Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #27/2022
07 July 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

TENAGA NASIONAL BHD v. TAN SOOI LEK & ORS [2022] 6 CLJ 177
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-53-09-2021(P)]
29 APRIL 2022

Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), as a licensee under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA) may resort to civil injunctive relief in aid of carrying out its statutory duties under s. 13 regardless of the possibility of criminal sanctions under s. 37(12)(a) and (b) of the ESA. TNB may so do in circumstances where public interest necessitates it or where it would harm public interest to await the process of the statutory remedy under the ESA.

UTILITIES: Electricity - Statutory duties - Electricity supplier carrying out statutory duties - Entering land to carry out maintenance, repair and upgrading works - Whether electricity supplier, as public authority, may resort to civil injunctive relief in carrying out statutory duties under s. 13 of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Whether may resort to injunctive relief as back up to statutory sanctions where public interest necessitates it - Whether public interest needs outweigh individual rights to use of land - Whether availability of criminal sanctions preclude courts from granting injunctive reliefs where there is breach of statute - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 37(12)(a) & (b)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Injunctive reliefs - Electricity supplier carrying out statutory duties - Entering land to carry out maintenance, repair and upgrading works - Whether electricity supplier, as public authority, may resort to civil injunctive relief in carrying out statutory duties under s. 13 of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Whether electricity supplier may resort to injunctive relief as back up to statutory sanctions where public interest necessitates it - Whether public interest needs outweigh individual rights to use of land - Whether availability of criminal sanctions preclude courts from granting injunctive reliefs where there is breach of statute - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 37(12)(a) & (b)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Injunctive reliefs - Inter partes hearing - Whether rendered academic - Whether interim injunction obtained in ex parte hearing final - Whether there were questions to be determined at inter partes hearing

ONG XIN TONG v. PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN MALAYSIA & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 274
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: AA-34-3-12-2019]
01 DECEMBER 2021

In an application for citizenship by operation of law pursuant to art. 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution (FC), the failure to exhaust the alternative method of application by registration under art. 15A of the FC is not fatal to the application. Nowhere is it stated in the FC that an application under art. 15A must be sought first or is a pre-condition to an application to the court under art. 14. The paths to citizenship under art. 14 and art. 15A of the FC are distinct and neither is subservient nor secondary to the other.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Application for - Applicant born to Malaysian father and mother of People's Republic of China national after Malaysia Day - Parents not legally married to each other at time of applicant's birth - Birth certificate stated applicant non-citizen or 'Bukan Warganegara' - Applicant's parents registered marriage three months after her birth - High Court declared applicant legitimate child of her parents and official DNA report confirmed they were her biological father and mother - Whether applicant satisfied qualifications for citizenship by operation of law - Whether court could deliberate on whether decision of National Registry Department justiciable - Whether applicant could apply for originating summons while application to Home Minister still pending - Federal Constitution, arts. 14(1)(b) & 15A

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“Seksyen 48 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 ini harus ditafsirkan secara golden rule dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam dan juga judicial notice. Perlu diambil maklum bahawa jumlah kenderaan bermotor di Kota Bharu khasnya dan Kelantan amnya adalah amat tinggi. Dengan pertambahan jumlah kenderaan ini, maka permintaan untuk tempat parkir yang terhad dalam kawasan bandar adalah amat tinggi dan menyulitkan. Motokar pemohon yang masih di tempat parkir dengan keadaan caj parkir telah habis akan mendatangkan kesusahan yang tidak berpatutan kepada pengguna-pengguna lain. Saya berpendapat keadaan ini adalah termasuk dalam tafsiran peruntukan s. 48 APJ 1987.

Atas penelitian dan penemuan-penemuan tersebut saya mendapati tindakan responden (mengunci tayar kereta pemohon) tidak menimbulkan unsur-unsur irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety. Dengan ini saya menolak relif-relif yang dipohon dalam semakan kehakiman ini.”- Per Roslan Abu Bakar H in Nursyafawati Kasim lwn. Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bharu Bandaraya Islam [2022] 6 CLJ 120

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 2228

CHE AD TAMAN lwn. YEOH CHUN XIAN & SATU LAGI

Seseorang yang telah kehilangan kaki akibat kemalangan berhak untuk mendapatkan sepasang kaki yang sempurna dan paling kurang yang terdekat dengan keadaan asal iaitu dengan mendapatkan gantian kaki palsu. Dalam mempertimbangkan awad bagi kaki palsu, perbandingan yang wajar adalah fungsi dan sifat kaki palsu yang hendak dibenarkan dan bukan kos kaki palsu tersebut.

GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kehilangan pendapatan - Kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan - Plaintif berstatus OKU selepas kemalangan - Plaintif mendapat gaji tetap dan elaun sebelum kemalangan - Sama ada jumlah awad yang diberikan adalah mengikut peruntukan yang telah ditetapkan oleh s. 28(2)(d) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956

GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Kos kaki palsu - Pertimbangan dalam membenarkan kos kaki palsu - Sama ada isu kos wajar dijadikan perbandingan - Sama ada keutamaan sewajarnya diberikan kepada fungsi dan sifat kaki palsu

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Rajadevan Vamadevan; T/n Rajadevan & Associates
  • Bagi pihak defendan-defendan- Khairudin Alaudin; T/n Khairudin & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 2229

IZHAM SHAFIE lwn. AHMAD HASSAN

Hakmilik sementara mempunyai kesan yang sama dari segi hak sepertimana hakmilik kekal. Pemilik hartanah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik sementara diberikan hak dan kepentingan eksklusif untuk menikmati penggunaan hartanah tersebut tanpa boleh diganggu oleh mana-mana pihak tanpa alasan yang sah di sisi undang-undang. Seorang pemilik hartanah yang diberikan geran hakmilik kekal terlebih dahulu tidak mempunyai hak untuk menceroboh tanah bersebelahan yang telah diberikan geran hakmilik sementara.

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Ganti rugi - Bahagian bangunan defendan telah memasuki hartanah plaintif - Hartanah bersebelahan - Tanah plaintif merupakan hakmilik sementara manakala tanah defendan diberi hakmilik kekal terlebih dahulu - Sama ada defendan telah memasuki tanah di luar daripada tanah yang telah diberikan hakmilik kekal - Sama ada hakmilik sementara mempunyai kesan yang sama dari segi hakmilik kekal - Sama ada defendan mempunyai hak untuk menceroboh tanah plaintif semata-mata kerana tanah plaintif adalah di bawah geran hakmilik sementara

KETERANGAN: Saksi - Saksi pakar - Juruukur dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan berkenaan laporan juruukur - Kelayakan, latar belakang serta pengalaman saksi tidak dinyatakan dalam kenyataan saksi dan keterangan lisan - Keterangan saksi tidak disangkal - Sama ada syarat dalam A. 40A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') telah dipatuhi - Sama ada keterangan saksi boleh ditolak semata-mata kerana kehendak A. 40A KKM tidak dipatuhi

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Wan Badariah Wan Saad; T/n Yus Hafizi, Wan & Nasir
  • Bagi pihak defendan - Koay Jun Hai; T/n Burhan & Co

[2021] 1 LNS 534

COSMO MAJU SDN BHD v. ERALLEX SDN BHD & ANOR

In awarding a remedy or relief to an aggrieved party in a case of breach of contract, the court cannot award to the said party something over and above what that party would have obtained under the contract in question or let the said party profit beyond what he would have obtained under the contract in question. A practical way to check against such excessive or erroneous awards of damages and remedies is to tabulate side by side (a) the parties' positions if the contract was performed and not broken and (b) the parties' positions as awarded by the court.

CONTRACT: Specific performance - Claim for - Rectification of defects - Construction contract - Goods supplied were defective - Whether court could alter or change construction contract - Whether court could compel performance of contract over and beyond its scope - Whether court could grant specific performance to compel a party to do something that court cannot conveniently supervise - Whether buyer could seek for an order for rectification of goods supplied after having chosen his remedy for costs of rectification of defects - Whether there was evidence of eventual rejection of goods - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 20(1)

CONTRACT: Breach - Damages - Remedies - Breach of fundamental term and condition of contract - Goods supplied were defective - Claim for costs of rectification of defective goods - Whether supplier was liable for breaches of contract in connection with defects of goods supplied and damages caused by defects - Whether buyer could seek for an order for rectification of goods supplied after having chosen his remedy for costs of rectification of defects

