Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #18/2022
05 May 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


[CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: W-05-336-09-2021 & W-05-338-09-2021]
22 MARCH 2022

In the absence of jurisdiction conferred on the criminal court to deal with declaratory reliefs, the criminal court has no power to grant the declaratory reliefs sought, which is a civil remedy. A criminal court cannot be equated with a civil court for the purpose of exercising power relating to grant of declaration; hence the applicant ought to have moved the civil court for the appropriate remedy and not resort to criminal proceedings to set the relief sought.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Granting of declaratory reliefs - Whether High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction has power to grant declaratory reliefs - Whether subject matter of declaration civil in nature - Whether criminal court could be equated with civil court for purpose of exercising powers relating to grant of declaration - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 22(1)(a), (b) - Criminal Procedure Code


“Naturally, there is a difference between the making of a fatwa (as in the procedure and law to adhere to) and the substantive contents of the fatwa. As regards the procedure, it necessarily requires compliance with written law and the failure to do so might result in the issuance of public law remedies that can only be issued by the civil superior courts. The contents of the fatwa and their interpretation are a different story and a matter purely for the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts to the extent that it relates to “hukum syarak” or personal law and not matters which objectively might be taken to contradict any written law (Federal or State statutes or even the FC for that matter).”

“Thus, simply put, if the vires of any fatwa or the conduct of the Fatwa Committee is challenged purely on the basis of constitutional or statutory compliance, then it is a matter for the civil courts. If the question pertains to the matters of the faith or the validity of the contents of the fatwa tested against the grain of Islamic law, then the appropriate forum for review or compliance is the Syariah courts.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339


Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 902


A management corporation has the duty to run, manage and maintain the building. Hence, it has to obtain all the records and documents from its predecessors. The developer, the predecessor of the management corporation, has the duty to hand over books of accounts and all records related to the necessary maintenance and management of the building or land and the common property of the development area, including the approval plans, mechanical and electrical drawings.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Action filed by management corporation against developer pursuant to s. 55 of Strata Management Act 2013 to obtain complete documents and records of accounts - Developer had only handed over accounts to joint management body - Whether management corporation and joint management body were the same entity - Whether there was conclusive evidence of handing over of accounts to management corporation - Whether there were triable issues that merit a trial - Whether dispute as to accrual of cause of action could only be resolved through trial - Whether claim was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of Court's process

LAND LAW: Housing developers - Statutory duties - Duty to management corporation - Handing over of control to management corporation - Whether developer has a statutory duty to hand over approved plans and technical drawings of building to management corporation - Whether developer had discharged its duties after handing over book of accounts and cheque books to management corporation - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 55

  • For the appellant/plaintiff - Kee Mohd Tariq; M/s Hifdzi Salmiah Kee Hanisah & Co
  • For the respondent/defendant - W S Teo; M/s Malis & Khoo

[2020] 1 LNS 903


A registered account holder whose particulars are reflected in the utility provider's account of service is responsible to pay the service provider revenue lost due to an offence committed by any person under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act 1990. The mere allegation that the premise where the service is provided has been rented out does not absolve the registered account holder of liability for payment towards the account.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Judgment in default - Claim for loss of revenue by electricity supplier - Writ served on address provided by defendant and last address ascertained from NRIC search - Allegation that writ was served on a premise which was rented out - Delay in filing application - Defendant failed to obtain leave for extension of time to file application - Whether change of address has been notified - Whether judgment was regularly obtained - Whether there was merits in defence - Whether application was fatal

UTILITIES: Electricity - Meter tempering - Claim for loss of revenue - Customer alleged premise has been rented out and tenant could have tempered meter installation - Customer failed to change tenant's name as new registered account holder - Whether tenancy could absolve customer's liability - Whether customer must ensure that correct account holder is reflected in service provider's account - Whether identity of person who tampered with meter installation was material - Whether registered account holder or tenant has contractual obligation with service provider - Whether customer could seek other redress against tenant

  • For the first & second defendants/appellants - Andrew Choo Sio Hong; M/s Lim You Shyang & Co
  • For the plaintiff/respondent - Helmi Zaharin; M/s Roy & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 926


In an interlocutory application for extension of a caveat under s. 326 of the National Land Code 1965, the onus lies on the caveator to satisfy the Court, on the affidavit evidence presented, that his claim to an interest in the property raises a serious question to be tried. Affidavit evidence demonstrating an oral agreement relied on by the caveator to support his caveatable interest in the property is not disallowed under s. 92 of the Evidence Act 1950. However, where the dispute relating to the oral agreement could not be resolved through affidavit evidence and such an issue raises serious questions to be tried, then the caveat should be extended pending the disposal of the main suit.

