Back to Top

Issue #10/2020
27 February 2020

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

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

RAMAN SHUNMUGHAM lwn. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 818
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, PUTRAJAYA
MOHTARUDIN BAKI HMR; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT HMR; KAMARDIN HASHIM HMR
[PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: B-05-307-06-2018]
17 JULAI 2019

Dibawah s. 13 Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA), hanya kesalahan-kesalahan yang tersenarai di bawah Bab VIA Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu kesalahan-kesalahan yang melibatkan pengganas dan keganasan, yang dihalang sama sekali untuk diberi jaminan ('unbailable offences'). Kesalahan-kesalahan keselamatan lain seperti kesalahan menjadi ahli kumpulan jenayah terancang di bawah s. 130V(1) Kanun Keseksaan adalah kesalahan 'non-bailable', dan oleh itu, mahkamah masih mempunyai budi bicara untuk melepas tertuduh dengan jaminan bagi kesalahan tersebut, dengan bersyarat jika perlu, seperti yang diperuntuk di bawah s. 13(2) Akta.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Jaminan - Permohonan - Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin - Pemohon dituduh melakukan kesalahan bawah s. 130V(1) Kanun Keseksaan - Permohonan perintah pelepasan dengan jaminan atas faktor kesihatan - Kuasa budi bicara mahkamah membenarkan jaminan untuk kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin - Sama ada pemohon berisiko melarikan diri atau akan mengganggu saksi-saksi jika dibebaskan atas jaminan - Sama ada pemohon wajar diberi jaminan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 388 & 389 - Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012, s. 13(2)(c)


MONDELEZ MALAYSIA SDN BHD v. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 667
HIGH COURT MALAYA, GEORGETOWN
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
[CRIMINAL REVISION NO: PA-44-38-07-2019]
07 JANUARY 2020

Where an issue arises as to the validity of the Public Prosecutor's consent for a criminal proceeding in the Magistrate's Court by virtue of any ambiguity on the face of the copy of the Consent Order so served out on the accused, it is advisable that the prosecution and the defence seek to first resolve the issue by requesting for a physical inspection of the Consent Order in the Court File. This small step may answer all the obtaining issues, and spare the accused the necessity of raising any preliminary objection thereon, or filing any Notice of Motion to revise any order that might have been made thereby by the Magistrate.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Consent - Prosecution for offence pursuant to reg. 38(1) of Food Regulations 1985 - Consent to prosecute did not contain name of Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was consent to prosecute - Whether court could take cognisance of offence - Whether prosecution could initiate proceedings against accused person - Whether there was consent - Whether consent defective - Whether obligatory for prosecution to deliver copy of consent to accused person - Whether proceedings against accused person valid - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 51A

FOOD AND DRUGS: Food - Contaminant - Prosecution for offence pursuant to reg. 38(1) of Food Regulations 1985 - Consent to prosecute did not contain name of Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was consent to prosecute - Whether consent defective - Food Act 1983, s. 32A - Food Regulations 1985, reg. 38(1)


MTD CAPITAL BHD v. TAN SRI DR AZMIL KHALILI DATO' KHALID [2020] 2 CLJ 677
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCC-160-04-2019]
11 JUNE 2019

For the purpose of consolidation, a judge of the High Court has the power to transfer any proceedings before him to the same branch of the High Court or to another High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. This said, an order for consolidation under O. 4 r. 1 Rules of Court 2012 cannot be made without good and valid reasons. Where the questions of law or facts were different and the relevant transactions or series of transactions that gave rise to the reliefs claimed were also different, no order for consolidation could possibly be made by the court; this is notwithstanding the fact that the cases are sharing a common subject matter.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Procedure - Consolidation of suits - Application for originating summons action to be 'listed' with writ action - Whether court has power to order any transfer of proceedings from one court to another within same branch of High Court - Whether there was common question of law or facts between the two actions to merit a consolidation - Whether originating summons action ought to be heard separately and independent of writ action - Whether issues and reliefs claimed different and distinct - Whether conditions prescribed in O. 4 r. 1 Rules of Court 2012 fulfilled


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“The role played by pleadings cannot be overstated. It is a fundamental principle of fair play which extends to the court, that all parties are bound by their pleadings. It would be most damaging to our administration and system of justice if parties are allowed to plead a certain complaint, lead evidence on another and the court decides on something entirely different.”  –  per Mary Lim JCA in Joseph Paulus Lantip v. Tnio Chee Chang [2020] 1 LNS 22

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Borneo Synergy (M) Sdn Bhd v. Sulaiman & Taye [2019] 1 LNS 57 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Sulaiman & Taye v. Borneo Synergy (M) Sdn Bhd [2018] 5 CLJ 259

  2. Kong Seng Chai v. Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 388 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Kong Seng Chai v. Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] 1 LNS 1117

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2098

NORMA SALLEH lwn. NAIZAH MOHD NOR

Mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan pelan cadangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak-pihak dan juga sejarah mengenai bagaimana pemilikan bersama ke atas tanah tersebut wujud dalam suatu permohonan pecah bahagian tanah.

