Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #7/2023
09 February 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

TAN KAH FATT & ANOR v. TAN YING [2023] 2 CLJ 169
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-82-10-2019(B)]
18 JANUARY 2023

In interpreting s. 6 of the Distribution Act 1958, the purpose of the Act is to be given consideration; the Act provides for the distribution of the estate of the deceased among those who survived the deceased to follow the order of succession provided in s. 6. And the express use of the word 'issue' instead of 'child' in s. 6 of the Act, connotes that both the terms ought not to be treated the same. Read holistically, the term 'issue' sought to enlarge the category of persons who may inherit under the Act, regardless of legitimacy of the descendant.

SUCCESSION: Administration of estates - Administrator - Application for removal of joint administrator - Whether in conflict of interest - Whether there was sufficient cause to revoke letters of administration - Whether lower court sufficiently weighed grounds of complaint against welfare and interest of beneficiaries - Probate and Administration Act 1959, s. 34

SUCCESSION: Distribution of estate - Intestacy - Child of void marriage - Chinese customary marriage not solemnised in accordance with requirements under Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Whether child of void marriage should be treated as legitimate child - Whether Distribution Act 1958 provides law for distribution of intestate estate regardless of legitimacy of child or validity of marriage - Whether use of term 'issue' instead of 'child' suggested descendants by blood lineage - Whether intended to expand category of persons who may succeed or inherit - Whether child of void marriage entitled to inherit under late father's estate - Distribution Act 1958, ss. 3 & 6

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Purposive approach - Distribution Act 1958, s. 6 - Whether Distribution Act 1958 provides law for distribution of intestate estate regardless of legitimacy of child or validity of marriage - Whether use of term 'issue' instead of 'child' suggested descendants by blood lineage - Whether intended to expand category of persons who may inherit

WORDS & PHRASES: 'issue' - Distribution Act 1958, s. 6 - Whether use of term 'issue' instead of 'child' suggested descendants by blood lineage - Whether intended to expand category of persons who may succeed or inherit


APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Mohd Shukri Abdul Rasid lwn. PP [2021] 1 LNS 2499 overruling in part the High Court case of PP v. Mohd Shukri Abdul Rasid [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45A-(75&76)-11/2017]

  2. Trip4asia Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Destini Berhad & Other Appeals [2021] 1 LNS 1453 affirming the High Court case of Trip4asia Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dowindon Travel Sdn Bhd & Ors [Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-455-07/2018]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 159

HO KIM LONG v. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA & ORS & ANOTHER CASE

1. The involvement of the applicants in the Macau scam by impersonating bank officers and Inland Revenue Board officers in cheating victims to hand over their money to the syndicate could ruin the country's future in terms of economy and public security. The offences committed by the applicants are thus registrable categories under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959.

2. Mere presence of an interpreter during inquiry proceedings does not necessarily connote that the applicants neither understand nor speak Bahasa Malaysia. Being a Malaysian citizen born in the 1980s and Bahasa Malaysia being the national language of Malaysia as well as the lingua franca of Malaysia, the applicants are deemed to be able to converse in Bahasa Malaysia.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Application - Police surveillance orders under s. 15 of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Macau scam - Applicants impersonating bank officers and Inland Revenue Board officers - Applicants were attached with electronic monitoring device - Issue on remand order - Allegation that translation and interpretation not provided - Allegation of delay of 40 days for inquiry to be completed - Whether remand order was irregular - Whether offence committed by applicants were of a registrable category within POCA - Whether it was proven that applicants could not understand Bahasa Malaysia - Whether applicants were deemed to understand Bahasa Malaysia - Whether there was any inordinate delay on part of inquiry officer in completing inquiry

  • For the applicant - M/s G Ravi
  • For the respondent - Farah Ezlin Yusof Khan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2022] 1 LNS 165

IC&E GROUP SDN BHD v. JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA & ANOR

Where a contract explicitly stipulates several conditions to be satisfied before a contractor could claim for direct loss and expenses incurred beyond the parties' reasonable contemplation, then the contractor has the burden to satisfy that all the prerequisite conditions have been met, failing which the contractor's claim could be barred for non-compliance of the said conditions.