  • For the appellant - Jerane Lee Hui Ming @ MKLiaw; M/s Ming, Yee & Co
  • For the respondents - Viknesh Selvanathan & Valence Tan Qhye Xyean; M/s Viknesh & Yap

[2021] 1 LNS 535

CASMET SDN BHD v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (M) SDN BHD

Where a subcontract had been entered between the main contractor and the subcontractor, then the privity of contract is only between the main contractor and the subcontractor. There is no privity of contract between the subcontractor and the employer of the main contractor. Therefore, the main contractor is not entitled to seek a declaration that the employer should be solely liable for the subcontractor's claim for work done under the subcontract, more so when the employer did not implement the direct payment contractual provisions. The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 could neither aid the main contractor to overrule the doctrine of privity of contract nor does it provide an exception to the said doctrine.

CONTRACT: Privity - Building contract - Subcontract - Privity of contact between employer and subcontractor - Subcontractor was appointed by main contractor - Whether there was privity of contract between employer and subcontractor - Whether direct payment contractual provisions in subcontract could create a privity of contract between employer and subcontractor - Whether s. 42 of Contracts Act 1950 was an exception to doctrine of privity - Whether Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 could overrule or provide an exception to doctrine of privity

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Issue estoppel - Proceeding under s. 4 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Proceeding arose from adjudication decision - Existence of setting aside and enforcement proceedings which are pending appeal - Whether previous court decisions were final - Whether plaintiff was barred by issue of estoppel from proceeding with originating summons - Whether plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with present proceedings

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Non-joinder - Subcontract - Proceedings by main contractor for a declaration that it is a non-paying party under s. 4 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Allegation that employer was solely liable for subcontractor's claim - Employer was not made as a party in proceedings - Employer did not implement direct payment contractual provisions - Whether subcontractor's proceedings sustainable - Whether employer ought to have been joined as a co-defendant - Whether ruling against a non-party will create an adverse decision which is liable to be set aside - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b)(i) & (ii)

  • For the plaintiff - Andrew Chan Kah Jun & Queenie Hoh Li Chian; M/s Queenie Hoh Li Chian
  • For the defendant - Deepak Mahadevan; M/s Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim

[2021] 1 LNS 536

SCP ASSETS SDN BHD v. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PD2

1. Prior to the coming into force of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ('BCPMM') and Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA'), a developer is not statutorily restricted from using, dividing or reserving common property in a strata development and it follows that developer had power or capacity to grant a lease over part of the said common property. Such lease that was entered into based on the concept of freedom of contract is perfectly legal and is not invalidated by subsequent amendment or change to the law; hence the lease remains valid.

2. A management corporation is only allowed to impose service charges in a manner which is proportionate to the share units of the parcels in the strata development. The management corporation is also empowered to impose the sinking fund contribution on the proprietors based on a certain percentage (up to the maximum of ten percent) of the service charges. A management corporation is not allowed to impose or levy different rates of service charges or sinking fund contributions in respect of different parcel owners for the same type of use of the parcels.

LAND LAW: Strata title - Common property - Car parks - Action by purchaser of car parks against management corporation - Purchaser bought car parks from an entity in which developer sold all car parks under lease - Lease entered prior to coming into force of Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ('BCPMM') - Whether developer had power or capacity to grant lease of part of common property to different entity - Whether lease on part of common property granted by developer was invalidated by subsequent amendment or change to laws - Whether lease remains valid

LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Right to impose or levy service charges or sinking fund contribution - Determining rate of car parking bays - Whether management corporation was allowed to impose or levy service charges or sinking fund contributions in a manner or formula which is not proportionate to shares unit of parcels - Whether management corporation could impose or levy different rates of service charges or sinking fund contributions in respect of different parcel owners for same type of use of parcels - Whether there was change in use of car parking bays from originally designated or intended purpose of car parking bays - Strata Management Act 2013, ss. 59(2)(a) & 60(3)(b) - Strata Titles Act 1985, s. 36(c)

