| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #13/2022
31 March 2022
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
SAM MAARK VERAK v. DATO' ZAINAL ABIDIN AHMAD & ORS [2022] 3 CLJ 661 The court should be very slow to deem any punishment meted out by the Public Services Commission in disciplinary cases against public servants as being disproportionate. The danger of a court substituting its personal views as to what is or is not proportionate is very real. How strict the public sector wishes to be on matters of discipline may depend on many factors and circumstances and the justification may lie in the policies developed to tackle certain problems or issues that the public sector may be facing; and these may not be manifest from the facts of any given case. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Dismissal - Challenge by public servant against decision of Public Services Commission - Public servant charged and found guilty by Public Services Commission for absence from duty, failing to register movements in/or out of office and coming in late for duty to office without leave or without reasonable cause - Public servant dismissed from service - Whether charges against public servant defective - Whether there was requirement for prior internal investigation before public servant was charged and disciplinary action taken - Whether punishment meted out disproportionate and too severe APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2022 Volume 3 (Part 3) Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which seeks to give the Syariah courts the jurisdiction and power to hear and decide on judicial review, being a provision which the Selangor State Legislature (SSL) has no power or competency to make, is unconstitutional and void. The substantive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is strictly defined by Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; the issue of the absence of the power of judicial review or the power to grant public law remedies in Item 1 aside, it is plain that none of the limbs in Item 1 can be construed as conferring power on SSL to enact s. 66A or to enable the Syariah Court to engage in judicial review. This said, the judicial power of the Federation, of which the 'constitutional' and 'statutory' judicial review are a specie, is by constitutional design exclusively vested in the Civil Superior Courts, as to clothe them with supervisory jurisdiction over legislation passed by any Legislature, as well as the jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues or to issue public law remedies; the Syariah Courts, on the other hand, for not sharing the same constitutional guarantees of judicial independence as the Civil Superior Courts, are as a matter of constitutional policy incapable of exercising judicial power. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | WORDS & PHRASES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Challenging validity of fatwa - Whether High Court dispossessed of any jurisdiction to consider validity of fatwa - Whether validity of fatwa to be determined in Syariah court in accordance with s. 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity of State legislation - Section 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Syariah courts have power to hear and decide judicial reviews - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil High Courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Civil and Syariah courts - Challenging validity of fatwa - Whether High Court dispossessed of any jurisdiction to consider validity of fatwa - Whether validity of fatwa to be determined in Syariah court in accordance with s. 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Syariah courts have power to hear and decide judicial reviews - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil High Courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1) WORDS & PHRASES: 'Constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts' - Item 1, List II, (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Interpretation of - Whether conferred powers on Syariah courts to engage in judicial review WORDS & PHRASES: 'Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam' - Item 1, List II, (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Interpretation of - Whether intended to only cover subject matter of personal laws applying to natural persons - Whether to confer judicial review powers on Syariah courts TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
A claimant in a challenge against its trademark infringement must establish that the unlawful usage of the trademark owned by him had caused 'likelihood of confusion on the part of the public', as provided in s. 54 of the Trademarks Act 2019, the determination of which is one of perception and the court would take a holistic assessment of all circumstances, including extraneous factors, to decide objectively. Whereas, for an action in the tort of passing off, the claimant is entitled to damages if it is proven that misrepresentation by the infringer causes damage to the goodwill of the claimant's trademark. And, the creation of a mark similar to that of the claimant's, and the proof of commission of tortious act of passing off and unlawfully interfering with claimant's trade, would be the basis to establish the tort of conspiracy to injure. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY | TORT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademarks - Infringement - Infringing mark similar to claimant's mark - Whether claimant owned valid trademark - Whether trademark was used in course of trade without consent - Whether unlawful usage of trademark owned by claimant caused deception to public who are among prospective customers - Trademarks Act 2019 TORT: Passing off - Claim - Whether claimant acquired goodwill in its trade/business - Whether there was misrepresentation by defendants which caused damage to goodwill of claimant's business through unlawful association created by defendants - Whether claimant suffered or was likely to suffer damage as result of defendants' misrepresentation - Whether there was unlawful interference with claimant's trade by defendants TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to injure - Whether there was proof of agreement and/or combination of efforts of conspirators to injure claimant - Whether there were acts committed to execute agreement or combination to injure claimant - Whether claimant suffered damage due to acts done in execution of agreement or combination to injure claimant
