| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #22/2023
25 May 2023
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR v. Natural resources such as parks and forests are public property and national assets, particularly where it has been carved out as such in the Structure Plan. In the instant appeals, the Structure Plan shows that the subject land is designated as 'open space'. As the alienation, change of land use and issuance of the Development Order converted the use of the park by the public, to private ownership, it effectively deprived the public of the use of such open space. It is incumbent upon the court to protect the public interest when land allocated for open space by the local authority, the Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur, and approved by the Minister of the Federal Territories, is removed from public use and utilised for private ownership, to the detriment of the public use. That too, without the knowledge of the public. This is particularly so when the net effect of such use by the issuance of the impugned Development Order, contravened several sections as well as the purpose and object of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 ('FTA'). Fundamentally, the impugned Development Order contravened the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan as it changed the use of area in question from open space for public use to mixed development. The exercise of discretion by the Datuk Bandar was not in conformity with his duties and obligations as spelt out in s. 22(4) as well as ss. 10 and 11 of the FTA. The impugned Development Order, not being in conformity with the FTA, was therefore null and void. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Local authority - Discretionary powers - Statutory development plans - Grant of development orders - Application to quash grant of planning permission by local authority - Whether statutory development plan gazetted and given force of law - Whether mandatory process of public participation embedded into development plan - Whether required strict compliance - Whether non-conformity formed basis for quashing decision of local authority - Whether local authority's departure from statutory development plan rendered exercise of discretion invalid and illegal - Whether local authority must give reasons for its decisions when there is deviation from statutory development plans - Whether reasons to be communicated at time decision made - Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, ss. 19(1), 22(1) & (4) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Local authority - Discretionary powers - Statutory development plans - Grant of development orders - Whether gazetted and given force of law - Whether mandatory process of public participation embedded into development plan - Whether required strict compliance - Whether attempt to circumvent provisions of statutory development plan bad in law - Whether local authority erred in relying on r. 5(3) of Planning (Development) Rules 1970 - Whether contrary to express provisions of Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 - Whether local authority's exercise of discretion null and void - Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, ss. 19(1), 22(1) & (4) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Local authority - Discretionary powers - Statutory development plans - Local authority's discretionary powers in granting development orders - Local authority approved development order in favour of entity where it sat as member of board of trustee - Whether gave rise to conflict of interest - Applicable test - Whether objective test - Whether local authority in carrying out statutory duties functions as institution - Whether subject matter of focus was institutional conflict of interest and not personal conflict - Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, s. 22(4) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Judicial review - Application to quash grant of planning permission by local authority - Whether applicants required to bring themselves within category of r. 5(3) of Planning (Development) Rules 1970 - Whether adversely affected under Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 - Whether all applicants have genuine interest in appropriation and alienation of public land for private development - Whether necessary to prove that special detriment or prejudice suffered - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 2(4) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Judicial review - Application to quash grant of planning permission by local authority - Management corporations and joint management body - Whether statutory corporations - Capacity to commence legal proceedings - Whether could represent parcel proprietors - Whether powers could be implied into s. 21(1)(i) of Strata Titles Act 1985 - Whether lacked capacity to bring proceedings APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2023 Volume 5 (Part 1) The liquidator, pursuant to r. 92 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, must examine every proof of debt lodged with him and thereafter, decide whether to admit or reject the POD and if it is rejected, the grounds for such rejection must be stated in writing to the creditor. Deduction of certain amount is not rejection of the POD. Hence, the act of the liquidators admitting the POD, subject to certain deductions, amounted to acknowledgment that if the Limitation Act 1953 applies, that amounts to a fresh accrual of action, and the action is therefore not time-barred. The liquidator also must, at all times, act within the terms of contract and ought not to impose any terms outside the purview of contract; thus ought not to unilaterally impose interest at a rate unilaterally decided, beyond the contractual terms. COMPANY LAW | LIMITATION | WORDS & PHRASES
COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Liquidators - Duties and powers of liquidators - Proof of debt ('POD') - Limitation - Whether decision to accept or reject POD communicated - Whether Limitation Act 1953 applies to POD that was accepted but not formally rejected by liquidators - Liquidators admitted POD subject to deductions - Whether amounted to admission of sum claimed - Whether deductions equalled to rejection - Failure to issue formal notice of rejection - Whether company in liquidation denied opportunity to appeal - Whether unilateral imposition of interest outside scope of contract unlawful LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual of - Proof of debt ('POD') - Limitation - Whether liquidator communicated decision to accept or reject POD - Whether Limitation Act 1953 applies to POD that was accepted but not formally rejected by liquidators - Liquidators admitted POD subject to deductions - Whether amounted to admission of sum claimed - Whether amounted to fresh accrual of action - Whether claim time-barred WORDS & PHRASES: 'action' - Section 2 of Limitation Act 1953 - Whether includes suit or any other proceedings in court of law - Proof of debt - Whether liquidators act in quasi-judicial capacity - Whether exercise of settling proofs of debts by liquidators amounts to exercise 'in court of law' VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
Special circumstances which exclude the application of res judicata or issue estoppel are only attracted upon the plaintiff demonstrating the threshold requirement of illegality, lack of jurisdiction or fraud which had occasioned in the original action. Nonetheless, the plaintiff may still be denied the opportunity to pursue the fresh action if special circumstances dictate that it is unjust for the plaintiff to do so. Put in another way, special circumstances do not create a new category warranting the pursuit of a fresh action but operate to deny the pursuit of the fresh action notwithstanding illegality, lack of jurisdiction or fraud had been made out. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Principle - Special circumstances - Appeals concerning real estate of deceased - Trust - Deceased died testate, leaving will, codicil and deed of indenture - Whether there were special circumstances which excluded application of res judicata or issue estoppel - Whether attracted - Whether illegality, lack of jurisdiction or fraud had occasioned in original action - Whether fresh action ought to be allowed
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
(i) A purchaser of a land cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value with an indefeasible title when the purchase of the land is well below the market value. The test of valuable consideration is simply not satisfied; (ii) In a situation where a land is obtained through fraudulent means, for a claim in negligence to succeed against a chargee bank, the claimant must establish that a duty of care is owed by the bank to the claimant. A duty of care does not arise where there is no relationship of proximity between the claimant and the bank. When a bank is a bona fide chargee of a land, it becomes the holder of subsequent interest in the land and is afforded the protection under s. 340(3) of the National Land Code. LAND LAW | TORT
LAND LAW: Title - Indefeasibility of title - Deceased died leaving land and two children/beneficiaries - One beneficiary, stating to be only surviving beneficiary, petitioned for distribution order citing land as forming part of deceased's estate - Registered as proprietor of land - Whether distribution order fraudulently obtained in disregard of other beneficiary's rights - Whether null and void and of no effect - Whether title indefeasible LAND LAW: Sale of land - Bona fide purchaser - Deceased died leaving land and two children/beneficiaries - One beneficiary, stating to be only surviving beneficiary, petitioned for distribution order citing land as forming part of deceased's estate - Registered as proprietor of land - Land sold to purchaser - Whether purchaser bona fide purchaser - Whether held indefeasible title - Whether could benefit from protection in proviso to s. 340(3) of National Land Code TORT: Negligence - Land matter - Bank - Deceased died leaving land and two children/beneficiaries - One beneficiary, stating to be only surviving beneficiary, petitioned for distribution order citing land as forming part of deceased's estate - Registered as proprietor of land - Beneficiary sold land to purchaser - Purchaser sought financing facilities from bank to finance purchase - Land charged to bank - Whether bank negligent in approving and disbursing loan to purchaser - Whether bank holder of subsequent interest in land and could avail itself of protection afforded by proviso to s. 340(3) of National Land Code
ALICE LOKE YEE CHING J