WORDS AND PHRASES: 'different purpose' - Section 60(3)(b) of Strata Management Act 2013 - Right of management corporation to change rates of service charges - Whether management corporation could change rates of service charges for some parcels to different rates from other parcels on grounds of use for 'different purpose'

  • For the plaintiffs - M/s Ho Loke & Koh
  • For the defendants - M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 6 (Part 1)

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.
Malayan Banking Bhd v. Punjab National Bank [2022] 6 CLJ 1 [FC]

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

 

 

NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ

  • For the appellant - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam, Mong Chung Seng & Ding Ee Lyn; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill
  • For the respondent - T Gunaseelan & Keshvinjeet Singh; M/s Gunaseelan & Assocs

A notice of motion seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read with r. 76 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ought to fail in the absence of a pending matter before the court; s. 44 only becomes operative when there is a pending proceeding before the Court of Appeal and the court is moved for consequential orders or directions. The court cannot, on the facts, entertain the motion as to do so would amount to the court committing a jurisdictional error.
Balachandran K Arujunan & Anor v. PP [2022] 6 CLJ 20 [CA]

COURTS: Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - Notice of motion for bail pursuant to r. 68 of Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 - Challenge against constitutionality of s. 41B of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Competency of Court of Appeal to hear and determine constitutional questions - Whether there was pending proceeding before court - Whether applicants were moving court for consequential orders - Whether application fell within meaning envisaged by s. 44 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether s. 44 confined to civil claims

 

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the appellants - Gopal Sri Ram, N Sivananthan, Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse & Nabila Habib; M/s Sivananthan
  • For the respondent - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Nahra Dollah, Aslinda Ahad & Muhammad Azmi Mashud; DPPs

The appointment by the then Attorney General of the leading prosecutor in this case (GSR) as a Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor (SDPP) was not tainted with illegality nor beset with conflict of interest. Although GSR was appointed to 'supervise investigation and prosecution' of 1MDB cases, GSR was on the facts not at all involved in the investigation against the appellant or prejudging his guilt as alleged; and nor was GSR proved to have a bias or partisan mind against the appellant. GSR thus may not be removed from remaining as a SDPP or continuing to prosecute the case against the appellant.
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. PP [2022] 6 CLJ 27 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor - Removal of - Allegation that person appointed as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor involved in investigation against accused - Allegations of bias - Whether proven

 

 

YAACOB MD SAM JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA

  • For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah & Nur Syahirah Hanapiah; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondent - Gopal Sri Ram, Ahmad Akram Gharib, Mohamad Mustaffa, P Kunyalam, Nadia Zulkefli & Hazmida Harris Lee; DPP

The power to punish for contempt by inferior courts are limited under para. 26 of the Third Schedule of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948; the limitation being only on the prescribed punishment and not on the court's jurisdiction. A Magistrate holding an inquiry of death under the Criminal Procedure Code has the powers and jurisdiction to punish for contempt in the face of the court (facie curiae) and contempt outside of the court (ex facie curiae).
Peguam Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Kassim Abd Hamid [2022] 6 CLJ 41 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Magistrate - Public Prosecutor directed inquest into death - Allegations that Public Prosecutor made premature decision regarding deceased's death and delayed and disrupted continuity and transparency of inquest - Leave for committal proceedings against Public Prosecutor granted by Sessions Court Judge sitting as Magistrate - Whether Magistrate holding inquiry of death under Chapter XXXII of Criminal Procedure Code seized with jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court - Whether exercise of Magistrate's jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court limited to contempt in face of court (facie curiae) - Subordinate Courts Act 1948, ss. 3(2) & 82

 

 

SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA

  • For the appellant - S Ambiga, Zainur Zakaria, Mankiranjit Kaur Mehinder Singh & Sarah Ho; DPP
  • For the respondent - Haniff Khatri, Aidil Khalid, Abdul Rahim Sinwan, Abi Mursyidin & Mohd Zubir Embong; M/s Mohd Zubir Embong & Assocs

