-
CASE(S) HIGHLIGHT
-
CHIN JHIN THIEN & ANOR v. CHIN HUAT YEAN & ANOR
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ;
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-29-04-2019(P)]
07 JULY 2020
The doctrine of secret trust which enables a testator to direct vide his will the disposition of his property upon his death to a 'legatee' to hold it on trust for an unnamed or a secret beneficiary is statutorily applicable in Malaysia, bearing in mind the purport of s. 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956, the Wills Act 1959 and the fact that the concept has never been explicitly abrogated by any of our statutes or Acts of Parliament. The doctrine does not offend public policy and is consistent with the fundamental human right of privacy, and the Wills Act, it ought to be noted, protects the testamentary freedom of testators. Another justification for its enforcement is that it is made outside and independently of the will, having arisen from the independent obligation as so accepted by the trustee. It follows therefore that if the testator is of sound mind, memory and understanding, and has not been shown to have been suffering from any testamentary incapacity, such as the testator in this case, it would not be right to deny him his agreement with his trustee and with it his right and desire to make dispositions to his sons through his marriage to his second wife, and nor would it be realistic for the court to uphold a strict reading of the statutes so as to allow the trust to fail.
Read more
-
YUE CHI KIN v. PP
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
[CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: WA-42(S)-137-12-2015]
20 MAY 2019
The prosecution, in preferring a charge against an accused in both the English language and Bahasa Malaysia must ensure that the two versions correspond and tally with each other and are not vitiated by any inconsistency or discrepancy. Where therefore an accused has been charged with an offence under s. 122B(b)(bb) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 read with s. 122(c) thereof for abetting a company who had knowingly permitted the making of a misleading statement to the Stock Exchange, the fact that the English version of the charge carries the word "permitted" but no translation thereof has been made to its Bahasa Malaysia version may bear very adversely on the legality of the charge and the prosecution. The absence of the corresponding translation could mean that in so far as the Bahasa Malaysia version of the charge is concerned, it was the company itself that was alleged to have made the misleading statement, thereby causing ambiguity, and prejudice and confusion to the accused. It needs little reminder that such a failure to properly frame the ingredients of the charge may be fatal and not curable under s. 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and may render the conviction of the accused therein unsustainable in law.
Read more
-
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA & ORS
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
NORDIN HASSAN J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-342-07-2019]
08 JANUARY 2020
The Industrial Court is not seised with jurisdiction to adjudicate on a representation made by an employee of a foreign embassy if the nature of his employment with the embassy is such that it forms an integral part of the sovereign activity of the foreign State and its embassy. A security guard employed by the United States Embassy, for instance, is caught under this doctrine of sovereign immunity, and cannot therefore have his day in the Industrial Court to vent his dissatisfaction after being dismissed from his employment by the embassy.
Read more
-
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT
Ex-Uber drivers set for 'final showdown' in court case
UKEmployment
US ride-haling firm Uber defends business model in battle over rights in workplace
Two former Uber drivers will face the ride-hailing giant in court on Tuesday in a case that will decide whether Uber drivers should be classed as workers or self-employed.
Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar say by classing drivers as contractors, the firm denies them basic rights.
But Uber says the "vast majority" of its drivers like being freelance.
Read more
-
Supreme Court Helps Trademark Owners: Proof of “Willfulness” Is Not Required To Recover Infringer’s Profits
USSupreme Court Helps Trademark Owners: Proof of "Willfulness" Is Not Required To Recover Infringer's Profits
In April 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trademark infringers can be required to hand over their profits to a brand owner even if their conduct was not “willful.” The case was Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, Inc., 590 U.S. (2020). It is an important case for trademark owners because it lowers the plaintiff’s burden to recover a defendant’s ill-gotten profits.
Read more Judgment
-
Australian Government sued by 23-year-old Melbourne student over financial risks of climate change
AUSTRALIAEnvironment
Law student's suit over risks to investments through climate change is first of its kind
A 23-year-old Melbourne law student is suing the Australian Government for failing to disclose the risk climate change poses to Australians' super and other safe investments. The world-first case filed on Wednesday in the Federal Court alleges the Government, as well as two government officials, failed in a duty to disclose how climate change would impact the value of government bonds.
Read more
-
EU Court: No Need to Reveal IP Addresses in Uploading Cases
EUROPEIntellectual property
Online platforms just need to provide postal address of users who illegally upload copyright material
The European Union’s highest court ruled Thursday that online platforms don't have to disclose the full personal data including email addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses of users who illegally upload movies and copyright material.
The case stems from a German film distributor's request that YouTube provide details about users who had uploaded the films “Parker” and “Scary Movie 5? onto the platform.
Read more
-
Asda equal pay case comes before Supreme Court
UKEmployment
SC hears long-running equal pay dispute between Asda and shop-floor staff
Some 38,000 Asda shop floor workers, most of whom are women, claim they should be paid the same wages as distribution centre staff, who are mostly men and receive a higher hourly rate. The Supreme Court will consider whether consider whether the shop floor staff are entitled to compare their wages to those of distribution staff for equal pay purposes. The hearing, which takes place today and tomorrow (14 July) is the last chance for Asda to argue that the roles are not comparable.
Read more
Emails sent to you weekly with the latest updates on the law.