EVIDENCE: Oral agreement - Admissibility of - Interlocutory application for extension of caveat - Whether evidence of oral agreement allowed in deciding interlocutory application under s. 326 of National Land Code - Evidence Act 1950, s. 92

LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat - Interlocutory application for extension of caveat - Caveatable interest - Property was transferred pursuant to an agreement - Plaintiff relied on oral agreement as evidence - Whether alleged oral agreement was serious question to be tried in main suit - Whether title to land was defeasible - Whether plaintiff had a caveatable interest on property - Whether plaintiff has a locus standi to apply for an extension of caveat - Whether caveat should remain on property pending disposal of main suit - Whether status quo should be maintained until disposal of main suit - National Land Code 1965, s. 326

  • For the appellant/1st defendant - Mathew Thomas Philip & Voon Su Huei; M/s Thomas Philip
  • For the appellant/2nd defendant - Irzan Iswatt; M/s Haniff Khatri
  • For the 1st respondent/plaintiff - Sri Gopal Sri Ram, YC Wong, David Yii & Marcus Lee; M/s YC Wong

[2019] 1 LNS 2120


Seksyen 31(1) Akta Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri 1995 mempunyai maksud yang sama dengan s. 124 Akta Keterangan 1950 di mana pegawai LHDN sebagai seorang pegawai awam tidak boleh mendedahkan komunikasi yang telah dibuat olehnya secara rasmi dan sulit melainkan dengan kebenaran ketua jabatannya. Justeru, Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa untuk tidak membenarkan pegawai awam tersebut untuk mendedahkan komunikasi yang telah dibuat secara rasmi dan sulit.

KETERANGAN: Perlindungan - Komunikasi - Keterangan pegawai awam - Saksi dari Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri ('LHDN') - Saksi tidak dibenarkan untuk merujuk kepada dokumen berkaitan dengan urusan LHDN yang melibatkan orang lain - Sama ada saksi tertakluk kepada peruntukan s. 124 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan s. 31(1) Akta Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri 1995 - Sama ada pegawai awam boleh mendedahkan komunikasi yang telah dibuatnya olehnya secara rasmi dan sulit tanpa kebenaran ketua jabatan

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 467 & 471 - Kesalahan mengemukakan borang pindahmilik palsu sebagai tulen - Pindahmilik hartanah dilakukan tanpa pengetahuan dan persetujuan pemilik asal yang sah - Pemilik asal nafi menurunkan tandatangan pada borang pindakmilik dan mengenali tertuduh - Laporan kimia mengesahkan tandatangan pada borang pindahmilik bukan tandatangan pemilik asal - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa borang pindahmilik adalah palsu - Sama ada tertuduh telah secara curang menggunakan borang pindahmilik

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Subahat - Perlakuan jenayah - Kesalahan mengemukakan borang pindahmilik palsu sebagai tulen - Tertuduh-tertuduh merupakan pasangan suami isteri - Tertuduh pertama sebagai peguamcara menguruskan penjualan dan pindahmilik hartanah atas nama tertuduh kedua selaku penerima pindahmilik hartanah - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh telah bersubahat dalam pindahmilik hartanah - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 109

  • Bagi pihak perayu pertama & perayu kedua - T Thiyageswaran; T/n Thiyages Pauline Ng & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - TPR Anis Wahidah Muhammad; Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2019] 1 LNS 2121


Tiada keperluan undang-undang untuk pegawai penyiasat mengekshibitkan salinan rakaman percakapan pemohon di dalam afidavitnya bagi membuktikan bahawa siasatan kes terhadap pemohon telah dijalankan dengan sempurna. Justeru, ketiadaan rakaman percakapan pemohon sebagai ekshibit di dalam afidavit responden tidak terjumlah kepada suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur. Walau bagaimanapun, keterangan pegawai penyiasat adalah mencukupi untuk membuktikan siasatan kes terhadap pemohon telah dijalankan dengan sempurna.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Tahanan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta 1985') - Rakaman percakapan pemohon bawah s. 4 Akta 1985 tidak dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit di dalam afidavit jawapan responden - Pegawai penyiasat telah mendeposkan afidavit mengenai proses siasatan - Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan rakaman percakapan pemohon terjumlah kepada ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada keterangan pegawai penyiasat adalah mencukupi untuk membuktikan siasatan kes terhadap pemohon telah dijalankan dengan sempurna - Sama ada proses siasatan oleh pegawai penyiasat boleh dijadikan asas untuk mencabar perintah tahanan

