|Print this page|
24 November 2022
New This Week
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
DETIK RIA SDN BHD & ANOR v. PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LTD & ANOR  10 CLJ 171
The legislative intent behind the enactment of s. 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 is for the approval of Bank Negara Malaysia to be obtained if the agreement entered into will lead to the acquisition or disposal of shares. The prohibition is not against the entering into of a contract. Rather, the prohibition is against the carrying out of the contract which would lead to the acquisition or disposal of more than 5% shares of a licensee without the prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia.
CONTRACT: Conditional contract - Approval of authority - Parties entered into call/put option agreement ('CPOA') - Granting of call option in respect of shares in company - Whether prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia required to enter into CPOA - Whether approval obtained - Whether approval merely condition to enforceability of CPOA - Whether contract tainted with illegality - Insurance Act 1996, s. 67
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Statutes - Insurance Act 1996 - Section 67 - Prohibitions and restrictions - Whether literal/purposive approach to be given in interpreting section - Whether against carrying out of transaction without obtaining Bank Negara Malaysia's approval
“The High Court was correct in holding that the exception in s. 138(2)(c) of the ITA does not apply to the appellant. Under s. 138(2)(c) of the ITA, in order to produce or use a classified material in court, the appellant must obtain written authority of “the person to whose affairs it relates”. Here, “person” includes a company (see s. 2 of the ITA on the definition of “person”). It is imperative upon the appellant to obtain written authority or consent from the respondents before he may produce their tax documents in court. The respondents submitted that their opposition to the appellant's application is self-evident that no such written authority has been or will be given to him.”
“We also agree with the learned judge’s analysis of the case of Sharif Bungsu Sharif Zen & Anor v. PP  1 LNS 47;  MLJU 645 relied on by the appellant. In this Sharif Bungsu’s case the court held in no uncertain terms that “such provision is intended for the benefit of the tax payer, probably for confidentiality reason...”.” - per Kamaludin Md Said JCA in Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v. Raub Mining & Development Company Sdn Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals  8 CLJ 405
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2022 Volume 10 (Part 1)
The Federal Court, in order to guard its exclusive original jurisdiction from abuse, must naturally have the inherent power to set aside any leave granted, pursuant to art. 4(4) of the Federal Court, if the narrow and specific conditions of the art. 4(3) are not met. Leave can only be granted if there is jurisdiction and so, a grant of leave is not capable of becoming the basis of jurisdiction.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Petition - Challenge against constitutional validity of ss. 63 and 64 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether subject matter of petition within original jurisdiction of court - Whether leave to file petition ought not to have been granted - Whether Federal Court can consider question of own jurisdiction once leave granted - Federal Constitution, art. 4(3) & (4)
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
Jumlah pampasan yang dibayar dalam pelaksanaan pengambilan tanah boleh dibayar kepada pihak berkepentingan, dalam kes ini, pemegang gadaian tanah yang diambil bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Kegagalan penyerahan notis siasatan dalam Borang E kepada pemilik berdaftar tanah yang diambil, yang menyebabkan kegagalan pemilik berdaftar hadir semasa siasatan, tidak menjadikan pengambilan tanah itu salah.
