Back to Top

Issue #11/2020
05 March 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

N GANESAN N NARAYANAN v. WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY [2020] 3 CLJ 1
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA; HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA; KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: N-02(NCVC)(W)-1540-07-2018]
14 JANUARY 2020

In the tort of libel, where the impugned article did not state the defendant as its author and the defendant had altogether denied making the statement, it is for the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was responsible for causing the publication. The plaintiff too cannot rely on the defendant's failure to refute as a basis to prove his case, and must independently establish a 'perfect' case that the article was published or caused to be published by the defendant; failing which, the plaintiff's case must fall.

TORT: Defamation - Libel - Allegation that article published in newspaper contained defamatory statements against complainant - Whether first defendant responsible for writing, printing, dissemination and publication of article - Whether complainant adduced evidence as to how, where and when first defendant caused publication of impugned article - Whether complainant case mere conjecture - Whether complainant discharged initial burden of proof in proving pleaded case - Failure to call material witness to prove link between first defendant and newspaper - Whether fatal to complainant's case - Whether complainant's case vis-a-vis first defendant proved 


SYED MOHAMED NUR ALI v. WEDDRIN MOJINGKIN & ORS [2020] 3 CLJ 133
HIGH COURT MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
SEE MEE CHUN J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: JA-22NCVC-226-11-2017]
20 JANUARY 2020

It is the duty of the police to ensure that a detainee under their custody is not harmed and that proper necessary medical care be given during the period of custody. Where the duty has been breached and a detainee assaulted to death during his detention, the court must send a strong message of censure and disapproval of such conduct and incidents, inter alia by awarding hefty quantum as damages for misfeasance in public office and other tort or crime committed upon the detainee.

CIVIL LAW ACT: Damages - Dependency claim - Deceased died whilst in police custody - Claim by parents - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether claimants entitled to damages - Civil Law Act 1956, ss. 7 & 8

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Death whilst in police custody - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether police owed duty of care to ensure deceased not harmed and proper medical care given whilst in custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether duty of care breached 


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“The sole question in respect of which the leave to appeal was given, brings into focus the effect of the provisions of s. 6 of the Kedah Malay Reservations Enactment. This necessarily involves the exercise of the function of a court in construing a statute.”

“In our view, under s. 6, it is clear that sale at the instance of a chargee is prohibited, but there is nothing thereunder which prohibits the creation of a charge of a Malay reservation land owned by a Malay to a non-Malay. In other words, under the Kedah Malay Reservations Enactment, there is no express prohibition against the creation of a charge over Malay reserve land in favour of non-Malays. That, in our view, is deliberate. If the Legislature had intended to prohibit the creation of such a charge, it would have expressly provided so.” — per Ahmad Maarop PCA in Affin Bank Bhd v. Jamaludin Jaafar; The Association of Banks in Malaysia & Anor (Interveners) [2019] 7 CLJ 541

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


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2100

SUHAIRIZA ZALI lwn. ROSLI AHMAD & YANG LAIN

Pengeluaran surat amaran secara pentadbiran oleh pengarah jabatan pendidikan adalah suatu tindakan dalaman yang tidak bersifat tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993. Surat amaran secara pentadbiran bukan merupakan suatu keputusan di bawah peruntukan A. 53 k. 2(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan kebenaran - Semakan kehakiman terhadap pengeluaran surat amaran pentadbiran - Sama ada surat amaran pentadbiran bersifat tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 - Sama ada surat amaran pentadbiran yang dikeluarkan oleh pengarah jabatan pendidikan merupakan suatu keputusan di bawah peruntukan A. 53 k. 2(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada kebenaran wajar diberikan

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Alia Syahida; T/n Ibrahim & Fuaadah
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - SFC Natra Idris, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 2103

DALJIT KAUR GRIMALE SINGH lwn. MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Kaveat yang difailkan oleh Majlis Peguam dibawah s. 17 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 atas asas kesihatan pempetisyen wajar diketepikan setelah pempetisyen telah beransur pulih. Petisyen penerimaan masuk pempetisyen wajar dibenarkan setelah segala syarat-syarat di bawah s. 11 dan 12 dipenuhi.

