Back to Top

Issue #2/2020
02 January 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

ANG GAME HONG & ANOR v. TEE KIM TIAM & ORS [2020] 1 CLJ 141
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD MAAROP PCA; ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA); AZIAH ALI FCJ; ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; ROHANA YUSUF FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(f)-41-09-2017(B)]
15 OCTOBER 2019

One High Court cannot set aside a final order regularly obtained from another High Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Nonetheless, where such an order is null and void because of illegality or lack of jurisdiction, as for instance where the order was made in breach of natural justice, it can be set aside ex debito justitiae in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Concurrent jurisdiction - Power of High Court - Dispute over ownership of Land - High Court's decision to allow judgment in default and recorded consent judgment between parties which was set aside by another High Court - Whether final order of High Court null and void due to illegalities - Whether order made in breach of natural justice - Whether High Court has power to set aside order of court of concurrent jurisdiction


PATRICK HO CHANG v. PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL [2020] 1 CLJ 284
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24NCvC-1228-10-2018]
04 OCTOBER 2019

A party aggrieved by a decision of the Appellate Medical Board constituted under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 can only appeal against the decision to the High Court if it involves a ‘substantial question of law’. An appeal may be said to bear a ‘substantial question of law’ if it concerns conflicting decisions of the High Court or the Court of Appeal for which there is as yet no judgment of the Federal Court, or an application of a legal principle which is not well settled, or an important question of law, or a difficult question of law, or a question of law which is amenable to reasonable doubt or a difference of opinion. The examples, of course, are not exhaustive.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Joinder - Application to join parties as co-respondents - Applicant's application for invalidity pension dismissed by Medical Board - Appellate Medical Board dismissed applicant's appeal against Medical Board's decision - Applicant appealed against decision of Appellate Medical Board to High Court - Application to join Doctors who were members of Appellate Medical Board as co-respondents - Whether Doctors personally liable to pay invalidity pension to applicant - Whether presence of Doctors necessary to ensure matters in dispute may be effectually and completely determined - Whether court should exercise discretion to join Doctors as co-respondents - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b)(i) - Employee's' Social Security Act 1969, s. 59A

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Substantial questions of law' - Appeal against decision of Appellate Medical Board - Applicant's application for invalidity pension dismissed by Medical Board - Appellate Medical Board dismissed applicant's appeal against Medical Board's decision - Applicant appealed against decision of Appellate Medical Board to High Court - Whether applicant could appeal to High Court - Whether there were 'substantial questions of law' warranting appeal - What constitutes 'substantial questions of law' - Employee's' Social Security Act 1969, s. 91(1) & (2)


JUDICIAL QUOTES

From experience, there are generally three types of witnesses at a trial. The first two are clear cut. They are the truthful and untruthful witnesses. The third type of witness can sometimes provide some difficulty to the trial judge. This is the truthful but mistaken witness. In other words, this is a witness who is telling the truth as he perceives it but he may be mistaken as to what he saw or heard. Acuity of hearing or observation may differ among witnesses. So his credibility, in one sense, is not in doubt but the accuracy of his evidence is although some might say a witness is not credible if he is mistaken in his testimony. – per Harminder Singh Dhaliwal JCA in PP v. Hassan Jafarpour [2019] 9 CLJ 216

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


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 155

LEE CHOW YEE lwn. PP

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pendakwaan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman penjara 2 tahun bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 8 Akta 1971 dan 4 tahun bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 8(a) Akta 1960 - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk deteran diperlukan - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan memadai

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Perayu Hadir Sendiri
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nur Nisla Abd Latif, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perlis

[2018] 1 LNS 175

THANAKORN SINSANOI v. PP

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pengetahuan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg galas yang dibawa tertuduh - Tertuduh tidak mengambil sebarang usaha untuk memeriksa beg galas - Tertuduh mencadangkan untuk menolak bungkusan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah dipatahkan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pembawa tidak bersalah - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg berisi bungkusan kain sari - Tertuduh mendakwa begnya dikemaskan oleh orang lain - Watak yang dinamakan tertuduh tidak disebut kepada perakam percakapan beramaran - Sama ada watak yang dinamakan tertuduh adalah rekaan semata-mata - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh wajar dipercayai

