Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #45/2022
10 November 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

ISMAIL NASARUDDIN ABDUL WAHAB v. MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD [2022] 9 CLJ 801
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-43-07-2021(W)]
03 OCTOBER 2022

Participation in trade union activities alone by a trade union member or officer in the capacity as a trade union member or officer, in the name of the trade union, ought not to be a ground for dismissal. Such activities must be established to have been carried out maliciously or was knowingly or recklessly false. The employer must consider the dual aspects, ie, the employee's work as well as the statutory provisions affording protection in relation to the trade union activities, before deciding on the employee's dismissal.

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Employee also President of National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia - Issuance of press statement in capacity as Union leader - Whether to be considered in decision to terminate employment - Whether role as Union leader intertwined with employment - Whether action fell within scope of trade union activities - Whether participation in lawful activities of trade union - Whether dismissal amounted to act of victimisation and unfair labour practice - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 18 - Employment Act 1955, s. 8 - Trade Unions Act 1959, ss. 21 & 22


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“To conclude the discussion on the definition of “thing” and “property” and the position of a bank account under s. 3 and 56(1)(d) AMLATFPUAA (Anti-Money Laundering, Financing of Terrorism and Proceeds of Unlawful Activity Act 2001), this court's findings are hereby summarised as follows: (i) a bank account is not a “thing” under the limb (a) of the definition of “instrumentalities”; (ii) whilst cash standing credit in a bank account is an asset and a property, a bank account on the other hand is not an “asset” under limb (a) to the definition of “property”; (iii) a bank account is not a “legal document or instrument” or “deposits and other financial resources” under limb (b) to the definition of “property”, and hence; (iv) a bank account is not a “property” under s. 3; and it further follows therefore; (v) a bank account is not “instrumentalities of an offence” under s. 3 and 56(1)(d) ; and finally; and (vi) a bank account cannot be the subject of forfeiture under s. 56(1)(d) AMLATFPUAA.”

“It is quite obvious, that despite the Government's ongoing war against illegal gambling both the CGHA and the Betting Act 1953 have not caught up with the times and they have not been updated to include express provisions for making online gambling illegal”

“In relation to AMLATFPUAA, the case of PP v. Woo Lee Lee [2021] 1 LNS 1203 saw the use of s. 4B of the CGHA (Common Gaming Houses Act 1953) as the predicate offence in an application for forfeiture under s. 56(1)(c) , that is proceeds of an unlawful activity… focusing on s. 4B of the CGHA , that provision criminalises any act of, inter alia, dealing with, transacting in, importing, manufacturing, selling, servicing and repairing gaming machines or the combination of them. What is plainly clear s. 4B only deals with the subject of dealing with or transacting in gaming machines and nowhere does it relate to online gambling. To put it simply, it does not provide for the offence of online gambling”

“It is this court's view, neither s. 4B(a) nor (b) can be legitimately used to establish the offence of online gambling… the words “deals with” and “transacts in” in s. 4B must refer only to acts concerned with the business of trading in or servicing the machine or instrument used in gaming but not the act of gaming” – per Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC (as His Lordship then was) in PP v. Multi Electrical Supply & Services & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 113

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 212

ZAINON NOORDIN lwn. DWIPROFIL (M) SDN BHD & YANG LAIN

Suatu perjanjian jual beli tanah tidak boleh dikatakan tak sah ab initio semata-mata kerana tanah yang dinyatakan di dalam perjanjian jual beli tersebut telah dipecah lot dan dibahagikan terutamanya apabila tanah tersebut masih mempunyai keluasan yang sama dan tiada pengambilan tanah selepas hakmilik baru dikeluarkan.

KONTRAK: Perjanjian jual beli - Kesahihan - Tuntutan oleh pembeli terhadap penjual - Dakwaan penipuan salah nyata oleh penjual - Tanah telah dipecah lot kepada dua geran berbeza - Keluasan tanah masih sama selepas pecah bahagi - Pembeli dan penjual mendakwa tidak mengetahui tanah telah dipecahkan dan mempunyai geran baru yang lain semasa menandatangani perjanjian - Pembeli telah melantik juruukur tanah selepas menandatangani perjanjian - Sama ada perjanjian jual beli adalah terbatal dan menjadi tak sah ab initio - Sama ada penjual telah mendorong pembeli untuk memasuki perjanjian jual beli berdasarkan salah nyata fraud - Sama ada penjual berhak untuk merampas deposit dan membatalkan perjanjian

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n Aru & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - T/n Mohd Latip & Associates