PROFESYEN GUAMAN: Penerimaan masuk - Petisyen penerimaan masuk - Bantahan oleh Majlis Peguam - Kaveat yang difailkan di bawah s. 17 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 ('Akta 1976') - Permohonan pengetepian kaveat - Perubahan keadaan - Kaveat difailkan atas alasan pempetisyen mengalami penyakit schizorphrenia - Keadaan kesihatan pempetisyen telah beransur pulih - Sama ada pempetisyen telah memenuhi segala syarat-syarat yang digariskan di bawah s. 11 dan 12 Akta 1976 - Sama ada terdapat sebarang asas untuk kaveat dikekalkan

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - R Shankar; T/n Ramachandran Shankar & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Ganeshalingam; T/n Farez Jinnah

[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

[2018] 1 LNS 2191

PELUANG KARISMA SDN BHD v. LEE HOCK GUAN

(i) A notice of termination is only valid if sufficient notice period is given in accordance with the termination clauses under the tenancy agreement.

(ii) Where a landlord fails to comply with the terms of a tenancy agreement and takes the law into his own hands by unlawfully taking vacant possession of the premises; thereby depriving the tenant of the use and peaceful enjoyment of the rented premises, exemplary damages is appropriate.

LANDLORD AND TENANT: Tenancy - Termination of Tenancy Agreement - Non-payment of water, electricity bills and outstanding rental later remedied by the tenant - Allegation of tenant subletting the premises to a third party without the landlord's prior written consent - Allegation of wrong and unlawful termination of the tenancy by the landlord - Insufficient notice of termination - Whether landlord committed trespass when vacant possession was taken back - Whether the tenant breached any terms of the Tenancy Agreement - Whether the termination of the Tenancy Agreement by the landlord is valid and proper - Whether vacant possession was handed over to the landlord

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of damages - General damages - Special damages of RM5 million - Loss of business opportunity - Burden of proof - Exemplary damages - Whether the landlord's action in unlawfully taking possession of the premises was so outrageous warranting exemplary damages

  • For the plaintiff - Frank Wong; M/s Rahman Rohaida
  • For the defendant - Teh Soo Jin; M/s Marcus Chua & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 2192

IZMEER AIZAT IDRUSAM v. PP

(i) The appeal is premature as the DNAA is not a final order that can be appealed against by the accused. Section 254A of the CPC allows the prosecution to continue with the prosecution for the same offence as if no discharge order was made.

(ii) Where there was no express application by the DPP to seek a discharge of the accused, the court can order a DNAA.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal (DNAA) - Offence of robbery - Complainant withdrew the First Information Report - ss. 254 and 254A of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether the DNAA is a final order that can be appealed against - Whether withdrawal of First Information Report ipso facto discontinues a criminal action or demolishes the foundation of a case - Whether the Court can order a DNAA instead of an order for Acquittal and Discharge where the complainant withdrew the First Information Report.

  • For the appellant - Balvinder Singh; M/s Shahrul Balvinder & Co
  • For the respondent - Noor Husnita Mohd Radzi, Deputy Public Prosecutor; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor

CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 1)

In the tort of libel, where the impugned article did not state the defendant as its author and the defendant had altogether denied making the statement, it is for the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was responsible for causing the publication. The plaintiff too cannot rely on the defendant's failure to refute as a basis to prove his case, and must independently establish a 'perfect' case that the article was published or caused to be published by the defendant; failing which, the plaintiff's case must fall.
N Ganesan N Narayanan v. Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy [2020] 3 CLJ 1 [CA]

TORT: Defamation - Libel - Allegation that article published in newspaper contained defamatory statements against complainant - Whether first defendant responsible for writing, printing, dissemination and publication of article - Whether complainant adduced evidence as to how, where and when first defendant caused publication of impugned article - Whether complainant case mere conjecture - Whether complainant discharged initial burden of proof in proving pleaded case - Failure to call material witness to prove link between first defendant and newspaper - Whether fatal to complainant's case - Whether complainant's case vis-a-vis first defendant proved

 

HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA

  • For the appellants - Gurdial Singh Nijar, S Thilaga & Abraham Au; M/s S Thilaga
  • For the respondent - S Vengadeswaran; M/s S Vengadeswaran

In an ex parte application for leave to issue contempt proceedings, service of the notice to show cause against the alleged contemnor under O. 52 r. 2B of the Rules of Court 2012 is mandatory, and failure to comply with it is not curable under O. 1A and O. 2 thereof. Contempt proceedings is criminal in nature and involves the liberty of the proposed contemnor; hence any ambiguity or uncertainty as to service must be resolved in his favour.
Tan Boon Thien & Anor v. Tan Poh Lee & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 28 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Leave order - Setting aside - Application for - Procedural issues - Whether service of notice to show cause under O. 52 r. 2B of Rules of Court 2012 on proposed contemnor mandatory before ex parte application for leave could be properly made - Whether Attorney General's ('AG') consent required in contempt proceedings initiated by party in civil proceedings - Whether cause papers ought to be served on AG in proceedings

