CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
LIM LIP ENG v. ONG KA CHUAN [2022] 5 CLJ 847
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-25-03-2020(W)]
27 APRIL 2022
A political party such as the MCA in this appeal has no cause of action in defamation. Political parties, as registered societies, have no existence of their own separate from their members and are dependent on their members to sue or be sued; consequently, they do not have the requisite reputation to complain of or to be protected within the spheres of the law of defamation. It is also not right nor is it in the public interest to put the public in fear of a defamation suit by a political party; a political party must not be thin-skinned and must always be open to public criticism.
TORT: Defamation - Claim - Action filed by political party against individual - Defamatory statement allegedly issued by member of Parliament - Whether political party could maintain suit for defamation - Whether political party had requisite reputation which law of defamation intends to protect - Whether political party legal entity which could sue or be sued in own name - Whether political party had locus standi to file defamation suit
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Action filed by political party against individual - Defamatory statement allegedly issued by member of Parliament - Whether political party could maintain suit for defamation - Whether action ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d)
WANG KANG XIANG v. HEE CHAI HUI [2022] 5 CLJ 983
HIGH COURT MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
AHMAD MURAD ABDUL AZIZ JC
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: JA-12BNCVC-16-12-2020]
10 APRIL 2022
The award of RM150,000 as general damages and RM100,000 as exemplary damages against the defendant for breach of promise to marry is flawed and needed to be reassessed. The issue of quantum aside, awarding punitive damages in the absence of clear aggravating circumstances or reprehensible conduct on the part of the defendant is unwarranted and uncalled for; the trial court had thus erred in awarding exemplary damages. The award of general damages too had not factored in the defendant's means, or that it could cause the defendant financial ruin, or that it was manifestly disproportionate to his culpability; it ought to be reduced to RM50,000.
CONTRACT: Marriage - Breach - Breach of promise to marry - Relationship irretrievably broken down before date of registration of marriage - Conduct of plaintiff - Whether contributed to defendant's loss of interest in pursuing marriage - Claim for damages - Factors considered - Whether there was evidence of aggravating conduct by defendant - Whether award of exemplary damages without justification - Whether award of general damages excessive and disproportionate to culpability of defendant - Whether award of damages ought to be reduced or set aside
DAMAGES: Quantum - General and exemplary damages - Breach of promise to marry - Factors considered - Financial means - Conduct of plaintiff - Whether contributed to defendant's loss of interest in pursuing marriage - Whether there was evidence of aggravating conduct by defendant - Whether award of exemplary damages without justification - Whether award of general damages excessive and disproportionate to culpability of defendant - Whether award of damages ought to be reduced or set aside
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“The principles on which an appellate court is allowed to receive additional evidence were earlier enunciated in the case of R v. Parks [1961] 3 All ER 633 (“R v. Parks”), which was later approved by the House of Lords in the case of R v. Pendleton [2002] 1 WLR 72.
Based on the above-cited cases, the appellant must cumulatively satisfy all the four requirements propounded in R v. Parks and the prerequisite in s. 61 of the CJA that it is necessary for the justice of the case in order to be allowed to adduce the additional evidence. Further, only in the most exceptional circumstances will the court receive additional evidence, and the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the appellate court if necessary in the interest of justice.” – Per Ab Karim Ab Jalil, Has Zanah Mehat, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera JJCA in Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. PP [2022] 4 CLJ 231
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 490
|
CHAI YAU LOOK & ANOR v. YOO HIANG TAH & ORS
Minority shareholders in seeking leave under s. 347 of the Companies Act 2016, to defend on behalf of the company to contest a winding up petition presented against the company, must demonstrate that they have a sufficient good defence with a reasonable prospect of success. Mere desire to investigate based on speculations and assertions of possibilities does not constitute a good defence.
COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Leave - Action taken by minority shareholder to defend on behalf of company against winding up petition presented against company - Allegation that winding up petition was presented by an entity controlled by majority shareholders - Whether court could delve into merits of proposed defence by majority shareholders to winding up petition during leave stage for derivative action - Whether defence proposed by minority shareholders were on mere speculations and possibilities - Whether there was sufficient good defence with reasonable prospect of success established to contest winding up petition - Whether application premised on other collateral purposes - Whether minority shareholders had acted in good faith - Companies Act 2016, ss. 347 & 348(4)(a)
- For the plaintiffs - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Associates
- For the defendants - Teo Chee Kang & Wong Chik Kien; M/s Shelley Yap
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 532
|
BLUEPRINT PLANNING INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD & ANOR v. NG WERN PING & ORS
1. A mandatory interlocutory injunction is granted before the trial in exceptional sporadic cases. The court could grant mandatory interlocutory injunction even if its effect is to wholly grant the applicant the injunctive relief it prays for in the trial. Avoiding a party from being held at ransom during the interim period is a relevant factor to be considered in granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction.
