Forgot/Reset Password

CASES OF THE WEEK

COMPANY LAW: Charge - Registration - Company's properties charged as security - Failure to register charge within 30 days - Application for extension of time to register charge made more than ten years later - Whether there were reasonable and credible reasons for inordinate delay - Whether charge void - Companies Act 1965, ss. 114 & 180(1)

LAND LAW: Charge - Registration of charge - Purchase of shop lots - - Shop lots charged as security - Statutory obligation under s. 180(1) of Companies Act 1965 to register charge within 30 days after creation - Failure to register charge - Respondent had wound up - Request for title deeds of properties arising from agreement by respondent's liquidators - Application for extension of time to register charge made more than ten years later - Whether there were reasonable and credible reasons for inordinate delay - Whether charge void - Companies Act 1965, ss. 114 & 180(1)


MALAYAN BANKING BHD v. PUSAT MEMBELI BELAH PELANGI SDN BHD
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LOW HOP BING JCA, ABU SAMAH NORDIN JCA, ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: C-02-1743-2010]
14 JUNE 2013

The respondent had entered into two sale and purchase agreements (`SPA') in 1997 to purchase 14 units of shop offices (`shop lots') from Majlis Daerah Temerloh and Ganda Bernas (M) Sdn Bhd. The respondent applied for loans from Mayban Finance Bhd to part finance the purchase of the shop lots and a loan agreement cum assignment (`loan agreement') was subsequently executed with the shop lots acting as security. However, the charge was not registered and the appellant came to know about it when it wanted to foreclose the properties after the respondent was wound up. The respondent's liquidators (`the liquidators') then requested that all title deeds of the properties arising from the SPA which were in the appellant's possession be given to them. The appellant only applied for an extension of time to register the charge under s. 114 of the Companies Act 1965 (`the Act') in 2009 which was more than ten years after the charge was executed. In opposing the appellant's application, the liquidators argued that: (i) the appellant failed to provide reasonable and credible reasons for the inordinate delay; (ii) upon the winding up of the respondent, the rights of unsecured creditors to the assets of the company in liquidation had crystallised; and (iii) the appellant's application, if granted, would be prejudicial to the unsecured creditors and other shareholders of the respondent. The High Court dismissed the appellant's application due to inordinate delay and supervening events which took place since the creation of the charge. Hence, the present appeal.

Held (dismissing appeal with costs)

Per Abu Samah Nordin JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) Section 180(1) of the Act prescribed a statutory obligation to register a statement of the prescribed particulars of the charge with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days after the creation of the said charge. If this is not complied with, the charge shall, so far as any security on the company's property or undertaking thereby conferred, be void against the liquidator and any creditor of the company. It was the respondent's duty to register it but it did not do so. It was also open to the appellant to register it but it did not do so either. The result was that the charge was void unless time was extended under s. 114 of the Act. (para 2)

(2) The last date to lodge the statement of the prescribed particulars under s. 108(1) of the Act was on 6 January 1999 but this was not done. There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in not applying for an extension of time after January 1999 and before the date of the winding up order in March 2003. There was also no explanation as to why the appellant waited until 2009 to apply for an extension of time when it became apparent that there was already a claim by the liquidators for the same properties as far back as 2003. (para 7)

(3) There was no satisfactory explanation for the High Court to satisfy itself before it could exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. The appellant's application, if granted, would be prejudicial to the creditors or shareholders of the respondent. It would be detrimental to the liquidators' claims to the titles in respect of the seven shop lots which were now in possession of the appellant and would deprive the liquidators of their accrued rights under s. 108 of the Act. (para 16)

