CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
KOH KIEN HOOI & ORS v. KEPONG INDUSTRIAL PARK SDN BHD [2022] 7 CLJ 253
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC
[CIVIL ACTION NO: WA-22NCvC-350-05-2021]
23 MAY 2022
Even though the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear claims falling within the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts, the practice of bypassing the lower courts should be frowned upon and should be discouraged. Unless there are cogent reasons as to why a claim should be instituted in the High Court, litigants should file their claims following the jurisdiction provided for in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Subordinate courts - Sessions Court - Claims for alleged failure to deliver vacant possession - Claimants sought separate specific amounts below RM1 million - Each claimant has separate cause of action with separate remedy - Claims similar in nature and law but based on separate agreements - Whether claimants entitled to collate total sum claimed - Whether collation exceed sum of RM1 million, falling exclusively within jurisdiction of High Court - Whether proceedings ought to be transferred to Sessions Court - Rules of Court 2012, O. 57 r. 1
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Tan Cheong Hoor & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad [2021] 1 LNS 1446 affirming the High Court case of Tan Cheong Hoor & Satu Lagi lwn. Public Bank Berhad [2018] 1 LNS 442
-
Khoo Teng Chuan & Anor v. Wealthy Achievers Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 1 LNS 1284 affirming the High Court case of Khoo Teng Chuan & Anor v. Wealthy Achievers Sdn Bhd & Ors [Guaman Sivil No. 22NCvC-108-07/2015]
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 675
|
MOHAMAD ROHAILIZAL RAMLI v. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS
1. Secretary to the advisory board present at the representation hearing is competent to depose an affidavit on matters within his/her personal knowledge of the events that transpired during the hearing. Thus, the absence of an affidavit from the Chairman and members of the advisory board is not a good ground to challenge a detention order.
2. A person related to or associated with a whistleblower is only entitled to protection against detrimental action which has been defined in s. 2 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 ('WPA') and it does not grant him the protection of confidential information and immunity from civil and criminal action under s. 7(1)(a) and (b) of the WPA and consequently to preventive detention.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Dispute as to capacity of secretary to advisory board to depose affidavit as to events transpired during hearing of representation - Whether secretary lacked capacity to depose affidavit on behalf of Chairman and members of advisory board - Whether failure to produce minutes of proceedings of advisory board had occasioned non-compliance of procedure
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Respondents failed to procure notes of proceedings of advisory board - Allegation that notes of proceedings if tendered would show that applicant was entitled to immunity under Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Whether there was any procedural non-compliance for failure to supply notes of proceedings of advisory board
WHISTLEBLOWER: Immunity - Scope of - Section 7(1) of Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Applicant alleged that he was a person related to whistleblower who had assisted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission ('MACC') to bait another targeted person - Whether applicant was entitled to immunity from protection of confidential information - Whether applicant was entitled to immunity from prevention detention - Whether there was credible evidence to show that applicant was a whistleblower
- For the applicant - Selvam Shanmugam & Surenthiran Raj; M/s Selvam Shanmugam & Partner
- For the respondent - Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff & Muhamad Safuan Azhar, Deputy Public Prosecutors; Attorney's General Chambers
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 676
|
MOHD ROSLI ANI v. PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS
1. In an application for habeas corpus, s. 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') mandates that an affidavit in support required by s. 366 be made by the detenu unless he is restrained or coerced or for other sufficient cause, is unable to make it. Where an affidavit in support is filed by any person other than the detenu himself and in the absence of any sufficient cause, the provision of s. 367 of the CPC will then operate to exclude the court from considering the said affidavit.