2. A licensed financial planner or financial adviser representative of a particular company cannot work or serve as a licensed financial planner or financial adviser representative of another company until and unless the Bank Negara Malaysia amends or alters its records to reflect the termination or cessation of the services of the said financial planner or financial adviser representative under the said company. A refusal of the letter of confirmation of termination or cessation would cause disproportionate prejudice or hardship to the said financial planner or financial adviser representative, so much so that the prejudicial consequences to the latter include deprivation or severe impairment of their livelihood. In such circumstances, the said licensed financial planner or financial adviser representative is entitled to seek an order of court by way of mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the company to issue the required letters pending disposal of a dispute between them.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Perpetual mandatory injunction - Application by defendants being previous licensed financial planners and advisers representatives of plaintiffs - Plaintiffs refused to issue letter to Bank Negara confirming that defendants have ceased from being financial planners and advisers representatives for plaintiffs - Whether Bank Negara could approve or register defendants as licensed financial planners and advisers representatives without written confirmation from plaintiffs - Whether plaintiffs' refusal have any bearing to their claims against defendants - Whether defendants would be able to establish their rights to get letters of confirmation or release from plaintiffs at trial - Whether refusal of issuance of letters of confirmation or release would cause greater prejudice or hardship to defendants rather than plaintiffs - Whether avoiding a party from being held at ransom during interim period is a relevant factor to be considered in granting mandatory interlocutory injunction
- For the plaintiffs - Thulasi Ramadass; M/s Thulasi Ramadass
- For the defendants - Wong Zhi Khung; M/s Michael Chow
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 533
|
CHONG KIAN YONG & ANOR v. LEE KIM CHENG & ORS
1. To bring an action against an imposter who is a person and whose real identity is not known and still at large, the correct identification of an unknown party in a suit ought to be "Unknown Party" or "John/Jane Doe". Failure to correctly name the imposter in the action could affect the apportionment of liability awarded against the said imposter.
2. Solicitors for an imposter claiming to be an owner of a land but unaware that he was an imposter owe a duty of care to follow the imposter's instructions and protect the imposter's interests. The solicitors cannot take instruction from a third party opposing their client's interest, more so when another set of solicitors legally represents the said third party. It would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to expect the solicitors who acted for the imposter seller in a sale and purchase of land transaction also to protect the third party buyer's interest when that third party buyer's interest was supposed to be guarded by his solicitors.
LAND LAW: Sale of land - Fraud alleged - Fraudulent transaction was orchestrated by an imposter who claimed to be real owner of land - Full purchase price had been paid to imposter - Land was successfully transferred to purchaser upon presentation of memorandum of transfer at land office - Caveat lodged by real owner of land - Action brought by purchaser against imposter, legal firm and its solicitors representing imposter, land administrator, Director of Land and Mines, registrar of titles, State government and officers of land office and actual owner of land - Whether imposter had deceived plaintiffs to enter into sale and purchase agreement - Whether imposter had fraudulently claimed ownership of land
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Proper parties to be sued - Correct identification of an unknown party in a suit - Action against imposter - Real identity of imposter is unknown and still at large - Plaintiffs represented by their solicitors - Whether there was serious flaw in manner plaintiffs have named imposter as defendant in suit - Whether there was duty on part of solicitor to question identity of their own client or client's action to sell land - Whether complaints against solicitors representing imposter were relevant
LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Duty of care - Negligence - Fraudulent land conveyancing - Solicitors acted for fraudster owner who sold land - Firm and solicitors were under impression they were acting for real owner - Whether solicitors owed any duty of care to purchaser - Whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to expect solicitors who acted for imposter seller to also protect interest of purchaser - Whether interest of purchaser ought to have been guarded by his own solicitors - Whether there could be any implied warranty by solicitors for imposter seller that they were acting for real owner