(4) The loan agreement was between Mayban Finance Bhd and the respondent. The High Court Judge could not be faulted in holding that the appellant failed to show on what basis it was claiming interests on the shop lots assigned by the respondent to Mayban Finance Bhd. (para 17)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Responden telah memasuki dua perjanjian jual beli (`PJB') pada tahun 1997 untuk membeli 14 unit kedai pejabat (`lot-lot kedai') daripada Majlis Daerah Temerloh dan Ganda Bernas (M) Sdn Bhd. Responden memohon pinjaman-pinjaman daripada Mayban Finance Bhd untuk membiayai, secara separa, pembelian lot-lot kedai tersebut dan satu perjanjian pinjaman merangkap penyerahhakkan (`perjanjian pinjaman') seterusnya dimeterai yang mana lot-lot kedai tersebut dijadikan cagaran. Namun begitu, cagaran tersebut tidak didaftarkan dan perayu mendapat tahu mengenainya apabila ia berniat untuk merampas hartanah-hartanah tersebut selepas responden digulung. Pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi responden (`pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi') kemudiannya memohon agar kesemua surat-surat ikatan hak milik hasil PJB tersebut, yang berada dalam milikan perayu, diberikan kepada mereka. Perayu hanya memohon bagi lanjutan masa untuk mendaftarkan cagaran di bawah s. 114 Akta Syarikat 1965 (`Akta') pada tahun 2009, iaitu lebih daripada sepuluh tahun selepas cagaran tersebut dimeterai. Dalam menentang permohonan perayu, pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi menghujahkan bahawa (i) perayu gagal untuk memberikan alasan-alasan yang munasabah dan kredibel bagi kelewatan melampau tersebut; (ii) dengan penggulungan responden, hak-hak pemiutang-pemiutang tanpa sekuriti ke atas aset-aset syarikat yang telah dilikuidasi telah dikristalisasikan; dan (iii) permohonan perayu, jika dibenarkan, akan memudaratkan pemiutang-pemiutang tanpa sekuriti dan pemegang-pemegang syer responden yang lain. Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan perayu atas kelewatan melampau dan peristiwa-peristiwa berselang yang berlaku sejak pembentukan cagaran. Oleh itu, rayuan ini.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Abu Samah Nordin HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Seksyen 180(1) Akta memperuntukkan kewajipan statutori untuk mendaftarkan butir-butir yang dinyatakan dalam cagaran dengan Pendaftar Syarikat dalam masa 30 hari pembentukan cagaran tersebut. Jika ini tidak dipatuhi, cagaran tersebut, setakat mana cagaran ke atas harta syarikat atau akujanji diberikan, adalah tidak sah terhadap pelikuidasi dan mana-mana pemiutang syarikat. Adalah menjadi kewajipan responden untuk mendaftarnya tetapi ia tidak berbuat demikian. Adalah juga terbuka kepada perayu untuk mendaftarnya tetapi ia tidak berbuat demikian. Akibatnya, cagaran tersebut tidak sah melainkan jika masa dilanjutkan di bawah s. 114 Akta.

(2) Tarikh akhir untuk membuat pernyataan butir-butir yang ditetapkan di bawah s. 108(1) Akta adalah pada 6 Januari 1999 tetapi ini tidak dilakukan. Tiada penjelasan yang memuaskan bagi kelewatan dalam memohon lanjutan masa selepas Januari 1999 dan sebelum tarikh perintah penggulungan pada Mac 2003. Tidak terdapat juga penjelasan tentang mengapa perayu menunggu sehingga tahun 2009 untuk memohon lanjutan masa sedangkan jelas bahawa sudah terdapat tuntutan oleh pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi bagi hartanah-hartanah seawal tahun 2003.

(3) Tiada penjelasan yang memuaskan bagi Mahkamah Tinggi untuk memuaskan hatinya sebelum ia boleh menggunakan budi bicaranya berpihak kepada perayu. Permohonan perayu, jika dibenarkan, akan memudaratkan pemiutang-pemiutang atau pemegang-pemegang saham responden. Ia akan menjejaskan tuntutan pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi ke atas hak milik bagi tujuh lot kedai yang kini dalam milikan perayu dan akan menafikan pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi akan hak-hak mereka yang terakru di bawah s. 108 Akta.

(4) Perjanjian pinjaman adalah antara Mayban Finance Bhd dan responden. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi tidak boleh dipersalahkan dalam memutuskan bahawa perayu gagal untuk menunjukkan atas dasar apa ia menuntut kepentingan ke atas lot-lot kedai yang diserahhakkan oleh responden kepada Mayban Finance Bhd.

