Back to Top

Issue #36/2018
06 September 2018

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

  1. Case(s) of the Week

    1. ONG SIEW HWA v. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD [2018] 8 CLJ 145

  2. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2018 Volume 8 (Part 2)

  3. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

    2. CLJ Article(s)

  4. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

ONG SIEW HWA v. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD [2018] 8 CLJ 145
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD MAAROP CJ (MALAYA), HASAN LAH FCJ, ABU SAMAH NORDIN FCJ, ZAHARAH IBRAHIM FCJ, BALIA YUSOF WAHI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-18-02-2015(A)]
15 MAY 2018

HIRE PURCHASE: Hire purchase agreement – Defective goods – Motorcar – Hirer paid deposit to car dealer and obtained financing from finance company – Hire purchase agreement executed with finance company – Car suffered from serious mechanical defect – Remedy for hirer – Liability of dealer and finance company – Contractual relations between hirer and dealer – Whether superseded by hire purchase agreement – Whether dealer legally ‘supplier’ of car – Whether availing any remedy for hirer – Whether transactions governed by Hire-Purchase Act 1967 – Ahmad Ismail v. Malaya Motor Co & Anor – Whether still good law – Consumer Protection Act 1999, s. 32 – Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 16

CONTRACT: Breach – Contract for hire purchase of car – Contractual relations – Hirer paid deposit to car dealer and obtained financing from finance company – Hire purchase agreement executed with finance company – Car suffered from serious mechanical defect – Contractual relations between hirer and dealer – Whether superseded by hire purchase agreement – Whether dealer faded out of picture once hire purchase agreement executed – Whether afforded no remedy to hirer – Whether transactions governed by Hire-Purchase Act 1967 – Ahmad Ismail v. Malaya Motor Co & Anor – Whether still good law – Consumer Protection Act 1999, s. 32 – Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 16


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2016] 1 LNS 1095

NAKAMICHI CORPORATION BERHAD lwn. LO MAN HENG & YANG LAIN

UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT: Pengarah - Kewajipan fidusiari - Kemungkiran - Kegagalan memastikan syarikat mempunyai milikan dan kawalan dokumen-dokumen sekuriti - Kegagalan mendepositkan sijil saham sekuriti - Pengarah gagal memastikan saham sekuriti yang hilang diganti - Syarikat tidak berupaya menjual sijil saham sekuriti akibat kegagalan pengarah mengambil tindakan - Kewujudan shortfall jaminan keuntungan - Ganti rugi - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran kewajipan fidusiari oleh pengarah - Sama ada pengarah telah meletakkan dirinya dalam keadaan percanggahan kepentingan - Sama ada pengarah telah gagal menjaga kepentingan syarikat - Sama ada jumlah shortfall jaminan keuntungan adalah memadai sebagai ganti rugi terhadap kerugian yang dialami oleh syarikat

 Bagi pihak plaintif - Chew Chang Min & Jaslyn Saw; T/n Lim Chong Phang & Amy
 Bagi pihak defendan - Gideon Tan, Brian Ernest & N Sivaraj; T/n Gideon Tan Razali Zaini

[2016] 1 LNS 1179

DATO' YASMEEN MUHAMAD SHARIFF lwn. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Bantahan terhadap pengambilan - Permohonan perlanjutan tempoh untuk membuat bantahan - Keadaan khas - Kelewatan dalam pemfailan Borang N - Permohonan perlanjutan masa difailkan selepas 1 tahun - Sama ada terdapat keadaan khas untuk mewajarkan perlanjutan tempoh untuk membuat bantahan - Sama ada tempoh masa yang ditetapkan dibawah s. 38 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 adalah bersifat mandatori - Sama ada terdapat keadaan khas yang mewajarkan penggunaan kuasa budi bicara Mahkamah untuk perlanjutan masa pemfailan Borang N

 Bagi pihak plaintif - Yasmeen Haji Muhamad Shariff; T/n Yasmeen Hajar & Hairudin
 Bagi pihak defendan - Etty Eliany Tesno; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor

[2016] 1 LNS 1233

PWC BINA SDN BHD v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Prohibitory injunction - Injunction pending disposal of dispute between parties - Ad interim injunction was granted against government - Whether temporary injunction could be granted against government by virtue of s. 29 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Whether an ad-interim injunction ought to be granted pending hearing of final reliefs claimed