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Statutory duties - Vicarious liability - Action against land administrator, Director of Kand and Mines, registrar of titles, State government for vicarious liability for actions and omissions of officers of land office - Registration of transfer of land based on forged title deed and other invalid documents - Action brought against officers of land office for negligence - Whether it was within scope of responsibility of defendants to ensure that information provided under Form 14A and signatures of transferor and transferee were true - Whether registration of transfer and issuance of new title was effected upon verification through computerized land registration system - Whether counter clerk had means to detect forged title deed from bar code printed on forged title deed
- For the plaintiffs - David Hoh & Cassandra Choo; M/s Lim & Hoh
- For the 2nd to 4th defendants - T Gunaseelan & Simreenjet; M/s Gunaseelan & Associates
- For the 5th to 11th defendants - Husna & Mohd Abd Hakim; Selangor State Legal Counsels
- For the 12th defendant - Andrea Chew; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1637
|
PP lwn. ISMAIL MOHD DON
Walaupun motif tidak menjadi salah satu intipati pertuduhan bagi kesalahan membunuh, namun motif boleh menunjukkan niat perbuatan tertuduh terhadap mangsa.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Tertuduh memukul si mati dengan besi di bahagian belakang kepala - Tertuduh menyerah diri di balai polis - Tertuduh mendakwa tidak mempunyai niat untuk membunuh si mati - Kewujudan saksi mata di tempat kejadian - Sama ada terdapat keterangan langsung dan keterangan ikut keadaan yang menunjukkan tertuduh menyebabkan kecederaan yang membawa kematian kepada si mati - Sama ada sifat kecederaan yang dialami si mati boleh menjadi indikator bagi niat tertuduh untuk membunuh
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Bangkitan marah yang besar dan mengejut - Pertuduhan bunuh - Mangsa mati akibat dipukul oleh tertuduh menggunakan besi di bahagian belakang kepala - Pukulan tunggal - Tertuduh geram dan marah selepas melihat sendiri perbuatan mangsa mencuri tandan pisang di kebun tertuduh - Tertuduh terus membuat kerjanya selepas mencederakan mangsa - Sama ada perbuatan mangsa secara munasabahnya boleh membangkitkan rasa marah pada diri tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh dapat mengawal kemarahannya - Sama ada kejadian berlaku dalam keadaan secara tiba-tiba tanpa perancangan awal - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh tergolong dalam pengecualian bagi kesalahan membunuh
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
- Bagi pihak tertuduh - T/n Mohd Hayyatuddin & Co
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1972
|
SUPREME CODE LAND SDN BHD lwn. EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Seorang pembeli yang bertindak secara suci hati tidak mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk mengetahui polisi dalaman pemaju dalam urusan penjualan sesuatu hartanah. Ia adalah tanggungjawab pemaju untuk memaklumkan kepada semua pembeli tentang kewujudan sebarang polisi atau 'standard operating procedure' yang menentukan jualan sesuatu hartanah.
KONTRAK: Jual beli hartanah - Perjanjian - Penguatkuasaan - Remedi - Tuntutan pembeli terhadap pemaju - Pembeli suci hati - Nama pembeli tidak disenaraikan walaupun harga pembelian telah diselesaikan - Penjualan hartanah yang sama kepada pihak ketiga yang menjadi pembeli bona fide - Perjanjian disediakan oleh peguamcara pemaju - Sama ada perjanjian jual beli adalah sah - Sama ada beban terletak pada pemaju untuk membuktikan sebarang bayaran tidak diterima daripada pembeli - Sama ada pembeli telah mematuhi segala prosedur penjualan - Sama ada pelaksanaan spesifik atau pemberian ganti rugi merupakan remedi yang sesuai
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pemaju perumahan - Tanggungjawab - Penjualan hartanah - Jualan berganda - Penjualan hartanah yang sama kepada pihak ketiga yang menjadi pembeli bona fide - Sama ada pemaju bertanggungan untuk memastikan bahawa perkara jualan berganda tidak berlaku - Sama ada pembeli mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk mengetahui polisi dalaman pemaju dalam urusan penjualan sesuatu hartanah
- Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n Shu Yin, Teh & Taing
- Bagi pihak defendan – T/n Gregory Chan, Tam Moo & Ang
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 5)
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 on 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.
