Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #41/2024
10 October 2024

Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents.

New This Week

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

LOW CHENG TEIK & ORS v. LOW EAN NEE [2024] 9 CLJ 171
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ABANG ISKANDAR PCA; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-30-04-2023(W)]
28 AUGUST 2024

The central distinction between the oppression action and the derivative action lies in the nature of the claim. What is the legal test to determine whether a shareholder's complaint is actionable by way of oppression action or a derivative action? Where the nature of the act, omission or misconduct is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder, and the resulting injury and loss may be classified as having been suffered directly and specially or separately and distinctly by the shareholder in such capacity, as opposed to loss or injury suffered by the company or all the other shareholders, then oppression is made out and the cause of action vests in the shareholder. In such an instance, s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016 provides the remedies available. If, however, the act, omission or misconduct is an injury done to the company, resulting in a loss to the company, then the cause of action vests in the company and s. 347 is the proper remedy to be utilised.

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Acts and conducts amounting to oppression - Director assigned company's trademarks to company co-founded by him for nominal consideration without authorisation of Board of Directors - Shareholder filed oppression action against director - Whether shareholder's complaint actionable by way of oppression or derivative action - Whether claim should have not been brought by way of oppression action - Legal test to ascertain whether shareholder's complaint actionable under ss. 346 or 347 of Companies Act 2016

COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Wrongful assignment of trademarks - Director assigned company's trademarks to company co-founded by him for nominal consideration without authorisation of Board of Directors - Shareholder filed oppression action against director - Whether shareholder's complaint actionable by way of oppression or derivative action - Proper plaintiff to initiate action - Legal test to ascertain whether shareholder's complaint actionable under ss. 346 or 347 of Companies Act 2016 - What was wrong or infraction complained of - Whether wrongful act oppressive or unfairly discriminatory or otherwise prejudicial to shareholder/complainant alone or affected all shareholders - Whether cause of action vested in company or shareholder/complainant - Whether loss or damage suffered by company or shareholder/complainant alone - Whether loss suffered by all shareholders

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Mohammad Sohffian Abu Hassan v. PP [2024] CLJU 927 varied the High Court case of PP v. Mohammad Sohffian Abu Hassan [2021] CLJU 404; [2021] 1 LNS 404

  2. Lim Wei Meng & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2024] CLJU 922 affirming the High Court case of Lim Wei Meng & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2019] CLJU 1715; [2019] 1 LNS 1715

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2024] CLJU 138

UNITARA RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD v. MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS

The issue of law on the applicability of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 and the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and whether the COVID-19 pandemic is categorised as force majeure are a question of merits and should only be ventilated at the substantive stage of judicial review. It would be amiss to go into the merits of the application at the leave stage.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Order for certiorari to quash decision of Housing Controller and Ministry of Housing and Local Government granting extension of time to developer to deliver vacant possession of property under non-housing development - Exercise of statutory powers under Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 - Whether applicant had a prima facie arguable case - Whether there were issues of law should be ventilated at substantive stage of judicial review

  • For the applicant - Loke Wei Lun; M/s B B Teh
  • For the responden - Muhammad Hidayat Wahab SFC; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Putrajaya

[2024] CLJU 148

MD MASUD RANA v. PP

The Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 ('Act 846') has given discretionary power to the court to determine the punishment that should be given to an accused for offences under s. 302 of the Penal Code. The introduction of Act 846 does not in any way prevent the court from referring to the basis of the existing sentencing principle which is the rehabilitation of prisoners.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Accused was sentenced to death by hanging for committing offence of murder - Mitigation - Both accused and deceased were injured - Whether death penalty should be waived by virtue of Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 - Whether court could refer to basis of existing sentencing principle - Whether court should take into account rehabilitation of prisoners

  • For the appellant - Vijaya Sandran Tangavellu & Kirthana Darshayinie; M/s Vijaya Sandran & Associates
  • For the respondent - TPR Mohd Amril Johari, Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2024] CLJU 201

MAXIS BROADBAND SDN BHD v. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA; KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI (INTERVENER)

1. Any application for an order of mandamus made by way of judicial review proceedings must comply with the requirement of s. 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950. In order to issue the order of mandamus, the applicant must show not only that he has a legal right to have the act performed but that the right must be so clear, specific, and well-defined as to be free from any reasonable controversy. The order cannot be issued when the right is doubtful, or is a qualified one or when it depends upon an issue of fact to be determined by the respondent. The failure to show the existence of any legal right to compel the performance of a legal duty cast upon the respondent will deny the order of mandamus.

