Back to Top

Issue #5/2021
04 February 2021

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

SELVA VINAYAGAM SURES v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS [2021] 2 CLJ 29
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ;
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(HC)-270-11-2019(B)]
11 DECEMBER 2020

The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, otherwise Act 316, is a special specie of enactment on preventive detention enacted pursuant to art 149 of the Federal Constitution (FC) under which the fundamental liberties prescribed under arts 5, 9, 10 and 13 of the FC may be circumscribed. This said, in interpreting the Executive's power of detention under s. 6(1) of Act 316, the long title and preamble to the Act ought to be properly construed and given effect to as part of the Act. The construction must further have regard to ss. 15 and 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948/1967, the underlying object of the Act and the principle that any safeguard that the law provides for such detention must be liberally interpreted.

Bearing all these in mind, and notwithstanding that the words "a substantial body of persons" appearing in the preamble of Act 316 can nowhere be found in s. 6(1), the object of Act 316 should be read into s. 6(1) in order to give the sub-section the meaning intended by Parliament. It follows, hence, that the power under s. 6(1) may only be exercised if the following ingredients are set out in the grounds of the detention order and allegations of fact, namely, that: (i) the activity which has been taken or is being threatened by a substantial body of persons relates to or involves trafficking in dangerous drugs; (ii) the detenu is a member of a substantial body of persons; and (iii) the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public order that the detenu be subject to preventive detention. Be that as it may, since the detenu herein was acting alone, he cannot be caught by the ambit of Act 316. The detention order being a nullity, a writ of habeas corpus ought to issue to forthwith set the detenu at liberty.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Whether detention unlawful - Detention order issued pursuant to s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Grounds of detention order revealed detenu acting alone without participation from any other person - Whether detenu acting alone deemed to fall within ambit and scope of scrutiny under Act 316 - Whether scope explicitly confined to substantial body of persons - Whether there was failure to comply with rule of law - Whether detention order ultra vires art. 149 of Federal Constitution and Act 316 - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ - Application for - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Grounds of detention order revealed detenu acting alone without participation from any other person - Whether detenu acting alone deemed to fall within ambit and scope of scrutiny under Act 316 - Whether scope explicitly confined to substantial body of persons - Whether there was failure to comply with rule of law - Whether detention order ultra vires art. 149 of Federal Constitution and Act 316 - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Interpretation - Preamble to Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Whether Act to stop action prejudicial to public order taken or threatened by 'a substantial body of persons' - Whether Act 316 consonant with art. 149 of Federal Constitution - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 15 and 17A - Whether provides that short title, long title and preamble to Act 316 should be construed as part of Act 316 - Whether purpose and object of Act 316 should be read into s. 6(1) to give it meaning intended by Parliament - Whether interpretation and construction of any written law shall have regard to underlying purpose or object of the Act - Codification of purposive rule of construction - Whether includes purpose or object manifest in long title and preamble of Act


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Ang Game Hong & Anor v. Tee Kim Tiam & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 2008 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Tee Kim Tiam v. Tan Ping Nah & Ors [Writ of Summons No: 21NCVC-29-03/2013]

  2. Chow Kwee Chai v. PGL Vision Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 2009 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PGL Vision Sdn Bhd v. Chow Kwee Chai [Suit No: 22NCVC-184-11/2014]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2243

AB AZIZ AB BAKAR lwn. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

1. Tuntutan sivil berasaskan perlanggaran perkara-perkara di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan hanya boleh dibangkitkan terhadap badan perundangan atau eksekutif sahaja. Justeru, tindakan berasaskan perlanggaran Perlembagaan Persekutuan terhadap syarikat liabiliti terhad persendirian adalah sama sekali tidak boleh dipertahankan.

