TETUAN KHANA & CO v. SALING LAU BEE CHIANG & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS; MALAYAN BANKING BHD (INTERVENER)
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
IDRUS HARUN JCA; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA;
YEOH WEE SIAM JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: J-02(W)-219-02-2017, J-02(W)-220-02-2017, J-02(W)-221-02-2017, J-02(W)-224-02-2017, J-02(W)-225-02-2017, J-02(W)-226-02-2017, J-02(W)-227-02-2017 & J-02(W)-228-02-2017]
22 JANUARY 2019
(Trusts; Civil Procedure - Duties - Fiduciary duty - Breach by trustees - Failure by trustees to account for losses - Whether trustees liable for losses suffered by Trust - Receiver and manager - Whether empowered to institute any legal proceedings - Judgments - Grounds of judgment - Whether decision based on evidence adequately found and on law - Application to impugn judgment by intervener - Whether judgment concerned intervener - Whether exemplary damages unconnected with substance of appeal - Whether fatally flawed)
TETUAN KHANA & CO v. SALING LAU BEE CHIANG & OTHER APPEALS  3 CLJ 1
- TETUAN KHANA & CO v. SALING LAU BEE CHIANG & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS  1 CLJ 501
JUSNINAWATI ABDUL GHANI v. PP  10 CLJ 589
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; ROHANA YUSUF FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ;
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-275-11-2017(W)]
18 OCTOBER 2019
Abstract: The prosecution of an accused under s. 130M of the Penal Code for failing to report the possible commission of an offence under s. 130JA of the Code is misconceived and unsustainable in law, if such offence was alleged to have been committed on a date prior to 23 December 2016. The old s. 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was amended by Act A1521 on 23 December 2016, while imposing a duty on every person who is aware of the commission of the offence enumerated in that section to give information to the nearest police station or penghulu, does not refer to the offence of travelling to a foreign country to commit terrorist acts under s. 130 JA. It follows that such an accused was not obliged to report the information concerned and was indeed charged for an offence not known to law.
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 130JA - Offence of travelling to, through or from Malaysia for commission of terrorist acts in foreign country - Accused person, a police corporal, failed to disclose information on possible terrorist act to superior officers - Whether obliged and legally bound to report information to superior officers - Whether omission to disclose information illegal - Whether possible terrorist act fell under offences prescribed under s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code requiring disclosure
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused person a police corporal - Accused convicted for omitting to disclose information on possible terrorist act - Accused person sentenced to seven years' imprisonment - Whether accused person obliged and legally bound to report information to superior officers - Whether omission to disclose information illegal - Whether possible terrorist act fell under offences prescribed under s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code requiring disclosure - Whether s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code or s. 13(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2016 applied to appellant's case - Penal Code, s. 130JA
Royal Mail Supreme Court ruling gives extra whisteblower protection
UKEmploymentSC's landmark judgment against Royal Mail extends scope of whistleblower protectionAn employee was unfairly dismissed because her line manager had "dishonestly constructed" a reason for her sacking, judges find. Whistleblowers have gained extra protection after a landmark Supreme Court judgment against Royal Mail, according to legal experts. Campaigners have hailed as "a step in the right direction" the decision that an employee was unfairly dismissed because her line manager had "dishonestly constructed" a "bogus" reason for her sacking.
The 10 most important employment law cases in 2019
Employment10 most important judgments of 2019 employers should know aboutAs always, HR professionals have had their fair share of employment law cases to keep track of in 2019. We count down the 10 most important judgments of the year that every employer should know about. In 2019, the most important employment law cases concerned: restrictive covenants; working time; whistleblowing; shared parental leave; and suspensions during disciplinary investigations. Other key cases in 2019 covered: dismissal for disability discrimination; collective bargaining; covert CCTV in the workplace; age discrimination in pensions; and holiday pay.
UK gives landmark statement on cryptoassets
UKChancellor of the High Court clarifies legal standing of cryptoassets and smart contractsThe Chancellor of the High Court and Chair of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, Sir Geoffrey Vos, launched the LawTech Delivery Panel’s statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts at the Guildhall in London. Speaking at the launch, the chancellor called the statement “a watershed for English law and the UK’s jurisdictions. Our statement on the legal status of cryptoassets and smart contracts is something that no other jurisdiction has attempted.”
MTUC announces Socso coverage for legit foreign workers from Jan 1
InsuranceLegal foreign workers will be fully covered for any employment-related injuries from January 2020Starting next year, the 2.2 million legal foreign workers in Malaysia will be fully covered under the Social Security Organisation (Socso) Act 1969 for any employment-related injuries. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) announced today that coverage will take effect from January 1, 2020.
Financial advisor was unfairly dismissed after being ‘blackmailed’ to sign restrictive covenant
UKEmploymentFinancial adviser wins claim for unfair dismissalA financial advisor has won a claim for unfair dismissal after his employer made false allegations to pressurise him into accepting an extended restrictive covenant agreement and attempted to stop him joining a potential competitor, an employment tribunal (ET) has ruled.
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK