| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #29/2022
21 July 2022
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
CAS v. MPPL & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 713 Case laws are replete with decisions that the courts are not seized with the power, in civil proceedings, to compel adults to produce deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') samples to prove the paternity of a child. However, it has never been discussed nor decided whether the courts could order for a child to undergo a DNA test to determine the child's paternity. In this distinctive judgment, a prima facie case was established as there was an avalanche of evidence that there existed sexual relations during the conception period of the child, between parties engaging in an extra-marital affair. Also present were overwhelming documentary evidence of an intimate relationship akin to that of a family unit. As it was in the best interest of the child to know her biological father, the child was accordingly ordered to undergo a DNA test to conclusively resolve the ambiguity as to her paternity. FAMILY LAW: Children - Paternity - Determination of biological father of child - Claim by third party man to be biological father of child conceived during marriage of husband and wife - Whether prima facie case established - Whether there was sexual intercourse between wife and man before her marriage to her husband and during her marriage - Whether sexual intercourse took place between wife and man during conception period of child - Whether man had access to child after child's birth - Whether man provided maintenance for child - Whether court seized with power to order DNA test on child to determine paternity - Whether court ought to order child to undergo DNA test APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2022 Volume 6 (Part 3) In an offence under s. 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalty) Act 1971, the accused person must be proven to have committed the act of robbery and to have discharged a firearm whilst committing the offence, thereby emphasising that the firearm must be discharged during the commission of such offence, and not after. In this case, the prosecution had established that the trigger was pulled by the accused person to shoot the victim with the intention to cause injury, while committing the offence of robbery, ie, driving away the victim's car. CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW: Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Section 3 - Whether gunshot injury caused by accused person - Whether injury negated defence of accused person - Whether firearm discharged when offence of robbery being committed - Whether intention proven - Whether evidence pointed to accused person as person who had pulled trigger - Whether elements of charge established EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to call witness - Whether trial judge satisfied with evidence of positive identification - Whether evidence withheld by prosecution - Whether witness offered to accused person - Whether non-calling of witness as prosecution witness give rise to adverse inference - Whether elements of charge against accused person proven without evidence of witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) EVIDENCE: Information leading to fact discovered - Admissibility - Requirement - Whether to be in writing - Whether must be proved by oral evidence - Whether conduct of leading to fact discovered admissible - Whether evidence of pointing out place leading to recovery of exhibit relevant - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 8 & 27
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
Salah arah oleh hakim bicara dalam satu kes pengedaran dadah berbahaya adalah serius seperti kegagalan mempertimbangkan pembelaan yang dikemukakan tertuduh dan mengabaikan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh tertuduh, terutama sekali apabila wujud dua versi keterangan yang berlawanan. Ini boleh mendatangkan prejudis dan menjejaskan hak tertuduh mendapat keadilan. Sabitan menjadi tidak selamat jika tiada kewujudan keterangan melimpah ruah untuk mengekalkannya. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH | PROSEDUR JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Sama ada pertimbangan sewajarnya diberikan atas keterangan sedia ada - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi penting - Anggapan bertentangan bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada terpakai - Sama ada hakim bicara khilaf dalam membuat pertimbangan atas beban yang dikenakan atas perayu semasa membela diri - Wujud dua versi berkenaan apa yang berlaku pada hari kejadian - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan perlu peka terhadap versi pembelaan dan bertanggungan mematahkannya - Sama ada terdapat salah arah serius - Sama ada mendatangkan prejudis dan menjejaskan hak perayu - Sama ada wujud keterangan melimpah ruah untuk mengekalkan sabitan - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 37(da) PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pengedaran - Sama ada pertimbangan sewajarnya diberikan atas keterangan sedia ada - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi penting - Anggapan bertentangan bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada terpakai - Sama ada hakim terbicara khilaf dalam membuat pertimbangan atas beban yang dikenakan atas perayu semasa membela diri - Wujud dua versi berkenaan apa yang berlaku pada hari kejadian - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan perlu peka terhadap versi pembelaan dan bertanggungan mematahkannya - Sama ada terdapat salah arah serius - Sama ada mendatangkan prejudis dan menjejaskan hak perayu - Sama ada wujud keterangan melimpah ruah untuk mengekalkan sabitan - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, ss. 37(da) & 39B(1)(a)
