CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
JKL v. ABC & ANOR [2022] 7 CLJ 376
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24F-363-11-2021]
24 MAY 2022
Notwithstanding the absence of any legislative provision in Malaysia on the power of the High Court to order DNA tests to determine paternity, a High Court Judge has inherent power to order a DNA test in disputed paternity cases. DNA testing ought to be ordered especially if the party claiming to be the father of the child has strong prima facie evidence that he is the biological father of the said child. It would also be in the best interest of a child to know his/her birth father/mother.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Joinder - Originating summons and writ action - Originating summons ordered to be heard together with writ action - No direction for originating summons to be converted into writ action - Whether actions arose out of same transaction and shared common questions of fact or law - Whether actions related - Whether there was nexus between actions - Whether originating summons and writ action could be heard together in absence of direction
FAMILY LAW: Paternity - Determination - Application by man claiming to be father of child - Application for child to undergo deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') tests to determine paternity - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction or power to order DNA tests to determine paternity - Whether DNA tests ought to be ordered
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Kolonel Dr Faiz Azraai Abdul Aziz lwn. Mahkamah Tentera Divisyen Keempat Infantri Malaysia [2022] 7 CLJ 192 mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi Kolonel Dr Faiz Azraai Abdul Aziz lwn. Mahkamah Tentera Divisyen Keempat Infantri Malaysia [2019] 1 LNS 1586
-
Telekom Research And Development Sdn Bhd v. Ahmad Farid Abdul Rahman [2021] 1 LNS 1711 overulling the High Court case of Ahmad Farid Abdul Rahman lwn. Telekom Research And Development Sdn Bhd & Satu Lagi [2020] 1 LNS 651
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 678
|
JAKINTA TRADING SDN BHD v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CUSTOMS & ANOR
1. Timber logs purchased from local suppliers for export to overseas buyers are goods exported and to be treated as a zero-rated supply and not dutiable goods within the meaning of s. 17(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 ('GST Act'). Being zero-rated goods, the rate of the goods and services tax on such supply shall be '0%' and the Customs Department cannot deny the exporter's right to zero-rate its supply based on other provisions in the Customs Act 1967 since the provisions under GST Act shall always prevail over the Customs Act.
2. Pursuant to s. 35(a) and (b) of the Customs Act 1967, a presumption of law that goods are deemed to be exported is established when the goods have been removed from Malaysia and cleared by customs officers. A bill of lading is the proof that the goods have been loaded onto a vessel heading overseas, and such goods are treated as zero-rated supplies under section 17(1)(b) of the GST Act. The Customs Department intending to rebut the said presumption by imposing goods and services tax on those goods, bears the burden to show that the said goods were subsequently found in Malaysia.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash bill of demand issued by Customs Department - Respondents imposed goods and services tax ('GST') on all applicant's export transactions which were zero-rated supplies under s. 17(1)(b) of Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 ('GST Act') - Whether imposition of GST on zero-rated supply was arbitrary - Whether respondents could impose additional requirements by insisting applicant to declare its name in K2 Forms - Whether respondents had misconstrued s. 17(1)(b) of GST Act - Whether decision of respondents was tainted with illegality
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: Export - Taxable goods - Bill of demand issued imposing goods and services tax ('GST') on export transactions pursuant to s. 43 of Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 ('GST Act') - Export of timber logs to overseas buyers - Applicant merely purchase timber logs from local suppliers for export - Whether applicant's export transactions were zero-rated supplies under s. 17(1)(b) of GST Act - Whether applicant was entitled to a zero-rated treatment and input tax credit - Whether applicant was an exporter - Whether provision under s. 17(1)(b) of GST Act prevail over provisions in Customs Act 1967 ('Customs Act') - Whether presumption of law under s. 35(a) and (b) of Customs Act had been rebutted
WORDS AND PHRASES: 'exporter' - Section 2(1) of Customs Act 1967 - Whether word exporter restricted to person who has licence to export and whose name is declared in Form K2 - Whether exporter includes owner of goods
- For the applicant - Ronny Cham; M/s Ronny Cham & Co
- For the respondents - Mohd Sabri Othman; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Malaysia
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 679
|
SHAH ARCHITECT & ANOR v. BINA PURI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD & ORS
The failure of a defendant to contradict the positive assertions of fact in the plaintiff's affidavits filed in support of a summary judgment application is treated as an admission of the facts so asserted. In the absence of affidavit evidence or other evidence filed in support of the defendant's defence, the matters pleaded in the defence are no more than bare assertions or averments and not evidence.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Principles and procedures - Defendants failed to file affidavit to oppose plaintiffs' summary judgment application - Defendants failed to file any affidavit despite extension granted - Whether court could be precluded from considering defence - Whether court could proceed to consider existence of triable issue raised by defendants - Whether failure of defendants to contradict positive assertions of fact in plaintiffs' affidavits is treated as an admission of facts - Whether matters pleaded in defence are no more than bare assertions