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Contempt proceedings - Leave order - Setting aside - Application for - Procedural issues - Whether service of notice to show cause under O. 52 r. 2B of Rules of Court 2012 on proposed contemnor mandatory before ex parte application for leave could be properly made - Whether Attorney General's ('AG') consent required in contempt proceedings initiated by party in civil proceedings - Whether cause papers ought to be served on AG in proceedings

 

MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA

  • For the 1st appellant - Vijaya Segaran, Nicole Wee, Norazali Nordin & Ling Li Ching; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
  • For the 1st respondent - Michael Chow, Sunita Sankey, Wendy Yeong & Surachetth Jostsuwan; M/s Liza Khan & Sankey
  • For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Ng Thiang Tuan, Keith Kwan, Chia Poh Yee & Tan Sin Yee; M/s Tuan, Mohd Zain & Co

The court will not make a declaratory judgment when the issue in dispute is purely academic; likewise it will not answer an academic question which is no longer a live issue.
Tan Sri Musa Hj Aman v. Tun Datuk Seri Panglima Hj Juhar Hj Mahiruddin & Anor And Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 42 [CA]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Executive - Appointment of new Chief Minister - Dismissal of appellants as Chief Minister and Minister of Local Government and Housing of Sabah - Appeal against - Preliminary objection raised - Whether appeal competent - Admission and reliance on fresh evidence on special grounds - Whether new Chief Minister had majority support of members of State Legislative Assembly - Whether appointment of new Chief Minister constitutional - Whether outcome would have no effect and status quo remained if appeal successful - Whether court would make declaratory judgment when issue in dispute purely academic - Whether issue live issue - Whether appellant met threshold under art. 6(3) of Sabah State Constitution - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 7(3A)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Competency - Appeal against dismissal of appellants as Chief Minister and Minister of Local Government and Housing of Sabah - Preliminary objection raised - Whether appeal competent - Admission and reliance on fresh evidence on special grounds - Whether even if appeal successful, outcome would have no effect and status quo remained - Whether court would make declaratory judgment when issue in dispute purely academic - Whether issue live issue - Whether appellant met threshold under art. 6(3) of Sabah State Constitution - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 7(3A)

KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN DIAH JCA

(Civil Appeal No: S-01(NCVC)(A)-692-12-2018)

  • For the appellant - Anantham VA Kasinather, Tengku Ahmad Fuad & Wilson Chang Khai Sim; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Zaleha Rose Pandin, Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof, Dayang Ku Fazidah Hatun Pangeran Bagul & Rafidah Maqbool Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Sabah
  • For the 2nd respondent - Douglas Lind; M/s Lind Willie Wong & Chin

Watching Brief:

  • For the Law Society - Brendon Soh & Marianne Ghani

(Civil Appeal No: S-01(NCVC)(A)-693-12-2018)

  • For the appellant - S Vanugopal; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
  • For the 1st Respondent - Douglas Lind; M/s Lind Willie Wong & Chin
  • For the 2nd and 3rd respondents - Zaleha Rose Pandin, Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof; Dayang Ku Fazidah Hatun Pangeran Bagul, & Rafidah Maqbool Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Sabah

Watching brief:

  • For the Law Society - Brendon Soh & Marianne Ghani

The amendment to s. 3(1) of the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 by the Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 is not ultra vires art. 147 of the Federal Constitution and did not alter the rights of the retired members of public services to a 'less favourable' position; under art. 147 of the Federal Constitution, Parliament had expressly provided the necessary safeguard to preserve the constitutional rights of pensioners.
Aminah Ahmad v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 75 [HC]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Amendment - Constitutionality - Declaratory order that amendment to s. 3(1) of Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 by Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 ultra vires art. 147 of Federal Constitution - Whether amendments infringed fundamental rights of retired members of public services - Whether amendment resulted in 'less favourable' pension increment - Whether Parliament provided express safeguard to ensure constitutional guarantee preserved - Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3(1), (2), (3), 6 & 7

WORDS & PHRASES: 'relevant day' - Federal Constitution, art. 147 - Relevant day for person granted pension after Merdeka Day or person who first became member of any public services on or after Merdeka day - Whether date on which he first became such member

FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

  • For the plaintiff - Lim Choon Khim & Chin Yan Leng; M/s Chooi, Saw & Lim
  • For the defendants - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC

The overriding consideration in the exercise of discretion to consider the suitability of a joint trial under s. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with s. 165 thereof is whether such trial will be fair and just, and whether an accused will be prejudiced by the trial; also, a finding that there was one transaction should not without more result in the making of an order for a joint trial.

