Back to Top

Issue #13/2019
28 March 2019

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. PUSHPALEELA R SELVARAJAH & ANOR v. RAJAMANI MEYAPPA CHETTIAR & OTHER APPEALS [2019] 3 CLJ 441

  2. Appeal Updates

    1. Appeal Updates

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2019 Volume 3 (Part 4)

  4. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

  5. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

PUSHPALEELA R SELVARAJAH & ANOR v.
RAJAMANI MEYAPPA CHETTIAR & OTHER APPEALS
[2019] 3 CLJ 441
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
MD RAUS SHARIF CJ, ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDIN PCA, AHMAD MAAROP CJ (MALAYA),
RICHARD MALANJUM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK), AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: 01(f)-32-10-2016(B), 01(f)-33-10-2016(B) & 01(f)-34-10-2016(B)]
29 JANUARY 2019

LAND LAW: Ownership – Title to land – Deprivation of rights and loss of ownership of land – Land transferred to third party without original registered proprietor having sold or transferred or signed document for transfer of land – Fraudulent dealings – Whether proved – Transfer of ownership of land from fraudster to immediate purchaser – Whether procured fraudulently – Land sold to subsequent purchaser – Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser of land for valuable consideration – Whether register document of title bore name of subsequent purchaser as registered proprietor – Concept of indefeasibility of title under s. 89 of National Land Code – Whether applied to person whose name currently appears as proprietor of title – Whether subsequent purchaser in good faith enjoys immunity from adverse claim to title – Whether entitled to ownership of land – Whether subsequent purchaser acquired indefeasible title – Whether replacement title in continuation generated by land registry when original issue document of title in possession of original owner capable of validly passing title to purchaser – National Land Code, s. 340(3)

LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title and interest – Good faith and valuable consideration – Land transferred to third party without original registered proprietor having sold or transferred or signed document for transfer of land – Fraudulent dealings – Whether proved – Transfer of ownership of land from fraudster to immediate purchaser – Whether procured fraudulently – Land sold to subsequent purchaser – Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser of land for valuable consideration – Whether register document of title bore name of subsequent purchaser as registered proprietor – Concept of indefeasibility of title under s. 89 of National Land Code – Whether applied to person whose name currently appears as proprietor of title – Whether subsequent purchaser in good faith enjoys immunity from adverse claim to title – Whether entitled to ownership of land – Whether subsequent purchaser acquired indefeasible title – National Land Code, s. 340(3)

LAND LAW: Sale and purchase of land – Fraudulent dealings – Allegation of – Whether solicitor involved in everything from dealing with fraudster to facilitating sale of land from fraudster to immediate and subsequent purchasers – Whether there was specific plea of fraud – Whether pleaded case for fraud satisfactorily proved

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors – Duty of care – Establishment of – Land transactions – Solicitors retained for fraudster believed to be owner of land – Whether solicitors expected to take into account interests of original registered proprietor of land – Whether solicitors only responsible for protecting interests of client and carrying out client’s instructions – Whether there was legal proximity between registered proprietor of land with solicitors – Whether there were policy considerations imposing duty of care on solicitors acting for fraudster towards real owner of land – Whether there was foreseeability, proximity and policy considerations against imposing such duty


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang v. Pacific Hypermarket & Departmental Store Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 653 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang v. Pacific Hypermarket & Departmental Store Sdn Bhd [Civil Suit No. PA-22NCVC-23-02/2017]

  2. Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v. Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2018] 1 LNS 1053 (CA) affirming in part the High Court case of Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v. Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Case [2016] 1 LNS 1820

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 548

BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BHD v. BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

CONTRACT: Mistake - Mistake of fact/law - Alleged overpayment of redemption sum - Consent judgment for MYR20 million in settlement recorded between plaintiff chargor and defendant chargee - Plaintiff liable to pay sum of MYR31 million in default of settlement sum - Plaintiff defaulted but defendant submitted only MYR20 million in proof of debt - Redemption sum of MYR25 million paid to defendant - Whether mistake of law or fact - Whether defendant bound to return sum allegedly overpaid - Whether alleged overpayment proven - Contracts Act 1950, s. 73

