Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #23/2022
09 June 2022

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

DATO' SRI DR MOHAMAD SALLEH ISMAIL & ANOR v. MOHD RAFIZI RAMLI [2022] 5 CLJ 487
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-76-11-2020 (W)]
21 APRIL 2022

The defence of fair comment revolves around comments or inferences honestly made and based on certain existing substratum of facts that are truly stated. The comment must identify at least in general terms the matters on which it is based. As so aptly attested by the facts and circumstances of the present case, the primary reasoning for the defence leverages on the desirability of affirming one's entitlement to freely express a view about a matter of public interest. Based on the evidence, the conclusion reached by the respondent that public funds had been misused is an opinion and inference that a fair-minded person would have honestly made in the circumstances; the respondent having not been motivated by malice, the defence of fair comment must avail him.

TORT: Defamation - Defence - Fair comment - Whether impugned statement opinion and inferences made from facts - Whether based on certain existing substratum of facts truly stated - Whether words complained of were comment - Whether comment matter of public interest - Whether comment was one which a fair minded person can make on facts proved - Whether there was proof of malice - Whether maker of impugned statement liable for damages for defamation


SM FAISAL SM NASIMUDDIN lwn. MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH [2022] 5 CLJ 634
MAHKAMAH TINGGI SYARIAH, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMED FOUZI MOKHTAR HS
[PERMOHONAN NO: 14400-099-0317-2019]
25 APRIL 2022

Apa jua komen yang dibuat mengenai Mahkamah Syariah dan sistem keadilannya hendaklah bersifat adil dan berdasarkan kebenaran fakta, dan sama sekali tidak boleh mencemar nama baik, reputasi, maruah atau martabat Mahkamah Syariah. Menulis artikel dan menuduh bahawa keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Syariah dalam satu perbicaraan adalah 'a disgrace to the judicial system' dan sebagainya adalah bersifat menghina; ia boleh menjerumuskan si pelakunya kepada satu tindakan pengkomitan.

MAHKAMAH: Menghina mahkamah - Perintah pengkomitan - Ahli Parlimen - Mendakwa Mahkamah Syariah mendiskriminasi Wanita Muslim, membiar mereka tidak terbela dan tidak bertindak terhadap bapa-bapa yang tidak membayar nafkah anak - Sama ada bersifat menghina - Sama ada salah nyataan dan tidak berdasarkan fakta sebenar - Sama ada menjejaskan reputasi dan martabat Mahkamah Syariah - Sama ada mewajarkan perintah pengkomitan - Akta Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syariah (Wilayah-wilayah Persekutuan) 1998, s. 229(3)


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“Judicial review is not merely procedural but a substantive and immutable component of judicial power - one which is inherent and which defines the very core function of an independent Judiciary. It is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.

Reading s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 as it stands and upon analysing the basis for judicial review in this country, I find that s. 66A of the ARIE 2003 is unconstitutional and void, as it is a provision which the SSLA has no power to make. I accordingly find that the petitioner has overcome the threshold of the presumption of constitutionality.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. City Team Media Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Tan Sri Nadraja Ratnam [2022] 1 LNS 134 (CA) overruling in part the High Court Case of Tan Sri Datuk Nadraja Ratnam v. City Team Media Sdn Bhd & Ors [Civil Suit No. 23 NCVC-59-08-2015 Civil Suit No. 23 NCVC-59-08-2015]

  2. Teo Chee Kong & Anor v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 200 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case of PP v. Teo Chee Kong & Anor [Permohonan Jenayah No.BKI-44(A)-29/7-2017]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2021] 1 LNS 284

MEDICBILT SDN BHD v. TECHBAY SDN BHD & ORS

A proposed intervener, who applied to seek leave to intervene in a proceeding on the premise that he has an interest in the subject matter of the dispute, must produce contemporaneous documentary evidence to support his allegation that he has legal interest directly related to the said subject matter. Mere bare assertions or denial by the proposed intervener in his affidavits does not constitute evidence and they cannot give rise to triable issues.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Intervention - Main action commenced against registered land owner - Proposed intervener alleged to have interest on land - Proposed intervener alleged to have paid full purchase price and that registered owner of land was merely trustee to hold land for proposed intervener - Whether proposed intervener had discharged burden to show that she has legal interest directly related to subject matter - Whether alleged purchase, payment of purchase price and conversion premium were supported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence - Whether bare assertions or denial by proposed intervener could constitute evidence and give rise to triable issues - Whether doctrine of issue estoppel and res judicata is applicable to a non-party to earlier sale application or previous proceeding

  • For the plaintiff - Alvin Leong; M/s Leong & Wong
  • For the defendant - Joan Goh; M/s Goh & Associates

[2021] 1 LNS 418

LETCHUMANAN CHETTIAR ALAGAPPAN v. RAGUPPATHI KARRUPPIAH & ORS

When a caveat lodged by a purchaser in a sale of land dealings on the basis that the deposit sum had been paid but is denied by the owner of the land who contends that the dealing had been called off as a result of the purchaser's failure to pay the deposit sum; then the court has the duty to analyse the facts of the case and the chronology of events regarding the arrangements of payments of the said deposit sum to determine whether the purchaser made an actual payment and further see what caused the failure to proceed with the payments of the deposit sum resulting in the dealings being called off by the owner. Where payments of money made in respect of the purchase of the land were not accepted or insufficient and not according to the terms of the agreement between both parties, the purchaser could not have any caveatable interest at all on the said land.