2. An applicant seeking an order of mandamus must also show that there is a duty imposed by law on the respondent. In the absence of such legal duty, the mandamus shall not lie against the respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave to commence judicial review - Applicant seeking order to set aside Inland Revenue Board's ('IBD') decision in form of notices of additional assessment - Application to compel respondent to set aside notice of additional assessment - Allegation that IBD made decision without regard to applicant's legitimate expectations - Applicant already filed Form Q before making a judicial review application - Whether respondent's decision arising from its non-reply to applicant's letter was amenable to judicial review - Whether respondent had liberty to exercise its power under ss. 135 and 127(3A) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether ss. 135 and 127(3A) of ITA have nexus to set aside notice of assessment - Whether applicant was entitled to compel respondent to set aside notice of additional assessment - Whether applicant had exhausted domestic remedy under s. 99 of ITA to Special Commissioner of Income Tax - Whether application was frivolous and vexatious - Whether application was an abuse of process of court

  • For the applicant - S Saravana Kumar & Lim Chinn Wei (PDK); M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
  • For the honourable attorney general - Krishna Priya Venugopal, Federal Counsel
  • For the intervener - Surani Che Ismail & Athari Faris Ammerry Hussein, Revenue

[2024] CLJU 178

PP lwn. WAN MOHAMAD FARIF WAN AHMAD

Faktor terpenting di dalam menjatuhkan hukuman bagi kesalahan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') adalah pastinya faktor kepentingan awam. Akta ADB adalah digubal dengan meletakkan hukuman yang tinggi bagi kesalahan-kesalahan berkaitan dadah yang bertujuan untuk menangani masalah dadah yang semakin meruncing di dalam negara. Di dalam menimbang faktor kepentingan awam, kepentingan peribadi tertuduh perlu diimbangi sebelum Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Prinsip penghukuman - Pertuduhan pemilikan dadah berbahaya - Kesalahan pertama - Pengakuan bersalah - Sama ada kepentingan awam wajar diutamakan - Sama ada hukuman perlu menggambarkan keseriusan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh - Sama ada kepentingan peribadi tertuduh perlu diimbangi - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan bersifat punitif dan reformatif

  • Bagi pihak pendakwa raya - Naizatul Zamrina Karizaman; T/n K L Chee & Co
  • Bagi pihak perayu - Aida Fatimah Abd Jabar

[2024] CLJU 183

MM LIVE ENTERTAINMENT SDN BHD lwn. MOHAMMAD NAZRIN MD NOH & YANG LAIN

Mahkamah mempunyai kuasa budi bicara untuk melanjutkan suatu tempoh masa yang dinyatakan di dalam suatu perintah yang diperolehi selepas perbicaraan penuh setelah kegagalan melaksanakan perintah tersebut dalam tempoh masa yang dinyatakan pada awalnya telah dijelaskan dengan nyata dalam afidavit sokongan pemohon. Lanjutan masa sedemikian adalah wajar diberikan demi keadilan kepada pihak pemohon untuk menerima hasil litigasinya.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Lanjutan masa - Budi bicara Mahkamah - - Perintah diperolehi selepas perbicaraan penuh - Pelaksanaan spesifik - Lanjutan masa tambahan untuk melengkapkan urusan pindahmilik - Jangka masa yang dinyatakan dalam perintah asal tidak mencukupi - Permohonan difailkan selepas perintah telah luput - Sama ada peruntukan A. 3 k. 5 dan A. 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memberi kuasa kepada Mahkamah untuk melanjutkan tempoh masa - Sama ada permohonan plaintif adalah teratur - Sama ada Mahkamah wajar menggunakan budi bicaranya untuk membenarkan pelanjutan masa - Sama ada pelanjutan masa mengakibatkan pemindaan atau pengubahan keputusan - Sama ada plaintif akan mengalami prejudis yang teruk jika permohonan ditolak

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Avtar Singh Sukhdev Singh
  • Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Mohd Zailani Meli; T/n Yaacob Mentol, Zamani & Associates

CLJ 2024 Volume 9 (Part 1)