CONTRACT: Unjust enrichment - Essential ingredients - Recovery of alleged overpayment - Consent judgment for MYR20 million in settlement recorded between plaintiff chargor and defendant chargee - Plaintiff liable to pay sum of MYR31 million in default of settlement sum - Plaintiff defaulted but defendant submitted only MYR20 million in proof of debt - Redemption sum of MYR25 million paid to defendant - Whether unjust enrichment - Whether plaintiff acted upon or changed its position in response to defendant's representation that sum due was MYR20 million - Whether defendant waived right to claim sum higher than recorded in consent judgment

EQUITY: Estoppel - Estoppel by representation - Consent judgment for MYR20 million in settlement recorded between plaintiff chargor and defendant chargee - Plaintiff liable to pay sum of MYR31 million in default of settlement sum - Plaintiff defaulted but defendant submitted only MYR20 million in proof of debt - Redemption sum of MYR25 million paid to defendant - Defendant pursuing one of two mutually exclusive alternatives - Whether defendant estopped from retreating from position adopted - Whether defendant estopped from accepting amount higher than claimed - Whether plaintiff acted upon or changed its position in response to defendant's representation - Whether plaintiff waived its right to insist on a sum of only MYR20 million when it willingly paid MYR25 million without objection or protest

  • For the plaintiff - N Yohendra; M/s Netto & Yohendra
  • For the defendant - Ng Sai Yeang; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh

[2018] 1 LNS 514

TAN BAK LEE v. ONG CHEE KEONG & ORS

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res Judicata - Earlier application by third defendant to strike out plaintiff's application dismissed - Whether current application to determine question relating to matrimonial property sought to reopen and re-litigate issues - Whether third defendant's current application fresh with materially different facts - Whether third defendant's current application amounts to res judicata

CONFLICT OF LAWS: Choice of law - Matrimonial property - Division of - Which law applicable – Whether Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, National Land Code or law of trust - Special law excluding the operation of general law - Whether maxim of generalibus specialia derogant applies

FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property - Property acquired during marriage - Third defendant wife held one half share of property - Whether wife held property in own name or as mere trustee for plaintiff husband - Whether plaintiff husband was beneficial owner of property - Whether property amounts to matrimonial property - Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76

FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property - Division of - When apportionment usually done

  • For the plaintiff - Amirah Abdullah; M/s Tan Bak Lee & Co
  • For the 3rd defendant - Daphne Choy; M/s Choy & Associates

[2018] 1 LNS 34

ALLEN LU WAI KEAT & ANOR v. YEAP GHEE LEONG & ANOTHER CASE

DAMAGES: Special damages - Nursing care - Claim for nursing care provided by family members - Whether award for nursing care could rightly be granted even if plaintiff is looked after at home instead of in a nursing home or institution - Whether only a single award should be given

DAMAGES: Appeal - Award - Loss of earnings - Trial judge allowed claim for loss of earnings despite finding that plaintiff failed to adduce any documentary evidence in relation to actual income - Claim for loss of earning based on an income which was not declared to income tax department - Whether trial judge's finding was erroneous - Whether it would be a mockery and an affront to public policy if the claim for loss of earning were to be acknowledged and allowed by court

  • In Civil Appeal No: PA-12B-126-12/2016
  • For the appellant - Hafidzhah Jaafar; M/s Othman Hashim & Co
  • For the respondent - Baljit Singh; M/s Baljit Singh & Co
  • In Civil Appeal No: PA-12B-127-12/2016
  • For the appellant - Baljit Singh; M/s Baljit Singh & Co
  • For the respondent - Hafidzhah Jaafar; M/s Othman Hashim & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 143

ABDULLAH AB RAHMAN lwn. SITI AMINAH AB RAHMAN& SATU LAGI

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pindah milik - Pembatalan - Pindah milik hartanah oleh seorang bankrap yang belum dilepaskan kepada anaknya - Pindah milik atas dasar pemberian kasih saying - Sama ada transaksi pindah milik adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang - Sama ada pindah milik adalah terbatal - Sama ada hak milik pembeli serta-merta boleh disangkal - Sama ada transaksi pindah milik dibuat dengan niat baik - Sama ada kegagalan membuat pengisytiharan sebenar balasan pindah milik memberi inferens bahawa transaksi pindah milik melibatkan penipuan bagi mengelak tuntutan daripada pihak-pihak lain - Sama ada prinsip pembeli bona fide untuk nilai terpakai

