CLJ Bulletin #26/2022 (30 June 2022)

Issue #26/2022

30 June 2022

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

Case(s) of the Week
1. MALAYAN BANKING BHD v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [2022] 6 CLJ 1
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 6)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

MALAYAN BANKING BHD v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [2022] 6 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-75-11-2020(W)]
23 MAY 2022

In dealing with letter of credit (LC) transactions between the trading parties and the issuing and negotiating banks, including transactions under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as issued by the International Chambers of Commerce vide its ICC Publication No. 600, one must bear in mind that the duty of a bank to negotiate under the LC is not subject to claims or defences taken under the underlying contract, that banks deal with documents and not with goods, services or performance to which the documents relate, that the issuing bank (herein Punjab National Bank), is irrevocably bound to honour the LC as of the time it issues the same, and that the issuing bank's undertaking to reimburse the nominated or negotiating bank is independent of the former's undertaking to the beneficiary. On the facts, the Court of Appeal erred in relieving Punjab National Bank of its duty to reimburse Malayan Banking Berhad for the USD1,983,763.65 the latter paid the seller under the LC; the documents as presented to and examined by MBB appeared on their face to constitute a complying presentation, more so when the bills of lading presented paralleled to Ocean Bills of Lading, and not to Freight Forwarder Bills as complained. Since the documents presented to MBB were not discrepant, and since the Notice of Refusal to reimburse by Punjab National Bank, which is a strict requirement of international LC transactions, is also faulty, Punjab National Bank cannot avoid its obligation to reimburse.

BANKING: Banks and banking business - Letter of credit - Issuance of - Refusal to honour obligations for reimbursement by issuing bank - Whether complied with requirement under UCP-600 - Whether notice of refusal issued to negotiating bank - Whether documents presented under letter of credit constituted complying presentation - Whether negotiating bank only required to examine documents on face and not beyond - Whether issuing bank entitled to raise issue on manner of negotiation of documents - Whether issuing bank obligated to reimburse negotiating bank

APPEAL UPDATES

IB Capital Sdn Bhd v. Ivory Indah Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 2348 overruling the High Court case of IB Capital Sdn Bhd v. Ivory Indah Sdn Bhd & Anor [Suit No: 22NCVC-20-01/2014]
Ulin Anak Blukok v. PP [2021] 1 LNS 2319 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Ulin Blukok [2019] 1 LNS 1733