LAND LAW: Caveat - Removal of - Private caveat - Caveat lodged by a party who had alleged to have paid deposit sum for purchase of land - Land owner called off sale of land dealing upon discovering no earnest money paid within stipulated time - Whether caveator has greater burden to prove that they have caveatable interest in land - Whether caveator had satisfied court on evidence presented that his claim to an interest in land is a serious question - Whether existence of actual payment made by caveator must be analysed from facts of case and chronology of events regarding arrangements of payments - Whether deposit deemed unpaid when deposit cheques were returned to purchaser - Whether caveat was wrongly entered

  • For the plaintiff - Ramesh Kanapathy; M/s Chellam Wong
  • For the defendants - Ahilan Natarajah; M/s N Ahilan & Associates

[2021] 1 LNS 420

ATALIAN HOLDINGS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v. RADZALI HASSAN

1. The proper plaintiff in a suit for the enforcement of a corporate right is the company itself. A company member may not sue to enforce the company's rights since the company is a separate entity from its members.

2. A claim which does not contain sufficient material facts and adequate particulars or when the particulars pleaded are too scanty and defective to sustain a cause of action is therefore devoid of any substance, lacking in precision and obviously unsustainable.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Proper plaintiff rule - Action brought by an individual member of a company for wrongdoing to company - Whether company and its members are separate entities - Whether a member of a company could sue to enforce a company's rights - Whether action sustainable

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Counterclaim filed against many parties - Cause of action only refers to one party - Action brought by an individual member of a company for wrongdoing done to company - Action premised on breaches of several agreements and defendants were not privy to those agreements - Counterclaim did not contain sufficient material facts - Whether there was any reasonable cause of action against defendants in counterclaim - Whether examination of pleadings alone sufficient to determine cause of action - Whether defendants in counterclaim were improperly cited as parties - Whether action by counterclaim to enforce agreements on non-parties was plainly unsustainable based on doctrine of privity of contract - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a)

  • For the plaintiff (in the original action) and 1st defendant by counterclaim - Dhinesh Bhaskaran & Ng Anlynn; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the defendant (in the original action) and plaintiff by counterclaim - Felix Dorairaj, Logan Sabapathy & Vivian Oh; M/s Dorairaj, Low & Teh
  • For the 2nd to 9th defendants by counterclaim - Dhinesh Bhaskaran & Ng Anlynn; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 2089

PP lwn. SURUJ DEV SAH TELI

Mahkamah boleh memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan suatu kes tanpa keraguan munasabah dan bahawa kematian si mati adalah akibat perbuatan tertuduh walaupun mahkamah mendapati keterangan ahli kimia bahawa ujian DNA yang dilakukan terhadap senjata yang digunakan oleh tertuduh menunjukkan keputusan negatif.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Kematian si mati disebabkan kecederaan kepala - Tertuduh menghayun tukul besi yang terkena pada kepala si mati - Saksi menyaksikan sendiri detik-detik kejadian sebelum kematian si mati - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan - Sama ada kematian si mati adalah atas perbuatan tertuduh - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 302

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Bunuh - Saksi menyaksikan sendiri detik-detik kejadian sebelum kematian si mati - Tertuduh menghayun tukul besi yang terkena pada kepala si mati - Ujian DNA pada tukul besi menunjukkan keputusan negatif - Sama ada keterangan tertuduh telah menimbulkan suatu keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh merupakan rekaan semata-mata

  • Bagi pihak perayu - TPR Ainul Wardah Shahidan, TPR Kenneth Oon Kork Chern & TPR Afiqa Liyana; Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak
  • Bagi pihak responden - Kharen Jit Kaur; T/n Law Chambers of Kharen Jit & Associates

[2020] 1 LNS 2090

MAZLAN MOHD ALI & YANG LAIN lwn. PP

Laporan polis dan surat akuan penarikan balik kes yang dibuat oleh mangsa selepas memberikan keterangan di mahkamah tidak dapat mengubah keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh mangsa berkenaan perbuatan tertuduh. Mahkamah tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya melepaskan tertuduh hanya berdasarkan kewujudan laporan polis dan surat akuan penarikan balik kes walhal keterangan-keterangan yang sedia ada dapat membuktikan salah laku sebagaimana yang dipertuduhkan terhadap tertuduh.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan - Pertuduhan bawah s. 326 Kanun Keseksaan - Mangsa tiba-tiba ingin menarik balik kes pada hari terakhir perbicaraan - Mangsa membuat laporan polis dan surat akuan penarikan balik kes selepas memberikan keterangan di mahkamah - Sama ada kandungan laporan polis dan surat akuan penarikan balik kes dapat mengubah keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh mangsa - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dilepaskan walaupun terdapat keterangan yang telah membuktikan salah laku tertuduh - Sama ada pendakwaan kes akan diteruskan jika terdapat keterangan yang cukup bagi membuktikan kes yang diadukan - Sama ada mahkamah wajar meminda pertuduhan selepas penarikan balik kes

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman 7 tahun penjara mulai tarikh sabitan bagi kesalahan bawah s. 326 - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah keterlaluan - Sama ada hukuman masih dalam ruang lingkup tempoh pemenjaraan yang diterima dalam trend hukuman semasa

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - T/n Ahmad Zaidi & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - Timbalan Pendakwaraya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu

CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 2)

The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 provides very limited jurisdiction to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims as its s. 16N(2) limits the Tribunal's power to only entertaining claims based on a cause of action arising from the statutory sale and purchase agreement, and precludes it from enforcing terms which were not found therein. It follows that a claim based on the homebuyer's expectations that the unit purchased should correspond in all respects with the display model at the developer's showroom is not, jurisdictionally speaking, a fit and proper claim to be adjudicated before the Tribunal; such a claim cannot possibly succeed and should stand dismissed.
Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 173 [FC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Appeal - Judicial review against decision of Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims ('Tribunal') - Homebuyer commenced claim against developer at Tribunal - Allegation that developer gave wrong unit, in contradiction with sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - Tribunal gave ruling to amend specifications of SPA, under para. (e) of sub-s. 16Y(2) of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ('Act'), to entitle homebuyer to get unit as featured in display model - Whether s. 16N(2) of Act precludes Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over claim not based upon express term of SPA or specifications - Whether power conferred on Tribunal, under s. 16Y(2)(e) of Act, to 'vary or set aside' contract, confers jurisdiction on Tribunal to add specifications of its own to unit purchased by homebuyer which was not provided for in SPA