Hakim/Majistret dalam satu inkues kematian perlu mengambil kira kesemua keterangan berkaitan kematian si mati dan tidak terikat dengan prosedur serta undang-undang yang lazim diterima pakai dalam perbicaraan biasa. Apabila menyiasat punca kematian, itu termasuk kesemua perkara berkaitan bagaimana si mati meninggal dunia, dan sama ada wujud kecuaian atau penglibatan orang lain. Dalam kes ini, tanpa keterangan keadaan yang membuktikan kewujudan ancaman nyawa terhadap pihak polis oleh si mati, dakwaan pihak polis bahawa mereka melepaskan tembakan balas terhadap si mati untuk mempertahankan diri tidak boleh diterima, lebih-lebih lagi apabila pihak polis melanggar garis panduan 'Inspector General Standing Order' semasa melepaskan tembakan pada si mati. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Keputusan Hakim Koroner - Permohonan mengetepikan keputusan terbuka prosiding inkues kematian - Polis menembak mati mangsa - Sama ada polis membalas tembakan mangsa - Sama ada ketiadaan kelongsong peluru dan sisa tembakan pada si mati mendalihkan fakta mangsa ada melepaskan tembakan - Sama ada polis mematuhi garis panduan 'Inspector General Standing Order' semasa melepaskan tembakan ke arah mangsa - Sama ada ancaman nyawa oleh mangsa terbukti - Sama ada tembakan oleh polis untuk mempertahankan diri - Sama ada tembakan dengan 'aim to kill' - Sama ada unsur-unsur salah guna kuasa dan menyalahi undang-undang oleh polis dibuktikan - Sama ada keputusan Hakim Koroner diketepikan
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED H
The plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the defendant's mark under s. 47 of the Trademarks Act 2019 is felled by the consent letter and the doctrine of res judicata, the latter of which renders the action an abuse of process. The consent letter issued by the plaintiff's director, unequivocally consenting to the defendant registering the mark despite the close resemblance with the plaintiff's mark, negated any fraudulent intent or collusion or conspiracy to procure the registration of the defendant's mark. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Registered trademark - Application to invalidate and remove registered trademark from Register - Similar trademark - Issuance of consent letter by director of applicant - Whether director authorised to issue consent letter - Allegation of fraudulent intent established - Whether assumption and belief that consent letter was genuine backed by rule in Turquand's case - Whether resolution by applicant's board required for issuance of consent letter - Whether action res judicata and abuse of process of court - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 47
AZLAN SULAIMAN JC
Apabila tamat tempoh kebenaran yang diberi untuk lesen pendudukan sementara tanah, pemohon tidak mempunyai hak automatik untuk diberi lesen tersebut. Jika pemohon membangkitkan harapan sah agar lesen diberi, harus ditunjukkan bahawa terdapat pernyataan yang dibuat oleh pihak berkuasa yang memberi harapan padanya untuk bergantung pada pernyataan tersebut agar satu-satu tindakan, yang diharapkan, akan dilakukan oleh pihak berkuasa tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan pihak berkuasa - Permohonan lesen pendudukan sementara ditolak oleh pihak berkuasa - Sama ada pemohon mempunyai harapan sah untuk memperoleh lesen pendudukan sementara - Sama ada pihak berkuasa memberi pemohon representasi yang, secara munasabahnya, diharapkan dilaksanakan oleh pihak berkuasa UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan pihak berkuasa - Permohonan lesen pendudukan sementara ditolak oleh pihak berkuasa - Pihak berkuasa tidak memberi apa-apa alasan untuk penolakan - Sama ada pihak berkuasa wajar memberi alasan untuk penolakan permohonan
ROSLAN MAT NOR PK
(i) Although an extradition proceeding under s. 20 of the Extradition Act 1992 ('EA') is a committal proceeding, it is not entirely an administrative action devoid of judicial power. This can be seen in sub-ss. 1(b) and 1(c) of s. 20 on the issues of law that call for a judicial determination by the Sessions Court; and (ii) The word 'direction' by the Minister in s. 20 of the EA, which gives the impression that a Minister who is neither a judge nor a judicial personage can direct a judge of the Sessions Court to commit the fugitive criminal to prison to await the order by the Minister for his surrender, rendered the said exercise ultra vires art. 121 of the Federal Constitution ('FC'). It offends the doctrine of separation of powers which is contained in art. 4(1) of the FC. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Customer fell on steps outside restaurant and suffered injuries - Whether there was failure by occupier of restaurant to generally maintain safety of stairs - Admission by owner of restaurant that risers were uneven - Whether there was duty on restaurant to provide sufficient warnings such as coloured stripes affixed to risers - Whether there was breach of restaurant's duty of care towards its invitees - Whether customer contributorily negligent - Apportionment of liability between parties - Determination of
WAN AHMAD FARID SALLEH J
The unevenness of a flight of stairs in front of a restaurant that had caused an 80-year-old man to fall, which the owner of the restaurant admitted was caused by the sinking of the reclaimed land where the restaurant building was constructed on, clearly presented a risk to customers that must be prevented. Thus, the restaurant is under a duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual dangers which it knew or ought to know. The restaurant is not exempted from the general duty of care it owed to its customers as invitees. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Customer fell on steps outside restaurant and suffered injuries - Whether there was failure by occupier of restaurant to generally maintain safety of stairs - Admission by owner of restaurant that risers were uneven - Whether there was duty on restaurant to provide sufficient warnings such as coloured stripes affixed to risers - Whether there was breach of restaurant's duty of care towards its invitees - Whether customer contributorily negligent - Apportionment of liability between parties - Determination of
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