Case(s) referred to:

In re Ashpurton Estates Ltd [1983] 1 Ch 110 (refd)

In re Resinoid v. Mica Products Ltd [1983] 1 Ch D 132 (refd)

JJ Leonard Properties Pty Ltd v. Leonard (WA) Pty Ltd (in Liq) & Anor [1987] 5 ACLC 575 (refd)

Morris v. Woodings [1997] 16 ACLC 47 (refd)

Re Kris Cruisers Ltd [1948] 2 All ER 1105 (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Companies Act 1965, ss. 108(1), 114, 233

Companies Act 1948 [UK], s. 101

Counsel:

For the appellant - Vignesh Kumar Krishnasamy (Syazlina Nadia Md Nasir with him); M/s Balendran Chong

For the respondent - Prakash Lachimanan; M/s Mathews Hun Lachimanan

[Editor's note: For the High Court judgment, please see Malayan Banking Bhd v. Pusat Membeli Belah Pelangi Sdn Bhd [2012] 10 CLJ 577.]

Reported by Najib Tamby

 


 

CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Section 302 of Penal Code - Circumstantial evidence - Charges of two counts of murder - `Mercun bola' hidden in gift - Accused in heavy debt with deceased persons - Deceased persons owned internet cafe where accused frequented to indulge in online gambling - Accused's request for loan denied by deceased - Prior threat - Proximity of time between threat and incident - Witness evidence that accused showed desire to burn internet cafe and its owners three months prior to incident - Whether accused had motive to kill deceased persons

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Defence story - Whether afterthought - Whether defence story put to prosecution's witnesses - Whether defence plausible and cast reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Whether accused had motive to kill - Whether court had reason to reject evidence of accused's friends to whom he made confessions - Whether CCTV recording identified accused leaving bag where bomb exploded - Whether deceased persons intended victims - Whether accused liable - Penal Code, s. 302


PP v. MOHD KHAYRY ISMAIL
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
SU GEOK YIAM J
[CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: 45-93-2010]
22 JUNE 2013

The accused, Mohd Khayry Ismail, a self-employed telecommunications contractor, was charged with two counts under s. 302 of the Penal Code for murdering two of the three owners of an internet café which he frequented to indulge in online gambling. The prosecution contended that he owed the café a huge gambling debt; that he was angry with that fact and had made known to his friends that he wanted to set fire to the café and its owners; and that when his request to one of the co-owners, NSH, for a RM20,000 loan was denied, he had threatened her by saying "tomorrow you will see!". The prosecution adduced evidence to show that in the weeks prior to the murders, the accused had on different occasions told two of his friends, PW17 and PW11, that he was angry because he was losing money heavily at the internet café and that he wanted to burn it down and burn its "towkay" as well. Besides NSH, who was a 51-year-old woman, the other co-owner of the café who was also killed was a 34-year-old man, GYS. Both of them also worked at the café. The third co-owner, PW9, and NSH shared a flat on the 12th floor of an apartment block on the ground floor of which the internet café was located. The accused had a close relationship with NSH and PW9 and he used to buy NSH gifts, especially pomelos, whenever he returned from outstation trips. Despite his debts with the café, NSH had allowed the accused to continue gambling on credit. The prosecution's narrative was that shortly after his request for the RM20,000 loan from NSH was turned down, and about an hour after the accused left the café at about 2am, an employee who was closing the café noticed the accused carrying a blue bag walking towards the lift of the apartment block where NSH stayed. A CCTV camera recording showed the accused entering the lift on the ground floor, getting off at the 12th floor while still holding the bag and several seconds later re-entering the lift without the bag and then leaving the lift at the ground floor. Later the same morning, NSH and PW9 found a blue bag containing a box with two pomelos on top of it, outside their flat. They smelt petrol emanating from the box. Perplexed as to how the package got there, the two of them went down to the internet café to ask GYS about it. The three of them then came up to the flat. GYS and NSH were the first to reach the bag and when GYS lifted one of the pomelos, there was a loud explosion and both GYS and NSH were engulfed in flames and were screaming in pain. They were rushed to hospital but died from serious burn injuries. Police recovered from the scene pieces of the blue plastic bag, `mercun bola', two pomelos, cable ties and wires, traces of petrol and partially burnt paper. Police arrested the accused 26 days later as he was found to be staying at the house of a friend, PW16, after telling him that his wife had chased him out of the house for having an extra-marital affair. PW16 and another friend of the accused, PW13, testified at the trial that the accused had confessed to committing the crime at NSH's apartment. Following the accused's arrest, the police found that he had purchased two pomelos from a supermarket several hours before the murders took place. In his defence the accused, inter alia, said he had no motive to kill any of the owners of the internet café as NSH and PW9 were his friends whilst he did not know GYS. He denied owing the café a substantial gambling debt. He also said he did not have the know-how to make a bomb and that the prosecution had failed to prove he had such expertise. He agreed that he did place a bag outside NSH's apartment that morning but that it only contained two pomelos and pickles he wanted to give her as a gift as she had earlier given him some cash on learning of his father's death and had also given him three hampers for the approaching Hari Raya Puasa celebrations. He suggested someone else who was unhappy with the activities at the café might have placed the bomb in the bag as there was a five-hour interval between the time he left the bag outside the apartment and the explosion. The accused denied he ever told his friends he wanted to set fire to the café or to harm its owners.

