CLJ Bulletin #28/2022 (14 July 2022)

Issue #28/2022

14 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
1. HA SIAW SHYONG v. MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING SARAWAK & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 406
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 6 (Part 2)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

HA SIAW SHYONG v.
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING SARAWAK & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 406
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK, SIBU
CHRISTOPHER CHIN SOO YIN JC
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: SBW-25-1-1-2022 (HC)]
04 MARCH 2022

Judicial review is a tool for the judicial arm to provide a check and balance on Executive decisions and discretion. However, the circumstances in which a law is enacted and when a discretion is exercised by the Executive are relevant and important considerations in deciding whether the Executive had crossed the line. The Covid-19 pandemic was a case in point. One has to consider the harm to the greater public had such an allegedly impugned decision not been made.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave - Application for - Judicial review against decision of Minister and/or State Government to extend period to be excluded from calculation of time for handing over vacant possession of housing accommodations and liquidated damages - Failure of developer to hand over vacant possession of housing accommodation - Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) (Housing Development (Control and Licensing)) Regulations 2021, reg. 4(1) - Whether decision illegal, an abuse of power, error of law, invalid, unreasonable and/or unfair - Whether null and void - Whether threshold for leave met - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3

APPEAL UPDATES

Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v. Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 889 overruling the High Court case of Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v. Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd [Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-458-07/2018]
Seaport Worldwide Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Another Appeal [2022] 4 CLJ 59; [2022] 1 LNS 105 overruling in part the High Court case of Seaport Worldwide Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2020] 1 LNS 1442