A solicitor has a duty to undertake a brief and prosecute an action with reasonable care, skill and diligence, failing which it may subject him to an action in professional negligence. If therefore an action is struck out on account of the solicitor's failure in complying with valid directions or to act within time limits, or for want of prosecution, it is no defence to an action for damages for breach of duty to plead ignorance of the law, or to shift the blame on others unless such action or inaction was caused by or consented to by the client; the solicitor cannot hide behind contrived reasons or disingenuous arguments, as the court will never countenance those.
Techrew Sdn Bhd v. Nurhamizah Hamzah & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 56 [CA]

|

LEGAL PROFESSION: Negligence - Professional negligence - Action against solicitors - Failure to attend to client's appeal in Court of Appeal - Duty of care - Whether breached - Legal effect of solicitors signing warrant to act - Whether retainer in place and established - Whether trite elements of professional negligence satisfied - Whether client deprived of chances of success of defending claim in suit - Whether award of nominal damages just

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Cross-appeal - Preliminary objection - Cross-appeal to vary order of Judicial Commissioner - Whether contravened rr. 5 and 8 of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Whether separate appeal ought to have been filed

 

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA

  • For the appellant - Reuben Netto, Chandrakandan Sankaran & Maithily Monoher; M/s C Sankaran & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Chen Wai Jiun; M/s WJ Chen & Co
  • For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - S Gunasegaran & J Chandrika; M/s John Ang & Guna

The threshold to set aside an arbitral award is high. Curial intervention is circumscribed by s. 36(1) of the Arbitration Award 2005 on the finality of awards. Pursuant to s. 8 of the same Act, no court shall intervene in matters governed by the Act except where so provided in the Act. The court does not usurp the position of the arbitrator in determining the merits of the dispute. Errors of law or lack of appreciation of facts are not a consideration for a setting aside application or ground to refuse recognition.
Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd v. Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc [2022] 6 CLJ 81 [HC]

|

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application for - Dispute with respect to parties' liability for expenses flowing from agreement - Majority Tribunal directed parties to undertake reconciliation of certain cash contributions and expenditures - Dissenting award dismissed claim on basis of time bar - Whether complaints contemplated by s. 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether majority of Tribunal erred in law in rendering majority award - Whether amounted to ground for setting aside - Whether matters in majority award were matters well within domain of Tribunal

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Application for - Application to set aside majority of arbitral award - Dispute with respect to parties' liability for expenses flowing from agreement - Majority Tribunal directed parties to undertake reconciliation of certain cash contributions and expenditures - Dissenting award dismissed claim on basis of time bar - Applicable limitation laws - Costs chargeable to joint account - Whether arbitral direction contrary to public policy of Malaysia and made in breach of natural justice - Whether majority of arbitral award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005 - Limitation Act 1953

 

LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC

  • For the plaintiff - Ooi Huey Miin & Diane Hong; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
  • For the defendant - Avinash Vinayak Pradhan, Rubini Murugesan, Derrick Leong Tjen Ming & Nur Fathin Amira Sapawi; M/s Christopher & Lee Ong

Seksyen 48 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 harus ditafsirkan secara golden rule dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam dan juga notis kehakiman. Permintaan untuk tempat parkir yang terhad dalam kawasan bandar adalah amat tinggi dan menyulitkan. Motokar yang masih di tempat parkir dengan keadaan caj parkir telah habis akan mendatangkan kesusahan yang tidak berpatutan pada pengguna-pengguna lain. Keadaan ini adalah termasuk dalam tafsiran peruntukan s. 48.
Nursyafawati Kasim lwn. Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bharu Bandaraya Islam [2022] 6 CLJ 120 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan pihak berkuasa tempatan - Pemohon gagal membuat bayaran tambahan selepas tamat tempoh letak kereta di parkir - Tayar kereta pemohon dikunci pihak berkuasa tempatan - Pemohon ditawarkan kompaun RM10 dan bayaran RM110 untuk membuka kunci tayar - Sama ada kereta pemohon diberhentikan di jalan dan menyebabkan bahaya, galangan atau kesusahan yang tidak berpatutan pada pengguna jalan lain atau lalu lintas - Sama ada perintah 8 dan 17 Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Letak Kereta Bermeter) MPKB 2000 ultra vires ss. 72 dan 66(1)(rr) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 ('APJ') - Sama ada perintah-perintah berhubung fi munasabah, rasional, sesuai dan tidak menindas - Sama ada tindakan mengunci tayar motokar pemohon ultra vires s. 66(1)(rr) APJ

