CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
PP v. AHMAD ZAHID HAMIDI  9 CLJ 713
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
MOHD YAZID MUSTAFA J
[CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: BA-[45-53]-12-2019]
23 SEPTEMBER 2022
The High Court acquitted the accused, former Deputy Prime Minister cum Minister of Home Affairs, of taking bribes on the grounds that: (i) the testimonies by the three key prosecution witnesses were unreliable and untrustworthy; and (ii) the failure by the prosecution to (a) prove the foremost important element in all the charges levelled against the accused, ie the receipt of the corrupt monies; (b) ascertain the source of the funds allegedly paid to the accused; and (c) produce any sample envelope used for the alleged cash payments, remarking that it was hard to imagine what kind of envelope could fit hundreds of thousands in cash.
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Corruptly receiving gratification - Accused charged with 33 charges under s. 16(a)(B) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 for 33 offences - Whether prima facie case established - Whether ingredients of charge proven - Whether accused corruptly received gratification for himself - Whether gratification received as inducement or reward to accused as officer of public body in capacity as Minister to extend contracts awarded to company
CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Public servant receiving valuable thing without consideration - Accused charged with 33 charges under s. 16(a)(B) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 for 33 offences - Accused charged with alternative charges under s. 165 of Penal Code - Whether prima facie case established - Whether ingredients of charge proven - Whether accused public servant - Whether accused obtained valuable thing without consideration - Whether such valuable thing obtained from company whom accused knew to have connection with his official functions and capacity as Minister
Eddy Anak Ganeng v. PP  1 LNS 571 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Eddy Anak Ganeng  1 LNS 653
That Wei v. PP  1 LNS 1358 affirming the High Court case of PP v. That Wei [Criminal Trial No.45B-36-12/2016]
Legal Network Series
 1 LNS 170
LONG TRACK TYRES & EQUIPMENT SDN BHD lwn. LAU CHONG SENG
Pemilik baru yang berjaya dalam sesuatu bidaan hartanah hendaklah menuntut milikan kosong hartanah tersebut daripada penghuni yang menyewa hartanah tersebut dan bukannya daripada pemilik hartanah terdahulu. Hal ini adalah kerana setelah pendaftaran hartanah atas nama pemilik baru, pemilik terdahulu tidak lagi mempunyai apa-apa locus, hak dan kepentingan ke atas hartanah tersebut termasuk premis di atas hartanah tersebut.
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Milikan - Pengembalian milikan kosong - Permohonan oleh pemilik baru terhadap pemilik terdahulu - Tanah dibeli melalui lelongan awam - Pemilik terdahulu tidak mengetahui dan dimaklumkan berkenaan prosiding lelongan hartanah serta nafi menerima notis untuk penyerahan milikan kosong - Tanah disewa oleh pihak ketiga dan bukan pemilik terdahulu - Sama ada pemilik terdahulu mempunyai apa-apa locus, hak dan kepentingan ke atas hartanah - Sama ada tuntutan milikan kosong dan pengusiran sewajarnya difailkan terhadap penghuni hartanah atau pemilik terdahulu
- Bagi pihak perayu - Chuah Hock Aik; T/n Lim Aik Quah & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Gavin Chew; T/n Syarikat Ng & Anuar
 1 LNS 236
AZLINDAH BAKAR lwn. EFFENDY ABDUL HAK
Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM 2012') tidak terpakai bagi prosiding taksiran ganti rugi di hadapan hakim. Justeru, kegagalan memohon arahan melalui notis untuk minta arahan bawah A. 37 k. 1(1) KKM 2012 tidak mengakibatkan perbicaraan taksiran ganti rugi oleh hakim terhalang.
GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Notis temujanji - Notis untuk minta arahan - Permohonan taksiran difailkan tanpa notis untuk minta arahan - Sama ada perlu atau tidak notis formal mengikut A. 37 k. 1(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM 2012') difailkan - Sama ada kegagalan memohon arahan sebelum memfailkan notis temujanji bagi taksiran ganti rugi telah mengakibatkan perbicaraan taksiran ganti rugi oleh hakim terhalang - Sama ada A. 37 KKM 2012 terpakai
KONTRAK: Ganti rugi - Penamatan - Taksiran - Ganti rugi kehilangan pelaburan - Ganti rugi akibat penamatan perjanjian - Sama ada plaintif telah mengemukakan keterangan untuk membuktikan pelaburannya - Sama ada tuntutan hanya dibenarkan setakat mana yang dapat dibuktikan dengan dokumen sokongan
- Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co
- Bagi pihak defendan - T/n Harbhajan Kaur & Partners
 1 LNS 718
MOHD NOR AZMI MOHAMED NOR lwn PP
Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa bagi pelucuthakan tumbuhan, binatang dan sebagainya yang disita bawah Akta Perkhidmatan Kuarantin dan Pemeriksaan Malaysia 2011 ('Akta 2011'). Berdasarkan s. 29 Akta 2011, mahkamah perlu melaksanakan pemeriksaan ke atas tuntutan dan pemeriksaan tersebut bukanlah satu perbicaraan jenayah. Tugas mahkamah hanya sekadar untuk memeriksa sama ada terdapatnya keterangan-keterangan yang boleh membuktikan bahawa satu kesalahan telah dilakukan dan menentukan sama ada tumbuhan, binatang dan sebagainya adalah merupakan hal perkara di dalam kesalahan itu.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pelucuthakan - Permohonan - Permohonan pelucuthakan kambing-kambing yang telah disita bawah s. 29(8) Akta Perkhidmatan Kuarantin dan Pemeriksaan Malaysia 2011 ('Akta 2011') - Sama ada terdapat keterangan yang telah membuktikan bahawa satu kesalahan bawah s. 11 Akta 2011 telah dilakukan - Sama ada kambing-kambing yang disita merupakan haiwan hal perkara di dalam kesalahan bawah s. 11 Akta 2011 - Sama ada adalah wajar identiti pelaku dikenal pasti dan disabitkan - Sama ada kambing-kambing wajar dilucuthakkan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Muhammad Zaem Ab Aziz; T/n Mohd Fadzli & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Suhaili Abdul Halim, Pendakwa Raya; Kementerian Pertanian & Industri Asas Tani Malaysia
 1 LNS 2307
ZAIZAN SDN BHD v. KANSALING MAUL
1. The final accounts for work completed that have not been contested or challenged within the stated period of time shall be conclusive and deemed to be agreed between the parties. As a result, a party is prevented from contending otherwise due to their acquiescence and silence.
2. Affidavit evidence which shows that the issues raised by a defendant to oppose summary judgment are equivocal and inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence, gives the court an impression that the same is not bona fide triable issues.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Building contract - Subcontract - Issues to be tried - Final account not disputed by defendant - Whether parties are bound by contract document - Whether plaintiff's claim as stated in final account deemed agreed by defendant - Whether there was cogent evidence to support claim - Whether defendant was estopped by their acquiescence and silence or inaction from challenging final account - Whether issues raised by defendant was inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence - Whether there were bona fide triable issues
CONTRACT: Building contract - Claim for work done - Novation - Final account not disputed by contractor within time - Absence of notice of arbitration - Whether final account shall be conclusive and deemed agreed by parties - Whether contractor was estopped by their acquiescence and silence or inaction from challenging final account
- For the appellant - Terrence Lee; M/s Lam & Co
- For the respondent - Ian Cham; M/s Ronny Cham & Co
 1 LNS 2294
LEE WENG HONG v. YEW SAI SAM
It is not the function of the bankruptcy or insolvency court to read words into a judgment. Where a judgment ordering the appointment of an auditor and preparation of an audit report, and subsequently, in accordance with the judgment creditor's choice, such auditor conducted an audit report for the purposes of the bankruptcy notice, there is no basis for challenging the appointment and report of the said auditor by the judgment debtor. Any challenge as to the choice of auditor or audit report should be made in a civil court and not before the bankruptcy or insolvency court.
BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Setting aside - Allegation that bankruptcy notice not premised on a final judgment - Judgment was not set aside or stayed - Challenge on choice of auditor and audit report that was prepared pursuant to judgment - Whether bankruptcy notice was valid - Whether judgment debtor had successfully raised a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds amount of judgment debt - Whether any challenge as to choice of auditor and audit report ought to have been made in civil court
- For the judgment debtor/appellant - Paari Perumal & K Kulasekar; M/s K Kulasekar & Associate
- For the judgment creditor/respondent - Reeve Lim Chun Loong; M/s Lim, Wong & Co
CLJ 2022 Volume 9 (Part 4)
Hak mengetahui pertuduhan dan hak membela diri terhadap pertuduhan yang dikenakan adalah hak asasi pihak yang dikenakan tindakan secara pentadbiran; lebih-lebih lagi apabila perkara yang hendak diputuskan melibatkan periuk nasi atau sumber pendapatan pihak yang diambil tindakan.
Ismail Ahmad lwn. Celcom Networks Sdn Bhd & Satu Lagi  9 CLJ 473 [CA]
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Rayuan - Majikan memecat pekerja - Keputusan disahkan oleh Mahkamah Perusahaan - Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan semakan kehakiman pemohon - Sama ada pemohon tahu pertuduhan terhadapnya - Sama ada pemohon diberi peluang didengar dan membela diri - Sama ada berlaku pencabulan hak keadilan semula jadi
SURAYA OTHMAN HMR
SUPANG LIAN HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Anthony Gomez Clement & Andrew Gomez; T/n Gomez & Assocs
- Bagi pihak responden - Shamsul Bahrin Manaf & Maizura Mohamed Amin; T/n Mohanadass Partnership
The adjudicator, in completely disregarding the express contractual term that payment for works shall only become due to the claimant upon certification of approval by the project director, and by incorporating a new contractual term into the subcontract to which the parties had not mutually agreed, had shown a lack of sufficient judicial appreciation of the matters and facts before him and had acted in excess of jurisdiction. A payment dispute must be determined strictly within the confines of the subcontract wherein its terms and conditions did not call for the adjudicator to make a determination on a purported clause which is non-existent.
Lion Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Pestech Technology Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal  9 CLJ 488 [CA]
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Appeal against - Payment claims referred to adjudicator - Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction over adjudication proceedings - Whether Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 applied to subcontract - Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by incorporating new contractual term into subcontract - Whether there were errors in adjudication decision
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA
- For the appellant - Sanjay Mohanasundaram, Wong Li-Wei & Dharushini Bai; M/s Sanjay Mohan
- For the respondent - Rodney Gomez, Aarthi Jeyarajah & Kevin Richard Nathan; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') which allows a decision or ruling of a High Court Judge ('HCJ') to be reviewed or overruled by another HCJ of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The statutes that clothe the High Court with the power to review is provided under s. 323(1) of the CPC and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA'). However, the revisionary power of the High Court conferred by these provisions only relate to revisionary jurisdiction over the subordinate courts. Nowhere does it mention the power to review the High Court's own decision.
