CLJ Bulletin #15/2022 (14 April 2022)

Issue #15/2022

14 April 2022

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

Case(s) of the Week
1. LIM GUAN ENG lwn. PP [2022] 4 CLJ 42
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 3 (Part 6)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

LIM GUAN ENG lwn. PP [2022] 4 CLJ 42
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, PUTRAJAYA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN HMR; CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR; HASHIM HAMZAH HMR
[RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: W-05-239-07-2021]
23 FEBRUARY 2022

Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan bersifat muktamad dan mengikat bawah prinsip duluan, walaupun tiada alasan keputusan bertulis disediakan, khasnya apabila Mahkamah Persekutuan telah meneliti rekod-rekod rayuan yang difailkan dan mendengar semua hujahan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak sebelum membuat keputusan. Oleh sebab Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan, dalam kes terdahulu yang membangkitkan persoalan spesifik yang sama dengan kes ini bahawa s. 62 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia 2019 adalah sah dan tidak bertentangan dengan peruntukan-peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, kes ini tidak tergolong dalam persoalan undang-undang yang luar biasa sukarnya atau tidak pernah diputuskan sebelum ini. Keputusan tersebut adalah muktamad dan mengikat, walaupun tiada alasan keputusan bertulis disediakan. Oleh itu, ambang yang diperlukan bawah s. 417 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak dipenuhi untuk mewajarkan prosiding perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Prosiding - Pemindahan - Permohonan pemindahan prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi - Bangkitan soalan undang-undang - Hujahan bahawa soalan undang-undang hanya boleh dijawab oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dan, oleh itu, prosiding harus bermula di Mahkamah Tinggi - Sama ada soalan undang-undang yang dibangkitkan mempunyai kesulitan luar biasa jika dibangkitkan di Mahkamah Sesyen - Sama ada soalan undang-undang yang dibangkitkan sudah dijawab oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan - Sama ada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan mengikat walaupun tiada penghakiman bertulis - Sama ada pemohon berjaya melepasi ambang yang diperlukan untuk membolehkan prosiding perbicaraan dipindahkan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 417

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghakiman - Penghakiman tidak bertulis - Stare decisis - Sama ada keputusan mahkamah muktamad dan mengikat walaupun tiada penghakiman bertulis

KETERANGAN: Dokumen - Penzahiran - Permohonan mendapatkan pernyataan saksi - Permohonan pemindahan prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi - Bangkitan soalan undang-undang - Hujahan bahawa soalan undang-undang hanya boleh dijawab oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dan, oleh itu, prosiding harus bermula di Mahkamah Tinggi - Dalihan bahawa undang-undang berkaitan permohonan mendapatkan pernyataan saksi bawah s. 51 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak jelas - Sama ada soalan yang dibangkitkan baru dan unik - Sama ada terdapat keputusan terdahulu berkaitan soalan yang dibangkitkan untuk dijadikan panduan dan ikutan