  • Bagi pihak perayu/defendan - Azwani Abdul Rahman; T/n Amir Azwani & Jailani Norfaruqi
  • Bagi pihak responden/plaintif - Shaharuddin Mohamed; T/n Shahruddin Hidayu & Marwaliz

[2017] 1 LNS 1297

PP lwn. OGUGUA CHIBUZO MARCELLUS & YANG LAIN

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Milikan - Dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat 735.10g - Dadah dijumpai di dalam bungkusan kurier - Tertuduh menerima bungkusan kurier yang berisi dadah - Tertuduh mencampak bungkusan dan melarikan diri apabila serbuan dilakukan - Tertuduh mengakui penerimaan bungkusan kurier - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan mengenai bungkusan yang mengandungi dadah

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pembuktian elemen-elemen pertuduhan - Sama ada pembuktian elemen kawalan atau jagaan secara fizikal ke atas barang dadah adalah memadai - Sama ada pengetahuan terhadap kewujudan dadah perlu dibuktikan - Sama ada keadaan sekeliling boleh menjadi keterangan terus - Sama ada tindakan melarikan diri dan meronta-ronta semasa ditahan merupakan perkara muktamad atas kebersalahan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pembawa tidak bersalah - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah dijumpai di dalam bungkusan kurier - Tertuduh mendakwa menerima bungkusan bagi pihak penerima bungkusan kurier - Tertuduh membuat pengakuan kepada penghantar kurier bahawa tertuduh merupakan penerima bungkusan kurier - Sama ada penama penerima kurier wujud - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berunsur dakwaan kosong dan pemikiran terkemudian - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah - Sama ada pembelaan pembawa tidak bersalah telah berjaya dibuktikan

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - DPP Rozana Husin; Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Selangor; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - Jay Moy; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh kedua dan tertuduh ketiga - Sivananthan & Low Huey Theng; T/n Sivananthan

CLJ 2019 Volume 3 (Part 4)

FEDERAL COURT

Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals
Md Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Azahar Mohamed FCJJ
(Land Law; Legal Profession - Title to land - Deprivation of rights and loss of ownership of land - Whether subsequent purchaser in good faith enjoys immunity from adverse claim to title - Indefeasibility of title and interest - Fraudulent dealings - Solicitors - Duty of care - Solicitors retained by fraudster believed to be owner of land - Whether solicitors only responsible for protecting interests of client) [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Sdn Bhd
David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA
(Company Law; Construction Law - Winding-up - Petition - Failure to pay debt - Whether winding-up notice premature - Adjudication award - Whether sufficient proof of amount due and owing) [2019] 3 CLJ 499 [CA]

Sabah Development Bank Bhd v. Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd
Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA
(Contract; Banking; Trusts - Assignment - Absolutely assigning all contract proceeds to bank - Legal effect and consequence of - Whether bank holding sum in project account as constructive trustee) [2019] 3 CLJ 513 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Muhammad Zaihasri Hassan v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd
Azizul Azmi Adnan J
(Road Traffic - Insurance - Third party claims - Whether insurance company could avoid liability - Whether insurance company liable to pay judgment sum) [2019] 3 CLJ 530 [HC]

Ng Chia Wei v. Air Asia Bhd & Ors
Azmi Abdullah JC
(Civil Procedure - Proceedings - Duplicity - Jurisdiction of courts - Action in Industrial Court and Sessions Court - Whether claims same in nature) [2019] 3 CLJ 548 [HC]

PP lwn. Kamarul Bahari Sharif & Yang Lain
Asmadi Hussin PK
(Prosedur Jenayah; Pentafsiran Berkanun - Pelucuthakkan - Permohonan - Sama ada pelucuthakkan kenderaan yang dijadikan sebagai pengangkut adalah mandatori - Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - Seksyen 110(1) & (2) - Sama ada dibaca bersekali) [2019] 3 CLJ 561 [HC]

PP v. Mikail Tan Abdullah
Supang Lian J
(Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Offence under ss. 323 and 506 of Penal Code - Whether there was gap in prosecution case) [2019] 3 CLJ 571 [HC]