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Najib Zakaria; T/n Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - Siti Hajar Mat Radzi, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang; Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia

CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 3)

Pertuduhan jenayah berkaitan najis dadah adalah satu pertuduhan yang teramat berat, yang melibatkan penghidupan dan nyawa seseorang tertuduh. Tersilap percaturan, tertuduh yang tidak bersalah akan ke tali gantung. Setiap aspek proses, bermula dari tangkapan hingga siasatan oleh pihak polis dan pertuduhan oleh pihak pendakwaan jenayah harus diteliti rapi dan tidak boleh dipandang enteng. Hakim bicara pula berperanan menghalusi setiap keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan beliau tanpa terlepas secebis pun untuk memastikan kes pendakwaan dibuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah.
Muhammad Hafiz Mukrimin Abdulkeh lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2022] 4 CLJ 329 [CA]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh disabitkan atas kesalahan dan dijatuhi hukuman mati - Sama ada tertuduh pembawa tidak bersalah - Sama ada hakim bicara meneliti dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan dan pembelaan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf dan tersalah arah dalam mencapai keputusan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes terhadap perayu melampaui keraguan munasabah - Sama ada versi pembelaan berjaya mematahkan kes pendakwaan atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman yang dijatuhkan atas tertuduh selamat dan wajar dikekalkan - Sama ada campur tangan rayuan wajar - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)




  • Bagi pihak perayu - N Sivananthan & Grace Nathan; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak responden - Hanim Mohd Rashid; TPR

In a case of enforcing a foreign judgment ('FJ') for a specific sum of money, to ensure that there are no nomenclature mistakes relating to the defendants' correct names in the translation of the FJ, source documents such as trade licences ought to be given to the translator so that the names of the defendants are correctly depicted in the translation. Taking into consideration the evidence as a whole and the surrounding factors such as the defendants' consent via a written letter to the plaintiff to apply for release of monies attached to the foreign court, it is proven on a balance of probabilities that the defendants are the parties against whom the foreign court entered judgment.
Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd-LLC [2022] 4 CLJ 357 [CA]


CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Foreign judgment - Enforcement of - Appeal against - Translation of foreign judgment - Whether foreign judgment correctly translated into national language - Validity of admission of impugned trade licences to support correctness of translation - Whether claim for payment brought against right parties - Whether evidence and surrounding factors disclosed defendants as parties mentioned in foreign judgment - Whether final and conclusive judgment by foreign court of competent jurisdiction - Evidence Act 1950, s. 73A(1) & (2)

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Translation of foreign judgment - Validity of admission of impugned trade licences to support correctness of translation - Whether trade licence merely source document - Whether there was prejudice caused - Evidence Act 1950, s. 73A(1) & (2)



  • For the 1st appellant - Foong Kitson & Nicholas Poon; M/s Kit & Assocs
  • For the 2nd appellant - Foo Joon Liang & Lee Hui Juan; M/s Gan Partnership
  • For the respondent - John Khoo Boo Lai & Jimmy Gay Choon Hee; M/s Ismail Khoo & Assocs

This judgment, which pertained to an unlawful and doctored video clip of an online court trial, was written in the public interest regarding the due administration of justice for members of the public, in particular practising advocates and solicitors, to be aware of the following adverse consequences in respect of the making and distribution of the doctored video clip: (i) contempt of court; (ii) possible commission of offences under ss. 233(1)(a)(i) and 233(1)(a)(ii) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998; (iii) defamation of the advocate and solicitor under tort and criminal law (s. 499 of the Penal Code ); and (iv) any advocate and solicitor and/or pupil who is involved in the making and/or distribution of the doctored video clip may have committed a disciplinary offence under s. 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and may be liable for disciplinary sanction by the Disciplinary Board.
Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v. Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli & Ors And Another Case (No 2) [2022] 4 CLJ 381 [HC]

| |

CYBER LAW: Improper use of network facilities - Doctored video clip of online trial - Trial conducted via Zoom hearing - Audio-visual testimony of court's record of Zoom hearing doctored - Making false 'communication' and transmitting - Doctored video clip depicted trial judge and court in unsavoury light and defamatory of advocate and solicitor - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ss. 233(1)(a)(i) & 233(1)(a)(ii)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt - Contempt of court - Doctored video clip of online trial - Trial conducted via Zoom hearing - Audio-visual testimony of court's record of Zoom hearing doctored - Whether act aimed at scandalising court - Whether calculated to bring court or judge into contempt or lower judge's authority - Whether depicted court as having unjustly dealt with advocate and solicitor