CONTRACT: Building contract - Claim for - Direct losses and expenses incurred beyond parties' reasonable contemplation - Losses and expenses allegedly incurred as a result of delay in completion of work and extension of time - Plaintiff did not provide full particulars with all supporting documents, vouchers, explanations and calculation - Whether claim barred for non-compliance of conditions for claim as stated in agreement between parties - Whether agreement precludes plaintiff from proceeding with suit - Whether s. 71 of Contracts Act 1950 supports plaintiff's claim

  • For the plaintiff - Rizal Zulkeply & Priya Ranjani Muthusamany; M/s Rizal & Co
  • For the defendants - Norazlina Razali; Senior Federal Counsel, Attorney General's Chambers

[2022] 1 LNS 168

YAM SAU WAH & ORS v. CHAN SAU YIN & ORS

Where an application for amendment of defence premised on the ground that the previous solicitors of the defendant had presented incomplete, distorted and untruthful versions of events, the defendant must show evidence that the defendant had disagreed with the defence prepared by the previous solicitors before he is allowed to amend the said defence. Allegation of improper advice by previous solicitors cannot be accepted as a cogent explanation for the delay in making an amendment application.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Defence - Application to amend amended statement of defence - Late amendment - Intention to make amendment expressed on first day of trial - Allegation that position taken by previous solicitor of defendant was incorrect resulting in incomplete, distorted and untruthful versions of events in defence presented - Proposed amendment reflects change in position from a denial to an admission - Whether defendant had provided cogent and reasonable explanation for delay in making late application for amendment - Whether there was any evidence to show that defendant disagreed with defence prepared by previous solicitors - Whether proposed amendment should be tested together with issues of bona fide and real prospect of success - Whether proposed amendment was bona fide

  • For the plaintiffs - Owee Chia Ming & Shermaljit Singh Amarjit Singh; M/s Owee & Co
  • For the 1st, 2nd & 9th defendants - Daniel Joseph Albert & Brian Yee Hong Keet; M/s Daniel & Wong
  • For the 3rd, 4th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 20th defendants - Babu Raj Raja Gopal; M/s Kean Chye & Sivalingam
  • For the 5th defendant - Norazali Nordin; M/s Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones
  • For the 6th defendant - Loganath Brian Sabapathy; M/s Logan Sabapathy & Co
  • For the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th defendants - Wan Shahrizal Wan Ladin & Kalainilaa Kalaiyarasu; M/s Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co
  • For the 7th, 19th & 21st defendants - Poh Choo Hoe; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

[2021] 1 LNS 1527

NG HOW SHEN lwn. NG HOW ANN & YANG LAIN

Apabila suatu tindakan dibawa terhadap syarikat atas nama syarikat tersebut, maka syarikat tersebut perlu diwakili oleh peguam. Persoalan sama ada peguam tersebut adalah peguam syarikat ataupun sebaliknya tidak semestinya memerlukan dokumen-dokumen untuk memberi jawapan yang mewajarkan penzahiran dokumen dan persoalan tersebut boleh diminta untuk diperjelaskan semasa perbicaraan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penzahiran - Permohonan untuk - Permohonan untuk dokumen-dokumen berkenaan pelantikan peguamcara - Dakwaan syarikat defendan tidak melantik peguam syarikat sendiri tetapi peguam yang berbeza - Sama ada dokumen-dokumen adalah perlu bagi plaintif dalam prosiding terhadap defendan - Sama ada persoalan berkenaan pelantikan peguam boleh dijelaskan ketika perbicaraan

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penzahiran - Permohonan untuk - Permohonan untuk resolusi-resolusi lembaga pengarah syarikat berkenaan pemecatan plaintif sebagai pengarah - Tindakan berasaskan penindasan pemegang saham minoriti - Isu pemecatan berkait rapat dengan penindasan pemegang saham minoriti - Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk mengetahui apakah yang telah diputuskan di dalam resolusi syarikat - Sama ada plaintif akan mengalami kesukaran untuk menyediakan kes tanpa resolusi syarikat

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Lim Lay Yee; T/n Chooi & Company & T/n Cheang & Ariff
  • Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Ivan Bong Hongjie; T/n Bong & Co

[2021] 1 LNS 1548

AZIZ SALLEH lwn. DIAN DUTA SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