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 2107	LOW KIAN HOEW v. LU ZHIJUN & ORS 1. When a plaintiff is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights and, with full knowledge, chooses one of them, he cannot, afterwards, inconsistent with his previous election, retract from it and take an opposite direction of the earlier position taken when it suits his convenience. Hence, an application to amend a statement of claim to substitute an earlier elected right with an opposite right will be useless and ineffective. 2. A party cannot bring court proceedings to stop or challenge any disposal of a company's assets since courts will not interfere with the internal management within a company and it is for the shareholders to decide unless the decision is lacking in good faith or for a collateral purpose. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Statement of claim - Substitution of main relief - Matters raised in proposed statement of claim were inconsistent with original statement of claim - Plaintiff applied to amend by reason of change of solicitors - Delay in filing application - Whether reasons for amendment were frivolous - Whether amendments were bona fide - Whether amendments were tactical manoeuvre to rewrite claim - Whether amendments sought could turn character of suit into a different and inconsistent type - Whether proposed amendment had caused prejudice to defendant which cannot be compensated CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Injunction to restrain a company from disposing shares and assets pending disposal of suit - Claim premised on rescission of contract, refund of monies paid and various other damages - Whether risk of doing an injustice was greater if injunction is granted - Whether interlocutory injunction sought was wholly wrong - Whether plaintiff could bring court proceedings to stop or challenge any disposal of assets of a company For the plaintiff - Gavin Jayapal; M/s Gavin Jayapal For the defendants - Tan Jee Tjun, Lew Cha Yee & Joanne Hee Pik Yee; M/s Lee Lam & Tan
[2020] 1 LNS 2108	MASYITAH MD HASSAN v. SAKINAH SULONG 1. The defence of fair comment is established when the defendant proves that the impugned statement was made upon inquiries of the facts to ascertain the truth. When a defendant alleged that a statement was made merely based on information received from a third party, the defendant must produce the said third party as a witness to prove such information. The defendant's failure to produce the witness could result in the invocation of an adverse inference against the defendant and the information relied on will be regarded as hearsay. 2. Pursuant to O. 45 r. 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, the court can order the defendant, in addition to general and exemplary damages, to post an apology on both the plaintiff and defendant's timeline for a period of time in cases where the defendant's postings on Facebook was found to be defamatory and had injured the reputation of the plaintiff. TORT: Defamation - Libel - Facebook postings - Claim by birth companion against doctor - Publication of statements by defendant and reference to plaintiff undisputed - Allegation regarding plaintiff's presence as a 'doula' during birth of a baby that had died during water birth delivery - Defendant alleged plaintiff was responsible for baby's death - Whether postings should be read as a whole in determining nature of statement - Whether defendant's postings were defamatory - Whether remarks made were disparaging and accusatory against plaintiff - Whether words used had undoubtedly lowered plaintiff in estimation of right thinking members of society generally TORT: Defamation - Damages - Defamatory statement made on Facebook postings - Whether monetary compensation awarded to plaintiff would be able to restore plaintiff's reputation fully - Whether plaintiff was entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in addition to general damages - Whether court could order defendant to post an apology on both plaintiff and defendant's timelines for a period of time - Whether court could order defendant to refrain from publicly commenting on any matter relating to similar subject matter of dispute - Rules of Court 2012, O. 45 r. 5 TORT: Defamation - Defence - Justification - Allegation regarding plaintiff's presence as a 'doula' during birth of a baby that had died during a water birth delivery - Defendant alleged plaintiff was responsible for baby's death - Plaintiff lodged police report stating she had assisted birth during an unexpected delivery - Whether plaintiff's police report amounts to admission of truth of defendant's postings contents - Whether defendant had proved truth of words in postings TORT: Defamation - Defence - Fair comment - Allegation regarding plaintiff's presence as a 'doula' during birth of a baby that had died during a water birth delivery - Defendant alleged plaintiff was responsible for baby's death - Defendant admitted that contents of postings derived from information provided by third parties - Defendant failed to bring third parties as witnesses - Whether defendant had inquired into facts before making statement - Whether defendant had proved absence of malice - Whether adverse inference could be invoked against defendant - Whether contents of postings were based on hearsay For the plaintiff - Irna Shahana Shamsudin & Nur Izzaida Zamani; M/s CK Ling, Izzaida & Irna For the defendant - Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam, Nan Muhammad Ridhwan Rosnan & Nur Fatin Hafiza Hasham; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
[2020] 1 LNS 2113	A CHILD v. PP In cases where a juvenile has committed a non-violent offence and the probation report does not show rehabilitation is impossible, sending the offender to a school that focuses on such offenders would be a better option. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Juvenile offender - Appeal against order to send juvenile to Henry Gurney school and Asrama Akhlak - Absence of previous crime records - Non-violent offence - Whether child's guardians were invited to address court before sentencing - Whether provisions of s. 90(11) of Child Act 2001 has been fulfilled - Whether it was more appropriate to send child to approved school - Whether probation report had been taken into account - Whether sentence of trial court warrant appellate court's intervention For the applicants - Safiah A Aziz; M/s Safiah Aziz & Co For the respondent - Mustaqim bin Sukarno; Deputy Public Prosecutor
[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
[2019] 1 LNS 2344	MOHD AFANDI ASRAF MOHAMAD SHUKRI & YANG LAIN lwn. RISMANTO KASIM & YANG LAIN Demi mencapai keadilan, Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budibicara yang sedia ada bawah A. 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk menghidupkan semula kes yang telah dibatalkan pada hari pertama perbicaraan. Oleh kerana merit kes belum lagi dibicarakan dan diputuskan, maka penghidupan semula kes tidak akan memprejudiskan defendan. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Tindakan - Penghidupan semula - Merit kes belum lagi dibicarakan dan diputuskan - Tindakan dibatalkan pada tarikh perbicaraan pertama - Tindakan dibatalkan atas kegagalan peguam plaintif dan saksi plaintif menghadiri perbicaraan - Peguam plaintif mendakwa berada di luar bilik bicara menunggu kehadiran saksi - Plaintif tidak berupaya menghadiri mahkamah dan surat sakit telah dikemukakan - Sama ada perbicaraan wajar ditangguhkan ke hari yang lain - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menggunapakai kuasa budibicara yang sedia ada bawah A. 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk menghidupkan semula kes - Sama ada penghidupan semula kes boleh memprejudiskan defendan Bagi pihak responden - T/n Othman Hashim & Co Bagi pihak perayu - T/n S G Linggam & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 6 (Part 2)

The filing of a single notice of appeal, whenever there is more than one decision arising from separate applications, is permissible subject to a caveat - all the decisions appealed against must be clearly and concisely set out with the relevant details and particulars of each decision in the notice of appeal.
Khairy Jamaluddin v. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim & Another Appeal [2022] 6 CLJ 163 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - One decision arising from separate applications - Whether single notice of appeal could be filed - Whether could cause ambiguity - Whether such notice of appeal defective and bad in law - Whether decision of Federal Court in Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil Selvi Alau Malay & Ors applicable - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 5(3)

ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-43-04-2019(W))

For the appellant - Sarah Maalini Abishegam; M/s Shafee & Co
For the respondent - Leela J Jesuthasan; M/s Chambers of Leela J

(Civil Appeal No: 03-2-08-2020(N))

For the appellant - SY Ng, HL Choon, Magdalene Soon & Loo Hui En; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
For the respondent - Krishna Dallumah & YH Yong; M/s Krishna Dallumah & Indran

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.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Tan Sooi Lek & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 177 [FC]

UTILITIES | CIVIL PROCEDURE

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

VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ

For the appellant - Steven Thiru, Ong Wee En, Sarah Hani Rohizam, David Mathew & Priscilla Lim; M/s Lim Huck Aik & Co
For the respondents - Ramanathan N Rengasamy Pillai; M/s Ram Pillai & Assocs