  • Bagi pihak perayu - K Viknesvaran; T/n Viknes Ratna & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nurshafini Mustafha, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya

[2018] 1 LNS 547

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v. KLINIK PAKAR WANITA DR NORA SDN BHD & ORS

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Banking - Triable issues - Default in repayment of loan facility - Allegation that bank did not furnish monthly statement of account - Whether plaintiff has complied with O. 14 r. 2 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether bank entitled to charge compound interest - Whether issuance of strata title has relevance to indebtedness - Whether there was any error in respect of statement of account - Whether there were triable issues

  • For the plaintiff - R Subashini Ramakrishnan (also MOB defendant's solicitor); M/s Ganesan & Irmohizam
  • For the defendants - Prakash Lachimanan; M/s Krish Maniam & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 552

AHMAD SOPHIAN ZUBIR & ORS v. GREEN HILL DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Absence of cause of action - Action by purchasers against local council - Claim premised on allegation that local council failed to ensure developer adhered to terms and conditions of development approval - Sale and purchase agreement was only entered by developer - Whether there was legal relationship between purchasers and local council - Whether there was any proximity between purchasers and local council - Whether damage was reasonably foreseeable

  • For the appellant - Zairus Affendi; M/s Zairus & Dora
  • For the respondant - Zulfahami Hamar (Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam); M/s Ana Shahrana Annuar & Co

[2018] 1 LNS 558

MNE SOLUTIONS (M) SDN BHD v. MEDIVEST SDN BHD; ADVANCE PACT SDN BHD (THIRD PARTY)

CONTRACT: Oral agreement - Existence - Maintenance services - Whether agreement for maintenance services existing between plaintiff and defendant - Whether plaintiff was able to prove existence of oral agreement - Whether plaintiff could enforce any claim or rights in relation to maintenance agreement that was entered between defendant with third party

EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Omission to call witness - Witness merely intended to corroborate evidence of another witness - Whether there was withholding or suppressing of evidence - Whether adverse inference could be invoked - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)

  • For the plaintiff - Priya Sukirthanandan; M/s Priya & Associates
  • For the defendant - Natalia Isra Nasaruddin; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
  • For the third party - Izzat Othman; M/s Azzat & Izzat

CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 2)

One High Court cannot set aside a final order regularly obtained from another High Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Nonetheless, where such an order is null and void because of illegality or lack of jurisdiction, as for instance where the order was made in breach of natural justice, it can be set aside ex debito justitiae in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Ang Game Hong & Anor v. Tee Kim Tiam & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 141 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Concurrent jurisdiction - Power of High Court - Dispute over ownership of Land - High Court's decision to allow judgment in default and recorded consent judgment between parties which was set aside by another High Court - Whether final order of High Court null and void due to illegalities - Whether order made in breach of natural justice - Whether High Court has power to set aside order of court of concurrent jurisdiction

 

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
AZIAH ALI FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ

  • For the appellants - Abdul Razak Abu Bakar & Jasvinder Singh; M/s Mazwan Pathma & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Esther Geetha Jayaraja; M/s Chew Das & Jayaraja
  • For the 2nd respondent - Tan Ping Nah; M/s Jayaratnam & Partners
  • For the 3rd respondent - Mohd Syahrizal Shah Zakaria & Nik Haizie Azlin Nabidin; SLA, Selangor

The Controller of Housing has no power under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 or Housing Development (Control and Licencing) Regulations 1989 to modify the statutory contract of sale entered into by house buyers under the Act, and certainly cannot extend the statutory completion period of 36 months prescribed under the contract.
Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 162 [FC]

|

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Developer and purchasers entered into sale and purchase agreements ('SPAs') - Liquidated ascertained Damages ('LAD') - Application for extension of time to Controller of Housing ('Controller') under reg. 11(3) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ('Regulations') rejected - Appeal to Minister - Letter granting extension of time signed by Ministry officer on behalf of Controller, not Minister - Whether decision by Controller or Minister - Whether Controller's decision appealable - Whether Minister has power to hear appeal - Whether Minister's decision in granting extension of time valid - Whether Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ('Act') confers powers to Minister to delegate duty to Controller - Whether reg. 11(3) of Regulations ultra vires Act

LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Extension of time - Developer and purchasers entered into sale and purchase agreements ('SPAs') - Failure to deliver vacant possession within 36 months - Application for extension of time to Controller of Housing ('Controller') under reg. 11(3) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ('Regulations') rejected - Appeal to Minister allowed - Purchaser aggrieved due to inability to claim for liquidated ascertained Damages - Letter granting extension of time signed by Ministry officer on behalf of Controller, not Minister - Whether Controller has power to waive rights of purchasers to claim liquidated ascertained Damages

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
IDRUS HARUN FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ

  • For the appellant - George Varughese & Johan Mohan Abdullah; M/s Johan Arafat Hamzah & Mona
  • For the respondent - KL Wong, Albert KY Soon, Andrew KJ Chan, Viola De Cruz & Koh Kean Kang; M/s KL Wong

Watching Brief:

  • For the Bar Council - Roger Tan, Nicholas Chang & Elison Wong
  • For REHDA - Mark Ho Hing Kheong & Pang Li Xuan; M/s Chellam Wong

The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 or CIPAA should not be construed as having a retrospective operation. To do so would not only affect construction contracts that came before its enforcement but substantially impair substantive rights of contracting parties and their right to freedom to contract and regulate their business agreements. CIPAA in its entirety should have a prospective application.
Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v. PWC Corporation Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 193 [FC]

|

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Appeal against - Subcontract entered between main contractor and subcontractor before Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 came into force - Claim against main contractor - Subcontractor claimed for unpaid balance sum for works done - Main contractor submitted that balance sum was set-off - Subcontractor commenced adjudication proceedings - Adjudicator ordered main contractor to pay balance sum - Whether Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 has retrospective/prospective operation - Whether retrospective operation would impair substantive rights of parties

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Statutes - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Interpretation to be accorded to statute - Whether simplistic or holistic - Whether has retrospective/prospective operation

RICHARD MALANJUM CJ
AHMAD MAAROP PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
IDRUS HARUN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Cecil WM Abraham, Aniz Ahmad Amirudin & Syukran Syafiq; M/s Wajdi Mohamad Yusri & Co
  • For the respondent - Oon Chee Kheng, Daniel Lau & TJ Lee; M/s CK Oon & Co

An application by a chargee to auction a property or fix an auction date is merely a proceeding to enforce the order for sale of a charged property; that being so limitation under ss. 6(3) and 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 does not apply to bar such an application. 
RHB Bank Bhd v. Dato' Hj Muhammad Hamzah [2020] 1 CLJ 236 [CA]

| |

LIMITATION: Land - Auction - Borrower defaulted in repayment of credit facilities granted by Bank - Bank obtained order for sale of Land charged as security - Application by Bank to fix auction for sale of Land after series of failures to auction Land - Whether limitation set in - Whether limitation applied to bar application by Bank to fix new auction date and reserve price for Land - Whether order for sale of Land 'judgment' - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 2(1), 6(3) & 21(1)

LAND LAW: Charge - Auction - Borrower defaulted in repayment of credit facilities granted by Bank - Bank obtained order for sale of Land charged as security - Application by Bank to fix auction for sale of Land after series of failures to auction Land - Bank filed application to fix auction for sale of Land - Whether limitation set in - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 2(1), 6(3) & 21(1)

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'action' - Limitation Act 1953, s. 2(1) - Whether 'action' means fresh action - Whether applies to application to auction property or to fix date of auction

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
RAMLY ALI FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ

  • For the appellant - Yoong Sin Min, Heng Chia Leng & Cheah Faan Jin; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
  • For the respondent - HC Tan; M/s HC Tan & Zahani