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Injunction to restrain calling of bank guarantee - Test of unconscionability - Re-calling of bank guarantee despite court ruling in previous suit declaring calling of bank guarantee unconscionable - Bank guarantee was called on basis of absence of injunction order obtained against employer to restrain calling of bank guarantee - Whether employer could make another call on bank guarantee - Whether re-calling of bank guarantee was justified - Whether injunction application was res judicata

CONTRACT: Guarantee - Banker's guarantee - Right to call for bank guarantee - Bank guarantee was called after expiry - Whether calling of bank guarantee after expiry was valid and effective - Whether calling of bank guarantee after its expiry was unconscionable

 For the plaintiff - Shahir Abd Razak, Abdullah Khubayb & C K Foong; M/s Foong & Tan
 For the defendant - SFC Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi; Attorney General's Chambers

[2017] 1 LNS 199

KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI v. NIMBLE SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Appeal - Appeal by Inland Revenue Board ('IRB') against decision of Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('Special Commissioner') - Special Commissioner allowed tax payer's appeal against assessment made by IRB - IRB refused taxpayer's entitlement to claim exemption for any increase in exports through Form J - Whether notice of assessment contravened ss. 90(1), 90(2) and 91(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether notice of assessment in Form J was wrong in law and ought to have been discharged in full - Whether taxpayer was entitled to claim relief under exemption order - Whether penalty on taxpayer had been wrongly imposed

 For the appellant - Muhammad Farid Jaafar & Muhammad Arif Zaini; Lembaga Hasil Negeri (Wilayah Persekutuan)
 For the respondent - Alvin Neo; M/s Neo & Partners

[2017] 1 LNS 590

KUMARAN KRISNA lwn. DATO' AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID PENGERUSI, LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & YANG LAIN

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Pembatalan keputusan Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') dalam mengeluarkan perintah pengawasan polis - Kawalan dan pengawasan dikenakan terhadap orang yang telah didaftarkan tanpa sebarang penahanan - Sama ada perintah pengawasan telah memenuhi keperluan prosedur dibawah s. 15 Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 - Sama ada LPJ perlu menyatakan dengan secara khusus bahawa LPJ adalah berpuas hati bahawa perintah pengawasan polis perlu dikenakan terhadap orang yang telah didaftarkan - Sama ada perintah pengawasan polis adaah sah

UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN: Perundangan – Kesahihan Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ('Akta 1959') - Hak seseorang yang dikenakan perintah pengawasan untuk mendapatkan perlindungan dan mengemukakan representasi untuk membela diri - Dakwaan ketiadaan peruntukan jelas berkaitan dengan perlindungan yang diperuntukkan dibawah Perkara 151(1)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada Akta 1959 selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada Akta 1959 mempunyai perlindungan seperti yang diperuntukkan dibawah Perkara 151 Perlembagaan Persekutuan

 Bagi pihak pemohon - Gobind Singh Deo & Mohd Haijan Omar; T/n Gobind Singh Deo & Co
 Bagi pihak responden - Lee Wai Yi, Peguam Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang


CLJ 2018 Volume 8 (Part 2)

FEDERAL COURT

Ong Siew Hwa v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ
(Hire Purchase; Contract - Defective goods - Remedy for hirer - Contractual relations between hirer and dealer) [2018] 8 CLJ 145 [FC]

 For the appellant - N Vijayasegaran & M Mathialagan; M/s Madhi Param & Co
 For the respondent - Jasmeetpal Singh; M/s Siew & Jasmeet 

COURT OF APPEAL

Mohd Tahir Bahtiar & Satu Lagi lwn. PP
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Kamardin Hashim, Ab Karim Ab Jalil HHMR
(Prosedur Jenayah - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Sabitan bawah s. 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007) [2018] 8 CLJ 174 [CA]

 Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Mohd Fazaly Ali Mohd Ghazaly; T/n The Law Chambers of Fazaly Ali
 Bagi pihak responden - Nadia Naim Mohd Tajuddin; TPR 

Norol Rojik Jun v. PP
Lim Yee Lan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zaleha Yusof JJCA
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure - Murder - Whether ingredients of charge proved - Whether accused had necessary actus reus and mens rea) [2018] 8 CLJ 186 [CA]

 For the appellant - Abdul Gani Zelika; M/s Johari & Amin
 For the respondent - Ahmad Sazilee Abdul Khairi; DPP 

HIGH COURT

Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial lwn. Yazmin Mohd Sulaiman
Hassan Abdul Ghani PK
(Undang-undang Buruh - Faedah hilang upaya sementara) [2018] 8 CLJ 203 [HC]

 Bagi pihak perayu - Ooi Chih Wen; T/n Skrine
 Bagi pihak responden - Tidak hadir 

Mohamad Jamel Muhafiz Zamri v. PP
Ahmad Bache JC
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure - Possession of weapon without lawful excuse - Whether sentence excessive) [2018] 8 CLJ 209 [HC]

 For the respondent - Siti Hajar Alias; DPP
 For the appellant - Hasif Hasan; M/s Hasif Kumar & Co 

SP Boon Seng Project v. Pengarah Tanah & Galian Negeri Kedah & Anor
Chan Jit Li JC
(Land Law - Transfer - Validity of - Whether Bumiputera lot unconstitutional) [2018] 8 CLJ 216 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - SK Ng; M/s Syarikat Ng & Anuar
 For the defendants - Nurulashikin Mahadzir; FC 

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti lwn. Chan Chui Mei
Has Zanah Mehat H
(Prosedur Sivil - Injunksi - Tuntutan terhadap pelanggaran ss. 179, 317A dan 370 Akta Pasaran Modal dan Perkhidmatan 2007) [2018] 8 CLJ 232 [HC]

 Bagi pihak plaintif - SM Shanmugam, CK Lung, Abang Iwawan (PDK) & Aina Syazwani; T/n Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
 Bagi pihak defendan - Wan Azmir, Norhazira Abu Haiyan & Alexander (PDK); T/n Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak 

Tajudeen MK Syed Mohamed v. ZMS Construction
Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC
(Civil Procedure - Whether there was delay in application to set aside judgment in default) [2018] 8 CLJ 243 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - M/s Amin Petra & Partners
 For the defendant - M/s The Law Office of Mohanna & Co 

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad v. Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak & Ors And Another Case
Azizah Nawawi J
(Administrative Law; Constitutional Law - Appointment of third respondents as additional judges to Federal Court - Whether application frivolous) [2018] 8 CLJ 259 [HC]

 For the applicant- Hanif Khatri & Ilyani Khuszairy; M/s Haniff Khatri
 For the Attorney General - Alice Loke & Natra Idris, SFCs 

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review - Mandamus - Application for - Leave to commence judicial review proceedings - Applicant seeking order of mandamus to direct Prime Minister to advise Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') to revoke YDPA's consent to appointment of third respondents as additional judges to Federal Court and to continue holding position as Chief Justice and President of Court of Appeal respectively - Whether applicant had clear and specific legal right to relief sought - Whether statutory duty imposed on Prime Minister to act on applicant's application - Whether application frivolous - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 44 - Federal Constitution, arts. 40(1), (1A) & 122B(1)
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad v. Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak & Ors And Another Case
(Azizah Nawawi J) [2018] 8 CLJ 259 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Judgment in default of appearance - Claim for monies due under construction contract - Whether there were defects and damages in house built - Failure to produce particulars or evidence to prove defects or damages - Whether any prima facie defence on merits of claim established - Whether issues that arose premature in respect of judgment in default of appearance
Tajudeen MK Syed Mohamed v. ZMS Construction
(Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 243 [HC]

Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Judgment in default of appearance - Whether there was delay in application to set aside judgment in default - Service of judgment in default by AR registered post with AR card returned unacknowledged - Whether evidence of receipt of judgment in default - Whether application made to set aside judgment in default made beyond 30 days prescribed in O. 42 r. 13 of Rules of Court 2012 - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 12
Tajudeen MK Syed Mohamed v. ZMS Construction
(Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 243 [HC]

Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Judgment in default of appearance - Whether writ and statement of claim properly served - Whether effected by means of AR registered post - Mere denial of receipt of writ and statement of claim and absence of any acknowledgment in AR card - Whether sufficient to rebut presumption of service under s. 12 of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967
Tajudeen MK Syed Mohamed v. ZMS Construction
(Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 243 [HC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Judiciary - Appointment - Appointment of third respondents as additional judges to Federal Court and to continue holding position as Chief Justice and President of Court of Appeal respectively - Application for judicial review - Applicant seeking order of mandamus to direct Prime Minister to advise Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') to revoke YDPA's assent to appointment of third respondents - Whether applicant had clear and specific legal right to relief sought - Whether statutory duty imposed on Prime Minister to act on applicant's application - Whether application frivolous - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 44 - Federal Constitution, arts. 40(1),(1A), 122B(1)
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad v. Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak & Ors And Another Case
(Azizah Nawawi J) [2018] 8 CLJ 259 [HC]

CONTRACT

Breach - Contract for hire purchase of car - Contractual relations - Hirer paid deposit to car dealer and obtained financing from finance company - Hire purchase agreement executed with finance company - Car suffered from serious mechanical defect - Contractual relations between hirer and dealer - Whether superseded by hire purchase agreement - Whether dealer faded out of picture once hire purchase agreement executed - Whether afforded no remedy to hirer - Whether transactions governed by Hire-Purchase Act 1967 - Ahmad Ismail v. Malaya Motor Co & Anor - Whether still good law - Consumer Protection Act 1999, s. 32 - Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 16
Ong Siew Hwa v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2018] 8 CLJ 145 [FC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 - Section 6(1) - Possession of weapon without lawful excuse - Weapon found on accused while committing offence of motorcycle theft - Accused sentenced to seven years imprisonment for offence of possession of weapon and one year imprisonment for offence of theft of motorcycle - Appeal against sentence for possession of weapon - Whether sentence for possession of weapon excessive - Whether sentence for possession of weapon ought to be reduced
Mohamad Jamel Muhafiz Zamri v. PP
(Ahmad Bache JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 209 [HC]

Offences - Murder - Accused convicted for offence of murder and sentenced to death - Whether ingredients of charge proved - Whether accused had necessary actus reus and mens rea - Whether trial judge considered evidence in totality - Whether findings made based on suspicion - Whether accused raised reasonable doubts on prosecution case - Whether accused ought to be convicted for lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Penal Code, ss. 300, 302 & 304(a)
Norol Rojik Jun v. PP
(Lim Yee Lan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2018] 8 CLJ 186 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused convicted for offence of murder - Accused sentenced to death - Whether ingredients of charge proved - Whether there were failures and misdirection by trial judge in conducting trial - Whether trial judge considered evidence in totality - Whether findings made based on suspicion - Whether counsel assigned by court to represent accused competent - Whether defence raised reasonable doubts on prosecution case - Whether accused ought to be convicted for lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whether conviction and sentence for murder charge safe - Penal Code, ss. 300, 302 & 304(a)
Norol Rojik Jun v. PP
(Lim Yee Lan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zaleha Yusof JJCA) [2018] 8 CLJ 186 [CA]

Sentence - Appeal against - Offences - Possession of weapon without lawful excuse - Weapon found on accused while committing offence of motorcycle theft - Accused sentenced to seven years imprisonment for offence of possession of weapon and one year imprisonment for offence of theft of motorcycle - Whether sentence excessive and ought to be reduced - Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958, s. 6(1)
Mohamad Jamel Muhafiz Zamri v. PP
(Ahmad Bache JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 209 [HC]

HIRE PURCHASE

Hire purchase agreement - Defective goods - Motorcar - Hirer paid deposit to car dealer and obtained financing from finance company - Hire purchase agreement executed with finance company - Car suffered from serious mechanical defect - Remedy for hirer - Liability of dealer and finance company - Contractual relations between hirer and dealer - Whether superseded by hire purchase agreement - Whether dealer legally 'supplier' of car - Whether availing any remedy for hirer - Whether transactions governed by Hire-Purchase Act 1967 - Ahmad Ismail v. Malaya Motor Co & Anor - Whether still good law - Consumer Protection Act 1999, s. 32 - Sale of Goods Act 1957, s. 16
Ong Siew Hwa v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2018] 8 CLJ 145 [FC]

