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
TR SANDAH TABAU & ORS v. DIRECTOR OF FOREST, SARAWAK & ANOR AND OTHER APPLICATIONS  10 CLJ 436
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO: 01-27-04-2015(Q), 08(RS)-3-03-2019(Q) & 08(RS)-4-03-2019(Q)]
11 SEPTEMBER 2019
1. The customs of ‘pemakai menoa’ and ‘pulau galau’ as practiced by the natives of Sarawak did not come within the definition of ‘law’ in art. 160(2) of the Federal Constitution and did not, therefore, have the force of law in Sarawak.
2. The inherent jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court to review its own decision under r. 137 Rules of the Federal Court 1995 must be sparingly exercised. The court cannot invoke the power to review on merits and before the power could be exercised it must be shown that there was injustice on the face of the record. Accordingly, arguments such as the earlier panel had arrived at a wrong result, or misinterpreted another decision of the Federal Court, or misinterpreted the statutes or case law, or went against the weight of legal authorities, or wrongly disturbed findings of facts by the courts below cannot form a valid and legitimate basis to seek a review under the rule.
3. The recommendation under para. 26(4) of the Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962 read with art. VIII of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 that the Federal Court hearing an appeal from a case originating from Borneo States should comprise of at least one judge with ‘Bornean judicial experience’ cannot be enforced because the same has never been implemented by legislative, executive or other action of the Governments of the Federation of Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak, and also not incorporated in the Constitution of Malaysia. It is also clear on reading s. 74 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 together with art. 122 of the Federal Constitution, that there is no legal requirement that the Federal Court, when hearing or disposing of such cases, must consist of at least one judge with Bornean judicial experience.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Court - Inherent powers - Review - Power to review own decision - Principles - Whether exercisable in very limited circumstances - Whether to prevent injustice - Whether must be of fundamental importance to certainty of administration of law - Finality of proceedings - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Court - Inherent powers - Review - Power to review own decision - Question of law whether Iban customs of 'pemakai menoa' and 'pulau' had the force of law - Decision of earlier panel - Whether equally divided and not a majority judgment - Whether suffering from coram failure - Whether appeals to be reheard - Keruntum Sdn Bhd v. The Director of Forests & Ors - Whether still good law - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137 - Federal Constitution, arts. 128, 160 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 4, 74, 77, 78
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Court - Review - Power to review own decision - Question of law whether Iban customs of 'pemakai menoa' and 'pulau' had the force of law - Constitution of panel - Whether there was requirement in law to have presence of 'judge with Bornean judicial experience' - Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962 and Malaysia Agreement 1963 - Whether enforceable - Whether Judiciary obligated to implement provisions and recommendations thereof - Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r. 137 - Federal Constitution, art. 128 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 4, 74, 77 - Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962, para. 26(4) - Malaysia Agreement 1963, art. VIII
LAND LAW: Customary land - Native customary rights - Iban customs of 'pemakai menoa' and 'pulau' - Whether legally recognised customs in Sarawak - Whether having the force of law - Federal Constitution, art. 160(2)
WORDS & PHRASES: 'judge with Bornean judicial experience' - Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962, para. 26(4) - Meaning - Whether to mean judge with experience of serving as High Court Judge or Judicial Commissioner in Sabah or Sarawak
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