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 2341	GHAZALI MAT & YANG LAIN lwn. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI TERENGGANU & SATU LAGI Apabila Mahkamah memutuskan untuk membenarkan suatu relif alternatif dan memerintahkan ganti rugi, jika ada, untuk ditaksir, maka plaintif harus membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian kerugian sebenar dan hakiki yang dialami olehnya dan kejadian yang membawa kepada kerugian tersebut adalah berpunca sepenuhnya daripada pihak defendan. Sekiranya plaintif melalui tindak-tanduknya telah menyumbang kepada kajadian tersebut, maka pemberian ganti rugi akan menyebabkan plaintif mendapat pengayaan yang tidak adil. GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Kerugian - Relif alternatif - Mahkamah membenarkan relif alternatif dan ganti rugi jika ada untuk ditaksir - Penempatan semula perladangan - Plaintif tidak dihalang akses untuk masuk ke ladang oleh defendan - Plaintif sendiri takut untuk masuk dan mengusahakan ladang - Sama ada plaintif telah membuktikan kerugian yang sebenar dan hakiki - Sama ada kerugian yang dialami disebabkan oleh tindak tanduk defendan sepenuhnya - Sama ada plaintif akan mendapat pengayaan tidak adil sekiranya ganti rugi diberikan kepadanya Bagi pihak plaintif-plaintif - T/n Abdul Haris & Co Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu
[2019] 1 LNS 2343	BER: A BAKAR KASIM; EX PARTE: MOHD NAZRI ARIFFIN @ MOHD ARIFFIN & YANG LAIN Jumlah penghakiman terhutang yang menjadi asas kepada prosiding kebankrapan tidak wajar dianggap telah berkurangan meskipun percubaan untuk pembayaran sebahagian daripada jumlah penghakiman tersebut telah dibuat oleh penghutang penghakiman yang mana telah ditolak oleh pemiutang penghakiman. KEBANKRAPAN: Petisyen pemiutang - Pembatalan - Petisyen difailkan oleh salah seorang pemiutang - Penghutang mendakwa surat kebenaran daripada setiap pemiutang perlu difailkan sebelum pemfailan petisyen pemuitang - Kewujudan percubaan penghutang untuk membuat sebahagian bayaran penghakiman yang telah ditolak pemiutang - Sama ada terdapat sebarang peruntukan dalam Akta Insolvensi 1967 yang mengkehendaki surat kebenaran daripada pemiutang-pemiutang lain difailkan terlebih dahulu - Sama ada penghutang telah membuktikan kesolvenannya - Sama ada pemiutang telah menuntut jumlah yang salah - Sama ada jumlah penghakiman yang terhutang telah berkurangan Bagi pihak perayu/penghutang penghakiman - T/n Isaacs & Isaacs Bagi pihak responden/pemiutang penghakiman - T/n Nordin Kassim & Aziz
[2020] 1 LNS 2028	SANDHESWARAN PADNMANAGAN lwn. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS Merakam percakapan orang yang ditahan ketika penyiasatan polis merupakan salah satu kaedah dan cara siasatan dijalankan bawah s. 4A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959. Sekiranya rakaman percakapan diambil, maka tiada keperluan untuk orang yang ditahan dibekalkan dengan sesalinan rakaman percakapan tersebut sebelum pendengaran representasi dijalankan. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk rakaman percakapan pemohon yang diambil ketika siasatan dibekalkan kepada pemohon bagi tujuan persidangan representasi - Sama ada rakaman percakapan merupakan salah satu kaedah siasatan - Sama ada pra-syarat yang diperuntukkan bawah s. 19A(1) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 telah dipatuhi - Sama ada pemohon berhak untuk mempertikaikan kepuasan hati Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Pemohon tidak fasih berbahasa Melayu dan hanya fasih serta memahami bahasa Tamil - Kegagalan pegawai penyiasat menyediakan jurubahasa Tamil semasa menjalankan siasatan - Jurubahasa Tamil hanya dibekalkan kepada pemohon ketika perintah tahanan disampaikan - Sama ada jurubahasa wajar dibekalkan semasa prosiding siasatan dan semasa prosiding di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat - Sama ada berlaku ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 10A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 Bagi pihak pemohon - Goh; T/n Norma Goh & Co Bagi pihak responden - Shahidah Nafisah Leman; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2020] 1 LNS 2084	P THIAGARAJAN PAVADAI v. GANESAN THANKAVELOO Cogent and credible evidence is required to prove a loan involving a large amount of money. When the evidence adduced to show the existence of loan consists of only bare oral evidence, the Court is entitled to decide on a balance of probabilities whether such oral evidence is credible or otherwise. CONTRACT: Loan - Agreement - Existence of - Default in repayment - Allegation that defendant requested plaintiff to disburse loan on behalf of defendant to third party for debt owed by defendant to third party - Loan involving large amount of money - Plaintiff relied on bare oral evidence and without documentary records to support disbursement of loan - Whether there was loan given by plaintiff to defendant - Whether defendant had agreed to repay plaintiff money paid to third party - Whether there was any cogent and credible evidence in support of plaintiff's case - Whether oral testimonies of witnesses were cogent and credible to prove loan For the appellant/plaintiff - Saraswathy; M/s S Kandasami & Co For the respondent/defendant - Ramavelu; M/s Rama Velu & Associates
[2020] 1 LNS 2104	LIN WEN - CHIH & ANOR v. PACIFIC FOREST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOR 1. A plaintiff may raise estoppel against a defendant who raises the defence of limitation provided that the estoppel is pleaded and put to the defendant during the trial. 2. Dismissal of a striking out application does not mean that the issue, which is the subject matter of the said striking out application, has been determined with finality. As such, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to prevent parties from raising the same issue during trial. DEBTORS: Recovery of monies - Recovery of debt - Debt admitted via defendant's letter of acknowledgement - Parties had agreed for contra payment arrangement - Whether defendant kept up with its bargain - Whether defendant entitled to make deduction from outstanding sum - Whether unilateral deduction made by defendant was valid - Whether debt became extinguished LIMITATION: Contract - Breach - Breach of letter of undertaking - Unjust enrichment - Existence of earlier suit which was dismissed on grounds of premature claim - Contra arrangement between parties failed - Whether there was debt still due and owing and which could be pursued in fresh suit - Whether action commenced outside limitation period ought to be dismissed - Whether defendant was estopped from raising defence of limitation - Whether limitation period was suspended - Limitation Ordinance 1952 (Sabah Cap 72), s. 14, Schedule, items 95 & 97 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Applicability - Issues had been raised previously during interlocutory application of striking out - Application for striking out was dismissed - Whether issues have been determined with finality - Whether plaintiff was precluded from raising issues during trial - Whether plea of res judicata was applicable CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Abuse of process of court - Litigation by instalment - Existence of previous suit involving same parties and subject matter - Cause of actions in previous suit and current suit were exactly same - Facts and evidence adduced were substantially similar - New issues raised in current suit - Whether new issues ought to have been raised in previous suit - Whether doctrine of res judicata was applicable - Whether filing of current suit was a clear manifestation of litigation by instalment and was an abuse of process For the appellants - Cheng Ho Wah @ Roland, Michelle Yee Fui Shin & Henry Lim Ken Fui; M/s Roland Cheng & Co For the respondents - Alex Decena & Leslie Chaw Cheng Yung; M/s Poh & Victor Chong

CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 6)

An agreement or a clause within an agreement alleged to have conferred a benefit upon a beneficiary or to have created any trust must clearly and unequivocally reflect such an intention by the donor, and such intention must be consistent with any subsequent conduct of the donor. The donor, having made the promise or created the trust, ought also to have taken steps to implement the same; absent this, the trust may only amount to an incompletely constituted trust, especially so when no consideration was paid for the promise or promises.
Abdul Ravuff Datuk AS Dawood & Ors v. Dr Abdul Rahiman Datuk AS Dawood & Other Appeals [2022] 5 CLJ 829 [FC]

TRUSTS | LAND LAW

TRUSTS: Trusts and trustees - Creation of - Agreement - Whether agreement constituted trusts - Terms spelling out agreement to transfer shares - Whether created constructive trusts - Whether intention to create trust equivocal and clear from agreement - Whether there was declaration of creation of trust - Whether conduct consistent with intention of donor - Whether trust created

LAND LAW: Sale of land - Agreement - Sale by company to third party purchaser and subsequent sale - Whether sham agreement - Whether sale resolved at extraordinary general meeting of company - Whether consideration paid by third party purchaser - Whether subsequent sale below market value - Whether valuation report submitted to support claim - Whether sale of land valid

ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ

For the appellants - Gopal Sri Ram, V Manokaran, Rajenthirakumar Kumar, Austen Pereira & Hiu Yeat Fong; M/s Kumar Assocs

(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-15-03-2020 (W))

For the respondent - K Terrance & Seen Rui Yong; M/s Kassim Tadin Wai & Co

(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-16-03-2020 (W))

For the respondent - M Pathmanathan, Rutheran Sivagnanam, Shirin Pathmanathan & Chong Yi Zhen; M/s R Sivagnanam & Assoc

(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-17-03-2020 (W))

For the respondents - Cyrus Das, Krishna Dallumah & Yong Yoong Hui; M/s Krishna Dallumah & Indran

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.
Lim Lip Eng v. Ong Ka Chuan [2022] 5 CLJ 847 [FC]

TORT | CIVIL PROCEDURE

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)

ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ

For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Guok Ngek Seong, Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse, Karluis Quek & Leong Xin Wen; M/s Guok Partnership
For the respondent - Ng Chew Hor, Ang Boon Heng & Lim Rue Chee; M/s Nasaruddin, YK Chew & Partners

Sebarang pertuduhan, termasuk pertuduhan pindaan, hendaklah dibaca dan diterangkan kepada tertuduh sebelum perbicaraan dimulakan. Di mana pertuduhan diarah supaya dipinda oleh Mahkamah Rayuan tetapi pertuduhan terpinda tersebut tidak dibacakan kepada tertuduh oleh hakim bicara sebelum memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri, yang sekaligus menyebabkan tertuduh mengemukakan pembelaan terhadap pertuduhan asal dan tidak kepada pertuduhan terpinda, maka satu ketinggalan yang memudaratkan dan memprejudis kes tertuduh telah dilakukan oleh hakim bicara. Ia bukanlah satu kesilapan teknikal semata-mata dan sama sekali tidak boleh dipulihkan di bawah s. 422 KTJ . Dalam keadaan sedemikian, sabitan adalah tidak selamat dan tertuduh harus dilepas dan dibebaskan.
Guy Boon Leang lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2022] 5 CLJ 885 [CA]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh dipinda - Perayu dibacakan pertuduhan asal dan membela diri atas pertuduhan asal - Sama ada ketinggalan atau kesilapan oleh pihak pendakwaan satu kesilapan teknikal - Sama ada tertuduh terprejudis - Sama ada hak perayu mengetahui pertuduhan sebenar dinafikan - Sama ada ketinggalan atau kesilapan oleh pihak pendakwaan boleh dipulihkan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 326