(i) An arbitration award, which involves only the shareholders of a company, does not bind the company itself as the company is a separate legal entity that could not be bound by proceedings to which it is not made a party; (ii) The court's power to award pre-judgment interest, pursuant to s. 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956, is subject to contractual provisions. When a contract expressly deals with the issue of interest, the court's discretion to award interest shall then be limited to the terms of the contract; (iii) Clear and unequivocal written admission of debt may prevent the operation of the limitation period. The limitation period for a claim of debt restarts if a debtor acknowledges such debt in writing.
Kee Hin Ventures Sdn Bhd v. Great Partners Industries Ltd & Ors [2024] 9 CLJ 1 [CA]

| |

ARBITRATION: Award - Company matter - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether company party to arbitration - Whether company separate legal entity

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interest - Award - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - High Court ordered company to pay interest on dividends on basis that interest was awarded in arbitral award - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether High Court could exercise discretion to award pre-judgment interest pursuant to s. 11 of Civil Law Act 1956

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Petition - Dispute in relation to payment of dividends - Matter referred to arbitration - Claim involving shareholders of company - Arbitral tribunal allowed minority shareholders' claim for outstanding dividends owed - Arbitral award enforced as judgment of court - Whether arbitral award binding on company - Whether company party to arbitration - Whether company separate legal entity

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
Mariana Yahya JCA
Lim Chong Fong JCA

  • For the appellant - Yeoh Cho Kheong & Saw Wei Siang; M/s Ranjit Singh & Yeoh
  • For the respondents - Joseph Yeo, Kelvin Ng Sin Huat & Lim Yin Shan; M/s HK Ang & Partners

Dalam kes rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi, apabila terdapat juga rayuan terdahulu di Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Tinggi kedua tidak wajar membuat apa-apa ulasan tentang dapatan dan keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi pertama kerana kedua-duanya mempunyai bidang kuasa yang sama.
Nik Hazrihairi Nik Kasim lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2024] 9 CLJ 18 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Tertuduh-tertuduh disabitkan atas empat pertuduhan berasingan bawah s. 24(2) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Mahkamah Sesyen menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan denda RM10,000 jika gagal bayar lapan bulan penjara untuk setiap pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh masing-masing - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan kemustahilan fakta dan undang-undang - Sama ada pihak pembelaan membangkitkan keraguan munasabah - Sama ada pihak Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memberikan penghakiman beralasan

 

 

Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas H

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Morgan Subramaniam; M/s Nurul & Charan
                                 Ang Chun Pun; M/s CP Ang & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Rehab Abdul Shukur; TPR

The role of the Shariah Advisory Council, appointed by Bank Negara, is limited to providing guidance on Shariah compliance. It does not have the authority to make binding decisions regarding the financial liabilities of borrowers. This responsibility remains with the court, specifically the presiding judge, who evaluates the evidence and legal arguments presented in the case to make a final ruling on the borrower's liability.
Nuro Dagangan Sdn Bhd v. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Bhd [2024] 9 CLJ 37 [HC]

|

BANKING: Islamic banking - Financing facility - Borrower received financing facilities from bank - Facilities under principles of bai al-inah and murabahah - Creation of charges over borrower's properties as securities for financing facilities - Borrower failed to make payments to bank - Bank issued 16D notice pursuant to s. 254 of National Land Code to commence foreclosure proceedings against charged properties - Declaration sought by borrower to invalidate charges on properties - Argument that financing facilities not compliant with Shariah principles - Whether financing facilities contradicted Shariah principles - Whether court must enforce Shariah Advisory Council's rulings without exercising its own judicial discretion based on statutes and common law

LAND LAW: Charge - Validity - Borrower received financing facilities from bank - Facilities under Islamic banking principles of bai al-inah and murabahah - Creation of charges over borrower's properties as securities for financing facilities - Borrower failed to make payments to bank - Bank issued 16D notice pursuant to s. 254 of National Land Code to commence foreclosure proceedings against charged properties - Declaration sought by borrower to invalidate charges on properties - Argument that financing facilities not compliant with Shariah principles - Whether charges valid - National Land Code, ss. 241 & 256(3)

 

Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC

  • For the plaintiff - Mugunthan Vadiveloo & Mohammed Nasser Yusof; M/s The Law Chambers of Fauzi & Nasser
  • For the defendant - Ku Amirul Faiz Ku Seman & Nik Suraya Nadhira Abd Rahim; M/s Kama & Wan