HAS ZANAH MEHAT HMR
Public policy and public interest are paramount considerations in determining an application for an order that the prosecution supply defence statements, recorded from witnesses of the prosecution offered to the defence. Public policy, or public interest element or concerns, extend to the defence stage of the case. Certain documents applied may be subject to privilege. Although prosecution witnesses offered to the defence are, at that stage, technically defence witnesses, there is still the danger of these witnesses being subjected to intimidation. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Witness - Statements - Application by defence - Order that prosecution supply defence statements - Statements recorded from witnesses of prosecution offered to defence - Whether witness statements privileged - Whether confidential communication - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 51 EVIDENCE: Witness - Statements - Application by defence - Order that prosecution supply defence statements - Statements recorded from witnesses of prosecution offered to defence - Whether witness statements privileged - Whether confidential communication - Evidence Act 1950, s. 124
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH J
Section 106(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 provides that no divorce petition could be filed unless the conciliatory body has certified that it has failed to reconcile the married parties subject to the exceptions outlined in the provisos. There is nothing in the provisos to s. 106(1) that state that litigants need to refer their matrimonial difficulty to the conciliatory body only once. CIVIL PROCEDURE | FAMILY LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out petition for divorce - Petitioner obtained certificate of non-conciliation in 2002 from conciliatory body - Petitioner filed petition for divorce in 2020, utilising 2002 certificate - Whether 2002 certificate could still be used - Whether fresh certificate of non-conciliation from conciliatory body ought to be secured - Whether petition defective, null and void - Whether ought to be struck out - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 106(1) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (c) & (d) FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Petition - Petitioner obtained certificate of non-conciliation in 2002 from conciliatory body - Petitioner filed petition for divorce in 2020, utilising 2002 certificate - Whether 2002 certificate could still be used - Whether fresh certificate of non-conciliation from conciliatory body ought to be secured - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 106(1)
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
The insured, pursuant to s. 129 and Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013, has the duty of utmost good faith to disclose the most important fact of the intended policy coverage, but such duty may be waived if the insurer chooses not to make the necessary inquiries relevant to the decision-making in relation to the policy. However, s. 129 and Schedule 9 have no application in a case where the contract of insurance has never, in fact and in law, come into existence or is void ab initio. INSURANCE
INSURANCE: Motor insurance - Policy - Validity of insurance contract - Renewal of insurance policy subsequent to demise of insured - Whether insurer had knowledge of demise of insured when policy issued - Whether third person who renewed policy had insurable interest - Whether valid contract of insurance existed - Whether breach of duty of uberrimae fide - Whether insurer waived right to complain for failure to pose questions to insured or her representatives - Financial Services Act 2013, s. 129 & Schedule 9
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
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
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
CHRISTOPHER CHIN SOO YIN JC
(i) The High Court's power to arrest ships, as security for arbitral proceedings under its admiralty jurisdiction, does not cancel or strip its power to grant interim reliefs for arbitral proceedings under its civil jurisdiction; (ii) The power given to arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures does not replace the High Court's powers to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings; and (iii) A High Court ruling, made in the course of a hearing, is not a decision that finally disposes of the rights of the parties. CIVIL PROCEDURE | MARITIME LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Applications for Mareva injunctions - Restraint of removal or dissipation of assets pending final determination of arbitral proceedings - Whether High Court seized with requisite jurisdiction to hear and grant applications - Whether High Court's power to grant interim reliefs for preservation of assets limited to arrest of ships, bail or security under admiralty jurisdiction - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunction before or during arbitral proceedings - Whether only arbitral tribunal empowered to grant such relief - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 11(1)(c) & 19(2)(c) CIVIL PROCEDURE: High Court - Ruling - Ruling made in course of hearing at High Court - Whether decision finally disposes of rights of parties - Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal against High Court ruling - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 3 & 67 MARITIME LAW: Jurisdiction - High Court - Applications for Mareva injunctions - Restraint of removal or dissipation of assets pending final determination of arbitral proceedings - Whether High Court seized with requisite jurisdiction to hear and grant applications
