Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #4/2023
19 January 2023

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

HEMRAJ & CO SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD [2023] 1 CLJ 651
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-65-11-2021(W)]
13 DECEMBER 2022

A non-delegable duty of care, a no fault strict liability tort, must be imposed only in the most exceptional circumstances. Routine excavation works carried out by homeowners through independent contractors could not be described as an extraordinarily hazardous activity, thereby, the homeowner could not be held to owe a non-delegable duty of care to a public utilities company for the negligence of the independent contractors. As a matter of policy, to hold that routine residential construction works are subject to non-delegable duty would expose homeowners to an indeterminate liability for the tortious acts of their independent contractors, whose manner of work are beyond their control.

TORT: Negligence - Liability - Non-delegable duty of care - Claim by public utility company for damage caused by third-party contractors hired by homeowners - Whether works carried out extraordinarily hazardous activity - Whether routine residential construction works - Whether homeowner liable for negligence of third-party contractors - Whether non-delegable duty applied only in limited and exceptional circumstances - Whether risk of damage could be avoided if precautionary measures taken

TORT: Damages - Liability - Negligence - Non-delegable duty of care - Claim by public utility company ('TNB') for damage caused by third-party contractors hired by homeowners - Whether homeowner liable for negligence of third-party contractors - Whether licenses issued to consultants and contractors - Whether duty of homeowners to obtain approval from TNB - Whether s. 37(12)(a) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 prohibits persons who carry out works in vicinity of electrical installations without TNB's authority - Whether failure to obtain approval attracts penalty under s. 37(12)(b)

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Sajid Bairula v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 1886 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Sajid Bairula [2019] 1 LNS 1397

  2. Sekar Kandasamy v. Lembaga Wakaf Hindu Pulau Pinang & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 2111 affirming the High Court case of Sekar Kandasamy v. Lembaga Wakaf Hindu Pulau Pinang & Ors [2021] 1 LNS 1337

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 26

TAN KOK PIN v. LOH CHUN HOO & ORS

1. Extortion is criminal in nature and therefore cause of action for extortion does not fall within the ambit of civil law. It follows that any claim for extortion in civil court is bound to fail as it is plainly and wholly unsustainable.

2. Data or information would only be considered as personal data protectable by the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 ('PDPA') if it involves any transaction of commercial nature. Thus, if the data or information does not relate to any commercial transaction, such data or information could not be classified as personal data under PDPA. There is no provision in PDPA for any private enforcement or any private action to redress any data breach.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Action premised on tort of conspiracy to injure, slander and extortion - No reasonable cause of action - Failure to plead particulars of conspiracy and slander - Claim rests principally on without prejudice communication - Whether negotiations on without communication referred in statement of claim ought to be struck out - Whether cause of action for extortion sustainable in civil action - Whether claim for extortion had failed - Whether action could be saved by amendment - Whether general allegations of conspiracy sufficient - Whether claim for conspiracy to injure and slander failed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Action premised on breach of data protection and extortion - No reasonable cause of action - Non-commercial transactions - Whether Personal Data Protection Act 2010 applicable against defendant - Whether plaintiff had established that defendant was a person who possessed and had control over processing of any personal data in respect of commercial transactions - Whether private action to redress any data breach sustainable

  • For the plaintiff - Aaron Pang; M/s Aaron Pang & Co
  • For the 2nd defendant - Koh Mui Woon; M/s Gary Teh & Ngiam

[2022] 1 LNS 29 

KANAGESH KUMAR MAHENDRAN v. SADIAH MUHAMMAD TAIB

1. Statements made by bystanders, who were not called as witnesses, are relevant if those statements were connected to the accident and formed part of the same transaction or res gestate as provided for in s. 6 of the Evidence Act 1950.

2. In accident cases, failure to call an investigating officer as a witness may not be fatal to the claim or draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff if the plaintiff makes efforts to secure the attendance of the said investigating officer and files an affidavit of non-service of subpoena against the said investigating officer.