HAD MASA | PROSEDUR SIVIL | UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH
HAD MASA: Kausa tindakan - Tarikh terakru - Pengambilan tanah - Sama ada pengambilan tanah dibuat secara salah - Tindakan oleh pemilik tanah - Sama ada terhalang oleh had masa bawah s. 2(a) Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 ('Akta') - Sama ada melebihi tempoh 36 bulan dari tarikh kausa tindakan terakru - Kegagalan pentadbir tanah memplid had masa - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengetepikan pembelaan had masa - Sama ada had masa bawah s. 2(a) Akta bersifat mutlak
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Kausa tindakan - Kausa tindakan berasaskan pengambilan tanah secara salah dan fraud - Kegagalan memplid pencerobohan atau kecuaian - Sama ada mahkamah terikat untuk memutuskan kes berdasarkan kausa tindakan yang diplid - Sama ada kebergantungan pada isu pencerobohan boleh dipertimbangkan mahkamah
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Pampasan - Pertikaian berkait siasatan oleh pentadbir tanah - Dakwaan pemilik berdaftar dinafikan hak menghadiri siasatan - Sama ada penyerahan Borang E kepada pemegang gadaian dan bukan pemilik tanah menjadikan pengambilan tanah salah - Sama ada pemegang gadaian pihak berkepentingan - Sama ada pemilik tanah diprejudis atas kegagalan penyampaian Borang E - Sama ada pengambilan tanah terbatal - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 11(1)
NOR BEE ARIFFIN HMR
The jurisdiction to hear matters relating to invalidation of law under the constitutional and statutory judicial review does not lie within the Syariah courts. Judicial powers over the constitutional validity of laws could only be exercised by the civil Federal Judiciary.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Detention under s. 23 of Syariah Criminal Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('SCPE') - Matters relating to invalidation of s. 23 of SCPE and challenge against detention order on grounds of illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether fell under constitutional and statutory judicial review - Whether civil court has jurisdiction to hear matter - Whether Syariah court have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to invalidation of law under constitutional juridical review
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Validity of legislation - Detention under s. 23 of Syariah Criminal Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('SCPE') - Matters relating to invalidation of s. 23 of SCPE and challenge against detention order on grounds of illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether timeless detention amounted to encroachment of fundamental liberty - Whether fundamental principle of presumption of innocence taken away - Whether imposition of bail and bond without being charged violated rights to livelihood and personal liberty - Whether order tainted with illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether exercise of power under s. 23 of SCPE violated arts. 5 and 8 of Federal Constitution
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
The time frame in applying for judicial review is fundamental and goes to jurisdiction. Whether the application has merit or not, is irrelevant in a judicial review application unless there is a good reason as to why extension of time shall be given, as prescribed under O. 53 r. 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Allegation that Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor had no valid fiat to prosecute in case - Whether application made within time frame - Whether there was good reason for extension of time - Whether application abuse of process of court - Whether application had merits - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(1), (6), (7)
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
An absolute decree nisi obtained by a petitioner can be altered, varied or set aside by way of an application, if it can be proved that there are errors, fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In a case where a petitioner wife is not domiciled in Malaysia at the time when the divorce petition is presented, coupled with failure on her part to present full disclosure of facts, there is clearly a non-compliance of the requirements of the Legal Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, rendering the decrees obtained improper, null and void.
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Foreign marriage - Domicile - Petitioner wife obtained decree nisi and ex parte application to be exempted from ss. 48(1)(c) and 106 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA') - Respondent husband filed application to vacate all ex parte orders - Whether there was non-compliance of LRA - Whether court has jurisdiction to issue decree nisi under s. 48 of LRA - Whether petition filed less than two years after petitioner wife came back to Malaysia - Whether decree nisi could be overturned through appeal or application - Whether there was delay in respondent husband filing application - Whether orders irregularly obtained and ought to be set aside - Whether decrees null and void
AZIZAN MD ARSHAD JC
Dalam kes-kes seksual seperti rogol, sabitan boleh dikenakan tanpa keterangan mangsa disokong, dengan syarat mahkamah telah memberi amaran pada dirinya akan bahaya pergantungan pada hanya keterangan tersebut dan setelah berpuas hati bahawa adalah selamat untuk mengetepikan keterangan sokongan. Keterangan sokongan, dalam kes-kes seksual, hanyalah amalan dan pruden sahaja; bukan satu tuntutan undang-undang.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Rogol - Majikan dituduh merogol pembantu rumah - Sama ada inti pati pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - Sama ada keterangan mangsa harus disokong oleh lain-lain keterangan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 375(b) & 376(1)
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED H
Section 7(8) of the Civil Law Act 1956 only allows a dependent to bring an action in their capacity as dependents if the 'circumstances' provided in the said section are satisfied. These 'circumstances' are conditions that, if proved, would confer legal standing in the claimants to bring a claim under s. 7 of the Act.
CIVIL LAW ACT | TORT
CIVIL LAW ACT: Dependency claim - Loss of support - Deceased checked into hotel as guest and drowned at swimming pool - Claimants, claiming to be parents of deceased, commenced dependency claim - Whether proven that claimants' parents of deceased - Whether locus standi established - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 7
TORT: Negligence - Damages - Claim for - Deceased checked into hotel as guest and drowned at swimming pool - Claimants, claiming to be parents of deceased, commenced claim for damages - Whether locus standi established - Whether hotel discharged duty of care to deceased - Whether hotel liable
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J