Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #43/2022
27 October 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

KHAIRUDDIN ABU HASSAN v. WAN AEIDIL WAN ABDULLAH & ORS [2022] 9 CLJ 579
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
QUAY CHEW SOON J
[SUIT NO: WA-21NCvC-34-05-2018]
24 AUGUST 2022

An award for false imprisonment should lie somewhere in between an award for death in custody, on the one hand, and an award for defamation, on the other hand. The rationale being that loss of liberty for a period of time is less severe than loss of life whilst in detention but more serious than injury to reputation in being defamed. Damages are at large and the range of damages awarded for death in custody and defamation cases is rather varied as each case must be determined based on its own facts and circumstances.

TORT: Unlawful detention - Damages - Claim for - Claimant vocal in speaking out about 1MDB issue - Claimant lodged reports in countries involved in 1MDB issue - Complainant lodged police report on claimant's actions - Claimant arrested and detained twice - Whether arrest warranted - Whether there was 'credible information' or 'reasonable suspicion' in causing arrest - Whether there was unlawful detention - Whether claim for damages proven

TORT: Malicious prosecution - Damages - Claim for - Claimant vocal in speaking out about 1MDB issue - Claimant lodged reports in countries involved in 1MDB issue - Complainant lodged police report on claimant's actions - Claimant arrested under s. 4(1) of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and charged under s. 124L of Penal Code - Whether there was malicious prosecution - Whether criminal law set in motion against claimant - Whether proceedings terminated in claimant's favour - Whether there was any reasonable or probable cause for setting law in motion against claimant - Whether act actuated by malice - Whether there was motive other than to carry law into effect - Whether claimant suffered damages

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“What we have here is a scenario where the appellant has requested the Registrar-General to update the register following the undisputed DNA results and the order of the High Court declaring the appellant as the biological father of the child; that with this latest information, the record of the identity of the father of the child as “maklumat tidak diperolehi” can no longer be maintained but must be updated by way of a correction or amendment.”

“In our view, that request is fair and proper as the declaratory order of the court is valid and remains effective. We are of the firm opinion that this new information ought to be reflected in the public record, that is the register, that the true status of the child be corrected to reflect accurate information as regards the biological father, as required by the scheme of Act 299. We cannot see how it may be argued that correcting the register to reflect the declaratory order of the court is not in the interest of the child. On the contrary, it is certainly in the best interest and welfare of the child; consonant with the principles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Malaysia has acceded and ratified to on 11 February 1995.”- per Mary Lim FCJ in Leow Fook Keong v. Pendaftar Besar Bagi Kelahiran dan Kematian Malaysia, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 CLJ 23

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 62

PP lwn. MUHAMMAD AZZAN TALDERI

Dalam menentukan hukuman bagi kesalahan yang melibatkan keganasan rumah tangga terutama berkenaan kesalahan bawah s. 506 Kanun Keseksaan, faktor kepentingan awam serta kesan psikologi kepada mangsa wajar diberi penekanan lebih berbanding kepada pengakuan bersalah serta penyesalan tertuduh.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman denda bagi kesalahan ugutan jenayah dengan niat untuk mendatangkan kegentaran kepada mangsa bawah s. 506 Kanun Keseksaan - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Hukuman dijatuhkan selepas pengakuan bersalah - Keganasan rumah tangga - Tertuduh mendera mangsa secara fizikal dan mental sehingga menyebabkan trauma kepada pengadu - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan memadai - Sama ada hakim bicara wajar memberikan penekanan yang lebih kepada faktor kepentingan tertuduh - Sama ada kepentingan awam merupakan faktor utama dalam menentukan hukuman bagi kesalahan keganasan rumah tangga

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Lokman Kasim; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
  • Bagi pihak responden - Dahlia Tan Pui San; T/n Freda Sabapathy & Co

