaan tidak hadir ke Mahkamah untuk memberikan keterangan menafikan memberikan keizinan kepada pemandu untuk memandu kenderaan - Sama ada pemilik berdaftar kenderaan adalah dianggap telah memberikan keizinan kepada pemandu - Sama ada pemilik kenderaan wajar bertanggungan secara vikarius di dalam kemalangan UNDANG-UNDANG SIVIL: Ganti rugi - Tuntutan tanggungan - Kemalangan maut - Ganti rugi kepada pihak-pihak yang berhak ke atas kehilangan yang disebabkan kematian - Sama ada ibubapa boleh membawa tindakan untuk menuntut tanggungan dan perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan yang telah dikeluarkan - Undang-Undang Sivil 1956, s. 7(8) PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Rekod rayuan - Kegagalan memfailkan perintah bermeterai - Sama ada rekod rayuan yang telah difailkan bertentangan dengan A. 55 k. 4(e) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada rayuan adalah kompeten - Sama ada rayuan wajar ditolak
|
|
|
PP lwn. MOHAMAD HAMELEAY ABDUL MUTALIB 1. Ketinggalan pengadu untuk menyatakan butiran penerimaan wang oleh tertuduh di dalam laporan polis tidak akan menggugat kredibiliti pengadu sebagai saksi apabila wujud keterangan daripada saksi-saksi yang lain yang menyokong keterangan pengadu berkenaan penerimaan wang oleh tertuduh. Keadaan di mana pengadu membuat laporan polis perlu dipertimbangkan. 2. Apabila tertuduh disabitkan bersalah atas kedua-dua pertuduhan meminta dan menerima wang suapan secara rasuah yang merupakan kesinambungan daripada satu perbuatan tertuduh yang meminta suapan, maka hukuman penjara secara serentak adalah wajar dijatuhkan. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Permintaan dan pemerolehan wang suapan secara rasuah - Pegawai siasatan menerima wang suapan untuk melepaskan pesalah kes penculikan - Sama ada pengadu mempunyai motif untuk menganiaya tertuduh dengan membuat aduan palsu - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 telah dipatahkan - Sama ada tertuduh telah menerima wang suapan sebagai dorongan untuk melakukan satu perbuatan berhubung dengan hal ehwal prinsipalnya - Sama ada elemen-elemen pertuduhan di bawah ss. 16(a)(B) dan 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 telah dibuktikan tanpa keraguan yang munasabah KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kredibiliti - Kredibiliti pengadu - Aduan terhadap pegawai polis berkenaan penerimaan wang suapan secara rasuah - Butiran penerimaan wang tidak dinyatakan di dalam laporan polis - Kelewatan dalam membuat aduan - Sama ada penjelasan yang munasabah telah diberikan oleh pengadu berkenaan kelewatan dalam membuat aduan - Sama ada kegagalan untuk menyatakan sesuatu perkara dalam laporan polis boleh menggugat kredibiliti pengadu - Sama ada keadaan di mana laporan polis dibuat oleh pengadu wajar diambil kira - Sama ada laporan pengadu disokong oleh keterangan saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan yang lain KETERANGAN: Anggapan bertentangan - Kegagalan memanggil saksi yang material - Saksi diperlukan untuk membuktikan elemen permintaan wang suapan oleh tertuduh - Pihak pendakwaan telah mengeluarkan sapina tetapi tidak dapat diserahkan ke atas saksi - Usaha untuk menjejaki saksi selama lebih setahun tidak berhasil - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi yang material selepas semua usaha untuk menjejaki saksi tanpa berhasil telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g) PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghukuman - Prinsip-prinsip - Kesalahan rasuah - Kesalahan meminta dan menerima wang suapan secara rasuah oleh pegawai penyiasat polis untuk melepaskan pengadu daripada kes jenayah - Sama ada perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh adalah dipandang hina dan keji oleh masyarakat - Sama ada hukuman yang berat perlu demi menjaga kepentingan dan keharmonian masyarakat awam - Sama ada hukuman bagi kesalahan meminta dan menerima rasuah perlu berjalan secara serentak atau berturut-turut
|
|
|
PP lwn. WAN MUHAMMAD ASHRAF B WAN SUHAIMI Laporan patalogi yang disediakan oleh ahli kimia perlu menyatakan secara spesifik jenis dadah yang dikesan dalam air kencing tertuduh adalah dadah berbahaya seperti di dalam jadual pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan kegagalan berbuat sedemikian akan menyebabkan pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh menjadi fatal. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Rayuan oleh pendakwa raya - Pertuduhan memasukkan ke dalam badan dadah berbahaya - Ahli kimia gagal menyatakan secara spesifik dadah yang tersenarai di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 di dalam laporan patalogi - Sama ada kegagalan ahli kimia menyatakan di bawah jadual mana dadah amphetamine dan methamphetamine diperuntukkan adalah fatal kepada pertuduhan - Sama ada laporan patalogi telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dilepaskan dan dibebaskan