MOHD RADZI HARUN J
Each parent of a child has an equal parental right to the child's guardianship. It follows that an act of infidelity on the part of the child's biological father leading to the child's birth cannot of itself deprive the said father of the guardianship, custody, care and control of the child. It must also follow that the wishes as expressed in the will of the child's deceased mother for the child to be taken care of by another family member, cannot override the wishes of the surviving biological father to be the guardian of the child. FAMILY LAW
FAMILY LAW: Guardianship - Application for - Illegitimate child - Biological father's name not inserted in child's birth certificate as father - Child brought up by mother while biological father enjoyed access to child and provided maintenance - Child's mother passed away - Mother's will appointed sister (child's aunt) as guardian of child - Child's aunt restricted biological father's access to child - Whether wishes expressed in will of deceased mother override wishes of surviving biological father - Whether act of infidelity leading to birth of child deprive biological father of guardianship, custody, care and control of child - Whether biological father ought to be given guardianship, custody, care and control of child with reasonable access given to child's aunt - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, ss. 10 & 11 FAMILY LAW: Guardianship - Ex parte order - Child brought up by mother while biological father enjoyed access to child and provided maintenance - Child's mother passed away - Mother's will appointed sister (child's aunt) as guardian of child - Child's aunt restricted biological father's access to child - Child's aunt obtained ex parte order from High Court pertaining to guardianship, control and care of child - Whether High Court has jurisdiction to remove appointed guardian without setting aside ex parte order by another High Court - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, ss. 10 & 11
SU TIANG JOO JC
The police and for that matter the Inspector General of Police, upon the issuance of a warrant of committal or a mandamus order by the court for them to apprehend and commit a person to prison, has a duty to execute the same, and their failure to do so may support or even justify an action in tort against them for nonfeasance in public office. It follows that such a tortious action may not be seen as scandalous frivolous or vexatious, or as having not disclosed any reasonable cause of action, and thus, may not be struck off as being an abuse of process under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. CIVIL PROCEDURE | TORT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Tort of nonfeasance in public office - Omission by authorities to execute warrant of committal pursuant to decision of Federal Court - Whether action obviously unsustainable - Whether frivolous, scandalous, vexatious or abuse of process - Whether plaintiff could suffer great prejudice if claim struck out - Whether parties should be allowed opportunity to ventilate case in trial with witnesses and production of documentary evidence - Whether plain and obvious case for summary disposal - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1) TORT: Nonfeasance - Nonfeasance in public office - Failure to perform statutory duty - Omission by authorities to execute warrant of committal pursuant to decision of Federal Court - Whether applies only to performance of public duties - Whether extended to orders issued by court of law - Whether action obviously unsustainable - Whether plain and obvious case for summary disposal - Government Proceedings Act 1956, ss. 5 & 7(3) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
As it was the Government's duty under the law to implement s. 3 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019 (lowering the voting age from 21 years to 18 years coupled with the automatic voter registration) 'with all convenient speed', the decision to defer its implementation was illegal, irrational and unreasonable. The Government was obliged to implement s. 3 by the promised date and ought to take all steps necessary for it to come into operation as soon as possible. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Constitutional matters - Lowering voting age from 21 years to 18 years - Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019, s. 3 - Delay in implementation - Whether Government obliged to implement by promised date - Whether decision to defer to later date illegal, irrational and unreasonable - Whether Government has duty under law to implement 'with all convenient speed' - Whether entire s. 3 to be implemented at same time - Whether order of certiorari quashing decision of Government to defer implementation of s. 3 ought to be granted CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Constitutional amendment - Lowering voting age from 21 years to 18 years - Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019, s. 3 - Delay in implementation - Whether Government obliged to implement by promised date - Whether decision to defer to later date illegal, irrational and unreasonable - Whether Government has duty under law to implement 'with all convenient speed' - Whether entire s. 3 to be implemented at same time
ALEXANDER SIEW HOW WAI JC
Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas orang kena saman (OKS) yang didapati bersalah di bawah s. 70(1) Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 (membina struktur bangunan tanpa kelulusan), Majistret, setelah mensabit OKS, tidak boleh terus sahaja menjatuhkan denda RM1,000 sehari sehingga struktur berkenaan dirobohkan. Mengambil saranan kes Meow Loong Onn v. PP, pihak berkuasa perlu merangka satu pertuduhan baharu yang lain, dan denda RM1,000 sehari hanya boleh dijatuhkan selepas OKS disabitkan dengan kesalahan berterusan tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG BANGUNAN DAN PEMBINAAN | PROSEDUR JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG BANGUNAN DAN PEMBINAAN: Bangunan - Struktur tambahan - Mendirikan bangunan tambahan ke atas rumah tanpa mendapat kebenaran bertulis pihak berkuasa tempatan - Sabitan dan hukuman - Sama ada Majistret boleh memerintahkan denda tambahan RM1,000 sehari bagi kesalahan yang dilakukan secara berterusan selepas sabitan orang kena saman ('OKS') - Sama ada Majistret boleh mengeluarkan perintah mandatori mengarahkan OKS meruntuhkan struktur pembangunan tambahan dalam masa 90 hari - Sama ada perintah Majistret boleh diakas bawah s. 327 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974, ss. 70(1), (13), (15) & 91(1) PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan - Semakan jenayah - Permohonan - Bangunan - Struktur tambahan - Mendirikan bangunan tambahan ke atas rumah tanpa kebenaran bertulis pihak berkuasa tempatan - Sabitan dan hukuman - Sama ada Majistret boleh memerintahkan denda tambahan RM1,000 sehari bagi kesalahan yang dilakukan secara berterusan selepas sabitan orang kena saman ('OKS') - Sama ada Majistret boleh mengeluarkan perintah mandatori mengarahkan OKS meruntuhkan struktur pembangunan tambahan dalam masa 90 hari - Sama ada perintah Majistret boleh diakas bawah s. 327 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974, ss. 70(1), (13), (15) & 91(1)
Abu Bakar Katar H
CLJ 2022 Volume 3 (Part 4) The order of detention under s. 35 Immigration Act 1959/63 ('Act') and subsequent order of further detention under s. 34 of the Act against an immigrant to facilitate his deportation to his country of origin was not made mala fide and did not contravene art. 5 of the Federal Constitution, more so, where all the requirements for the detention had been complied with. And, while the citation of the wrong provision for the deportation order per se was not an evidence of mala fide, the error rendered the deportation order illegal. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | IMMIGRATION | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Detention - Immigrant arrested and compounded for offence under reg. 39(b) of Immigration Regulations 1963 ('Regulations') - Subsequent order for further detention and deportation from Malaysia - Citation of wrong provision for deportation - Whether evidence of mala fide - Whether rendered deportation order illegal - Whether deportation order ought to be set aside - Immigration Act 1959/63, s. 56(1) & (2) IMMIGRATION: Detention - Detention order - Immigrant arrested and compounded for offence under reg. 39(b) of Immigration Regulations 1963 ('Regulations') - Subsequent order for further detention and deportation from Malaysia - Challenge against order of detention - Whether order made mala fide - Whether further detention ordered pending decision of removal from country - Whether order contravened provisions of law - Whether detention legal STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Section 34 of Immigration Act 1959/63 ('Act') - Legality of detention - Whether Director General empowered to detain any person ordered to be removed whilst arrangements being made for his removal - Whether applicable only to offenders convicted under ss. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 60 of Act NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
By virtue of s. 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court of Appeal is vested with the power to make an 'interim order to prevent prejudice to the claim of parties' pending the hearing of the appeal. Unless there are limits specified in the statute for the exercise of the power, there is no reason for the provision to be read or implied to limit that power. The refusal of an Erinford injunction at the court below could not ipso facto operate as a bar to an application under s. 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 at the Court of Appeal. The power is always exercisable when the circumstances are fit and proper. CIVIL PROCEDURE | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Reliefs - Injunctive reliefs - Appeal against - Applicants sought orders pending full trial and disposal of action - Injunction against bank from classifying and reporting company's account with bank as Special Attention Account under Central Credit Reference Information System with Bank Negara Malaysia - Injunction against bank from calling event of default and/or insisting on full payment of facilities - Injunction against bank from proceeding with claim if bank had called event of default and/or demanded full payment of facilities - Whether applicants would suffer great injustice and prejudice if interim orders not made - Whether granting of interim orders would open floodgate for all other defaulters as each case would have to turn on its facts STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'interim order to prevent prejudice to the claim of parties' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 44 - Power of Court of Appeal - Pending hearing of appeal - Whether power circumscribed by any limitation - Whether refusal of Erinford injunction at court below could ipso facto operate as bar to application under s. 44 at Court of Appeal - Whether power ought to be exercised
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