TORT: Defamation - Video clip - Doctored video clip of online court trial - Trial conducted via Zoom hearing - Audio-visual testimony of court's record of Zoom hearing doctored - Doctored video clip depicted trial judge and court in unsavoury light and defamatory of advocate and solicitor - Penal Code, s. 499


(Suit No: D5-22-610-2006)
  • For the plaintiffs - Rabindra S Nathan, Nad Segaram & Chow Xing Hui; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For 1st & 2nd defendants - Lim Kian Leong & Tobias Lim Koon Li; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
  • For the 4th, 5th & 7th to 9th defendants - Christopher Leong Sau Foo, Lim Tuck Sun, Nirvan Gopalan-Krishnan & Anneliz Reina George; M/s Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff
  • For the TMB (counterclaim) - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam & Chan Mun Yew; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen Gledhill
(Suit No: D1-22-1960-2008)
  • For the plaintiffs - Rabindra S Nathan, Nad Segaram & Chow Xing Hui; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Lim Kian Leong & Tobias Lim Koon Li; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
  • For the 4th to 6th defendants - Christopher Leong Sau Foo, Lim Tuck Sun, Nirvan Gopalan-Krishnan & Anneliz Reina George; M/s Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff
  • For the TMB (counterclaim) - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam & Chan Mun Yew; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen Gledhill

The provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, being provisions of a specific Act enacted for the protection of personal data, must prevail over the general provisions of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA'), including s. 81. The Director-General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') could not be allowed to have access to the database of personal information of a company's customers, or any taxpayer for that matter, until and unless the DGIR demonstrates that there are reasonable suspicions that a specific, identified and/or identifiable customer had not complied with any material provision of the ITA relating to the assessment or collection of tax so as to warrant a disclosure of the personal data of that particular customer. The DGIR cannot seek a blanket disclosure and conduct a fishing expedition without meeting the requisite standards of necessity and proportionality to justify an infringement of the right to privacy protected under art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Genting Malaysia Bhd v. Pesuruhjaya Perlindungan Data Peribadi & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 399 [HC]


REVENUE LAW: Director-General of Inland Revenue - Powers and functions - Disclosure of personal data of company's customers - Inland Revenue sought disclosure of personal data of customers to enlarge tax base and increase tax collection - Whether company obligated to disclose personal data of customers - Whether Director-General of Inland Revenue empowered to obtain information from third party - Whether personal data requested fell within s. 81 of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether disclosure of personal data under s. 81 of ITA would be in breach of provisions of Personal Data Protection Act 2010

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to privacy - Inland Revenue sought disclosure of personal data of company's customers to enlarge tax base and increase tax collection - Whether disclosure permitted by law - Whether disclosure would amount to breach of personal data protection - Whether infringement of right to privacy - Federal Constitution, art. 5



  • For the applicant - Anand Raj, Irene Yong, Foong Pui Chi, Abhilaash Subramaniam, Yeoh Yu Xian, Analise Cheong Wen Yie (Pupil in Chambers) & Kelly Choo (Pupil in Chambers); M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Avtaran Singh, Jasdev Singh, Wong Huang Wee & Kamaruddin Mohammad Yassin (Pupil in Chambers) - M/s Jasdev Chambers
  • For the 3rd respondent - Normareza Mat Rejab; Senior Revenue Counsel & Syazana Safiah Rozman; Revenue Counsel

The property developer's solicitors' conduct, in advising the purchasers to lodge a private caveat on one of the contra units purchased via contra transaction between the purchasers and the property developer was indicative that it had, in fact, acted for the purchasers in relation to the contra units, despite the fact that the purchasers did not pay the solicitors' legal fees. As the sole solicitors in the preparation of the sale and purchase agreement between the parties, the solicitors had not acted in accordance with common conveyancing practice when it failed to inform the purchasers that it was acting only on behalf of the property developer. Hence, the purchasers had, on a balance of probabilities, succeeded in its claim of professional negligence against the solicitors.
Hong & Fong v. Tan Po Lin & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 454 [HC]