EVIDENCE: Statement - Admissibility - Res gestate - Statement of bystanders - Accident cases - Bystanders not called as witnesses - Whether statements of bystanders were connected to accident - Whether statements of bystanders formed part of same transaction - Evidence Act 1950, s. 6

ROAD TRAFFIC: Negligence - Road accident - Ascertaining liability - Circumstantial evidence - Photographs at scene taken by plaintiff's relative who arrived at scene after accident - Reliance on statements made by bystanders to plaintiff's relative - Bystanders not called as witnesses - Plaintiff failed to secure attendance of investigating officer - Attempts to serve subpoena on investigating officer failed as stated in affidavit of non-service - Defendant failed to call any witness - Whether statement by bystanders were connected to accident - Whether statement by bystanders corroborated by other evidence - Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked against plaintiff for failure to secure attendance of investigating officer - Whether defendant had challenged plaintiff's evidence

  • For the appellant/plaintiff - S Nithiyawathi & M Elakiyah; M/s SN Wathi Chambers
  • For the respondent/defendant - Mohd Tahril Jamia'an; M/s VM Kumaran & Co

[2022] 1 LNS 35

JODDARI @ JADDARI ABD KARIM v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SANGKANG ABU SAMAN, DECEASED & ORS

The court will not grant equitable relief of specific performance to a purchaser who sleeps on his rights and has titles passed to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under s. 26(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1950. In lieu of a decree for specific performance, the court may award damages to the purchaser, being the prevailing or current market value of the land. In the absence of evidence of the prevailing market price, the court may accept the purchase price stated in the stamped sale and purchase agreement between the vendor and the subsequent purchaser as the last available market price indicator.

CONTRACT: Sale and purchase of land - Specific performance - Action by purchaser against vendor and subsequent purchaser - Title to land passed to subsequent purchaser - Purchaser failed to lodge caveat on land and execute memorandum of transfer - Whether subsequent purchaser was bona fide purchaser for value without notice - Whether exception to nemo dat quod hebat rule applies - Whether court could grant specific performance to plaintiff who sleeps on his rights - Whether award of damages ought to be made - Whether purchase price as stated in sale and purchase agreement between vendor and subsequent purchaser represents market value of land in absence of evidence of prevailing market value of land

  • For the plaintiff - Mervyn @ Hasan Sainy; M/s Johari, Zelika & Amin
  • For the 1st defendant - Absent
  • For the 2nd defendant - Absent
  • For the 3rd defendant - Mark Rosaidey; M/s Amin Jaafar & Co

[2021] 1 LNS 1393

PP lwn. JASPAL SINGH HARBAL SINGH & SATU LAGI

Di akhir kes pendakwaan bagi perbicaraan untuk kesalahan bawah s. 13(b) Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 ('ATIPSOM'), mahkamah bicara boleh memutuskan untuk tidak memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri bawah s. 13 ATIPSOM tersebut tetapi sebaliknya boleh memanggil tertuduh tersebut untuk membela diri bagi suatu pertuduhan pindaan bawah s. 323 Kanun Keseksaan ('KK') apabila mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan semua intipati bawah s. 13 ATIPSOM tersebut melampaui keraguan munasabah tetapi berjaya membuktikan intipati kesalahan bawah s. 323 KK.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan oleh pendakwaan - Mahkamah bicara telah memerintahkan tertuduh membela diri atas pertuduhan pindaan - Tertuduh pada asalnya dituduh bawah s. 13(b) Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 ('ATIPSOM') tetapi diperintahkan untuk membela diri atas pertuduhan pindaan bawah s. 323 Kanun Keseksaan ('KK') - Sama ada hakim bicara telah terkhilaf apabila memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri untuk pertuduhan bawah s. 323 KK - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan semua intipati kesalahan bawah s. 13 ATIPSOM - Sama ada mangsa-mangsa telah datang dan bekerja dengan tertuduh secara sukarela dan tanpa paksaan

