Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #20/2022
19 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

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

CHONG NGE WEI & ORS v. KEMAJUAN MASTERON SDN BHD [2022] 4 CLJ 833
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 03-1-08-2020(B)]
23 MARCH 2022

Clause 12 of the statutory sale and purchase contract under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 is clear in that it entitles a purchaser of a housing unit to claim damages in the event the developer had used different materials for the construction of the property without his written consent; 'different materials' means just that and does not necessarily connote 'cheaper materials'. It is also to be noted that in deciding whether the purchaser is or is not entitled to the damages sought for, the fact that he had opted to claim for damages instead of the alternative right to claim for a reduction in the price of the property is an irrelevant consideration. And in so far as proof of actual loss is concerned, the tendering of a quotation prepared by the building contractor detailing the remedial works to be undertaken, and the costs that it would entail, may suffice to constitute prima facie proof of the damages suffered by the purchaser; it needs no reiteration that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence against such a prima facie proof, it is not open to the developer to retort that the sum awarded was excessive and unreasonable.

CONTRACT LAW: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Claim for damages - Purchasers claimed for breach of contract against developer for changing building material - Building material for outer brick walls changed from autoclaved aerated concrete building block to flexcore without written consent - Whether losses suffered by purchasers proven - Whether claim for damages for purpose provided in cl. 12 of statutory sale and purchase contract, under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, requires proof of actual loss to be shown before damages could be awarded

JUDICIAL QUOTES

"The word “good faith” has no exhaustive meaning. Generally, good faith is understood to mean honesty or sincerity of intention. The common features to look for in determining a purchaser of good faith are as follows (i) good faith does not simply mean an absence of fraud, deceit or dishonesty; (ii) knowledge of a dispute as to the ownership of property and knowledge of fraud allegation vitiate good faith; and (iii) elements of carelessness and negligence negate good faith."

"We disagree with learned counsel for Maybank's submission. In our view, a reasonable, prudent purchaser in Maybank's position would investigate as to what, why and how the plaintiffs had alleged there was a fraud. Surely, Maybank ought to take precautions to find out the truth of the matter before deciding to grant a loan to the second defendant. If Maybank conducted an investigation, it would discover that the documentary evidence relied upon by Maybank to effect the transfer of the properties to Wong Ing Tong were tainted with forgeries. Despite having actual knowledge of the dispute of ownership and the allegation of fraud, Maybank treated the caveats as insignificant and had them removed. Maybank then proceeded to grant a loan to the second defendant and create the charges. In the circumstances of this case, we find Maybank had not acted reasonably and fairly. Our view is Maybank's conduct excludes good faith. Therefore, we find the learned HCJ had not erred in making a finding that Maybank was not a purchaser in good faith."
– per Hadhariah Syed Ismail JCA in Wong Ing Tong v. Yap Piat Eng & Anor And Other Appeals [2022] 4 CLJ 882

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 2219

TARLIA ENTERPRISES SDN BHD v. NG GIAK PIN

The doctrine of laches or acquiescence cannot be determined by bare assertions and submissions of the parties contained in the affidavits. It follows that issues of limitation are not appropriate to be determined at summary proceedings. In such circumstances, the factual materials have to be ventilated in the trial and the applicable law thereto requires mature consideration when all the relevant evidence is adduced in a trial.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Laches - Counterclaim for specific performance requiring plaintiff to apply for subdivision and obtain subsidiary titles - Whether counterclaim was plainly and obviously barred by item 92 of Schedule to Limitation Ordinance - Whether agreement between parties prescribed time for application for subdivision - Whether obligation of plaintiff to apply for subdivision and obtain subsidiary title for parcel are continuing obligation - Whether issue of limitation applicable to equitable causes of action founded on breach of trust or fiduciary duties - Whether issue of laches could be determined summarily based on affidavit evidence - Whether factual materials concerning issue of limitation have to be ventilated in trial

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Rules of pleading - Prolix pleading - Whether material facts must be pleaded in summary form - Whether conclusions of law, arguments, reasons, theories, conclusions or mere matters of prediction could be pleaded - Whether prolix pleading should be avoided

  • For the plaintiff - Nelson Sim; M/s Nelson Sim & Co
  • For the defendant - PK Lim; M/s P K Lim & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 2220

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN BHD v. ASAL BINA SDN BHD

1. The issuance of a progress claim alone is not conclusive evidence of practical completion of the works. Where the subcontract specifically provides for the issuance of a certificate of practical completion ('CPC'), then in the absence of such CPC, the subcontractor cannot claim for payment on the basis that it has achieved practical completion.