(i) Walaupun tidak digariskan dalam mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang, Arahan Pentadbiran Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Bil. 2 Tahun 2018 menetapkan bahawa mod permohonan untuk semakan jenayah adalah melalui surat permohonan. Ini memberi Hakim/Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman, yang membaca surat permohonan, pilihan untuk melaksanakan kuasa semakan beliau atau sebaliknya. Notis usul, seperti dalam kes ini, bukan mod yang betul untuk membuat permohonan semakan jenayah namun, demi keadilan, boleh dipertimbangkan berdasarkan merit, merujuk pada s. 325(1) Kanun Tatataca Jenayah; (ii) Kuasa memulakan, menjalankan atau memberhentikan apa-apa prosiding untuk satu-satu kesalahan terletak hak pada Pendakwa Raya. Perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan (DNAA) atau pelepasan yang terjumlah sebagai pembebasan (DAA) hanya akan diberi oleh mahkamah atas permohonan oleh Pendakwa Raya.
Ooi Chieng Sim lwn. PP [2024] 9 CLJ 52 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan - Permohonan - Mod - Mod untuk memulakan permohonan semakan jenayah - Semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Pemohon memfailkan permohonan semakan melalui notis usul - Sama ada notis usul mod yang betul - Sama ada teratur - Sama ada notis usul boleh dipertimbangkan berdasarkan merit - Arahan Pentadbiran Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Bil. 2 Tahun 2018 - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 325(1) & 326

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pelepasan atau pembebasan - Perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan - Semakan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen - Tertuduh berhadapan dengan lima pertuduhan bawah s. 4(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 - Kesalahan menyembunyikan harta yang dia mempunyai sebab untuk percayai adalah harta yang menyalahi undang-undang - Saksi enggan hadir - Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memerintahkan tertuduh dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan memohon perintah pelepasan tanpa pembebasan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang dirangka tidak berasas - Sama ada perintah yang dibuat betul - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 173(g) & 254

 

 

Fathiyah Idris PK

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah & Wee Yeong Kang; T/n Shafee & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nurul Wahida Jalaluddin & Manjira Vasudevan; Jabatan Peguam Negara

(i) Once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case for corruption under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of corruption on a balance of probabilities. Mere denial or afterthought is insufficient to rebut the presumption as the accused must adduce evidence to the contrary; (ii) In a case involving coordinate jurisdiction, the High Court's previous decision, in this case, to order an accused to enter a defence at the Sessions Court, remains intact and cannot be revisited by the subsequent High Court.
PP v. Sabudin Mohd Salleh [2024] 9 CLJ 79 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal by prosecution - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Accused charged for offences of corruption - Payments for job assignments to company for projects - Charges under s. 17(a) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Accused acquitted and discharged from charges at end of prosecution's case - Whether elements of charge proven - Whether prosecution made out prima facie case against accused - Whether accused corruptly received gratification - Whether defence raised reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Courts - Jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Accused charged for offences of corruption - Payments for job assignments to company for projects - Charges under s. 17(a) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Sessions Court acquitted and discharged accused of charges at end of prosecution's case on ground prosecution had not made out prima facie case against accused - Decision of Sessions Court reversed by High Court ('first High Court') upon appeal - First High Court ordered accused to enter defence and to proceed to trial at Sessions Court - Sessions Court continued to hear defence of accused and again acquitted and discharged accused - Prosecution appealed against decision at High Court ('second High Court') - Extent and/or limit of second High Court's appellate jurisdiction - Whether entire case was before second High Court for hearing - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 26

 

 

Muniandy Kannyappan J

  • For the Public Prosecutor/appellant - Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin & Natrah Fareha Rahmat; DPPs
  • For the accused/respondent - K Theivaendran & Y Sheelan; M/s Desmond Ho & Assocs

Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') diwujudkan untuk menggariskan tatacara pengendalian, pendengaran, perbicaraan dan rayuan kes. Pihak yang ingin mendapatkan keadilan dalam prosiding sivil, dengan mengemukakan rayuan, hendaklah memastikan peruntukan-peruntukan bawah KKM dipatuhi dengan sewajarnya. Jika tidak dilakukan, ini akan menyebabkan KKM tidak akan membawa apa-apa makna pada pihak-pihak. Lanjutan masa tidak boleh diberikan sewenang-wenangnya tanpa alasan wajar kerana tempoh masa yang ditetapkan seumpama barang hiasan sahaja jika tidak dipatuhi.
Tan Kee Fatt lwn. Thiroubathay Kadirapan [2024] 9 CLJ 126 [HC]