PP v. Abul Hassan Mohamed Rashid  9 CLJ 502 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Courts - Sessions Court - Jurisdiction - Accused persons charged in Sessions Court - Principle charge of engaging in act which operated as fraud by causing uplifting of fixed deposits belonging to company - Alternative charge of criminal breach of trust - Argument that offence occurred in Johor Bahru - Whether Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear case
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Courts - Jurisdiction - Co-ordinate jurisdiction - Accused persons charged at Sessions Court - Principle charge of engaging in act which operated as fraud by causing uplifting of fixed deposits belonging to company - Alternative charge of criminal breach of trust - Preliminary objection raised during appeal at High Court as to whether Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear case - High Court Judge ('HCJ') dismissed preliminary objection - Issue of local territorial jurisdiction raised again in course of hearing appeal on merits before another Judicial Commissioner ('JC') - JC held that Sessions Court had no local territorial jurisdiction - Whether JC correct in law to overturn earlier decision of HCJ
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA
- For the appellant - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Muhammad Azmi Mashud, Mohd Hafiz Mohd Yusof, Hashley Tajudin & Raihana Nadhira Rafidi; DPPs
- For the respondent - Muhammad Shafee, Wan Aizuddin & Nur Syahirah Hanapiah; M/s Shafee & Co
The plaintiff applying for a Mareva injunction must endeavour to satisfy the requirements under O. 29 r. 1(2) and (2A) of the Rules of Court 2012 in order to succeed in the application; mere regurgitation of the words in the Orders, without adequately particularising the facts and the reasons, would not suffice. Likewise, in order for the ex parte Mareva injunction to be made inter partes, it must be established that the dissipation of assets are pre-emptive acts intended to prejudice any judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
All Kurma Sdn Bhd v. Teoh Heng Tatt & Ors  9 CLJ 526 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva injunction - Application to set aside - Requirements under O. 29 r. 1(2) and O. 29 r. 1(2A) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether urgency of application established - Whether notice of application contained facts relied on to justify application ex parte - Whether answer likely given by opposite party stated - Whether requirements satisfied - Whether application allowed
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Ex parte injunction - Application for ex parte Mareva injunction to be heard inter partes - Whether requirements to allow application established - Whether there was good arguable case - Whether parties had assets within country - Whether there were real risk assets would be dissipated - Whether balance of convenience criterion applicable to Mareva injunction
- For the plaintiff - Elizabeth Lau, Hazel Siau & Jessica Chew; M/s Elizabeth Lau
- For the 1st & 6th defendants - Nicholas Tan, Phoebe Ooi & Lee Fei Wen; M/s Lim Huck Aik & Co
- For the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th & 8th defendants - B Jeyasingam & Lee Jun Leong; M/s Ghazi & Lim
(i) The purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case to be made and to limit and define the issues. Its object is to prevent the issues from being enlarged, which would prevent either party from knowing when the cause came on for trial and what the real point to be discussed and decided was; and (ii) It is within the jurisdiction of the legislature and the executive to declare the legitimacy of the use of drugs on humans. It is not within the powers of the court to declare so as the court does not determine policy issues in the field of scientific and technical expertise.
Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam & Anor v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor  9 CLJ 553 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Rules on pleadings - Reliefs sought in originating summons ('OS') broadly framed as 'interpretation' and 'determination' - Specific declarations sought not pleaded in OS and only raised in submissions - Whether submissions differed from nature and scope of pleaded claim in OS - Whether nature and scope of claim must be confined to what was expressly pleaded in OS - Whether additional prayer ought to be entertained by court
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Reliefs - Language - Omission to pray one of reliefs in Bahasa Melayu version compared to in English - Whether sufficient reasons given for failure - Whether court ought to allow said relief
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Interpretation and determination - Interpretation of provisions in Poisons Act 1952 and Poisons Regulations 1952 and determinations on whether registered medical practitioner entitled to dispense Ivermectin to patients - Whether originating summons attempt to move civil court to pre-empt, impede and/or interfere with on-going criminal investigations - Whether OS attempt to move court to make new public health policy to permit use of unregistered poison
- For the plaintiffs - Gurdial Singh Nijar, SP Chandra, Abraham Au & Lim Zi Han; M/s Yeoh Mazlina & Partners
- For the defendants - Suzana Atan & Liew Horng Bing; SFC's & Saravana Kuppusamy; FC
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.
Khairuddin Abu Hassan v. Wan Aeidil Wan Abdullah & Ors  9 CLJ 579 [HC]
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
- For the plaintiff - Mohamed Haniff Khatri & Nasbal Harun; M/s Haniff Khatri
- For the defendants - Andi Razalijaya A Dadi, SFC & Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid, FC
In a case where the board member of an asset management company had no knowledge that funds were being embezzled, and there is no express provision in the Licensing Handbook or in the Fund Manager Guidelines that required him to report any breach of investment terms or contravention of relevant statutory obligations to Securities Commission, to order restitution against him would neither be fair nor just, and would not constitute proper exercise of judicial discretion under s. 360 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007.