 

 

ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

  • For the appellants - Cyrus Das, Leonard Yeoh, Chuah Chong Ping & Nurul Qarirah; M/s Tay & Partners
  • For the 2nd respondent - Viola Lettice De Cruz, Vinobha Anthony Doss & Chua Yi Xie; M/s VL De Cruz & Co
Watching Brief:
  • For National House Buyers Association (HBA) - KL Wong, Koh Kean Kang & Wong Renn Xin; M/s KL Wong
  • For The Real Estate and Housing Developers Association Malaysia (REHDA) - Thoo Yee Huan, Chong Lee Hui & Alycia Chuah Yuin Ting; M/s Halim Hong & Quek

One of the essential requirements to form a valid contractual relationship is the meeting of the minds or consensus ad idem. A binding contract with one party cannot bind a third party without any proper novation being made to bind that new party; without such novation, there could just not be any binding agreement with the said new party.
Dae Hanguru Infra Sdn Bhd v. Baldah Toyyibah (Prasarana) Kelantan Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2022] 5 CLJ 194 [FC]

CONTRACT: Parties - Novation - Formation of turnkey contractor responsible for implementation of project - Whether there was concluded contract - Whether letter of intent and letter of acceptance carried turnkey contractor's name - Whether turnkey contractor already incorporated when parties purportedly entered into contract - Whether there was novation of parties - Whether contract with one party could bind another party without novation being made to bind new party - Whether promoter-successor contract - Whether valid, enforceable and binding contract existed between parties - Whether mere negotiations

CONTRACT: Formation - Consensus ad idem - Formation of turnkey contractor responsible for implementation of project - Whether there was concluded contract - Whether letter of intent and letter of acceptance carried turnkey contractor's name - Whether turnkey contractor already incorporated when parties purportedly entered into contract - Whether company could enter into any contract before incorporation - Whether there was consensus ad idem - Whether valid, enforceable and binding contract existed between parties - Whether mere negotiations

 

 

ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
MARY LIM FCJ

(Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-32-11-2020(D))
  • For the appellant - Cyrus Das, Selvarajah Sivalingam, James Lopez, Ramanathan RM Ramanathan & Joseph Tan Pin Ren; M/s Fernandez & Selvarajah
  • For the respondent - Azlan Sulaiman & Mohd Irwan Ismail; M/s Azmi & Assocs
(Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-33-11-2020(D)
  • For the appellant - Cyrus Das, Selvarajah Sivalingam, James Lopez, Ramanathan RM Ramanathan & Joseph Tan Pin Ren; M/s Fernandez & Selvarajah
  • For the respondent - Sulaiman Abdullah, Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan & Faizah Khamarudin; M/s Azmi & Assocs

The discovery and seizure of cash monies amounting to RM1.3 million at the house of an accused who is a police officer earning between RM6,000 and RM8,000 a month and who is not known to have owned any business, coupled with the facts that he has also had dealings with illegal lottery operators, had previously purchased for his personal gain insurance and investments portfolios worth millions of ringgit and had failed to convincingly explain the sources of the monies or take reasonable steps to ascertain that the monies were not proceeds of unlawful activity, have all made his convictions under s. 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 safe and sound. Public interest also demands that a deterrent sentence be imposed; hence, the 4-year concurrent imprisonment sentence without any fine sentence imposed by the High Court on each of the eight charges is set aside, and substituted, effectively and substantively, with 10 years' jail and a fine of RM42 million in default 48 months' jail.
Mohd Ismail Syed Merah v. PP & Other Appeals [2022] 5 CLJ 218 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 4(1)(a) - Cash monies and jewellery suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity seized at accused's house - Evidence of illegal gambling operators making payments to accused, a police officer, to protect their business - Whether monies used for accused's investment plans proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether prima facie case established - Standard of proof applicable - Whether accused's defence an afterthought - Whether accused succeeded in raising reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Whether sentences meted out ought to reflect seriousness of offence - Whether there was special circumstance to grant stay of forfeiture of accused's seized properties

CRIMINAL LAW: Sentencing - Offences under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 4(1)(a) - Cash monies and jewellery seized at accused's house suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity - Accused a police officer - Whether public trust betrayed - Whether public interest demands deterrent sentence - Whether there was failure to impose fine as required under s. 4(1) - Whether sentences meted out ought to reflect seriousness of offence - Whether there was special circumstance to grant stay of forfeiture of accused's seized properties

 

 

HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA

(Criminal Appeal Nos: J-06B-31-07-2020, J-06B-32-07-2020 & J-06B(H)-33-07-2020)
  • For the prosecution - Mohd Dasuki Mokhtar, Mohd Fairuz Johari & Hanim Mohd Rashid; DPPs
  • For the accused - Wan Azmil Wan Majid, Nurul Atiqah Mohd Isa & Emylia Atan; M/s Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak
(Criminal Appeal No: J-06A-7-10-2020)
  • For the prosecution - Mohd Dasuki Mokhtar, Mohd Fairuz Johari & Hanim Mohd Rashid; DPPs
  • For the accused - Mohd Baharuddin Ahmad Kassim; M/s Bahar Rusnan & Assocs

The plaintiff, in claiming for liquidated ascertained damages and applying for summary judgment, was challenging the validity of certain clauses in the sale and purchase agreements which reflected an extension of time to complete a housing project. Since the plaintiff's challenge was against the clauses of the sale and purchase agreements from its inception, the plaintiff's cause of action ran from the date of its execution. Thus, the claim was barred by limitation as the six-year period had expired and limitation had already set in.
Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2022] 5 CLJ 251 [CA]

| |

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal against - Appeal against decision of High Court striking out purchaser's application for summary judgment - Housing developers - Sale and purchase agreement ('SPAs') - Developers granted extension of time to complete housing project from period of 36 months to 54 months - Whether reflected in clauses of SPAs entered into between purchaser and developer - Whether purchaser entitled to claim liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery outside of scope of SPAs - Purchaser challenged validity of clauses in SPAs - Whether purchaser's cause of action ran from date of execution of SPAs - Whether limitation set in - Whether purchaser's claim time barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1) - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, reg. 11(3)

LAND LAW: Housing developers - Sale and purchase agreement ('SPAs') - Developers granted extension of time to complete housing project from period of 36 months to 54 months - Whether reflected in clauses of SPAs entered into between purchaser and developer - Whether purchaser entitled to claim liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery outside of scope of SPAs - Purchaser applied for summary judgment - Purchaser challenged validity of clauses in SPAs - Whether purchaser's cause of action ran from date of execution of SPAs - Whether limitation set in - Whether purchaser's claim time barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1) - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, reg. 11(3)

LIMITATION: Cause of action - When time began to run - Sale and purchase agreement ('SPAs') - Developers granted extension of time to complete housing project from period of 36 months to 54 months - Whether reflected in clauses of SPAs entered into between purchaser and developer - Whether purchaser entitled to claim liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery outside of scope of SPAs - Purchaser applied for summary judgment - Purchaser challenged validity of clauses in SPAs - Whether purchaser's cause of action ran from date of execution of SPAs - Whether limitation set in - Whether purchaser's claim time barred - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)

AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA

  • For the appellant - Wong Renn Xin; M/s KL Wong
  • For the respondent - Lai Chee Hoe & Ooi Xin Yi; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs

Anyone who uses a mark which is identical with a registered trade mark or a mark which is so closely resembling it as is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to the goods registered, without the permission or authority of the trade mark owner, is committing an infringement of trade mark. This is the effect of the provision of s. 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1976. When the trade mark, goods and products are identical, misrepresentation which is a question of fact, is beyond dispute.
Tan Kim Hock Product Centre Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tan Kimhock Tong Seng Food Industry Sdn Bhdv [2022] 5 CLJ 264 [CA]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Infringement - Appeal - Allegation of misuse of trade mark - Sales and marketing of similar products using similar trade mark without authorisation - Right to trade marks - Alleged contribution by other party in created trade marks - Whether there was non-use of trade mark - Whether there was acquisition of goodwill - Whether trial judge considered all facts and evidence - Whether appellate intervention warranted

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Passing off - Appeal - Allegation of misuse of trade mark - Sales and marketing of similar products using similar trade mark without authorisation - Right to trade marks - Alleged contribution by other party in created trade marks - Whether there was non-use of trade mark - Whether there was acquisition of goodwill - Whether trial judge considered all facts and evidence - Whether appellate intervention warranted

 

 

HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
ABANG ISKANDAR JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA

  • For the appellants - Cyrus Das, Jagjit Singh, Yap Bell Pung, Goh What Singh & Joshua Vijayan Dharmaraj; M/s Bell & Lee
  • For the respondent - Teo Bong Kwang, Damian Yeo Shen Li, Melvin Tay Yee Shian & Boo Min Lee; M/s Damian SL Yeo & LC Goh

Leave under s. 471 of the Companies Act 2016 is required if a member of the company, in claiming declaratory relief against the directors and the company (in liquidation), wishes to attach liability on the company or its assets. Depending on the reliefs sought, such as the purchase of shares registered, the company may be appropriately included as a party to the proceedings, albeit as a nominal party.
Wong Kien Yip & Anor v. Byard Spiral Mill Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2022] 5 CLJ 289 [CA]

|

Striking out - Originating summons - Originating summons against directors/shareholders of company - Company wound up - Originating summons proceeded against company - Shareholders/directors applied to strike out originating summons on ground that company wound up and no leave to proceed against company granted - Whether originating summons ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d)

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Company - Originating summons against directors/shareholders of company - Company wound up - Originating summons proceeded against company - Whether leave required - Whether liability intended to be fastened on company or its assets - Whether company sued merely as nominal defendant - Companies Act 2016, ss. 346(1)(a), (b) & 471

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE JCA

(Civil Appeal Nos: B-02(IM)(NCC)-715-06-2020 & B-02(IM)(NCC)-716-06-2020)
  • For the appellant - Ranjit Singh, Conrad Young & Simon Hong; M/s Simon Hong
(Civil Appeal No: B-02(IM)(NCC)-715-06-2020)
  • For the respondent - Wilson Lim Mao Shen & Huam Wan Ying; M/s Wilson Lim
(Civil Appeal No: B-02(IM)(NCC)-716-06-2020)
  • For the respondents - Wong Ren Yen, Emily Wong, Marcus Lee & Chiam Jia Ying; M/s Dennis Nik & Wong

The Land Authority is not empowered under the law to depreciate the land tenure of any land not surrendered to the State. Thus, in issuing subdivided titles to a housing developer as part-owner of surrendered pieces of land held under a Master Title together with other lands, it is not open for the Land Administrator to have wholly subdivided the Master Title into Leasehold Titles; to do so would be ultra vires the Federal Constitution and offend ss. 202 and 204E(3A) of the National Land Code.
Lye Tuck Chung & Ors v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2022] 5 CLJ 308 [HC]