Any alteration or deletion to the statutory form under s. 8(1) of the Small Estate (Distribution) Act 1955 must be initialled by a Commissioner for Oaths pursuant to r. 13(2)(c) of the Commissioners for Oaths Rules 1993; failure to do so would render the instrument void.
Ismail Ghulam Hussain & Ors v. Nurul Shuhada Yaakub & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 249 [CA]

SUCCESSION: Distribution of Estate - Islamic law - Revocation of distribution order - Whether property fraudulently transferred by void instrument - Alteration on instrument - Whether alteration signed by Commissioner for Oaths - Whether failure to obtain initial of Commissioners for Oaths rendered instrument void - Commissioners for Oaths Rules 1993, r. 13(2)(c)

 

HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA

  • For the appellants - Adnan Abdul Rahim, Siti Fatimah Ali Asgar & Nurul Nadzirah Norazlan; M/s Adnan Rahim & Co
  • For 1st respondent - Adenan Ismail; M/s Adenan & Assocs
  • For 2nd respondent - Siti Fatimah Talib & Husna Abdul Halim; Legal Advisors

A plaintiff who has withdrawn a suit after having obtained interlocutory orders thereon and after leave to appeal to the appellate or apex court against such interlocutory orders has been granted to the defendant, will not only have to bear the costs for the withdrawal but suffer the setting aside of the interlocutory orders and possibly assessment of damages as well. 
Tony Pua Kiam Wee v. Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak [2020] 1 CLJ 260 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Withdrawal of - Application to withdraw Defamation suit whilst appeal process on interlocutory application pending in Federal Court - Whether withdrawal ought to have been allowed - Whether proceedings and prospective order should have been stayed pending outcome of appeal - Whether withdrawal of main suit would cause interlocutory applications to collapse - Whether application for withdrawal should be dismissed

 

HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA

  • For the appellant - Surendra Ananth & Tan Ch'eng Leong; M/s KP Lu & Tan
  • For the respondent - Mohd Hafarizam Harun & Norhazira Abu Haiyan; M/s Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak

In cases of disclosure of improper conduct under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, it is vital that the complaint is communicated to an ‘enforcement agency’ within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act. A regulatory body like the Malaysian Medical Council, while having disciplinary jurisdiction over its members, does not have any investigation and enforcement functions or powers and is thus not an enforcement agency. It follows that an application for certiorari and mandamus to declare the Council an enforcement agency and compel it to act as such under the Act is untenable and must necessarily fail. 
Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2020] 1 CLJ 270 [HC]

| |

WHISTLEBLOWER: Disclosure of improper conduct to enforcement agency - Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Medical practitioner received confidential Medical records of deceased patients - Medical practitioner lodged complaint against perpetrator to Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') - Whether MMC enforcement agency within statutory meaning of 'enforcement agency' - Whether Medical practitioner whistleblower - Whether MMC empowered to seek out court remedies on behalf of Medical practitioner - Whether there was disclosure of improper conduct

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'enforcement agency' - Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 - Section 2 - Whether Malaysian Medical Council enforcement agency within statutory meaning of 'enforcement agency'

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Mandamus - Medical practitioner/applicant received confidential Medical records of deceased patients - Applicant lodged complaint against perpetrator to Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') - Whether MMC enforcement agency within statutory meaning of 'enforcement agency' - Whether applicant whistleblower - Whether MMC empowered to seek out court remedies on behalf of Medical practitioner - Whether remedies available to applicant - Medical Act 1971, ss. 3(1), 29 & 30 - Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, ss. 13(1)(b), 14(2)(b) & 15(1)

NORDIN HASSAN J

  • For the applicant - Kamraj Nayagam & Maya Gayathri; M/s Mah-Kamariyah & Philip Koh
  • For the respondent - Jessica Ram Binwani & Ramitra Ramarao; M/s Kanesh Sundrum & Co