APPEAL UPDATES

Perak Integrated Network Services Sdn Bhd v. Urban Domain Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 1106 affirming the High Court case of Urban Domain Sdn Bhd v. Pins OSC & Maintenance Services Sdn Bhd & Ors [Suit No: 22NCC-1041-07/2012]
Shamsuri Salleh v. Yayasan Pelajaran MARA [2021] 1 LNS 1283 affirming the High Court case of Shamsuri Salleh v. Yayasan Pelajaran MARA [Suit No. WA22NCvC-97-02/2018]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 318	PP v. SARAVANAN AHMAD The law does not require any person to produce customs forms as proof that duty has been paid in respect of the goods being conveyed or as proof of permission to remove dutiable goods from one location to another. As such, a person should not simply be charged because he was unable to produce customs forms at the time when the goods were brought out of a free zone. CRIMINAL LAW: Customs Act 1967 - Section 135(1)(e) - Smuggling of dutiable liquors - Tax stamps found on each bottle of liquors - Customs Form 1 not produced at time of conveying liquors - Whether accused was knowingly concerned in conveying liquors - Whether duties had been paid - Whether tax stamps were genuine - Whether prosecution had discharged its onus to prove all ingredient of charge - Whether accused had intended to defraud government of duties For the appellant - Shafiq Mahadi; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia For the respondent - HK Goh; M/s Goh & Lau
[2020] 1 LNS 322	ISM SENDIRIAN BERHAD v. QUEENSWAY NOMINEES (ASING) SDN BHD & ORS AND OTHER CASES 1. A minority shareholder who had opted for a buy-out shares order as a remedy for his claim for oppression would have no further commercial interest in the shares as his interests were crystallised as of the valuation date for the shares in question. In such circumstances, he would have no right to dictate how the companies should be run in the future. 2. Co-venturers in a joint venture agreement owe a duty of fidelity as part of the fiduciary duties to each other that are imposed upon them by the law. However, the mere fact that they have entered into a joint venture agreement does not mean that a quasi-partnership relationship has been formed. The scope and limits of the relationship between co-venturers will be governed entirely by the terms of the joint venture agreement, read together with the articles of association of the joint venture company, and not by reference to equitable principles. COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Oppression of minority - Remedy - Unfair prejudice caused to rights of minority shareholder as a result of rights issue exercise - Differing treatment of cash advances by each shareholder in all joint venture companies - Acts complained of contravened terms of oral shareholders' agreement - Whether shareholders' agreement could form basis for a claim for oppression - Whether claim for oppression and unfair prejudice had been made out - Whether Court could order that shares of minority holder in companies be bought out - Whether minority shareholder should be given an exit from joint venture companies at a valuation that reflects fair market value of its shares - Whether minority shareholder entitled to dictate manner in which companies are to be run in future once he elected for buy out order of his shares CONTRACT: Joint venture - Joint venture agreement - Relationship of co-venturers - Whether co-venturers owe duty of fidelity as part of fiduciary duties to each other - Whether relationship could be patently a quasi-partnership - Whether scope and limits of relationship governed by equitable principles - Whether relationship of mutual trust and confidence could be inferred For the plaintiff - Terence Chan, Tobias Lim & Bryan Goh; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co For the defendant - Celine Chelladurai, Saritha Devi Kirupalani & Nur Ainnabila Rosli; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
[2020] 1 LNS 323	SEPANG INTERNATIONAL CIRCUIT SDN BHD v. M7 RACING SDN BHD It would be inequitable and unjust for a party to claim that an agreement was void due to uncertainty after reaping the benefits under the agreement and allowing the other party to perform its part of the bargain under the said agreement. It is unrealistic and illogical for a party to suggest that no contract existed when that party, for a period of time, had accepted the performance of the other party without any complaint. CONTRACT: Agreement - Sponsorship agreement - Claim for balance agreed fees against official partner and sponsor - Sponsor paid commitment fee and requested to reschedule instalment payments pending negotiation of payment timelines - Whether there was admission to payment due - Whether admission of debt amounts to estoppel to deny a claim - Whether negotiations for settlement of a debt amount to acknowledgments of debt CONTRACT: Terms - Uncertainty - Sponsorship agreement - Defendant alleged existence of anomalies in date of agreement - Anomalies in date stemmed from delay on part of defendant in signing agreement - Agreement was signed after performance of agreement - Whether there was binding contract between parties - Whether signing of agreement was a mere matter of formality - Whether expiry date of sponsorship agreement has any bearing on obligation of defendant to make payment of agreed fees - Whether defendant could claim agreement was void due to uncertainty - Whether past consideration was a good consideration CONTRACT: Undue influence - Burden of proof - Allegation that agreement was signed under constant pressure - Whether mere pressure sufficient to show undue influence - Whether directors of defendant had benefit of obtaining legal advice before entering agreement - Whether agreement was entered willingly and voluntarily - Whether defendant had adduced sufficient evidence to discharge its legal burden to prove vitiating factor on balance of probabilities For the plaintiff - Sathya Kumardas & Koo Yin Soon; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co For the defendant - Kuthubul Zaman & Aniz Zaman; M/s Syarizad Zaman & Seah
[2019] 1 LNS 2011	ZAINAL AZAHAR MOHD ZAIN & SATU LAGI LWN. PIALA MUTIARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD & YANG LAIN Badan pengurusan bersama tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat pemotongan air atau meluluskan sebarang resolusi melalui mesyuaratnya untuk membuat pemotongan bekalan air terhadap unit-unit yang gagal membuat bayaran caj penyelenggaraan. Tindakan badan pengurusan bersama yang memotong bekalan air merupakan suatu pencerobohan tort terhadap unit-unit tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik strata - Caj penyelenggaraan - Kuasa ejen kepada badan pengurusan bersama untuk mengutip caj penyelenggaraan - Sama ada badan pengurusan bersama bawah Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 boleh mengutip caj penyelenggaraan tertunggak walaupun semasa Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007 berkuatkuasa - Sama ada badan pengurusan bersama melalui ejen berhak mengutip caj penyelenggaraan termasuk caj penyelenggaraan yang tertunggak UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik strata - Badan pengurusan bersama - Kuasa dan fungsi badan pengurusan bersama - Pemotongan bekalan air - Sama ada perbadanan pengurusan bersama boleh memotong bekalan air terhadap unit-unit yang gagal membuat bayaran caj penyelenggaraan - Sama ada badan pengurusan bersama boleh meluluskan sebarang resolusi melalui mesyuaratnya untuk membuat pemotongan air terhadap unit-unit yang mempunyai tunggakan caj penyelenggaraan TORT: Pencerobohan - Ganti rugi - Pemotongan bekalan air oleh badan pengurusan bersama - Sama ada badan pengurusan bersama boleh membuat pemotongan air terhadap unit-unit yang gagal membuat bayaran caj penyelenggaraan - Sama ada pemotongan air adalah sah di sisi undang-undang - Sama ada ganti rugi nominal wajar diawadkan apabila ganti rugi sebenar tidak dapat dibuktikan Bagi pihak perayu - Haji Zainal Azahar & Maisarah Zahid; T/n Zainal Azahar & Co Bagi pihak responden - Vasathanda; T/n Baarshat & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 2074	PP lwn. GOH JIAT SZE & SATU LAGI Keadaan tertuduh yang kelihatan terkejut setelah dadah ditemui di dalam kereta yang dinaikinya tidak terjurus kepada tingkah laku bawah s. 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang memberi inferens bahawa tertuduh mengetahui tentang dadah yang ditemui dari kereta tersebut. KETERANGAN: Inferens - Kelakuan - Tingkah laku tertuduh - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta yang dinaiki oleh tertuduh - Tertuduh kelihatan terkejut - Tertuduh tidak cuba melarikan diri dan mengikut arahan ketua pegawai tangkapan - Sama ada tingkah laku tertuduh memberi inferens bahawa tertuduh mengetahui berkenaan dadah yang ditemui di dalam kereta - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 8 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penyiasatan polis - Laporan polis - Penerimaan masuk laporan polis yang dibuat oleh pegawai tangkapan sebagai ekshibit - Maklumat berkenaan ujian saringan awal air kencing yang dibuat terhadap tertuduh yang dinyatakan di dalam laporan tangkapan telah dibuang - Sama ada laporan yang disediakan oleh ketua pegawai tangkapan boleh menjadi laporan maklumat pertama UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Milikan - Dadah dijumpai di bahagian tengah brek tangan kereta yang dinaiki tertuduh - Pegawai tangkapan tidak mengambil gambar kedudukan dadah di dalam kereta - Senarai borang bongkar tidak disediakan di tempat kejadian - Kewujudan percanggahan keterangan pihak pendakwaan berkenaan tempat penemuan dadah di dalam kereta - Sama ada dakwaan penemuan dadah di bahagian tengah brek tangan adalah satu pemikiran terkemudian - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan terhadap dadah Bagi pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya - Shashitah Mohamed Hanifa; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Bagi pihak peguambela OKT1 - Gooi Soon Seng, Ooi Pen Lyn & Lee Yong Tong; T/n Gooi & Azura Bagi pihak peguambela OKT2 - KL Chee, Naizatul Zamrina & Diana Mohd; T/n KL Chee & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 3 (Part 6)