2. Order 55 r. 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 allows a respondent in an appeal to file a cross-appeal that is limited to seeking a variation of the decision of the lower court. Where the lower court makes a substantive factual finding, it is not competent to seek a reversal of such finding through a cross-appeal.

CONTRACT: Building contract - Sub-contract - Contract for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of lifts and elevators - Claim for liquidated and ascertained damages ('LAD') - Subcontractor failed to complete work within contracted period - Subcontractor alleged delay was attributable solely by main contractor's failure to resolve water ingress problem at site - Whether defence to claim for LAD was properly pleaded for consideration of court - Whether subcontractor was liable for delay in completing subcontract works - Whether LAD was rightly imposed

CONTRACT: Building contract - Claim for work done - Subcontractor claim for balance contract sum against main contractor - Contract had specifically provided for certificate of practical completion ('CPC') - Whether issuance of progress claim alone was conclusive of practical completion of works - Whether subcontractor could argue work had achieved practical completion and claim for payment without CPC - Whether certificates issued by Jabatan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan could be a proof of practical completion of works

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Cross-appeal - Appeal to reverse substantial findings of facts by lower court - Whether cross-appeal is only limited to seeking a variation of decision of lower court - Whether it was competent for appellate court to reverse substantive finding of fact through a cross-appeal - Rules of Court 2012, O. 55 r. 8

  • For the appellant - Deepak Mahadevan & Faeza Suraya Roselan; M/s Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim
  • For the respondent - Ahmad Zulfikri Ibrahim, Nabila Jamaludin & Hashim Ibrahim; M/s Hasan Sabri & Hashim Nazri

[2020] 1 LNS 2030

YOGANATHAN RENGEN lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & YANG LAIN

Keengganan pegawai siasatan untuk memberikan salinan keterangan yang direkodkan oleh beliau daripada pemohon menurut s. 5(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985, walaupun telah dipohon oleh pemohon, bukanlah suatu ketidakpatuhan kehendak prosedur mandatori bawah perkara 151(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menjadikan suatu perintah tahanan tidak sah.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Kelewatan oleh pegawai penyiasat kes fail mengemukakan laporan lengkap kepada pegawai siasatan dan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri ('TMDN') - Kelewatan oleh pegawai siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri ('KDN') dalam menjalankan siasatan - Sama ada kelewatan-kelewatan oleh pegawai penyiasat kes fail dan pegawai siasatan KDN telah mengakibatkan kelewatan TMDN mengeluarkan perintah tahanan - Sama ada tugasan prosedur yang perlu dilakukan oleh seseorang pegawai dapat menjustifikasikan kelewatan - Sama ada kelewatan-kelewatan telah memprejudiskan pemohon - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran s. 3(3) dan s. 5(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Pegawai siasatan enggan memberikan salinan keterangan yang direkodkan daripada pemohon - Keterangan direkodkan menurut s. 5(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Sama ada keengganan pegawai siasatan untuk memberikan salinan keterangan yang direkodkan daripada pemohon merupakan suatu ketidakpatuhan kehendak prosedur mandatori bawah perkara 151(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada keengganan pegawai siasatan untuk memberikan salinan keterangan pemohon menjadikan perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan terhadap pemohon tidak sah

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Jay Moy Wei Jiun; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak responden: Muhammad Safuan Azhar, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2020] 1 LNS 2033

