| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #17/2025
24 April 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
CIMB BANK BHD v. SUPPIAH S GOVINDASAMY & ORS [2025] 4 CLJ 534 Section 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ('GPA') is an enabling provision, granting specific rights to file suits related to public, religious, social or charitable trusts. It does not impose a requirement for a chargee to obtain the Attorney General's written consent before executing or registering a third-party charge unless they are: (i) filing a suit regarding a breach of such a trust; (ii) seeking court's directions for the administration of such a trust; (iii) applying to join an existing suit on behalf of the Government or public related to such a trust; and (iv) those actions are based on one of the purposes within s. 9(1)(a) to (i) of the GPA. LAND LAW: Charge - Trust - Public, religious and charitable trust created over three lots of land for benefit of Hindu community - Hindu temple built on one lot while two other lots used as Hindu burial grounds - Chargors planned to develop three lots of land and entered into joint venture agreement with developer - Developer applied for banking facilities from bank ('chargee') - Developer defaulted in repayment - Chargee terminated banking facilities and demanded for outstanding sum due and owing - Whether chargee required to obtain written consent of Attorney General before executing and registering charge over land - Whether chargors had power and capacity to charge two burial lots - Whether there was fraud - Whether chargee party of privy to any fraud of chargors/developer - National Land Code - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 9(1) & (2) TRUST: Charitable trust - Public, religious and charitable trust created over three lots of land for benefit of Hindu community - Hindu temple built on one lot while two other lots used as Hindu burial grounds - Chargors planned to develop three lots of land and entered into joint venture agreement with developer - Developer applied for banking facilities from bank ('chargee') - Developer defaulted in repayment - Chargee terminated banking facilities and demanded for outstanding sum due and owing - Whether chargee required to obtain written consent of Attorney General before executing and registering charge over land which was subject matter of public, religious and charitable trust - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 9(1) & (2) APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2025 Volume 4 (Part 3) INTERNATIONAL CASE N/A
William Hansen (Deputy Master)
(i) Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution requires the consent of both parents for the conversion of a minor to Islam. The word 'parent' in art. 12(4) must be interpreted as meaning both parents; (ii) The ruling of the Federal Court is binding throughout the nation; (iii) While Syariah Courts have full power to decide on matters within their jurisdiction, civil courts retain supervisory power to correct errors when Syariah Courts act outside their jurisdiction. A decision made by the Syariah Courts outside of their jurisdiction can be set aside by the civil courts. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Federal Constitution - Article 160B - Authoritative text - Whether Bahasa Melayu or English version authoritative text of Federal Constitution - Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors And Other Appeals CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Civil and Syariah courts - Jurisdiction and powers - Full power of Syariah Courts to decide matters within jurisdiction - Instances where Syariah Courts act outside of jurisdiction - Supervisory power of civil courts to correct jurisdictional error of Syariah Courts CIVIL PROCEDURE: Courts - Federal Court - Decisions of Federal Court - Bindingness of Federal Court judgments throughout nation STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'parent' - Whether plural - Whether 'parent' in art. 12(4) of Federal Constitution should be read to mean both parents - Whether consent of both parents constitutionally required in order for certificates of conversion to have force of law - Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors And Other Appeals Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ
(i) A medical practitioner, in this case a consultant surgeon, is not necessarily negligent simply because a complication occurs. The question is whether the surgeon acted carelessly or negligently in performing the procedure. If the surgeon's actions are in accordance with accepted medical practice and standards, and there are plausible explanations for the complication, negligence may not be established. The mere occurrence of a rare complication does not automatically equate to negligence; (ii) A medical practitioner has a duty to inform a patient of material risks associated with a proposed procedure. This duty is specific and distinct from general warnings about surgical complications. A risk is material if a reasonable patient would likely attach significance to it, or if the practitioner knows or should know that the particular patient would do so. A consent form, which may disclose general risks, is not sufficient to discharge the duty to warn of specific material risks; (iii) A hospital may be vicariously liable for the negligence of a consultant surgeon if there is a sufficiently close connection between the hospital and the consultant. The 'independent contractor' defence may not succeed if there is evidence suggesting a close relationship, and if there is no sufficient notice to patients that the hospital is not responsible for the actions of the consultants. TORT
TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Breach of duty - Duty to advise - Patient complained of knee pain to consultant surgeon - Patient advised to undergo surgery - Patient suffered injury to popliteal artery arthroscopy - Patient suffered residual disabilities to leg - Whether there was duty to inform of specific risk of popliteal artery injury - Whether consultant surgeon provided advice and information regarding risks of procedure - Whether consultant surgeon aware of inherent and material risks in treatment - Whether injury suffered foreseeable - Whether risks disclosed in consent form sufficient - Whether patient would attach significance to warnings of risks associated with surgery - Whether patient deprived of chance to make informed decision as to whether to proceed with surgery or otherwise TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Claim - Patient complained of knee pain to consultant surgeon - Patient advised to undergo surgery - Patient suffered injury to popliteal artery arthroscopy - Patient suffered residual disabilities to leg - Whether