The law cannot impose a burden on an attending physician to inform or warn the patient to give accurate answers to the questions posed during history-taking or, for that matter, to ensure that the patient's answers are accurate and truthful. The patient ought to know of his/her own duty to speak truthfully and give accurate information to the attending physician, which information could form the basis of diagnosis and treatment plan. To place an added burden on an attending physician, to not only take the patient's history but also to convince the patient that the history must be accurate, is not a duty recognised in law.
Dr Premitha Damodaran v. Gurisha Taranjeet Kaur & Anor And Another Appeal [2022] 3 CLJ 797 [CA]

TORT

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Complications during delivery - Baby suffered from injury to shoulder while mother suffered from tear to perineum - Whether obstetrician and gynaecologist ('OG') advised patient on available options and treatments - Whether OG advised patient on risks and benefits of caesarean section as opposed to vaginal delivery - Whether patient misinformed OG about birth weight of first baby - Whether burden on OG to inform or warn patient to give accurate answers to questions posed during history-taking exercise - Whether OG carried out proper medical protocol in handling birth - Whether OG liable for injuries suffered by mother and baby

YAACOB MD SAM JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

For the appellant - Sreether Sundaram, Narandra Kangatharan & Vhimall Murugesan; M/s Murali B Pillai & Assocs
For the respondent - MS Dhillon, Desmond Mun, Jeremy & KB Karthi; M/s PS Ranjan & Co; Felix Raj & Ahmad Aizek Busu; M/s Felix Raj Chambers

The prosecution, having availed impeachment proceedings and failed, cannot submit on the falsity of the version offered by a witness that survives impeachment. In the event that a witness's credibility is preserved and found credible, the evidence of the contradictory witness must be evaluated and tested carefully. It gives rise to a doubt on the credibility of the contradictory witness to the extent that that evidence may be rejected in totality on the contradicted particulars.
Satish Mohanadran v. PP [2022] 3 CLJ 844 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Conviction and sentence - Accused charged with four charges in relation to trafficking and possession of drugs - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charges and sentenced to imprisonment, strokes of rotan and death - Whether prosecution had proven possession in light of two conflicting versions of evidence adduced by prosecution - Whether prosecution excluded presence of another occupier of house where drugs were found - Whether accused alone during raid - Whether trial judge erred in requiring accused to rebut presumption under ss. 37(d) and 37(da)(i) and (ii) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether prima facie case established - Whether accused's defence probable - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 6, 12(2), 39A(1) & 39B(1)(a)

HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA

For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Low Wei Lok; M/s Hisyam Teh
For the respondent - Nurul Farhana Khalid; DPP

The criminal justice system requires separation of duties between those who investigate and those who prosecute. The issuance of notice, under s. 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a procedure laid down in law where a police officer, in the course of making an investigation, may, by order in writing, require the attendance of a person before himself or any person to assist with the investigation. The Attorney General has no power to review a notice under s. 111, which concerns an investigation, as he is only empowered to have control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings per se and not of the investigations of an offence.
Uthayakumar Ponnusamy v. Inspektor Mohamad Fairol Abu Bakar & Anor [2022] 3 CLJ 859 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Police investigation - Notice - Lawyer posted on Facebook account about disabled child denied right by Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat - Police issued lawyer with two notices under s. 111 of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether s. 111 notices must be served by same police officer that issued notices - Whether s. 111 notices issued mala fide and oppressive - Whether Attorney General could review and set aside s. 111 notices