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Triable issues - Jurisdictional dispute - Claim for outstanding professional fees for work done for housing project in Brunei - Agreement between parties entered in Malaysia - Injunctive relief - Whether Malaysian courts seised with jurisdiction to determine claim - Whether conditions set out in s. 23(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 had been satisfied - Whether court has jurisdiction to enter summary judgment for an injunction
- For the 1st & 2nd plaintiffs - Samson Ku; M/s Jayasuriya Kah & Co
- For the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th defendants - Terrence Lee; M/s Lam & Co
- For the 2nd defendant - Chua Kuan E; M/s Aklee Chua & Angang
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 680
|
CDO RESOURCES SDN BHD v. MIDF AMANAH INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD
A chargor who clearly and unequivocally agreed for an extension of tenure of a facility in return for payment of an extension fee and enjoyed such extension and thereafter proceeded to discharge the charged land on the basis that the chargor was in agreement to the redemption sum paid pursuant to the redemption statement, should be estopped from disputing the accuracy and correctness of the extension fee and the outstanding monies in the redemption statement, more so after the redemption of the said land.
CONTRACT: Agreement - Facility agreement - Extension of time - Tenure of facility extended in return for payment of extension fee - Whether there was agreement between chargor and bank for tenure of facility to be extended in return for payment of extension fee - Whether there was clear and unequivocal acceptance by chargor of offer by bank for extension fee - Whether chargor's dispute on extension fee after redemption of charged land was an afterthought - Whether there was any merit to allegation of coercion when chargor had sought for extension which led to bank's offer for extension fee - Whether conduct of bank in imposing extension fee amounts to unjust enrichment
BANKING: Securities for advances - Charge - Action by borrower against bank for return of alleged overpaid redemption - Borrower paid amount in redemption statement without any complaint - Borrower only disputed redemption statement after redemption of charged land - Whether redemption statement issued by bank was final and conclusive - Whether borrower was estopped from disputing accuracy and correctness of outstanding monies required to redeem land charged
- For the plaintiff - Dzulkarnain Mohamad; M/s Hafidz & Dzulkarnain
- For the defendant - Yoong Sin Min, Poh Choo Hoe & Tan Zhixin; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1035
|
KENGADHARAN RAMASAMY lwn. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI
Hak perjalanan keluar negara bukanlah suatu hak asasi yang dijamin bawah perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Justeru, penetapan levi pelepasan bagi perjalanan keluar negara bawah Akta Levi Pelepasan 2019 adalah, sah, berkuatkuasa dan tidak bercanggah dengan perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Hak keperlembagaan - Kebebasan diri - Hak perjalanan keluar negara - Pertikaian berkenaan keesahan Akta Levi Pelepasan 2019 ('ALP') - Penetapan levi pelepasan bagi perjalanan keluar negara - Sama ada hak perjalanan keluar negara merupakan hak asasi yang dijamin bawah perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada penetapan levi telah mengganggu hak keperlembagaan plaintif bawah perkara 5(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada ALP bercanggah dengan perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Srimurugan & A Jayaseelan; T/n Srimurugan & Co
- Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Suzana Atan, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Putrajaya
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 1041
|
AZMI MAHMOOD lwn. PP
Bagi kes-kes yang melibatkan jenayah seksual, mahkamah perlu mendapatkan keterangan sokongan bebas berkaitan apa yang telah berlaku. Keterangan sokongan bebas tersebut haruslah merupakan keterangan yang diketahui secara langsung dan bukan secara dengar cakap. Keterangan-keterangan sokongan yang konsisten antara satu sama lain tetapi berdasarkan kepada keterangan dengar cakap tidak terjumlah kepada keterangan sokongan bebas.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman dan sabitan - Kesalahan seksual - Kesalahan mencabul kehormatan seseorang - Kesalahan seksual - Kejadian berlaku di rumah tertuduh - Mangsa tidak mengambil kesempatan untuk beredar dengan serta-merta dari rumah tertuduh - Sama ada mahkamah perlu bersandar kepada keterangan sokongan bebas selain berlandaskan kepada keterangan mangsa sepenuhnya - Sama ada perlakuan mangsa yang tidak menjerit atau meminta pertolongan serta melawan tertuduh adalah munasabah - Sama ada terdapat bukti kekerasan jenayah dilakukan terhadap mangsa - Sama ada intipati kesalahan bawah s. 354 Kanun Keseksaan telah dibuktikan
- Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n Arwa & Associates
- Bagi pihak responden - Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 7 (Part 2)
Even though an employer is generally not liable for any tort committed by his independent contractor, the employer may still be liable for the tort committed by his independent contractor if the employer is deemed to have committed the tort himself. This is the exception to the general rule and the employer is liable where the duty is held to be non-delegable.