Held (convicting accused on both charges of murder and sentencing him to death):

(1) The court found as a fact that the accused had a motive to kill NSH and PW9. He had an axe to grind with them as there was overwhelming evidence he had gambled and lost heavily in the internet café. The accused was angry with NSH and PW9 and there was cogent and positive evidence from PW11 and PW17 that he wanted to bomb the `towkay' of the café and NSH and to set fire to her and the café. When his request for a substantial loan from NSH on the eve of the incident was rejected, the accused must have felt betrayed as he had a close relationship with her and he felt NSH had only profited from that relationship. (para 356)

(2) The warning with the implicit threat that something bad would befall NSH the following day was uttered directly by the accused to NSH on the eve of the incident, at 8pm, and related by NSH to PW9. This evidence was clearly admissible as her dying declaration. In terms of the close proximity of the time between the threat and the incident, there was a sufficiently strong nexus between the two events. (para 356)

(3) The accused's defence that he had gone up to NSH's house about 3.09am to deliver a bag containing pickles and pomelos was clearly an afterthought kept up his sleeve and sprung onto the prosecution as a surprise during the defence's case. That defence was never put to any of the prosecution's witnesses during the prosecution's case. No one in his right mind would send such gifts in the wee hours of the morning in such fashion without even alerting the intended recipient about the gifts. The accused had NSH's phone number but he admitted he did not call her to tell her about the gifts. This part of the accused's story was highly unlikely and was clearly created to extricate himself from the murder charges. (para 356)

(4) The court found there was no reason for any of the prosecution witnesses, including the accused's friends, to frame him on the two murder charges and to lie to the court. The accused denied ever admitting to PW13 and PW16 that he had placed the bomb in front of NSH's apartment whereas their sworn testimonies were strongly positive and cogent and remained unshaken during cross-examination. No good reason was offered by the accused to explain away their testimonies (paras 356 & 363)

(5) The accused displayed guilty behaviour and conduct on the CCTV recording. When he was walking back to the lift on the 12th floor without the bag he was leaning his body against the wall and he went into the lift with his face concealed by the wall like someone who was fully aware he had done something serious and very bad. The evidence also showed the accused took steps to ensure his movements after the incident could not be detected by the police. (paras 356 & 363)

(6) It was highly unlikely and improbable that someone else could have made and placed the pomelo bomb in front of the apartment. The defence's case was not plausible and failed to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. In all probability, the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone. (para 366)

(7) The court did not entertain any doubt whatsoever that it was the accused who intentionally caused the death of NSH and unintentionally caused GYS's death by first making and then leaving the pomelo bomb outside the apartment where NSH and PW9 resided with the full knowledge that if either one or both of them lifted up the pomelos the bomb would explode to cause them such severe and grave injuries as would cause their deaths. The fact that it was GYS, and not PW9, who was killed together with NSH did not, in any way, reduce the accused's culpability on the two charges. (paras 367 & 368)

Case(s) referred to:

Alcontara Ambross Anthony v. PP [1996] 1 CLJ 705 FC (refd)

Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC (refd)

Chan Chwen Kong v. PP [1962] 1 LNS 22 CA (refd)

Chandmal & Anor v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1970 SC 917 (refd)

Chang Kim Siong v. PP [1967] 1 LNS 18 FC (refd)

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 (refd)

Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 129 (refd)

Karam Singh v. PP [1967] 1 LNS 65 FC (refd)