 

 

ROSLAN ABU BAKAR H

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Ang Kai Wei & Majdah Muhamad; T/n Nasri Majdah & Nurliza
  • Bagi pihak responden - Shaharuddin Mohamed; T/n Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz

Sebelum wang jaminan penjamin, yang dibayar untuk memastikan kehadiran tertuduh ke mahkamah boleh dirampas oleh mahkamah, mahkamah perlu memastikan bahawa notis kepada penjamin diserahkan sewajarnya. Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak memperuntukkan cara penyampaian notis kepada penjamin. Oleh itu, cara penyampaian saman, seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam s. 34 KTJ, boleh diguna pakai kerana tujuannya sama seperti saman, iaitu, untuk memastikan kehadiran penjamin untuk memberi sebab mengapa wang jaminannya tidak sepatutnya dirampas mahkamah. Seterusnya, nota keterangan mahkamah perlu mengandungi butiran tentang cara, tarikh dan masa penyerahan notis berserta dengan akuan penerimaan notis tersebut oleh penjamin.
Siti Hazana Abdullah lwn. PP [2022] 6 CLJ 139 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Jaminan - Rampasan wang jaminan - Ketidakhadiran penjamin pada tarikh sebutan yang ditetapkan - Rampasan menurut s. 404(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ('KTJ') - Prosedur yang perlu dipatuhi - Kekosongan dalam KTJ tentang cara penyampaian notis kepada penjamin - Sama ada cara serahan saman boleh diguna pakai - Sama ada notis bertujuan memastikan kehadiran penjamin di mahkaman sama seperti saman - Sama ada penyerahan secara fizikal - Sama ada Majistret perlu berpuas hati bahawa notis telah diserahkan kepada penjamin sebelum mempertimbangkan rampasan wang jaminan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 34

 

 

ABU BAKAR KATAR H

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Fazaly Ali Mohd Ghazali; T/n The Law Chambers Of Fazaly Ali
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Syafiq Mohd Ghazali; TPR

Under the Companies Act 2016 ('Act'), namely under item (a) of the Twelfth Schedule of the Act, a liquidator of a wound-up company cannot issue a sanction or delegate his power to any other person, not even a creditor or a contributory, to bring, continue or defend an action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company. The only way a creditor or contributory could do the above is if the liquidator first refuses to do so; they can then apply to court for an order to compel the liquidator, or for a court-sanction to do so in his stead.
Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Bhd v. Oren Venture Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Case [2022] 6 CLJ 148 [HC]

COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Powers - Wound-up company - Whether liquidator of wound-up company could issue sanction or delegate power to any other person to bring or defend any action or other legal proceedings in name and on behalf of company - Companies Act 2016, s. 486(1), (2) & item (a) of Twelfth Schedule

 

 

AZLAN SULAIMAN JC

(Suit No: WA-22M-286-07-2020)
  • For the plaintiff - Syed Fadzil Alhabshi & Fawza Sabila Faudzi; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
  • For the 1st defendant - Wan Sharifah Wan Yusoff; M/s Wan Sharifah Jamilah & Partners
(Suit No: WA-22M-102-05-2021)
  • For the plaintiff - Mohd Yaacob Bakanali; M/s Lainah Yaacob & Zuikepli
  • For the defendant - Syed Fadzil Alhabshi & Fawza Sabila Faudzi; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. AN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN GOVERNANCE AS A SOLUTION FOR CORPORATE MISBEHAVIOR [Read excerpt]
    by Mohd Hakim Musa* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxx

    2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxx
    logo
    INTERNATIONAL

    AN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN GOVERNANCE AS A SOLUTION FOR CORPORATE MISBEHAVIOR

    by
    Mohd Hakim Musa*

    The term 'governance' is derived from the Latin gubernare, meaning 'to steer'. This is traceable to ancient Greek kubernetes, which means 'the steersman' or the one giving direction to a ship or organisation. Regardless of Latin or Greek verb or noun, in essence, it involves the function of providing direction or guidance rather than control. For long-term success, corporations must comply with the laws, regulations and expectations of society where they operate, failing which will not just constitute a failure of corporate governance but are symptomatic of the larger failures of government to provide the framework needed to hold corporations responsible.[1]

    Henceforth, tremendous efforts were being made to improve Corporate Governance Code and make the same as holistic as possible to cater to corporate governance issues, particularly on corporate misbehaviour. In the wake of different corporate scandals, there have been expanding calls for increasingly viable regulation of corporate behaviour and the actions of company directors. In response to this, many countries and nations have passed new laws. In addition, there has been a trend toward adopting governance codes as a new form of regulation.