2. A person related to or associated with a whistleblower is only entitled to protection against detrimental action, as defined under s. 2 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 ('WPA'). It does not, however, grant him the protection of confidential information and immunity from civil and criminal action under s. 7(1)(a) and (b) of the WPA and consequently to preventive detention.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application - Preliminary objection - Affidavit in support not affirmed by detenu - Whether requirement of ss. 366 and 367 of Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') have been met - Whether court could consider affidavit filed in contravention of s. 367 of CPC
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Respondents failed to procure notes of proceedings of advisory board - Allegation that notes of proceedings if tendered would show that applicant was entitled to immunity under Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Whether there was any procedural non-compliance for failure to supply notes of proceedings of advisory board
WHISTLEBLOWER: Immunity - Scope of - Section 7(1) of Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Applicant alleged that he was a person related to a whistleblower who had assisted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission ('MACC') to bait another targeted person - Whether applicant was entitled to immunity from protection of confidential information - Whether applicant was entitled to immunity from prevention detention - Whether there was credible evidence to show that applicant was a whistleblower
- For the applicant - Selvam Shanmugam & Surenthiran Raj; M/s Selvam Shanmugam & Partners
- For the respondent - Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff & Muhamad Safuan Azhar, Deputy Public Prosecutors; Attorney's General Chambers
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 677
|
CUT & BEND SDN BHD v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE
A party who is dissatisfied or disputes the reasons and decision of the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') in the audit findings and the tax assessment should first avail themselves of the special statutory remedy of appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax under s. 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA'). The said party can only resort to a judicial review application against the decision of the DGIR in exceptional circumstances. Mere interpretation of Schedule 7A of ITA relating to claim for reinvestment allowance does not give rise to exceptional circumstances.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Judicial review against decision of Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') raising additional assessment - Applicant alleged that it is in business of manufacturing under Schedule 7A of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') and entitled to claim for reinvestment allowance - Whether there was adequate alternative remedy available for applicant by way of appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax under s. 99 of ITA - Whether applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances which would warrant leave to be granted - Whether interpretation of Schedule 7A of ITA relating to claim for reinvestment allowance gave rise to exceptional circumstances - Whether there was blatant disregard of statutory duty by DGIR
- For the applicant - Mary Gomez & Lim Chun Yuan; M/s MG's Legal Chambers
- For the respondent - Arsyad Hasanuddin & Hazlina Hussain; Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia (LHDN)
- For the respondent - Mohd Hafizi Abdul Halim; Jabatan Peguam Negara
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1034
|
MUHAMMAD HARIS AZIZI ABDULLAH lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN
1. Seksyen 12 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 memberi kuasa kepada Lembaga Penasihat mengeluarkan sepina kepada mana-mana saksi yang diperlukan oleh orang yang ditahan untuk pendengaran representasi di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat. Tanpa kehadiran saksi-saksi tersebut, Lembaga Penasihat tidak berpeluang mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi tersebut mengenai dakwaan penglibatan orang yang ditahan dalam aktiviti pengedaran dadah. Kegagalan Lembaga Penasihat mengeluarkan sepina kepada semua saksi-saksi penting yang dipohon oleh orang yang ditahan tanpa sebarang justifikasi yang kukuh boleh memprejudiskan hak orang yang ditahan untuk membuat representasi yang adil dan efektif kepada Lembaga Penasihat.
2. Walaupun s. 3(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 tidak menyatakan suatu tempoh masa untuk pegawai penyiasat mengemukakan laporan siasatan kepada Menteri Dalam Negeri dan pegawai siasatan, namun memandangkan orang ditahan telah ditahan tanpa perbicaraan (detention without trial), maka laporan tersebut hendaklah dikemukakan secepat mungkin.
PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Tahanan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Lembaga Penasihat gagal mengeluarkan sepina kepada semua saksi-saksi penting walaupun telah dipohon - Sama ada responden telah gagal mematuhi prosedur bawah s. 12 Akta - Sama ada tanpa sepina saksi-saksi yang diminta oleh pemohon boleh mendapat kebenaran untuk menghadiri representasi pemohon - Sama ada hak pemohon untuk diberi perbicaraan yang adil telah terjejas dan peluang membela diri telah diprejudiskan - Sama ada tindakan Lembaga Penasihat telah bercanggah dengan kehendak perkara 151(1)(a) dan (b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan
PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Tahanan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Kelewatan pegawai penyiasat kes mengemukakan laporan lengkap menurut s. 3(3) Akta kepada pegawai siasatan dan Menteri Dalam Negeri - Sama ada tindakan segera pihak pegawai penyiasat adalah diperlukan untuk mengemukakan laporan lengkap - Sama ada kelewatan yang tidak munasabah menyebabkan ketidakpatuhan prosedur dalam proses penahanan pemohon
- Bagi pihak pemohon - S Sivananthan & Jayarubbiny Jayaraj; T/n Sivananthan
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Adilah Mansor, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2233
|
PP lwn. ABDUL AZHIM MOHAMAD
Pihak pembelaan hanya boleh bersandarkan kepada pembelaan ketidaksempurnaan akal bawah s. 84 Kanun Keseksaan sekiranya dapat dibuktikan bahawa wujudnya ketidaksempurnaan akal dari segi undang-undang dan perubatan. Apabila tertuduh menyedari perbuatannya adalah bermotif dan salah atau bertentangan dengan undang-undang, maka pembelaan ketidaksempurnaan akan gagal.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Keterangan ikut keadaan - Mangsa dicekik di leher sehingga mati - Tertuduh membuat pengakuan kepada saksi yang hadir di tempat kejadian bahawa dia telah membunuh mangsa atas sebab dendam - Tertuduh sendiri menghubungi pihak polis dan mengaku telah membunuh mangsa - Tertuduh merupakan orang terakhir bersama mangsa sebelum mangsa ditemui mati - Rakaman CCTV menunjukkan tertuduh menggenggam pisau masuk ke ruang di mana mangsa berada - Sama ada kecederaan yang dialami oleh mangsa adalah atas perbuatan tertuduh - Sama ada hal keadaan persekitaran kejadian menunjukkan niat tertuduh untuk membunuh mangsa - Sama ada tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatannya dengan penuh kesedaran
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Ketidaksempurnaan akal - Pertuduhan bunuh - Tertuduh mendakwa mengalami gejala insomnia dan kemurungan akibat tekanan - Tertuduh mendakwa telah melihat kelibat nenek kebayan dan mendengar bisikan untuk membunuh mangsa - Sama ada ketidaksempurnaan akal adalah satu pembelaan penuh - Sama ada tertuduh tidak sempurna akal dari segi undang-undang dan perubatan - Sama ada tertuduh mengetahui jenis perbuatannya adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 84
- Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Daud Leong; T/n Mohd Daud Leong & Co
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Wan Shahida Wan Omar, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 7 (Part 1)
One who disobeys a court order would be subjected to committal proceedings in order to ensure that the due administration of justice is adhered to. Once a sustainable case for contempt against the proposed contemnors is established, in this case, breach of the terms of an ad interim injunction order, the application for leave ought to be allowed.
Chan Eng Leong & Anor v. Goh Choon Kim & Ors And Another Appeal [2022] 7 CLJ 1 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Application for - Breach of terms of injunction order - Letters by proposed contemnors - Whether purported to breach terms of injunction order - Whether leave warranted - Whether terms of injunction order for benefit of appellants - Whether appellants could enforce injunction order - Whether prima facie case established
ABDUL KARIM ABDUL JALIL JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA
- For the appellants - Karin Lim Ai Ching, Suppiah Arumugam, Nicholas Lim Wei Jian & Maegen Seah Ee Hoong; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
- For the respondents - Chow Siew Mai; M/s Chooi, Saw & Lim
- Thayalan Muniandy, Chong Jun Min & Lim Khai Sin; M/s J A Yeoh
(i) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah ('PTD') diberi kuasa membuat pengisytiharan bagi pihak Kerajaan Negeri, bawah s. 8 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dan mempunyai kuasa pembetulan bawah s. 40(1) Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967; dan (ii) bawah prinsip estopel, pihak yang terkilan dengan pengambilan tanah tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya bertukar haluan atau berdolak-dalik membantah siasatan oleh PTD sedangkan dia sudah menerima malah menikmati award yang dikeluarkan oleh PTD.
Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Satu Lagi lwn. Mach 8 Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 CLJ 26 [CA]
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH | UNDANG-UNDANG SIVIL
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Warta - Warta pembetulan - Cabaran terhadap award pembetulan - Kesilapan dalam warta - Pentadbir Tanah Daerah ('PTD') membuat pembetulan - Sama ada warta pembetulan hanya satu formaliti - Sama ada pihak terkilan diestop daripada mencabar warta pembetulan - Sama ada PTD mempunyai kuasa membuat pengisytiharan bagi pihak Kerajaan Negeri dan mempunyai kuasa membuat pembetulan - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 8 - Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967, s. 40(1)
UNDANG-UNDANG SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Rayuan - Undang-undang tanah - Pengambilan tanah - Kesilapan dalam warta - Keluasan lot-lot yang dinyatakan akan diambil tertukar - Pentadbir Tanah Daerah membuat pembetulan agar mencerminkan keluasan yang sepatutnya - Cabaran terhadap award pembetulan - Sama ada pihak terkilan mempunyai locus standi - Sama ada permohonan semakan kehakiman satu fikiran terkemudian untuk mengaut kekayaan tidak wajar - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 53 k. 2
HAS ZANAH MEHAT HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR
HASHIM HAMZAH HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Nur Irmawatie Daud, Etty Eliany Tesno & Amelia Masran; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang, Negeri Selangor
- Bagi pihak responden - Malcolm Fernandez & Mark Cheng; T/n C Sukumaran & Co
A judgment on admission of facts granted under O. 27 of the Rules of Court 2012, when granted by the court, is a final judgment on the item of claim in respect of which it is granted. Therefore, a plaintiff who has applied for and obtained judgment under O. 27 based on the defendant's admission of a lesser amount of the particular item of claim than the plaintiff's pleaded amount is not entitled to proceed to full trial for the balance of the pleaded amount for the same item of claim.
Loh Min-Jiann v. Mammoth Empire Land Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 CLJ 52 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Judgment on admission of facts - Claim for liquidated damages - Delay in delivery of vacant possession of property unit and delay in completion of common facilities - Plaintiff applied for and obtained judgment based on defendant's admission of lesser amount of item of claim than plaintiff's pleaded amount - Whether entitled to proceed to full trial for balance of pleaded amount for same item of claim - Whether judgment on admission of facts final judgment - Rules of Court 2012, O. 27
- For the plaintiff - Tan Kian Khuang; M/s Bhadarul Baharain & Partners
- For the defendant - Loo Ying Ning; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
The borrowers, despite having undertaken and agreed to pay the sums of indebtedness by deeds of acknowledgment of indebtedness and undertaking to pay, the contractual remedy available for the lender in the event of default by the borrowers was to sue the borrowers for the recovery of the sums. There could not be a valid set off to transfer the borrowers' properties to the lender, absent any terms linking the indebtedness with the options to purchase and a sale and purchase agreements and where the sale and transfer of the properties did not arise from the same transaction or closely connected with the indebtedness. The terms specifying the lender's remedy in the event of a default was merely illusory. In fact, the imposition of 1.5% interest per month over the indebtedness breached s. 17A(1) of the Moneylenders Act 1951, the effect of which would render the agreement null and void and of no effect, as the whole transaction involved illegal moneylending transaction.
Mohd Harun Indra Pg Elias v. Shim Vui Geh & Ors And Another Case [2022] 7 CLJ 74 [HC]
CONTRACT | LAND LAW
CONTRACT: Sale and purchase agreement - Set off - Transfer of properties - Application to set aside sale and transfer of properties to first defendant - Plaintiffs defaulted on paying sums of indebtedness to first defendant - Whether first defendant ought to take legal action to recover sums instead of transferring properties to himself - Absence of terms linking indebtedness in deeds of acknowledgment of indebtedness and undertaking to pay with options to purchase and sale and purchase agreements - Whether there was valid set off to entitle first defendant to transfer properties to himself - Whether whole transactions involved illegal moneylending and bound to be nullified
LAND LAW: Transfer - Void instruments - Transfer of properties - Application to set aside sale and transfer of properties to first defendant - Plaintiffs defaulted on paying sums of indebtedness to first defendant - Whether first defendant ought to take legal action to recover sums instead of transferring properties to himself - Absence of terms linking indebtedness in deeds of acknowledgment of indebtedness and undertaking to pay with options to purchase and sale and purchase agreements - Whether there was valid set off to entitle first defendant to transfer properties to himself - Whether whole transactions involved illegal moneylending and bound to be nullified
- For the plaintiffs - Sitti Nur Alam Mappiare & Muhammad Abdul Karim; M/s Sazalye Donol, Muhammad & Co
- For the 1st defendant - Sharie Chin Ye Shan; M/s Tsang & Co
No person can be punished twice for the same offence. A person who has been charged, convicted and sentenced for an offence, by a court of competent jurisdiction, can never be charged and sentenced for the same offence again. The conviction is a bar to all further proceedings for the same offence. The same applies when a person is acquitted; an acquitted person is not to be charged and sentenced for an offence he had previously been acquitted for.