Sathya Vello v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 659 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
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
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Kee Wei Lon; M/s Hisyam Teh
- For the respondent - Aslinda Ahad & Nahra Dollah; DPPs
Terma 'orang berkepentingan' bawah s. 2(1) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 ('APT') adalah luas dan termasuk setiap orang yang mempunyai kepentingan terhadap pampasan yang hendak dibuat kerana pengambilan sesuatu tanah bawah APT. Oleh yang demikian, walaupun suatu pengambilan tanah itu dibuat bagi pihak Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, jika Borang D yang diwartakan menunjukkan dengan jelas nama agensi yang menjadi agensi pembayaran dan bertanggungjawab melaksanakan pembangunan atas tanah yang diambil tersebut, seperti mana yang berlaku dalam kes di sini, maka agensi tersebut, untuk maksud APT, adalah termasuk dalam tafsiran 'orang berkepentingan'. Mengambil kira semua ini, Lembaga Pembangunan Langkawi dalam kes ini adalah 'orang berkepentingan'; maka ia berhak dan mempunyai locus standi untuk membantah jumlah pampasan yang diawardkan oleh Pentadbir Tanah.
Abdul Manab Hussain lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Langkawi & Satu Lagi Kes [2022] 5 CLJ 696 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH | PENTAFSIRAN BERKANUN | PERKATAAN & ISTILAH
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Bantahan terhadap award - 'Pihak berkepentingan' - Sama ada pemohon pihak berkepentingan - Sama ada pemohon berhak membantah pampasan yang diawardkan kepada tuan tanah oleh Pentadbir Tanah - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 38(5) - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 14A k. 1, A. 33 k. 2 & A. 33 k. 5
PENTAFSIRAN BERKANUN: 'Pihak berkepentingan' - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 37 - Sama ada pemohon pihak berkepentingan
PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: 'Pihak berkepentingan' - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 37 - Sama ada pemohon pihak berkepentingan
ARIK SANUSI YEOP JOHARI PK
- Bagi pihak pemohon (tuan tanah) - Victor Paul Dorai Raj; T/n Burhan & Co
- Bagi pihak pemohon (LADA) - Shamshul Jamil; T/n Presgrave & Matthews
- Bagi pihak penentang - Ana Rozana Mohd Nor; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan
Section 580A of the Companies Act 2016 ('CA') empowers the court to order security for costs where there is evidence to suggest that a plaintiff company may be unable to pay its debts to the defendant in the event the defendant successfully defends the claim against it by the plaintiff. When an exempt private company under the CA has failed to pay the judgment debt in a previous suit and is unable to pay the applicant's costs in the event the applicant is successful in its defence in a suit, the court ought to order the company to give security for costs.
Group Components Automotive Sdn Bhd v. Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 716 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Costs - Security for costs - Application for - Preliminary objection - Whether applicant's non-statement of s. 580A of Companies Act 2016 in its notice of application prejudiced court's power to make order for security for costs - Whether applicant in non-compliance with any rules in Rules of Court 2012 - Whether there was substantial miscarriage of justice - Whether preliminary objection ought to be dismissed - Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 2 r. 3 & O. 32 r. 1
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Costs - Security for costs - Application for - Whether company statutorily deemed under Companies Act 2016 to be unable to pay its debts - Whether there was high probability that applicant would not be able to recover costs of its defence from company - Whether court entitled to make order for security for costs - Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) & 580A - Rules of Court 2012, O. 2 r. 3 & O. 32 r. 1
- For the plaintiff - Lavendran Masilamany & Esther Tamil Chelevam; M/s Peter Chambers
- For the defendant - K Shanti Mogan & Hee Hui Ting; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
When the dominant element of the workers' work functions was proven to be mental effort by using their mind and intellect, and physical effort was only ancillary to the mental component of their work, the workers could not be said to be engaged in manual labour, making them unable to claim for overtime pay.
Md Zaini Abdullah & Ors v. Panasonic Automotive Systems [2022] 5 CLJ 727 [HC]
LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Overtime payment - Claim for - Whether claimants engaged in manual labour - Whether claimants' work functions executive and managerial in nature requiring high level of intellectual thinking - Whether dominant element of claimants' work mental effort - Whether physical effort ancillary to mental component of work - Whether Labour Office's decision to dismiss claimants' overtime claims 'plainly wrong' - Whether claimants entitled to overtime pay
- For the appellant - Palaniappan Ramasamy; M/s Palani
- For the respondent - Eric Cheah Woon Leng; M/s Hong Cheah & Co
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.