Liew Kaling & Ors v. PP [1960] 1 LNS 60 HC (refd)

Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 FC (refd)

Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82 HC (refd)

Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 (refd)

Parlan Dadeh v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 717 FC (refd)

PP lwn. Ho Sek Kong [2006] 5 CLJ 49 HC (refd)

PP v. Lin Lian Chen [1992] 4 CLJ 2086; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 285 SC (refd)

PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 FC (refd)

PP v. Saimin & Ors [1971] 1 LNS 115 HC (refd)

R v. Podmore 22 Cr App R 36 (refd)

Sunny Ang v. PP [1965] 1 LNS 171 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 180(4), 182A(2), 277

Evidence Act 1950, ss. 8, 17(2), 45, 112, 114(g)

Penal Code, ss. 299, 300, 301, 302

Other source(s) referred to:

Drs Awang Sudjai Hairul & Yusoff Khan, Kamus Lengkap, p 909

For the prosecution - Ahmad Akram Gharib (Faezah Mohd Salleh with him); DPPs

For the accused - Hanif Hashim (Amirul Redzuan Hanif with him); M/s Hanif & Co

Reported by Ashok Kumar


 

TORT: Kecuaian - Ganti rugi - Dakwaan kecuaian pengendali pelabuhan - Kerosakan kontena dan kargo - Kegagalan mengenal pasti tempat pendaratan yang betul - Garisan kuning telah pudar dan lampu tidak terang semasa pelepasan kontena - Sama ada disebabkan oleh ketidakselenggaraan - Sama ada kerugian diakibatkan oleh pengabaian defendan - Sama ada kewajipan berhati-hati dimungkiri - Tuntutan subrogasi - Sama ada polisi perlindungan insuran pihak ketiga akan memberi perlindungan kepada defendan di bawah doktrin subrogasi - Sama ada kecuaian berjaya dibuktikan

INSURAN: Subrogasi - Kecuaian - Ganti rugi - Dakwaan kecuaian pengendali pelabuhan - Kerosakan kontena dan kargo - Kerugian - Sama ada kerugian diakibatkan oleh pengabaian defendan - Tuntutan subrogasi - Sama ada polisi perlindungan insuran pihak ketiga memberi perlindungan kepada defendan di bawah doktrin subrogasi - Sama ada kecuaian berjaya dibuktikan


PELABUHAN TANJUNG PELEPAS SDN BHD lwn. JVR CAAPCO (M) SDN BHD; KURNIA INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BHD (PIHAK KETIGA) [2013] 2 SMC 31
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, JOHOR BAHRU
MOHD GHAZALI MOHAMAD TAIB HS
[SAMAN NO: 52-951-03-2012]
30 MEI 2013

Plaintif (`PTP') merupakan pengendali pelabuhan manakala defendan adalah sebuah syarikat yang membekalkan perkhidmatan pengendalian pelabuhan. Tuntutan ganti rugi atau secara alternatifnya, sumbangan terhadap tuntutan ganti rugi oleh PTP terhadap defendan adalah berasaskan dakwaan bahawa pengendali defendan, semasa suatu pelepasan kontena, telah berlaku cuai hingga menyebabkan kerosakan kepada kontena serta kargo yang terkandung di dalamnya. Insiden tersebut didakwa berlaku apabila pengendali defendan yang mengendalikan "rubber tyred gantry" (`RTG') telah gagal mengenal pasti tempat pendaratan yang betul untuk kekunci hujung penjuru di bahagian bawah kontena. Menurut PTP, cara penimbunan yang tidak rapi/berkunci telah menyebabkan kekunci hujung bahagian bawah kontena tersebut mendarat atas tiang konkrit dan mengalami kerosakan. Akibatnya, barangan yang terkandung di dalamnya juga rosak, menyebabkan pemunya kargo dan/atau pembawanya (`Maersk Line') meneruskan tuntutan terhadap PTP. Dengan itu, PTP mendakwa bahawa akibat kecuaian tersebut, defendan telah memungkiri kl. 8, 9 dan 10 Kontrak untuk Pembekalan Pemandu RTG (`eks. D26') yang dimeterai oleh pihak-pihak. Sebaliknya, defendan mendakwa bahawa kegagalan dan kecuaian PTP sendiri dalam menyelenggarakan garisan kuning yang telah pudar dan lampu yang tidak terang telah menyumbang kepada berlakunya insiden tersebut. Defendan menghujahkan bahawa PTP tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan walaupun aduan-aduan telah dibuat. Sebaliknya, defendan telah menuntut terhadap pihak ketiga di bawah polisi insurans yang berkuatkuasa dan melindunginya. Isu-isu yang timbul untuk pertimbangan di sini adalah (i) sama ada kerugian yang ditanggung oleh PTP diakibatkan oleh pengabaian defendan, pekerja-pekerja atau agen-agen mereka dalam kemungkiran kewajipan berhati-hati mereka kepada PTP; dan (ii) sama ada polisi perlindungan insuran dari pihak ketiga akan memberi perlindungan kepada defendan di bawah doktrin subrogasi sekiranya PTP berjaya membuktikan kecuaian terhadap defendan.