|
|
|
PP v. MOHAMED SHAHABUDDIN MOHAMED ALI & ORS The defence of private or self defence is available to an accused who is under apprehension of danger of being grievously harmed by the victim. However, apprehension of harm ceases when the accused could or ought reasonably to have withdrawn from a fight that took place in an open public space. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Private defence, right of - Offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Accused hit victim on his head with a helmet - Fight in open public space - Whether defence of private or self defence available to accused - Whether self defence proved on part of accused in absence of proof of fight being initiated by victim - Whether accused was under apprehension of danger of being grievously harmed by victim - Whether accused inflicted more harm on victim than necessary - Whether apprehension of harm had ceased - Whether accused could and ought reasonably to have withdrawn from fight CRIMINAL LAW: Common intention - Abetment - Co-accused merely attempted to break up fight between main accused and victim - Co-accused failed to lodge any police report concerning fight between main accused and victim - Whether co-accused was duty bound to lodge police report - Whether omission to lodge police report was consistent with innocence of co-accused - Whether reasonable doubt raised on contribution and facilitation of co-accused in assault of victim
|
|
|
GRAND TRACTOR PARTS SDN BHD v. GRAND TRACTOR & AUTO PARTS SDN BHD & ORS 1. In an action concerning breach of fiduciary duties, the cause of action arises upon breach of the said fiduciary duties and not upon the change of shareholders or board control. Not having possession of relevant documents and particulars to commence a suit is not an acceptable reason for delay in commencing a suit. 2. Oral evidence adduced which falls within the exception to the parol evidence rule is crucial in determining if an agreement was only a sham and not intended to be acted upon. In such circumstances, oral evidence should be given equal consideration along with documentary evidence. LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Proceedings on behalf of company - Action premised on breach of fiduciary duties - Plaintiff's witness alleged that action was commenced upon being appointed as majority shareholder and upon obtaining relevant documents and particulars to commence a suit - Whether latest date of accrual of cause of action was from date of issuance of letter of demand - Whether action was time barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6 LIMITATION: Laches, doctrine of - Delay in taking action - Unreasonable delay - Whether company had slept on its rights - Whether claim was defeated by doctrine of laches - Limitation Act 1953, s. 32 EVIDENCE: Parol evidence rule - Oral agreement - Mere execution of documents without intention to act upon it - Whether parol evidence rule applicable to all documents or bilateral documents only - Whether oral evidence admissible in determining if agreement was only a sham and not intended to be acted upon - Whether oral evidence should be given equal consideration - Evidence Act 1950, s. 92(a) EVIDENCE: Witness - Credibility - Untruthful witness - Assessment and evaluation of credibility of witness during cross-examination - Witness was evasive, feigned ignorance and was agitated when questions led to unfavourable answers - Witness was rude and belligerent during cross-examination - Whether credibility of witness was questionable
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 2 (Part 5)
The appellant, vide an application for judicial review, sought to challenge the decision of the Director General of Immigration ('DG') in imposing a travel ban against her pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63. In holding that the DG was wrong in imposing the travel ban, for allegedly disparaging the government, the Federal Court held there was no positive law, clearly and unequivocally setting out that the respondents had the right to impose the travel ban, hence, the DG's discretion is not unfettered. Despite holding that ss. 59 and 59A of the Immigration Act were not inconsistent with arts. 4(1) and 121 of the Federal Constitution and thus, valid and constitutional, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case rendered the reason for the travel ban given by the DG inappropriate; the appellant's right to travel, a fundamental right guaranteed under art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, had been breached.