[2021] 1 LNS 1528

ELITE AGRICULTURE SDN BHD lwn. HAJEMI DIN & SATU LAGI

Permohonan untuk perintah komital berasaskan kepada perintah mahkamah yang kemudiannya telah diketepikan di peringkat rayuan akan menjadikan perintah yang menjadi asas kepada permohonan untuk perintah komital tersebut tidak lagi berkuat kuasa yang mana mewajarkan permohonan untuk perintah komital tersebut dibatalkan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghinaan mahkamah - Perintah komital - Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi yang didakwa dihina oleh responden telah diketepikan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan - Sama ada mahkamah boleh membuat pertimbangan permohonan pemohon di peringkat pengurusan kes - Sama ada permohonan untuk perintah komital adalah berasaskan perintah yang tidak lagi berkuat kuasa - Sama ada terdapat sebarang asas untuk permohonan perintah komital dipertimbangkan - Sama ada permohonan untuk perintah komital wajar dibatalkan bawah s. 34 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Abu Bakr & Low Henn Kai; T/n Ram Reza & Muhammad
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - Selvabalan, Ho Kai Ping & Bah Tony W Hunt; T/n Azman Joseph & Associates

CLJ 2023 Volume 1 (Part 4)

The defence of absolute privilege is extended to everything said in the course of court proceedings. Hence, defamatory averments in pleadings are absolutely immune; a statement of defence made maliciously and in bad faith should not be relevant in such instances.
Kinta Riverfront Hotel & Suites Sdn Bhd v. Chang Yoke Yee & Anor [2023] 1 CLJ 483 [CA]

TORT: Defamation - Absolute privilege - Averments in statement of defence - Whether defamatory in nature - Whether statements published in course of court proceedings protected by absolute privilege - Whether defence made with malicious intent and in bad faith relevant consideration - Whether defamatory statements made against parties to suit - Whether defamation published within four corners of court proceedings - Whether statements absolutely immune

 

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA

  • For the appellant - Rabinder Singh & Munira Hasnim; M/s KS Su & Mah
  • For the respondents - Raam Kumar & Norleena Jamal; M/s KB Tan Kumar & Partners

An investment bank must always act based on the mandate given by its depositors and strive to comply with the objective standards required of an investment bank so as to combat against the facilitation of fraud in order to protect its customers and innocent third parties. Once the rules are flouted, wherein the bank wrongfully, without the authority of the depositor, negligently diverted the sum invested by the depositor into a third party share trading account to the detriment of the depositor, the bank would be held accountable for the loss.
Koperasi Sahabat Amanah Ikhtiar Bhd v. RHB Investment Bank Bhd [2023] 1 CLJ 495 [CA]

TORT: Negligence - Banker and customer - Investment bank - Liability against depositor who had trading account - Transfer out of money on third party's instruction and without authority of depositor - Whether there was contractual relationship between bank and depositor - Whether duty of care arose once bank received depositor's money - Standard of reasonable care and skill to be exercised by bank - Whether objective standard to guard against facilitation of fraud - Whether bank breached duty of care by failing to verify mandate of depositor - Whether depositor suffered loss

 

 

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA

  • For the appellant - Ambiga Sreenevasan, Mohamed Fadly Zakariya, Lim Wei Jiet & Andrea Boo; M/s Fadly Zakariya
  • For the respondent - Sean Yeow Huang-Meng & Andrea Chew Mei Yng; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

(i) In line with the policy and international practice which encourages finality to the process and awards of arbitration, the courts should be slow in interfering with or setting aside an arbitral award. However, where the arbitrator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in awarding for prayers outside and beyond the scope of reference to arbitration, and where the decision on matters submitted to arbitration could be separated from the rest of the award, the court ought to exercise its discretion to sever the particular part, so as not to set aside the award wholly. (ii) An arbitrator is under a duty to disclose any circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence and such circumstances must be disclosed timely. In this case, the arbitrator's disclosure of his acquaintance with the witness of one party and the failure of the opposing party to object or apply for the recusal of the arbitrator manifested the arbitrator as being just and impartial; the circumstances did not warrant the setting aside of the award.
Persatuan Kanak-kanak Spastik Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan v. Low Koh Hwa & Another Appeal [2023] 1 CLJ 536 [CA]

