CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
SATHYA VELLO v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 659
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(M)-10-01-2020(B)]
21 APRIL 2022
Once custody and control of the offensive drugs is proved, the trial judge in a drug trafficking case is left with no discretion not to invoke the presumption under s. 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA), whereupon the onus of proof shifts to the accused to show, on the balance of probabilities, that he had no knowledge of the drugs and of the nature of the drugs; if the accused could prove, in rebuttal of the presumption, that he had no knowledge of the drugs on both counts, he would be acquitted outright of the trafficking charge despite being in physical possession of the drugs. On the contrary, any failure on the part of the accused to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s. 37(d) must mean that the presumed knowledge of the presence of the drugs and of the nature of the drugs became actual proof of the facts presumed; it became the truth that the appellant knew not only of the presence of the drugs but also that they were dangerous drugs. Notwithstanding, the trial judge, after having found the accused to have failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s. 37(d), is next compelled to invoke the further step of considering whether the accused's act of knowingly carrying or transporting the drugs was for the purpose of trafficking. The trial judge would have committed a serious error of law if he had proceeded to convict the accused without going through this separate exercise. It also goes that, for this separate exercise, the correct standard of proof to apply is the lighter evidential burden of casting a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, and not the heavier burden of proving on the balance of probabilities, which is the standard required to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Dangerous drugs - Accused person called to enter defence upon prove of prima facie case at end of prosecution case - Whether court followed procedure under s. 180 of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether accused to be informed reasons why defence called - Whether establishment of prima facie case obvious - Failure to state whether any presumption of law applies against accused person - Whether ipso facto rendered decision to call for defence flawed
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Trial judge invoked presumption under s. 37(d) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Accused person proven to have knowledge of presence of drugs in large amount in his custody and control - Whether presumption correctly invoked - Whether defence correctly called - Whether judge's failure to inform whether defence called on presumed trafficking or direct trafficking caused prejudice - Whether proffered plausible explanation for carrying of large amount of drugs - Whether blanket denial of knowledge of drugs - Whether burden of proof discharged - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 37(d) & (da) - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 180 & 182A
NURINAH ALIP & ANOR v. EDWIND ES BANTING & ANOR [2022] 5 CLJ 740
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK, KOTA KINABALU
AMELATI PARNELL JC
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: BKI-12B-3-11-2020]
04 OCTOBER 2021
Sogit kampung and sogit mangsa, as an adat of the Kadazandusun of Penampang, are meant to appease the family of the victims in a misadventure or misfortune, and its parameters must remain finite as such and not be unnecessarily extended or magnified. It follows that for the appellants pedestrians herein, the fact that they have accepted and retained sogit kampung monies from the respondents after being hit by a vehicle driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent, were not restrained by law from filing an action claiming for damages against the latter. Conversely, for the respondents, payment of such monies cannot amount to 'accord and satisfaction' and cannot by itself discharge them from further liability.
ROAD TRAFFIC: Accident - Claim - Liability - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Driver lost control of vehicle and ran onto pedestrians standing at roadside - Victims accepted 'sogit kampung' and 'sogit mangsa' - Adat or customary of Kadazandusun of Penampang - Whether intention of all parties that accident to be settled amicably between parties through payments of 'sogit' - Whether initial cash payments for medical expenses/treatments received and retained by victims showed intentions and agreements to discharge driver from further liability - Whether victims estopped from pursuing legal action