[2022] 1 LNS 241

DESA SAAD lwn. PP

Pihak yang mempunyai hak jalan adalah pihak yang boleh berada di atas laluan tersebut dan bukan sesiapa yang lain. Oleh demikian, sesiapa yang ingin memasuki laluan tersebut hendaklah memberi laluan atau keutamaan kepada pihak yang ada hak jalan terlebih dahulu sebelum memasuki laluan tersebut dan ia menjadi beban pembuktian kepada pihak yang memasuki laluan untuk menunjukkan bahawa dia telah mengambil semua langkah yang perlu untuk memastikan kemasukannya adalah selamat. Ia adalah menjadi tanggungjawab pihak yang bertukar laluan untuk memastikan adalah selamat untuk masuk ke laluan baru tersebut.

LALULINTAS JALAN: Memandu dengan cara berbahaya - Pertuduhan - Kesalahan bawah s. 43(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 - Perlanggaran antara motor bas dan motor lori - Motor lori memasuki lorang kanan laluan motor bas secara tiba-tiba mengakibatkan kemalangan - Sama ada kemalangan berlaku di laluan sah motor bas - Sama ada perlanggaran adalah bukti prima facie kecuaian - Sama ada pemandu motor lori telah memastikan adalah selamat untuk masuk ke laluan motor bas - Sama ada pemandu motor lori telah memandu kenderaan dengan cermat dan perhatian yang sepatutnya terhadap pengguna jalan yang lain

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Kesalahan bawah s. 43(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman denda RM9,000 jika gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara - Sama ada sabitan adalah selamat - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah memadai - Sama ada terdapat sebarang keadaan yang luar biasa yang mewajarkan hukuman ringan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Subash Ramasamy & Ramiah Jagatheason; T/n Chand, Jag & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden - Muhammad Azfar Mahmod; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya

[2022] 1 LNS 720

FAZRIL ARHAM RAMLI lwn PENDAKWA RAYA

Bagi pembuktian kesalahan rogol, pihak pendakwaan boleh mengemukakan rakaman percakapan dan pemeriksaan awal pegawai perubatan untuk menunjukkan elemen kesalahan tertuduh. Justeru, rakaman percakapan dan pemeriksaan awal pegawai perubatan yang dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit tanpa pegawai perubatan tersebut dipanggil sebagai saksi tidak akan menyebabkan pengakuan salah tertuduh menjadi cacat.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Tertuduh mengaku salah atas pertuduhan bawah ss. 292(a) dan 376 Kanun Keseksaan - Rakaman percakapan dan pemeriksaan awal pegawai perubatan telah dibacakan kepada tertuduh sebelum prosiding pengakuan - Sama ada tertuduh memahami pertuduhan serta faham sebab dan akibat pengakuan salah - Sama ada terdapat kecacatan dalam prosiding pengakuan salah tertuduh apabila laporan perubatan pegawai perubatan tidak diserahkan kepada tertuduh - Sama ada rakaman percakapan dan pemeriksaan awal pegawai perubatan terjumlah kepada laporan yang tercakup bawah s. 399 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah berpatutan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Tengku Shazuan Tg Shariffuddin; T/n Tengku Shazuan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nurliyana Md Zukri, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya

[2020] 1 LNS 2306

NOORLIZAH AG DAMIT v. SALFRYNA ABDULLAH @ SUSANAH GEORGE GAJIM

Res judicata and issue estoppel is not confined to a judgment made after trial but also applies to a judgment made at interlocutory proceedings.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Applicability - Cause of action estoppel - Issues already decided in previous suit - Whether claim was res judicata - Whether principle of res judicata only confined to a judgment made after trial

LIMITATION: Contract - Counterclaim - Breach of oral agreement - Failure of consideration of oral agreement and claim for refund of money - Action filed three years after breach of contract - Whether claim was statute barred by virtue of items 79 and 94 of Schedule of Sabah Limitation Ordinance (Sabah Cap 72) - Whether s. 18 of Sabah Limitation Ordinance applicable

  • For the plaintiff - Chin Tek Ming & Elffie Johnny; M/s Chin Jingulam & Associates
  • For the defendant - Sugumar Balakrishnan; M/s Sugumar & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 2274

PER: LEROY LEE CHEE WAI v. EX PARTE: KEVIN KHOO YIP SENG

1. A bankruptcy notice cannot be said to have misled or caused any substantial injustice to the judgment debtor if the sums stated in the bankruptcy notice are not only ascertainable but also clear in the amounts claimed by the judgment creditor.

