HOME

“Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman telah terkhilaf apabila tidak bersandarkan perintah terkemudiannya kepada keputusan majoriti di dalam kes Yong Choo Kiong v. PP [2024] 5 CLJ 69 tersebut.”

“Berpandukan petikan di atas, sudah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa Parlimen berniat untuk menjadikan Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 ini sebagai jaminan kepada saksi-saksi bahawa mereka akan dilindungi oleh undang-undang dan memastikan keterangan yang diberikan oleh mereka berjalan dengan lancar tanpa sebarang kebimbangan ancaman atau bahaya terhadap nyawa dan keselamatan diri mereka.”

“Justeru itu, perintah mahkamah mengarahkan PW1 memberikan keterangannya di mahkamah secara terbuka bukan sahaja berlawanan dengan hasrat murni Parlimen untuk melindungi saksi-saksi sebegini daripada pendedahan tetapi secara langsung telah menjejaskan matlamat sebenar Program Perlindungan Saksi di bawah Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 diwujudkan yang bertujuan untuk memberi jaminan keselamatan kepada saksi-saksi yang memerlukan perlindungan dari segi ancaman bahaya dan juga perlindungan maklumat dan identiti mereka daripada diketahui umum. Keyakinan masyarakat terhadap Program Perlindungan Saksi ini pasti akan terhakis jika identiti saksi-saksi yang sepatutnya dilindungi dengan ketat boleh pada bila-bila masa sahaja didedahkan tanpa batasan undang-undang.” - Per Azmi Ariffin HMR in PP lwn. Mohd Razin Razali & Satu Lagi Dan Rayuan Yang Lain [2025] 9 CLJ 13

“Principles of interpretation of contract have moved from a rigid literal grammatical and internal linguistic consideration to that of a purposive reading based on the factual matrix of facts within the context of the transaction in question as representing the reading of the relevant clauses of the contract as a whole. No contracts are made nor come into existence in a vacuum. It has a setting that is captured in the recital with words having its proper shade in its colour borne out from its context and its proper scope in its contours being evident in the whole context of the contract.

Applying what has been variously called the contextual, harmonious and business common sense approach, we are more than satisfied that the meaning of the date of the approval of “building plans” cannot stretch to that of the date of the last approval of “building plans” for the purpose of determining the 42 months to deliver vacant possession even though pedantically and definition-wise "building plans" would include “all amendments, alterations and modifications to the building plans”.

Thus, where the grammatical meaning of the definition of “building plans” would be wide enough to cover even all and any including the last approved building plans, the context does not admit it for the purpose of determining the time for delivery of vacant possession which is to run from the date of the first approval of the building plans.” - Per Lee Swee Seng FCJ in Icon City Development Sdn Bhd v. Lee Kean Hwa & Ors [2025] 10 CLJ 867