[2022] 1 LNS 66

MOHAMMAD AFIQ ASYRAF MOHAMMAD SUHAIMI lwn. KETUA POLIS PULAU PINANG & YANG LAIN

Selepas penutupan pliding, plaintif boleh melalui surat memberhentikan tindakan dengan mengemukakan alasan-alasan. Namun demikian, mahkamah boleh menggunakan budi bicaranya untuk tidak memberi plaintif kebebasan memfailkan semula tindakan setelah plaintif gagal mematuhi arahan mahkamah dan memperoleh kelebihan apabila tindakan diberhentikan selepas pihak defendan memfailkan dan menyerahkan pernyataan saksi kepada pihak plaintif. Kos pemberhentian tindakan wajar diberikan kepada pihak defendan yang telah mematuhi arahan mahkamah dan bersedia untuk perbicaraan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Tindakan - Pemberhentian - Kebebasan semula pemfailan - Arahan mengenai kos - Plaintif memfailkan surat pemberhentian tindakan selepas pliding ditutup dan defendan memfailkan dan menyerahkan pernyataan saksi - Surat pemberhentian difailkan beberapa hari sebelum perbicaraan tanpa sebarang alasan dikemukakan - Defendan bersedia untuk perbicaraan - Sama ada mahkamah wajar membenarkan pemberhentian tindakan dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula - Sama ada dengan atau tanpa arahan mengenai kos adalah kuasa budi bicara mahkamah

  • Bagi pihak perayu - T/n Faizal Rahman & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri

[2022] 1 LNS 214

NURUL NATASHA NORDIN lwn. PP

Pemilik berdaftar kenderaan yang ingin memohon untuk pemulangan kenderaan yang telah disita yang dijadikan barang kes kepada suatu perbicaraan perlu membuat permohonan kepada pihak polis untuk pemulangan kenderaan tersebut dan bukan memfailkan permohonan bawah s. 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah di mahkamah kerana s. 413 tersebut hanya memberi kuasa kepada pihak polis untuk merujuk kepada mahkamah untuk pemulangan kenderaan. Pemilik berdaftar kenderaan yang terkilan dengan keputusan pihak polis yang enggan merujuk permohonan kepada mahkamah untuk pemulangan kenderaan seharusnya memfailkan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan pihak polis tersebut.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penyitaan - Pemohonan kenderaan - Pemohonan untuk pemulangan kenderaan bawah s. 413 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah oleh pemilik berdaftar - Permohonan di mahkamah difailkan selepas pihak polis enggan merujuk permohonan pemulangan kenderaan sementara menunggu perbicaraan - Kenderaan merupakan barang kes kepada perbicaraan - Sama ada hanya pihak polis sahaja yang boleh merujuk untuk mendapatkan perintah pemulangan kenderaan - Sama ada pemohon sewajarkan memfailkan permohonan semakan kehakiman - Sama ada isu berkenaan perkara 8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan wajar dipertimbangkan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Lydiana Mansor; T/n The Lydiana Law Chambers
  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Mohd Syafiq Mohd Ghazali; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor

[2020] 1 LNS 2293

MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD v. TY LAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE

By virtue of s. 477(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2016, the court is entitled to decide and make such order as it thinks fit in the appointment of liquidators by taking into account the entire circumstances of a matter before it. In exercising its discretion to decide on the appointment of the liquidator, the court must have regard for the outcome of the creditor's meeting. The contention that the appointment of a private liquidator to replace the official receiver will assist and ease the burden of the official receiver is not a ground for the court to accept in determining the appointment of a liquidator.

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Liquidators - Appointment of competing private liquidators in place of official receiver - Whether court is bound to accept wishes of creditors and contributories - Whether outcome of creditors meeting relevant in determining appointment of liquidator - Whether court has discretion to decide on appointment of liquidator - Whether easing burden of official receiver was good grounds to apply for appointment of private liquidator - Companies Act 2016, s. 477(1)(c)

  • For the official receiver - Eszanizam Mohammad; Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia, KL Branch
  • For the applicant Sabah Development Bank Berhad WA-28PW-9-01/2020 - Wilson Lim Mao Shen & Huam Wan Ying; M/s Wilson Lim
  • For the applicant/creditor Fajarbaru Builder Sdn Bhd WA-28PW-136-03/2020 - Harold Tan Kok Ling & Amy Hiew Kar Yi; M/s Harold & Lam Partnership
  • For the petitioner application and Winding-Up 28NCC-966-10/2018 - Denise Cheong; M/s Raja Darryl & Loh