When the lease of a land ends, the land is reverted to the State Authority and no one can claim any rights to the land unless the State Authority renews the said lease. A beneficiary cannot claim the rights of a share of the land upon the expiration of such lease.
Ho Yoke Keng v. Philip Lau Soo Fock & Another Appeal [2022] 6 CLJ 200 [CA]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Lease - Renewal - Lessee passed away and half undivided share of land registered under name of administrator of deceased estate - Beneficiary of other half share of land applied to be granted half ownership of land and to set aside granting of lease - Whether beneficiary had rights or entitled to half undivided share of land - Whether Pentadbir Tanah Daerah empowered to revoke approval for renewal of lease of land - Whether Pentadbir Tanah Daerah had power under law to approve application for renewal of lease - National Land Code, ss. 40, 41, 42 & 78(3)

MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
GHAZALI CHA JCA

(Civil Appeal No: B-01(NCvC)(A)-10-01-2021)

For the appellant - Lee Hong Yap; M/s HY Lee & Co

(Civil Appeal No: B-01(NCvC)(A)-19-01-2021)

For the appellants - Ivan Ho Tiong Yin & Lim Khey Hoong; M/s Lim Khey Hoong & Partners
For the respondent in both appeals - Kirubakaran, Kunasegaran Maniveloo & Cheong Jun Yeng; M/s Kuna & Co

The duties and powers of a Management Corporation (MC) established under the Strata Titles Act 1985 are governed by the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA), and the SMA, being a special-purpose statute it was, takes precedence over other statutes vis-a-vis such duties and powers. This being the case, the attempt by the Energy Commission herein to compel the MC to undertake the supply of natural gas to the parcel owners at Solaris Dutamas pursuant to the provisions of the Gas Supply (Amendment) Act 2016 was legally untenable. The Energy Commission's notice fell outside the scope of the MC or the SMA; it was ultra vires, invalid and of no effect.
Perbadanan Pengurusan Solaris Dutamas v. Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia & Anor [2022] 6 CLJ 219 [CA]

LAND LAW | UTILITIES

LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation ('MC') - Natural gas supply within multiple component development area - Order for MC to apply for retail licence to take over management of natural gas supply - Whether act require charges levied on end users - Whether MC could only levy payments as mandated under Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether imposition of fee for consumption of gas or electricity provided for - Whether MC would contradict explicit terms of SMA by assuming role of retail licensee - Whether order requiring MC to carry out supply of natural gas ultra vires SMA

UTILITIES: Natural gas - Supply of - Management corporation ('MC') - Natural gas supply within multiple component development area - Order for MC to apply for retail licence to take over management of natural gas supply - Whether act would require charges levied on end users - Whether MC could only levy payments as mandated under Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether imposition of fee for consumption of gas or electricity provided for - Whether MC would contradict explicit terms of SMA by assuming role of retail licensee - Whether order requiring MC to carry out supply of natural gas ultra vires SMA

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
GHAZALI CHA JCA

For the appellant - Lai Chee Hoe & Ooi Xin Yi; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs
For the 1st respondent - John Clark Sumugod, Oh Kei Zuin & Mohd Aiman Syafiq; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
For the 2nd respondent - Shaikh Abdul Saleem Shaikh Abdul Karim & Yunis Arliza; M/s Shaikh David & Co

The Minister, in referring a representation under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, does not decide on the merits of the dispute. His role is only to ascertain whether the representation had raised any serious questions of fact or law, as would warrant it to be referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication. Consequently, it is not for the Minister to decide whether a claimant is a workman coming within the purview of the Industrial Court; that issue must be decided and dealt with by the Industrial Court itself.
Tan Wee Ching v. DA Tong Shi Je Supplies & Services Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2022] 6 CLJ 237 [CA]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | LABOUR LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Exercise of discretion - Reference of claimant's representation by Minister to Industrial Court - Whether Minister exercised discretion according to law - Whether Minister decided that claimant was workman - Whether matter for Industrial Court to adjudicate - Whether requirement for notification under s. 20(2) of Industrial Relations Act 1967 merely administrative - Whether failure to exhibit notification nullified Minister's decision - Whether Minister's decision ought to be quashed

LABOUR LAW: Judicial review - Appeal against - High Court quashed Minister's decision to refer representation to Industrial Court - Whether Minister exercised discretion according to law - Whether Minister decided that claimant was workman - Whether matter for Industrial Court to adjudicate - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1) & (3)

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA

(Civil Appeal No: A-01(A)-674-11-2019)

For the appellant - Andrew Soong Tze Toong & Chong Xin Tong; M/s Bh Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners
For the respondent - Rabinder Singh; M/s Rabin & Assocs

(Civil Appeal No: A-01(A)-688-11-2019)

For the appellant - Ashyraf Ashy'ari Kamaruzzaman; SFC
For the respondent - Rabinder Singh; M/s Rabin & Assocs