LAND LAW: Conversion - Tenure of land - Conversion from freehold to leasehold status - Whether tenure could be reduced or changed - Whether issuance of new title ought to be in same nature - Whether change in tenure from freehold to leasehold illegal and unconstitutional - Whether consent for change of status relevant - Whether act of depreciating of tenure of master titles ultra vires and unlawful under National Land Code and Federal Constitution - National Land Code, ss. 202(3)(a) & 204E(3A)

 

 

JOHN LEE KIEN HOW JC

  • For the plaintiffs - Teo Siew Chin; M/s Mariadass Lock & Ainuddin
  • For the defendant - Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff; SFC

CLJ 2022 Volume 5 (Part 3)

When an application for leave to appeal is dismissed by a single judge, the aggrieved party, against whom the decision is made, may, within ten days, file another application for it to be heard before a panel of three judges. However, the aggrieved party shoulders the burden to show justification before his application under sub-s. 97(4) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 could be allowed.
Ng Hoe Keong & Ors v. OAG Engineering Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 321 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Courts - Federal Court - Applicants filed notice of motion for leave to appeal to Federal Court - Motion heard before single Federal Court Judge - Applicants sought to discharge order of single judge - Whether reasons given as to what was wrong with decision of single judge - Whether was any burden imposed on aggrieved party, against whom decision by single judge was made, to show justification before application could be allowed - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 74, 97(3) & (4)

 

 

ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

  • For the applicants - Gopal Sri Ram, Aston Paiva, Yasmeen Soh & Rossa Severinus; M/s Vazeer Akhbar Majid & Co
  • For the respondents - Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, Wong Kah Hui, Soong Hon Ming, Jess Pang & Chai Tze Jing; M/s K H Wong & Co

(i) Section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') makes it mandatory for a court to grant a stay where there is a valid arbitration agreement, the arbitration agreement is not null and void, inapplicable, inoperative or incapable of being performed and no steps in the proceedings have been taken; and (ii) There is a presumption of arbitrability and the applicable provision, if any, is s. 4(2) of the AA. The exception to arbitrability would be, if interests of wider parties are involved, where Parliament intended to exclude arbitration or an inherent conflict between arbitration and public policy considerations.
Padda Gurtaj Singh v. Tune Talk Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2022] 5 CLJ 335 [CA]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay - Proceedings - Application for - Filing of originating summons to compel registration of balance shares - Company filed applications for stay under s. 10 of Arbitration Act 2005 before proceedings started - Whether court had discretion to grant/deny application - Whether proceedings ought to be stayed - Companies Act 2016, ss. 106 & 107

ARBITRATION: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Filing of originating summons to compel registration of balance shares under ss. 106 & 107 of Companies Act 2016 - Company filed applications for stay under s. 10 of Arbitration Act 2005 before proceedings started - Whether court had discretion to grant/deny application - Whether proceedings ought to be stayed - Whether arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Whether court bound by Federal Court decisions in Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd and Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd

 

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA

  • For the appellant - Fahri Azzat & Yap Yin Yin; M/s Fahri, Azzat and Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Foo Joon Liang & Kang Mei Yee; M/s Gan Partnership
  • For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Christine Yee Seng Lee; M/s Murad Yee Partnership

An extension of time under a construction contract issued by a project director may go to show that the project director has formed an opinion on the cause and length of delay and the justification for the extension. More, in granting such an extension, the main contractor must have decided that the subcontractor is entitled to it; hence, whilst in a claim for losses and expenses thereof the subcontractor must comply with the necessary clauses in the agreement, the main contractor cannot back track and refuse to entertain any such claims by the subcontractor.
PSI Incontrol Sdn Bhd v. Ircon International Ltd [2022] 5 CLJ 360 [CA]

CONTRACT: Construction contract - Losses and expenses - Claim for - Claim by subcontractor against main contractor for losses and expenses pertaining to extension of time granted by main contractor - Wrongful deduction of sums by main contractor - Whether subcontractor complied with conditions precedent in conditions of contract - Whether subcontractor provided notice of intention to claim losses and expenses - Whether subcontractor submitted particulars that may be necessary to enable claims to be ascertained - Whether there was lack of judicial appreciation of evidence and misdirection

 

 

VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA

  • For the appellant - Nahendran Navaratnam, Balvinder Singh Kenth & Gurmesh Kaur
  • For the respondent - Rodney Gomez & Michelle Lim

Tuntutan ganti rugi oleh seorang pelajar sekolah berasrama penuh (plaintif) terhadap lima pelajar lain (defendan 1 hingga 5), pengetua dan guru sekolahnya akibat kecederaan yang dialaminya apabila diserang, dipukul dan dibuli oleh defendan 1 hingga 5 harus ditolak kerana ketidakcukupan bukti dan keterangan. Walaupun defendan 1 hingga 5 telah membuat pengakuan salah di Mahkamah Majisteret atas pertuduhan mencederakan plaintif, dan walaupun pengakuan salah itu boleh diterima di bawah s. 21 Akta Keterangan 1950 (AK 1950), itu sahaja tanpa bukti-bukti lain dikemukakan oleh plaintif, berdasarkan s. 31 AK 1950, adalah tidak memadai untuk memutuskan tuntutan dengan berpihak kepada plaintif dan mengaward gantirugi kepadanya. Kecuaian vikarius juga gagal dibuktikan terhadap pengetua dan guru kerana tiada bukti bahawa ketua pengawas dan penolong ketua pengawas, yang dikatakan bersekongkol dengan defendan 1 hingga 5, adalah wakil pentadbiran sekolah, atau tanggungjawab mereka adalah bersambungan dengan tanggungjawab dan tugas guru.
Sulaiman Ngarif & Yang Lain lwn. Ahmad Ikhwan Ahmad Fauzi & Satu Lagi Dan Satu Lagi Rayuan [2022] 5 CLJ 375 [CA]

|

GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap award - Ganti rugi am, ganti rugi khas dan ganti rugi teladan - Faktor-faktor yang dipertimbangkan - Sama ada kecederaan dibuktikan - Sama ada award untuk alat pendengaran terlampau tinggi - Sama ada ganti rugi am trauma dan tekanan perasaan dibuktikan - Sama ada award ganti rugi wajar diketepikan