Maria Chin Abdullah v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 579 [FC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Validity of legislation - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG acted in excess of jurisdiction in imposing travel ban - Whether discretionary power amenable to judicial review - Whether purport of s. 59A merely to limit judicial power - Whether procedural non-compliance amenable to judicial review - Whether s. 59A subject to art. 4(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 59A void
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity and constitutionality - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether travel ban valid - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG has duty to provide reasons for imposition of ban - Whether right to travel a fundamental right guaranteed under Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether decision to blacklist breached art. 5(1), 8 and 10(1) of FC - Whether decision unconstitutional and void
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Judicial power - Travel ban and blacklisting from leaving country pursuant to s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether travel ban valid - Whether Director General of Immigration ('DG') has unfettered discretion to impose travel ban - Whether DG has duty to provide reasons for imposition of ban - Whether right to travel a fundamental right guaranteed under Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether s. 59 of Immigration Act excludes right to be heard - Whether decision to blacklist breached arts. 5(1), 8 and 10(1) of FC - Whether ss. 59 & 59A of Immigration Act unconstitutional and void
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Powers under the Act - Immigration Act 1959/63, s. 59A - Whether sanctioned by art. 121(1) of Federal Constitution ('FC') - Whether valid ouster clause - Whether could be struck down under art. 4(1) of FC - Whether s. 59A valid and constitutional
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
- For the appellant - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Lim Wei Jiet, Abraham Au Tian Hui & Joshua Andran; M/s Sreenevasan
- For the respondents - Shamsul Bolhassan, Mohd Sabri Othman & Liew Horng Bin; SFCs
CLJ 2021 Volume 2 (Part 6)
Section 206(3) of the National Land Code aims at preserving contractual obligations. However, it does not override s. 89 of the Code that the register document of title is conclusive evidence of proprietorship.
Leong Wai Choong & Ors v. Mah Guat Eng & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 799 [CA]
LAND LAW: Title - Co-proprietorship - Undivided share - Co-proprietors sought termination of co-proprietorship - Whether contractual obligations could override register document of title - Whether parties applied to subdivide property - Whether co-proprietorship ought to be terminated following sour relationship between parties - National Land Code, ss. 89 & 206(3)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Applicability - Co-proprietors sought rental income derived from building in earlier suit - Suit dismissed - Co-proprietors commenced different suit to terminate co-proprietorship - Whether both suits dealt with same matters - Whether principle of res judicata applied
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA
- For the appellants - M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
- For the respondents - M/s Goik, Ramesh & Loo
1. A local authority has a duty at common law to notify and hear objections from adjoining landowners in order to be regarded as having acted fairly in making its decision. The outcome of objection hearings must then be communicated with reasons proffered. The absence of an express provision in any statute requiring the decision-maker to give reasons does not however mean that such duty does not exist; the duty remains until the statute states otherwise. This having been said, the relevant r. 5(3) of the Planning (Development) Rules 1970, which is made under the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 and which gives locus standi to landowners of lands adjoining the land proposed to be developed to appear in hearings or inquiries, is irrelevant in determining the locus standi in relation to an application for judicial review pursuant to O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). Under O. 53 r. 2(4) of the ROC, persons who are adversely affected by the decision made by a public authority are allowed to initiate judicial review applications and these persons are not required to establish their right under specific law before they are entitled to initiate judicial review proceedings. Therefore, there is only one test to be applied, and that is whether the applicant is adversely affected by the decision of the public authority.
2. The Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 and the Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2020 should act as a guide for the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur, as the relevant local and planning authorities in charge of control and regulation of proper planning in Kuala Lumpur, to ensure that any planning permission for development granted to any applicant accords and is consistent with such plans. The Datuk Bandar is also duty bound to ensure that any departure therefrom must be for good reasons, and that such failure to abide by the plans be properly explained in writing by him.
Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors [2021] 2 CLJ 808 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Certiorari - Locus standi - Application for judicial review against decision of local authority/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Whether objectors had legitimate expectation that subject land would remain as public open space, recreational, sports and green area and city park - Whether objectors had requisite locus standi to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge decision of Datuk Bandar - Whether objectors adversely affected by development order issued - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Locus standi - Decision of local authority - Application for judicial review against decision of Mayor/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections on proposed development - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Whether objectors had legitimate expectation that subject land would remain as public open space, recreational, sports and green area and city park - Whether objectors had locus standi to attend hearing - Whether objectors had locus standi to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge decision of Datuk Bandar - Whether objectors adversely affected by development order issued - Whether procedures for approval or rejection of planning permission complied with - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Planning (Development) Rules 1970, rr. 5(3) & 5(8)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Decision of local authority - Judicial review against decision of Mayor/Datuk Bandar - Datuk Bandar issued development order affecting public park - Datuk Bandar issued notice of development plan and invited comments/objections on proposed development - Management corporations, joint management body and residents ('objectors') objected against proposed development - Objections voiced out in hearing - Datuk Bandar later issued development order for proposed development without communicating decision to certain objectors and without proffering reasons - Whether Datuk Bandar had duty to inform objectors of decision and proffer reasons - Whether procedures for approval or rejection of application for planning permission complied with - Whether Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 and draft of Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2020 valid and binding - Whether Datuk Bandar took plans into consideration before arriving at decision to issue development order - Whether there was conflict of interest between Datuk Bandar and applicants for development - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Whether Datuk Bandar's decision ought to be quashed - Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, ss. 16, 22(1) & 22(4)
MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
- For the appellants - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Christopher Leong, Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi, Abraham Au, Charles Chong & Ahmad Zhafir Rahmat; M/s Thomas Philip
- For the 1st respondent - Gopal Sri Ram, Thangaraj Balasundram, Nalani Murugiah, Austen Pereira & Marcus Lee; M/s Thangaraj & Assocs
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Cecil Abraham, S Satharuban, Sunil Abraham, Noor Muzalifah & Ranjini Anndy; M/s Satha & Co
- For the 4th respondent - Harpal Singh Grewal, Jayanthi Balaguru, Reny Rao & Ivanpal Singh Grewal; M/s JD Balaguru
An application by a solicitor for bill of costs to be taxed is a proceeding in a court of law and as such is an action founded on contract as envisaged under s. 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953. As the limitation period pursuant to s. 6(1) (a) must be complied with, an application that is filed out of time and clearly beyond the six years limitation period is time barred.
Tetuan Kamarudin & Partners v. Chew Swee Yoke & Other Appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 870 [CA]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Bill of costs - Taxation - Application for bill of costs to be taxed - Whether proceeding in court of law - Whether action founded on contract envisaged under s. 6(1)(a) of Limitation Act 1953 - Whether application ought to be made within six years from date course of action accrued - Whether there was undue delay - Whether time-barred
LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual of - Application for bill of costs to be taxed - Whether proceeding in court of law - Whether action founded on contract envisaged under s. 6(1)(a) of Limitation Act 1953 - Whether application ought to be made within six years from date course of action accrued - Whether there was undue delay - Whether time-barred
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
- For the appellant - Walter Pereira, Izyan Darlina Balia Yusof & Rameswaran; M/s Kamarudin & Partners
- For the respondent - Chew Swee Yoke; M/s P S Ranjan & Co
As the local limits of jurisdiction for the Sessions Court in Peninsular Malaysia is state-wise, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear a matter when the offence therein, as happened here, is committed in Johor Bahru. The failure to file the matter in the Johor Bahru Sessions Court in the first instance has rendered the proceedings in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court a nullity, such that any conviction and sentence as recorded and imposed thereof deserved and ought to be quashed.
Abul Hasan Mohamed Rashid v. PP [2021] 2 CLJ 881 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Sessions Court - Whether local limits of jurisdiction for Sessions Court in Peninsular Malaysia state-wise - Whether Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear matter when offence committed in Johor Bahru - Whether matter should have been filed in Johor Bahru Sessions Court at first instance - Whether proceedings a nullity - Whether conviction and sentence ought to be quashed
ASLAM ZAINUDDIN JC
- For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah, Wan Aizuddin Wan Mohammed & Nur Syahirah Hanapiah; M/s Shafee & Co
- For the prosecution - Mohd Hafiz Mohd Yusoff, Hasley Tajuddin & Raihanah Nadhirah Rafidi; DPPs
As so pronounced in United Engineers (M) Bhd v. Lim Kit Siang and Tan Bun Teet & Ors v. Menteri Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi Malaysia & Ors, an interim, interlocutory or permanent injunction cannot be granted against the Government and its officers by virtue of s. 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and s. 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950.