consultant surgeon negligent in conduct of surgery - Whether there was duty to inform patient of specific risk of popliteal artery injury - Whether there was breach of that duty - Whether consultant surgeon acted in accordance with practice and medical standards while performing surgery - Whether there was breach of standard of care expected in diagnosis and treatment - Whether there was vicarious liability on part of hospital - Whether non-delegable duty of care applied to hospital as provider of healthcare TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Duty of care - Non-delegable duty of care - Patient complained of knee pain to consultant surgeon - Consultant surgeon had private medical practice at hospital - Patient advised to undergo surgery - Patient suffered injury to popliteal artery arthroscopy - Five criteria in Woodland v. Essex County Council - Whether met and satisfied - Whether hospital assumed non-delegable duty of care - Whether hospital owed personally to patient - Whether hospital breached non-delegable duty of care to patient TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Liability - Vicarious liability - Patient complained of knee pain to consultant surgeon - Consultant surgeon had private medical practice at hospital - Patient advised to undergo surgery - Patient suffered injury to popliteal artery arthroscopy - Whether consultant surgeon independent contractor - Whether hospital's terms and conditions of service sufficient and adequate notice to patient that hospital was not responsible for wrongs of its consultants - Whether hospital vicariously liable for negligence of consultant surgeon
Kamaludin Md Said JCA
(i) An applicant, who has no registered interest in the subject land, is bound to fail in its application for judicial review premised on the challenge to the variation of the express condition of the subject land under s. 124 of the National Land Code; (ii) Reading s. 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 ('TCPA') in its entirety and duly considering the object of the TCPA, ss. 21(6) and 21(7) of the TCPA do not statutorily require any involvement of public participation in the application for a rezoning of land. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Local authority - Application for order of certiorari to quash decision of local authority in rezoning and changing express conditions of land - Whether applicant had right under s. 124 of National Land Code to challenge variation of express condition of land - Whether applicant had locus standi - Whether local authority ought to include public participation through local inquiry in determining application for rezoning of land - Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 4, 18, 21 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Local authority - Discretionary powers - Rezoning and changing express conditions of land - Whether local authority ought to include public participation through local inquiry in determining application for rezoning of land - Whether proposed rezoning consistent with types of development permitted under structure plan - Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 4, 18, 21 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Judicial review - Application for - Application for order of certiorari to quash decision of local authority in rezoning and changing express conditions of land - Whether applicant had right under s. 124 of National Land Code to challenge variation of express condition of land - Whether applicant had locus standi - Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 4, 18, 21 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Legislation - Intention of Parliament - Section 21(6) and (7) of Town and Country Planning Act 1976 - Whether application of provisions restricted to planning permission stage - Whether should be extended to application for rezoning of land - Whether provisions should not be stretched outside scope and limit Mariana Yahya JCA
Hukuman untuk sabitan terhadap lebih daripada satu kesalahan perlu sejajar dengan prinsip undang-undang dan penghukuman. Hakim bicara mempunyai budi bicara untuk menentukan hukuman yang wajar dan setimpal dengan kesalahan dan kewajaran hukuman yang dijatuhkan berjalan sama ada secara serentak atau berturutan. Hukuman berasingan untuk kesalahan melebihi satu pertuduhan tidak wajar dikenakan melainkan terdapat alasan baik untuk berbuat demikian. Mahkamah perlu meneliti fakta, jenis kesalahan, kesan hukuman terhadap tertuduh, prinsip hukuman keseluruhan dan kepentingan awam, sebelum menentukan sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan harus berjalan secara serentak atau berturutan. Faktor-faktor ini, walaupun bukan tuntas, wajar dijadikan panduan sebelum hakim bicara menjatuhkan hukuman secara berturutan atau serentak. PROSEDUR JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Pemenjaraan - Hukuman pemenjaraan untuk dua kesalahan berlainan diperintahkan berjalan secara berturutan - Sama ada perintah pemenjaraan yang berjalan secara berturutan wajar - Sama ada jumlah pertuduhan lebih daripada satu secara automatik menyebabkan hukuman berjalan secara serentak - Faktor-faktor yang dipertimbangkan mahkamah - Sama ada usia perayu semasa dibebaskan menjadi faktor pertimbangan pengenaan hukuman secara serentak atau berturutan - Sama ada faktor usia mengatasi keselamatan awam
Roslan Mat Nor H
Courts ought to balance competing interests when considering late amendments to pleadings and the re-opening of cases, particularly in the context of insurance disputes where utmost good faith is paramount. The pursuit of truth and justice outweighs concerns about minor delays or costs, provided that any prejudice to the other party can be addressed. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Statement of claim - Amendments - Application by plaintiff for leave to amend amended statement of claim - Application made after trial had progressed into defendants' case and plaintiff had already closed case - Allegations of new evidence arising from witnesses' evidence during trial statements and discovery of contradictory information - Whether application ought to be allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 20 r. 5 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Re-opening of case - Application by plaintiff for leave to amend amended statement of claim and simultaneously open case - Application made after trial had progressed into defendants' case and plaintiff had already closed case - Allegations of new evidence arising from witnesses' evidence during trial statements and discovery of contradictory information - Whether application ought to be allowed - Whether application made bona fide - Rules of Court 2012, O. 92 r. 4
Moses Susayan JC
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|