TORT: Ganti rugi - Liabiliti - Pelajar-pelajar sekolah asrama didakwa menyerang dan membuli seorang pelajar lain - 'Pengakuan bersalah' di Mahkamah Majistret - Sama ada boleh diterima pakai - Sama ada 'pengakuan bersalah' disokong keterangan lain - Sama ada saksi-saksi penting dipanggil - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi menimbulkan anggapan bertentangan terhadap pihak yang mendakwa - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)

TORT: Tanggungan vikarius - Liabiliti - Pelajar-pelajar sekolah asrama didakwa menyerang dan membuli seorang pelajar lain - Sama ada pengetua sekolah dan guru bertanggungjawab dan berkewajipan mengawal selia pelajar semasa berada di sekolah - Sama ada serangan terhadap pelajar sepatutnya dipralihat oleh pengetua sekolah dan guru - Sama ada terdapat keadaan mencurigakan dikesan - Sama ada tanggungjawab berhati-hati dibuktikan - Sama ada pengetua sekolah dan guru boleh dipertanggungjawabkan secara vikarius atas perbuatan pelajar-pelajar - Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956, ss. 5 & 6

 

LAU BEE LAN HMR
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL HMR
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM HMR

[Rayuan Sivil No: T-01(NCVC)(W)-594-10-2019]
  • Bagi pihak perayu pertama, kedua, ketiga & keempat - Zureen Elina Mohd Dom & Mohd Khairulhazman Ghazali; Jabatan Persekutuan Negara
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama & kedua - Hisham Yusof, Wan Azliana Wan Adnan & Nik Nur Syazwani Nik Suhaimi; T/n WA Wan Adnan & Assocs
[Rayuan Sivil No: T-01(NCVC)(W)-603-10-2019]
  • Bagi pihak perayu pertama, kedua, ketiga, keempat & kelima - Nik Mohd Radhia Nik Abdul Ghani, Wan Solehah Wan Mohamad & Mat Zaidan Ali; T/n WM Haidi & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama & kedua - Hisham Yusof, Wan Azliana Wan Adnan & Nik Nur Syazwani Nik Suhaimi; T/n WA Wan Adnan & Assocs

A charge under s. 29(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1955 is defective where an ingredient of the offence, namely that the subject matter found in the accused's possession (monies in bank account) was reasonably suspected of being stolen or fraudulently obtained, was not stated in the charge. A plea to a defective charge is no plea in law; and therefore, although the accused has pleaded guilty to the (defective) charge herein, his conviction and sentence cannot stand; he ought to be retried in the court below on a proper charge.
Mok Chee Cheong v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 403 [HC]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Charges - Criminal charges - Offences under s. 29(1) of Minor Offences Act 1955 - Whether charges specified ingredients under s. 29(1) - Whether all ingredients of offence under s. 29(1) rightly disclosed in charge as required by law - Consequences of guilty plea - Whether charge defective - Whether retrial ordered on proper charge

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charges - Framing of - Offences under s. 29(1) of Minor Offences Act 1955 - Whether charges specified ingredients under s. 29(1) - Whether all ingredients of offence under s. 29(1) rightly disclosed in charge as required by law - Consequences of guilty plea - Whether charge defective - Whether retrial ordered on proper charge

 

ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JC

  • For the prosecution - Afiq Nazrin Zaharinan; DPP
  • For the appellant - Nik Mohamed Ikhwan Nik Mahamud & Muhammad Syazwan Mohd Salleh; M/s Nik Ikhwan & Co

Seorang Majisteret, setelah menjatuhkan hukuman, sudah menjadi functus officio dan tidak lagi mempunyai kuasa untuk menyemak atau mengubah keputusannya. Maka, tindakan Masjisteret di sini yang menyemak dan mengubah hukuman denda yang dijatuhkannya di bawah s. 12(1) Akta Jualan Dadah 1952 ('AJD') adalah tidak sah. Selain itu, bidang kuasa hukuman seorang Majisteret Kelas Pertama di bawah AJD adalah terhad kepada menjatuhkan denda yang tidak melebihi RM10,000 dan penjara tidak melebihi lima tahun. Maka keputusan Majisteret menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM20,000 dan RM25,000 bagi dua pertuduhan di bawah AJD di sini adalah juga tidak sah.
PP lwn. Beh Teik Zhen & Satu Lagi [2022] 5 CLJ 414 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Semakan - Sabitan bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Dadah Kosmetik 1984 - Semakan berkaitan kekhilafan Majistret menjatuhkan hukuman - Sama ada luar bidang kuasa Majistret Kelas Pertama - Sama ada Majistret mempunyai kuasa menyemak dan mengubah keputusan - Functus officio - Sama ada Majistret Kelas Pertama mempunyai bidang kuasa menjatuhkan hukuman maksima - Sama ada bidang kuasa menjatuhkan hukuman bawah s. 12(1) Akta Jualan Dadah 1952 terhad - Sama ada hukuman wajar diketepikan dan digantikan - Akta Jualan Dadah 1952, s. 18 - Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948, s. 87(1)

 

 

MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID PK

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Ainy Suhailah Yunus; TPR
  • Bagi pihak responden - Rahmahthullah Baharudeen; T/n Rahamat & Mashuri