A party aggrieved by a decision of the Appellate Medical Board constituted under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 can only appeal against the decision to the High Court if it involves a ‘substantial question of law’. An appeal may be said to bear a ‘substantial question of law’ if it concerns conflicting decisions of the High Court or the Court of Appeal for which there is as yet no judgment of the Federal Court, or an application of a legal principle which is not well settled, or an important question of law, or a difficult question of law, or a question of law which is amenable to reasonable doubt or a difference of opinion. The examples, of course, are not exhaustive.  
Patrick Ho Chang v. Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial [2020] 1 CLJ 284 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Joinder - Application to join parties as co-respondents - Applicant's application for invalidity pension dismissed by Medical Board - Appellate Medical Board dismissed applicant's appeal against Medical Board's decision - Applicant appealed against decision of Appellate Medical Board to High Court - Application to join Doctors who were members of Appellate Medical Board as co-respondents - Whether Doctors personally liable to pay invalidity pension to applicant - Whether presence of Doctors necessary to ensure matters in dispute may be effectually and completely determined - Whether court should exercise discretion to join Doctors as co-respondents - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b)(i) - Employee's' Social Security Act 1969, s. 59A

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Substantial questions of law' - Appeal against decision of Appellate Medical Board - Applicant's application for invalidity pension dismissed by Medical Board - Appellate Medical Board dismissed applicant's appeal against Medical Board's decision - Applicant appealed against decision of Appellate Medical Board to High Court - Whether applicant could appeal to High Court - Whether there were 'substantial questions of law' warranting appeal - What constitutes 'substantial questions of law' - Employee's' Social Security Act 1969, s. 91(1) & (2)

WONG KIAN KHEONG J

  • For the appellant - Daniel Bong Cheng Hua; M/s Karunamoorthy & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Diba Natalia Ishak; M/s Skrine

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. CONFLICT OF LAWS ON THE RIGHTS OF CHILD UNDER THE CHILD ACT WITH PREVENTIVE LAWS [Read excerpt]
    by Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu* Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin** [2020] 1 LNS(A) i

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

    CONFLICT OF LAWS ON THE RIGHTS OF CHILD UNDER THE CHILD ACT WITH PREVENTIVE LAWS

    by
    Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu*
    Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin**

    Abstract

    The principal Act governing the handling of the child in conflict with the law is the Child Act 2001 ("CA 2001") that came into force in August 2002. The CA 2001 consolidated three former Acts: the Juvenile Courts Act 1947; the Child Protection Act 1999; and the Women and Girls' Protection Act 1973 which also incorporated the Convention on the Rights of Children. The CA 2001 therefore updated and upgraded the rights of children including in matters where they are arrested, investigated or charged with an offence. The question then is whether the CA 2001 provides adequate protection to the child. Further, does the CA 2001 yield to other laws especially preventive laws such as the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("DD(SPM)A 1985 and Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ("POCA 1959")? This Article evaluates not only the weaknesses of the CA 2001 but also how these preventive laws erode the rights of the child under the CA 2001. By getting the whole picture, suggestions can be made on how these laws can be improvised jointly or severally to ensure they work harmoniously or coherently with one another to promote rather than erode the rights of the child.

    . . .

    * LLB (Hons) (Lond), LLM (Malaya), DSLP (IIUM); Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), Mediator; Adjunct Professor, University Sultan Zainal Abidin.

    ** LLB (Hons), MCL (IIU), PhD (University of Exeter), Advocate & Solicitor of High Court of Malaya (Non Practising); Associate Professor of Law, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyah of Laws, International Islamic University, Malaysia.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. KONSEP FASAKH DAN PELAKSANAANNYA MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NEGERI SEMBILAN 2003 [Read excerpt]
    oleh Abdul Halim bin Zulkifli, Ph.D* [2020] 1 LNS(A) ii

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

    KONSEP FASAKH DAN PELAKSANAANNYA MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NEGERI SEMBILAN 2003

    oleh
    Abdul Halim bin Zulkifli Ph.D*

    Abstrak

    Artikel ini akan membincangkan tentang konsep fasakh menurut Islam yang merangkumi aspek definisi dari segi bahasa, istilah dan juga dalil keharusannya menurut syarak. Definisi fasakh menurut Islam dan alasan-alasan yang membolehkan fasakh dibincangkan menurut peruntukan Enakmen Undang-undang Keluarga Islam Negeri Sembilan 2003 di samping alasan yang telah diperuntukkan oleh enakmen negeri-negeri bagi membolehkan permohonan fasakh. Dalam masa yang sama, penulis juga akan menghurai beberapa kes fasakh yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia yang telah meluluskan permohonan tersebut menurut peruntukan undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa ketika ini.