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh dipinda - Perayu dibacakan pertuduhan asal dan membela diri atas pertuduhan asal - Hakim bicara mengarahkan agar pertuduhan terpinda dibacakan dan tertuduh didapati bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan terpinda - Sama ada ss. 158 dan 159 Kanun Keseksaan terpakai - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH HMR
AHMAD NASFY YASIN HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR

Bagi pihak perayu - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Salim Bashir Bhaskaran, Low Wei Loke & Putri Noor Nasuira Ismadi; T/n Salim Bashir, Ruswiza & Co
Bagi pihak responden - Samihah Rhazali & Mohd Khushairy Ibrahim; TPR

The court must not summarily grant an order for eviction, pursuant to O. 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, of occupiers of a land when prima facie it appears that the occupiers would be permanently deprived of their land without any compensation, not to mention adequate compensation. Conflict in affidavit evidence could only be resolved at a trial begun by a writ action and not via a summary procedure.
Hajemi Din & Anor v. Elite Agriculture Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 900 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Vacant possession of land - Action commenced by way of originating summons - Land leased by registered proprietor - Lessee tried to enter land but prevented by occupiers - Occupiers alleged land part of customary land of Semelai people - Whether occupiers trespassers - Whether lessee had indefeasible land interest over land - Whether appropriate case for summary procedure - Whether there were conflicting evidences - Whether trial ought to begin by way of writ action - Whether there were triable issues - Rules of Court 2012, O. 89

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA

For the appellants - Selva Balan Sinnan & Elaine Gan; M/s Azman Joseph & Assocs
For the respondent - Abu Bakr Mohamed Saifudin; M/s Ram Reza & Muhammad

Based on emails exchanged between the parties involved, there was a clear admission that the defendant owed the plaintiff an outstanding amount as claimed by the latter and that it would settle the same. As these admissions were binding against the defendant, the plaintiff's application to enter judgment on admission of facts under O. 27 r. 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 ought to be allowed.
Bintulu Adhesives & Chemicals Sdn Bhd v. AL Asia Chemical Industry Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 CLJ 929 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Admission - Application to enter judgment on admission of facts - Email exchanged between parties showed defendant made unequivocal admission of claims by plaintiff - Whether admissions binding against defendant - Whether plaintiff entitled to its claim by way of judgment on admission of facts - Rules of Court 2012, O. 27 r. 3

DUNCAN SIKODOL JC

For the appellant - Cecil Lau; M/s Jaini Robert & Lau Advocs
For the respondent - Unrepresented

While disbarment may not generally be intended to be permanent, a petitioner applying to be reinstated and restored to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors should demonstrate that there has been a change of character in him as would again make him a fit and proper person to resume practice, and further that he is now truly penitent and has made restitution; his failure to evince such rehabilitation, remorse or repentance, or that the legal profession may not suffer should he be reinstated, may cost him the petition, his profession and his practice.
Reventharen Suppiah v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2022] 5 CLJ 938 [HC]

LEGAL PROFESSION

LEGAL PROFESSION: Professional discipline - Reinstatement - Restoration to Roll - Application for - Petitioner breached fundamental foundation of relationship between lawyer and client - Whether grave misconduct - Whether being struck off from Roll for certain length of time sole criteria in considering restoration to Roll - Considerations of life expectancy and right to livelihood - Whether petitioner remorseful, penitent and rehabilitated - Whether petitioner fit and proper person to be reinstated - Whether requirements of s. 107 of Legal Profession Act 1976 fulfilled

LEGAL PROFESSION: Roll of advocates and solicitors - Restoration - Application for - Petitioner breached fundamental foundation of relationship between lawyer and client - Whether grave misconduct - Whether being struck off from Roll for certain length of time sole criteria in considering restoration to Roll - Considerations of life expectancy and right to livelihood - Whether petitioner remorseful, penitent and rehabilitated - Whether petitioner fit and proper person to be reinstated - Whether requirements of s. 107 of Legal Profession Act 1976 fulfilled

