| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #38/2025
18 September 2025
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE SPOTLIGHTS
BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BHD v. SIDQI AHMAD SAID AHMAD & ORS [2025] 8 CLJ 567 (i) Discovery to trace misappropriated funds can be granted even if there's a significant time gap between the original disbursement and later payments, as funds can be channelled through multiple entities over time; (ii) The formal recording of transactions in audited statements does not negate the need for discovery if there are discrepancies, lack of supporting documentation, or signs of concealed fund destinations; (iii) Discovery is not a fishing expedition merely because it might incidentally reveal information about additional parties, provided it is otherwise properly founded and necessary; (iv) In cases of sophisticated financial fraud, a broad scope of discovery, including details of ATM cards, banking facilities, and other banking products, is justified to trace all potential avenues of fund dissipation. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Application for - Parties entered into loan agreement - Borrower defaulted in repayment - Borrower obtained stay of execution subject to bank's right to appoint receiver and manager ('R&M') under debenture - Discovery of irregularities in relation to loan - Bank sought discoveries of banking records regarding certain accounts in order to trace disbursed loan sum - Whether documents sought necessary - Whether temporally impossible for payments made to alleged recipients to have originated from loan funds - Whether R&M's findings one-sided assertions - Whether formal documentation and accounting of transactions in audited statements negated suggestion of fraudulent conduct - Whether discovery application constituted fishing expedition - Whether procedurally proper - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 r. 7A BANKING: Banking facility - Loan facility - Application by bank for discovery of documents - Discovery of irregularities in relation to loan - Bank sought discoveries of banking records regarding certain accounts in order to trace disbursed loan sum - Whether documents sought necessary - Whether temporally impossible for payments made to alleged recipients to have originated from loan funds - Whether receiver and manager's findings one-sided assertions - Whether formal documentation and accounting of transactions in audited statements negated any suggestion of fraudulent conduct - Whether discovery application constituted fishing expedition - Whether procedurally proper - Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949, s. 7 APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2025 Volume 8 (Part 3) (i) For the purpose of tax exemptions under para. 2 of the Exemption Order 2009, an employee is deemed to have 'control' over a company, and thus not qualified for the exemption, if they are the largest single shareholder, even if their percentage of shares is less than 50%, because 'control' under s. 139 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('Act') turns on comparative, not absolute ownership; (ii) A penalty under s. 113(2) of the Act, for submitting an incorrect tax return, should not be imposed if the taxpayer's failure to declare income tax was based on a bona fide, albeit incorrect, interpretation of a tax exemption provision, without any intent to deceive or conceal. In such circumstances, the Inland Revenue Board has a duty to exercise its discretion to remit the penalty under s. 124(3) of the Act. REVENUE LAW
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Additional assessment - Managing director ('MD') of company held 30% of shares - MD provided with annual allowances - Company had not included MD's allowances in scheduled tax return - Whether allowances exempt from income tax - Whether para. 2 of Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2009 applied to company - Whether MD had control over company through ownership of shares - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 139(1)(b) REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Penalties - Managing director ('MD') of company held 30% of shares - MD provided with annual allowances - Company under impression that allowances exempt from income tax pursuant to para. 2 of Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2009 - Company had not included MD's allowances in scheduled tax return - Company imposed with 45% penalty - Whether company intended to deceive and conceal by failing to declare allowances - Whether company's conduct bona fide - Whether imposition of penalties justified - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 113(2)
Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA
Mahkamah mempunyai tanggungjawab kehakiman untuk memberikan keadilan dan tanggungjawab itu perlu dilaksanakan dengan teliti. Mahkamah perlu menganalisis dan memberi pertimbangan sewajarnya terhadap kesemua isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam perbicaraan jenayah, khususnya, pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh tertuduh. Jika isu-isu yang dibangkitkan tertuduh diabaikan, mahkamah perlu memberi penjelasan mengapa itu dibuat. Kegagalan membuat analisis dengan sewajarnya terhadap kesemua isu yang dibangkitkan akan menjurus pada salah arahan yang ditakuti akan memberi impak besar ke atas perbicaraan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH | UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perbicaraan - Kes prima facie - Pertuduhan atas kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Sama ada isu-isu yang dibangkitkan di peringkat pendakwaan dinilai sewajarnya - Sama ada hakim bicara konsisten dalam dapatan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Sama ada ketiadaan arahan jelas oleh hakim bicara di akhir kes pendakwaan memprejudis hak tertuduh untuk mendapat makluman awal tentang pembelaan - Sama ada terdapat kecelaruan serius dalam dapatan hakim - Sama ada terjumlah pada salah arahan serius - Sama ada salah arahan boleh dipulihkan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran dadah - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada tertuduh dibuktikan mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan - Sama ada percanggahan berkait penemuan dadah dijelaskan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang ditemui - Sama ada keterangan sokongan selari dengan dapatan hakim bicara - Sama ada pembelaan satu fikiran semula atau penafian semata-mata - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Pengedaran - Pembuktian kesalahan - Sama ada fakta-fakta pembelaan diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya - Sama ada hakim bicara membuat analisis terhadap isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam pembelaan perayu - Sama ada keterangan sokongan dipanggil untuk menyingkir keraguan dalam keterangan saksi - Sama ada kredibiliti saksi dicabar - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi penting mewajarkan pemakaian inferens bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada wujud kecelaruan serius dalam dapatan hakim bicara - Sama ada tertuduh diprejudis
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali HMR
Under the doctrine of 'group of companies', an arbitration agreement directly entered by certain companies might bind other entities of their group if the latter appear to be true parties to the arbitration agreement because of their participation in the negotiation, performance or termination of the agreement, provided this is in accordance with the parties' intention. ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION: Award - Findings - Findings by arbitrator set aside by High Court - Whether there was valid arbitration agreement between parties - Whether parties authorised arbitral tribunal to decide disputes - Whether supplementary agreement existed contemporaneously with principal agreement - Whether parties to arbitration correctly identified by arbitrator pursuant to principal-agent capacity - Whether there was serious breach of natural justice impacting outcome of arbitration - Whether attempts to revisit findings of arbitrator permissible in law - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 9(1)
Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
(i) A claim alleging fraud must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim with sufficient particulars; a general allegation of fraud, or an allegation of fraud introduced only in a reply to the statement of defence, is insufficient; (ii) A claim for recovery of damages related to land alienation is statute-barred if filed beyond the prescribed limitation period which, in this case, was almost 26 years after the alienation, and the discovery of alleged fraud at a later date does not restart the limitation period if fraud was not properly pleaded as the cause of action. CIVIL PROCEDURE | LAND LAW | LIMITATION
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Pleadings - Fraud - Allegations of fraud surrounding alienation of land - Whether particulars of fraud pleaded -Whether general allegations of fraud sufficient - Whether fraud could be pleaded in reply to statement of defence CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Striking out - Application for determination of questions of law without full trial - Whether declaratory orders sought sustainable - Whether action ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A, O. 33 r. 2 & O. 92 LAND LAW: Native customary rights - Alienation of land - Native customary rights land alienated to third party - Claim for damages - Whether claim for damages statute-barred - Whether discovery of fraud relevant for computation of limitation period - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 202 - Limitation Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 49), s. 18 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a) LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual - Land dispute - Native customary rights land alienated to third party - Claim for damages - When limitation period accrued - Whether claim statute-barred - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 202 - Limitation Ordinance (Sarawak) (Cap 49), s. 18 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a) Azizah Nawawi JCA