    . . .

    *Pensyarah Kanan ATI, FSSK, UTM, Johor, Peguambela & Peguamcara/Peguam Syarie.


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 815 Trademarks Act 2019 27 December 2019 [PU(B) 655/2019] -
ACT 814 Syarie Legal Profession (Federal Territories) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 813 Departure Levy Act 2019 1 August 2019 - Part I, Part II, Part IV, section 17, section 18, section 31, Part VII, Part VIII except for section 37, Part IX, Part X and Part XI to the Act; 1 September 2019 - Part III, Part V except for sections 17 and 18, Part VI except for section 31, and section 37 to the Act [PU(B) 373/2019] -
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] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1607 Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 730
ACT A1606 Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 505
ACT A1605 Companies (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 777
ACT A1604 Workers' Minimum Standards of Housing and Amenities (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 446
ACT A1603 Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 000

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 315/2019 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Peneroka Felda Kemahang (1) Berhad) (Appointment and Revocation of Appointment) Order 2019 14 November 2019 15 May 2019 ACT 502
PU(A) 314/2019 Competition (Block Exemption for Vessel Sharing Agreements In Respect of Liner Shipping Services Through Transportation by Sea) Order 2019 13 November 2019 7 July 2019 to 6 July 2022 ACT 712
PU(A) 313/2019 Speed Limit (Bandar Pulai Jaya Interchange) Order 2019 8 November 2019 11 November 2019 ACT 333
PU(A) 312/2019 Federal Roads (Bandar Pulai Jaya Interchange) Order 2019 8 November 2019 11 November 2019 ACT 376
PU(A) 311/2019 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 40) Order 2019 8 November 2019 9 November 2019 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 666/2019 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 31 December 2019 1 January 2020 ACT A1593
PU(B) 665/2019 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 31 December 2019 1 January 2020 ACT A1594
PU(B) 664/2019 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 31 December 2019 1 January 2020 ACT 822
PU(B) 663/2019 Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor 31 December 2019 4 December 2018 ACT 593
PU(B) 662/2019 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 31 December 2019 1 January 2020 ACT A1595

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 133 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 ACT A1588 27 December 2019 [PU(B) 621/2019] - States of Perlis, Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Johore, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan; 27 December 2019 [PU(B) 625/2019] - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Putrajaya and Federal Territory of Labuan Sections 3, 39, 70, 85A & 133
PU(A) 467/2000 Johore Port Authority (Tanjung Pelepas Port) (Scale of Rates, Dues and Charges) By-Laws 2000 PU(A) 306/2019 1 November 2019 By-laws 1 and 2; Schedule
ACT 422 Ports (Privatization) Act 1990 PU(A) 305/2019 1 November 2019 Schedule
PU(A) 324/1991 Johor Port Authority (Pasir Gudang Port) (Pilotage) By-Laws 1991 PU(A) 302/2019 1 November 2019 By-laws 1, 2 and 5
PU(A) 175/2011 Johor Port Authority (Pasir Gudang Port) (Scale of Charges) By-Laws 2011 PU(A) 300/2019 1 November 2019 By-laws 1 and 2

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 157/2018 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2018 PU(A) 315/2019 15 May 2019
PU(A) 305/1999 Johor Port Authority (Extension of Functions) Order 1999 PU(A) 308/2019 1 November 2019
PU(A) 50/2019 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2019 PU(A) 292/2019 31 October 2019
PU(A) 127/2015 Strata Titles (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 2015 PU(A) 282/2019 1 January 2020 - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only
PU(A) 51/2000 Income Tax (Deduction For Information Technology-Related Expenditure) Rules 2000 PU(A) 274/2019 Year of assessment 2018