NOORIN BADARUDDIN J

For the petitioner - Allen Miranda & Suraiya Mohd Arif; M/s S Mogan & Co
For the respondent - Farez Jinnah, Nadhirah Amalina & Tay Chee Fu; M/s Farez Jinnah

Mareva injunction will be issued provided the pre-requisites are satisfied. All that the applicant has to show is a good arguable case, that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction and there was a real risk of the defendant dissipating the assets. In this case, in view of the multiple actions faced by the defendant and the defendant maintaining silence towards all the allegations against him, the grant of Mareva injunction was inevitable.
SRC International Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak [2022] 5 CLJ 949 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva injunction - Application for - Tests to be satisfied - Whether good arguable case established - Whether there were assets within jurisdiction - Whether there was real risk of dissipation of assets - Whether there was inordinate delay in commencing action - Whether delay caused prejudice

MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC

For the plaintiffs - Nagaraja Mutthiah, Syafina Vani, Clement Tay, Lisa Yong & Amin Musyrif; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
For the defendant - Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee & Thilagan Mehanathan; M/s Shafee & Co

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.
Wang Kang Xiang v. Hee Chai Hui [2022] 5 CLJ 983 [HC]

CONTRACT | DAMAGES

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

AHMAD MURAD ABDUL AZIZ JC

For the appellant - Chang Tau Sian; M/s Henry Soong & Chang
For the respondent - Foo Hiap Choong & Chew Kok Wee; M/s Low & Partners

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

A STUDY ON THE AGENCY THEORY AND THE STEWARDSHIP THEORY IN SATYAM FIASCO ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Mohd Hakim Musa* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxvii

CAN SYARIAH OR CIVIL MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES IN COURT BE SETTLED WITHIN THE REGIME OF ARBITRATION ACT 2005? IS AFFORDABLE ARBITRATION, JANAB'S ARBITRATION MOOT COURT AND AWARD WRITING THE WAY FORWARD? ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Prof. Datuk Dr. Hj. Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxviii

UNAUTHORISED PRACTICE OF LAW – WHAT CONSTITUTES ACTING OR PRACTISING AS A SOLICITOR?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Alvin Chen** [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxix

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 A1656	Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2022	15 December 2021	ACT 000
ACT A1655	Labuan Islamic Financial Services and Securities (Amendment) Act 2022	1 January 2019	ACT 705
ACT A1654	Labuan Financial Services and Securities (Amendment) Act 2022	1 January 2019	ACT 704
ACT A1653	Labuan Companies (Amendment) Act 2022	10 June 2022 except subsection 4(b); 1 January 2019 - Subsection 4(b)	ACT 441
ACT A1652	Control of Supplies (Amendment) Act 2022	31 May 2022 [PU(B) 271/2022]	ACT 122

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 208/2022	Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2022	13 June 2022	11 March 2022	PU(A) 383/2021
PU(A) 207/2022	Private Higher Educational Institutions (Exemption To Msu College Sentral) Order 2022	10 June 2022	11 June 2022	ACT 555
PU(A) 206/2022	Land Public Transport (Prescription of Category of Express Bus Services) Regulations 2022	9 June 2022	10 June 2022	ACT 715
PU(A) 205/2022	Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Prescription of Executive Express Bus As Public Service Vehicle) (Amendment) Rules 2022	9 June 2022	18 November 2021	PU(A) 98/2003
PU(A) 204/2022	Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Expedited Review) (No. 2) 2021 (Revocation) Order 2022	8 June 2022	10 June 2022	ACT 504; ACT 235

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 307/2022	Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation	29 June 2022	30 June 2022	ACT A1649
PU(B) 306/2022	Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation	29 June 2022	30 June 2022	ACT A1645
PU(B) 305/2022	Appointment of Assistant Registrar of The Industrial Court	29 June 2022	Specified in column (2) of the Schedule	ACT 177
PU(B) 303/2022	Appointment of Senior Assistant Directors of Industrial Relations	28 June 2022	Specified in column (2) of the Schedule	ACT 177
PU(B) 302/2022	Appointment of President of The Industrial Court	28 Jun 2022	15 May 2022	ACT 177

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

To unsubscribe click here