Aturan 20 k. 11 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM 2012') hanya sesuai digunakan untuk meminda perintah dan penghakiman yang melibatkan kesilapan perkeranian sahaja dan tidak terpakai dalam pindaan yang melibatkan kandungan sesuatu perintah dan penghakiman tersebut. Walau bagaimanapun, bagi menguatkuasakan penghakiman yang dimasukkan dan bagi mewujudkan keadilan kepada pihak-pihak kes, maka mahkamah boleh menggunakan kuasa-kuasa sedia ada bawah A. 92 k. 4 KKM 2012 dan juga A. 1A KKM 2012 untuk membetulkan kesilapan-kesilapan pada kandungan sesuatu perintah dan penghakiman tersebut.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pindaan - Penghakiman terus - Permohonan untuk meminda perintah dan penghakiman yang telah dimeterai - Pindaan kepada kandungan perintah - Sama ada peruntukan A. 20 k. 11 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM 2012') sesuai digunakan untuk meminda penghakiman - Sama ada kesilapan penghakiman boleh dibetulkan melalui kuasa sedia ada mahkamah bawah A. 92 k. 4 dan A. 1A KKM 2012

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pembatalan - Perintah penghakiman ingkar - Perintah difailkan secara salah - Rekod mahkamah tidak menunjukkan penghakiman ingkar dimasukkan - Sama ada permohonan pembatalan wajar dibuat bawah A. 42 k. 13 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Latifah Ariffin; T/n Latifah Ariffin & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama - Tengku Shazuan Tengku Shariffudin; T/n Tengku Shazuan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden kedua - Asmadi Abu Bakar; T/n Asmadi Abu Bakar

CLJ 2023 Volume 2 (Part 1)

The tort of conspiracy is not constituted by the conspiratorial agreement alone. For conspiracy to take place, there must also be an unlawful object or, if not in itself unlawful, it must be brought about by unlawful means. There must be a co-existence of an agreement with an overt act causing damage to the claimant. Hence, the tort of conspiracy is complete only if the agreement is carried into effect, subsequently causing damage to the claimant.
Koperasi Permodalan Felda Malaysia Bhd v. Icon City Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 2 CLJ 1 [CA]

|

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Parties entered into sale and purchase agreements for purchase of properties - Failure of developer to deliver vacant possession - Claim by purchaser for liquidated ascertained damages - Whether there was extension of time by architect to allow construction of properties to be completed and for vacant possession to be handed over to purchaser - Whether there was breach of terms of sale and purchase agreements

TORT: Conspiracy - Breach of duty - Parties entered into sale and purchase agreements for purchase of properties - Failure of developer to deliver vacant possession - Claim by purchaser for liquidated ascertained damages - Whether architect issued extension of time in favour of developer - Whether there was conspiracy between architect and developer to injure purchaser - Whether tort of conspiracy established

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA

  • For the appellant - Joshua Chong Wan Ken, Khor Yongshi & Chan Jia Her; M/s Raja Darryl & Loh
  • For the 1st respondent - Justin Voon Tiam Yu, Lee Chooi Peng & Lim Xin Yi; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
  • For the 2nd respondent - Edwin Lim Hock Lee & Ng Sim Hong; M/s Edwin Lim & Suren

A complainant need not show that he has been singled out as a victim of unfair dealing or unfair prejudice in order to succeed in an action premised upon oppression, pursuant to s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016. The section is not concerned with the consequences to the interests of the wrongdoers but the consequences to the interests of the complainant.
Low Ean Nee v. Low Cheng Teik & Ors [2023] 2 CLJ 19 [CA]

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Conduct amounting to oppression - Allegations of oppression committed by directors and shareholders of company - Resolutions passed using forged signature of complainant - Mismanagement and wrongful usage of company's funds - Unsatisfactory book-keeping and tampering of company's financial accounts - Usage of company's trademark by other corporate entities which directly benefitted directors and shareholders of company - Whether allegations proven - Whether complainant successfully made out case of oppression - Whether there was unfair dealing or unfair prejudice - Companies Act 2016, s. 346

 

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
LIM CHONG FONG J

  • For the appellant - Conrad Young Wye King & Alfred Lai Choong Wui; M/s Alfred Lai & Partners
  • For the respondents - Arjan Pursumal & M Gulabraj; M/s Vasdev Bakshani & Assocs