2. A bankruptcy notice which was filed on a date later than what is stated in the bankruptcy notice and the amount stated therein was calculated as at the date of the bankruptcy notice itself is a mere formal defect and does not cause prejudice to the judgment debtor. By virtue of s. 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967, such formal defect in the bankruptcy notice does not invalidate the bankruptcy proceedings.

BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Setting aside - Bankruptcy proceedings based on fixed judgment sum recorded by way of consent judgment - Terms of consent judgment on payment of settlement sum not complied with by judgment debtor - Whether bankruptcy notice was prematurely issued and caused any substantial injustice to judgment debtor - Whether sums claimed in bankruptcy notice was ascertainable and clear

BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Setting aside - Formal defect - Bankruptcy notice filed at a later date than what was stated therein - Sums stated in bankruptcy notice was as at date of bankruptcy notice and not filing date - Whether a mere formal defect - Whether formal defect has caused prejudice to judgment debtor - Whether defect invalidated proceedings - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 131

  • For the appellant/judgment creditor - Avinder Singh Gill, Eow Khean Fatt and Intan Noor Asyikin; M/s Avinder Gill Chambers
  • For the respondent/judgment debtor - Kee Li Ling & Chan Chew Weng; M/s L L Kee & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 9 (Part 5)

For an injunction to be granted pending the disposal of arbitration proceedings, the status quo sought to be preserved must be the subject matter of the said arbitration proceedings.
Damai City Sdn Bhd v. MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2022] 9 CLJ 639 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Application for - Injunction to restrain payment and/or receipt of payment under performance bond pending disposal of arbitration proceedings - Application made pursuant to s. 11(1)(a) and (b) of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether s. 11(1) could only be invoked by parties to arbitration - Whether there could be jurisdiction over bond involving third parties - Whether bond subject matter of arbitration

 

 

RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA

  • For the appellant - Cyrus Das, T Sudhar, Tan Ch'eng Leong, Dawn Wong Keng Jade & Ng Yee Lin; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
  • For the 1st respondent -Tommy Thomas, Michael Yap Chih Hong & Wong Siong Lung; M/s Tommy Thomas
  • For the 2nd respondent - Poh Choo Hoe & Choy Kay Chun; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
  • For the 3rd respondent - Yap Vern-Chieh Gary & Hemashini Kurup; M/s Ramesh Dipendra Jeremiah Law

When the language used in a will is plain, simple, clear and unambiguous, the court must give the words their natural and ordinary meaning to enable the testator's intentions. When the will specifically refers to who are to be the executors of the testator's estate, the relevant clause must be construed as an express declaration of the intention of the testator to appoint the person as the instituted executor. In wills with a scheme of representation in place, the intention of the testator must be put into effect. So long as there is a clear scheme of representation, such scheme shall prevail over any claim for chain of representation ie s. 12 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959.
Woo Wei Liang v. Liang Dinghui [2022] 9 CLJ 659 [CA]

SUCCESSION: Probate - Administration of estates - Deceased parents appointed son as executor of wills - Another son appointed as alternate or substitute executor if appointed executor unwilling or unable to act for whatever reason - Son appointed as executor passed away - Whether condition for alternate or substitute executor had arisen and satisfied - Natural and ordinary meaning of wills - Whether scheme of representation created by testator should prevail over chain of representation pursuant to s. 12 of Probate and Administration Act 1959

 

 

NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA

  • For the appellant - Steven Thiru, Wong Suk May, Gerard Lourdesamy, David Ng & Ananthan Moorthi; M/s Gerard Samuel & Assoc
  • For the respondent - Suaran Singh Sidhu & Ashwin Selvanathan (Pdk); M/s Law Partnership

Dalam situasi apabila jumlah tuntutan Tenaga Nasional Berhad ('TNB') kurang daripada lima tahun, TNB dikehendaki membuktikan, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, tempoh sebenar usikan meter telah berlaku di hartanah pemegang akaun dan jumlah kehilangan hasil pendapatan yang dituntut.
Lai Kam Seong lwn. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2022] 9 CLJ 681 [HC]

UTILITI-UTILITI: Elektrik - Bekalan - Usikan pada pepasangan meter - Rayuan terhadap liabiliti dan kuantum - Sama ada usikan pada pepasangan meter berjaya dibuktikan - Garis panduan prosedur tuntutan kerugian hasil - Jumlah tuntutan yang boleh dibuat oleh pembekal elektrik berkaitan caj elektrik kebelakang - Had maksima yang berhak dituntut jika usikan meter disedari lebih lima tahun selepas usikan berlaku