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik - Pecah bahagian - Permohonan pecah bahagian tanah yang dimiliki bersama - Ketiadaan persetujuan tuanpunya berdaftar yang lain - Kacau ganggu oleh tuanpunya berdaftar yang lain - Kewujudan rumah kediaman pihak-pihak yang telah didiami oleh mereka sekian lama - Sama ada pihak-pihak akan mendapat ketentuan akan kedudukan kawasan secara muktamad melalui pembahagian - Sama ada pecah bahagian tanah dapat menyekat kacau ganggu yang mungkin menyalahi undang-undang oleh tuanpunya berdaftar yang lain - Sama ada pelan cadangan perlu mendapat kelulusan Jabatan Perancang Bandar

  • Bagi pihak perayu/plaintif - Wan Jawahir Harun & Khuzaimi Mohd Salleh; T/n Wan Jawahir & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden/defendan - Mohd Rafizi Abdullah; T/n Rafizi Zubairi & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 2099

MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD lwn. MUHAMAD IZZUL HANIF MOHD KAMARUDIN & YANG LAIN

Kegagalan pihak insuran untuk menyediakan klausa berkenaan penguatkuasaan masa polisi seperti yang dikehendaki oleh pihak-pihak tidak seharusnya dijadikan alasan untuk mengelak tanggungan pihak yang tidak bersalah.

INSURANS: Insuran motor - Polisi - Tanggungan - Pengelakan kebertanggungan - Pertikaian berkenaan penguatkuasaan masa polisi - Borang cadangan insurans mengatakan perlindungan insuran bermula pada jam 3.54 petang - Sama ada polisi dianggap berkuatkuasa bermula dari jam 12.00 tengah malam - Sama ada prinsip di dalam kes Hameed Jagubar Syed Ahmad terpakai - Sama ada pihak insuran boleh mengelakkan kebertanggungan

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembelaan - Kelewatan - Kelewatan dalam pemfailan afidavit jawapan kepada saman pemula dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan - Sama ada versi defendan wajar ditolak - Sama ada kelewatan dalam memfailkan afidavit jawapan menyebabkan seolah-olah tiada jawapan atau pembelaan dari defendan - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan A. 28 k. 3C (3) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012

  • Bagi pihak perayu/defendan - Noor Nirman Hizwar Hussien; T/n Azizi Hizwar & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden/plaintif - Sarini Othman; T/n VP Nathan & Partners

[2018] 1 LNS 2188

SAINIMUDA PM SALLEH & ANOR v. MOHD AMIN PARE & ORS

A land application without approval by the land authority does not confer any legal right or interest in the land applied for. As such, a sale and purchase agreement entered before the land application was approved is invalid.

CONTRACT LAW: Sale and purchase agreement - Vacant possession - Agreement was entered before the land application was registered in 1997 but during the stage of land application - Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreements and the Deed of Trust entered between vendor and the defendants were valid.

  • For the appellant - Connie Wong; M/s WV & Partners
  • For the respondent - Mark Rosaidey; M/s Amin Jaafar & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 2189

PP v. ANSAR SAKKA

A witness must give evidence from his own memory without any influence from any other person, particularly the investigating officer who is also a witness at trial. It is unsafe to rely on a witness's evidence which suddenly takes a different stance after an afternoon break.

CRIMINAL LAW: Accused charged for aiding in the offence of smuggling illegal immigrants - Whether prima facie case has been established by the prosecution - Whether the accused provided speedboat to aid in smuggling illegal immigrants - Police report and photographs of speedboat not produced in Court

EVIDENCE: Unreliable witness - At trial - Inconsistent testimony in court - Sudden change in witness's evidence - Whether the investigating officer interfered with the witness - Closed-door meeting held with the witness and the investigating officer during the afternoon break - Whether the witness's evidence was influenced by the investigating officer

  • For the prosecution - DPP Khairunnizam Mohd Ideres; Jabatan Peguam Negara
  • For the accused - Hamid Hamzah Mydin; M/s Amin Jaafar & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 2190

PA KONKRIT SDN BHD v. ECO WORLD TRADING SDN BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL

The concrete supplier cannot be held liable for the quality of workmanship after the concrete had been delivered to the site, especially when the ready-mixed concrete had passed the Slump Test and Cube Test (which are the only tests relevant to the supplier's scope of work).

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Whether the cracks that had appeared in the structural works in the development projects were caused by the ready-mixed concrete of Grade 25 supplied by the concrete supplier or poor workmanship - Whether the concrete supplier complied with the prescribed Slump Test and Cube Test - Whether the concrete supplier had fraudulently represented the Cube Test Results - Whether the plaintiff proved the balance sum outstanding for the ready-mixed concrete supplied and delivered - Whether a low Standard Deviation in the Cube Test would justify a reasonable inference of tampering with the Cube Test results or fabricating the results

EVIDENCE: Standard of proof for fraud in civil cases - Balance of probabilities - Whether there was cogent evidence to prove that the plaintiff has swapped the Cube Samples or tampered or manipulated the Cube Testing - Whether the allegations of manipulation, tampering, fabrication and fraudulent misrepresentation are mere conjecture or speculation