The moment an employee enters into negotiations for a severance package and later inserts, in his letter of resignation, the terms agreed upon, there is a concluded contract. An employee cannot have the best of both worlds; negotiating and accepting the terms of a separation with the employer and then, at the same time, claiming at the Industrial Court that he had been constructively dismissed.
Matrix Global Education Sdn Bhd v. Felix Lee Eng Boon [2023] 2 CLJ 34 [CA]

LABOUR LAW: Constructive dismissal - Claim - Employee allegedly dismissed without just cause and excuse by being forced to resign - Employee entered into negotiations with employer and agreed on severance terms before tendering resignation - Employer honoured terms agreed between parties - Employee commenced claim at Industrial Court - Whether there was constructive dismissal - Whether employee barred from claiming at Industrial Court - Whether employee could enter into severance package agreement with employer and later claim for constructive dismissal at Industrial Court

 

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA

  • For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, N Sivabalah, Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse & Benedict Ngoh Ti Yang; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the respondent - Ravi Nekoo & Amelia Maisara Zainal Abidin; M/s Nekoo

Seksyen 41B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') adalah berperlembagaan dan tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan ('PP'). Bidang kuasa kehakiman untuk memberi jaminan adalah sesuatu yang dizahirkan dalam undang-undang bertulis secara tersurat. Oleh itu, jika undang-undang bertulis memperuntukkan tiada jaminan boleh diberikan oleh mahkamah, seperti dalam s. 41B ADB, ini tidak boleh ditafsirkan sebagai menghakis bidang kuasa kehakiman dan bercanggah dengan per. 121 PP.
Datuk Zainal Abidin Alias & Satu Lagi lwn. PP [2023] 2 CLJ 70 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Pentafsiran - Peruntukan - Jaminan - Sama ada s. 41B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidang kuasa memutuskan permohonan - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menggunakan bidang kuasa memberi jaminan

 

 

ROSLAN MAT NOR PK

  • Bagi pihak pemohon-pemohon - Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah, Tania Scivetti, Low Zhi Jie, Alaistair Brandah Norman & Wan Mohammad Arfan Wan Othman; T/n Shafee & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Abdul Ghafar Ab Latif & Ain-Nur'Amiyerra Awod Abdullah; TPR

The Inland Revenue acts as an agent to collect taxes for the Ministry of Finance/Government; its interest is purely financial. The Director General of Inland Revenue is not, in any way, involved in the decision-making process under ss. 135 and/or 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967.
Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd v. Menteri Kewangan; Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (Proposed Intervener) & Other Applications [2023] 2 CLJ 120 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervention - Application for - Judicial review to review decision-making process of Minister of Finance - Application by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') to intervene in judicial review - Whether DGIR fulfilled test of being 'proper person' to intervene at leave stage - Whether DGIR involved in decision-making process - Whether application premature - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 8

 

 

Noorin Badaruddin J

(Judicial Review No: WA-25-343-11-2020)
  • For the applicant - S Saravana Kumar & Yu Yun Lei (pupil in chambers); M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
  • For the Attorney General's Chambers - Liew Horng Bin; SFC
  • For the proposed intervener - Normareza Mat Rejab; SRC & Mohd Shafuddin Hasan; RC
(Judicial Review No: WA-25-289-10-2020)
  • For the applicant - S Saravana Kumar & Yap Wen Hui; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
  • For the Attorney General's Chambers - Liew Horng Bin; SFC
  • For the proposed intervener - Normareza Mat Rejab; SRC
(Judicial Review No: WA-25-69-03-2021)
  • For the applicants - S Saravana Kumar & Dharshini Sharma; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
  • For the Attorney General's Chambers - Nik Isfahanie Tanim W Ab Rahman; SFC

(i) The Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') makes no distinction between 'solicitor' and 'counsel'. The LPA applies to 'advocates and solicitors'; (ii) Bill of costs has to be delivered to the chargeable person prior to any commencement of proceedings for the recovery of the costs. To challenge a bill that is delivered under s. 124 of the LPA, the party chargeable has to do so within six months of the delivery of the bill to obtain an order for taxation of the bill, failing which the bill becomes absolute.
RHB Trustees Bhd v. Tetuan Rosley Zechariah & Anor [2023] 2 CLJ 131 [HC]

|

LEGAL PROFESSION: Bill of costs - Taxation - Application for - Whether provisions in Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') in relation to taxation applicable - Whether taxation of costs between solicitor and client and not where advocate is briefed as senior counsel - Whether there was difference between 'solicitor' and 'counsel' - Whether s. 121(2) of LPA excludes application of s. 121(1) of LPA with regard to issue of bill of costs of senior counsel