2. Tindakan untuk mencabar kesahihan pembekuan akaun bank menurut s. 47(1) Akta Kebankrapan 1967 telah menjadi akademik dan tidak boleh dipertahankan apabila pihak bank telah menarik balik sekatan pembekuan akaun tersebut.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Kausa tindakan - Perlanggaran perkara 5 & 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Tindakan oleh individu persendirian terhadap syarikat liabiliti terhad persendirian - Sama ada plaintif boleh membawa tindakan terdapat syarikat liabiliti terhad persendirian berasaskan perlanggaran perkara-perkara di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada tindakan plaintif boleh dipertahankan

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Kausa tindakan - Akademik - Tindakan untuk mencabar kesahihan pembekuan akaun bank menurut s. 47(1) Akta Kebankrapan 1967 - Pihak bank telah menarik balik sekatan pembekuan ke atas akaun bank plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan plaintif telah menjadi akademik - Sama ada tuntutan plaintif adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Sama ada tuntutan plantif boleh dipertahankan

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Nadzratun Naim & Nurilya Ellyna; T/n Mohamed Hanifa & Associates
  • Bagi pihak defendan - Nur Hamizah Bustami; T/n Shook Lin & Bok

[2018] 1 LNS 2244

MOHD YOMNI IDRIS lwn. SITI ESAH YAAKOB & YANG LAIN

1. Pendaftaran instrumen pindahmilik adalah berdasarkan rekod pemilikan di dalam sistem pendaftaran tanah berkomputer ('SPTB'). Justeru, tiada perlanggaran kewajipan berjaga-jaga dan tugas statutori dilakukan oleh pihak Pentadbir Tanah ketika membuat endorsmen penyaksian dan pendaftaran pindahmilik tanah atas nama plaintif yang dibuat secara suci hati berdasarkan SPTB tersebut.

2. Pembeli hartanah mempunyai kewajipan untuk memastikan pengesahan rasmi kedudukan tanah dibuat oleh pentadbir tanah sebelum berurusan untuk membeli tanah. Pembeli boleh menyumbang cuai dalam kerugiannya apabila pembeli hanya bersandar kepada tempat yang ditunjuk oleh penjual dan gagal untuk mengambil langkah-langkah berjaga-jaga sebelum melaksanakan pendaftaran pindahmilik.

TORT: Kecuaian - Tugasan statutori - Kewajipan berkanun pentadbir tanah - Kewujudan pertindihan hak milik tanah dengan pihak ketiga - Geran hakmilik yang digunakan untuk pendaftaran hakmilik hartanah tidak wujud - Penyandaran kepada sistem pendaftaran tanah berkomputer ('SPTB') - Sama ada Pentadbir Tanah telah cuai dalam tugas ketika mengendalikan pendaftaran dan pengeluaran hakmilik hartanah - Sama ada kewajipan berjaga-jaga dan tugas statutari Pentadbir Tanah tertakluk kepada SPTB - Sama ada semakan hakmilik di dalam SPTB telah dibuat secara suci hati sebelum membuat penyaksian semasa proses pendaftaran hakmilik

TORT: Kecuaian - Kecuaian sumbang - Jual beli tanah - Kegagalan pembeli untuk memastikan pengesahan rasmi kedudukan tanah dibuat oleh Pentadbir Tanah sebelum berurusan untuk membeli tanah - Pembeli hanya bersandar kepada tempat yang ditunjuk oleh penjual - Pembeli menyedari perbezaan butiran hartanah - Sama ada pembeli telah menyumbang cuai dalam kerugiannya - Sama ada pembeli sewajarnya mengambil langkah-langkah berjaga-jaga sebelum melaksanakan pendaftaran pindahmilik

  • Bagi pihak plaintif/perayu - Mohd Syukran Mohd Noordin; T/n Syukran Noordin
  • Bagi pihak defendan/responden - Nazlyza Mohamad Nazri & Mohd Zain Mat; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan

[2019] 1 LNS 5

AHMAD MAHMUD HAMZAH & SATU LAGI lwn. MUHAMMAD IZZAT MOHD KHIR & KES YANG LAIN

Latar belakang tempat kejadian perlu diambil kira ketika menentukan liabiliti di dalam kemalangan jalan raya. Seseorang pemandu seharusnya memperlahankan kenderaannya di kawasan jalan raya yang dikategorikan sebagai kawasan bahaya. Apabila pemandu membawa kenderaannya melebihi had laju yang ditetapkan di kawasan yang dikategorikan sebagai kawasan bahaya dan mengakibatkan kemalangan, maka pemandu tersebut seharusnya bertanggungan 100% ke atas kemalangan.

LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Perlanggaran antara kereta, lori dan treler - Kereta telah cuba memotong lori dan telah memasuki lorong kiri tanpa menyedari kehadiran treler yang berada di lorang kiri - Kereta cuba mengelak pertembungan dengan treler tetapi gagal - Kereta dipandu melebihi had laju yang ditetapkan - Kemalangan di atas jalan raya yang dikategori sebagai kawasan bahaya - Kereta terbalik selepas kemalangan - Sama ada pemandu kereta sewajarnya memperlahankan kenderaan di kawasan jalan raya yang dikategorikan sebagai kawasan bahaya - Sama ada latar belakang tempat kejadian perlu diambil kira dalam menentukan liabiliti - Sama ada kemalangan berlaku sepenuhnya atas kecuaian pemandu

LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Sama ada keterangan yang diberikan oleh seseorang pegawai penyiasat boleh dikesampingkan - Sama ada kesan gurisan pada jalan raya adalah kesan brek atau kesan jalan yang terkopek keluar - Sama ada sesuatu kemalangan perlu dilaporkan dalam tempoh masa 24 jam - Sama ada kelayakan pemandu kenderaan menggunakan kenderaannya perlu diambil kira dalam menentukan liabiliti

Rayuan No. AB-12BNCvC-20-05/2018

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Kenneth William, T/n Kenneth William & Assoc
  • Bagi pihak responden - R Kitharaj (menyebut bagi pihak), T/n Manian Raju & SS Yeong

Rayuan No. AB-12BNCvC-21-05/2018

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Kenneth William, T/n Kenneth William & Assoc
  • Bagi pihak responden 1 & 2 - R Kitharaj, T/n M Mahoharan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden 3 - R Kitharaj (menyebut bagi pihak), T/n Manian Raju & SS Yeong
  • Bagi pihak responden 4 - Tidak diwakili

Rayuan No. AB-12BNCvC-22-05/2018

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Kenneth William, T/n Kenneth William & Assoc
  • Bagi pihak responden 1 & 2 - R Kitharaj, T/n M Mahoharan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden 3 - R Kitharaj (menyebut bagi pihak), T/n Manian Raju & SS Yeong
  • Bagi pihak responden 4 - Tidak diwakili

Rayuan No. AB-12BNCvC-23-05/2018

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Kenneth William, T/n Kenneth William & Assoc
  • Bagi pihak resonden 1 - Kenneth William (menyebut bagi pihak), T/n Suhaidi & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden 2 - Tidak diwakili
  • Bagi pihak responden 3 - Kitharaj (menyebut bagi pihak), T/n Manian Raju & SS Yeong

[2019] 1 LNS 1412

INQUIRY COMMITTEE v. MOHAMMAD AZAM MOHAMAD TRUDIN

1. There is no breach of rules of natural justice when an advocate fails to appear to ventilate his case before the inquiry committee despite being given a chance to be heard.

2. An advocate and solicitor suffering from mental issues is not a fit and proper person as he is unable to represent his client's interests. In such circumstances, the defendant ought to be struck off the Roll by virtue of s. 13 of the Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak Cap 110).

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Action to strike advocate and solicitor from the Roll - Advocate suffering from mental issues - Allegation of breach of rules of natural justice - Papers were duly served on advocate but he chose not to appear to ventilate his case before inquiry committee - Whether defendant was given chance to be heard before inquiry committee - Whether there was breach of natural justice

LEGAL PROFESSION: Roll of advocates and solicitors - Struck off - Advocate suffering from mental issues - Whether defendant was a fit and proper person to be an advocate and to represent client's interests - Whether it was safe for defendant to practice law now and in the foreseeable future - Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak Cap 110), s. 13

  • Bagi pihak plaintif/For the plaintiff/For the public prosecution - Desmond Sahathevan of Messrs. Battenberg & Talma
  • Bagi pihak defendan/For the defendant/For the accused - Peli Anak Aron of Peli Anak Aron Advocates

[2019] 1 LNS 1554

MOHAMMAD NIZAM BIN MD SAID v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS

1. Where there was no specific period for the completed report of the inquiry officer to be submitted to the minister, it has to be done with "all convenient speed" as per s. 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948. Since there was no unreasonable delay, the 13 days taken by the inquiry officer to submit a completed report to the minister was acceptable..