Hemraj & Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Ors [2022] 7 CLJ 169 [CA]
TORT
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Non-delegable duty of care - Underground cable of electricity utility company passed through front of bungalow below road surface - Bungalow owner appointed third parties to carry out construction works on bungalow - Third parties carried out excavation works illegally without permit/approval of relevant authorities - Excavation works caused damage to underground cable - Whether bungalow owner in breach of non-delegable duty of care in respect of negligence of its independent contractors
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
GHAZALI CHA JCA
- For the appellants - Manmohan Singh Kang & Sunshine Devan; M/s Kang & Kang
- For the 1st respondent - Balvinder Singh Kenth & Gurmesh Kaur; M/s Kenth Partnership
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Rejinder Singh Gurdev Singh; M/s Rejinder Singh & Assocs
- For the 4th respondent - Periasamy Karuppan; M/s Periasamy & Co
Keputusan untuk mengenakan pertuduhan bawah perenggan 54(1)(a) Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 terhadap perayu, seorang Kolonel yang bertugas sebagai pakar bius di Hospital Angkatan Tentera Tuanku Mizan, Kuala Lumpur, kerana meninggalkan perkhidmatan dengan niat untuk tidak hadir bertugas selama-lamanya adalah keputusan pihak berkuasa lebih tinggi perayu sendiri. Oleh itu, budi bicara untuk menentukan pertuduhan terhadap perayu telah dijalankan oleh pihak berkuasa yang diberi kuasa bawah undang-undang. Tempoh perayu tidak hadir bertugas agak lama dan tiada sebarang tanda atau petunjuk menunjukkan niat perayu untuk kembali bertugas sehinggalah perayu ditangkap. Tiada kesilapan oleh pihak responden apabila memutuskan pihak pendakwa berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap perayu. Keputusan tersebut tidak dicemari dengan kekhilafan undang-undang, tindakan tidak rasional atau ketidakpatuhan prosedur.
Kolonel Dr Faiz Azraai Abdul Aziz lwn. Mahkamah Tentera Divisyen Keempat Infantri Malaysia [2022] 7 CLJ 192 [CA]
ANGKATAN TENTERA | UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN
ANGKATAN TENTERA: Tinggal tugas - Kesalahan - Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972, s. 54(1)(a) - Sama ada pertuduhan defektif - Sama ada perayu berniat meninggalkan perkhidmatan - Penangkapan dan penahanan perayu - Sama ada sah - Sama ada terdapat kekhilafan undang-undang dan ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada pendakwa membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Sama ada campur tangan mahkamah rayuan wajar
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Angkatan tentera - Kesalahan - Tinggal tugas - Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972, s. 54(1)(a) - Sama ada pertuduhan defektif - Sama ada perayu berniat meninggalkan perkhidmatan - Penangkapan dan penahanan perayu - Sama ada sah - Sama ada terdapat kekhilafan undang-undang dan ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada pendakwa membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Sama ada campur tangan mahkamah rayuan wajar
LEE SWEE SENG HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR
GHAZALI CHA HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Rejinder Singh, Mohd Fauzi Abdul Samad & Mohammed Nasser Yusof; T/n The Law Chambers Of Fauzi & Nasser
- Bagi pihak responden - Ahmad Hanir Hambaly & Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin, Jabatan Peguam Negara
An application for an injunction to restrain the pay-out and receipt of a performance bond monies pending the resolution of disputes pursuant to a construction contract in arbitration proceedings ought to be allowed when concerns on losses and damages are premature and wholly speculative and when the party demanding upon the performance bond is over-securitised. In such scenario, the applicant party had made out a case of unconscionability in justifying stoppage of the encashment of the bond on the balance of convenience.