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out originating summons - Taxation of bill of costs - Whether bill had become absolute - Whether originating summons time-barred - Whether originating summons scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process - Whether ought to be struck out

 

AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J

  • For the plaintiff - Anantha Krishnan & Srimurugan Alagan; M/s Srimurugan & Co
  • For the 1st defendant - Renu Sudarshini Zechariah & Cheryl Kwan Chui Yi; M/s Rosley Zechariah
  • For the 2nd defendant - Prakash Menon & Theebadarshini Retnakumar; M/s Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon

The relationship between the bank and its customer is contractual in nature and the bank does not owe any greater duty to the customer in tort, than that which is expressly or impliedly provided in the contract. The bank's duties in contract and tort are co-extensive. The bank is not obliged to perform enquiries, verification and/or authentication in relation to the authority of the person giving the instructions or the genuineness of such instructions.
TSA Industries Sdn Bhd v. Teoh Lai Kin & Ors [2023] 2 CLJ 143 [HC]

|

TORT: Negligence - Contractual duty - Breach of - Bank-customer relationship - Employee of customer unlawfully transferred monies from customer's current account - Fraudulent issuance of letters of instructions by employee to bank without customer's knowledge - Signatures of signatories forged - Monies transferred and/or paid out to other individuals - Whether bank under duty to take steps to investigate genuineness of signatures - Whether bank negligent and/or breached contractual/common law duties owed to customer in honouring and paying on letters of instructions - Whether bank acted in good faith and exercised all reasonable care in processing and approving letters of instructions - Whether customer estopped from raising forgery/fraud

CONTRACT: Agreement - Banking agreement - Agreement between bank and customer - Employee of customer unlawfully transferred monies from customer's current account - Fraudulent issuance of letters of instructions by employee to bank without customer's knowledge - Signatures of signatories forged - Monies transferred and/or paid out to other individuals - Contractual term requiring customer to check statements - Whether exercised - Whether customer notified bank of any inaccuracy or incorrect debit in account - Whether customer now precluded from claiming that letters of instructions were forged

 

SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J

  • For the plaintiff - James Khong & Edwin Lim; M/s James Khong
  • For the 6th defendant - Rabindra S Nathan, Sathya Kumardas, Yvonne Chong Yun Xin & Mohd Daud Sulaiman; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the 1st defendant - Teoh Lai Kin

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. DELVE INTO THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROCEEDINGS IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Jordan Ling Kie Seng[i]Michelle Ting Ju Ying[ii] [2023] 1 LNS(A) xi

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

    DELVE INTO THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROCEEDINGS IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Jordan Ling Kie Seng[i]
    Michelle Ting Ju Ying[ii]

    A person who dies with a will is said to die testate and the estate distribution will be in accordance with the terms of his will, whereas a person who dies without a will (dies intestate) will have the estate distribution done under letters of administration. Nonetheless, even when there is a will, but the executor is either unable, unwilling to act or is under disability, the representative shall seek a letter of administration with the will annexed to manage the estate. For this article, we will only be discussing the proceedings of estate administration, which deal solely with the civil court.

    POSITION IN PENINSULAR MALAYA (WEST MALAYSIA)

    In Peninsular Malaya, the jurisdiction to deal with the estate administration is vested in the High Court, the Estate Distribution Division and the Public Trust Corporation, depending on the type of the estate. Regardless of the estate's value, the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant probate and letters of administration, to alter or revoke such grants.[1] The procedures are provided in O. 71 and O. 72 of the Rules of Court 2012 and must strictly be complied with.[2] Order 71 laid down the procedures for non-contentious probate proceedings, whereas O. 72 concerns contentious probate action. "Probate action" is defined in s. 2 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 and was considered in the context of O. 72 r. 1[3] as an application "... to alter or revoke any grant of representation".[4]

    . . .

    [i] © Pupil in Chambers of Tang & Partners Advocates (Sibu), jordanling95@gmail.com.