ARBITRATION: Award - Findings - Whether findings outside and in excess of 'Terms of Submission to Arbitration' - Whether breached s. 37(1)(a)(iv) of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether award on matter outside scope of reference to arbitration - Whether part of award severable from other awards - Whether severable part of award should be set aside

ARBITRATION: Arbitrator - Relationship with witness - Whether arbitrator made full and timeous disclosure of relationship with witness - Whether arbitrator breached 'public policy' - Whether declaration of acquaintance sufficient to show impartiality - Whether party objected to arbitrator's appointment or continuation of proceedings - Whether failure to object showed confidence in arbitrator's impartiality - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 14 & 15(1)

 

 

NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Ankit R Sanghvi; M/s Halim Hong & Quek
  • For the respondent - Steven Wong Chin Fung; M/s Arifin & Partners

Kegagalan membuktikan kewarganegaraan tahanan oleh Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia ('JIM') mengakibatkan penahanan bawah s. 35 Akta Imigresen 1959/63 tidak sah dan teratur. Selain itu, JIM juga tidak boleh hanya bersandar pada catatan pada MyKad sementara tahanan milik tahanan untuk membuktikan status kewarganegaraan tahanan.
Andrew James Haughton lwn. Ketua Polis Negara & Yang Lain [2023] 1 CLJ 551 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Habeas corpus - Permohonan - Tahanan ditahan bawah s. 35 Akta Imigresen 1959/63 oleh Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia ('JIM') selepas menjalani hukuman penjara untuk kesalahan bawah s. 372B Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada penahanan sah, teratur dan mematuhi undang-undang - Sama ada JIM berjaya membuktikan tahanan bukan warganegara Malaysia

 

 

ROHANI ISMAIL H

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Bahagian Penasihat Undang-Undang Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia (Kementerian Dalam Negeri)
  • Bagi pihak responden - T/n MahWengKwai & Assocs

When there is a failure to obtain the consent of a landlord and fraudulent misrepresentation is proved, a sub-tenancy agreement is considered invalid and void ab initio. However, correct principles must be applied in awarding damages. There is no justification in awarding general, aggravated or exemplary damages where there is no evidence of offensive conduct or arrogance or insolence of motive, or of 'outrageous' conduct.
Big Junkyard Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Chan Kah Wai [2023] 1 CLJ 564 [HC]

|

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sub-tenancy agreement - Failure to obtain consent of landlord - Whether there was fraudulent misrepresentation - Whether sub-tenancy agreement invalid and void ab initio

CONTRACT: Misrepresentation - Agreement - Sub-tenancy agreement - Whether misrepresentation fraudulently made by second defendant - Whether plaintiff entitled to rescission of sub-tenancy agreement - Finding of second defendant's liability for losses suffered by plaintiff - Whether correct and based on evidence

DAMAGES: Liability - Fraudulent inducement - Whether defendants liable to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, damages directly flowing from fraudulent inducement - Whether correct principles applied in awarding restitutionary damages - Whether Sessions Court Judge erred in making global award consisting of general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages

 

AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J

  • For the appellants - Ee Yen Chin; M/s Ee Yen Chin & Co
  • For the respondent - Stephen Lee Ming; M/s Lee Khim Huei & Partners

Tiada undang-undang khusus di Malaysia tentang bidang kuasa mahkamah untuk mengarahkan seseorang menjalankan ujian DNA demi penentuan nasab. Walaupun apa-apa prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai di United Kingdom boleh diguna pakai di Malaysia, tertakluk pada pematuhan ketat s. 3(1) Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956, prinsip undang-undang keluarga dalam bidang kuasa lain berkaitan nasab tidak sesuai diguna pakai dalam sistem perundangan di Malaysia untuk memutuskan kes ini.
BSM lwn. BAA & Satu Lagi [2023] 1 CLJ 581 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Kanak-kanak - Penentuan nasab - Permohonan agar kanak-kanak melalui ujian deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa mengarahkan seseorang menjalankan ujian DNA untuk menentukan nasab - Sama ada prinsip undang-undang keluarga di United Kingdom boleh digunakan di Malaysia - Sama ada prinsip parens patriae wajar digunakan