[2020] 1 LNS 2303

SUNLIGHT INNO SEAFOOD SDN BHD v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SABAH FOUNDATION & ANOR

The court retains a discretion under O. 3 r. 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 to extend the time for filing of affidavit out of time. Unintentional delay in filing the affidavit and avoidance of greater injustice if an extension of time is not allowed are matters to be considered in an application for an extension of time.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Extension of time - Application for - Extension of time to file affidavit in opposition - Implementation of movement control order and issues of internal procedures of defendants caused delay in filing of affidavit - Whether delay was unintentional - Whether court retains a discretion to extend time for filing of affidavit out of time - Whether there was sufficient material for court to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time - Whether defendant will suffer greater injustice if extension not allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 3 r. 5

  • For the plaintiff - Jeyan T M Marimuttu & Eric Chong; M/s J Marimuttu & Partners
  • For the defendant - Jamadi Saleh & Farah Saira Abd Razak; M/s Adnan Puteh & Saleh

CLJ 2022 Volume 9 (Part 3)

In a motor vehicle accident claim, the lack of driving licence, road tax or motor insurance in breach of the Road Transport Act 1987 ('RTA') ought not to amount to an actionable negligence if there is no causal nexus between the negligence, as alleged, in transgressing the RTA and the collision causing the injuries sued for.
Ahmad Zulfendi Anu ar v. Mohd Shahril Abdul Rahman [2022] 9 CLJ 307 [CA]

|

DAMAGES: Personal injuries - Loss of future earnings - Whether gainfully employed at time of accident - Whether receiving earnings by own labour or other gainful activity - Whether satisfied s. 28A(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of Civil Law Act 1956 - Whether claims substantiated with evidence - Whether able to return to normal work - Whether claims for loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity allowed

TORT: Damages - Personal injuries - Contributory negligence - Absence of licence, road tax or insurance - Whether contributing cause to injury - Whether has causal connection with accident - Whether non-compliance with requirements for driving licence, road tax and insurance could be factored into increasing liability - Whether violation of traffic laws to be dealt with under specific laws - Whether restricted motorist from making claims for personal injuries

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA

  • For the appellant - Manoharan Tevadasin, Nik Muhammad Syafiq Nik Hilmi & Muhammad Wafi Abdullah; M/s Ong & Partners
  • For the respondent - Kenneth George William, Selvanayagam Kailasam & Nuramni Fatira Mohd Nizam; M/s Kenneth William & Assocs

Acquisition of citizenship by operation of law requires the fulfilment of the requisite conditions at the time of birth and not thereafter. Subsequent marriage of the parents would not change the birth status of the child as an illegitimate child.
Peguam Negara Malaysia & Anor v. Go Fu Seng & Other Appeals [2022] 9 CLJ 336 [CA]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Illegitimate child - Jus sanguinis - Subsequent legal marriage of illegitimate child's parents - Whether child acquires father's citizenship by descent and qualifies for Malaysian citizenship -Federal Constitution, art. 14(1)(b) & s. 1(a) Part II of Second Schedule

 

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA

(Civil Appeal Nos: P-01(A)-321-06-2021 & P-01(A)-322-06-2021)
  • For the appellants - Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim; SFC
  • For the respondent - Andy Ooi Keng Liang; M/s Shariffah, Ooi & Co
(Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(A)-191-04-2021)
  • For the appellants - Mohd Izhanudin Alias, SFC & Arina Azmin Ahmad Marzuki; FC
  • For the respondent - Vigneswaran Raju & Roshini Ramasamy; The Chambers Of Waran

Adequate compensation simply means that the affected landowners, whose land was compulsorily acquired for public purposes, receive compensation that is no more or no less than the loss resulting from the compulsory acquisition of their land. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('LAA') that limits the amount of compensation to be given to the affected landowner. As such, s. 29A of the LAA cannot be interpreted to narrow art. 13(2) of the Federal Constitution on adequate compensation or to limit the powers of the courts to grant adequate compensation. Section 29A was inserted into the LAA to provide for the retention of 25% of the award until the amount of adequate compensation is finally determined by the land reference court or on further appeal.
Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia & Anor [2022] 9 CLJ 359 [CA]