LAND LAW

Transfer - Validity of - Application to transfer land rejected on ground that land situated on Bumiputera lot - Commencement of action by way of originating summons against decision to reject application - Whether action ought to commence by way of judicial review - Whether plaintiff had locus standi to commence action - Whether defendants empowered to impose Bumiputera lot endorsement - Whether defendants acted within powers - Whether Bumiputera lot unconstitutional
SP Boon Seng Project v. Pengarah Tanah & Galian Negeri Kedah & Anor
(Chan Jit Li JC) [2018] 8 CLJ 216 [HC]

INDEKS PERKARA

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman sepuluh tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap bagi sabitan bawah s. 26A Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan wajar - Faktor-faktor mitigasi - Kesalahan pertama - Berkelakuan baik - Sama ada faktor mitigasi dipertimbangkan oleh hakim bicara - Sama ada jenis kesalahan yang dilakukan serius
Mohd Tahir Bahtiar & Satu Lagi lwn. PP
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Kamardin Hashim, Ab Karim Ab Jalil HHMR) [2018] 8 CLJ 174 [CA]

PROSEDUR SIVIL

Injunksi - Permohonan - Tuntutan terhadap defendan atas pelanggaran ss. 179, 317A dan 370 Akta Pasaran Modal dan Perkhidmatan 2007 - Sama ada defendan wajar dihalang daripada berurusan dengan jumlah wang dalam akaun peribadinya - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai tuntutan yang boleh dibicarakan - Sama ada status quo jumlah wang dalam akaun peribadi defendan patut dikekalkan
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti lwn. Chan Chui Mei
(Has Zanah Mehat H) [2018] 8 CLJ 232 [HC]

Pembatalan - Writ dan penyataan tuntutan - Sama ada wajar dibatalkan - Tuntutan terhadap defendan atas pelanggaran ss. 179, 317A dan 370 Akta Pasaran Modal dan Perkhidmatan 2007 - Sama ada wujud kausa tindakan terhadap defendan - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19(1)(a)
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti lwn. Chan Chui Mei
(Has Zanah Mehat H) [2018] 8 CLJ 232 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH

Keselamatan sosial - Faedah hilang upaya sementara - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial - Pekerja menemui kemalangan - Sama ada kemalangan berlaku semasa pekerja dalam perjalanan kerja dari tempat kediaman - Sama ada kemalangan terjumlah dalam rangkuman s. 24(1)(a) Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 - Sama ada pekerja layak menuntut faedah hilang upaya sementara
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial lwn. Yazmin Mohd Sulaiman
(Hassan Abdul Ghani PK) [2018] 8 CLJ 203 [HC]


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. JUDICIARY AS THE PRINCIPAL GUARDIANS OF THE RULE OF LAW* [Read excerpt]
    JUSTICE DATUK DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER** [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiv

  2. [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    JUDICIARY AS THE PRINCIPAL GUARDIANS OF THE RULE OF LAW*

    JUSTICE DATUK DR. HAJI HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER**

    Assalamualaikum warrahmatullahi wabarakatuh, salam sejahtera and good afternoon.

    Honourable and Distinguished Speakers, Judges, Jurists, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is my pleasure and honour to share my thoughts with you on the subject related to judicial activism. The term 'judicial activism' is indeed an oxymoron. Sir John Laws himself has described the phrase as being "ambiguous".

    Be it Judicial ‘Activism’ or ‘Passivism’ or Dynamism’ it all depends on the Oath of Office of a Judge. I will say the following:

    I. A Malaysian Judge by his Oath of Office is the Supreme Policeman and Custodian of the Rule of Law, the Federal Constitution as well as the Constitutional Functionaries.

    II. Political Rowdyism + Judicial Passivism = Corruption and/or Kleptocracy and/or Insolvency of the State.

    . . .

    * A discussion related to Sir John Laws's paper on Judicial Activism together with (i) The Honorable Robert Shenton French, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (Rtd); (ii) The Hon. Md Muzammel Hossain, Chief Justice of Bangladesh (Rtd); (iii) Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, Judge, Federal Court of Malaysia (Rtd), 16 August 2018, International Malaysia Law Conference 2018.