Diputuskan (menolak tuntutan plaintif dengan kos):

(1) Kegagalan PTP untuk memperbaiki garisan kuning telah menyebabkan kontena tidak diletakkan atas alang konkrit tersebut. Kegagalan bahagian teknikal PTP untuk memberhentikan operasi pemunggahan kontena tersebut menggunakan RTG setelah menerima aduan-aduan dan meneruskan dengan kerja-kerja pemunggahan turut menyumbang kepada berlakunya insiden tersebut. Semasa insiden berlaku, pemandu RTG sentiasa bertindak mengikut arahan PTP. Adalah jelas bahawa defendan bukan penyebab berlakunya insiden kerosakan kontena tersebut. Pihak yang harus dipertanggungjawabkan adalah PTP sendiri apabila gagal mengambil tindakan sewajarnya terhadap aduan-aduan yang telah dikemukakan kepadanya. (perenggan 21)

(2) Mahkamah menggunapakai s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 atas kegagalan PTP memanggil saksi-saksi penting iaitu pegawai penyiasat polis dan pegawai penyelenggaraan serta pihak pengurusan PTP yang bertanggungjawab terhadap siasatan berlakunya insiden tersebut dan aduan-aduan mengenai masalah-masalah teknikal yang dihadapi oleh RTG tersebut serta memperjelaskan kandungan eks. D26 bagi membantu mahkamah membuat penilaian terhadap keterangan-keterangan saksi-saksi PTP. (perenggan 22)

(3) PTP gagal mengemukakan sebarang surat arahan daripada pihak insurans yang mengarahkan PTP membuat tuntutan atas dasar subrogasi terhadap defendan. Peguamcara PTP terkhilaf dari segi prinsip undang-undang subrogasi kerana menghujahkan bahawa PTP telah bertindak atas arahan pihak insurans untuk menuntut ganti rugi daripada defendan. Pihak yang membawa tuntutan mestilah secara amnya memplidkan fakta-fakta mengenai tuntutan insuran yang dituntut. PTP gagal memplidkan fakta-fakta mengenai subrogasi dalam penyata tuntutannya. Kegagalan memplidkan fakta-fakta tersebut akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada defendan. Dalam kes ini, defendan langsung tidak mengetahui bahawa tuntutan ini dibawa oleh PTP atas arahan pihak insurans. (perenggan 24)

(4) Tuntutan PTP terhadap defendan juga merupakan satu pampasan berganda kerana PTP telah mendapat pampasan sebanyak RM125,259 daripada pihak insurans. PTP telah gagal membuktikan kesemua elemen kecuaian seperti yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang. Memandangkan PTP gagal membuktikan kecuaian terhadap defendan, maka tuntutan defendan terhadap pihak ketiga juga seharusnya ditolak. (perenggan 26)

Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia & Anor v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Bhd & Ors [2007] 4 CLJ 820 (dirujuk)

Perundangan yang dirujuk:

Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)

Kaunsel:

Bagi pihak plaintif - Jessica Teng (Loh Ee Yee bersamanya); T/n Oon & Partners

Bagi pihak defendan - K Meneka; T/n Meneka Kanasmoorthy & Assocs

Bagi pihak pihak ketiga - WL Wong; T/n Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong

Dilaporkan oleh Najib Tamby

Secured By Global Sign