Sasithorn Marot v. Bruno Marot & Anor
Rozana Ali Yusoff JC
(Civil Procedure; Family Law - Divorce - Anti-suit injunction - Whether Malaysia natural forum to determine divorce issues - Whether anti-suit injunction would offend principles of comity) [2019] 3 CLJ 583 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

BANKING

Banks and banking business - Banking facilities - Security for banking facilities - Assignment of contract proceeds - Absolutely assigning all contract proceeds to bank - Whether bank received sum in project account as constructive trustee - Whether bank's duty to return money to rightful owner - Whether unconscionable conduct for bank to claim entitlement to money by relying solely on assignment of contract proceeds - Legal effect and consequence of assignment of contract proceeds - Whether considered - Whether contract proceeds lawfully and absolutely assigned to bank
Sabah Development Bank Bhd v. Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 513 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Injunction - Anti-suit injunction - Injunction to restrain husband from proceeding with divorce proceedings in Thailand - Whether Malaysia natural forum to determine divorce issues of maintenance and property division between parties - Whether proceedings in foreign court would be vexatious and oppressive - Whether an anti-suit injunction would offend principles of comity - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29 r. 1 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 23 & 25 - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76
Sasithorn Marot v. Bruno Marot & Anor
(Rozana Ali Yusoff JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 583 [HC]

Jurisdiction - Courts - Claimant lodged complaint with Industrial Relations Department for wrongful and/or unfair dismissal by employers - Matter referred to Industrial Court - Claimant sought damages against employers on basis of tort of conspiracy at Sessions Court - Whether there was duplicity of proceedings - Whether Industrial Court's jurisdiction and function separate and distinct from Sessions Court - Whether remedy and relief, which Industrial Court may award, different from what Sessions Court may award
Ng Chia Wei v. Air Asia Bhd & Ors
(Azmi Abdullah JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 548 [HC]

Proceedings - Duplicity - Claimant lodged complaint with Industrial Relations Department for wrongful and/or unfair dismissal by employers - Matter referred to Industrial Court - Claimant sought damages against employers on basis of tort of conspiracy at Sessions Court - Whether there was duplicity of proceedings - Whether claims based on same causes of action - Whether claim could lead to unjust enrichment - Whether claimant's statement of claim at Sessions Court ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (d)
Ng Chia Wei v. Air Asia Bhd & Ors
(Azmi Abdullah JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 548 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

Winding-up - Petition - Failure to pay debt - Company failed to pay monies due and owing under adjudication award - Petitioner presented winding-up petition on company - Company alleged that there were progress payments expected and gross development value - Whether just and equitable for company to be wound-up - Whether winding-up notice premature since adjudication decision had not been registered with High Court - Whether there must be judgment entered in favour of petitioner before winding-up petition could be issued - Whether wrong for petitioner to pursue winding-up petition as adjudication order did not name petitioner as recipient of monies due - Companies Act 2016, ss. 465(1)(e) & (h)
Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Sdn Bhd
(David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 499 [CA]

CONSTRUCTION LAW

Adjudication - Adjudication award - Petitioner obtained adjudication award against company for failure to pay for works - Whether adjudication decision needed to be registered with High Court before winding-up notice could be presented - Whether adjudication decision sufficient proof that there was amount due and owing for filing of winding-up notice - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 28
Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Sdn Bhd
(David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 499 [CA]

CONTRACT

Assignment - Assignment to contract proceeds - Security for banking facilities - Absolutely assigning all contract proceeds to bank - Whether bank holding sum in project account as constructive trustee - Whether bank's duty to return money to rightful owner - Whether unconscionable conduct for bank to claim entitlement to money by relying solely on assignment of contract proceeds - Legal effect and consequence of assignment of contract proceeds - Whether considered - Whether contract proceeds lawfully and absolutely assigned to bank
Sabah Development Bank Bhd v. Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 513 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Appeal
- Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Offence under ss. 323 and 506 of Penal Code - Dismissal of injuries mark on complainant's hand as being inconsequential by Magistrate - Whether scar corroborated complainant's story of having sustained simple hurt - Whether Magistrate erred in requiring prosecution to prove elements of offence under s. 324 when charges preferred for lesser offence of s. 323 - Whether there was gap in prosecution case as to occurrence of incident and identity of perpetrator - Whether delay in lodging report by complainants ought to have been considered in light of other relevant and admissible evidence - Whether Magistrate erred in rejecting evidence solely on one minor discrepancy - Whether Magistrate wrongly evaluated facts - Whether appeal succeeded
PP v. Mikail Tan Abdullah
(Supang Lian J) [2019] 3 CLJ 571 [HC]