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Attorney General - Powers and prerogatives - Whether Attorney General seized with power to review and set aside notice under s. 111 of Criminal Procedure Code

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA

For the appellant - M Manoharan, P Subramaniam, Anis Salihah Abdul Malek & Arivom Namasivaya; M/s M Manoharan & Co
For the respondents - Baizura Kamal & Mohd Khushairy Ibrahim; DPPs

(i) The overriding reason why the courts would choose either to allow or remove solicitors from acting for a particular party is whether there exists a risk that the administration of justice will be interfered and causes an unfair prejudice to a party to the whole process. As such risk does not appear in this case ie, that there was no breach of statutory duty or a conspiracy to injure, this is not an appropriate case for the interim restraining orders sought by the plaintiff against the solicitors from representing its clients; (ii) The rules under the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 were created to regulate professional practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline of advocates and solicitors, not to protect a limited class of the public and not intended to create any statutory duty on advocates, that is enforceable by a private cause of action. Any complaint on conduct of any advocate should be referred to a Disciplinary Board and, where appropriate, be referred for any inquiry by a duly convened Disciplinary Committee. This is clearly provided in ss. 99 and 100 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd v. Tetuan Lui & Bhullar & Ors [2022] 3 CLJ 874 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Application for - Application for interim injunction order against solicitors from representing purchasers of development in civil action until disposal of suit - Whether there was conspiracy to injure and breach of statutory duty - Whether solicitors acted in accordance with Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - Whether solicitors misled and misrepresented facts - Whether there was libel and slander - Whether there exists risk of interference with administration of justice or of unfair prejudice - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 99 & 100

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Breach - Allegation of - Application for interim injunction order against solicitors from representing purchasers of development in civil action until disposal of suit - Whether there was conspiracy to injure and breach of statutory duty - Whether solicitors acted in accordance with Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - Whether solicitors misled and misrepresented facts - Whether there was libel and slander - Whether there exists risk of interference with administration of justice or of unfair prejudice - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 99 & 100

MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC

For the plaintiff - Sivabalan & Goh Wan Ping; M/s Mastura Partnership
For the 1st defendant - Harneshpal Singh, Bryan Lui Shien Vieng & Chandni Anantha Krishnan; M/s Lui & Bhullar
For the 2nd defendant - In person
For the 3rd defendant - In person
For the 4th defendant - In person

The court's consideration in an application by the company for an order to validate resolutions passed at an inquorate board meeting pursuant to s. 582 of the Companies Act 2016, in the main, is whether such an order would not do injustice to the company or to any member or creditor. Lack of quorum is a procedural irregularity that may be validated as expressed by s. 582(3). The court, in the exercise of its discretion to allow the application, is to ensure that the validation order would not result in substantial injustice.
Lysaght (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Liew Swee Mio [2022] 3 CLJ 903 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Resolutions - Resolution by company - Inquorate meetings - Application for validation of resolutions - Whether exercise of court's discretion - Factors considered by court - Whether inquorate meeting procedural irregularity - Whether validation order would result in substantial injustice to directors and shareholders of company - Whether existence of 'deadlock right' against company could be overridden by court - Whether validation sought was precise - Whether exercise of discretion in favour of company justified - Companies Act 2016, s. 582

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Resolution - Application for validation of resolutions - Inquorate meetings - Affidavits signed by managing director on behalf of company - Managing director foreign citizen - Whether authorised to affirm affidavits - Whether required employment pass - Whether employee - Whether involved in day-to-day operations of company - Whether 'interested person' pursuant to s. 582(3) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether agent of necessity