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti v. RBTR Asset Management Bhd & Ors  9 CLJ 624 [HC]
SECURITIES: Securities Commission - Recovery of money lost by investors - Whether s. 200 of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 permits Commission to commence representative action for negligence on behalf of investors - Claim for relief against third defendant - Whether there was breach of statutory duty - Whether third defendant liable for dissipation of funds - Whether third defendant required to report breach of investment terms or contravention of relevant statutory obligations to Securities Commission - Whether cause of action for negligence maintainable against third defendant - Whether fair and just to order restitution against third defendant - Whether constituted proper exercise of judicial discretion under s. 360 of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007
- For the plaintiff - Ganesan Nethi & Daniel Tan; M/s Tommy Thomas
- For the 3rd defendant - Jasbeer Singh & Nur Hakimah Mohamad; M/s Jasbeer, Nur & Lee
- For the 6th-8th defendants - Joy Appukuttan & Nicholas Ch'ng; M/s Chai & Partners
FAQ ON RECONSTRUCTION AND AMALGAMATION OF COMPANIES IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
by Azrul Haziq Khirullah[i] Fatihah Azhar[ii]  1 LNS(A) cv
 1 LNS(A) cv
FAQ ON RECONSTRUCTION AND AMALGAMATION OF COMPANIES IN MALAYSIA*
Azrul Haziq Khirullah[i]
WHAT IS A RECONSTRUCTION?
A reconstruction is a scheme formulated by companies that are held by substantially the same shareholders wherein the former company's business and undertakings will be transferred and carried out by the new company. As stated by Buckley J in the case of In Re South African Supply And Cold Storage Company; Wild v. Same Company, the scheme of reconstruction means that "the same business shall be carried on and substantially the same persons shall carry it on." Hence, practically a reconstruction is carried out within an internal link of an organization instead of an external party.
1. WHAT IS AN AMALGAMATION?
An amalgamation takes place when two or more undertakings amalgamate or blend and form a new company wherein the shareholders of each company substantially become the shareholders in the new company. It also may take place when one or more undertakings are transferred to an existing company. Further, amalgamation can be in the form of transfer of business or transfer of shares.
. . .
MANAGING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE [Read excerpt]
by Kho Feng Ming*  1 LNS(A) cvi
 1 LNS(A) cvi
MANAGING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN CIVIL LITIGATION:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE
Kho Feng Ming*
The concept of interlocutory applications has long been established in the jurisprudence of civil procedure. Although its history of origin is rather chequered, it still managed to find its way and continue to survive in the modern days of civil litigation. Be that as it may, the interlocutory application is said to be one of the greatest inventions of all time. It is capable of providing relief(s) to the litigants even though the merits of the dispute are yet to be determined. However, one of the setbacks of interlocutory applications is that it halts the progress of the main case. The filing of interlocutory applications often means the exercise of determining the main issue in dispute being held in abeyance, which then results in the delay of proceeding. Hence, imposing reasonable control on the liberties of litigants on this aspect becomes essential. Using content analysis as the methodology of research, this paper intends to discuss the legal position of interlocutory applications vis-á-vis civil litigation in Malaysia. The paper further undertakes a comparative study with the legal framework in Singapore on this area and thereafter analyses the law in these two jurisdictions.
. . .
||In force from
||Akta Tabung Angkatan Tentera 1973
||1 November 2022 [PU(B) 510/2022]
||Seksyen 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 9A, 11, 12, 15, 24, 25 dan Jadual Kedua
||Tabung Angkatan Tentera Act 1973
||1 November 2022 [PU(B) 510/2022]
||Sections 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 9A, 11, 12, 15, 24, 25 and Second Schedule
||Akta Industri Biobahan Api Malaysia 2007
||1 November 2022
||Malaysian Biofuel Industry Act 2007
||1 November 2022
||Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989)
||6 October 2022
||In force from
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022
||12 Oktober 2022
||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 7) Order 2022
||12 October 2022
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 10) 2022
||8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022
||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 10) Order 2022
||8 October 2022 to 7 November 2022
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 9) 2022
||8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022