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Sa'adiah Ahmad & Ors v. So'mad Ahmad & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 1641 affirming the High Court case of So'mad Ahmad & Ors v. Sa'adiah Ahmad & Ors [Suit No: PA-22NCVC-61-03/2017]
-
Suaib Thandi v. PP [2021] 1 LNS 2228 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Suaib Thandi & Anor [Perbicaraan Jenayah No. 45B-04-03/2017]
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 488
|
DELEUM PRIMERA SDN BHD v. MAZRIN RAMLI & ORS
Whilst a litigant is entitled to apply to recuse a judge, such application must only be made after considering the harm it may inflict on the integrity of the judiciary and the administration of justice. A judge's discretionary exercise in allowing the use of an unaffirmed affidavit in an ex parte application and directing counsel to look at several case laws that were not stated in the submissions for the purpose of addressing issues does not imply that the judge has been brought into the arena of dispute and has acted in a manner to give rise to a real danger of bias that would warrant recusal.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judge - Application to recuse judge - Oral application by defendant - Allegation that plaintiff's counsel has dragged court into arena of dispute - Dispute arose as to leave of court allowing usage of unaffirmed affidavit during ex parte virtual hearing - Judge directed plaintiff's counsel to look into several case laws which were not stated in plaintiff's submission - Whether there were any substantive basis or cogent evidence to support defendants' claim of a real danger of bias to merit recusal of judge from hearing case - Whether decision to proceed with ex parte application on ex parte basis warrant recusal application - Whether defendants were entitled to recusal based on flimsiest pretext of bias
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Admissibility - Unaffirmed affidavit - Use of unaffirmed affidavit in ex parte application during Covid-19 pandemic - Application on urgency - Commissioner for oath unavailable to affirm affidavit - Counsel undertook to regularise cause papers - Whether it was practical to have affidavits affirmed prior to hearing - Whether court has discretionary power to use unaffirmed affidavit - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 2 r. 1(2) & O. 41 r. 9(2)
- For the plaintiff - Lim Chee Wee, Nathalie Ker, Kelvin Seah Khye Jie, Chua Yi Xin & Michelle Yeoh; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
- For the 1st to 4th defendants - Haniff Khatri & Nurul Huda Razali; M/s Haniff Khatri
- For the 5th and 6th defendants - Mohd Zaharudeen Harun & Adi Hazlan Mawardi; M/s Nik Saghir & Ismail
- For the 7th defendant - Azmeer Saad; M/s Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli
- For the 8th defendant - Nur Izzaida Zamani & Irna Shahana Samsudin; M/s CK Ling Izzaida & Irna
- For the 9th defendant - Loh Choy Luey; M/s Chua Partnership
- For the 10th defendant - Idi Amin; M/s Suzi Maszalina & Associates
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 489
|
CHIEW YEN LEONG v. AUTOMATA SYSTEMS SDN BHD & ANOR
In an application for minority oppression under s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016, there must be facts for which the court can objectively conclude that the majority shareholder's conduct is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the minority shareholder's interest as a member of the company in the sense that there is a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and violations of the conditions of fair play which a shareholder is entitled to expect. The burden is on the aggrieved minority shareholder to adduce evidence to establish facts and circumstances that allow the court to conclude that the majority shareholder's conduct is unfairly oppressive or prejudicial to the former's interest as a member of the company.
COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Oppression of minority - Relief - Allegation of mismanagement of account of company - Whether affairs of company were being conducted in a manner oppressive to minority shareholder - Whether there was visible departure from standards of fair dealing and violations of conditions of fair play which a shareholder was entitled to expect - Whether there was any evidence to establish a case against majority shareholder for oppressive conduct or unfairly prejudicial conduct or unfairly discriminatory to interest of a member of company - Companies Act 2016, s. 346
- For the plaintiff - Chan Wai Ling; M/s W L Chan & Associates
- For the defendants - Lawrence Thien & Valerie Lim; M/s Chau & Thien
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2093
|
AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION lwn. LONELY PLANET INN SDN BHD
Pihak-pihak dalam suatu tuntutan berhak meminda pliding masing-masing pada mana-mana peringkat prosiding sekiranya permohonan pindaan adalah bersifat bona fide dan dibuat tanpa kelewatan. Suatu pindaan yang dicadangkan untuk menjelaskan isu kes dan juga berkaitan dengan pengiraan caj-caj dan caruman wajar dibenarkan. Walau bagaimanapun, pindaan tersebut hendaklah dibuktikan semasa perbicaraan penuh.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Pindaan - Kebenaran untuk meminda pembelaan - Pemohonan dibuat sebelum perbicaraan - Pindaan yang dicadangkan menjelaskan isu kes dan pengiraan caj-caj dan caruman - Sama ada mahkamah boleh membenarkan defendan untuk meminda pembelaan pada mana-mana peringkat prosiding - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan yang tidak munasabah dalam permohonan - Sama ada terdapat penjelasan yang munasabah dan meyakinkan terhadap kelewatan defendan dalam memfailkan permohonan pindaan - Sama ada pindaan yang dicadangkan bersifat bona fide - Sama ada cadangan pindaan bertentangan dengan pembelaan asal defendan - Sama ada pindaan yang dicadangkan perlu dibuktikan semasa perbicaraan penuh - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 20 k. 5
- Bagi pihak perayu/plaintif - T/n Chambers of Firdaus
- Bagi pihak responden/defendan - T/n Alvin John & Partners
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1324
|
PP lwn. ISMAIL AHMAD
Dalam memberi pertimbangan terhadap jangka masa tempoh pemenjaraan bagi pertuduhan pilihan yang telah diakui bersalah oleh tertuduh, hakim bicara perlu memperingati diri tentang kesalahan yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh dalam pertuduhan asal.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Pengakuan salah - Pengakuan salah selepas tertuduh ditawarkan dengan pertuduhan pilihan - Kesalahan penyalahgunaan dadah - Pertimbangan jangka masa tempoh pemenjaraan - Sama ada kesalahan dalam pertuduhan asal yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh wajar diberi pertimbangan - Sama ada jenis kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh, sebab kesalahan dilakukan dan latar belakang tertuduh semasa kesalahan dilakukan wajar dipertimbangkan - Sama ada trend hukuman semasa yang diberikan harus diteliti dan dijadikan pedoman dalam menentukan jumlah hukuman pemenjaraan yang sesuai - Sama ada berat sesuatu hukuman ditentukan oleh berat dan jenis dadah
- Bagi pihak responden - Timbalan Pendakwaraya Negeri Terengganu; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu
- Bagi pihak tertuduh - Ismail Ahmad
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1328
|
PSM ACADEMY (M) SDN BHD & YANG LAIN lwn. GANDA SEMANGAT (ASIA) SDN BHD
Sebarang bentuk promosi untuk tujuan pemasaran yang dibuat sama ada secara fizikal atau bersifat maya di mana-mana jua adalah tidak dihalang oleh undang-undang. Sesuatu promosi untuk tujuan pemasaran perniagaan yang dijalankan berdekatan dengan premis jenis perniagaan yang sama tidak terjumlah kepada sabotaj perniagaan.
TORT: Campur tangan salah - Perniagaan - Sabotaj perniagaan - Plaintif dan defendan menjalankan perniagaan yang sama - Perniagaan institut latihan memandu - Defendan melakukan aktiviti mempromosi perniagaan berdekatan premis plaintif dengan menggantung kain rentang dan membuka kaunter pendaftaran secara bergerak - Sama ada setiap institut latihan memandu dibenarkan membuat promosi bertujuan memasarkan perniagaan masing-masing di mana-mana sahaja - Sama ada tuduhan bahawa defendan telah membuat promosi bertujuan mensabotaj perniagaan adalah berasas - Sama ada defendan telah mempromosikan perniagaan mereka bercanggah dengan k. 9 Kaedah-Kaedah Kenderaan Motor (Sekolah Memandu) 1992
- Bagi pihak perayu/defendan pertama dan keempat - T/n Kamarul Arifin & Co
- Bagi pihak perayu/defendan kedua dan ketiga - T/n Syukri, Zamri & Azran
- Bagi pihak responden/plaintif - T/n Nordin Kassim & Aziz
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 4)
The defence of fair comment revolves around comments or inferences honestly made and based on certain existing substratum of facts that are truly stated. The comment must identify at least in general terms the matters on which it is based. As so aptly attested by the facts and circumstances of the present case, the primary reasoning for the defence leverages on the desirability of affirming one's entitlement to freely express a view about a matter of public interest. Based on the evidence, the conclusion reached by the respondent that public funds had been misused is an opinion and inference that a fair-minded person would have honestly made in the circumstances; the respondent having not been motivated by malice, the defence of fair comment must avail him.
Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor v. Mohd Rafizi Ramli [2022] 5 CLJ 487 [FC]
TORT
TORT: Defamation - Defence - Fair comment - Whether impugned statement opinion and inferences made from facts - Whether based on certain existing substratum of facts truly stated - Whether words complained of were comment - Whether comment matter of public interest - Whether comment was one which a fair minded person can make on facts proved - Whether there was proof of malice - Whether maker of impugned statement liable for damages for defamation
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
- For the appellants - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Sarah Abishegam & Noor Farhah Mustaffa; M/s Shafee & Co
- For the respondent - Razlan Hadri, Ranjit Singh, Ng Siau Sun & Tee Yee Man; M/s Sun & Michele
Parliament's legislative power to enact laws with respect to 'medicine and health' includes the power to legislate on Islamic medicine and Malay traditional medicine. Both matters have a rational connection to the subject of 'medicine and health'. Hence, it is well within the realm of the Legislature's power of Parliament to enact the Traditional and Complementary Medicine Act 2016 in respect of Islamic medicine and Malay traditional medicine.
Ramli Ghani v. Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 518 [FC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Parliament - Powers and competency - Whether Parliament had powers and/or competency to enact provisions that regulates matters relating to Islamic medicine and Malay traditional medicine in Traditional and Complementary Medicine Act 2016 ('Act') - Whether provisions under Act on Islamic medicine and Malay traditional medicine valid - Whether Act ought to be passed with consent of Conference of Rulers - Doctrine of substance and pith
- For the appellant - Shaharudin Ali, Putri Aisyah Zahirah Zakriya & Muhammad Amir Haiqal Mohamad Adnan; M/s Shaharudinali Azfarazmi & Co
- For the respondents - Shamsul Bolhassan & Masriwani Mahmud; AG's Chambers
The term 'adjudicated amount' in s. 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') does not include interests and costs. If interests and costs were intended to be included within the meaning of 'adjudicated amount' in sub-ss. 30(1) and (3) of the CIPAA, express words to that effect would have been inserted in the subsections as the terms 'interest' and 'costs' were used in the other parts of the CIPAA.
Bond M&E Sdn Bhd v. PALI PTP Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 543 [HC]
CONSTRUCTION LAW | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION | WORDS AND PHRASES
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication decision - Application - Application by nominated sub-contractor - Adjudication decision in favour of sub-contractor against main contractor - Order for principal contractor to pay directly to sub-contractor amounts due and owing to sub-contractor by main contractor - Whether there was money due or payable by principal contractor to main contractor - Whether term 'adjudicated amount' includes interest and costs - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss. 30 and 31 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 5, O. 7, O. 28, O. 69A and/or O. 92 ss. 4
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'adjudicated amount' - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 30 - Whether 'adjudicated amount' includes interest and costs
WORDS AND PHRASES: 'adjudicated amount' - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 30 - Whether 'adjudicated amount' includes interest and costs
- For the plaintiff - Deepak Mahadevan & Faeza Suraya Roselan; M/s Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim
- For the defendant - Sivabalan Sankaran & Tharmini Paramasivan; M/s Tan Swee Im, Siva & Partners
It is incumbent upon an applicant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an alleged contemnor had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed a court order. A court order will not be enforced by committal if its terms are vague or ambiguous. Any ambiguity and uncertainty must be resolved in favour of the alleged contemnor.
George Pathmanathan Michael Gandhi Nathan v. Portcullis International Ltd & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 563 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Application for - Payment of retained profits in company - Refusal to certify profits available for dividend distribution - Applicants obtained order to uplift and pay out sum held in deposit pursuant to consent order - Application to commit alleged contemnor to prison for contempt of court for alleged failure to comply with order - Whether alleged contemnor wilfully or deliberately disobeyed court order - Whether applicants proved beyond reasonable doubt that alleged contemnor committed contempt - Rules of Court 2012, O. 52 ss. 6(3)
- For the petitioner - Suaran Singh; M/s Law Partnership
- For the respondents - Anantha Krishnan; M/s Anantha Krishnan
The law does not put a strict liability on the owner and principal of day-care centres and kindergartens. Although there exists a duty of care towards the children, such duty of care must commensurate with their opportunity and ability to protect the minors from dangers that are known or that should be apprehended. This duty is not one to insure against injury but to take reasonable care to prevent it.