  • For the plaintiff in WA-22C-58-09/2016 and defendant in WA-22C-47-03/2017 - Low Eu Thuan & Jeremy Low Jian Min; M/s Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle
  • For the defendant in WA-22C-58-09/2016 and plaintiff in WA-22C-47-03/2017 - Wong Guo Bin & Tan Shu Ying; M/s Izral Partnership

CLJ 2020 Volume 2 (Part 5)

Where several accused were charged for murder under s. 302 of the Penal Code read with s. 34 thereof, and the trial judge had made affirmative findings that there was no common intention proved and that the prosecution has not proved murder beyond reasonable doubt, then the option left for the trial judge is to discharge and acquit the accused, and not to convict them for the lesser offence of culpable homicide; convicting them for the latter offence is not safe in the circumstances.
Aingaran Muniandy v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 2 CLJ 581 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Decision of trial judge - Accused persons originally charged under s. 302 of Penal Code - After defence case, trial judge found no common intention to commit murder - Accused persons convicted under reduced charge of culpable homicide under s. 304(a) of Penal Code - Whether common intention necessary to sustain conviction under s. 304(a) - Whether trial judge erred in convicting appellants after finding defence raised reasonable doubt on prosecution case - Whether there was credible evidence to support prima facie case against accused persons - Whether involvement of two others still at large sufficiently investigated - Whether convictions of accused persons safe

 

KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN DIAH JCA

(Civil Appeals No: B-05(SH)-252-06-2017 & B-05(SH)-256-06-2017)

  • For the appellant - Rajpal Singh & Tiew Poh Nee; M/s Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu
  • For the respondent - Asmah Musa; DPP

(Civil Appeal No: B-05(SH)-254-06-2017)

  • For the appellant - Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi; M/s Salehuddin Saidin & Assocs & N Sivananthan Jayarubbiny Jayaraj; M/s Sivananthan
  • For the respondent - Asmah Musa; DPP

(Civil Appeal No: B-05(SH)-258-06-2017)

  • For the appellant - Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi; M/s Salehuddin Saidin & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Asmah Musa; DPP

A transfer of land arising from a sale and purchase transaction predicated upon proper conveyancing documentation such as an agreement prepared and attested by a solicitor and the due execution of Form 14A and a Power of Attorney, and supported by evidence of payment of consideration for the sale, must, in the absence of misrepresentation, forgery or fraud, constitute a good and valid transfer to the transferee. That being so it follows that the subsequent immediate transferee too acquires an indefeasible title to the land.
Chua Ah Meng & Anor v. Tian Kon Siong [2020] 2 CLJ 596 [CA]

LAND LAW: Transfer - Validity - Sale and purchase of land - Whether transfer of land for security for loans - Whether genuine sale and purchase transaction - Whether allegation of forgery proven - Whether authenticity of signatures on documents established - Whether transfer of land valid - Whether subsequent owner obtained indefeasible title to land - National Land Code, s. 340

 

ABANG ISKANDAR JCA
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
MARY LIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Cecil Abraham, Sunil Abraham, Alex Tan Chie Sian & PL Cheah; M/s Wong Kian Kheong
  • For the respondent - Adrian Silvarajoo & Muhamad Atif Abdullah; M/s Ramli Yusuff & Co

Where a supplier of goods undertakes to supply specialised equipment to a buyer based on warranties vis-a-vis its claimed performance or functionality, and then gives assurances to the buyer that the equipment also complies with specific laws by which the equipment or its use is regulated, which thereby induces the buyer to enter into a contract with the supplier, then, the supplier may be liable for both breach of contract and negligence if the equipment not only fails to serve the function for which it was purchased, but had also given rise to situations which violate its governing laws or regulations.
Master Jaya Environmental Sdn Bhd v. Pentas Flora Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 CLJ 609 [CA]

CONTRACT: Breach - Warranty and guarantee - Claim for losses and damages - Purchaser bought specialised equipment for air pollution control from seller - Whether seller's scrubber system not fit for its purpose - Whether purchaser suffered loss of profits due to suspensions by Malaysian Department of Environment - Whether purchaser suffered losses and damages due to seller's negligence resulting in explosion at purchaser's plant - Whether seller complied with all terms and obligations of contract - Whether seller vicariously liable for negligence of its sub-contractors - Whether trial judge correct in assessing quantum of damages

 

BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA

  • For the appellants - William Foo, Valerie Chong, Priscilla Goh & Lim Wan Ci; M/s Valerie Chong & Co
  • For the respondent - Yudistra Darma Dorai & Effa Ruzanna Anuar; M/s Raj Ong & Yudistra

It is an established presumption in law that parties to a contract do not intend that either party could rely on its own wrong doing or breach of obligations to avoid a contract or obtain a benefit under it. It is also axiomatic that the court must give effect to the clear intention of parties, and that litigants cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
Dah Sing Insurance Agency Limited & Anor v. Best Re (L) Limited [2020] 2 CLJ 632 [HC]

INSURANCE: Claims - Reinsurance agreements - Payments of claims receivable under reinsurance agreements - Failure to adhere to reinsurance agreements - Allegation of - Whether there was net due to plaintiffs under reinsurance agreements - Whether plaintiffs failed to make payment of premium to defendant