2. The non-appearance of the investigating officer, being a crucial witness at the representation hearing, despite being issued a subpoena, had deprived the applicant of exercising his right to cross examine the investigating officer and had further prejudiced the applicant in making his representation. Such prejudice would entail the granting of an application for habeas corpus.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 1985') - Inquiry officer took 13 days to complete inquiry report and thereafter send report to minister - Allegation of delay in submission of Borang I to advisory board - Whether there was specific period for completed report of inquiry officer to be submitted to minister - Whether inquiry officer had submitted report to minister with all convenient speed - Whether Borang I was submitted as soon as practicable to advisory board

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Deprivation of fair hearing - Non-appearance of investigating officer during representation hearing - Investigating officer failed to turn up despite advisory board issuing a subpoena - Whether investigating officer was a crucial witness - Whether absence of investigating officer had deprived applicant of exercising his right to cross examine officer concerned and had prejudiced applicant in making his representation - Whether application for habeas corpus should be allowed

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 1985) - Chairman in his affidavit deposed that there was another representation held - Applicant was unaware of another representation - Whether deposition regarding another representation was a typographical error - Whether there was fundamental breach of Article 151(1)(b) of Federal Constitution and s. 10 of Act 1985 - Whether applicant was being detained without trial - Whether applicant was legally detained

  • For the Applicant - Matthews Jude; M/s Naran Singh & Co.
  • For the Respondents - Adilah Roslan

CLJ 2021 Volume 2 (Part 1)

In a case relating to the procedure to be adopted by a local authority in determining the assessment of the annual valuation of a hydroelectric power station (the property), consideration ought to be given to the fact that the functions and roles of each and every component of the plant, namely, the dam, the diversion water tunnel, tunnel liners and pipelines, spillway and closure of dam outlet are so closely interconnected that they ought rightly and properly to be taken as a single unit of machinery. The components indeed fall under the term 'machinery' as the term is defined in s. 2(b) of the Local Government Act 1976, and are collectively 'article production machinery' and exempt from assessment of the annual value of the property.
Majlis Daerah Hulu Terengganu v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 1 [FC]

|

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Rates - Annual value - Computation of annual value of property - Whether five elements in hydroelectric power plant should be exempted for rating purposes - Whether 'machinery' for production of electricity - Definition of 'machinery' - Local Government Act 1976, s. 2(b) - Functional test - Whether components essential for production of electricity to be regarded as single unit - Whether functions and roles of each and every element important and interconnected - Whether 'article production machinery' enjoyed exemption for computation of annual value of property

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Whether five elements in hydroelectric power plant should be exempted for rating purposes - Whether 'machinery' for production of electricity - Definition of 'machinery' - Local Government Act 1976, s. 2(b) - Functional test - Whether components essential for production of electricity to be regarded as single unit - Whether functions and roles of each and every element important and interconnected - Whether 'article production machinery' enjoyed exemption for computation of annual value of property

 

MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ

  • For the appellant - Zainur Zakaria & Nor Azlan Sharin; M/s Hanif Abdul Rahman & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Cyrus Das & David Mathew; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership

The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, otherwise Act 316, is a special specie of enactment on preventive detention enacted pursuant to art 149 of the Federal Constitution (FC) under which the fundamental liberties prescribed under arts 5, 9, 10 and 13 of the FC may be circumscribed. This said, in interpreting the Executive's power of detention under s. 6(1) of Act 316, the long title and preamble to the Act ought to be properly construed and given effect to as part of the Act. The construction must further have regard to ss. 15 and 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948/1967, the underlying object of the Act and the principle that any safeguard that the law provides for such detention must be liberally interpreted.
Bearing all these in mind, and notwithstanding that the words "a substantial body of persons" appearing in the preamble of Act 316 can nowhere be found in s. 6(1), the object of Act 316 should be read into s. 6(1) in order to give the sub-section the meaning intended by Parliament. It follows, hence, that the power under s. 6(1) may only be exercised if the following ingredients are set out in the grounds of the detention order and allegations of fact, namely, that: (i) the activity which has been taken or is being threatened by a substantial body of persons relates to or involves trafficking in dangerous drugs; (ii) the detenu is a member of a substantial body of persons; and (iii) the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public order that the detenu be subject to preventive detention. Be that as it may, since the detenu herein was acting alone, he cannot be caught by the ambit of Act 316. The detention order being a nullity, a writ of habeas corpus ought to issue to forthwith set the detenu at liberty.
Selva Vinayagam Sures v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 2 CLJ 29 [FC]

| |

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Whether detention unlawful - Detention order issued pursuant to s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Grounds of detention order revealed detenu acting alone without participation from any other person - Whether detenu acting alone deemed to fall within ambit and scope of scrutiny under Act 316 - Whether scope explicitly confined to substantial body of persons - Whether there was failure to comply with rule of law - Whether detention order ultra vires art. 149 of Federal Constitution and Act 316 - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ - Application for - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Grounds of detention order revealed detenu acting alone without participation from any other person - Whether detenu acting alone deemed to fall within ambit and scope of scrutiny under Act 316 - Whether scope explicitly confined to substantial body of persons - Whether there was failure to comply with rule of law - Whether detention order ultra vires art. 149 of Federal Constitution and Act 316 - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Interpretation - Preamble to Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ('Act 316') - Whether Act to stop action prejudicial to public order taken or threatened by 'a substantial body of persons' - Whether Act 316 consonant with art. 149 of Federal Constitution - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 15 and 17A - Whether provides that short title, long title and preamble to Act 316 should be construed as part of Act 316 - Whether purpose and object of Act 316 should be read into s. 6(1) to give it meaning intended by Parliament - Whether interpretation and construction of any written law shall have regard to underlying purpose or object of the Act - Codification of purposive rule of construction - Whether includes purpose or object manifest in long title and preamble of Act

ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ

  • For the appellant - Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • For the respondent - Muhammad Sinti; SFC

Faced with charges for trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs, the accused was convicted on all charges and sentenced, in respect of the trafficking charge, to life imprisonment; against which the prosecution's appeal lies. In view of the failure of the accused to satisfy the conditions provided under sub-s. 2(A) of s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Judicial Commissioner erred in not passing the mandatory death sentence for the offence under s. 39B.
Chandru Muniandy v. PP & Another Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 48 [CA]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Trafficking and possession - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) - Whether presumption rebutted - Whether conviction safe

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Conviction for trafficking in and possession of drugs - Whether accused in possession of drugs at time of raid - Whether appearance of accused upon being confronted by police could be equated with guilt - Whether cautioned statement of wife of accused correctly admitted - Whether drugs linked to third party - Whether accused had power to deal with drugs to exclusion of all other persons - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 39B(1)(a) & 39B(2)

 

YAACOB MD SAM JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA

(Criminal Appeal No: A-05(SH)-326-06-2018)
  • For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Charan Singh; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
  • For the respondent - Faizah Mohd Salleh; DPP
(Criminal Appeal No: A-05(H)-329-06-2018)
  • For the appellant - Tengku Intan Suraya Tengku Ismail; DPP
  • For the respondent - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Charan Singh; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co