The trial judge, in convicting the accused persons as per the charges under ss. 109 and 302 of the Penal Code, based on the circumstantial evidence, did not err in doing so. The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution led to strong inferences that the accused persons were guilty of the murder of the deceased and corresponded with the nature of death of the deceased. CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether trial judge conducted maximum evaluation of evidence produced by prosecution - Whether bodily injury suffered by deceased sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Whether evidence pointed to accused persons as having inflicted bodily injuries to deceased - Whether conduct of accused persons showed attempts to hide crime committed - Whether conducts negated defence raised - Whether absence of motive exculpated accused persons - Whether defence bare denial - Whether overall circumstances supported conviction - Penal Code, ss. 109 & 302 EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - Murder - Whether trial judge conducted maximum evaluation of evidence produced by prosecution - Whether bodily injury suffered by deceased sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Whether evidence pointed to accused persons as having inflicted bodily injuries to deceased - Whether conduct of accused persons showed attempts to hide crime committed - Whether conducts negated defence raised - Whether absence of motive exculpated accused persons - Whether defence bare denial - Whether overall circumstances supported conviction - Penal Code, ss. 109 & 302 EVIDENCE: Identification evidence - Witness identification of accused - 'Last seen together' theory - Admission by accused persons to have been with deceased prior to death - Whether witness positively identified accused person in identification parade - Whether identification parade tainted - Whether vitiated identification parade - Whether identification in court substantive evidence - Whether dock identification satisfactory EVIDENCE: Information leading to facts discovered - Information given by accused - Discovery of personal items of deceased - Whether police had prior knowledge of whereabouts of things - Whether things would not have been discovered if not for information given by accused person - Whether showed knowledge of locations where items disposed of - Whether raised strong presumption of accused persons' involvement in murder - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
(i) Prinsip asas berkaitan pliding menggariskan bahawa pihak-pihak terikat dengan pliding masing-masing. Maka mahkamah terikat untuk memutuskan satu-satu kes berdasarkan pliding pihak-pihak dan, apabila mahkamah bicara memutuskan satu-satu isu yang tidak diplidkan, penghakiman tersebut boleh diketepikan; (ii) Prinsip am undang-undang taksiran ganti rugi adalah bersifat pampasan. Mesti wujud kaitan antara kemungkiran dan kerugian yang dialami. Hak yang dituntut oleh plaintif mesti selaras dan berpaksi pada terma kontraktual yang mengikat mereka dan mahkamah mesti memberi kesan pada terma yang mengikat itu. KONTRAK | PROSEDUR SIVIL
KONTRAK: Kontrak pembangunan - Ganti rugi - Kontraktor gagal membayar kos tanah seperti yang diperuntukkan bawah kontrak pembangunan - Penghakiman ingkar direkodkan terhadap kontraktor - Kontraktor diperintah membayar ganti rugi terhadap pihak yang menuntut - Perkiraan kehilangan keuntungan - Sama ada award ganti rugi berasaskan kos pembinaan yang tidak diplidkan - Sama ada ganti rugi boleh ditaksir sedangkan tiada penamatan perjanjian dan perjanjian tambahan untuk membolehkan tuntutan ganti rugi - Sama ada hakim bicara menggunakan prinsip terpakai dalam taksiran ganti rugi - Sama ada ganti rugi bersifat pampasan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Prinsip - Kontraktor gagal membayar kos tanah seperti yang diperuntukkan bawah kontrak pembangunan - Penghakiman ingkar direkodkan terhadap kontraktor - Kontraktor diperintah membayar ganti rugi terhadap pihak yang menuntut - Sama ada award ganti rugi berasaskan kos pembinaan yang tidak diplidkan - Sama ada mahkamah bicara memutuskan isu yang tidak diplidkan - Sama ada penghakiman wajar diketepikan
NOR BEE ARIFFIN HMR
Dalam kes yang pemohon didakwa telah membuat ugutan terhadap seorang saksi dalam kes rogol bawah ss. 506 dan 342 Kanun Keseksaan, sekalipun pemohon tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan sebaliknya, namun untuk tujuan ikat jamin, perkara yang perlu diambil kira adalah sama ada tertuduh akan mengganggu kacau saksi pendakwaan jika dibenarkan bebas dengan ikat jamin. Mahkamah perlu membuat penentuan ikat jamin bukan pada tahap melampaui keraguan yang munasabah tetapi pada tahap imbangan kebarangkalian. Oleh kerana tiada jaminan pemohon tidak akan melarikan diri jika dilepaskan dengan ikat jamin, tiada kekhilafan dalam keputusan Mahkamah Majistret menolak ikat jamin pemohon. Tambahan lagi, semakan jenayah yang dipohon dengan mod notis usul adalah salah dan bercanggah dengan s. 326 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. PROSEDUR JENAYAH | UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan jenayah - Permohonan - Permohonan semakan jenayah terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Majistret menafikan ikat jamin pemohon - Sama ada notis usul boleh digunakan sebagai kaedah permohonan memohon semakan bawah s. 325 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada peguam cara boleh mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak pemohon - Sama ada penentuan ikat jamin pada tahap melampaui keraguan munasabah atau tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada pemohon akan mematuhi apa-apa ikat jamin serta syaratnya - Sama ada penafian ikat jamin betul dan mengikut undang-undang - Sama ada permohonan dibenarkan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 506 & 342 - Ugutan terhadap seorang saksi dalam kes kesalahan rogol - Semakan jenayah - Permohonan semakan jenayah terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Majistret menafikan ikat jamin pemohon - Sama ada notis usul boleh digunakan sebagai kaedah permohonan memohon semakan bawah s. 325 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada peguam cara boleh mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak pemohon - Sama ada penentuan ikat jamin pada tahap melampaui keraguan munasabah atau tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada pemohon akan mematuhi apa-apa ikat jamin serta syaratnya - Sama ada penafian ikat jamin betul dan mengikut undang-undang - Sama ada permohonan dibenarkan
