HOME

ABSTRACT

The article by Azizun, Mohd Dian, and Arshad (2024) entitled 'Land Assurance Fund Frameworks: An Analytical Study of Relevant Legal Provisions in Malaysia and Australia' evaluates the weaknesses of Malaysia's Torrens system in protecting landowners from fraud and administrative errors. The authors argue that the absence of an assurance fund leaves innocent landowners uncompensated, as illustrated in landmark cases such as Adorna Properties and Tan Ying Hong. Drawing on comparative analysis of eight Australian jurisdictions, the article highlights funding models, claims processes, and limitation periods that could inform Malaysia's reforms. Azizun et al. propose a hybrid funding model and flexible limitation rules, contending that an assurance fund is necessary to uphold Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and strengthen public confidence in the land registration system.

INTRODUCTION

This analysis focuses on Azizun, Mohd Dian, and Arshad's (2024) article entitled 'Land Assurance Fund Frameworks: An Analytical Study of Relevant Legal Provisions in Malaysia and Australia.'^[1] The article is significant because it highlights the persistent gaps in Malaysia's Torrens system, especially the absence of a compensation mechanism for victims of fraud. By comparing Malaysia with Australia, the authors propose that a land assurance fund would enhance the protection of landowners and strengthen the credibility of the land registration framework.

ABSTRAK

Penulis bercadang untuk membincangkan undang-undang berkaitan prinsip yang digunapakai dalam permohonan reman dan seterusnya mengenai pendekatan yang diambil dalam nas perundangan terkini dalam mengadili permohonan reman apabila seseorang ditahan oleh pihak polis dan siasatan tidak dapat diselesaikan dalam jangka masa 24 jam setelah suspek ditangkap.

PENGENALAN

Seandainya pihak polis menangkap seseorang individu yang disyaki melakukan kesalahan jenayah dan siasatan tidak dapat dimuktamadkan dalam tempoh 24 jam maka pegawai penyiasat polis perlu membawa suspek ke hadapan Majistret untuk mendapat perintah untuk menahan reman suspek. Prosedur reman adalah sebahagian daripada proses siasatan dalam sesuatu kes jenayah. Dalam erti kata yang lain, permohonan reman bertujuan memberi peluang kepada pegawai penyiasat polis untuk menjalankan siasatan dengan seadil yang mungkin terhadap suspek atas kesalahan yang disyaki telah dilakukan.

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.