FAMILY LAW

Divorce - Proceedings - Application for injunction to restrain husband from proceeding with divorce proceedings in Thailand - Whether Malaysia natural forum to determine divorce issues of maintenance and property division between parties - Whether proceedings in foreign court would be vexatious and oppressive - Whether an anti-suit injunction would offend principles of comity - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29 r. 1 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 23 & 25 - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76
Sasithorn Marot v. Bruno Marot & Anor
(Rozana Ali Yusoff JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 583 [HC]

LAND LAW

Indefeasibility of title and interest - Good faith and valuable consideration - Land transferred to third party without original registered proprietor having sold or transferred or signed document for transfer of land - Fraudulent dealings - Whether proved - Transfer of ownership of land from fraudster to immediate purchaser - Whether procured fraudulently - Land sold to subsequent purchaser - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser of land for valuable consideration - Whether register document of title bore name of subsequent purchaser as registered proprietor - Concept of indefeasibility of title under s. 89 of National Land Code - Whether applied to person whose name currently appears as proprietor of title - Whether subsequent purchaser in good faith enjoys immunity from adverse claim to title - Whether entitled to ownership of land - Whether subsequent purchaser acquired indefeasible title - National Land Code, s. 340(3)
Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals
(Md Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Azahar Mohamed FCJJ) [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [FC]

Ownership - Title to land - Deprivation of rights and loss of ownership of land - Land transferred to third party without original registered proprietor having sold or transferred or signed document for transfer of land - Fraudulent dealings - Whether proved - Transfer of ownership of land from fraudster to immediate purchaser - Whether procured fraudulently - Land sold to subsequent purchaser - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser of land for valuable consideration - Whether register document of title bore name of subsequent purchaser as registered proprietor - Concept of indefeasibility of title under s. 89 of National Land Code - Whether applied to person whose name currently appears as proprietor of title - Whether subsequent purchaser in good faith enjoys immunity from adverse claim to title - Whether entitled to ownership of land - Whether subsequent purchaser acquired indefeasible title - Whether replacement title in continuation generated by land registry when original issue document of title in possession of original owner capable of validly passing title to purchaser - National Land Code, s. 340(3)
Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals
Md Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Azahar Mohamed FCJJ [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [FC]

Sale and purchase of land - Fraudulent dealings - Allegation of - Whether solicitor involved in everything from dealing with fraudster to facilitating sale of land from fraudster to immediate and subsequent purchasers - Whether there was specific plea of fraud - Whether pleaded case for fraud satisfactorily proved
Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals
Md Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Azahar Mohamed FCJJ [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [FC]

LEGAL PROFESSION

Solicitors - Duty of care - Establishment of - Land transactions - Solicitors retained by fraudster believed to be owner of land - Whether solicitors expected to take into account interests of original registered proprietor of land - Whether solicitors only responsible for protecting interests of client and carrying out client's instructions - Whether there was legal proximity between registered proprietor of land with solicitors - Whether there were policy considerations imposing duty of care on solicitors acting for fraudster towards real owner of land - Whether there was foreseeability, proximity and policy considerations against imposing such duty
Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals
Md Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Azahar Mohamed FCJJ [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [FC]

ROAD TRAFFIC

Insurance - Third party claims - Claim against insurance company for liability of insured - Insurance company obtained order declaring insurance policy issued against insured void and unenforceable - Whether insurance company could avoid liability - Whether insurance company entitled to obtain benefit of declaratory order - Whether applicant should have commenced separate proceedings against insurance company - Whether application pursuant to s. 96(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 was `recovery proceedings' - Whether insurance company liable to pay judgment sum - Whether insurance company entitled to raise defence of fraud - Road Transport Act 1987, s. 96(1), (2)(a), (3)
Muhammad Zaihasri Hassan v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd
(Azizul Azmi Adnan J) [2019] 3 CLJ 530 [HC]