AWG ARMADAJAYA AWG MAHMUD PK
The Sessions Court, as well as the solicitors for both the plaintiff and the defendants, had overlooked the impact of the conflict of laws in the context of a foreign company suing in the Malaysian court a person resident in Malaysia under a contract which has an express term that a foreign law of contract shall apply to the contractual relationship between the parties. The oversight has led both parties to make submissions based on the Malaysian law of contract which culminated in a decision of the subordinate court granting a summary judgment based on the Malaysian law of contract. As the legal basis for the decision to grant the summary judgment was erroneous, the summary judgment could not be sustained and ought to be set aside. CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONFLICT OF LAWS
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Appeal against - Contract between foreign company and person resident in Malaysia - Agreement contained clause that deed shall be governed by laws of Singapore - Whether dispute between parties ought to be submitted to non-exclusive jurisdiction of Singapore courts - Whether s. 75 of Contracts Act 1950 could be relied on - Whether rights and liabilities to be decided according to substantive law of contract of Singapore - Triable issues - Whether arose - Whether fit and proper case for granting summary judgment CONFLICT OF LAWS: Contract - Terms of agreement - Agreement contained clause that deed shall be governed by laws of Singapore - Whether dispute between parties ought to be submitted to non-exclusive jurisdiction of Singapore courts - Whether s. 75 of Contracts Act 1950 could be relied on - Whether rights and liabilities to be decided according to substantive law of contract of Singapore
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
Singapore's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ('POFMA'), by virtue of s. 60, provides that when an offence is committed by a person outside of Singapore, that person may be dealt with in respect of that offence as if it had been committed within Singapore. A Malaysian non-governmental organisation (NGO) cannot make false statements of facts that offend the provisions of the POFMA and later claim that the POFMA is invalid and inapplicable in Malaysia just to avoid any action under the Singapore law in Singapore. Singapore is certified as a sovereign nation and has been given immunity from the jurisdiction of a Malaysian court. The High Court of Malaya is not seized with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the POFMA. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Malaysian non-governmental organisation ('NGO') issued press statement on website regarding method of execution of death penalty in Singapore - NGO received notification by Singapore's office of Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ('POFMA') that press statement contained false statements of fact - NGO directed to insert correction notice - NGO commenced originating summons at High Court of Malaya seeking declarations that provisions of Singapore's POFMA could not be enforced in Malaysia - Whether originating summons scandalous, vexatious and frivolous and abuse of court process - Whether ought to be struck out CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Malaysian non-governmental organisation ('NGO') issued press statement on website regarding method of execution of death penalty in Singapore - NGO received notification by Singapore's office of Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ('POFMA') that press statement contained false statements of fact - NGO directed to insert correction notice - NGO commenced originating summons at High Court of Malaya seeking declarations that provisions of Singapore's POFMA could not be enforced in Malaysia - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to adjudicate on validity of POFMA - Whether Singapore enjoyed sovereign immunity
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
The express intention of the parties in the development order was for the developer to surrender for free to the Government the impugned lands for public schools, which later did not materialise. Such representation created a legitimate expectation that the impugned lands would not be used for any other purpose, thus it is reasonably expected that the Government would return the impugned lands to the developer as the underlying purpose in providing the impugned lands is no longer applicable. LOCAL GOVERNMENT | LAND LAW
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local authority - Land dispute - Developer surrendered lands for free to Government to be used to for public schools - Discovery that impugned lands no longer used for purpose of Government schools but for commercial purposes - Whether developer entitled to return of impugned lands based on legitimate expectation - Whether there was fraud, unjust enrichment and misfeasance of tort in public office LAND LAW: Housing developer - Land dispute - Developer surrendered lands for free to Government to be used to for public schools - Discovery that impugned lands no longer used for purpose of Government schools but for commercial purposes - Whether developer entitled to return of impugned lands based on legitimate expectation - Whether there was fraud, unjust enrichment and misfeasance of tort in public office
ROZANA ALI YUSOFF J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