 

 

ROSLAN MAT NOR JC

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Bhama Baskaran & Thomas Jayaraj; T/n Thomas Jayaraj & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - Shahida Nadzirah; T/n Yau & Co

Selaras dengan etika profesion kewartawanan, pihak media berperanan melaporkan berita yang neutral tanpa memihak mana-mana pihak. Liputan berita bersangkutan kepentingan awam, yang tidak berat sebelah, tepat dan benar, adalah adil dan tidak boleh dikatakan berbaur fitnah. Laporan sebegini mempunyai justifikasi munasabah, bertanggungjawab, berbentuk fair comment terhadap kepentingan awam dan memperoleh perlindungan Reynolds dan perlindungan bersyarat.
Dato Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman lwn. Khalid Abd Samad & Yang Lain [2023] 1 CLJ 620 [HC]

TORT: Fitnah - Kenyataan-kenyataan - Kenyataan-kenyataan ahli Parlimen dikeluarkan dalam sidang media dan diterbitkan oleh media - Sama ada kenyataan-kenyataan yang dikeluarkan memfitnah - Sama ada terbitan oleh media memfitnah - Sama ada terbitan mempunyai justifikasi munasabah, bertanggungjawab, berbentuk fair comment terhadap kepentingan awam dan dilindungi oleh perlindungan Reynolds dan perlindungan bersyarat

 

 

LATIFAH MOHD TAHAR H

  • Bagi pihak perayu/defendan - M/s SN Nair & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - The Chambers of Kamarul Hisham & Hasnal Rezua

The Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998 ('Ordinance') of Sarawak was enacted for the specific purpose of protecting biodiversity in the State of Sarawak. Sadly, when cases under the Ordinance come to court, the animals are already dead. The animals are voiceless and cannot voice out their defence. It is up to the courts to highlight their plight, as mandated by the Legislature, to bring the public's attention to the folly of trading in protected animal parts.
PP v. Toh Tung Kit [2023] 1 CLJ 633 [HC]

|

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Revision of decision of Sessions Court - Accused charged at Sessions Court for four charges under Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998 of Sarawak - Possession of parts of wild life and plants - Accused pleaded guilty and imposed with probation of good behaviour - Whether revision appropriate procedure - Whether there was manifest error - Whether order of probation for good behaviour adequate

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: Wildlife protection and conservation - Accused charged at Sessions Court for four charges under Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998 of Sarawak - Possession of parts of wild life and plants - Accused pleaded guilty and imposed with probation of good behaviour - Whether order of probation for good behaviour adequate given scale of parts of wild life and plants found in accused's possession

 

CHRISTOPHER CHIN SOO YIN J

  • For the applicant - Ronald Felix Hardin; DPP (Sarawak State Attorney-General's Chambers)
  • For the respondent - Augustine Liom & Christine Philimon; M/s Tang & Company Advocates, Sibu

The constitutional question sought to be referred to the Federal Court, in this case, pertaining to the application of the doctrine of basic structure, in light of the conflicting Federal Court decisions on the same, would have a direct bearing on the matter of dispute before the High Court; having the implication of bringing the dispute to an end without further deliberation by the High Court, hence depriving the parties of the right of appeal. The application, if allowed, would also render the Federal Court to assume original jurisdiction not anticipated under art. 128(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2023] 1 CLJ 642 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Questions and issues of law - Application under s. 84 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Question in originating summons referred to Federal Court for determination - Question pertaining to doctrine of basic structure in light of two separate schools of thought - Whether answer to question would be premature - Whether answer by Federal Court would dispose of originating summons - Whether would have effect of Federal Court assuming original jurisdiction - Whether would render right of appeal nugatory

 

 