BHARATHAN PONNIRSELVAM lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

Niat penggubalan Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 adalah untuk membanteras jenayah bersindiket berkaitan dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah. Justeru, pengataan-pengataan fakta yang dikeluarkan terhadap orang yang ditahan harus jelas menunjukkan penglibatan orang yang ditahan tersebut dalam satu kumpulan sindiket besar yang menjalankan aktiviti pengedaran dadah bertujuan untuk mengancam ketenteraman orang awam.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Kelewatan oleh pegawai penyiasat kes fail dalam mengemukakan laporan lengkap kepada pegawai siasatan dan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri ('TMDN') - Kelewatan oleh pegawai siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri ('KDN') dalam menjalankan siasatan - Pegawai siasatan telah mengambil cuti perayaan yang panjang tanpa menjalankan sebarang siasatan terhadap pemohon - Kesibukan tugasan dalam kes-kes yang lain - Sama ada pegawai penyiasat kes fail dan pegawai siasatan KDN telah memberikan penjelasan yang kredibel mengenai kelewatan-kelewatan yang berlaku - Sama ada kelewatan-kelewatan telah memprejudiskan pemohon - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran s. 3(3) dan s. 5(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Perintah tahanan dikeluarkan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Kewujudan keterangan bercanggah responden berkaitan jenis dadah - Percanggahan antara alasan-alasan dan pengataan-pengataan fakta dengan afidavit jawapan responden - Responden gagal memfailkan sebarang afidavit pembetulan - Sama ada pemohon berhak bergantung kepada versi yang berpihak kepadanya - Sama ada pemohon boleh mengambil kesempatan terhadap sebarang kesilapan teknikal di pihak responden - Sama ada perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan adalah defektif

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan dikeluarkan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Pengataan-pengataan fakta gagal menunjukkan penglibatan pemohon dalam kumpulan sindiket besar yang menjalankan aktiviti pengedaran dadah bertujuan untuk mengancam ketenteraman orang awam - Sama ada pengataan-pengataan fakta yang menunjukkan penglibatan tertuduh dalam aktiviti pengedaran seorang diri memadai untuk perintah tahanan dikeluarkan - Sama ada perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan adalah defektif

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Jay Moy; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak SFC/responden - Zulkifli Abdullah; Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2020] 1 LNS 2056

PP lwn. MARINA ALIAS

Perbuatan tertuduh yang gagal membekalkan kad prabayar yang dibeli oleh mangsa tidak terjumlah kepada perlanggaran kontrak semata-mata tetapi merupakan suatu kesalahan penipuan bawah s. 420 Kanun Keseksaan sekiranya tertuduh bertindak memperdaya dan mendorong mangsa untuk menyerahkan wang tersebut dan seterusnya gagal memulangkan kembali wang tersebut yang mengakibatkan kehilangan salah dan kerugian di pihak mangsa.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 420 - Penipuan dalam penjualan kad prabayar - Mangsa tidak menerima kad prabayar walaupun wang pembelian kad prabayar telah dimasukkan oleh mangsa ke dalam akaun bank yang diarahkan tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh telah secara curang mendorong mangsa untuk membuat bayaran - Sama ada tertuduh telah dilihat berkemampuan untuk membekalkan kad prabayar sebagaimana yang dijanjikan - Sama ada wujud kehilangan salah dan kerugian di pihak mangsa - Sama ada kegagalan tertuduh menyerahkan kad prabayar kepada mangsa merupakan perlanggaran kontrak semata-mata atau merupakan suatu kesalahan penipuan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Timbalan Pendakwaraya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu
  • Bagi pihak responden - T/n Azam Aziz Shaharudinali & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 5)

Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad is not obliged to immediately and summarily de-list a listed corporation upon the listed corporation being served with a winding up order without regard to any appeals or legal challenges thereto, but should only do so upon a final determination of the said appeals or legal challenges; this said, in order to gain the corporation's continued listing, the liquidator of such a corporation in liquidation must continue to comply with the relevant Listing Requirements as provided under the law.
Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd v. Mohd Afrizan Husain [2022] 4 CLJ 657 [FC]

| |

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Appointment of liquidator - Liquidator's refusal to prepare company's annual report and financial statements - Whether breach of ACE (Access, Certainty, Efficiency) Market Listing Requirements ('AMLR') - Whether compliance with Listing Requirements within scope of liquidator's powers and duties under Companies Act 2016 - Whether Bursa obliged to summarily de-list corporation upon it being served with winding up order - Whether Bursa entitled to exercise discretion to modify or waive compliance of its own rules -Whether director of listed corporation in liquidation could continue to ensure compliance of Listing Requirements without authorisation of liquidator or court - Whether liquidator duty bound to comply with provisions of AMLR

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - ACE (Access, Certainty, Efficiency) Market Listing Requirements, r. 16.11(2) ('AMLR') - Interpretation of - Whether AMLR issued pursuant to s. 378 of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Whether AMLR of statutory origin and has statutory force binding all participants and investors in Malaysian Stock Exchange and Bursa - Whether Bursa bound to immediately de-list corporation upon pronouncement of order of winding up - Whether primary duty of Bursa to ensure public investor protection - Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, s. 11