LAND LAW: Land reference - Award - Land acquired for Government project - Award made for compensation for market value and injurious affection - Acquiring authority for project lodged objection - Objection referred to High Court - High Court directed that award be reduced - Appeal against reduction of award - Whether land reference court has jurisdiction to reduce award - Whether award made 'in error' - Whether assessor's opinion could be relied on - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 29A

 

 

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Yatiswara Ramachandran, Kenny Chan Yew Hoong & Abraham Au Tian Hui; M/s Yatiswara, Ng & Chan
  • For the 1st respondent - Kok Su Ann, Tee Vun Xin, Isabella Cheah Chooi Mun & Alif Ridhwan Mohd Yusof; M/s Hisham Sobri & Kadir
  • For the 2nd respondent - Nur Irmawatie Daud, Etty Eliany Tesno & Muhammad Haziq Hashim; State Legal Advisor, Selangor

The joint venture agreement ('JVA'), having spelt out the contractual rights and obligations of parties, must be complied with and any breach thereof would render the JVA null and void. The developer's breach of the terms of the JVA disentitled the developer to the compensation sum awarded by the Land Administrator for the compulsory acquisition of the land and the party entitled to the compensation would be the registered proprietor of the land.
Compugates Development And Mining Sdn Bhd v. Main Uptown Sdn Bhd [2022] 9 CLJ 387 [HC]

|

CONTRACT: Agreement - Joint venture agreement - Land to be developed subjected to compulsory acquisition - Party entitled to compensation sum - Whether developer or registered proprietor of land - Whether developer breached terms of agreement - Whether agreement rendered null and void - Whether developer has any interest in land - Whether developer contractually entitled to sum compensation sum - Whether land owner, as registered and beneficial owner of land, entitled to entire compensation sum

WORDS & PHRASES: 'in such event' and 'in any other event whatsoever' - Phrases in terms of joint venture agreement - Construction of terms - Whether ambiguity resolved pursuant to contra proferentem rule

 

FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

  • For the plaintiff - Dhyana Shila Vasanthan & Syamala Jeyaraman; M/s Dhyan & Co
  • For the defendant - Choon Hou Leng & Loo Hui En; M/s Raja Darryl & Loh

There is a total failure of consideration and a repudiatory breach of contract when a buyer, who has paid deposited money with a stakeholder, has not received any of the goods contracted for. When there is no reasonable prospect of the buyer receiving the goods from the seller in the near future, the buyer is entitled to terminate the sale and purchase agreement. It is also within the powers of the court to order the release of the stakeholder fund, especially in a situation where there is a deadlock between two contracting parties, as the arm of the law is sufficiently long to empower the court to order the release of the deposit money where it is just and fair to do so.
Intergos Spolka Z Organiczona Odpowiedzialnosca v. XFYRE (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 9 CLJ 418 [HC]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Termination - Seller collected substantial amount of deposits in advance for intended sale and purchase of goods - Monies put in stakeholder's account - Seller's failure in delivering goods - Buyer claimed for refund of monies - Whether written instructions by both parties required pursuant to stakeholder agreement - Whether there was fundamental breach or repudiatory breach of contract - Whether there was total failure of consideration - Whether there was contravention of principle against unjust enrichment

CONTRACT: Agreement - Stakeholders agreement - Seller collected substantial amount of deposits in advance for intended sale and purchase of goods - Monies put in stakeholder's account - Seller's failure in delivering goods - Buyer claimed for refund of monies - Whether written instructions by both parties required pursuant to stakeholder agreement - Whether within powers of court to make order of release of stakeholder fund

 

 

TEE GEOK HOCK JC

  • For the plaintiff - Koo Yin Soon & Chong Yun Xin; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the defendants - Noorhafidzah Abd Rahim; M/s Mira Sham, Yong & Connie Ng

Majistret terkhilaf apabila meneruskan permohonan penjamin untuk menarik diri sebagai penjamin tanpa kehadiran tertuduh secara fizikal sebagaimana diperuntukkan bawah s. 393(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ('KTJ'). Perintah Majistret, yang dibuat secara terburu-buru, bercanggah dengan peruntukan undang-undang dan mewajarkan mahkamah menggunakan kuasa bawah s. 323 KTJ untuk mengakas perintah itu.
PP lwn. Rini Handayani [2022] 9 CLJ 436 [HC]