 

MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J

  • For the plaintiff - T Sudhar & Tania Edward; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
  • For the defendant - Philip Teoh, Hafeez Johan & Ng Joo Yee; M/s Azmi & Assocs

A resolution passed to remove a company director may be null and void if the special notice and notice of EGM sent out for the purpose runs short of the 14 clear days required by ss. 206(2) and 316(1) of the Companies Act 2016; the director's mere presence at the general meeting may also be of no consequence, as it will not bar him from contending that the meeting was ab initio or perennially invalid due to the short notice.
Kok Zi Yao & Ors v. LKT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 652 [HC]

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Removal - Removal pursuant to extraordinary general meeting ('EGM') - Whether notice of EGM sent to directors short of 14 clear days required by ss. 206(2) and 316(1) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether attendance and participation of directors validated short notice - Whether EGM invalid and all resolutions passed null and void

 

ANAND PONNUDURAI J

  • For the plaintiffs - Ng Yih Miin; M/s Dee, Netto, Fatimah & Ng
  • For the defendants - Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor & Noramira Abd Hamid; M/s VM Mohan, Fareed & Co

Where an issue arises as to the validity of the Public Prosecutor's consent for a criminal proceeding in the Magistrate's Court by virtue of any ambiguity on the face of the copy of the Consent Order so served out on the accused, it is advisable that the prosecution and the defence seek to first resolve the issue by requesting for a physical inspection of the Consent Order in the Court File. This small step may answer all the obtaining issues, and spare the accused the necessity of raising any preliminary objection thereon, or filing any Notice of Motion to revise any order that might have been made thereby by the Magistrate.
Mondelez Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 667 [HC]

|

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Consent - Prosecution for offence pursuant to reg. 38(1) of Food Regulations 1985 - Consent to prosecute did not contain name of Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was consent to prosecute - Whether court could take cognisance of offence - Whether prosecution could initiate proceedings against accused person - Whether there was consent - Whether consent defective - Whether obligatory for prosecution to deliver copy of consent to accused person - Whether proceedings against accused person valid - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 51A

FOOD AND DRUGS: Food - Contaminant - Prosecution for offence pursuant to reg. 38(1) of Food Regulations 1985 - Consent to prosecute did not contain name of Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was consent to prosecute - Whether consent defective - Food Act 1983, s. 32A - Food Regulations 1985, reg. 38(1)

MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC

  • For the applicant - Esther Goh Lee Ern & Joachim Francis Xavier; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
  • For the respondent - Rais lmran Hamid; DPP

For the purpose of consolidation, a judge of the High Court has the power to transfer any proceedings before him to the same branch of the High Court or to another High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. This said, an order for consolidation under O. 4 r. 1 Rules of Court 2012 cannot be made without good and valid reasons. Where the questions of law or facts were different and the relevant transactions or series of transactions that gave rise to the reliefs claimed were also different, no order for consolidation could possibly be made by the court; this is notwithstanding the fact that the cases are sharing a common subject matter.
MTD Capital Bhd v. Tan Sri Dr Azmil Khalili Dato’ Khalid [2020] 2 CLJ 677 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Procedure - Consolidation of suits - Application for originating summons action to be 'listed' with writ action - Whether court has power to order any transfer of proceedings from one court to another within same branch of High Court - Whether there was common question of law or facts between the two actions to merit a consolidation - Whether originating summons action ought to be heard separately and independent of writ action - Whether issues and reliefs claimed different and distinct - Whether conditions prescribed in O. 4 r. 1 Rules of Court 2012 fulfilled

 

ONG CHEE KWAN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Teh Meng Teck & Chong Yeong Yoong; M/s Cheah Teh & Su
  • For the defendant - Logan Sabapathy, Chong Hau Yean & Vivian Oh; M/s Gopi Seshadari

A landowner whose land is used for a business engaged in an industry that discharges industrial effluent bears a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent the effluent from spilling over or diffusing or pervading into a neighbour's land. A land owner who breaches such a duty, and causes damage to the neighbour's land or industrial utilities or facilities thereon, may be liable as the case may be in negligence, trespass, private nuisance or even under the rule of strict liability.
Petronas Gas Bhd v. DWZ Industries (Johor) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 2 CLJ 694 [HC]

TORT: Negligence - Damages - Land use expressed to be for gas and petroleum substance gaslines and related facilities - Industrial effluent from adjoining land causing damage to pipeline - Whether neighbouring factory released industrial effluent into land - Whether discharge from neighbouring factory could reach pipeline - Whether neighbouring factory owed duty of care to land owner - Failure to take reasonable care in preventing highly acidic industrial effluent from being discharged into land - Whether there was breach of duty of care

TORT: Trespass - Trespass to land - Land use expressed to be for gas and petroleum substance gaslines and related facilities - Industrial effluent from adjoining land causing damage to pipeline - Whether neighbouring factory constructed fitting on land without consent - Whether neighbouring factory released industrial effluent into land - Whether neighbouring factory liable for trespass

 