WORDS & PHRASES: 'shall' - ACE (Access, Certainty, Efficiency) Market Listing Requirements, r. 16.11(2) - Whether 'shall' has single firm or settled meaning - Whether 'shall' denotes mandatory obligation - Whether there was duty or obligation on Bursa to immediately de-list corporation upon pronouncement of it being wound up - Whether there is danger in construing 'shall' in vacuo and without consideration of ACE (Access, Certainty, Efficiency) Market Listing Requirements and Capital Markets and Services Act 2007

NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

  • For the appellant - Khoo Guan Huat, Preetha Pillai, Nimalan Devaraja, Tiang Wen En; M/s Skrine
  • For the respondent - Sukhwinder Singh; M/s Sukhwinder Singh N Mahinder Singh

Once parties have agreed to a mutually-appointed expert, they are bound by the expert's determination. Generally, the court will not intervene in a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the expert, save in narrow circumstances where vitiating factors, such as fraud, collusion or bias could be shown.
Integrated Training And Services Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 697 [FC]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Breach - Parties entered into contract for flight training courses - Breach of contract gave rise to determination of damages - Contract contained expert determination clause - Parties agreed to mutually-appointed expert to determine expenses or damages as means of independent valuation - Whether parties bound by expert's determination - Whether court could depart from what has been agreed by parties - Whether there were vitiating factors to warrant intervention by court

 

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ

  • For the appellants - Malik Imtiaz, Afifi Ahmad & Wong Ming Yen; M/s Tuan Azrul Afifi & Azuan
  • For the respondents - Habibah Haron & Narian Hasanah Othman; SFCs

(i) An employee that has a monthly salary which exceeds RM2,000, but has been doing manual work and is involved in supervising his subordinates, is entitled to retrenchment or termination benefits under the Employment Act 1955; (ii) as a company's Employee Handbook is part and parcel of a contract of service, the employee would have to adhere to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Abdul Razab Yahaya v. Champsurf Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 CLJ 708 [HC]

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Retrenchment - Claim for retrenchment benefits - Whether employee entitled to retrenchment or termination benefits - Whether employee an employee under Employment Act 1955 - Whether employee manual worker or involved in supervision work - Whether company's Employee Handbook part and parcel of contract of service - Employment Act 1955, ss. 69(1)(a), 69A & 69B

 

 

TUN ABD MAJID HAMZAH J

  • For the appelant - M/s Presgrave & Matthews
  • For the respondent - M/s BC Teh & Yeoh

The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 is a piece of social legislation intended to protect purchasers. This does not however mean that the court should disregard any settlement agreement that has been executed between the purchasers and developers to finalise the liquidated ascertained damages claimable by the former, as such agreements are not prohibited by law. In the final analysis, the court should not merely protect purchasers but should also prevent any attempt to re-open litigation that has been fully litigated or settled amicably.
Chin Kok Woo & Ors v. Sky Park Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 716 [HC]

| |

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Claim by purchasers of units of development against developer and architect of project and owner of land - Allegation of failure to deliver vacant possession and certificate of completion and compliance - Whether claimants' statement of claim disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - Whether abuse of process of court - Whether claim unsustainable - Whether claim should be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (d)

TORT: Unlawful interference - Claim - Claim by purchasers of units of development against architect of project - Allegation of failure to deliver vacant possession and certificate of completion and compliance - Allegation that architect only issued partial certificate of completion and compliance via Form F1 - Whether issuance of Form F1 wrong - Whether architect negligent and guilty of unlawful interference of contract by developer of project - Whether there were damages suffered because of alleged breach of duty by architect

LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Delivery - Claim by purchasers of units of development against developer and architect of project and owner of land - Allegation of failure to deliver vacant possession and certificate of completion and compliance - Whether vacant possession not delivered as alleged by purchasers - Parties entered into settlement agreements - Whether settlement agreements binding on parties - Whether purchasers barred from making further claims relating to late delivery of units

MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Ranjan Chandran & Nandhini Devi Nagaindran; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Justin Voon, Alvin Lai & Lin Pei Sin Peg; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
  • For the 3rd defendant - Tabian Tahir & Nabila Jamaludin; M/s Ho-Noecker & Pragasam