Dhaya Maju LTAT Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 897 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Ad interim injunction - Application for ad interim injunction against Government of Malaysia and its officer/Minister - Injunctions to restrain Government and prevent Minister from cancelling/terminating contract and from taking steps to cancel/terminate contract - Whether injunction could lie against Government or its officer/Minister - Whether prohibited - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 29 - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 54 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29
ALIZA SULAIMAN J
- For the plaintiff - Cecil Abraham, Wilfred Abraham, Kuhendran Thanapalasingam, Shabana Farhana Amirudin & Noor Sumaeya Sofea Shamsudin; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
- For the defendants - Asliza Ali & Habibah Haron; SFCs
LNS Article(s)
ISLAMIC PRACTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TO FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: AN OVERVIEW [Read excerpt]
by Najwa Syazwani Aqilah binti Abd Hamid[i] Assoc. Prof Dr Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail[ii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxviLIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL AND PERSONAL LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS
IS THE VEIL THINNER NOWADAYS? [Read excerpt]
by WILLIAM TING SIEW CHON* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxviiTHE BUSINESS CASE FOR PRO BONO
WHY AND HOW JUNIOR LAWYERS SHOULD PRIORITISE PRO BONO* [Read excerpt]
by Declan Norrie** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxv
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 831 | Finance Act 2020 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 | - |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 828 | National Land Code (Revised 2020) | 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1634 | Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 502 |
| ACT A1633 | Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 791 |
| ACT A1632 | Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] | ACT 807 |
| ACT A1631 | Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] | ACT 806 |
| ACT A1630 | Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] | ACT 438 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 72/2021 | Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) (Amendment) (Revocation) Order 2021 | 24 February 2021 | 16 February 2021 | ACT 582 |
| PU(A) 71/2021 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) Order 2021 | 24 February 2021 | 25 February 2021 | ACT 96 |
| PU(A) 70/2021 | Animal Welfare (Fees of Licensing) Regulations 2021 | 23 February 2021 | 1 July 2021 | ACT 772 |
| PU(A) 69/2021 | Traditional and Complementary Medicine Regulations 2021 | 23 February 2021 | 1 March 2021; 1 March 2021 until 29 February 2024 - para 4(2)(b) and subreg 4(3) | ACT 775 |
| PU(A) 68/2021 | Employees' Social Security (Additional Supply For The Year 2020) Regulations 2021 | 19 February 2021 | 20 February 2021 | ACT 4 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 125/2021 | Notice To Third Parties | 25 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 124/2021 | Notice To Third Parties | 25 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 123/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Commissioner of Heritage | 25 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 | ACT 645 |
| PU(B) 122/2021 | Notification of Authorized Person To Compound Instrument Under Subsection 9(1) | 24 February 2021 | 25 February 2021 | ACT 378 |
| PU(B) 121/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 481723 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 23 February 2021 | 24 February 2021 | ACT 828 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 361/2019 | Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) Order 2019 | PU(A) 72/2021 | 16 February 2021 | Paragraph 3 |
| ACT 360 | Insolvency Act 1967 (Revised 1988) [Formerly Known As Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Revised 1988)] | ACT A1624 | 1 September 2021 [PU(B) 96/2021] | Section 5 |
| PU(A) 327/1993 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Pengkompaunan Kesalahan-Kesalahan) 1993 | PU(A) 67/2021 | 19 Februari 2021 | Jadual Pertama |
| PU(A) 327/1993 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 1993 | PU(A) 67/2021 | 19 February 2021 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 326/2018 | Peraturan-Peraturan Keselamatan Sosial Pekerjaan Sendiri 2018 | PU(A) 62/2021 | 22 Februari 2021 | Jadual Pertama |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 59/2021 | Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) (Amendment) Order 2021 | PU(A) 72/2021 | 16 February 2021 |
| PU(A) 22/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 65/2021 | 19 Februari 2021 |
| PU(A) 22/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 65/2021 | 19 February 2021 |
| PU(A) 21/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan) (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 64/2021 | 19 Februari 2021 |
| PU(A) 21/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 64/2021 | 19 February 2021 |