Section 66A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 provides a platform for exploited victims to be compensated for the work done and services rendered, especially when the victims were hindered financially or had no other means under the existing legal framework to pursue their claims. The immigration status of these victims would be irrelevant and any limitations of such nature introduced under any labour legislation or regulations could be circumvented.
PP v. Hasrul Abd Hamid & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 428 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Trafficking in persons - Victims promised employment in restaurant but made to work in night club instead - Victims did not receive wages but did not incur expenses either during working period - Lodgings, meals, clothes and expenses fully-paid for - Whether victims entitled to compensation - Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, ss. 14 & 66A

 

 

AMELATI PARNELL J

  • For the appellant - Mohd Khairuddin Idris; DPP
  • For the respondents - Ram Singh & Kimberly Ye; M/s Ram Singh & Co

The issuance of an order of mandamus is strictly a matter of court's discretion. To ascertain whether it is proper or not to grant remedy, the court is entitled to take into consideration of not only the conduct of the applicant but also the surrounding circumstances of the case. In this land matter, although an order of mandamus could be legally issued, the court did not grant such order to compel the respondents to materialise extensive reliefs which the applicant prayed for as this was an impossible task for the respondent to perform as the land in dispute had been developed.
Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 5 CLJ 446 [FCA]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application for orders of mandamus to compel compliance of court order - Whether applicant had clear and specific legal right to reliefs sought - Whether applicant had any remedy other than by way of mandamus for enforcement of right which had been denied - Whether mandamus order ought to be issued - Whether issuance of mandamus order would cause undue hardship

 

 

AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J

  • For the appellant - Ira Biswas, Janet Chai Pei Ying & Christine Lay Kei Een; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
  • For the respondents - Narkunavathy Sundareson; SFC & Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin; FC

An ad interim injunction is formulated to maintain the status quo of litigating parties pending the disposal of an existing inter partes application between them. It is a fresh order that the judge decides by considering whether there is a need to maintain the status quo. The threshold in granting an ad interim injunction is low. The court should not be required to consider the question of balance of convenience, which would be dealt with at the inter partes stage. It is discretionary and may be allowed even if the parties do not consent to it being granted.
Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah v. Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow & Anor [2022] 5 CLJ 473 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim - Familial dispute between parties - Son and granddaughter ('family members') sought to declare father/grandfather ('applicant') mentally incapable of managing affairs - Application to restrain family members from making any application under s. 52 of Mental Health Act 2001 or pursuing any proceedings under same Act against applicant - Whether proceedings contemplated by family members frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and abuse of court process - Whether family members had clinical or medical evidence to support diagnosis or suggest that applicant suffered from mental incapacity - Whether just and equitable that applicant's interest was protected by immediate issue of injunction - Whether balance of conveniences favoured preserving status quo by granting injunction

 

 

HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ J

  • For the plaintiff - Gopal Sri Ram, Wong Yee Chue, Lai Wing Ee & How Li Nee; M/s YC Wong
  • For the 1st defendant - Gobind Singh Deo & Tan Cheng Leong; M/s KP Lu & Tan
  • For the 2nd defendant - Anantha Krishnan; M/s Anantha Krishnan

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

  1. WHEN FAILING TO TAKE A STEP IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING A STEP (IN THE PROCEEDINGS) [Read excerpt]
    by Choong Yeow Choy* & Choy Sher Rin** [2022] 5 CLJ(A) i

  2. [2022] 5 CLJ(A) i
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    WHEN FAILING TO TAKE A STEP IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING A STEP (IN THE PROCEEDINGS)

    by
    Choong Yeow Choy* & Choy Sher Rin**

    Introduction

    Litigation and arbitration practitioners will be most familiar with concepts such as (i) the entry of an appearance, (ii) judgment in default (and the consequential principles relating to the setting aside of a default judgment), (iii) the step principle, (iv) party autonomy, (v) stay of proceedings (in favour of arbitration) and (vi) the role of the courts in arbitral proceedings. These concepts are trite to say the least. Nevertheless, these concepts were alluded to and thrust into focus by the recent decision of the Federal Court in Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal[1] (hereinafter "Tindak Murni"). This decision of the apex court underscores the crucial application and interplay of these fundamental principles relating to the practice and procedure in the realm of civil litigation and arbitral proceedings.

    The overriding objectives of this commentary are twofold. The first is to seize on the opportunity to analyse the application of these principles in the context of competing claims as to the rightful forum for the determination of a dispute. Second, this commentary will argue that while the Federal Court should be commended for highlighting and emphasising the need to uphold some of the concepts, especially those as encapsulated in ss. 8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005, the approach[2] adopted by the Court of Appeal is to be preferred based on the factual matrix of the case.

    . . .

    * Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.

    ** Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.

LNS Article(s)

  1. COVID-19 VACCINATION: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN OVERCOMING THE ANTI-VACCINE COMMUNITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JURISPRUDENCE [Read excerpt]
    by Nur Amira Batrisyia binti Mohamad Rafi[i]Nurul Wahida binti Shariful Azhar[ii]Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxi

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxi
    logo
    INTERNATIONAL

    COVID-19 VACCINATION:
    THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN OVERCOMING THE ANTI-VACCINE COMMUNITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JURISPRUDENCE


    by
    Nur Amira Batrisyia binti Mohamad Rafi[i]
    Nurul Wahida binti Shariful Azhar[ii]
    Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    The present COVID-19 outbreak has pushed the international scientific community to explore solutions in the form of anti-viral medications and vaccinations. Despite this, misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19 immunisations have the potential to influence vaccine uptake significantly. Thus, the objective of this study is to evaluate the government's actions in many countries in achieving herd immunity through their vaccine programs. The authors will examine anti-vaccines, which have impacted vaccine uptake, to identify the best way to overcome this issue and educate this community about vaccines. Additionally, this research will look into the political, economic, and societal implications of COVID-19 vaccinations. This article will further analyse the steps taken by other countries in addressing the issue of anti-vaccine in this COVID-19 pandemic. This writing will retrieve data using sources such as Acts, statutes, journal articles, and project papers written by previous researchers to make this research more comprehensive. The data obtained will be analysed using a comparative analysis between Malaysia and other countries referred to in this research. Finally, this paper can make a substantial input to the field of knowledge, particularly in the areas of jurisprudence theory, human rights, Malaysian law, as well as the general issues on COVID-19.