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Notis rayuan - Penyampaian dan serahan - Permohonan membatalkan notis rayuan - Notis rayuan diserahkan luar tempoh had masa yang dibenarkan - Sama ada lanjutan masa wajar diberikan - Sama ada akan menyebabkan prejudis dan ketidakadilan - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 55 k. 3(4), A. 62 & A. 63A k. 17

 

 

Roslan Mat Nor H

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Hoe Wei Ee; T/n BH Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - Amanda Sonia Mathew; T/n Raj & Sach

In a transfer application pursuant to O. 57 r. 1(4) of the Rules of Court 2012, the cause of action that ought to be considered as a predominant cause of action is the one that arose in an original statement of claim, and not one that arose in a counterclaim.
Tan Tiang Huat & Anor v. Lim Yee Hui & Anor [2024] 9 CLJ 141 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Courts - Transfer of action - From one High Court to another - Application to transfer trial of suit from Penang High Court to Kuala Lumpur High Court - Whether transfer application ought to be allowed - Whether cause of action arose in Penang or Kuala Lumpur - Whether cause of action that arose in original statement of claim, and not in counterclaim, that ought to be considered as predominant cause of action - Whether jurisdiction to hear suit fell to court where leave order was granted - Rules of Court 2012, O. 57 r. 1(4)

 

 

Anand Ponnudurai J

  • For the plaintiffs - Ng Siok Lyn & Quah Zhe Ken; M/s Chung Chambers
  • For the defendants - Julie Ha; M/s Tiong & Assocs

There is no conflict between r. 74 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 ('DPMR') and O. 52 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). Vide the doctrine of harmonious construction, the procedural requirements under O. 52 of the ROC ought to be seen as complementary to those under r. 74 of the DPMR.
VAN v. ZAN [2024] 9 CLJ 151 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Application for - Former husband refused to pay maintenance to former wife, contrary to court order - Former wife applied for order of committal - Whether former wife correct in applying for order of committal vide r. 74 of Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 instead of O. 52 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether r. 74 of DPMR prevails over O. 52 of ROC - Whether r. 74 of DPMR only applicable to applications for order of committal in matrimonial proceedings pending in High Court

 

 

Evrol Mariette Peters J

  • For the petitioner-husband - Absent
  • For the petitioner-wife - YN Foo & Kiran Dhaliwal; M/s YN Foo & Co

 

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. ANAS CONSTRUCTION: ALL WITHIN FOUR CORNERS – BUT WHICH, AND WHAT [Read excerpt]
    by Max Kong* [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxiii

    2. [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxiii
    MALAYSIA

    ANAS CONSTRUCTION: ALL WITHIN FOUR CORNERS – BUT WHICH, AND WHAT

    by
    Max Kong*

    INTRODUCTION

    Slightly more than a decade ago, the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('2012 Act', or when referred to together with specific provisions, 'CIPAA') was enacted to introduce a statutory adjudication mechanism to resolve payment disputes in the construction industry speedily. On 15 April 2014, it came into force, revolutionising the dispute resolution landscape in Malaysia.

    That said, like all other dispute resolution processes, an adjudication pursuant to the 2012 Act is confined to disputes referred to be adjudicated in the proceeding. Otherwise, a decision obtained at the end of the proceeding is open to challenges, including for want of jurisdiction on the part of the decision-maker i.e., the adjudicator.

    Indeed, an adjudication decision was recently so challenged all the way to the apex court.

    . . .

    *Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya).

  2. IS CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL TRIAL NECESSARY IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES? [Read excerpt]
    by Mohd Taufik Bin Mohd@Mohd Yusoff* [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxiv

    3. [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxiv
    MALAYSIA

    IS CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL TRIAL NECESSARY IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES?

    by
    Mohd Taufik Bin Mohd@Mohd Yusoff*

    ABSTRACT

    Cross-examination is where 'the cross-examiner may even seek to show that the witness is not someone who can safely be believed on oath' (as per Abdul Malik Ishak JCA in Hari Bhadur Ghale v. PP [2012] 2 CLJ 1006). Notwithstanding the significance of cross-examination, it is utterly a misconception and a wrong understanding of the law that every unchallenged evidence not made through cross-examination of a witness means that his or her evidence shall be accepted truthfully without any question by the court or, in a sense, wrong for the court to evaluate such evidence with other evidence already before the court. In the case of Wong Swee Chin v. PP [1980] CLJU 138, the authority from the Federal Court has laid down the correct principle of law in respect of the failure to cross-examine. There are also some locally decided authorities and outside of Malaysia which have also addressed the issue. They concluded that it would not be fatal in certain circumstances when the cross-examination was not carried out.