Nurinah Alip & Anor v. Edwind ES Banting & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 740 [HC]
ROAD TRAFFIC
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
- For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Michael Denis Tan; M/s Michael Denis Tan & Co
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Sa'adah A Aziz; M/s Lee & Aziz, Advocs
(i) The action by the chargor challenging the validity of the order for sale obtained by the bank upon default in payment by the chargor is bound to fail; not only did the chargor fail to establish any 'cause to the contrary' but that the successful bidder, having satisfied all the requirements and having his name registered in the title of the property, had obtained an indefeasible title to the property; (ii) An undischarged bankrupt is incompetent to commence any proceedings in court without the prior sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, the rationale being to protect the interest of the creditors.
Rames Palaniandy v. Malayan Banking Bhd & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 768 [HC]
LAND LAW:
LAND LAW: Sale of land - Auction - Challenge against order for sale - Property auctioned by bank upon default in payments by chargors - Whether order for sale obtained in compliance with s. 263 of National Land Code ('NLC') - Whether bankrupt chargor obtained sanction of Director General of Insolvency before commencing proceedings - Whether 'cause to the contrary' under s. 256(3) of NLC shown - Whether registration of successful bidder's name in title formed conclusive evidence of proprietorship - Whether successful bidder a bona fide purchaser - Whether obtained indefeasible title
- For the plaintiff - Gobinath Mohanna; M/s The Law Office of Mohanna & Co
- For the 1st defendant - Huzir Shamsul Bahrin; M/s Azam, Baba & Aqmar
- For the 2nd defendant - Tan Chin Seng; M/s KY Sim & Co
Award yang diberi dalam kes ini - antara lain RM100,000 untuk kesakitan dan penderitaan, RM100,000 untuk estet si mati, RM100,000 untuk ganti rugi misfeasans dalam jawatan (bagi kematian si mati-si mati di tangan defendan-defendan yang cuai dan bertindak di luar tugas statutori) dan RM100,000 bagi ganti rugi teruk - adalah tinggi. Namun ini tidaklah melampau atau berlebihan selepas mengambil kira keadaan kematian si mati yang masih muda, tindakan anggota polis yang cuai menjalankan tugas dan kemudian mengeluarkan kenyataan yang tidak bertanggungjawab untuk menjustifikasikan tindakan mereka menembak si mati-si mati di kepala dan dada serta kesan-kesannya atas pihak-pihak yang menuntut iaitu ahli keluarga si mati-si mati.
Shapiei Zainal Abidin & Yang Lain lwn. Ketua Polis Daerah Shah Alam & Yang Lain [2022] 5 CLJ 786 [HC]
TORT | PERKATAAN & ISTILAH
TORT: Ganti rugi - Tuntutan - Tiga orang ditembak mati oleh pihak polis - Tuntutan ganti rugi oleh ahli keluarga dan pentadbir harta pusaka ketiga-tiga si mati - Sama ada tuntutan disokong keterangan-keterangan relevan - Ganti rugi yang wajar diawardkan
PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: 'Secara global' - Award - Tiga orang ditembak mati oleh pihak polis - Tuntutan ganti rugi oleh ahli keluarga dan pentadbir harta pusaka ketiga-tiga si mati - Pendaftar mengawardkan ganti rugi 'secara global' - Sama ada 'secara global' bermaksud award untuk semua plaintif dan award perlu dibahagi sama rata antara plaintif-plaintif - Sama ada 'secara global' meliputi kesemua 'heads of claim' yang dituntut
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Zaid Malek; T/n Daim & Gamany
- Bagi pihak defendan - Natrah Mazman; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
The amended planning permission, upon being proven to be a continuation of the initial planning permission, approved pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, and where the density of the development was still within the maximum density approved in the original planning permission, ought not to have been set aside by the Appeals Board. In approving the original planning permission, the local authority had taken into account various considerations and the Appeals Board had acted illegally, irrationally and unreasonably in setting aside the amended planning permission and therefore, the applicant's application for judicial review was allowed.