    . . .

    [i] [ii] Third Year students, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM).

    [iii] Corresponding Author, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM).

  3. SPOUSAL CONSENT IN MEDICAL TREATMENT IN MALAYSIA — AN INCESSANT DILEMMA [Read excerpt]
    by Ambikai S T Singam[i]Hoo Ling Lee[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxii

  4. [2022] 1 LNS(A) lxii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    SPOUSAL CONSENT IN MEDICAL TREATMENT IN MALAYSIA — AN INCESSANT DILEMMA

    by
    Ambikai S T Singam[i]
    Hoo Ling Lee[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    This article is a conceptual paper that aims to determine spousal consent requirements in Malaysia's medical treatment and healthcare. It seeks to determine whether there is any legal provision in Malaysia that allows for spousal consent. This study reviews the literature on the history of spousal consent requirements and their consequences in healthcare practice. It aims to evaluate the factors that affect the voluntariness and competency of the spouse in giving consent on behalf of the patient. This paper reviews the existing literature surrounding the phenomenon of providing consent for medical treatment in healthcare, particularly how the element of competency affects such consent requirements. At present, there is no specific law which governs the provisions for spousal consent in the healthcare practice in Malaysia. This study explores the Malaysian Medical Council Guideline on Consent for Treatment of Patients by Registered Medical Practitioner (MMC Guideline on Consent) and the existing Malaysian laws to determine whether they are sufficient to address the element of spousal consent requirement. The study reviews the existing case laws and literature on the development of spousal consent requirements. Finally, the lack of empirical evidence is recognised in this article, and the writers will refer to Malaysian laws relevant to the issue and henceforth determine whether there is a need for a specific law to be introduced dealing with spousal consent medical treatment. Several suggestions are made for future research and recommendations for enacting a new law pertaining to spousal consent.

    . . .

    [i] Taylor's Law School, Taylor's University Lakeside Campus, No 1, Jalan Taylors, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor.

    [ii] Gleneagles Medical Centre, Block A & Block B, 286 & 288, Jalan Ampang, Kampung Berembang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 836 Geographical Indications Act 2022 18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022] Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602] -
ACT 835 Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 834 Malaysian Space Board Act 2022 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 833 Finance Act 2021 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66 - -
ACT 832 Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021) 1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987) - Societies Act 1966
(Revised 1987)
[ACT 335]

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1652 Control of Supplies (Amendment) Act 2022 31 May 2022 [PU(B) 271/2022] ACT 122
ACT A1651 Employment (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 265
ACT A1650 Supplementary Supply (2021) Act 2022 11 May 2022  
ACT A1649 Patents (Amendment) Act 2022 18 March 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] except s 14, para 26(a), s 45 and 47, para 48(a), s 55 and para 57(b) ACT 291
ACT A1648 Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 514

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 180/2022 Customs Duties (Labuan) (Amendment) Order 2022 31 May 2022 1 June 2022 PU(A) 414/2020
PU(A) 179/2022 Customs (Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties) 2021 (Amendment) Order 2022 31 May 2022 1 June 2022 PU(A) 347/2021
PU(A) 178/2022 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 3) 2020 (Amendment) Order 2022 31 May 2022 1 June 2022 PU(A) 348/2020
PU(A) 177/2022 Customs Duties (Exemption) 2017 (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022 31 May 2022 1 June 2022 ACT 235
PU(A) 176/2022 Sales Tax (Rates of Tax) Order 2022 31 May 2022 1 June 2022 ACT 806

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 283/2022 Notice of Termination of Expedited Review of The Anti-Dumping Duties With Regard To Imports of Prepainted, Painted Or Colour Coated Steel Coils Originating Or Exported From Shandong Ruifeng Composite Material Co. Ltd. From The People's Republic of China 8 June 2022 10 June 2022 ACT 504
PU(B) 282/2022 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 101855 Mukim Petaling Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 8 June 2022 9 June 2022 ACT 828
PU(B) 281/2022 Notice To Third Parties 8 June 2022 9 June 2022 ACT 613
PU(B) 280/2022 Notice Under Section 70 1 June 2022 2 June 2022 ACT 333
PU(B) 279/2022 Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 2 June 2022 3 June 2022 to 16 June 2022 ACT 235

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 50 Akta Perubatan 1971 PU(A) 161/2022 20 Mei 2022 Jadual Kedua
ACT 50 Medical Act 1971 PU(A) 161/2022 20 May 2022 Second Schedule
AKTA 452 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 PU(A) 151/2022 1 Julai 2022 Seksyen 54
ACT 452 Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 PU(A) 151/2022 1 July 2022 Section 54
PU(A) 175/2019 Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Sekatan Ke Atas Kebolehpotongan Faedah) 2019 PU(A) 27/2022 1 Februari 2022 Kaedah-kaedah 5 dan 6

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 449/2021 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021 PU(A) 73/2022 1 April 2022
PU(A) 159/2012 Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012 PU(A) 61/2022 18 March 2022
PU(A) 127/2017 Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Order of Priority For Payments of Different Categories of Islamic Deposits, Determination and Classification of Assets and Application of Disposal Proceeds of Assets in the Winding Up of Deposit-Taking Member) Regulations 2017 PU(A) 41/2022 1 March 2022
PU(A) 182/2018 Perintah Pendaftaran Ahli Farmasi (Pindaan Jadual Pertama) 2018 PU(A) 486/2021 31 Disember 2021
PU(A) 182/2018 Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2018 PU(A) 486/2021 31 December 2021

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here