Pursuant to the self-assessment regime of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA'), a taxpayer is obliged, under s. 77A of the ITA, to submit the correct amount of income received in the tax returns furnished to the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') for every year of assessment. Upon the taxpayer's wilful default in not reporting disposal of land within the statutory period under the ITA, the DGIR is empowered to make assessment after a six-year limitation period.
Idaman Pelita Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] 4 CLJ 744 [HC]

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Assessment - Appeal against decision of Special Commissioners of Income Tax - Whether Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') correct in raising notice of assessment - Whether taxpayer failed to declare income received under agreement within statutory period of six-years - Whether agreement was joint venture agreement - Whether wilful default in failing to declare income - Whether DGIR correct in making assessment after six-year limitation period - Whether imposition of penalty justified - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 91(3), 113(1) & (2)

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Appeal against decision of SCIT - Hearing pursuant to Schedule 5 of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether provisions relating to the examination of witnesses applies to hearings before SCIT - Whether SCIT has power to summon or not to summon any witness - Whether SCIT has discretion to admit or reject evidence adduced - Whether power subject to sub-s. 142(5) of ITA

 

 

FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

  • For the taxpayer - DP Naban, Saravana Kumar & Jason Tan Jia Xin; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
  • For the DGIR - Ashrina Ramzan Ali, Wan Hamdanie Wan Muhamad & Marrianna Zainol; Senior Revenue Counsels

The Malaysian Federal Constitution, unlike the Constitution in other countries, is written and requires strict compliance of the provisions contained therein. In the absence of any provision spelling out for compensation in the event of a violation of constitutional rights, any attempt by the courts in awarding such compensation under the Federal Constitution is tantamount to unauthorised judicial legislation and constitutes a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers; it follows that the claim for compensation pursuant to art. 5 of the Federal Constitution by the dependants of the deceased who died in police custody in this case must, of necessity, fail.
Kaliamah Rajan & Ors v. Supritendan Wooi Kooi Cheang, Ketua Polis Daerah Tampin, Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 789 [HC]

| |

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Res judicata - Damages due to death in police custody - Claim by dependants of deceased under art. 5 of Federal Constitution for compensation for violation of constitutional right - Earlier suit dismissed pursuant to s. 2 of Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Whether issues raised similar to issues in earlier suit - Whether issues already determined and decided in earlier suit - Whether claim barred by principle of res judicata

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitutional rights - Personal liberty - Damages due to death in police custody - Claim by dependants of deceased under art. 5 of Federal Constitution ('FC') for compensation for violation of constitutional right - Whether remedy provided under FC - Whether action within confines of ss. 7 and 8 of Civil Law Act 1956 and s. 2 of Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Whether to allow application would tantamount to unauthorised judicial legislation - Whether dependants established relevancy of claim to violation of rights

LIMITATION: Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 ('PAPA') - Claim against public authority - Death in police custody - Claim by dependants of deceased under art. 5 of Federal Constitution for compensation for violation of constitutional right - Whether claim bound by PAPA - Whether claim barred by 36-months limitation

JOHN LEE KIEN HOW JC

  • For the plaintiffs - Gopal Sri Ram, Manoharan Tevadasin, Mathan Raj Subramanian & Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse; M/s Ong & Partners
  • For the defendants - Nur Fauzani & Raja Zaizul Faridah; SFCs & Afiq Zainal; FC

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND LEGAL PROTECTION OF HANDICRAFTS AS A FORM OF CULTURAL HERITAGE WITH A FOCUS ON INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS – A CASE STUDY ON THE PUA KUMBU [Read excerpt]
    by Saradha Lakshmi Hariharan* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lv

    2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) lv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND LEGAL PROTECTION OF HANDICRAFTS AS A FORM OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
    WITH A FOCUS ON INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS –
    A CASE STUDY ON THE PUA KUMBU

    by
    Saradha Lakshmi Hariharan*

    ABSTRACT

    Indigenous communities often pride themselves on their artistic handicrafts that come in various forms and are usually unique to the communities themselves. These handicrafts are part of their traditional cultural expressions and demonstrate their knowledge and intellectual inputs that have been passed down through many generations. Since specific tribal communities are producing special, innovative, and distinctive handicrafts, these should logically and ideally be protected as geographical indications (GIs) and allow them to reap the benefits. However, due to some uncertainties and since the international jurisprudence on GI is still in the development stage, the position on GIs has not been extended to handicrafts per se in Malaysia. Taking the Pua Kumbu handicraft weave as a case study, this study, using legal research methodology, has explored the different intellectual property mechanisms in place to accord protection to traditional cultural expressions. By examining the provisions of international legal instruments and best practices from other countries such as Indonesia and New Zealand, this study proposes suggestions for a sui generis regime that can be incorporated and modified to suit the Malaysian landscape, thus offering some options and avenues of thoughts for the policymakers to create a comprehensive protection system for traditional cultural expressions in the country.