Muhammad Adli Elaiyaraja Abdullah v. PP [2022] 7 CLJ 94 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Double jeopardy - Applicant charged, convicted and sentenced twice - Same offence, facts and ingredients - Whether there was double jeopardy - Whether there was illegality and miscarriage of justice - Whether entire proceedings of second prosecution nullity - Whether conviction and sentence in second prosecution ought to be set aside - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 302, 303 & 323(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Autrefois convict - Double jeopardy - Applicant charged, convicted and sentenced twice - Same offence, facts and ingredients - Whether there was double jeopardy - Whether there was illegality and miscarriage of justice - Whether entire proceedings of second prosecution nullity - Whether principle of autrefois convict applied - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 302, 303 & 323(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitutional rights - Double jeopardy - Rule against double jeopardy - Applicant charged, convicted and sentenced twice - Same offence, facts and ingredients - Whether there was double jeopardy - Whether unconstitutional - Federal Constitution, art. 7(2)
- For the applicant - Sivakumar Valla Krishnan; M/s VS Kumar & Co
- For the respondent - Nurameera Shahrul Azrin; DPP
The word 'may' under s. 78(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') gives a management corporation the option to either commence an action against a defaulted proprietor or to resort to the mechanism stated in s. 79 of the SMA or any other mechanisms; Section 78(2) provides the management corporations discretion. The filing of a summons in court is not a mandatory mechanism. Hence, the act of executing the mechanism stated in para. 6 of the Third Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 by the management corporation, is not wrong or irregular.
Ng Min Lin v. 2Hampshire Management Corporation [2022] 7 CLJ 109 [HC]
LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Management corporation - Service charges - Demand for payment of outstanding service charges - Proprietor failed to settle outstanding sum - Management corporation blocked all lift access cards to unit and barred proprietor and/or proprietor's tenant from using common facilities - Proprietor lost tenant/tenancy - Whether lifts were common facilities - Whether management corporation had right to prevent proprietor and/or proprietor's tenant from accessing lifts - Whether there was unlawful possession of unit by management corporation - Whether management corporation should have exhausted all other legal remedies - Whether proprietor could claim for loss of tenancy - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 78
- For the plaintiff - Collin Goonting & Darren Tay Theng Hong; M/s Collin Goonting & Assocs
- For the defendant - Himahlinin Ramalingam & Jesselyn Tham; M/s Himahlini & Co
The source of a liquidator's powers in a winding-up by the court are found in s. 486(1) and the Twelfth Schedule of the Companies Act 2016 ('Act'). A liquidator is a creature of statute and he derives his powers from the statute that creates him and enables him. He can only exercise those powers that the statute expressly gives him. A liquidator cannot delegate any of his powers, including the power under item (a) of the Twelfth Schedule to 'bring or defend any action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company'.
Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Bhd v. Pekan Legasi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 7 CLJ 139 [HC]
COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Liquidator - Powers - Company wound-up and liquidator duly appointed - Liquidator granted sanction to another to commence and proceed with action - Whether sanction issued by liquidator valid - Whether only liquidator has power and authority to institute and defend any legal action for company - Whether liquidator could delegate any of his powers - Companies Act 2016, s. 486(1) & Twelfth Schedule
- For the plaintiff - Nor Shahadah Saari; M/s Shukor Baljit & Partners
- For the 2nd & 3rd defendants - Yeong Yen Zan; M/s Justin Faye & Partners
In determining whether or not an instrument is a 'security' for the purpose of the Stamp Act 1949, the court should enquire whether the instrument is an encumbrance on the property with which the lender could rely on to enforce and to recover the sum loaned under the credit facility. If the answer is in the affirmative, the instrument is then a 'security' and, if the answer is in the negative, that instrument could not amount to a security under the Act and, accordingly, the taxpayer is entitled to a remission under the Stamp Duty (Remission) (No. 2) Order 2012.