LEGAL PROFESSION: Negligence - Professional negligence - Solicitors - Solicitors appointed by developer for all sale and purchase transactions - Purchasers bought loan units and contra units - Purchasers discovered contra units encumbered via charge to bank and claimed damages against solicitors - Whether solicitors also acted for purchasers - Whether solicitors acted in accordance with common conveyancing practice - Admissibility of contra notes - Standard of care - Whether solicitors discharged evidential burden - Whether purchasers proved claim on balance of probabilities




  • For the appellant/defendant - Loh Chu Bian, Lee Wei Ting & Yong Veng Loc; M/s Loh Ivan & Lee Hui
  • For the respondents/plaintiffs - Tan Jee Tjun & Michelle Chew Ai Phin; M/s Thomas Philip

The mother of three children, having earlier obtained sole custody, care and control of the children and that order, being still valid and subsisting, is entitled to the custody of the children; the defiance of such order would tantamount to contempt. The Social Welfare Department was in unlawful detention of the children, who were subjected to unilateral conversion, and therefore, the application for habeas corpus for the release of the children to the sole custody, care and control of the mother ought to be allowed.
Loh Siew Hong v. Nazirah Nanthakumar Abdullah & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 467 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Unlawful detention of children by Social Welfare Department - Court ordered sole custody, care and control of children to mother of children - Whether defiance of court order amounted to contempt - Whether children were minor - Whether attempt to prevent reunification between mother and children was done mala fide

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Detention - Unlawful detention of children by Social Welfare Department - Power and jurisdiction of court to entertain application - Whether pursuant to inherent powers of court - Whether unlawful detention of children fell under category of preventive detention - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Specific Relief Act 1950, Chapter VIII of Part 2




  • For the applicant - Shamsher Singh Thind, Srimurugan & Gunamalar Joorindanjin; M/s SS Thind
  • For the 1st respondent - Mohamad Izzat Ghazali & Aidil Khalid; M/s Nazrin & Izzat
Watching brief:
  • For the Bar Council Malaysia - Tiu Foo Woei
  • For the Pertubuhan Hindu Dharma Malaysia - SK Sundram
  • For the Malaysian Hindu Lawyers Assocs - Raman, KC Kandiah & Rajo
  • For the Majlis Agama Islam, Perlis - M Rezza Hassan & Hamizan Sobree
  • For the Malaysia Hindu Sangam - Rajesh Nagarajan

Subsequent to his retirement from the Judiciary, former Chief Judge of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak and later Chief Justice, petitioned to be admitted to practice as a lawyer in Sarawak and applied to be exempted from doing pupillage. The defendant's main place of work was in Kuching for a continuous period of 12 years, from 2006 to 2018. That would necessarily entail the defendant having a place of residence in Kuching to satisfy the requirement of 'Sarawak connections' under s. 2(2)(b) of the Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 110). It mattered not if the defendant, at the same time, had a residence in Kuala Lumpur or Putrajaya to discharge his duties as the Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak cum Justice of the Federal Court or continued to maintain a residence in Sabah where the defendant was originally from.
Voon Lee Shan v. Richard Malanjum [2022] 4 CLJ 485 [HC]

LEGAL PROFESSION: Admission - Petition for admission as advocate of High Court in Sarawak - Petition by Sabahan former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and Chief Justice of Malaysia - Whether having 'Sarawak connections' - Whether petitioner had been ordinarily resident in Sarawak for continuous period of five years or more - Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 110), s. 2(2)(b)

LEGAL PROFESSION: Practice of law - Pupillage - Exemption - Petition for admission as advocate of High Court in Sarawak - Petition by Sabahan former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and Chief Justice of Malaysia - Petitioner applied to be exempted from pupillage - Whether ought to be allowed




  • For the plaintiff - Raymond Jeyaraj Noel, Lim Heng Choo, Bartholomew Lopez, Addy Termizi Mohamed, Steven Sia, Wong Hock Siong & Analissa Lim; M/s RJ Noel Advocs
  • For the defendant - Tan Kee Heng, Chong Siew Chiang, Michael Kong, Clarissa Kuek & Sean Ha; M/s S K Ling & Tan Advocs