    ** Judge of the Court of Appeal Malaysia. He is an Honorary Fellow, Middle East Institute (MEI), National University of Singapore; an Honorary Visiting Professor of Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU), Visakhapatnam, India; Adjunct Professor in International Islamic University Malaysia and Multimedia University (MMU) and also Panel Advisor in Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM); a barrister and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. MALAYSIAN ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO 2) ACT 2018: A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY* [Read excerpt]
    CRYSTAL WONG WAI CHIN** [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxii

  4. [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    MALAYSIAN ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO 2) ACT 2018: A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY*

    CRYSTAL WONG WAI CHIN**

    The Arbitration Act 2005 ("2005 Act") is the primary piece of legislation regulating Malaysian arbitration. The 2005 Act, principally based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model on International Commercial Arbitration ("UNCITRAL Model Law"), came into force on 15 March 2006. On 8 May 2018, the Arbitration (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2018[1] ("Amendment Act") came into force.

    The Amendment Act enhances interim protection measures and confidentiality while minimising recourse against arbitral awards. The amendments represent a significant reform to Malaysian arbitration law. They are the product of a consistent and continuing effect towards the promotion of "... Malaysia’s profile on international and regional arena as a safe-seat and arbitration friendly jurisdiction".[2] The amendments adopt the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law.

    This commentary focuses on five key points of general interest to the arbitration industry.

    . . .

    * This article is reproduced, with permission, from the Legal Herald (June 2018), a publication by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

    ** (wwc@lh-ag. com), is a senior associate with the Energy, Infrastructure & Projects and International Arbitration Practice. She holds a Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, UK and Malaysia, and is also on the panel of arbitrators for the Asian Internati onal Arbitration Centre (AIAC).

    Dato' Nitin Nadkarni (nn@lh-ag.com) leads the Energy, Infrastructure & Projects, and International Arbitration Practice. He is empanelled with the AIAC as an arbitrator and sits as the co-chairman of the Bar Council Arbitration and Construction Sub-committee.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. ISLAMIC SYNDICATED FINANCING IN MALAYSIA: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS [Read excerpt]
    MOHAMAD SOFEE RAZAK* [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiii

  6. [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    ISLAMIC SYNDICATED FINANCING IN MALAYSIA: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

    MOHAMAD SOFEE RAZAK*

    Demand for Islamic syndicated financing is on the rise in Malaysia and the basic idea of syndicated financing is to pool resources to finance large transactions, while reducing the risks for the finance providers. Therefore a group of banks jointly arrange a loan. The risk reduction is due to the ability of the financiers to invest in more projects as the investment size is reduced, whereby they can diversify their investments more effectively.

    A syndicate typically includes one or a few lead banks, which assess the borrower quality and which negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract. Furthermore the lead banks prepare the information memorandum for the participating banks, which have to decide then how much of the syndicated loan to invest in (Farbood, Hutan, 2009).

    . . .

    *Advocate & Solicitor, Syarie Counsel, Ph.D Student (INSANIAH University College, Kedah).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  7. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN MALAYSIA: WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING? [Read excerpt]
    Jaganraj Ramachandran* Dr Saravanabavan Mathialagan** [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxv

  8. [2018] 1 LNS(A) lxxxv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN MALAYSIA: WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?

    Jaganraj Ramachandran*
    Dr Saravanabavan Mathialagan**

    1.0 Introduction

    Freedom of expression is an important human right. This statement is true bearing in mind that the principles of human rights have not only been acknowledged and protected under the legal system of each state but also under the international legal system. In Malaysia, the fundamental rights of an individual are guaranteed not by ordinary laws but by Part II of the Federal Constitution. Although the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article 10, it allows for a host of limitations to this right.[1] It is important to first of all acknowledge the importance of free speech or expression in a democratic society. It is through speech and expression that ideas are articulated, arguments are advanced and support for causes demonstrated. Speech is the outward expression of a free conscience.[2]

    . . .

    * LL.B (Hons) (London).LL.M (Malaya). Ph.D. Candidate (University of Malaya).

    ** LL.B (Hons) (Cardiff), LL.M (Malaya), Ph.D (UUM). Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), Barrister at Law (Lincolns Inn).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

CLJ Article(s)

  1. BANKRUPTCY OF CLAIMANT AND REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967: WHETHER PREVIOUS SANCTION OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY REQUIRED?[1] [Read excerpt]
    ASHGAR ALI ALI MOHAMED*, FARHEEN BAIG SARDAR BAIG** & ARUN KASI*** [2018] 8 CLJ(A) ix

  2. [2018] 8 CLJ(A) ix
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    BANKRUPTCY OF CLAIMANT AND REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967:
    WHETHER PREVIOUS SANCTION OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY REQUIRED?[1]


    ASHGAR ALI ALI MOHAMED*, FARHEEN BAIG SARDAR BAIG** & ARUN KASI***

    Introduction

    Where a workman has been dismissed, Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("IRA 1967") makes provision, in s. 20(1), for him to make representation to the Director General of Industrial Relations for reinstatement in his former employment, if he considers that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse[2].