(i) A conviction for murder can be sustained even if the actual cause of death is not conclusively proven, particularly when the body is unrecovered or severely dismembered, provided there is sufficient evidence to infer the accused caused the death; (ii) The requisite mens rea for murder under s. 300(c) of the Penal Code can be inferred from the nature of the injuries inflicted, even if not explicitly stated by the trial judge. Motive is not a necessary element to prove murder when the conviction relies on overwhelming circumstantial evidence; (iii) Following the enactment of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, a court, in exercising its discretion on sentencing for murder, may maintain the death sentence for exceptionally brutal and unremorseful crimes. CRIMINAL LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Murder - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused decapitated wife and cut her body parts into several pieces before disposing of them in river - Prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to death by hanging - Whether necessary to conclusively prove actual cause of death - Whether sufficient evidence to infer accused caused death - Whether mens rea established - Whether motive necessary - Penal Code, ss. 300 & 302 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Murder - Accused decapitated wife and cut her body parts into several pieces before disposing of them in river - Accused found guilty, convicted as per charge and sentenced to death by hanging - Abolition of mandatory death penalty - Discretion of court - Factors to consider - Whether death sentence ought to be maintained - Penal Code, ss. 300 & 302 - Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023
Azizah Nawawi JCA
In judicial review proceedings, monetary compensation is different from damages. An application for monetary compensation under O. 53 r. 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 in guise of damages ought not to be entertained by the court. Such claim is an abuse of the process of the court. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for - Substantive action for certiorari to quash decision by Minister and further and consequential relief for damages - Whether monetary compensation in judicial review different from damages - Whether claim arose as monetary compensation as envisaged under O. 53 r. 2(3) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether claim for monetary compensation in guise of damages or refund of deposit amounted to abuse of process of court - Whether applicant established breach of fundamental right over and above realm of private law - Whether applicant entitled to monetary damages
Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J
Dalam kes di mana beberapa kenyataan dibuat dalam ruang masa yang dekat, mahkamah akan mempertimbangkan sama ada pembaca yang munasabah boleh membuat inferens tentang perkaitan antara kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut, yang membawa pada tafsiran fitnah terhadap plaintif, walaupun salah satu kenyataan pada mulanya samar-samar tentang identiti. Walau bagaimanapun, jika masa dan konteks menjadikan inferens tersebut tidak munasabah buat seseorang yang munasabah, elemen pengenalpastian identiti tidak akan dipenuhi. TORT
TORT: Fitnah - Fitnah bertulis - Hantaran dalam media sosial - Ganti rugi - Tuntutan - Defendan mengeluarkan kenyataan-kenyataan pada dua masa berasingan - Sama ada kenyataan-kenyataan memfitnah pihak-pihak yang menuntut - Sama ada elemen-elemen fitnah dipenuhi - Sama ada kenyataan pertama dan kedua saling berkaitan - Sama ada kenyataan-kenyataan merujuk pada defendan-defendan
Johan Lee Kien How H
The doctrine of exhaustion of rights does not apply where the infringer fails to prove that the goods originated from the trademark owner or that the latter consented to the use of their marks, particularly when the goods have been altered without any indication of refurbishment. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trademark - Infringement of trademark - Fuel pumps - Fuel pumps supplied by trademark infringer bore marks identical or similar to claimant's marks - Fuel pumps did not originate from claimant - Whether there was infringement of marks - Whether infringer used, in course of trade, sign identical/similar with claimant's marks - Whether used for goods and services identical or similar for which claimant's marks were used - Whether infringement caused deception and/or confusion to customers and prospective customers - Whether defence of exhaustion of rights available to infringer - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 54
Adlin Abdul Majid J
An insurer is entitled to repudiate liability under an insurance policy, if the insured fails to disclose circumstances known to them at the time of proposing for coverage that could give rise to a claim, and if the policy explicitly excludes coverage for such known circumstances. This breach, stemming from a warranty that all information provided is true and accurate and no information has been withheld, allows the insurer to repudiate the contract, particularly when the undisclosed incident falls within an exclusion clause of the policy. INSURANCE
INSURANCE: Policy - Repudiation - Insured provider of medical services - Insured completed proposal form for insurance policy - Insurance policy aimed at indemnifying insured against any claim, inter alia, for breach of professional duty in provision of any medical service - Alleged act or omission occurred after retroactive date stated in Schedule - Insured failed to disclose circumstance that might lead to claim when proposing to insurer for coverage - Insurer repudiated liability upon discovery that there was legal claim - Whether there was breach of basis clause - Whether such breach would entitle insurer to repudiate liability or involvement in suit against insured
Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|