AHMAD FAIRUZ ZAINOL ABIDIN J

For the plaintiff - Gopal Sreenevasan & PL Leong; M/s Sreenevasan Young
For the defendant - Lim Kian Leong, Annou Xavier, Yong Jia Wei & Joyce Goh; M/s Azri, Lee Swee Seng & Co

A litigant has a right to be heard, but that right is not absolute, in that, where the litigant was shown to have no regard to an order issued against him, in this case, an injunction order, then his right to be heard was forfeited or postponed until he has purged his contempt. However, case laws have shown that there are exceptions to this rule, where the court does not take a rigid position 'that a person in contempt should not be heard'.
Perfect Oil Resources (Sabah) Sdn Bhd v. Lee Yee Wuen & Ors [2022] 3 CLJ 924 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Application for stay of inter partes hearing pending disposal of application for leave to appeal - Whether contempt purged - Reliance on decision of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v. Dr Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah & Anor - Whether person in contempt could be heard before contempt purged

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Defects - Affidavits sworn outside jurisdiction - Absence of notarial certificate accompanying affidavit - Whether technical defect - Whether curable - Whether caused miscarriage of justice or prejudicial effect - Whether affidavits could be responded to - Whether defect fatal - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A & O. 41 r. 12

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Failure to comply with injunction order - Committal proceedings - Application for stay of inter partes hearing pending disposal of application for leave to appeal - Whether leave application and appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay not granted - Whether balance of convenience tilted in favour of granting of stay

CELESTINA STUEL GALID J

For the applicant - Edwin Tsen & Caroline Hee; M/s Tan Pang Tsen & Co
For the respondents - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs

The Securities Commission ('SC'), in the exercise of its powers within the ambit of the Capital Market and Services Act 2007 and in accordance with its statutory functions, has the power to revoke a capital market services license ('CMSL') with immediate effect if it finds there are serious breaches by a licensed fund management firm in order to protect the interest of investors or public interest. The SC may stipulate that any revocation of the CMSL shall take effect immediately on any date specified by the SC.
VCB Capital Sdn Bhd v. Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia [2022] 3 CLJ 936 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SECURITIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Judicial review against decision of Securities Commission ('SC') - Revocation of capital market services license ('CMSL') - Alleged breaches of provisions of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('CMSA'), Compliance Guidelines and Guidelines on Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing for Capital Market Intermediaries - Applicant's CMSL revoked - Whether there were sufficient grounds to revoke CMSL - Whether applicant fit and proper to continue holding CMSL - Whether SC exercised its powers within ambit of CMSA and in accordance with statutory functions - Whether there had been any error of law, disproportionate and/or irrationality by SC - Whether judicial review warranted - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53

SECURITIES: Securities Commission - Revocation of capital market services license ('CMSL') - Alleged breaches of provisions of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('CMSA'), Compliance Guidelines and Guidelines on Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing for Capital Market Intermediaries - Applicant's CMSL revoked - Whether there were sufficient grounds to revoke CMSL - Whether applicant fit and proper to continue holding CMSL - Whether SC exercised its powers within ambit of CMSA and in accordance with statutory functions

AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J

For the applicant - Lim Kian Leong, Lui Kar Yee & Chuar Kia Lin; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
For the respondent - Lee Shih & Joyce Lam Hwee Yin; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

COMPARISON OF COVID-19 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) BETWEEN MALAYSIA, CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A JURISPRUDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Nur Batrisyia Hannani binti Abd Rahman^[i] Nawal binti Mohamad Amin^[ii] Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail^[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xliii

THEORY AND APPLICATION OF ROSCOE POUND'S SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE: TRANSGENDERISM ^{[Read excerpt]}
by H'ng Zong Xian^[i]Soon Jia Ying^[ii]Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi^[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xliv

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 836	Geographical Indications Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022]	Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602]	-
ACT 835	Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 834	Malaysian Space Board Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 833	Finance Act 2021	The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66	-	-
ACT 832	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021)	1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987)	-	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 1987) [ACT 335]