WAN AHMAD FARID SALLEH J

  • For the applicant - Gopal Sri Ram & Kengadharan Ramasamy; M/s R Kengadharan & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Suzana Atan, Narkunavathy Sundareson; SFCs, Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali & Nor Aqilah Abdul Halim; FCs
  • For the 2nd respondent - Aidil Khalid; M/s Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil
  • For the 3rd-5th respondent - M Reza Hassan & Nurin Husnina; M/s Raja Riza & Assocs
  • For the 6th respondent - Khaizan Sharizad Ab Razak; M/s Seira & Sharizad
  • For the 7th-11th respondent - Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali & Nurmustanir Md Nor; M/s Law Practice of Rafique
  • For the 3rd party - Bastian Vendargon & Annemarie Pravina Vendargon; M/s Bastian Vendargon

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KOMUNIKASI MELALUI APLIKASI [Read excerpt]
    by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i] Jason Cheong Kah Lok[ii] Intan Noor Asyikin Muhammad[iii] Nurul Syadatul Nadiah Tokiran[iv] Siti Nur Suhaili Abdul Haris[v] Muhd Zamharir Muhammad Zuhid[vi] [2023] 1 LNS(A) v

    2. [2023] 1 LNS(A) v
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KOMUNIKASI MELALUI APLIKASI

    by
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i]
    Jason Cheong Kah Lok[ii]
    Intan Noor Asyikin Muhammad[iii]
    Nurul Syadatul Nadiah Tokiran[iv]
    Siti Nur Suhaili Abdul Haris[v]
    Muhd Zamharir Muhammad Zuhid[vi]

    ABSTRAK

    PENGENALAN

    Pada masa ini, kemajuan teknologi telah banyak mengubah cara manusia berhubung antara satu sama lain. Misalnya, pada zaman dahulu, manusia berhubung secara surat-menyurat dan bersemuka sahaja sedangkan pada masa kini, pelbagai medium baharu diperkenalkan, terutamanya komunikasi dalam talian yang sangat berkesan dalam menjimatkan masa dan mengurangkan kos untuk berhubung sesama manusia. Ekoran daripada permintaan yang tinggi terhadap komunikasi dalam talian, pelbagai aplikasi diperkenalkan, termasuklah aplikasi paling popular yang hampir semua pemilik telefon pintar pasti akan memuat turunnya, iaitu aplikasi "WhatsApp Messenger." Buktinya, statistik daripada laman web, The Statistics menunjukkan bahawa setakat Disember 2017, terdapat 1.5 bilion pengguna aktif aplikasi ini di seluruh dunia.[1]

    "WhatsApp Messenger" sebenarnya ialah suatu aplikasi pesanan mesej yang menggunakan sambungan Internet telefon pintar bagi membolehkan pengguna menghantar dan menerima pesanan mesej, audio, gambar dan dokumen kepada kenalan mereka.[2] Penggunaan secara meluas aplikasi ini dalam kehidupan seharian manusia telah menjadikannya medium untuk urusan-urusan biasa, seperti menempah barang dan menghantar bukti resit pembayaran. Jadi, tidak hairan sekiranya komunikasi dalam "WhatsApp Messenger" ini dikemukakan sebagai suatu keterangan bagi menyokong atau membantah hujah mana-mana pihak dalam sesuatu kes.

    . . .

    [i] Profesor Madya (Dr), Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rama@ukm.edu.my.

    [ii]–[vi]Graduan Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

  2. WHO IS A PUBLISHER? CASE NOTE: GOOGLE LLC v. DEFTEROS [2022] HCA 27 (17 August 2022)+ [Read excerpt]
    by Parisa Hart* [2023] 1 LNS(A) vi

    3. [2023] 1 LNS(A) vi
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    WHO IS A PUBLISHER?
    CASE NOTE: GOOGLE LLC v. DEFTEROS [2022] HCA 27 (17 August 2022)+

    by
    Parisa Hart*

    Barrister Parisa Hart outlines a recent case where the High Court was asked to determine whether Google could be considered the publisher of a defamatory article by providing a hyperlinked search result to that article.

    The majority of the High Court held that Google was not the publisher of the defamatory material accessed by it providing internet search engine results which linked to a webpage on The Age website, and which contained the defamatory matter.