Masniah Abidin & Anor v. Safirah Jaan Jaafar [2022] 5 CLJ 582 [HC]
TORT | EVIDENCE
TORT: Negligence - Claim - Claim by mother against kindergarten/day-care and owner/principal - Allegations that child sexually molested - Child/alleged victim not called to testify - Whether non-calling of child detrimental to claimant's case - Whether injury/incident had been proven - Whether injury/incident reasonably foreseeable - Whether kindergarten/day-care and owner/principal took reasonable steps to protect child/alleged victim against risks
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Non-calling of material witness - Claim by mother against kindergarten/day-care and owner/principal - Allegations that child sexually molested - Child/alleged victim not called to testify - Whether non-calling of child detrimental to claimant's case - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
- For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Hamid Ismail; M/s Hamid & Co
- For the respondent - Farazwin Haxdy; M/s Farazwin Haxdy & Assocs
The customer's claim against the bank for unlawfully disclosing and providing copies of its bank statements to a third party without its consent or authority cannot possibly succeed as the bank statements are crucial for the ongoing suit in court. The protection, confidentiality and secrecy accorded to the customer by the Financial Services Act 2013, the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 and the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 must be balanced with the court's interest to have before it all the relevant facts and information as would assist it to come to a just, well-informed and well-reasoned decision. The bank's duty of secrecy owed to the customer having been outweighed by the requirements of the Evidence Act 1950, the bank is legally obliged to disclose the relevant statements to the court.
My Home Budget Hotel Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 604 [HC]
BANKING
BANKING: Banker and customer - Production of customer's bank accounts - Production by bank of customer's bank accounts during course of trial of suit - Bank served with subpoena to address question as to whether customer's account had sufficient funds - Whether bank wrongfully disclosed and provided customer's bank statements to third party without consent - Whether there was breach of relevant legislations - Whether bank complied with procedure prescribed by law to produce customer's account statements as documentary evidence - Whether there was breach of fiduciary duty - Failure to call material witness - Whether adverse inference invoked under s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether bank's duty of secrecy outweighed by requirements of s. 132 of Evidence Act 1950 - Financial Services Act 2013, s. 133 - Personal Data Protection Act 2010, s. 7 - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949, s. 6
- For the plaintiff - Sri Dev Nair & Isweljet Singh; M/s Iswel Dhillon & Co
- For the defendant - Yoong Sin Min & Heng Chia Leng; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
SPECIAL REPORT
Apa jua komen yang dibuat mengenai Mahkamah Syariah dan sistem keadilannya hendaklah bersifat adil dan berdasarkan kebenaran fakta, dan sama sekali tidak boleh mencemar nama baik, reputasi, maruah atau martabat Mahkamah Syariah. Menulis artikel dan menuduh bahawa keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Syariah dalam satu perbicaraan adalah 'a disgrace to the judicial system' dan sebagainya adalah bersifat menghina; ia boleh menjerumuskan si pelakunya kepada satu tindakan pengkomitan.
SM Faisal SM Nasimuddin lwn. Maria Chin Abdullah [2022] 5 CLJ 634 [HC Sya]
MAHKAMAH
MAHKAMAH: Menghina mahkamah - Perintah pengkomitan - Ahli Parlimen - Mendakwa Mahkamah Syariah mendiskriminasi Wanita Muslim, membiar mereka tidak terbela dan tidak bertindak terhadap bapa-bapa yang tidak membayar nafkah anak - Sama ada bersifat menghina - Sama ada salah nyataan dan tidak berdasarkan fakta sebenar - Sama ada menjejaskan reputasi dan martabat Mahkamah Syariah - Sama ada mewajarkan perintah pengkomitan - Akta Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syariah (Wilayah-wilayah Persekutuan) 1998, s. 229(3)
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Akberdin Hj Abdul Kader, Hj Mohd Rafie Mohd Shafie, Hj Sulaiman Abdullah & Ummi Kartini Abd Latiff
- Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Hafizal Hj Parcho, Zeti Zulfah Hassan & Rosli Dahlan
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT, 2020 [Read excerpt]
by P.A.N. Ahiarammunnah[i]G. Ibekwe[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxiii
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxiii
NIGERIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT, 2020
by
P.A.N. Ahiarammunnah[i]
G. Ibekwe[ii]
ABSTRACT
A limited partnership which has been in existence for years in other climes was eventually introduced in Nigeria as one of the business entities by the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 ('the Act'). This is in response to the desire of many businessmen for years to transact business within the country via a cheaper, easier and less formal structure than a company. Limited partnerships are required to be registered under the Act before beginning business, and the Act contains provisions for managing and dissolving limited partnerships. Specific provisions of the Partnership Act 1890 were modified by the Act, like the introduction of a new partner by a partner without the consent of existing partners and notice by a partner to other partners; death, bankruptcy or lunacy not being grounds for winding up of a limited partnership, among others. The Act also provides for the adoption of the provisions of the Partnership Act of 1890 to fill in certain gaps/lacuna in respect of a limited partnership, provided they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act in this aspect. This paper examined the entire provisions of the Act on a limited partnership like the returns limited partnership makes to the Corporate Affairs Commission ('the Commission'), books the Commission and the limited partnership keep, among others and came to the view that the drafters did an excellent job though there is room for improvement. This paper aims to determine the adequacy of the provisions of the Act in respect of limited partnership and make some recommendations, such as the amendment of the Act to adequately provide for voluntary winding up of limited partnership by the partners.
. . .
BOLAM VS WHITAKER VS MONTGOMERY AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT: IS UNIVERSITY CUM COURT ANNEXED ARBITRATION A GOOD OPTION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND ROAD ACCIDENT DISPUTES? [Read excerpt]
by Prof. Datuk Dr. Hj. Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxiv
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxiv
MALAYSIA
BOLAM VS WHITAKER VS MONTGOMERY AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT:
IS UNIVERSITY CUM COURT ANNEXED ARBITRATION A GOOD OPTION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND ROAD ACCIDENT DISPUTES?
by
Prof. Datuk Dr. Hj. Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer*
ABSTRACT[1]
This paper will profess that medical negligence principles and cases on liability and quantum are seen as evolutionary jurisprudence in most Commonwealth jurisdictions.[2] It has been reduced to judge-made law in the absence of appropriate legislative safeguards for the medical care profession, patients, insurance companies, as well as the general public to ensure that the compensation is fair and reasonable and does not unreasonably increase the cost of medical care.[3] The case of Bolam, Bolitho, Montgomery, Rogers, Naxakis, Dr Khoo, Hii, and Foo are landmark decisions in medical negligence but, interestingly not applicable in all jurisdictions but may become applicable by decisions of the court of the State; hence the medical professionals need to understand the scope of responsibility to their patients. There is now an urgent need to legislate to protect both the healthcare profession and the patient, as well as to provide a statutory formula for arbitration at an affordable cost, with healthcare professionals, lawyers, and other professionals sitting on the arbitration tribunal.[4]
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 705 |
Akta Perkhidmatan Kewangan Dan Sekuriti Islam Labuan 2010 |
AKTA A1655 |
1 Januari 2019 |
Seksyen 13, 76 dan 90 |
| ACT 705 |
Labuan Islamic Financial Services and Securities Act 2010 |
ACT A1655 |
1 January 2019 |
Section 13, 76 and 90 |
| ACT 704 |
Akta Perkhidmatan Kewangan Dan Sekuriti Labuan 2010 |
AKTA A1654 |
1 Januari 2019 |
Seksyen 8, 101 dan 114 |
| ACT 704 |
Labuan Financial Services and Securities Act 2010 |
ACT A1654 |
1 January 2019 |
Section 8, 101 and 114 |
| AKTA 441 |
Akta Syarikat Labuan 1990 |
AKTA A1653 |
10 Jun 2022 kecuali subseksyen 4(b); 1 Januari 2019 - Subseksyen 4(b) |
Sections 2,7, 8, 9A, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26, 46A, 53, 54, 55, 58, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 80, 83, 84, 84A, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 94A, 105, 108A, 108B, 108C, 108D, 108E, 108F, 108G, 108H, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 120, 123, 127, 130, 130T, 131, 132, 132, 142, 142A, 151, 151BA, 155BB, 151C, 151D, 151E, 152 dan 153 |
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 |
|