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
The determination of questions under O. 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 for the purpose of disposal of a suit does not warrant a full trial because such an exercise will not require the examination of witnesses and evidence. In this case, the reliefs sought could instead be comfortably derived from the interpretation of statutes and the Federal Constitution. The scope of O. 14A is also not confined to questions of law for it extends also to the determination of 'construction of any document'. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Disposal on point of law - Establishment of national type schools - Whether ss. 2, 17 and 28 of Education Act 1996 inconsistent with art. 152(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether establishment and existence of Chinese and Tamil national type schools inconsistent with arts. 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Federal Constitution - Whether matters in contention justiciable - Whether points raised merely questions of law - Whether question on interpretation of statute of law and Federal Constitution
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
An inquest proceeding is not a trial. A coroner's verdict, which is determined by established facts, does not amount to any conviction. A coroner's findings could only be used as a basis to launch a criminal or civil suit but the finding of facts in a coroner's report could not be treated as facts that have already been proven without calling any witnesses to prove those facts. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Death in custody - Deceased arrested and detained pursuant to Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 - Deceased and two other detainees complained of not feeling well - Other detainees sent to hospital first before deceased - Deceased died of fatal arrythmias - Death caused by combination of underlying problem of myocardial bridging, coronary atherosclerosis and leptospiral - Whether police owed duty of care to deceased while under custody - Whether there was breach of duty of care - Whether breach caused and/or contributed to deceased's death TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Death in custody - Deceased arrested and detained pursuant to Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 - Deceased and two other detainees complained of not feeling well - Other detainees sent to hospital first before deceased - Deceased died of fatal arrythmias - Death caused by combination of underlying problem of myocardial bridging, coronary atherosclerosis and leptospiral - Whether police committed any illegal wrongdoing - Whether there was malice - Whether police acted with improper or ulterior motive - Whether deceased's death in custody could immediately give rise to claim of public misfeasance
CHOO KAH SING J
The statutory notice issued by the proprietors/creditors against the company to demand payment of an outstanding sum was deemed valid and effective as it was done in writing under the hands of the creditors' solicitors, had specified the sum due and was served at the company's registered office, thereby complying with s. 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016. The company's claim of irreparable damage, fears and hardship could not override the proprietors' statutory right as a creditor to enforce the debt owed, much less constitute any real ground for a Fortuna injunction. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Restraining proprietors of premises from presenting winding-up petition against company - Company's failure to pay rental to proprietors - Whether there was mutual understanding of reduction of monthly rentals - Whether proprietors as creditors had locus standi and statutory right to petition - Whether notice issued by proprietors pursuant to s. 466 of Companies Act 2016 valid - Whether there was bona fide dispute of debt justifying Fortuna injunction - Whether court exercised discretion to also refuse Erinford injunction