 

 

TEE GEOK HOCK JC

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Joyce Chew Hooi Ying; T/n CM Lai & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - Kee Pei Kim; T/n Mazlan & Assocs

In the event where the purchaser of a property at a public auction and the bank are unaware that the title deed to the property is not valid, the parties are under a common genuine mistake and the auction and the auction sale agreement would be rendered null and void. The bank is therefore under a legal obligation to refund the auction purchase price money to the purchaser.
Perkasa Temenggong Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Hulu Langat & Ors; Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor (Third Party) [2022] 9 CLJ 703 [HC]

LAND LAW: Sale of land - Public auction - Bidder successfully bid for property - Bidder unable to register transfer of ownership of property to itself - Title deed to property found to be invalid - Claim for refund of purchase price - Whether auction and auction sale agreement null and void - Whether bank under legal obligation to return money - Whether bidder ought to be compensated by relevant parties

LAND LAW: Sale of land - Public auction - Bidder successfully bid for property - Title deed to property found to be invalid - Claim for refund of purchase price - Whether auction and auction sale agreement null and void - Whether bank under legal obligation to return money - Bank's third party action against Director of Land and Mines Selangor ('second defendant') - Whether loss suffered by bank purchase price refunded to bidder or in relation to loan disbursed based on charges over invalid title deed intended as security for disbursement of loan to borrower - Whether bank entitled to claim purchase price from second defendant - Whether third party action filed by bank against second defendant for refund of auction purchase price money unsustainable

 

 

CHOO KAH SING J

  • For the plaintiff - Rehvathi Krishsamy; M/s Teh Soon Kee & Partners
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Nor Fariza Ridzuan; SLO, Selangor
  • For the 3rd defendant - Cheah Fann Jin; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

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; (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.
PP v. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi [2022] 9 CLJ 713 [HC]

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

 

 

MOHD YAZID MUSTAFA J

  • For the prosecution - Raja Rozela Raja Toran, Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, Abdul Malik Ayob, Gan Peng Kun, Zander Lim Wai Keong & Thavani Balakrishnan; DPPs
  • For the accused - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Ahmad Zaidi Zainal, Hamidi Mohd Noh, Aiman Abdul Rahman, Fatini Athirah Baharin, Sharifah Annafiza Al-Shahab Syed Fadzil, Nur Khairunnisa Sabirah Abdul Manan (PDK) & Nabihah Meor Azli (PDK)

There is no exact science in the assessment of general damages. The expenditure on legal bills in instructing solicitors and engaging counsel are actual damages and comes under the umbrella of general damages.
Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dato’ Syed Hamzah Syed Abu Bakar (Deceased; Representative Appointed) & Ors [2022] 9 CLJ 761 [HC]

DAMAGES: Assessment - Legal bills - Claimants' legal bills in appointing solicitors and/or counsel - Whether legal fees incurred actual damages that were reasonably foreseeable - Reasonable sum for distress, inconvenience and hardship suffered by claimants

 

 

LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC

  • For the plaintiff - Lim Kian Leong & Jessica Chong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
  • For the 1st defendant - Simrenjeet Singh & Ng Tat Sun; M/s Simrenjeet, Tay & Co
  • For the 2nd defendant - Zuriatul Mida & Nor Syairah; Companies Commission of Malaysia
  • For the 3rd defendant - Nik Asilah; M/s Zahir Jeya & Zainal

A banker owes its customer a duty to take reasonable care and skill in acting in accordance with the customer's mandate. Not acting according to the customer's mandate amounts to acting without the authority of the customer. The bank is negligent and in breach of its duty when it does not seek verification from an authorised person before executing transfer of funds, which leads to the transferring of monies to the account of a person who has no right to receive the funds. In such scenario, the bank has acted in violation of its customer's mandate.
Tetuan C Sukumaran & Co v. Bank Simpanan Nasional [2022] 9 CLJ 774 [HC]

|

BANKING: Banker and customer - Duty of care - Negligence - Reasonable care and skill in acting in accordance with customer's mandate - Whether breached - Whether bank ought to verify each letter of instruction with operator of account before executing transfer of funds - Whether bank acted on its own detriment by relying on verification of unauthorised person for transfer of funds - Whether conduct of bank violation of customer's mandate - Whether there was contributory negligence on customer's part - Whether statutory protection under s. 73A of Bills of Exchange Act 1949 applicable to defeat customer's claim

