| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #23/2022
09 June 2022
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New This Week
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
DATO' SRI DR MOHAMAD SALLEH ISMAIL & ANOR v. MOHD RAFIZI RAMLI [2022] 5 CLJ 487 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 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
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
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. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
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
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. CONTRACT
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 (Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-32-11-2020(D))
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. CRIMINAL LAW
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 (Criminal Appeal Nos: J-06B-31-07-2020, J-06B-32-07-2020 & J-06B(H)-33-07-2020)
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. CIVIL PROCEDURE | LAND LAW | LIMITATION
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
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. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
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
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. CIVIL PROCEDURE | COMPANY LAW
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 (Civil Appeal Nos: B-02(IM)(NCC)-715-06-2020 & B-02(IM)(NCC)-716-06-2020)
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. LAND LAW
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
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. CIVIL PROCEDURE
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
(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. CIVIL PROCEDURE | ARBITRATION
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
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. CONTRACT
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
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. GANTI RUGI | TORT
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 [Rayuan Sivil No: T-01(NCVC)(W)-594-10-2019]
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. CRIMINAL LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
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
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. PROSEDUR JENAYAH
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
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. CRIMINAL LAW
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
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. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
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
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. CIVIL PROCEDURE
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
ARTICLESCLJ Article(s)
LNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|