Forgot/Reset Password

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

TUNKU YAACOB HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. PENTADBIR TANAH KEDAH & ORS
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
RICHARD MALANJUM CJSS, ZALEHA ZAHARI FCJ, MOHAMED APANDI ALI FCJ, ABU SAMAH NORDIN FCJ, RAMLY ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01-35-2012(K)]
1 OCTOBER 2014

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for leave - Filing of - Challenging State Authority's decision made pursuant to s. 8(1) Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire land - Whether application for leave filed within 40 days from date of publication of Form D under Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Whether time frame of 40 days to file leave application started from date Form E served on appellant - Whether commencement of proceedings for land acquisition communicated to appellant - Whether publication in Gazette amounted to constructive notice as opposed to actual knowledge - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 18 - Whether applicable - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(6)

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Objection against acquisition - Application for leave to commence judicial review - Challenging State Authority's decision made pursuant to s. 8(1) Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire land - Whether application for leave filed within 40 days from date of publication of Form D under Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Whether time frame of 40 days to file leave application started from date Form E served on appellant - Whether commencement of proceedings for land acquisition communicated to appellant - Whether publication in Gazette amounted to constructive notice as opposed to actual knowledge - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 18 - Whether applicable - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(6)

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(6) - Application for leave to commence judicial review - Prescribed time for filing - Challenging State Authority's decision made pursuant to s. 8(1) Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire land - Whether application for leave filed within 40 days from date decision first communicated to appellant - Whether O. 53 r. 3(6) must be read together or in context with relevant provisions under Land Acquisition Act 1960 relating to land acquisition proceedings - Whether publication in Gazette amounted to constructive notice as opposed to actual knowledge - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 18 - Whether applicable



PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD v. KAMACHEH KARUPPEN
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MD RAUS SHARIF PCA, MOHTARUDIN BAKI JCA, VARGHESE GEORGE JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-04-40-02-2014]
6 MARCH 2015

ROAD TRAFFIC: Insurance - Third party claims - Judgment against insured by third party - Whether third party could claim against insurer upon failure by insured to satisfy judgment sum - Whether s. 96 Road Transport Act 1987 created statutory obligation on insurer to pay third party

INSURANCE: Motor insurance - Construction of policy - Whether insurer ought to be held liable to pay third party whose injuries were caused by criminal use of vehicle by insured - Road Transport Act 1987, s. 91(1)(b) - Whether restricted insurer's liability to only where vehicle used for purpose within contemplation of insurer

INSURANCE: Third party rights against insurer - Claim under policy - Third party obtained judgment against insured - Third party claimed against insurer upon failure by insured to satisfy judgment sum - Whether s. 96 Road Transport Act 1987 created statutory obligation on insurer to pay third party - Insured vehicle used for criminal purpose - Whether defeated third party's claim - Whether insurer satisfied conditions for avoidance of payment - Road Transport Act 1987, s. 96(2) & (3)

WORDS AND PHRASES: 'use' - Road Transport Act 1987, s. 91(1)(b) - Whether covered use of vehicle in commission of criminal act



PP lwn. KOHILA YANASEKARAN & YANG LAIN [2015] 1 SMC 31
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, KUALA LUMPUR
MAT GHANI ABDULLAH HS
[PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: 62-44/45/46/47/48/50/326/531/532/533-2008]
25 SEPTEMBER 2014

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 143 - Perhimpunan menyalahi undang-undang - Sama ada unsur-unsur pertuduhan dibuktikan - Sama ada perintah larangan yang dikeluarkan oleh Majistret diingkari - Sama ada perintah disampaikan secara teratur dan mengikut peruntukan s. 90 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada penama-penama dalam perintah mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa perintah larangan dikeluarkan terhadap mereka - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai tujuan bersama untuk melakukan mudarat awam - Sama ada bukti dikemukakan bahawa perhimpunan haram diadakan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 141 & 188

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 186 - Menghalang penjawat awam dari melakukan kerja-kerja jawatannya - Sama ada terdapat ugutan atau pertuturan kata-kata kesat - Sama ada ugutan disertai dengan tindakan agresif atau perlakuan yang mengancam - Sama ada tindakan tertuduh dianggap menghalang penjawat awam



Secured By Global Sign