    [ii] © Legal Associates of Stephen Robert & Wong Advocates (Miri), michelletingjy97@gmail.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE ORDER: REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Randu Anak Rangen[i]Md Syafique Bin Md Hilmie[ii] [2023] 1 LNS(A) xii

  4. [2023] 1 LNS(A) xii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE ORDER: REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Randu Anak Rangen[i]
    Md Syafique Bin Md Hilmie[ii]

    INTRODUCTION

    We are encouraging our judges and judicial officers to consider imposing community services instead of imprisonment to offenders in appropriate cases. In this way not only it may better rehabilitate the offenders, it is also costs savings for the Prison.[1]

    These are the words of the then Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum, during his keynote speech for the Opening of the Legal Year (OLY) 2019 at Putrajaya in which he called on all the judges and judicial officers to take into consideration the imposition of community service as an alternative mode of sentencing.

    Compulsory Attendance Order (hereinafter referred to as 'CAO') or better known as Perintah Kehadiran Wajib (hereinafter called as 'PKW') in Bahasa Malaysia, is an alternative sentence to imprisonment that the court can order.[2] This form of sentencing is akin to a community service order as instead of being committed to prison, the offenders are subjected to an order requiring them to carry out any "labour, task, work or course of instructions" ordered by the Officer of Compulsory Attendance Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'CAC'), for not more than four hours a day for a period not exceeding 12 months.[3]

    . . .

    [i] Senior Assistant Registrar of Miri High Court.

    [ii] Deputy Public Prosecutor, Sarawak.


    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) 33/2023 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Extension) Order 2023 7 February 2023 8 February 2023 ACT 504; ACT 235
PU(A) 32/2023 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 3) Order 2023 7 February 2023 8 February 2023 to 7 March 2023 ACT 723
PU(A) 31/2023 Windfall Profit Levy (Oil Palm Fruit) Order 2023 31 January 2023 1 February 2023 ACT 592
PU(A) 30/2023 Syarie Legal Profession (Federal Territories) (Fees) Rules 2023 26 January 2023 21 June 2022 and shall continue to be in operation until 31 December 2023 ACT 814
PU(A) 29/2023 Judges' Remuneration (Amendment of Second Schedule) Regulations 2023 26 January 2023 1 January 2022 ACT 45

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 43/2023 Notice of Declaration of Uncontested Election of Members of The Malaysian Optical Council 8 February 2023 9 February 2023 PU(A) 210/1994
PU(B) 42/2023 Notice of Declaration of Election of Members of The Malaysian Optical Council 8 February 2023 9 February 2023 PU(A) 210/1994
PU(B) 41/2023 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Kampong Sungai Pagar, Federal Territory of Labuan 8 February 2023 9 February 2023 ACT 828
PU(B) 40/2023 Notice Under Section 70 7 February 2023 8 February 2023 ACT 333
PU(B) 39/2023 Notice of Termination of Assumption of Control (Koperasi Peneroka Felda Kemahang (1) Berhad) 7 February 2023 8 February 2023 ACT 502

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 259/2016 Electricity Supply (Authorization to Be A Single Buyer in Peninsular Malaysia) Order 2016 PU(A) 19/2023 19 January 2023 Title, paragraphs 1 and 2
PU(A) 258/2016 Electricity Supply (Authorization to Be A System Operator in Peninsular Malaysia) Order 2016 PU(A) 18/2023 19 January 2023 Title, paragraphs 1 and 2
PU(A) 449/1991 Federal Roads (Felda Scheme) Order 1991 PU(A) 17/2023 25 January 2023 First and Second Schedule
AKTA 716 Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 AKTA A1646 1 Februari 2023 [PU(B) 32/2023] kecuali s. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 61, 65, 68, 73 dan 75 Seksyen 21, 22, 25A, 29, 36, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78 - 88, 101, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123A, 124, 125 dan Jadual Kelapan, Jadual Kesembilan, Jadual Kesepuluh dan Jadual Kesebelas
ACT 716 Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 ACT A1646 1 February 2023 [PU(B) 32/2023] except sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 61, 65, 68, 73 and 75 Sections 21, 22, 25A, 29, 36, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78 - 88, 101, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123A, 124, 125 and Eighth Schedule, Ninth Schedule, Tenth Schedule and Eleventh Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 370/2022 Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan 2022 PU(A) 27/2023 Lihat perenggan 1(2)
PU(A) 370/2022 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2022 PU(A) 27/2023 See paragraph 1(2) of this Order
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

Copyright © 2023 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here