    . . .

    *Final Year LLB (Hons) student, University of Malaya. Contact email: saradhalakshmi16@gmail.com. This paper is a revised version of research conducted as a part of the Undergraduate Research Project Paper at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya and was reviewed and endorsed by Dr. Mohammad Ershadul Karim, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. Contact email: ershadulkarim@um.edu.my.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

  2. PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS AND PRIVACY: PRIVACY-BY DESIGN AS THE PATH FORWARD [Read excerpt]
    by Dalilah Khanapiah[i]Nik Aqil Baig Baig Mughal[ii]Puteri Sarah Kaiyisah Megat Suhaimiiii]Wan Muhammad Syahmi Wan Muhammad[iv]Nurus Sakinatul Fikriah Mohd Shith Putera[v] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lvi

    3. [2022] 1 LNS(A) lvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS AND PRIVACY: PRIVACY-BY DESIGN AS THE PATH FORWARD

    by
    Dalilah Khanapiah[i]
    Nik Aqil Baig Baig Mughal[ii]
    Puteri Sarah Kaiyisah Megat Suhaimiiii]
    Wan Muhammad Syahmi Wan Muhammad[iv]
    Nurus Sakinatul Fikriah Mohd Shith Putera[v]

    ABSTRACT

    The eCommerce industry is dramatically growing significantly, with revenues reaching new highs. As the industry blooms, concerns about the impacts concerning consumers' privacy have gradually increased due to the integration of the Predictive Analytics (PA) technology — a branch of advanced analytics that uses historical data, statistical modelling, data mining tools, and machine learning to produce predictions about future outcomes. In a fiercely competitive eCommerce environment, PA is the answer for businesses finding the way to their target market. The use of PA is profound that in addition to all the positive business possibilities, there are just as many new privacy concerns being created, such as privacy breaches, price discrimination, customer segmentation and many more. Adopting the doctrinal research methodology, this research investigates the legal risks of PA and the threshold of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 ('PDPA') in addressing them. Comparatively, this research examines the application and strength of the privacy-by-design ('PbD') model adopted by the European General Data Protection Regulation ('GDPR') as part of the new data protection construct requirements for advanced technologies. This research hopes to shed light on the interaction between PA and the traditional data protection regime of the PDPA, thus providing a case for the privacy-by-design model as a way forward in Malaysia.

    . . .

    [i]—[iv] Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam.

    [v] Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

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 A1651 Employment (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 265
ACT A1650 Supplementary Supply (2021) Act 2022 11 May 2022  
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

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 153/2022 Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Disclosure Requirements For Trust Accounts and Joint Accounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 10 May 2022 1 July 2022 PU(A) 418/2012
PU(A) 152/2022 Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022 9 May 2022 1 July 2022 PU(A) 493/1991
PU(A) 151/2022 Employees Provident Fund (Modification To The Purposes For Withdrawal Under Subsection 54(6)) Order 2022 9 May 2022 1 July 2022 ACT 452
PU(A) 150/2022 Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (Exemption of Levy) (No. 2) Order 2022 29 April 2022 1 July 2021 to 31 August 2021 ACT 612
PU(A) 149/2022 Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (Exemption of Levy) Order 2022 29 April 2022 1 June 2021 to 30 June 2021 ACT 612

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 262/2022 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 1261 Town Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 11 May 2022 12 May 2022 ACT 828
PU(B) 261/2022 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 44437 Mukim Petaling, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 11 May 2022 12 May 2022 ACT 828
PU(B) 260/2022 Appointment of Member of Pardons Board 29 April 2022 27 May 2022 until 26 May 2025 ACT 000
PU(B) 259/2022 Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 29 April 2022 1 May 2022 to 31 May 2022 ACT 235
PU(B) 258/2022 List of Licensees 29 April 2022 30 April 2022 ACT 731

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 452 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 PU(A) 151/2022 1 Julai 2022 Seksyen 54
ACT 452 Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 PU(A) 151/2022 1 July 2022 Section 54
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

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

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here