LNS Article(s)

    by Sherise Goo* [2022] 1 LNS(A) l

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) l


    Sherise Goo*


    This article examines the current Malaysian position on the recognition of virtual or online witnessing and attestation of various legal documents as an alternative to physical witnessing. This issue has surfaced due to the social distancing and movement restriction requirements imposed by the government to curtail the spread of COVID-19 cases. Such requirements have rendered it challenging to hold in-person meetings, thus posing a barrier to physical witnessing of the execution of various legal documents. Regrettably, no legislation, primary or secondary, has been enacted thus far to address this predicament. The only guidance on virtual witnessing was issued in the form of a circular by the Malaysian Bar Council, in which a conservative stance was adopted. In Circular No 222/2021, 'Witnessing Signatures via Video Conferencing for Conveyancing Related Documents' dated 8 June 2021, virtual witnessing is discouraged if the statutory obligation of witnessing signatures is based on the wordings of 'in the presence of'. These wordings can be found in statutory provisions governing the execution of wills, instruments of dealings, and powers of attorney, to mention but a few. As held by Her Ladyship Justice Zainun Ali in Sawinder Kaur Fauja Singh v. Charnjit Singh Thakar Singh [1998] 1 CLJ Supp 402, the phrase 'in the presence of' denotes 'actual, visual presence' of a witness.

    . . .

    *LLB (2:1), University of London. Currently a CLP candidate at Brickfields Asia College. The article has been supervised, reviewed, and endorsed by Liow Si Khoon from M/s Liow & Co.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
    by Calvin Cherley[i]Norsakinah Rahemi[ii]Shahrul Mizan Ismail[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) li

  4. [2022] 1 LNS(A) li


    Calvin Cherley[i]
    Norsakinah Rahemi[ii]
    Shahrul Mizan Ismail[iii]


    The issue of legalizing abortion has been kicking up the dust of controversies as arguments can be made both for and against legalizing it as both are found to be equally convincing. The act of abortion does involve not only the mother but also the unborn fetus. Abortion is found to be legalized or permitted in many countries on various grounds. However, abortion has still been deemed an offence under the Malaysian Penal Code. Thus, in a bid to establish a stance on the issue of whether abortion should be legalized or not in Malaysia, this paper intends to analyze and explore the said matter from some jurisprudential perspectives. This paper also serves to analyze the legal position of abortion in Malaysia, India and the United States of America. The finding shows that abortion law in Malaysia has not been liberalized like in India and the United States of America. Next, it is concluded that the current abortion law in Malaysia is not justified by the naturalist and socialist schools of thought but is justified by the legal positivist school of thought. The importance of this paper is to provide a clear understanding of the jurisprudential analysis of abortion law in Malaysia.

    . . .

    [i] [ii] Third Year Law Students, Faculty of Law, the National University of Malaysia.

    [iii] LLB (Hons) (IIUM), LLM (Human Rights) (Nottingham), PhD (UKM); Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya) (Non-practising); Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.


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


Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 130/2022 Road Traffic (Prohibition On Driving of Goods Vehicles) (No. 2) Rules 2022 26 April 2022 30 April 2022  
PU(A) 128/2022 National Speed Limit (Temporary Cessation) (No. 2) Order 2022 26 April 2022 29 April 2022 to 8 May 2022 ACT 333
PU(A) 126/2022 Income Tax (Deduction For The Sponsorship of Hallmark Event) (Amendment) Rules 2022 22 April 2022 23 April 2022 PU(A) 165/2016
PU(A) 125/2022 Income Tax (Deduction For Investment In Qualifying Activity) (Amendment) Rules 2022 22 April 2022 23 April 2022 PU(A) 166/2016
PU(A) 124/2022 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) 2016 (Amendment) Order 2022 22 April 2022 23 April 2022 PU(A) 162/2016


Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 252/2022 Appointment of Authorized Officers 27 April 2022 23 May 2022 ACT 308
PU(B) 251/2022 Appointment of President of The Industrial Court 27 April 2022 15 June 2021 ACT 177
PU(B) 250/2022 Fatwa Under Section 34 26 April 2022 27 April 2022 ACT 505
PU(B) 249/2022 Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Fudeyuan Berhad) 25 April 2022 26 April 2022 ACT 778
PU(B) 248/2022 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 20014, Section 95A Town Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 25 April 2022   ACT 828

Legislation Alert


Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 175/2019 Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Sekatan Ke Atas Kebolehpotongan Faedah) 2019 PU(A) 27/2022 1 Februari 2022 Kaedah-kaedah 5 dan 6
PU(A) 175/2019 Income Tax (Restriction on Deductibility of Interest) Rules 2019 PU(A) 27/2022 1 February 2022 Rules 5 and 6
PU(A) 34/2011 Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems in Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) Regulations 2011 PU(A) 24/2022 Assessment year of 2022 Regulations 2 - 7, 9 and 10
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


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

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here