    George Defteros (the Respondent) is a Melbourne criminal lawyer who acted for persons who became wellknown during Melbourne's 'gangland wars' including Alphonse Gangitano, Dominic 'Mick' Gatto, and Mario Condello. In 2004, Defteros and Condello were charged with conspiracy to murder and incitement to murder Carl Williams, his father George Williams, and Carl Williams' bodyguard. However, in 2005 the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges against him.

    . . .

    +Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 266 Summer 2022.

    *Barrister. Since being called to the bar in 2016, Parisa has been briefed in a vast area of law and has significant experience in Defamation Law and Criminal Law. Parisa will be presenting on "Defamation and the Cause of Action" at a Law Society seminar in March 2023.

    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 1 July 2023 [PU(B) 574/2022] - -
ACT 838 Housewives' Social Security Act 2022 1 December 2022 [PU(B) 509/2022] - -
ACT 837 Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 16 November 2022 [PU(B) 558/2022] Malaysian Border Security Agency Act 2017 [ACT 799] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1678 Consolidated Fund (Expenditure On Account) Act 2022 1 January 2023  
ACT A1677 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 638/2022] ACT 438
ACT A1676 Goods Vehicle Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 637/2022] ACT 294
ACT A1675 Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 636/2022] ACT 592
ACT A1674 Departure Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 635/2022] ACT 813

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 23/2023 Electricity Supply (Authorization To Be A Single Buyer In The Federal Territory of Labuan) Order 2023 18 January 2023 19 January 2023 ACT 447
PU(A) 22/2023 Electricity Supply (Authorization To Be A System Operator In The Federal Territory of Labuan) Order 2023 18 January 2023 19 January 2023 ACT 447
PU(A) 21/2023 Electricity Supply (Authorization To Be A Single Buyer In Sabah) Order 2023 18 January 2023 19 January 2023 ACT 447
PU(A) 20/2023 Electricity Supply (Authorization To Be A System Operator In Sabah) Order 2023 18 January 2023 19 January 2023 ACT 447
PU(A) 19/2023 Electricity Supply (Authorization To Be A Single Buyer) (Amendment) Order 2023 18 January 2023 19 January 2023 PU(A) 259/2016

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 18/2023 Notification of Application For Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right (DLFALAM13) 17 January 2023 18 January 2023 ACT 634
PU(B) 17/2023 Notice Regarding The Certification and Inspection of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month of December 2022 17 January 2023 18 January 2023 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 16/2023 Designation and Revocation of Designation Under Paragraph 5(1)(b) 16 January 2023 Appointment - Specified in column (2) of the First Schedule; Revocation - Specified in column (3) of the Second Schedule ACT 349
PU(B) 15/2023 Appointment of Deputy President of The Industrial Court 16 January 2023 19 September 2022 ACT 177
PU(B) 14/2023 Notice To Third Parties 16 January 2023 17 January 2023 ACT 613

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 791 Akta Cukai Pelancongan 2017 AKTA A1673 1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 644/2022] Seksyen 66, 69A, 69B dan 70
ACT 791 Tourism Tax Act 2017 ACT A1673 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 644/2022] Sections 66, 69A, 69B and 70
AKTA 807 Akta Cukai Perkhidmatan 2018 AKTA A1672 1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 643/2022] Seksyen 26A, 38A, 56A, 56D, 56E, 90A dan 90B
ACT 807 Service Tax Act 2018 ACT A1672 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 643/2022] Sections 26A, 38A, 56A, 56D, 56E, 90A and 90B
AKTA 806 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 AKTA A1671 1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 641/2022] Seksyen 11A - 11D, 19, 57A, 91, 106, 106A, 106B dan Jadual

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 373/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 15) 2022 PU(A) 5/2023 8 Januari 2023 hingga 7 Februari 2023
PU(A) 373/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 15) Order 2022 PU(A) 5/2023 8 January 2023 to 7 February 2023
PU(A) 286/2022 Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 15) 2022 PU(A) 378/2022 15 Disember 2022
PU(A) 286/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2022 PU(A) 378/2022 15 December 2022
PU(A) 224/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022 PU(A) 327/2022 12 Oktober 2022

Copyright © 2023 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here