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CLJ 2022 Volume 6 (Part 4) The scheme of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('IRA') makes it clear that it is only the Industrial Court which is conferred with an adjudicatory function. Hence, in a case of a reference of a representation under s. 20 of the IRA, the Minister of Human Resources could not assume a function expressly reserved for the Industrial Court. If the representation raises serious questions of fact or law calling for adjudication, it ought to be referred to the Industrial Court. In this case, the issue pertaining to restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity is within the purview of the Industrial Court and hence, the Minister was right in his decision to refer the matter to the Industrial Court. LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination of employment - Termination of employment of employee of US Embassy - Reference by Minister to Industrial Court - Whether representation raised serious questions of fact or law - Whether restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity applicable - Whether Industrial Court proper forum to determine matter - Whether reference by Minister determined question of immunity - Whether Minister's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) LABOUR LAW: Reference - Reference by Minister - Termination of employment of employee of US Embassy - Reference to Industrial Court - Whether representation raised serious questions of fact or law - Whether restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity applicable - Whether Industrial Court proper forum to determine matter - Whether reference by Minister determined question of immunity - Whether Minister's decision tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
A principal obligor in a guarantee agreement is primarily liable for the principal borrower's indebtedness to a lender and such a liability is not dependent or secondary to the liability of the principal borrower. Even if the lender could not recover the loan from the principal borrower for any reason, the principal obligor is still liable to the lender under the principal obligor clause. BANKING
BANKING: Guarantee - Principal obligor - Term loan facility - Principal obligor clause - Recovery of sum due and owing under guarantee - Whether guarantee and indemnity given as principal obligor or principal debtor - Whether principal obligor primarily liable for principal borrower's indebtedness to lender - Whether liability dependent or secondary to liability of principal borrower - Whether principal obligor liable to lender if lender could not recover loan from principal borrower
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
It is the intention of the legislators that the provision of s. 70A of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 ('the Act'), as a measure to control illegal earthworks that may pose risks to the environment and the public, operates to cover, not only illegal earthworks that are found actually being done on the date specified in the charge, but also extends to similar works done before its discovery. Only then would the law be effective in deterring would be offenders from committing such offence. Also, notwithstanding that the operations of a quarry on the lands may have been legally approved and may involve ancillary earthworks such as the cutting of slopes, those works are still subject to the jurisdiction and approval of the local authority. The argument that, since the quarry was legally operated and hence, earthworks carried out ancillary to it were equally legal without the need for compliance with the requirements of s. 70A of the Act, holds no water. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local authority - Failure to obtain approval for earthworks - Offence under s. 70A(1) of Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 - Whether earthworks illegal - Whether remnants of quarry operations - Whether act of cutting slopes committed on date specified in charge - Standard of proof - Whether there was misdirection - Whether there was miscarriage of justice - Whether there was failure to raise reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Whether prima facie case established
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
A director of a company is empowered with a right to have access to and inspect the documents of the company, the purpose of which is to enable the director to carry out his duties as a director for the benefit of the company. As each director owes duties to the company to attend to its affairs, the right to have access to the company's documents and records is to inform himself as to the company's affairs and therefore, the better to carry out such duties. In fact, the possibility of abuse or misuse of the right does not, in law, afford any ground for its denial or restriction. COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Access to and inspection of documents - Application by shareholder and director to inspect and take copies of documents, records and information of companies - Whether right of director to inspect absolute - Whether necessary for director to provide reason for inspection - Whether director had to make prior request -Companies Act 2016, ss. 245(4) & 248(4)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
Orang awam hanya boleh membuat tuntutan pampasan daripada Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara, Majlis Peguam Malaysia jika penyelewengan dilakukan oleh peguam yang merupakan pemilik tunggal. Peguamcara dalam firma yang beramal sebagai rakan kongsi, yang secara curang melesapkan wang yang dipegang oleh firma tersebut, seperti dalam kes ini, tidak memenuhi kriteria yang terkandung dalam Garis Panduan Tuntutan Pampasan yang dikeluarkan mengikut s. 80(12) Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 ('Akta Profesion'). Oleh itu, Majlis Peguam, apabila menolak permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk pampasan akibat tindakan curang peguamcara tersebut, telah bertindak dalam ruang lingkup kuasa sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Akta Profesion. PROFESION GUAMAN