SEE MEE CHUN J

  • For the plaintiff - Ivan Loo, Shannon Rajan, Tatvaruban Subramaniam & Eric Gomez; M/s Skrine
  • For the defendants - Arun Krishnalingam & Aaron Siva; M/s Sativale Mathew Arun

An order of mandamus can only be issued to enforce the performance of a public duty where there has been a failure to perform the same, and not to merely compel the exercise of power by any person or authority. An order of mandamus, further, cannot be issued if the prerequisite conditions under s. 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 have not been fulfilled.
Tiffany Chau v. Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia (Cawangan Perak) & Anor [2020] 2 CLJ 715 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Remedies - Mandamus - Application for - Issuance of entry permit to American citizen - Whether applicant fulfilled conditions under s. 44 of Specific Relief Act 1950 - Whether applicant had specific legal right to relief sought - Whether there was any breach of procedural requirements under Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether application was to compel exercise of power - Whether mandamus can only be issued to enforce performance of public duty - Whether applicant exhausted alternative remedies - Whether application premature

 

HASHIM HAMZAH J

  • For the applicant - Dasuki Mat Noh; M/s Amin Amirul & Partners
  • For the respondent - Maisarah Juhari; SFC

CLJ 2020 Volume 2 (Part 6)

An introducer's claim for payment under an agreement for introducing a sub-contractor to a contractor and for purportedly securing work for the sub-contractor cannot be sustained if the facts and the evidence showed that the initial effort put forth by the introducer did not materialise into any contract or work for the sub-contractor, and/or if the eventual contract or work thus obtained by the sub-contractor was secured not through the introducer's effort under the agreement, but through the sub-contractor's own communication and negotiation with the contractor.
Wong Yee Boon v. Gainvest Builders (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 CLJ 727 [FC]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Claim for payment - Appellant engaged by respondent to procure sub-contract work from main sub-contractor - Appellant's quotation rejected by main sub-contractor - Respondent directly dealt with main sub-contractor and secured sub-contract works - Whether appellant entitled to payment under agreement - Whether appellant fulfilled obligation under agreement - Whether agreement illegal - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(e)

CONTRACT: Illegality - Agreement - Appellant engaged by respondent to procure sub-contract work from main sub-contractor - Whether agreement involved influence peddling - Whether influence peddling used on private entity - Whether agreement in contravention of public policy - Whether agreement engendered corruption - Whether agreement illegal - Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(e)

 

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ

  • For the appellant - Cecil Abraham & Sunil Abraham; M/s Cecil Abraham & Partners
  • For the respondent - Christopher Leong & Michelle Khor; M/s Gan & Zul

The basic principle of construction of contracts is that effect must be given to the intention of the parties. This requires an objective test and not a subjective approach, and the solution to be found should be reasonable and realistic.

To ascertain the intention of the parties, the court must read the terms of the contract as a whole including the recital to the agreement if any, must not take a simplistic approach to the issues at hand, and must not fixate on one particular word or phrase or clause to the neglect of the overall purpose of the document.
Abdul Razak Jundar Khan & Ors v. Mustapha Mohammed & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 769 [CA]

|

CONTRACT: Parties - Intention - Employees residents of estate and former employees of owner of estate - Owner sold estate to company - Employment of employees terminated - Company and owner of estate entered into settlement agreement - Settlement agreement contained clause for termination and lay-off benefits and for services rendered as former employees - Whether settlement agreement constructive trust - Whether employees stranger to settlement agreement

TRUSTS: Constructive trusts - Intention - Employees residents of estate and former employees of owner of estate - Owner sold estate to company - Employment of employees terminated - Company and owner of estate entered into settlement agreement - Settlement agreement contained clause for termination and lay-off benefits and for services rendered as former employees - Whether employees stranger to settlement agreement - Whether settlement agreement constructive trust - Whether company and owner of estate intended for there to be constructive trust - Whether there was breach of trust

AHMADI ASNAWI JCA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA

  • For the appellants - Ranjan Chandran, Nandhini Devi Nagaindren & Chandni Anantha Krishnan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
  • For the 4th, 5th & 6th respondents - Intan Azlina Mazlan; M/s Khan & Mazlan
  • For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd respondents - Lim Jun Rui; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva

Pembelaan res judicata yang didasarkan kepada issue estoppel adalah tidak bermerit dan tidak boleh berbangkit jika isu yang dikatakan terpalit issue estoppel tersebut belum diputuskan secara muktamad dalam keputusan terdahulu; sementelah, jika fakta kes dan pliding di hadapan mahkamah menunjukkan bahawa isu yang tersebut itu sebenarnya tidak pernah diputuskan oleh mahkamah terdahulu. Dalam halkeadaan sebegini, prinsip 'res judicata in its wider sense' adalah juga tidak terpakai.
Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan Sdn Bhd lwn. Tian Chuan Sen & Yang Lain [2020] 2 CLJ 781 [CA]

|

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Res judicata - Sama ada terpakai - Perjanjian pengeluaran balak - Tuntutan hutang bawah perjanjian - Tuntutan hutang turut dibuat dalam dua guaman lain yang menolak tuntutan - Hakim bicara mendasarkan keputusan tuntutan semasa pada dua guaman lain dalam menolak tuntutan - Sama ada keputusan dalam dua guaman lain muktamad - Sama ada pihak-pihak dalam tuntutan semasa sama dengan pihak-pihak dalam dua guaman lain - Sama ada kausa tindakan dalam tuntutan semasa sama dengan kausa tindakan dalam dua guaman lain - Sama ada prinsip res judicata terpakai - Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata - Sama ada terdapat merit dalam tuntutan mewajarkan pertimbangan kehakiman