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1649	Patents (Amendment) Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] except s 14, para 26(a), s 45 and 47, para 48(a), s 55 and para 57(b)	ACT 291
ACT A1648	Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 514
ACT A1647	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act 2022	22 February 2022 [PU(B) 120/2022] except sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27	ACT 720
ACT A1646	Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 716
ACT A1645	Copyright (Amendment) Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 167/2022] except s 4, 5, 6 and 10	ACT 332

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 82/2022	Water Services Industry (Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2022	31 March 2022	1 April 2022	PU(A) 432/2007
PU(A) 81/2022	Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2022	30 March 2022	15 April 2022	PU(A) 401/1989
PU(A) 80/2022	Customs Duties (Exemption) 2017 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2022	30 March 2022	1 April 2022	PU(A) 445/2017
PU(A) 79/2022	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 17) (Revocation) Order 2022	30 March 2022	1 April 2022	ACT 333
PU(A) 78/2022	Double Taxation Relief (The Government of The Republic of Poland) Order 2014 - Corrigendum	29 March 2022		PU(A) 168/2014

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 198/2022	Prescription Under Section 6	13 April 2022	14 April 2022	ACT 32
PU(B) 197/2022	Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of The Board	12 April 2022	Appointment - Specified in column (4) of the First Schedule; Revocation - 15 April 2021	ACT 551
PU(B) 196/2022	Notice To Third Parties	12 April 2022	13 April 2022	ACT 613
PU(B) 195/2022	Notice To Third Parties	11 April 2022	12 April 2022	ACT 613
PU(B) 194/2022	Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 32315 Bandar Labuan, Federal Territory of Labuan	8 April 2022	9 April 2022	ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 291	Akta Paten 1983	PU(A) 63/2022	18 Mac 2022	Jadual Kedua
ACT 291	Patents Act 1983	PU(A) 63/2022	18 March 2022	Second Schedule
AKTA 291	Akta Paten 1983	AKTA A1649	18 Mac 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] kecuali seksyen 14, perenggan 26(a), seksyen 45 dan 47, perenggan 48(a), seksyen 55 dan perenggan 57(b)	Seksyen 3, 13, 14, 17B, 18, 19, 21, 23A, 25, 26A, 26B, 27, 28, 29A, 30, 31A, 32A, 33, 33A, 33B, 33C, 33D, 34, 34A, 35, 35A, 36, 37, 39, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57(2), 59, 75, 76A,78F, 78G, 78N, 79, 79A(1A) & (1B), 80 - 84, 86, 86A, 87, 87A, 88 dan 88A - 88E
ACT 291	Patents Act 1983	ACT A1649	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] except s. 14, para. 26(a), s. 45 and 47, para. 48(a), s. 55 and para. 57(b)	Sections 3, 13, 14, 17B, 18, 19, 21, 23A, 25, 26A, 26B, 27, 28, 29A, 30, 31A, 32A, 33, 33A, 33B, 33C, 33D, 34, 34A, 35, 35A, 36, 37, 39, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57(2), 59, 75, 76A,78F, 78G, 78N, 79, 79A(1A) & (1B), 80 - 84, 86, 86A, 87, 87A, 88 and 88A - 88E
PU(A) 445/2017	Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017	PU(A) 20/2022	28 January 2022	Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 449/2021	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021	PU(A) 73/2022	1 April 2022
PU(A) 159/2012	Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012	PU(A) 61/2022	18 March 2022
PU(A) 127/2017	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Order of Priority For Payments of Different Categories of Islamic Deposits, Determination and Classification of Assets and Application of Disposal Proceeds of Assets in the Winding Up of Deposit-Taking Member) Regulations 2017	PU(A) 41/2022	1 March 2022
PU(A) 182/2018	Perintah Pendaftaran Ahli Farmasi (Pindaan Jadual Pertama) 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 Disember 2021
PU(A) 182/2018	Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 December 2021

To unsubscribe click here