State Development Corporation Of Penang v. Collector Of Stamp Duty, Malaysia [2022] 7 CLJ 159 [HC]
BANKING
BANKING: Islamic banking - Credit facilities - Security - Bank and corporation executed facility agreement - Corporation applied for remission of stamp duty on facility agreement - Application rejected by Collector of Stamp Duty - Whether letter of undertaking issued by State Government to Minister of Finance, in compliance to letter of approval to corporation, amounted to security under para. 2 of Stamp Duty (Remission) (No. 2) Order 2012 - Whether corporation entitled to remission
- For the plaintiff - Quah Boon Nee, Mohd Farid Azahari & Yasmin Maisarah Mohd Amin; M/s JB Lim & Assocs
- For the defendant - Mohd Rizuan Othman & Mohd Asyraf Zakaria; LHDN, Cyberjaya
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
ACQUITTAL DOES NOT MEAN INNOCENT: STANDARDS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT THEY MEAN FOR THE ACCUSED* [Read excerpt]
by Alexander Joseph Woon** [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxviii
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxviii
SINGAPORE
ACQUITTAL DOES NOT MEAN INNOCENT:
STANDARDS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT THEY MEAN FOR THE ACCUSED*
by
Alexander Joseph Woon**
The recent cases of Parti Liyani v. PP and PP v. Yeo Sow Nam have thrown the spotlight on what it means to be acquitted.
This article examines how "acquittal" can mean that charges were either "disproved" or merely "not proved", per the definitions in the Evidence Act.
It argues that judges may, in suitable cases, make a finding of "disproved" so as to properly vindicate the reputation of the accused. An acquittal without elaboration leaves open the possibility that the accused committed the offence but it simply could not be proven, which may unfairly continue to damage his reputation.
. . .
INSTRUMEN ANTARABANGSA BERKENAAN DENGAN HAK ORANG KURANG UPAYA KEPADA AKSES-AKSES UNTUK KELANGSUNGAN HIDUP [Read excerpt]
by Nur Azlina Mohamad Zahari[i] Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[ii] Rohaida Nordin[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxix
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxix
MALAYSIA
INSTRUMEN ANTARABANGSA BERKENAAN DENGAN HAK ORANG KURANG UPAYA KEPADA AKSES-AKSES UNTUK KELANGSUNGAN HIDUP
by
Nur Azlina Mohamad Zahari[i]
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[ii]
Rohaida Nordin[iii]
ABSTRAK
Orang kurang upaya berhak kepada perkara-perkara asas yang diperlukan dalam kehidupan sama seperti seorang manusia yang berkeupayaan, seperti akses kepada pendidikan, pekerjaan, perubatan, maklumat dan persekitaran fizikal. Hak orang kurang upaya terhadap semua akses tersebut telah menjadi antara hal perkara yang kian mendapat perhatian dan diterjemahkan dalam bentuk instrumen antarabangsa yang melibatkan hak asasi manusia. Kemunculan Konvensyen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu tentang Hak Orang Kurang Upaya (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) telah menjadi satu titik tolak yang paling penting dalam dunia orang kurang upaya kerana hingga sekarang, Konvensyen tersebut merupakan instrumen antarabangsa yang paling lengkap dan menggariskan hampir semua hak-hak yang dijamin bagi orang kurang upaya serta menjadi rujukan utama hampir semua negara di dunia bagi perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan ketidakupayaan dan kebolehaksesan orang kurang upaya. Sebelum wujudnya Konvensyen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu tentang Hak Orang Kurang Upaya, terdapat instrumen-instrumen antarabangsa yang telah wujud dan menjadi pemangkin kepada perjuangan hak orang kurang upaya terhadap akses-akses yang dinikmati oleh orang berkeupayaan.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
|