Where the charge against an accused is not relevant to the case of another, and a joint trial would result in an inordinate delay to either or both trials, or jeopardise an accused's fundamental rights, it is manifest that a joint trial is not desirable. The prejudice resulting from such joint trial is disproportionate to its purported convenience and will likely occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Daniel Yong Chen-I v. PP [2020] 3 CLJ 86 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Revision against decision of joint trial - Applicant charged with offence under s. 29A of Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 - Sessions Court ordered joint trial of applicant with two other accused persons charged under ss. 188(2)(a) & 188(3)(a) of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Whether charges against all accused persons connected as to form part of same transaction - Whether joint trial would cause prejudice to applicant - Whether charges against other two accused persons relevant to case against applicant - Whether joint trial would result in inordinate delay in trial of applicant - Whether joint trial would jeopardise applicant's fundamental rights - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 170 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 122

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Joint trial - Application for revision against decision of joint trial - Applicant charged with offence under s. 29A of Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 - Sessions Court ordered joint trial of applicant with two other accused persons charged under ss. 188(2)(a) & 188(3)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Whether charges against all accused persons connected as to form part of same transaction - Whether joint trial would cause prejudice to applicant - Whether charges against other two accused persons relevant to case against applicant - Whether joint trial would result in inordinate delay in trial of applicant - Whether joint trial would jeopardise applicant's fundamental rights - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 170 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 122

 

MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J

  • For the applicant - Chong Loong Men & Rachel Lim; M/s Lim Chong Phang & Amy
  • For the respondent - Shoba Venugobal, DPP

Watching brief:

  • For the Tan Giap How - Guok Ngek Seong; M/s Guok Partnership

The court is not seized with the jurisdiction to inquire into Forms H and N filed under s. 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 objecting to the Land Administrator's award, if they did not state the apportionment for the compensation thus awarded by the Land Administrator to the parties named in Forms G and H.
KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru & Anor And Other Cases [2020] 3 CLJ 112 [HC]

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Award - Reference - Dissatisfaction over awards by Land Administrator - Awards omitted to state apportionment/entitlement of compensation awards for each individual party named in Forms G and H - Matter referred to High Court - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to hear matter when award did not state apportionment for compensation awarded to parties named in Forms G and H - Whether High Court could invoke jurisdiction under s. 44 of Specific Relief Act 1950 - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 3(1) & 38

 

CHOO KAH SING J

  • For KCSB - Raymond Mah, Denise Phang & Eric Toh; M/s Mah Weng Kwai
  • For the Land Administrator - Suhana Sabil; State Legal Advisor, Johor
  • For Johor Corporation - Vijay Raj & Tan Hui Wen; M/s Skrine
  • For The Store (JA-15-174-07-2017) - Izzat Zamri; M/s Tan Norizan & Assocs
  • For JA-15-97-04-2017, JA-15-99-04-2017 & JA-15-100-04-2017 - T Gan; M/s Gan & Lim
  • For MINDEF- Rusita MD Lazim
  • For LR (JA-15-98-2017 & JA-101-04-2017) - Hamidah Arshadi; M/s Hasnal & Partners
  • For MBSB - K Gobinath; M/s Sanjay Mohan
  • For the rest of tenants - Muhammad Fahmi A Jamil; M/s Sharifuddin & Co

It is the duty of the police to ensure that a detainee under their custody is not harmed and that proper necessary medical care be given during the period of custody. Where the duty has been breached and a detainee assaulted to death during his detention, the court must send a strong message of censure and disapproval of such conduct and incidents, inter alia by awarding hefty quantum as damages for misfeasance in public office and other tort or crime committed upon the detainee.
Syed Mohamed Nur Ali v. Weddrin Mojingkin & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 133 [HC]

|

CIVIL LAW ACT: Damages - Dependency claim - Deceased died whilst in police custody - Claim by parents - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether claimants entitled to damages - Civil Law Act 1956, ss. 7 & 8