PROFESION GUAMAN: Pecah amanah - Tuntutan pampasan - Peguamcara secara curang melesap duit wang yang dipegang oleh firma - Tuntutan pampasan daripada Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara, Majlis Peguam Malaysia - Sama ada permohonan memenuhi kriteria yang ditetapkan oleh Garis Panduan Tuntutan Pampasan - Sama ada tuntutan hanya boleh dibuat jika penyelewengan dilakukan oleh peguam pemilik tunggal - Sama ada defendan bertindak dalam ruang lingkup kuasa yang diperuntukkan oleh Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 - Sama ada plaintif-plaintif layak membuat tuntutan - Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976, ss. 80(2), (8), (9) & (12)
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED H
Mengambil kira iktibar daripada keputusan kes Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v. PP tentang had umur seorang lelaki Malaysia, hukuman 1050 tahun yang dijatuhkan terhadap pesalah yang mengaku bersalah bawah kesalahan s. 376B Kanun Keseksaan, adalah satu hukuman yang sememangnya tidak munasabah kerana itu tidak mungkin akan dapat dijalani kerana perayu mustahil akan mencapai umur tersebut. Malahan umur 100 tahun pun jarang dicapai oleh seisi penduduk dunia. Oleh itu, hukuman yang dijatuhkan bersifat 'emotional judgment', jelas 'manifestly excessive' dan adalah suatu hukuman yang berbentuk 'crushing sentence'. Sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan tidak boleh bersifat tidak logik dan tidak munasabah untuk hukuman yang dijatuhkan melebihi jangka hayat seseorang pesalah. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH | PROSEDUR JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 376B - Pengakuan salah - Hukuman - Faktor-faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan - Sama ada tempoh pemenjaraan 1050 tahun 'manifestly excessive' - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 292 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Rayuan terhadap - Kesalahan bawah s. 376B Kanun Keseksaan - Pengakuan salah - Faktor-faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan - Sama ada tempoh pemenjaraan 1050 tahun 'manifestly excessive' - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 292
AZMI ABDULLAH H
Any disregard of a court order is a grave matter, more so when such order relates to a child, as in the present case. The terms of the court order were consented to by both parties and were stipulated in the interests of the welfare of the child. The wife's conduct of refusing to comply with the terms of the court order, which was premised on the acrimony between herself and her husband, and the baseless, unsubstantiated and spurious allegations made by her against her husband proved that her conduct was mala fide and amounted to a gross violation of the court order. The fact that the wife refused to apologise, or to undertake not to further breach the terms of the court order, warranted a harsh sentence, thus the husband's application for an order of committal against the wife is allowed. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal order - Application for - Application for order of committal against wife for non-compliance with court order regarding custody, care and control of child - Whether pre-requisites in O. 52 rr. 2B and 4(3) of Rules of Court 2012 complied with - Whether wife breached terms of court order - Whether there was wilful refusal to comply with terms of court order - Whether custodial sentence warranted
EVROL MARIETTE PETERS JC
Ketakpatuhan pada mana-mana tatacara undang-undang dan mahkamah tidak sewajarnya melesapkan hak pihak-pihak untuk mengemukakan tuntutan di mahkamah, yang tertakluk pada pembuktian dalam perbicaraan. Jika terdapat ketakpatuhan, dalam kes ini, tidak memasukkan nama pihak yang sepatutnya, tindakan wajar yang boleh dilakukan adalah dengan membuat pindaan pada writ dan penyata tuntutan. PROSEDUR SIVIL
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Tuntutan balas - Pembatalan - Permohonan - Dakwaan bahawa pihak ketiga tidak mempunyai locus standi mengemukakan tuntutan balas - Sama ada peruntukan Akta Pembangunan Sukan 1997 menghalang individu atau mana-mana persatuan mengambil tindakan yang menjadi atau disaman sebagaimana dalam Akta Pertubuhan 1966 - Sama ada pihak ketiga mempunyai locus standi memfailkan tindakan dengan menamakan pihak ketiga tanpa meletakkan nama salah seorang ahli jawatankuasanya - Sama ada terdapat hubungan kontraktual antara pihak-pihak untuk menunjukkan kausa tindakan antara kedua-duanya - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19
ROSLAN MAT NOR PK
Public authorities have a duty to provide reasons for their decisions in dismissing their officers, even if no express stipulation of such a requirement exists to do so. The duty to provide reasons is not grounded only for reasons of fairness but is also for good administration. This is especially so when one considers that a dismissed officer suffers losses as a result of the dismissal which affects his/her livelihood. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Judicial review against decision of statutory authority - Dismissal from service - Allegation of misconduct - Whether there was inordinate delay causing any prejudicial to applicant - Whether dismissal and termination of applicant's employment legally valid - Whether effective - Whether public authorities required to provide reasons for dismissal - Whether decision irrational
ANAND PONNUDURAI J N/A ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