    The two subsections provide as follows:

    Section 20. Representations on dismissals.

    (1) Where a workman, irrespective of whether he is a member of a trade union of workmen or otherwise, considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer, he may make representations in writing to the Director General to be reinstated in his former employment; the representations may be filed at the office of the Director General nearest to the place of employment from which the workman was dismissed.

    (1A) The Director General shall not entertain any representations under subsection (1) unless such representations are filed within sixty days of the dismissal:

    . . .

    [1] The copyright shall remain with authors. Permission is granted to any law publishers to publish this article.

    * Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws (AIKOL), International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)

    ** Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws (AIKOL), International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)

    *** Advocate and Solicitor, Arbitrator, Adjudicator


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 807 Service Tax Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 508/2018] -
ACT 806 Sales Tax Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 506/2018] -
ACT 805 Goods and Services Tax (Repeal) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 510/2018] -
ACT 804 Dental Act 2018 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 803 Anti-Fake News Act 2018 11 April 2018 [PU(B) 174/2018] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1572 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 512/2018] ACT 438
ACT A1571 Customs (Amendment) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 511/2018] ACT 235
ACT A1570 Sports Development (Amendment) Act 2018 Not Yet In Force ACT 576
ACT A1569 Arbitration (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2018 8 May 2018 [PU(B) 265/2018] ACT 646
ACT A1568 Fire Services (Amendment) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 505/2018] ACT 341

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 218/2018 Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2018 29 August 2018 1 September 2018 ACT 807
PU(A) 217/2018 Customs (Amendment) Regulations 2018 29 August 2018 1 September 2018 PU(A) 162/1977
PU(A) 216/2018 Customs Duties (Exemption) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2018 29 August 2018 1 September 2018 PU(A) 445/2017
PU(A) 215/2018 Customs Regulations (Appeal Tribunal) (Amendment) 2018 29 August 2018 1 September 2018 PU(A) 210/2007
PU(A) 213/2018 Service Tax (Rate of Tax) Order 2018 28 August 2018 1 September 2018 ACT 807

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 512/2018 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 28 August 2018 29 August 2018 ACT A1572
PU(B) 511/2018 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 28 August 2018 29 August 2018 ACT A1571
PU(B) 510/2018 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 28 August 2018 29 August 2018 ACT 805
PU(B) 509/2018 Appointment of Effective Date For Charging and Levying of Service Tax 28 August 2018 29 August 2018 ACT 807
PU(B) 508/2018 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 28 August 2018 29 August 2018 ACT 807

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 210/2007 Customs (Appeal Tribunal) Regulations 2007 PU(A) 215/2018 1 September 2018 Regulations 3 and 4
PU(A) 445/2017 Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 PU(A) 216/2018 1 September 2018 Schedule
PU(A) 459/1998 Free Zones (Exclusion of Goods) Order 1998 PU(A) 202/2018 1 September 2018 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; Schedule
PU(A) 321/1991 Free Zones Regulations 1991 PU(A) 201/2018 1 September 2018 First Schedule
ACT 438 Free Zones Act 1990 ACT A1572 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 512/2018] Sections 2, 4, 6, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 28

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 461/1997 Fees (National Planetarium) Order 1997 PU(A) 177/2018 30 July 2018
PU(A) 349/2016 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Mechanism to Determine Unreasonably High Profit For Goods) Regulations 2016 PU(A) 130/2018 6 June 2018
PU(A) 184/2013 Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2013 PU(A) 125/2018 10 May 2018
PU(A) 187/2014 Goods and Services Tax (Imposition of Tax For Supplies in Respect of Designated Areas) Order 2014 PU(A) 123/2018 1 June 2018
PU(A) 185/2014 Goods and Services Tax (Application to Government) Order 2014 PU(A) 122/2018 1 June 2018