Walaupun Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam 1993 tidak menyatakan tempoh masa untuk memaklumkan seorang perayu dalam perkhidmatan awam tentang keputusan rayuannya bersabit hukuman buang kerja, perayu perlu dimaklumkan dengan kadar yang segera kerana melibatkan haknya yang diambil tindakan tatatertib.
Mohd Shukri Roslan lwn. Dato' Sri Hj Mustafar Hj Ali & Yang Lain [2022] 6 CLJ 253 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Semakan kehakiman untuk membatalkan hukuman buang kerja - Pemohon bekas Pegawai Imigresen ditahan dan disiasat bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 - Tiada sebarang pertuduhan dikenakan atas pemohon - Pemohon diperintahkan menjalani perintah tahanan bawah s. 19A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 selama dua tahun - Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib membuat aduan terhadap pemohon pada Lembaga Tatatertib - Pemohon dikenakan hukuman buang kerja - Pemohon merayu tetapi keputusan rayuan hanya dimaklumkan selepas tiga tahun lapan bulan - Sama ada terdapat kegagalan mematuhi prosedur yang ditetapkan

MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE MOHD ABBAS PK

Bagi pihak pemohon - Shaharuddin Mohamed & Nur Syafika Mustaffa; T/n Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz
Bagi pihak responden-responden - Ahmad Faiz Fitri Mohamad; Pengarah Guaman Negeri Kelantan

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.
Ong Xin Tong v. Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran Dan Kematian Malaysia & Anor [2022] 6 CLJ 274 [HC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

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

ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED J

N/A

The court is seized with the power, pursuant to s. 417 of the National Land Code, to direct the Registrar to do all such things as may be necessary to give effect to any judgment or order given or made in any proceeding relating to land, in this case a Registrar's caveat, to maintain the status quo of such land.
Sha Chaim Chuan v. CC Land Resources Sdn Bhd [2022] 6 CLJ 294 [HC]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Caveat - Registrar's caveat - Setting aside - Purchaser commenced action against developer based on breach of letter of undertaking - Purchaser entered Registrar's caveat over land - Whether Registrar's caveat ought to be ordered to maintain status quo - Whether ought to be set aside - National Land Code, s. 417

JOHN LEE KIEN HOW JC

For the applicant - Leong Sher-How; M/s Leong & Partners
For the respondent - Lim Ping Kok; M/s CL Teh & Lim

A shareholder may bring both personal action and leave application to commence a derivative action in the same suit if both claims revolve around the same facts, transactions and events. This will obviate the necessity of separate trials, hearings, costs and save the court's resources.
Tan Eng Joo v. Sandeep Singh Grewal & Anor [2022] 6 CLJ 308 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Leave - Derivative action by shareholder on behalf of company against sole director of company - Personal capacity - Allegations of corporate wrongs by sole director committed against company - Whether shareholder can combine application to seek leave to commence derivative action with his personal causes of action suit against sole director and company - Whether there was reasonable cause of action in proposed action based on alleged complaints - Companies Act 2016, s. 347(1)

LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC

For the plaintiff - Jasbeer Singh Banta Singh, Nur Afifah Mat Swadi & Kevin Siaw; M/s Jasbeer Nur & Lee
For the defendants - Kevin Prakash & Hazween Sameera Md Hassan; M/s Kevin Prakash

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

BOARD AND INSTITUTION'S FRAMEWORK IN INDIA'S SATYAM: A LESSON ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Mohd Hakim Musa* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxii

THE PLIGHT OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN MALAYSIA AND PROPOSALS FOR LEGAL REFORM (PART 2) ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Jaganraj Ramachandran^[i] Dr Saw Tiong Guan^[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxiii

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) 217/2022	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 10) Order 2022	27 June 2022	4 July 2022	ACT 333
PU(A) 216/2022	Customs Duties (Amendment) Order 2022	27 June 2022	1 July 2022	PU(A) 114/2022
PU(A) 215/2022	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 9) Order 2022	27 June 2022	1 July 2022	ACT 333
PU(A) 214/2022	Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Declaration of Infected Local Areas) (Extension of Operation) Order 2022	27 June 2022	1 July 2022	ACT 342
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(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 318/2022	Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Member of The Board	8 July 2022	Appointment - 13 June 2022 to 31 December 2022; Revocation - Specified in column (2) of the Schedule	ACT 656
PU(B) 317/2022	Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor	7 July 2022	Specified in column (2) of the Schedule	ACT 593
PU(B) 316/2022	Fatwa Under Section 34	7 July 2022	8 July 2022	ACT 505
PU(B) 315/2022	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Desaru North Course Berhad)	7 July 2022	8 July 2022	ACT 778
PU(B) 314/2022	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Crigen Resources Berhad)	7 July 2022	8 July 2022	ACT 778

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