KONTRAK: Perjanjian - Perjanjian pengeluaran balak - Tuntutan hutang bawah perjanjian - Tuntutan hutang dibuat dalam dua guaman lain yang menolak tuntutan - Hakim bicara mendasarkan keputusan pada dua guaman lain dalam menolak tuntutan hutang - Sama ada prinsip res judicata terpakai - Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata - Sama ada terdapat merit dalam tuntutan mewajarkan pertimbangan kehakiman

AHMADI ASNAWI HMR
AB KARIM AB JALIL HMR
NOR BEE ARIFFIN HMR

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Hj Sulaiman Abdullah, Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan & Aznam Mohamed; T/n Adli Aznam & Akram
  • Bagi pihak responden - Zainal Abidin Mustaffa & Mariani Abdullah; T/n Zainal & Mariani

Dibawah s. 13 Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA), hanya kesalahan-kesalahan yang tersenarai di bawah Bab VIA Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu kesalahan-kesalahan yang melibatkan pengganas dan keganasan, yang dihalang sama sekali untuk diberi jaminan ('unbailable offences'). Kesalahan-kesalahan keselamatan lain seperti kesalahan menjadi ahli kumpulan jenayah terancang di bawah s. 130V(1) Kanun Keseksaan adalah kesalahan 'non-bailable', dan oleh itu, mahkamah masih mempunyai budi bicara untuk melepas tertuduh dengan jaminan bagi kesalahan tersebut, dengan bersyarat jika perlu, seperti yang diperuntuk di bawah s. 13(2) Akta.
Raman Shunmugham lwn. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 818 [CA]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Jaminan - Permohonan - Kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin - Pemohon dituduh melakukan kesalahan bawah s. 130V(1) Kanun Keseksaan - Permohonan perintah pelepasan dengan jaminan atas faktor kesihatan - Kuasa budi bicara mahkamah membenarkan jaminan untuk kesalahan tidak boleh dijamin - Sama ada pemohon berisiko melarikan diri atau akan mengganggu saksi-saksi jika dibebaskan atas jaminan - Sama ada pemohon wajar diberi jaminan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 388 & 389 - Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012, s. 13(2)(c)

 

MOHTARUDIN BAKI HMR
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT HMR
KAMARDIN HASHIM HMR

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Zamani Ibrahim; T/n Zamani Ibrahim
  • Bagi pihak responden - Hamdan Hamzah; TPR

The Arbitration Act 2005 applies throughout Malaysia and both the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak are the supervisory courts within the meaning of the Act. What this means is that the venue or seat of arbitration has no relevance to Malaysia's domestic arbitration. It also means that, irrespective of the locality of the issuance of the award, both the High Courts in Sabah and Sarawak and in Malaya are seized with jurisdiction to decide on an application to challenge an arbitration award.
Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Masenang Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 CLJ 833 [CA]

|

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application for - Jurisdiction - Seat of arbitration in Kuala Lumpur - Whether High Court of Sabah and Sarawak had jurisdiction to consider originating summons to set aside arbitration award - Whether High Court of Sabah and Sarawak competent to hear any matters related to award - Whether concept of place, venue or seat of arbitration had relevance to domestic arbitration - Whether Arbitration Act 2005 applicable throughout Malaysia - Whether applicant had right to challenge award - Whether High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak supervisory courts - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 2, 3, 37(1)(a)(v) & 37(2)(b) - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 23

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Originating summons to set aside arbitration award - Application for - Seat of arbitration in Kuala Lumpur - Whether High Court of Sabah and Sarawak had jurisdiction to consider originating summons to set aside arbitration award - Whether High Court of Sabah and Sarawak competent to hear any matters related to award - Whether concept of place, venue or seat of arbitration had relevance to domestic arbitration - Whether Arbitration Act 2005 applicable throughout Malaysia - Whether High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak supervisory courts - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 2, 3, 37(1)(a)(v) & 37(2)(b) - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 23

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA
MARY LIM JCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Baldev Singh, Lawrence Thein & Daryl Wong; M/s Lim Guan Sing & Co
  • For the respondent - Ronny Cham; M/s Ronny Cham & Co

Section 18C of the Societies Act 1966 expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the courts in matters relating to decisions made by disputing parties of a political party.
Salihudin Hj Ahmad Khalid & Ors v. Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 2 CLJ 849 [CA]

|

JURISDICTION: Courts - High Court - Extension of time by Registrar of Societies ('ROS') for political party to hold elections at all levels - Application for judicial review to quash decision of ROS - Whether decision on matters relating to affairs of political party - Whether s. 18C of Societies Act 1966 expressly ousts jurisdiction of court to challenge decision of political party