    . . .

    *Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya; Master of Commercial Law (MCL), UM; Bachelor of Law (LLB) (Hons) UiTM; Bachelor of Legal Studies (BLS) (Hons) UiTM.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

  2. THE PLIGHT OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN MALAYSIA WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO WORK PERMITS, SPECIAL PASSES PENDING INVESTIGATION, AND THE WITHHOLDING OF PASSPORTS BY EMPLOYERS (PART 1) [Read excerpt]
    by Jaganraj Ramachandran[i] Dr Saw Tiong Guan[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxi

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

    THE PLIGHT OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN MALAYSIA WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO WORK PERMITS, SPECIAL PASSES PENDING INVESTIGATION, AND THE WITHHOLDING OF PASSPORTS BY EMPLOYERS (PART 1)

    by
    Jaganraj Ramachandran[i]
    Dr Saw Tiong Guan[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    In light of an era of rapid industrialisation, Malaysia has imported foreign workers since the 1970s. As the economy burgeoned, this demand for manual labor was fulfilled by workers from Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, and various other Asian countries. However, a pressing question remains-as a host nation, has Malaysia fulfilled its socio-legal obligation towards such workers, particularly given an increasing number of reports of unfair treatment. This article seeks to comment on some procedural flaws concerning special passes pending investigation, work permits, and the withholding of passports by employers.

    INTRODUCTION

    As a developing nation, Malaysia relies substantially on the use of migrant workers, especially in the so-called 3D sectors (i.e. dirty, dangerous, and difficult work) such as construction, sanitary, and domestic services,[1] all of which demand long working hours and hard physical labour, whilst offering monthly wages as low as MYR1,200 to MYR1,600.[2] Locals are therefore rarely attracted to such work, preferring better working environments and higher pay. As a result, these sectors must rely on foreign workers from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Nepal to bridge the gap.

    . . .

    [i] PhD Candidate, University of Malaya, Faculty of Law (PhD research article undertaken at Faculty of Law, University of Malaya).

    [ii] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 836 Geographical Indications Act 2022 18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022] Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602] -
ACT 835 Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 834 Malaysian Space Board Act 2022 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 833 Finance Act 2021 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66 - -
ACT 832 Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021) 1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987) - Societies Act 1966
(Revised 1987)
[ACT 335]

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT 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) 213/2022 National Skills Development (Waiver of Fee To Trainee At Montfort Boys Town, Shah Alam, Selangor) Regulations 2022 24 June 2022 1 November 2020 ACT 652
PU(A) 212/2022 Income Tax (Deduction For Investment In A Bionexus Status Company) (Amendment) Rules 2022 22 June 2022 1 January 2021 PU(A) 306/2016
PU(A) 211/2022 Consumer Protection (Workshops Information Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 22 June 2022 1 July 2022 PU(A) 271/2002
PU(A) 210/2022 Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 8) Order 2022 17 June 2022 20 June 2022 PU(A) 401/1989
PU(A) 209/2022 Pesticides (Exemption) Order 2022 14 June 2022 15 June 2022 ACT 149

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 312/2022 Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Nirvana Memorial Park (Melaka) Berhad) 6 July 2022 7 July 2022 ACT 778
PU(B) 311/2022 Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 6 July 2022 1 July 2022 to 14 July 2022 ACT 235
PU(B) 310/2022 Notice To Third Parties 5 July 2022 6 July 2022 ACT 613
PU(B) 309/2022 Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor 1 July 2022 Specified in column (2) of the Schedule ACT 593
PU(B) 308/2022 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 481836 Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 30 June 2022 1 July 2022 ACT 828

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

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here