ROSEDUR JENAYAH: P Semakan - Jaminan - Penjamin menarik diri tanpa kehadiran tertuduh di mahkamah - Permohonan untuk menarik diri sebagai penjamin dibenarkan oleh Majistret - Sama ada perintah dikeluarkan bercanggah dengan s. 393 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada mahkamah wajar menggunakan kuasa bawah s. 323 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk mengakas perintah

 

 

ABU BAKAR KATAR H

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Mohd Shyafiq Mohd Ghazali; TPR
  • Bagi pihak responden - Chua Chu Chien; T/n Arissa Tan, Chien & Co

(i) Any document from the parties that goes to support either party's case, and any document that is adverse against either party, are not only relevant but also necessary for the fair determination of a dispute; the disclosure and production of the documents should not be held back.; and (ii) It is not just, expeditious and economical to bifurcate the trial of a writ action into two segments, namely, the determination of liability first and then the assessment of the quantum of damages if liability is found. Such bifurcation is time and cost-consuming.
RCB Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Milano Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 9 CLJ 445 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Application for - Trade mark infringement and passing off action - Production of documents required to go to trial to prove liability - Whether documents relevant and necessary for disposal of action - Whether production of documents premature - Whether trial ought to be bifurcated - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24

 

 

KENNETH ST JAMES JC

  • For the plaintiff - Amit Singh Penesar; M/s Teja Singh Penesar & Co
  • For the defendant - S Rajendran; M/s Rajen & Assocs

The applicant in this case was no longer in preventive detention but was in remand pending trial. A charge had been preferred against him and he was given a fair trial. The effect of the court's finding that the detention under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 was unlawful, where the writ of habeas corpus laid, may be inoperable. As such, the release and granting of freedom of the applicant must be through the legal channel now applicable ie, Criminal Procedure Code, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
Tanasilan Nakethiran v. PP & Ors [2022] 9 CLJ 462 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Applicant arrested pursuant to s. 4(1) of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA') - Whether detention lawful - Whether there was failure to inform applicant of reason for arrest - Whether failure to Gazette resolution resulted in s. 4(5) of SOSMA null and void - Whether applicant denied right to counsel - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be granted - Whether academic - Effects of granting writ of habeas corpus

 

 

ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JC

  • For the applicant - Jay Moey Wei Jiun & Jayarubbiny Jayaraj; M/s Jay & Jay
  • For the respondent - Farah Edzlin Yusof, Muhammad Simti; SFC & Anasuha Atiqah Mat Saidi; FC

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. IT'S ABOUT OPTIONS, NOT ALTERNATIVES TAKING THE 'A' OUT OF ADR+ [Read excerpt]
    by Pepe Kish* [2022] 1 LNS(A) ciii

    2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) ciii
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    IT'S ABOUT OPTIONS, NOT ALTERNATIVES TAKING THE 'A' OUT OF ADR+

    by
    Pepe Kish*

    In this powerful opinion piece, Perpetua Kish, award-winning family lawyer and member of the Law Society's Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, talks about how lawyers might be limiting themselves, and their client's outcomes, by using the 'alternative' label.

    To litigate? Or mediate, arbitrate or collaborate? That is the question.

    But it shouldn't be.

    It's a trap to present dispute resolution options as contraries, or as a fork in the road, because one of the most challenging things about being human is how easily influenced we are. The words and descriptions we use, have the power to influence how we think and feel.

    By labelling options for dispute resolution as 'alternatives', we risk relegating their status beyond the comfort of the conventional, attributing greater risk, and causing them to be discounted in favour of the ostensible security that surrounds more traditional methods.

    So, is it time to drop the 'A' from ADR?

    . . .

    +Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 265 Spring 2022.