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Societies - Political party - Extension of time by Registrar of Societies ('ROS') political party to hold elections - Application for judicial review to quash decision of ROS - Whether High Court has jurisdiction to hear matter - Whether decision on matters relating to affairs of political party - Whether s. 18C of Societies Act 1966 expressly ousts jurisdiction of court to challenge decision of political party

BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA

  • For the appellant - Haniff Khatri & Nur Dalila Husna Azmi; M/s Haniff Khatri
  • For the respondent - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC

Money laundering and criminal breach of trust are two separate and distinct offences. The plea of autrefois acquit or double jeopardy therefore cannot apply to the cases and the prosecution cannot be estopped from pursuing money laundering charges against an accused just because he was acquitted of the said predicate offence under s. 409 of the Penal Code.
How Chee Hong v. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 863 [HC]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Autrefois acquit - Principle - Applicability - Accused charged with money laundering offences and criminal breach of trust - Accused subsequently acquitted of predicate offence under s. 409 of Penal Code - Whether prosecution estopped from pursuing money laundering charges under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether offence of money laundering and criminal breach of trust two separate and distinct offences - Whether plea of autrefois acquit or double jeopardy applicable

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Autrefois acquit - Principle - Applicability - Accused charged with money laundering offences and criminal breach of trust - Accused subsequently acquitted of predicate offence under s. 409 of Penal Code - Whether prosecution estopped from pursuing money laundering charges under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether offence of money laundering and criminal breach of trust two separate and distinct offences - Whether plea of autrefois acquit or double jeopardy applicable

ASLAM ZAINUDDIN JC

  • For the appellant - K Kumaraendran & C Vignesh Kumar; M/s Vignesh Kumar & Assocs
  • For the prosecution - Harris Ong; DPP

A freight forwarding agent cannot claim for the value of goods seized by the Customs Department unless it can be proven that there was a bailor/bailee relationship where the agent, as a bailee, was not only in custody of the goods but also in possession of the same.
Modern Freight Express v. Afzarizal Abdul Wahab & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 870 [HC]

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: Seizure - Damages - Claim for - Customs Department seized goods - Notice of seizure of goods served on freight forwarding agent ('agent') appointed by owner - Agent's request for release of goods refused by Customs Department - Person(s) prescribed by law entitled to recover value of goods - Whether agent had locus standi to request for release of goods - Whether Customs Department observed statutory requirements - Whether seizure of goods lawful - Whether there was bailor/bailee relationship between agent and owner - Whether agent in custody and possession of goods - Customs Act 1967, 128(2), (3), (4)132 & 135(1)

 

SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J

  • For the plaintiff - Ravendran JC Ramalu & Janeni Ravendran; M/s Ravendran & Assocs
  • For the defendants - Natrah Mazman; FC

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

  1. INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON CIVIL ASSET TRACING AND RECOVERY*
    VIEWS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION
    [Read excerpt]
    by DATUK DR HJ HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER** [2020] 2 CLJ(A) xxv

  2. [2020] 2 CLJ(A) xxv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON CIVIL ASSET TRACING AND RECOVERY*
    VIEWS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION


    by
    DATUK DR HJ HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER**

    I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Ms Anna Joubin-Bret, for inviting me to attend on the basis of my relevant experience and knowledge on the subject matter. Knowledge and experience will have no utility if it is not shared for public and/or global benefit. On that basis, I would like to pen down some of my thoughts for the consideration of the distinguished and learned members attending this colloquium organised by the Commission (UNCITRAL) which has international significance.

    Preliminaries

    For a start, I must say that the civil recovery system will be most efficient if aggrieved persons, be it private parties or sovereign States, are given the opportunity to bring civil and quasi-criminal proceedings by mode of civil suit, not only in the country of origin where the tort or crimes were committed but also in other countries where the assets have been transferred to. This Commission must recognise the emergence of the 'kleptocracy regime' as the biggest threat to misappropriation of private as well as public assets by corrupt individuals and institutions.

    . . .

    * Organised by UNCITRAL on 6 December 2019 at Vienna International Centre, Vienna,

    ** Judge of Court of Appeal Malaysia; My heartfelt thanks to the editorial team, namely Datuk Joy Appukuttan, Mr Arun Kasi, Mr Dinesh Nandrajog, Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaysia and SV Parvin Rathinam and V Saratha Devi, Advocates and Solicitors of High Court, Chennai. And special thanks to Prof Omar Oseni and Prof Ashgar Ali for their input)


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LNS Article(s)

  1. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND LIMITATION PERIODS IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
    by YING KHAI LIEW** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xvi

  2. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND LIMITATION PERIODS IN MALAYSIA*

    by
    YING KHAI LIEW**

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Malaysia, as a former British colony, has inherited much of its trusts law from the English. This gives rise to an interesting interaction between the two sets of laws in the modern day. On the one hand, English case law remains highly persuasive post-independence. After all, the applicability of English law was preserved by s. 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956, which (subject to qualifications irrelevant for present purposes) provides that 'the common law of England and the rules of equity' apply in Malaysia. On the other hand, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 abolished civil appeals to the Privy Council, and this means that decisions of higher local courts[1] bind lower local courts. In combination, these interactions raise interesting but difficult questions where English and Malaysian law is uncertain.