Warisan Pinang Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 803 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari and mandamus - Application against decision of Appeals Board setting aside part of amended planning permission granted by local authority - Whether local authority taken into account relevant planning considerations - Whether guidelines to amend original planning permission considered before approval granted - Whether amended planning permission proper - Whether decision by Appeals Board tainted with illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness - Whether intervention warranted LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Building - Planning permission - Application to amend planning permission allowed by local authority - Appeals Board set aside part of amended planning permission based on density of undeveloped lots - Whether original planning permission and amended planning permission related to planning of same land - Whether continuous development - Whether increase in density of development within maximum density of original planning permission - Whether Appeals Board wrong to exclude parts of original land under master title in calculation of density - Whether decision by Appeals Board tainted with illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness - Town and Country Planning Act 1976, s. 22(2), (3) & (4)
- For the applicant - B Thangaraj & M Nalani; M/s Thangaraj & Assoc
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Cheah Ee Keong; M/s See, Ramsun & Tan
- For the 4th respondent - Dominic Pillai & Kiran Raj; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
HAK ORANG KURANG UPAYA BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN AKSES KEPADA BANGUNAN AWAM DI MALAYSIA MENURUT AKTA ORANG KURANG UPAYA 2008 [AKTA 685] [Read excerpt]
by Nur Azlina Mohamad Zahari[i]Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[ii]Rohaida Nordin[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxv
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxv
MALAYSIA
HAK ORANG KURANG UPAYA BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN AKSES KEPADA BANGUNAN AWAM DI MALAYSIA MENURUT AKTA ORANG KURANG UPAYA 2008 [AKTA 685]
by
Nur Azlina Mohamad Zahari[i]
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[ii]
Rohaida Nordin[iii]
ABSTRAK
Akses kepada bangunan awam merupakan antara hak orang kurang upaya yang dinyatakan dalam Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 [Akta 685]. Hak akses orang kurang upaya kepada bangunan awam tersebut adalah berdasarkan prinsip kesamarataan sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Sebelum kewujudan Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008, Malaysia telah meratifikasi Konvensyen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu tentang Hak Orang Kurang Upaya pada 19 Julai 2010, dengan reservasi terhadap perkara 15 (larangan seksaan dan layanan buruk) dan perkara 18 (hak kepada kebebasan pergerakan dan kewarganegaraan). Walau bagaimanapun, golongan orang kurang upaya di Malaysia masih dilanda kesukaran untuk mendapatkan akses yang sewajarnya kepada bangunan awam dan menyebabkan golongan orang kurang upaya telah dinafikan hak mereka dan tidak dapat mengambil bahagian secara berkesan dan menyeluruh dalam masyarakat. Isu yang timbul di sini ialah adakah terdapat peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 [Akta 685] berkaitan dengan hak akses kepada bangunan awam di Malaysia? Sejauh manakah orang kurang upaya boleh mengemukakan tuntutan di mahkamah sekiranya berlaku penafian hak akses mereka terhadap bangunan awam di Malaysia? Persoalan ini perlu dijawab dengan menggunakan kaedah kualitatif secara analisis undang-undang, iaitu dengan meneliti peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 [Akta 685] berkaitan dengan akses kepada bangunan awam dan hak orang kurang upaya untuk membuat tuntutan di mahkamah sekiranya berlaku pelanggaran terhadap hak mereka. Penulisan ini akan mengenal pasti peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 [Akta 685] berkaitan dengan hak akses kepada bangunan awam di Malaysia dan mencadangkan perkara-perkara yang perlu dilakukan untuk meningkatkan jaminan hak orang kurang upaya terhadap akses kepada bangunan awam di Malaysia.
. . .
'ALICE IN WONDERLAND' BEHAVIOR IN CORPORATE ASIAN COMPANIES [Read excerpt]
by Mohd Hakim Musa* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxvi
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxvi
INTERNATIONAL
'ALICE IN WONDERLAND' BEHAVIOR IN CORPORATE ASIAN COMPANIES
by
Mohd Hakim Musa*
Corporate governance generally refers to the relationship among various members, including the management team, the Board of Directors, and the shareholders.[1] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ('OECD') defined it as a set of relationships that includes other stakeholders. The World Bank characterizes corporate governance as a set of instruments granted to shareholders to exert influence on managers in order to maximize the value of shareholders' shares and to fixed claimants in order to control the agency costs of equity.[2] This would make us understand that most of the definitions of corporate governance would imply the principal-agent model, which, in the eye of agency theory, would refer to "a system of law and sound approaches by which corporations are directed and controlled focusing on the internal and external corporate structures with the intention of monitoring the actions of management and directors and thereby mitigating agency risks which may stem from the misdeeds of corporate officers".[3]
. . .
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 |
|