China Construction Pearl River (M) Sdn Bhd v. Industrial And Commercial Bank Of China (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 7 CLJ 211 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONTRACT
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Application for - Application for injunction to restrain pay out and receipt of performance bond monies pending resolution of disputes - Whether concerns on losses and damages premature and speculative - Whether defendant property developer over securitised - Whether plaintiff construction company made out case of unconscionability in justifying stoppage of encashment of bond on balance of convenience
CONTRACT: Construction contract - Works - Suspension of work projects - Demand on performance bond - Application for injunction to restrain pay out and receipt of performance bond monies pending resolution of disputes - Whether concerns on losses and damages premature and speculative - Whether defendant property developer over securitised - Whether plaintiff construction company made out case of unconscionability in justifying stoppage of encashment of bond on balance of convenience
- For the plaintiff - Lee Kong Han & Noor Muslihah Marhaban; M/s Hew, Lee & Co
- For the 1st defendant - Denise Teoh Gaiy Eeng; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
- For the 2nd defendant - Jonas Lee Fook Khong & Esther Khor Hui Hui; M/s David Gurupatham & Koay
Prosiding terus bawah A. 89 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 tidak boleh diberi dengan sewenang-wenangnya oleh mahkamah melainkan sudah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa tidak terdapat isu-isu yang boleh dibicarakan. Ini kerana perintah bawah A. 89 tersebut telah memberi hak pemilikan di atas tanah tanpa memberi peluang kepada pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan untuk mengemukakan keterangan dalam perbicaraan penuh. Pada masa yang sama, mahkamah juga perlu mengiktiraf hak pemilik berdaftar atau tuan punya tanah agar tidak dihalang daripada menikmati haknya sebagai pemilik berdaftar sesuatu hartanah.
Doyenvest (M) Sdn Bhd lwn. Penghuni-penghuni Yang Tidak Dikenali Dan/Atau Orang-orang Yang Tidak Dikenali Yang Telah Membina Jalan Akses Dan Monumen Jirat Cina Di Atas Hartanah Yang Dipegang Di H.S.(D) 6048 Pt 195693 Mukim Pedah, Daerah Jerantut, Pahang Darul Makmur & Yang Lain [2022] 7 CLJ 233 [HC]
PROSEDUR SIVIL
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Prosiding terus pemilikan tanah - Pembinaan jalan akses dan monumen-monumen di atas tanah - Permohonan oleh pemilik berdaftar bawah A. 89 k. 1 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada tanah milik pemilik berdaftar dicerobohi - Sama ada pemilik berdaftar pada bila-bila masa membenarkan mana-mana pihak membuat binaan atau berada di atas tanahnya - Sama ada terdapat isu-isu boleh bicara - Sama ada mahkamah wajar membuat perintah bawah A. 89
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Arthur Wang Ming Way & Hanan Mohamad Kamal; T/n Arthur Wang, Lian & Assocs
- Bagi pihak defendan kedua & ketiga - Chia Wen Chow & Wong Mei Kuin; T/n Chia Wen Chow & Assocs
- Bagi pihak defendan keempat & kelima - Ee Eng Joo; T/n J EeGrace & Co
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.
Koh Kien Hooi & Ors v. Kepong Industrial Park Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 CLJ 253 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
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
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC
- For the plaintiff - Woo Jiunn Jye & Manpal Singh; M/s Zahir Ibrahim & Co
- For the defendant - Christine Toh & Cheong Koh Zhi; M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
A pre-action discovery is necessarily required even before an action is initiated as it is precisely to enable an applicant to decide whether he could commence legal action against the other party. Such an approach is sensible, practical and would avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs and preventing wastage of time and resources.