    . . .

    *Industrial Court Chairman Sarawak (previously the Director of Prosecution, Sarawak). Email: taufik@mohr.gov.my.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 856 Malaysian Aviation Commission (Dissolution) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 855 Preservation of Public Security (Sarawak) Act 1962 (Revised-2024) 30 July 2024 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 July 2024; First enacted in 1962 as Sarawak Ordinance No 13 of 1962 - -
ACT 854 Cyber Security Act 2024 26 August 2024 [PU(B) 334/2024] - -
ACT 853 Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act 2024 30 August 2024 [PU(B) 342/2024] - -
ACT 852 Control of Smoking Products For Public Health Act 2024 Not Yet In Force - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1725 Employment Insurance System (Amendment) Act 2024 1 October 2024 [PU(B) 382/2024] ACT 800
ACT A1724 Employees' Social Security (Amendment) Act 2024 1 October 2024 [PU(B) 381/2024] ACT 4
ACT A1723 Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 788
ACT A1722 Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 593
ACT A1721 Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 574

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 255/2024 Syarie Legal Profession (Federal Territories) (Practice and Etiquette of Peguam Syarie) Rules 2024 26 September 2024 27 September 2024 ACT 814
PU(A) 254/2024 Renewable Energy (Amendment of Schedule) Order 2024 26 September 2024 30 September 2024 ACT 725
PU(A) 253/2024 Financial Services (Protection and Indemnity Insurance In Respect Ofships) (Exemption) Order 2024 24 September 2024 25 March 2024 and shall continue to be in operation until 24 March 2027 ACT 758
PU(A) 252/2024 Perbadanan Putrajaya (Financial and Accounting) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 23 September 2024 22 October 2019 PU(A) 397/2007
PU(A) 251/2024 Land Public Transport (Terminal Licensing) (Container Depot) Regulations 2024 20 September 2024 1 January 2025 ACT 715

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 404/2024 Fatwa Under Section 34 8 October 2024 9 October 2024 ACT 505
PU(B) 403/2024 Notice Under Section 70 7 October 2024 8 October 2024 ACT 333
PU(B) 402/2024 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment Under Section 4 7 October 2024 Appointment - Specified in column (3) of the First Schedule; Revocation - Specified in column (3) of the Second Schedule ACT 716
PU(B) 401/2024 Notice Under Section 70 7 October 2024 8 October 2024 ACT 333
PU(B) 400/2024 Notice Under Section 70 7 October 2024 8 October 2024 ACT 333

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 725 Akta Tenaga Boleh Baharu 2011 PU(A) 254/2024 30 September 2024 Jadual
ACT 725 Renewable Energy Act 2011 PU(A) 254/2024 30 September 2024 Schedule
PU(A) 397/2007 Perbadanan Putrajaya (Financial and Accounting) Regulations 2007 PU(A) 252/2024 22 October 2019 Part V
ACT 357 Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (Revised 1988) PU(A) 248/2024 21 September 2024 Second Schedule
PU(A) 14/2020 Perintah Jalan-Jalan Persekutuan (Pengurusan Persendirian) (Pungutan Tol) (Lebuh Raya Pesisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping-Banting)) 2020 PU(A) 242/2024 30 September 2024 Perenggan 2; Jadual Pertama dan Jadual Kedua

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 121/2024 Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 6) 2024 PU(A) 237/2024 11 September 2024
PU(A) 121/2024 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) Order 2024 PU(A) 237/2024 11 September 2024
PU(A) 288/2019 Perintah Mesin Cetak Dan Penerbitan (Kawalan Hasil Penerbitan Tidak Diingini) (No. 3) 2019 PU(A) 213/2024 13 Ogos 2024
PU(A) 288/2019 Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 3) Order 2019 PU(A) 213/2024 13 August 2024
PU(A) 420/1989 Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (Pendaftaran Orang-Orang Yang Melibatkan Diri Dalam Pemprosesan Atau Pemasaran Keluaran Pertanian) 1989 [Diganti oleh PU(A) 195/2024] PU(A) 195/2024 16 Julai 2024 (edisi semakan); 22 Disember 1989 [PU(A) 420/1989]; Disemak sehingga 1 Julai 2024 oleh Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang di bawah seksyen 13 Akta Penyemakan Undang-Undang 1968 [Akta 1]

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here