The Trade Marks Act 1976 ('TMA') implicitly recognises the right of a person to use his/her own name or in the case of a company, its own name. TMA recognises the use of one own's name in trade and that such use does not infringe another trade mark, though the same and registered, provided that such use is in good faith and amounts to a legal entitlement within the meaning of s. 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 for which a declaration of non-infringement ought to be issued to protect and allow such bona fide use.
Diesel S.p.A. v. Bontton Sdn Bhd [2021] 2 CLJ 65 [CA]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Non-infringement - Declaration - Application for - Whether appellant bona fide proprietor of mark 'Diesel' - Whether appellant's use of 'Diesel' mark in good faith - Whether infringed defendant's registered 'Diesel' mark - Whether court has discretionary powers under s. 41 of Specific Relief Act 1950 and O. 15 r. 16 of Rules of Court 2012 to grant negative declaratory orders - Whether court could grant recognition of trade mark under 'own name doctrine' - Whether conditions satisfactorily met - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 40(1)(a)

 

 

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA
MARY LIM JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA

  • For the appellant - Ambiga Sreenevasan, Janini Rejeswaran, Jasdev Singh Jaswant Singh & Amanda Lok I Hiu; M/s Jasdev Chambers
  • For the respondent - Kok Pok Chin & Ng Pau Chze; M/s PC Kok & Co

An applicant, who owns a piece of land that is compulsorily acquired, is precluded from appealing against the approach taken by the High Court Judge in the valuation of a land when it is found that the purported questions of law posed is actually an appeal on the quantum awarded, which is barred by s. 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.
Teguh Kemajuan Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah, Daerah Kota Tinggi & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 118 [CA]

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Appeals against - Late payment charges - Whether discretionary - Whether applicant entitled to late payment charges - Applicable rate - Whether Land Administrator and Intervener had locus standi or right to appeal - Whether applicant precluded from appealing under s. 49(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1960

 

 

UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA

(Civil Appeal No: J-01(A)-129-02-2018)
  • For the appellant - Yeo Yang Poh, Ian Pereira & Lee Cher Ling; M/s Lawrence Pereira & Partners
  • For the 1st respondent - Khoo Guan Huat & Tah Jui Wen; M/s Skrine
  • For the 2nd respondent - G Rajasingam & Nik Azila Shuhada; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
(Civil Appeal No: J-01(A)-130-02-2018)
  • For the appellant - Khoo Guan Huat & Tan Hui Wen; M/s Skrine
  • For the 1st respondent - Yeo Yang Poh, Ian Pereira & Lee Cher Ling; M/s Lawrence Pereira & Partners
  • For the 2nd respondent - G Rajasingam & Nik Azila Shuhada; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
(Civil Appeal No: J-01(A)-131-02-2018)
  • For the appellant - G Rajasingam & Nik Azila Shuhada; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Yeo Yang Poh, Ian Pereira & Lee Cher Ling; M/s Lawrence Pereira & Partners
  • For the 2nd respondent - Khoo Guan Huat & Tan Hui Wen; M/s Skrine

The court, in the previous proceedings, declared that the purchaser was the rightful owner of the property and that the developer had no claim whatsoever against the property; the developer was thus barred or estopped by res judicata from relitigating the issue of ownership of the property in subsequent proceedings.
Nordin Md Zain v. Glomac Alliance Sdn Bhd [2021] 2 CLJ 133 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Issues, similarity of - Claim for recovery of property consequential upon decisions in previous suit - Whether issues raised litigated in previous proceedings - Whether issue estoppel applied to bar re-litigation of findings in previous suit

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Capacity of bankrupt - Sanction - Whether bankrupt applied and obtained sanction of Director-General of Insolvency - Whether sanction specifically for present action - Bankruptcy Act 1967, s. 38(1)

 

 

TEE GEOK HOCK JC

  • For the plaintiff - T Nayagam; M/s Nayagam & Partners
  • For the defendant - Douglas Yee & Lim Pit Feng; M/s Douglas Yee

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT:
    A VALID VARIATION ORDER – IMPORTANCE OF VARIATION ORDER IN WRITING
    [Read excerpt]
    by William Ting Siew Chon* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xvi

  2. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT:
    A VALID VARIATION ORDER – IMPORTANCE OF VARIATION ORDER IN WRITING


    by
    William Ting Siew Chon*

    A man hired a contractor to renovate his kitchen.

    The contractor said to the man that he was nearly done.

    The homeowner said “no way that you are - there is a giant hole in the granite countertop!"