TRUSTS

Constructive trust - Creation of - Assignment - Assignment of contract proceeds - Security for banking facilities - Absolutely assigning all contract proceeds to bank - Whether bank holding sum in project account as constructive trustee - Whether bank's duty to return money to rightful owner - Whether unconscionable conduct for bank to claim entitlement to money by relying solely on assignment of contract proceeds - Legal effect and consequence of assignment of contract proceeds - Whether considered - Whether contract proceeds lawfully and absolutely assigned to bank
Sabah Development Bank Bhd v. Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 513 [CA]

INDEKS PERKARA

PENTAFSIRAN BERKANUN

Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - Seksyen 110(1), (2) - Sama ada s. 110(1) dan (2) harus dibaca bersekali - Permohonan melucuthakkan kenderaan yang dipercayai digunakan sebagai pengangkut dalam melakukan kesalahan bawah Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - Kegagalan hakim bicara memberi perhatian pada peruntukan mandatori s. 110(2) - Sama ada tafsiran yang dibuat hakim bicara terhadap peruntukan pelucuthakkan satu salah arahan - Sama ada pelucuthakkan kenderaan yang dijadikan sebagai pengangkut menjadi mandatori - Sama ada kenderaan hendaklah dilucuthakkan kepada Ketua Pengarah Jabatan PERHILITAN Malaysia
PP lwn. Kamarul Bahari Sharif & Yang Lain
(Asmadi Hussin PK) [2019] 3 CLJ 561 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

Pelucuthakkan - Permohonan - Permohonan melucuthakkan kenderaan yang dipercayai digunakan sebagai pengangkut dalam melakukan kesalahan bawah Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - Responden-responden didapati bersalah bawah s. 62 Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - Perintah pelucuthakkan terhadap barangan disita - Sama ada mesti dibuat setelah mahkamah berpuas hati satu kesalahan bawah Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 atau undang-undang kecil dilakukan - Pengakuan salah responden-responden dan hukuman dijatuhkan terhadap responden-responden - Sama ada hakim bicara berpuas hati kesalahan telah dilakukan - Sama ada pelucuthakkan kenderaan yang dijadikan sebagai pengangkut menjadi mandatori - Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010, s. 110(1), (2)
PP lwn. Kamarul Bahari Sharif & Yang Lain
(Asmadi Hussin PK) [2019] 3 CLJ 561 [HC]


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. INFANTICIDE: ARE WE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIO-LEGAL IMPACT IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by UMMA DEVI LOGANATHAN* [2019] 1 LNS(A) xliv

  2. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xliv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    INFANTICIDE: ARE WE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
    CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIO-LEGAL IMPACT IN MALAYSIA


    by
    UMMA DEVI LOGANATHAN*

    ABSTRACT

    1. Introduction

    The most beautiful necklace a mother can wear is not gold or diamond but her child's arms around her neck. Some say being a mother is the highest paid job in the world, since the payment is "pure love". Although a mother's love is priceless, but the level of respect for them is still challenged by an act which is not compassionate and infanticide is among the phenomena that threaten the primacy of a mother. Infanticide is not just an atrocity but it is an abomination from various points of view either from a spiritual, social or legal angle. In a lexical meaning, "Infanticide" describes the killing of an infant by its natural mother where the balance of her mind is disturbed as a consequence of childbirth (Wertheimer, 2000). "Natural mother" here refers to the biological mother of the child since the offence is inter-connected with the biological relations attributable to the effect of lactation or consequent upon the birth of the child (B.A., 1971).

    . . .

    * Magistrate, LLB (Hons) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Masters in Public Administration (MPA) Universiti Sains Malaysia, LLM (Corporate) Universiti Utara Malaysia. Currently, pursuing PhD in criminology at Universiti Sains Malaysia.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. THE EVOLUTION OF MALAYSIAN PRIVACY LAW - CUCKOO IN THE NEST?* [Read excerpt]
    by Bahari Yeow[i] Lim Zhi Jian[ii] Sonali Nitin Nadkarni[iii] [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlv

  4. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    THE EVOLUTION OF MALAYSIAN PRIVACY LAW - CUCKOO IN THE NEST?*

    by
    Bahari Yeow[i]
    Lim Zhi Jian[ii]
    Sonali Nitin Nadkarni[iii]