TORT: Negligence - Banker and customer - Duty of care - Negligence - Reasonable care and skill in acting in accordance with customer's mandate - Whether breached - Whether bank ought to verify each letter of instruction with operator of account before executing transfer of funds - Whether bank acted on its own detriment by relying on verification of unauthorised person for transfer of funds - Whether conduct of bank violation of customer's mandate - Whether there was contributory negligence on customer's part - Whether statutory protection under s. 73A of Bills of Exchange Act 1949 applicable to defeat customer's claim

 

AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J

  • For the appellant - Ravichandaran Selliah; M/s S Ravichandaran & Anuar
  • For the respondent - Kalikumari Menon; M/s Jaffar & Menon

Monies held in the developer's maintenance account and the sinking fund account are held on trust for the purchasers; once the monies are transferred to the joint management body's maintenance account pursuant to the Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA'), the monies are no longer trust monies, and therefore, shall be used for the purposes as stipulated under s. 23(3) of the SMA.
Transpacc Property Management Sdn Bhd v. Badan Pengurusan Bersama Pangsapuri Aman Larkin & Anor [2022] 9 CLJ 794 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Garnishee order - Whether monies in developer's maintenance account and sinking fund account held on trust by developer for purchasers - Whether formed part of developer's asset - Whether no longer trust monies once transferred to joint management body ('JMB') - Whether monies standing to credit of JMB's maintenance account could be garnished towards settlement of JMB's judgment debt - Whether monies standing to credit of JMB's sinking fund account could only be used for meeting capital expenditures - Strata Management Act 2013, ss. 10(4), 11(4), 23(1) & 24(1)

LAND LAW: Strata title - Joint management body ('JMB') - Garnishee order against JMB - Whether monies in developer's maintenance account and sinking fund account held on trust by developer for purchasers - Whether no longer trust monies once transferred to JMB - Whether monies standing to credit of JMB's maintenance account could be garnished towards settlement of judgment debt - Whether monies standing to credit of JMB's sinking fund account could only be used for meeting capital expenditures - Strata Management Act 2013, ss. 10(4), 11(4), 23(1) & 24(1)

 

FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

  • For the appellant - Toong Hui Joon; M/s Valerie Chong & Co
  • For the respondents - Arham Rahimy Hariri & Mohamad Ariffuddin Hanafi; M/s Edlin Ghazaly & Assocs

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. THE EFFECT OF REGULATORY SANDBOX APPLICATION ON FINANCIAL REGULATION [Read excerpt]
    by Maryam Khalid* [2022] 1 LNS(A) cvii

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cvii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    THE EFFECT OF REGULATORY SANDBOX APPLICATION ON FINANCIAL REGULATION

    by
    Maryam Khalid*

    In 2015, the Financial Conduct Authority ('FCA') in the United Kingdom introduced the idea of a fintech regulatory sandbox. Since its introduction, the regulatory sandbox has received global interest from policymakers, academics, and individuals involved in delivering financial services. Acting as a response to regulating fintech, the regulatory sandbox provides a controlled environment for financial providers to test new financial products or business models and interact with the consumers under the regulator's supervision.[1]

    Previous studies have shown that the emergence of fintech brings a challenge to financial regulation.[2] Hence, the financial markets have evolved to accommodate the growing demands for fintech products. Not only fintech disrupts the financial industry and undermines financial stability, but fintech has also added a new regulatory burden towards regulators around the world.[3] The regulators are now expected to regulate without hampering innovation. In effect, this means the regulators will not only need to ensure financial stability and provide adequate customer protection but nowadays, the regulators are burdened with another mandate of promoting innovation.

    . . .

    *Faculty of Law, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 AND COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES [Read excerpt]
    by Oliver Chua Yaw Kwang* [2022] 1 LNS(A) cviii

  4. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cviii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 AND COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES

    by
    Oliver Chua Yaw Kwang*

    ABSTRACT

    A company is a separate legal entity distinct from its directors and shareholders. Like a natural person, a company is capable of acting in its own name, but unlike a natural person, it must act through its officers. Any decision on whether to act or not would generally be exercised by its Board of Directors. In doing so, the two rules in Foss v. Harbottle[1] must be complied with, i.e. the Proper Plaintiff Rule and the Majority Rule. However, these two rules are not flawless as there might be cases where there is oppression, fraud or even deadlock; thus, it is necessary in these circumstances to allow derivative action, an exception to the rules in Foss v. Harbottle. Some Malaysian cases in the past applied the principle of agency by necessity when a company is struck in a deadlock. This article will also discuss the implication of this old common law principle in light of the new statutory derivative action.

