SIVANESAN ACHALINGAM v. PATHMANATHAN KUPPUSAMY; 
MAJLIS PEGUAM (INTERVENER)
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(A)-561-03-2021]
01 DECEMBER 2022

(i) The proper filing of Forms A and B will determine whether the representative of either party has the locus standi to appear before the court, in this case, the Industrial Court, as that party's representative. A failure to do so would mean that the solicitor is not representing the aggrieved party and is therefore not obligated to inform the latter of the trial dates of the case; (ii) Although it is trite that the standard of proof to establish misconduct is beyond reasonable doubt, a disciplinary proceeding is not subject to the rigid and strict adversarial procedures in criminal trials.

HEMRAJ & CO SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-65-11-2021(W)]
13 DECEMBER 2022

A non-delegable duty of care, a no fault strict liability tort, must be imposed only in the most exceptional circumstances. Routine excavation works carried out by homeowners through independent contractors could not be described as an extraordinarily hazardous activity, thereby, the homeowner could not be held to owe a non-delegable duty of care to a public utilities company for the negligence of the independent contractors. As a matter of policy, to hold that routine residential construction works are subject to non-delegable duty would expose homeowners to an indeterminate liability for the tortious acts of their independent contractors, whose manner of work are beyond their control.

SYED ISKANDAR SYED JAAFAR v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
WAN AHMAD FARID SALLEH J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24-63-11-2020]
05 JULY 2022

The constitutional question sought to be referred to the Federal Court, in this case, pertaining to the application of the doctrine of basic structure, in light of the conflicting Federal Court decisions on the same, would have a direct bearing on the matter of dispute before the High Court; having the implication of bringing the dispute to an end without further deliberation by the High Court, hence depriving the parties of the right of appeal. The application, if allowed, would also render the Federal Court to assume original jurisdiction not anticipated under art. 128(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The crime of murder remains one of the most severe offences in every country. Before sanctioning the offender, he is entitled to raise his defences in court. The success of defences might result in the acquittal of the offender. Among all the defences available, necessity remains a controversial topic on how relevant this defence is towards the Lifeboat Case. Following the proposition underlying the utilitarian concept, we should evaluate actions in terms of the propensity to maximise goodness. In other words, killing a person could be justified if it would result in the survival of others which maximises the good results obtained. Contrary to the utilitarian concept, Kant's theory proposes that no matter how the outcome, a moral act remains a moral act. Morality will always take centre stage. This article further analyses the advantages and disadvantages of positive law and natural law in connection with the defence of necessity in a murder case. This article will use qualitative research to examine the relevancy of each jurisprudence approach toward this defence. From the practicability viewpoint in the case of murder, this research found that positive law would be the best law option despite its rigidity and inflexibility. It would provide the best guarantee of the sanctity of the law. Applying other principles might cause the law to lose credibility, leading to even more biased and unjust events. This would result in an outcome that was intended to be rejected, to begin with.

On 9 December 2022, a five-member bench of the Federal Court led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat held that art. 13(2) of the Constitution. But, where as I humbly submit, it may or may not, depending on the way the assessment is made, there is no necessity and no justification to strike down the section. That is besides the other grounds I have forwarded above.

Now, think of the consequences. I cannot think of a way of reversing it. IRB cannot issue a fresh assessment in another case even against a different landowner hoping to get a chance to reopen the issue, because the law enabling a similar assessment has been struck down as unconstitutional.

Is this another example of abuse of judicial review? See "Should the Industrial Court not be allowed to be what it was intended to be?" (4 March 2008). Is this another example of the Judiciary encroaching the powers of Parliament? - see "Not for judges to rewrite the Constitution (12 06 2017), "No judge is a Parliament" (30 March 2018); "Who is encroaching whose jurisdiction, Parliament or courts?" (16 December 2019), "Bapa" juga bermaksud "Ibu": Hakim mengambil alih kuasa Parlimen dan Majlis Raja-Raja" (23 September 2021).

Another point I wish to make is that, in a case where the validity of a law is challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional, the Attorney General should intervene. It should not be left to the party sued, to defend it. The effect is far-reaching, not just between the two parties in that particular case. Valid grounds may be missed resulting in permanent consequences, as in this case.

Arbitration is the most widespread mechanism for resolving disputes in the modern and Islamic eras. The current global tendency calls for an increase in the integration of disruptive technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), into arbitration. This article uses doctrinal legal research methodology to examine the use of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (ChatGPT-3). To achieve that, primary and secondary sources of data are used. The collected data was analytically and critically analysed using the content analysis method. It is found that AI technologies, such as ChatGPT-3 would bring added value to arbitration if they are appropriately employed. However, from a legal perspective, arbitration laws are not mature enough to absorb AI technologies, such as ChatGPT-3. Finally, this article recommends that designing or developing an AI application similar to ChatGPT-3 by the Malaysian relevant authority in general and AIAC in specific would be a coherent milestone for the arbitration industry in Malaysia to be among the well-known international arbitration industry; it would attract more disputes to AIAC.

INTRODUCTION

The judgment of Justice Hishamudin Yunus in Kanagalingam^[1] was unprecedented and sent shock waves to the legal fraternity, as the learned judge courageously chose to adopt the decision of the Court of Appeal^[2] (Ayer Molek COA) over that of the Federal Court^[3] (Ayer Molek FC) in the case of Ayer Molek. He held that the Federal Court's panel in Ayer Molek FC was constitutionally incompetent, having violated both the Federal Constitution and the statutory provisions of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA'). Therefore, no valid judgment could be rendered by a panel that was unconstitutionally and unlawfully constituted.

Justice Hishamudin's decision fundamentally raises two important questions of law, namely, the concept of stare decisis and quorum failure. In this article, his decision in Kanagalingam will be reviewed in light of these two legal principles.