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Privacy is an important aspect of human autonomy. This is proven in its recognition as a human right to protect "privacy, family, home or correspondence.... honour and reputation".[1] In the information age, privacy (or a lack thereof) is becoming an increasingly pressing issue. Technological advances in the Internet, browser tracking, hidden cameras and CCTVs, sound recorders, and camera-equipped drones further facilitate the availability and dissemination of private information. The recent Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, where roughly 87 million[2] Facebook users' private data was illicitly harvested, is the perfect illustration of why privacy law must necessarily evolve and be enforced in order to protect the personal lives of individuals, as well as control the abuse of technology. However, the demand for access to private information is also growing, as it plays an important role in our celebrity and social media-driven culture, business and marketing schemes which are tailored to the individual, as well as in maintaining transparency and accountability in the political world. It is therefore essential to balance journalistic freedom and the interests of the public with that of the individual.

    . . .

    *This Article is written solely for academic discussion.

    [i] Bahari Yeow, LLB (Nott), CLP, LLM (UM); Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    [ii] Lim Zhi Jian, LLB (Lon), CLP; Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    [iii] Sonali Nitin Nadkarni, BSc (Imperial), LLM (City, UOL), Barrister-at-Law.

    The authors are members of the IP & TMT Practice at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. TAKAT PEMAKAIAN AKTA KETERANGAN 1950 [Read excerpt]
    by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i] Nurul Syarafina Razali[ii] Amar Shafiq Zulkiflee[iii] Wong Chun Min[iv] Dee Dee A'iene Anak Peter[v] Prabakaran Rajoo[vi] [2019] 1 LNS(A) xliii

  6. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xliii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    TAKAT PEMAKAIAN AKTA KETERANGAN 1950

    by
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i]
    Nurul Syarafina Razali[ii]
    Amar Shafiq Zulkiflee[iii]
    Wong Chun Min[iv]
    Dee Dee A'iene Anak Peter[v]
    Prabakaran Rajoo[vi]

    ABSTRAK

    Dalam menentukan kejayaan sesuatu pihak dalam suatu prosiding mahkamah, aspek keterangan memainkan peranan yang amat penting. Keterangan dapat membuktikan atau membuktikan sebaliknya, kewujudan atau ketidakwujudan sesuatu fakta yang dikemukakan di mahkamah sama ada fakta persoalan ataupun fakta relevan yang lain. Hal ini menunjukkan bahawa keterangan merupakan nadi dalam pemutusan sesuatu kes. Oleh itu, semua pengamal undang-undang dan anggota badan kehakiman seharusnya memahami dan mahir dalam undang-undang keterangan. Dalam konteks Malaysia, statut induk dalam undang-undang keterangan ialah Akta Keterangan 1950. Secara amnya, Akta Keterangan 1950 mengawal selia semua aspek pengemukaan keterangan dan tatacara pembuktiannya. Walau bagaimanapun, Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai kepada semua jenis mekanisme penyelesaian pertikaian yang wujud di Malaysia. Hal ini jelas diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 2 Akta Keterangan 1950.

    . . .

    [i] Pensyarah Kanan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rama@ukm.edu.my.

    [ii] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: syarafina252@gmail.com.

    [iii] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: zamarshafiq16@gmail.com.

    [iv] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: mimi_wcm96@yahoo.com.

    [v] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: dee.dee.peter@gmail.com.

    [vi] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: karanpraba091@gmail.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  7. SOCIAL BASED CROWDFUNDING IN MALAYSIA: THE CURRENT LEGAL OUTLOOK [Read excerpt]
    by APNIZAN ABDULLAH* [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlii

  8. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    SOCIAL BASED CROWDFUNDING IN MALAYSIA:
    THE CURRENT LEGAL OUTLOOK


    by
    APNIZAN ABDULLAH*

    As at 3pm on 28th June 2018, Malaysia Hope Fund (Tabung Harapan Malaysia), a fund launched by the new Malaysian government has reached RM 127,363,516.37. The establishment of the fund has received both positive and negative feedbacks. A large segment of the public support this initiative taking into account the recorded national debts and liabilities, that currently exceed RM 1 trillion or 80 percent of GDP of the country. Yet others regard the endeavour as a political gimmick to maintain public confidence in the newly elected government. Despite the latter response, the fund's collection has been increasing daily. The daily figure recorded has proved to all strata of the nation that crowdfunding is a powerful tool to provide solutions for any financial objectives.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. (www.iais.org.my).