    . . .

    *Bachelor of Laws (Hons) (London), CLP, Advocates (High Court of Sabah and Sarawak). This author is, at the time of writing, still serving as a State Legal Officer under the Sarawak State Attorney-General's Chamber, but this article is the personal view of this author and it does not represent the view of the State Government of Sarawak nor the view of the Sarawak State Attorney-General's Chamber. All errors and omissions are the author's own.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. PROGRAMME: MINDA PAKAR 'AN ARBITRATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE'* [Read excerpt]
    by Prof Datuk Dr Hj Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer** [2022] 1 LNS(A) cix

  6. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cix
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    PROGRAMME: MINDA PAKAR 'AN ARBITRATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE'*

    by
    Prof Datuk Dr Hj Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer**

    Program Introductory Speech

    YAA, YA and to all my learned jurists, members of the media, ladies and gentlemen. Foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah, Malaysia for inviting me to present my concept now popularly referred to as University cum Court Annexed Arbitration, as well as my methodology to train a tsunami of arbitrators in a single-day program referred to as 'JANAB's Arbitration Moot Court and Award Writing' with my team (Datuk Bastian Vendargon, Datuk Joy Apukuttan, Encik Thiages and Dinesh Nandrajog) from Affordable Arbitration and ADR Chambers PLT. This program has the support and backing of MAHSA University and forms part of the university's social justice initiative. This program has been featured in the Current Law Journal and has its support. My heartfelt thanks go out to them (https://adrarbitrationchambers.com/).

    University cum Court Annexed Arbitration concept is a researched concept facilitated by the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. The concept is crystalized in a booklet which can be downloaded for free from Janab's Publication website (www.janablegal.com). Since its publication, the concept has received many positive reviews from many jurists from within Malaysia as well as outside the country. One of such jurist that has reviewed and accepted the concept in 2018 is none other than YAA Dato' Setia Dr Haji Mohd Naim bin Haji Mokhtar.

    . . .

    *Held at Putrajaya by Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia on 5 October 2022.

    **Arbitrator; Judge, Court of Appeal, Malaysia (rtd), Prof for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, MAHSA University.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 841 Pensions Act 1951 (Revised 2022) 15 November 2022 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2022; First enacted in 1951 as Ordinance No 1 of 1951 - -
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 1 December 2022 [PU(B) 509/2022]  - -
ACT 837 Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -

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) 362/2022 Housing Development (Control and Licensing) (Exemption) Order 2022 7 November 2022 8 November 2022 ACT 118
PU(A) 361/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 14) Order 2022 7 November 2022 8 November 2022 to 7 December 2022 ACT 723
PU(A) 360/2022 Syarie Legal Profession (Federal Territories) (Procedure of General Meeting of Badan Peguam Syarie) Rules 2022 3 November 2022 4 November 2022 ACT 814
PU(A) 359/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 18) Order 2022 3 November 2022 4 November 2022 ACT 333
PU(A) 358/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 17) Order 2022 3 November 2022 4 November 2022 ACT 333

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 527/2022 Notice Under Subregulation 11(5A) - Corrigendum 9 November 2022   PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 526/2022 Fatwa Under Section 34 9 November 2022 10 November 2022 ACT 505
PU(B) 525/2022 Notice To Third Parties 9 November 2022 10 November 2022 ACT 613
PU(B) 524/2022 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 482058 Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 8 November 2022 9 November 2022 ACT 828
PU(B) 523/2022 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Chief Executive Officer of The Board 7 November 2022 Appointment - 3 May 2021; Revocation - 17 August 2021 ACT 427

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 101 Akta Tabung Angkatan Tentera 1973 AKTA A1668 1 November 2022 [PU(B) 510/2022] Seksyen 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 9A, 11, 12, 15, 24, 25 dan Jadual Kedua
ACT 101 Tabung Angkatan Tentera Act 1973 ACT A1668 1 November 2022 [PU(B) 510/2022] Sections 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 9A, 11, 12, 15, 24, 25 and Second Schedule
AKTA 666 Akta Industri Biobahan Api Malaysia 2007 PU(A) 354/2022 1 November 2022 Jadual Pertama
ACT 666 Malaysian Biofuel Industry Act 2007 PU(A) 354/2022 1 November 2022 First Schedule
ACT 366 Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) PU(A) 309/2022 6 October 2022 First Schedule

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