    Frustrated with how long the renovation had taken, the homeowner started yelling at the contractor and his assistant, who was standing in the hallway outside of the kitchen, to leave.

    "Get out now!" the man shouted.

    Trying to allay his anger, the contractor asked for the homeowner to calm down and let his assistant into the kitchen with the part he needed.

    "No!" the man replied angrily. "I'm going to sue you!"

    . . .

    *Messrs Tang & Partners, Sibu.

  3. A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMPULSORY DENTAL RECORD IN FORENSIC DENTAL IDENTIFICATION [Read excerpt]
    by SABARINA BINTI OMAR* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xvii

  4. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xvii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMPULSORY DENTAL RECORD IN FORENSIC DENTAL IDENTIFICATION

    by
    SABARINA BINTI OMAR*

    ABSTRACT

    Dental records are very useful in forensic identification during mass disasters and dental practitioners play a pivotal role in record keeping to ensure that patients’ dental records are properly managed. The objectives of this study are to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in the requirement for dental records and record keeping among dental practitioners in Malaysia, to compare the legal framework for dental records and record keeping procedures in other countries and to propose a legal framework for dental records and record keeping in all dental clinics in Malaysia, and to fulfil the need for forensic dental identification. A cross-sectional study using a questionnaire and interviews were conducted with participating dental practitioners to selfassess their awareness about the importance of dental records and record keeping and the related laws. The results of the study showed that dental records and record keeping are poorly complied with, both locally and internationally, at only about 38-45%.

    . . .

    *Dr Sabarina Binti Omar, Master of Enforcement Law, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Enforcement Law, August 2020.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 831 Finance Act 2020 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 -
ACT 830 Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19)) Act 2020 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 -
ACT 829 Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) -
ACT 828 National Land Code (Revised 2020) 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 -
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1634 Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 Not Yet In Force ACT 502
ACT A1633 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 Not Yet In Force ACT 791
ACT A1632 Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] ACT 807
ACT A1631 Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] ACT 806
ACT A1630 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] ACT 438

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 41/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 3 February 2021 5 February 2021 PU(A) 21/2021
PU(A) 40/2021 Optical (Amendment) Regulations 2021 3 February 2021 4 February 2021 PU(A) 210/1994
PU(A) 39/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 2 February 2021 2 February 2021 PU(A) 22/2021
PU(A) 38/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 2 February 2021 2 February 2021 PU(A) 21/2021
PU(A) 37/2021 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) Order 2021 2 February 2021 8 February 2021 to 16 February 2021 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 79/2021 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Board Officers 3 February 2021 Specified in column (3) of the Second Schedule ACT 334
PU(B) 78/2021 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 8452 (29) Place Kampung Durian Tunjong 3 February 2021 4 February 2021 ACT 828
PU(B) 77/2021 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 9347 Place Kampung Lajau 3 February 2021 4 February 2021 ACT 828
PU(B) 76/2021 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 8341 Place Kampung Sungai Bangat 3 February 2021 4 February 2021 ACT 828
PU(B) 75/2021 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 7884 Place Kampung Batu Arang 3 February 2021 4 February 2021 ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 21/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan) (No. 2) 2021 PU(A) 41/2021 5 Februari 2021 Jadual Pertama
PU(A) 21/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 41/2021 5 February 2021 First Schedule
PU(A) 210/1994 Peraturan-Peraturan Optik 1994 PU(A) 40/2021 4 Februari 2021 Peraturan 26
PU(A) 210/1994 Optical Regulations 1994 PU(A) 40/2021 4 February 2021 Regulation 26
PU(A) 22/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 2) 2021 PU(A) 39/2021 2 Februari 2021 Jadual Pertama

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 10/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 23/2021 22 January 2021
PU(A) 9/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 22/2021 22 January 2021
PU(A) 8/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 21/2021 22 January 2021
PU(A) 10/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) 2021 [Dibatalkan Oleh Pu(A) 23/2021] PU(A) 23/2021 22 Januari 2021
PU(A) 9/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 22/2021 22 Januari 2021