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 812 Finance Act 2018 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 31; The Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 63; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 69; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 71; The Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 83; The Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 91 -
ACT 811 Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Dissolution) Act 2018 1 January 2019 [PU(B) 732/2018] -
ACT 810 Subang Golf Course Corporation Act 1968 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 26 of 1968; First Revision - 1993 (Act 509 wef 8 October 1993) -
ACT 809 Pool Betting Act 1967 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1967 as Act of Parliament No 72 of 1967; First Revision - 1989 (Act 384 wef 21 September 1989) -
ACT 808 National Anthem Act 1968 (Revised 2018) 1 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 15 October 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 20 of 1968; First Revision - 1989 (Act 390 wef 19 October 1989) -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1589 Co-Operative College (Incorporation) (Amendment) Act 2019 1 September 2011 - only Part II of this Act ACT A1398; ACT NO. 35 TAHUN 1968; ACT 437
ACT A1588 Street, Drainage And Building (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 133
ACT A1587 Hire-Purchase (Amendment) Act 2019 1 March 2019 [PU(B) 117/2019] ACT 212
ACT A1586 Children And Young Persons (Employment) (Amendment) Act 2019 1 February 2019 [PU(B) 62/2019] ACT 350
ACT A1585 Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2019 1 March 2019 [PU(B) 113/2019] ACT 333

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 80/2019 Price Control And Anti-Profiteering (Determination Of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol And Diesel) (No. 7) Order 2019 15 March 2019 16 March 2019 ACT 723
PU(A) 79/2019 Births And Deaths Registration (Compounding Of Offences) Rules 2019 14 March 2019 15 March 2019 ACT 299
PU(A) 78/2019 Road Transport (Compounding Of Offences) (Amendment) Rules 2019 14 March 2019 15 March 2019 PU(A) 103/2003
PU(A) 77/2019 Road Transport (Compounding Of Offences) (Perbadanan Putrajaya) (Amendment) Rules 2019 14 March 2019 15 March 2019 PU(A) 311/2003
PU(A) 76/2019 Companies (Practising Certificate For Secretaries) Regulations 2019 14 March 2019 15 March 2019 ACT 777

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 151/2019 Appointment Of Registrar 26 March 2019 Specified in column (2) of the Schedule ACT 685
PU(B) 150/2019 Appointment Of Member Of The Competition Commission 25 March 2019 1 March 2019 to 28 February 2022 ACT 713
PU(B) 149/2019 Notification Of Establishment Of Welfare Home 21 March 2019 22 March 2019 ACT 183
PU(B) 148/2019 Appointment And Revocation Of Appointment Of Members Of The Board 20 March 2019 21 March 2019 ACT 551
PU(B) 147/2019 Notice To Third Parties 20 March 2019 21 March 2019 ACT 613

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(B) 12/2018 Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of the Board PU(B) 148/2019 21 March 2019 Schedule
PU(A) 103/2003 Road Transport (Compounding of Offences) Rules 2003 PU(A) 78/2019 15 March 2019 Rules 2, 3 and 4
PU(A) 311/2003 Road Transport (Compounding of Offences) (Perbadanan Putrajaya) Rules 2003 PU(A) 77/2019 15 March 2019 Rules 2 and 3; Schedule
PU(A) 445/2017 Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 PU(A) 74/2019 14 March 2019 Schedule
PU(A) 103/2017 Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 PU(A) 73/2019 15 March 2019 Second Schedule and Third Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
LN 225/1958 Births and Deaths Registration Rules 1958 PU(A) 54/2019 1 March 2019
PU(A) 356/2013 Customs (Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles) (Used) Order 2013 PU(B) 81/2019 1 March 2019
PU(A) 108/2006 Customs (Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles) (New) Order 2006 PU(B) 80/2019 1 March 2019
PU(A) 32/2019 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) Order 2019 PU(A) 33/2019 9 February 2019
PU(A) 195/2018 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 23) Order 2018 PU(A) 32/2019 5 February 2019