    One notoriously difficult area of trusts law is constructive trusts. Precisely when and why constructive trusts arise are fundamental but imperfectly understood matters. This is unfortunate, because the lack of understanding might, in practice, be critically relevant for the determination of liability. To illustrate, consider the ongoing infamous '1MDB' saga.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of Hart Publishing.

    **Associate Professor in Law, University of Melbourne. Email: ying.liew@unimelb.edu.au. I thank Tang Hang-Wu for his comments on an earlier draft. (This article is a substantial reproduction of a chapter which will appear in Ying Khai Liew and Matthew Harding (eds), Asia-Pacific Trusts Law: Theory and Practice in Context (Hart Publishing, 2021 forthcoming)).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. THE EVOLUTION OF A TRUSTED ADVISOR* [Read excerpt]
    by PETER GARRISON AM SC** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xvii

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xvii
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    THE EVOLUTION OF A TRUSTED ADVISOR*

    by
    PETER GARRISON AM SC**

    The ACT Government Solicitor (ACTGS) hosted the Government Law Committee's Winter Drinks on 12 September 2019. The guest speaker was the ACT's first Solicitor-General, and longest serving Crown Solicitor, Peter Garrison AM SC. He provided an overview of the ACTGS' 30-year journey meeting the changing demands of an increasingly complex Territory.

    Government, lawyers and trust

    Today we are celebrating the role that government lawyers have in the provision of legal services.

    It is fitting that the ACT Government Solicitor (ACTGS) hold such an event in 2019, given it is our 30th year of supporting the Territory government.

    Until self-government, legal services for the ACT Administration were provided by the Deputy Crown Solicitor within the Australian Government Solicitor's Office. Following commencement of self-government, the ACTGS was established by the Government Solicitor Act 1989. Michael Peedom AO, the Deputy Crown Solicitor, became the first Chief Solicitor.

    Many of you may remember Michael as the President of the former ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 254 Summer 2019.

    ** Solicitor-general for The Australian Capital Territory


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 826 Food Donors Protection Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 825 Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 31 January 2020 -
ACT 824 Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] -
ACT 823 Finance Act 2019 Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 -
ACT 822 National Anti-Financial Crime Centre Act 2019 2 January 2020 [PU(B) 664/2019] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1615 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 177
ACT A1614 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 ACT 445
ACT A1613 Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Foce ACT 527
ACT A1612 Copyright (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 332
ACT A1611 Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 452

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 35/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Malaysia-Singapore Second Crossing Bridge and Expressway and Perling Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 97/1998
PU(A) 34/2020 Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 ACT 605
PU(A) 33/2020 Federal Roads (Sarawak) (Amendment) Order 2020 30 January 2020 31 January 2020 PU(A) 551/1996
PU(A) 32/2020 Animal Welfare (Voluntary Animal Welfare Assistant) Regulations 2020 30 January 2020 31 January 2020 ACT 772
PU(A) 31/2020 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Desa Lestari Kampung Seterpa Kota Bharu Berhad) (Reappointment) Order 2020 30 January 2020 30 June 2019 ACT 502

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 49/2020 Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 24 January 2020 1 February 2020 to 29 February 2020 ACT 235
PU(B) 48/2020 Appointment of Probation Officers 23 January 2020 24 January 2020 ACT 611
PU(B) 47/2020 Notice of Negative Final Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar Products Originating or Exported from the Republic of Singapore and the Republic of Turkey 21 January 2020 22 January 2020 ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994
PU(B) 46/2020 Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar Products Originating or Exported from the Republic of Singapore and the Republic of Turkey 21 January 2020 22 January 2020 ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994
PU(B) 45/2020 Appointment of Director of Industrial Relations 21 January 2020 22 January 2020 ACT 177

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 226/2019 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2019 PU(A) 30/2020 31 January 2020 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
PU(A) 283/1976 Medicine Advertisements Board Regulations 1976 PU(A) 28/2020 31 January 2020 Regulations 2 and 7
PU(A) 282/2019 Strata Titles (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 2019 PU(A) 27/2020 1 January 2020 Schedule 7
ACT 366 Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) PU(A) 3/2020 7 January 2020 Third Schedule
PU(A) 26/1995 Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Land Rules 1995 PU(A) 21/2020 21 January 2020 Rule 31

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 359/2019 Excise (Determination of Value of Locally Manufactured Goods For the Purpose of Levying Excise Duty) Regulations 2019 PU(A) 402/2019 1 January 2020
PU(A) 162/1977 Customs Regulations 1977 PU(A) 397/2019 1 January 2020
ACT 803 Anti-Fake News Act 2018 ACT 825 31 January 2020
AKTA 803 Akta Antiberita Tidak Benar 2018 AKTA 825 31 Januari 2020
PU(A) 460/1997 Trade Marks Regulations 1997 PU(A) 373/2019 27 December 2019