Sharifah Sofia Syed Hussein & Ors v. Pengarah Kepada Lembaga Kebajikan Haiwan [2022] 7 CLJ 267 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Pre-action discovery - Action by representatives from different animal welfare groups and/or societies in Malaysia against Director of Animal Welfare Board ('AWB') - Discovery of copies of all minutes of meeting from time of establishment of AWB to current date and list of all activities carried out by AWB - Whether applicants had locus standi to sue on behalf of animals - Whether application fishing expedition - Whether requested documents relevant and necessary - Whether possible cause of action and proposed statement of claim identified - Whether requested documents official secrets - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 rr. 7A, 8 & 13
- For the applicant - Rajesh Nagarajan & Pavitra Loganathan; M/s Raj & Sach
- For the respondent - Mohd Isa Md Nor; SFC
A taxpayer/company is entitled to claim for reinvestment allowance (RA) when the taxpayer/company has incurred capital expenditure on a factory, plant or machinery for the purposes of a qualifying project. The capital expenditure incurred by the taxpayer/company herein is for the purposes of expansion, modernisation and automation of its existing business of manufacturing electricity. In generating electricity into a form that can be used by a customer, the generation and transformation must be considered to be part of the manufacture and production of electricity. An RA, therefore, can be claimed for projects that involve expansion of the same product.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] 7 CLJ 285 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | REVENUE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application for order of certiorari to quash decision disallowing applicant's reinvestment allowance (RA) claim - Whether applicant's principal activity of generating electricity in business of manufacturing electricity - Whether fell under 'qualifying project' - Whether applicant entitled to RA under Schedule 7A of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether application ought to be allowed
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Reinvestment allowance (RA) claim - Application for judicial review for order of certiorari to quash decision disallowing applicant's RA claim - Whether applicant's principal activity of generating electricity in business of manufacturing electricity - Whether fell under 'qualifying project' - Whether applicant entitled to RA under Schedule 7A of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether judicial review application ought to be allowed
- For the applicant - S Saravana Kumar & Nur Amira Ahmad Azhar; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
- For the respondent - Hazlina Hussain & Ashrina Ramzan Ali; Senior Revenue Counsel & Nordiana Sham & Kwan Huey Shin; Revenue Counsel
The time period for an adjudicator to make an adjudication decision as prescribed under s. 12(2)(a) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') is 45 working days commencing on the day of the service of the adjudication response or the adjudication reply, which is later. An adjudicator does not have the power under s. 12(1) read together with s. 25(p) of the CIPAA to extend the 45 working days time period to make the adjudication decision.
Utama Motor Workshop (S) Sdn Bhd v. Besicon Engineering Works Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 CLJ 313 [HC]
CONSTRUCTION LAW
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication decision - Prescribed time period - Adjudication proceedings - Claim for sums for works performed but not paid - Adjudicator delivered decision after expiry of time period for adjudicator to make adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator has power to extend time period - Whether adjudication decision void - Whether entire adjudication decision should be set aside - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss. 12(1), 12(2)(a), 15(d) & 25(p)
- For the plaintiff - Ooi Huey Miin & Himin Ng; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
- For the defendant - Alvin Tan Chi Sian & Rosamirah Insyirah Zamri; M/s PY Hoh & Tai
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
THE PROSPECT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF E-ARBITRATION IN MALAYSIA: A S.W.O.T ANALYSIS [Read excerpt]
by Mohamad Fateh Labanieh[i] Mohammad Azam Hussain[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxx
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxx
MALAYSIA
THE PROSPECT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF E-ARBITRATION IN MALAYSIA: A S.W.O.T ANALYSIS
by
Mohamad Fateh Labanieh[i]
Mohammad Azam Hussain[ii]
ABSTRACT
Technological advancement has played a considerable role in introducing a new dispute resolution mechanism called electronic arbitration (hereinafter referred to as e-arbitration) to the dispute resolution industry. Therefore, the Malaysian arbitration system must evolve in tandem with the advancement of modern technologies. Based on doctrinal legal research, this article seeks to analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats ('S.W.O.T') of using e-arbitration. It has been discovered that e-arbitration can supplement the Malaysian dispute resolution industry. Moreover, e-arbitration's weaknesses and threats only relate to operational and initial implementation issues. Finally, it is concluded that the Malaysian Government should strengthen its dispute resolution legal framework with e-arbitration.
. . .
THE DEFAMED GOVERNMENT [Read excerpt]
by Sree Sudaarshan Sreekumar* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxxi
[2022] 1 LNS(A) lxxxi
MALAYSIA
THE DEFAMED GOVERNMENT
by
Sree Sudaarshan Sreekumar*
ABSTRACT
Never before has the Malaysian Government wielded so much power. Today, the government possesses the right to sue individuals for defamation. This is courtesy of the Federal Court's decision in Chong Chieng Jen. In this article, the author argues that the Court, in rendering its holding, erred in law. The question whether the government has the right to sue for defamation is a jurisdictional one. The answer to that question, contrary to popular belief, does not reside in the common law. Instead, the answer finds its roots in Malaysia's federal defamation statute, the Defamation Act 1957. The Act, however, says nothing about the government's right to sue for defamation. Because that conclusion comes from federal law, the government's suit should have been shot down early in the litigation process. In Part I, the article outlines the procedural posture of the suit. In Part II, the article critically examines the Court's legal reasoning. This is the most crucial section, for it discusses key provisions of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. In Part III, the article explores whether the government may rely upon the substantive elements of defamation to maintain its suit. Part IV briefly explains what the author has tentatively come to term common-law pre-emption of federal law. The article concludes in Part V
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
|