    *Perpetua Kish (Pepe) is the director of Balance Family Law, launched in 2019 with co-founder, Jonathon Naef. An outside the box thinker and innovator, Pepe questions the standard approach to family law, working with her clients and peers to change the conversation about separation and divorce from one of combat to kindness. With a dual background in law and human services, and training in conflict coaching, mediation, collaborative law and parenting co-ordination, Pepe is a natural social worker who astutely navigates legal issues with clarity and kindness, rarely with any need to seek judicial intervention. Pepe has been acknowledged with numerous accolades and awards. She is Vice Chair of Connecting Lawyer Mums Australia, the Chair and Co-Founder of The Kind Lawyers movement and a Committee Member of the ACT Law Society's ADR Committee.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

  2. JUSTICE IN MALAYSIA: A JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH [Read excerpt]
    by Mohamad Ashyraf Hafiz bin Mohd Arif[i] Muhammad Harieth bin Zaini[ii] Dr. Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) civ

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

    JUSTICE IN MALAYSIA: A JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH

    by
    Mohamad Ashyraf Hafiz bin Mohd Arif[i]
    Muhammad Harieth bin Zaini[ii]
    Dr. Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    Justice has always been a topic that is highly discussed and cried upon whenever an issue arises in society. Justice is an integral part of a human's life, as it dictates what humans should do to interact with each other. Basically, humans are gullible and sensitive creatures, susceptible to everything that can upset nature's balance and create tensions in human relationships. To understand what justice is, one must first understand what law is. In Malaysia, individuals look at law as something distinct from society, even though society is basically made up of law. They believe the law is only made for judges and lawyers, despite their rights being codified in law. But, strange as it may appear, they always cry for justice, even though they do not fully comprehend what justice is. As a result of their ignorance, they are easily distracted from the true meaning of justice by the words of their idolised politicians. This study uses library research methods to gather the thoughts of previous prominent writers and apply them to the situation of justice in Malaysia.

    . . .

    [i] Third-year Student, Faculty of Law UKM.

    [ii] Third-year student, Faculty of Law, UKM.

    [iii] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UKM.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 840 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 839 Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 838 Housewives' Social Security Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 837 Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 836 Geographical Indications Act 2022 18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022] Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1677 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 438
ACT A1676 Goods Vehicle Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 294
ACT A1675 Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 592
ACT A1674 Departure Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 813
ACT A1673 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 791

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 345/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Ampang-Kuala Lumpur Elevated Highway) (Amendment) Order 2022 19 October 2022 20 October 2022 PU(A) 166/2001
PU(A) 344/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Kajang Traffic Dispersal Ring Road) (Amendment) Order 2022 19 October 2022 20 October 2022 PU(A) 16/2005
PU(A) 343/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) Guthrie Corridor Expressway) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2022 19 October 2022 20 October 2022 PU(A) 298/2005
PU(A) 342/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (Revocation) Order 2022 19 October 2022 21 October 2022 ACT 333
PU(A) 341/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Kemuning-Shah Alam Highway) (Amendment) Order 2022 19 October 2022 20 October 2022 PU(A) 163/2010

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 504/2022 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Member of The National Wages Consultative Council 26 October 2022 Appointment - 1 August 2022 to 30 September 2023; Revocation - 1 August 2022 ACT 732
PU(B) 503/2022 Notice Under Section 70 25 October 2022 26 October 2022 ACT 333
PU(B) 502/2022 Notice To Hold A By-Election of A Member of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Sabah For The Constituency of N.66 Bugaya 20 October 2022 21 October 2022 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 501/2022 Notice To Hold A General Election To The Legislative Assembly of The State of Pahang 20 October 2022 21 October 2022 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 500/2022 Notice To Hold A General Election To The Legislative Assembly of The State of Perak 20 October 2022 21 October 2022 PU(A) 386/1981

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 366 Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) PU(A) 309/2022 6 October 2022 First Schedule
ACT 461 Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954 (Revised 1991) ACT A1660 30 September 2022 [PU(B) 461/2022] Sections 2,3, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6A and 8
ACT 593 Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) ACT A1662 1 October 2022 [PU(B) 452/2022] Section 307
ACT 91 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972) ACT A1661 1 October 2022 [PU(B) 451/2022] Sections 28, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 55 and 68
PU(A) 163/2022 Perintah Duti Eksais 2022 PU(A) 287/2022 1 November 2022 Jadual

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 224/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022 PU(A) 327/2022 12 Oktober 2022
PU(A) 224/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 7) Order 2022 PU(A) 327/2022 12 October 2022
PU(A) 282/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 10) 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022
PU(A) 282/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 10) Order 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 October 2022 to 7 November 2022
PU(A) 256/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 9) 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here