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Death whilst in police custody - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether police owed duty of care to ensure deceased not harmed and proper medical care given whilst in custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether duty of care breached

SEE MEE CHUN J

  • For the plaintiff - M Visvanathan; M/s Saibullah M V Nathan & Co
  • For the defendants - Jailani Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Johor

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. A LOOK INTO THE COURT OF APPEAL'S RECENT DECISION IN SUBERAN A/L CHANDRAN v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD*
    A case note
    [Read excerpt]
    by WONG KIAN JUN [2020] 1 LNS(A) xviii

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

    A LOOK INTO THE COURT OF APPEAL'S RECENT DECISION IN SUBERAN A/L CHANDRAN v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD*
    A case note


    by
    WONG KIAN JUN

    Brief background

    Suberan was to oversee the implementation of the Touch N Go Project for Xerox Business Services Malaysia Sdn Bhd (“Company”) as the Project Director. Suberan’s role as Project Director had ceased to exist on his last day of employment with the Company and the Company never recruited another Project Director upon Suberan’s release.

    At the time of retrenchment, Suberan’s position ceased to exist because the implementation of the Touch N Go Project had been completed and the Company was about to commence maintenance and warranty work for the coming years which was undertaken entirely by the team in India. At the material time, Suberan was not the only one affected as the Key Accounts Manager for Touch N Go was also released.

    . . .

    *Published with kind permission of M/s Shearn Delamore & Co.

    (Disclaimer: This article is presented for information purpose only and covers legal issues in a general way. The contents are not intended to constitute advice on any specific matter and should not be relied upon as a substitute for detailed legal advice. © 2019 Shearn Delamore & Co. All rights reserved.)


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. REGULATING POST-MENOPAUSAL PREGNANCY IN MALAYSIA: A BRIEF ANALYSIS ON THE LEGAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES [Read excerpt]
    by DR. HANIWARDA YAAKOB* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xix

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xix
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    REGULATING POST-MENOPAUSAL PREGNANCY IN MALAYSIA:
    A BRIEF ANALYSIS ON THE LEGAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES


    by
    DR. HANIWARDA YAAKOB*

    Abstract

    The advancement of Assisted Reproductive Technologies has paved the way for post-menopausal women to procreate either using donated or own ova. This development has been greeted with both enthusiasm and apprehension due to the possible risks of post-menopausal pregnancy to women and the child born. Criticisms such as selfishness, an unnatural act and medical risks to the woman and child are the main concerns expressed over this practice. Nonetheless, these fears need to be carefully evaluated and weighed against the potential benefits of post-menopausal pregnancy. This task is undertaken in this paper where the main critics over post-menopausal pregnancy are critically analysed and refuted. Upon careful evaluation of the issues raised, this paper concludes that post-menopausal pregnancy should be viewed objectively and any move to legally prohibit the practice must be based on sound evidence. However, in the context of Malaysia, the role and influence of Islam in making law and policy is undeniable. This warrants an examination into Islamic views on pregnancy among post-menopausal women.

    . . .

    * Faculty of Law Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email: hani75@ukm.edu.my


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
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 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1616 Central Bank of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 701
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

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 39/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (North South Expressway Central Link and Klia Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 437/2002
PU(A) 38/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth-Kulim Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 564/1996
PU(A) 37/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Johor Causeway-Johor Bahru-Tampoi Highway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 14/1989
PU(A) 36/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Jitra-Sungai Dua (Butterworth) Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 229/1993
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(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 53/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Parliament 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 52/2020 Appointment Under Subsection 45(5) 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 ACT 267
PU(B) 51/2020 Appointment of Protectors 28 January 2020 29 January 2020 ACT 611
PU(B) 50/2020 Amendment to the List of Licensees 28 January 2020 29 January 2020 PU(B) 232/2019
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

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 564/1996 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth-kulim Expressway) Order 1996 PU(A) 38/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and First Schedule
ACT 605 Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 PU(A) 34/2020 1 February 2020 First Schedule
AKTA 605 Akta Badan-Badan Berkanun (Tatatertib Dan Surcaj) 2000 PU(A) 34/2020 1 Februari 2020 Jadual Pertama
PU(A) 97/1998 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Malaysia-Singapore Second Crossing Bridge and Expressway and Perling Expressway) Order 1998 PU(A) 35/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and Second Schedule
PU(A) 551/1996 Federal Roads (Sarawak) Order 1996 PU(A) 33/2020 31 January 2020 First and Third Schedules

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