Back to Top

Issue #6/2022
10 February 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

TENAGA NASIONAL BHD v. CHEW THAI KAY & ANOR [2022] 2 CLJ 333
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-28-07-2020 (A)]
04 JANUARY 2022

Abstract - The statutory power of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) to disconnect electricity to a customer's premises pursuant to the discovery of meter tampering, which it may resort to under s. 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA'), abates once it remedies and rectifies the tampering or the impugned meter. TNB cannot thereafter disconnect supply on the ground that an offence under s. 37(1) of ESA had been committed, as its power to disconnect can only remain extant and exercisable in the presence of a continuing offence, and not otherwise. Whether it be the old or the amended s. 38(1) of ESA, the section does not allow for future disconnection of electricity in circumstances where the offence under s. 37(1) was in the past and was no longer being continued by the customer. To that extent, any loss of revenue suffered by TNB in the circumstance may only be recovered by way of a civil action under s. 38(5) of ESA.

UTILITIES: Electric supply - Disconnection - Discovery of meter tampering at consumer's premises - Tampered meter rectified and replaced - Electricity supplier sent notice of disconnection - Whether electricity supplier could lawfully invoke amended s. 38(1) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 to disconnect electricity - Whether there must be continuing offence to invoke power of disconnection - Whether there was subsisting offence under s. 37(1) authorising disconnection - Balance of competing interest within scheme of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Whether prerequisite for electricity supplier to disconnect supply before issuing statutory written statement to consumer


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Dato' Mohamad Yusof A Bakar & Anor v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2019] 1 LNS 1494 (CA) overruling the High Court case Dato Mohamad Yusof A Bakar & Anor v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2018] 1 LNS 2123

  2. Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v. YBK Usahasama Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 1515 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v. YBK Usahasama Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 206

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 145

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v. WAZAM VENTURES SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE

1. The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 does not grant a respondent in adjudication the right to file a rejoinder. The respondent’s filing of a rejoinder may result in an adjudicator failing to deliver an adjudication decision within the prescribed timeline. When an adjudicator refuses an application to file a rejoinder, this does not in itself amounts to a breach of the second rule of natural justice.

2. An adjudicator complies with s. 12(4) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 if he provides at least one reason, however brief, for the adjudication decision and the Court cannot review the legality, correctness and adequacy of the reason.

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Adjudicator allowed subcontractor's claim against main contractor for work done - Adjudicator dismissed request by respondent in adjudication proceedings to file rejoinder - Whether respondent in adjudication proceeding has right to file rejoinder - Whether adjudicator had committed error in law when dismissing request for rejoinder - Whether adjudicator had given reasons for adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator had complied with requirements under s. 12(4) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Whether adjudicator had breached second rule of natural justice - Whether errors and omissions of adjudicator could be remedied in arbitration pursuant to s. 13(c) of CIPAA

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Stay - Applicant failed to apply for stay of adjudication decision under s. 16(1)(b) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 in originating summons - Interest of justice - Whether Court could decide stay application in interest of justice - Whether stay could be granted when applicant failed to satisfy that adjudicator has made a clear error in making adjudication decision - Whether respondent would be deprived of cash flow if stay granted

  • For the MRCB - Maximillian Tai Kim Sen & Krishanthini Dewi Jeeva Kumar; M/s Moideen & Max
  • For the Wazam - Ben Lee Kam Foo & Nur Amalin Shahida Sabidi; M/s Gan & Zul

[2020] 1 LNS 174

CHASWOOD RESOURCES SDN BHD v. COUTURE HOMES SDN BHD

In garnishee proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the garnishee to prove that there is no debt due and owing to the defendant.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Garnishee order - Setting aside - Defendant was a subsidiary of garnishee - Defendant's audited accounts showed garnishee owed a sum of money to defendant - Garnishee alleged defendant had waived debt - Defendant's audited accounts was prepared and lodged with Companies Commission after filing of plaintiff's application for order nisi - Whether garnishee had discharged burden of proof to show that there is no debt due and owing to defendant

  • For the appellant garnishee - Eldarius Yong Zhen Jie, M/s Chellam Wong
  • For the respondent judgment creditor - Alvin Lai Kok Wing, M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Win

[2020] 1 LNS 175

ISKANDAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT v. SJIC BINA SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL

The entire Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') has prospective application only and therefore, it does not apply to construction contracts made before CIPAA came into force. As such, the adjudication decision on construction contracts made prior to CIPAA's implementation must be set aside.

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Application pursuant to s. 15 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Improperly procured adjudication decision - Construction contract made before CIPAA came into force - Whether CIPAA applied prospectively or retrospectively - Whether CIPAA applicable to construction contract made before CIPAA came into force - Whether adjudication decision ought to be set aside

  • For the appellant - James Monteiro Dhanaraj Vasudevan, Devandra Balasingam; M/s Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
  • For the respondent - T Kuhendran J Agesh Krishendra; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners

[2019] 1 LNS 1988

MUHAMMAD FAIZAL SUDIN lwn. PP

Intipati pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan bagi kesalahan bawah s. 409 Kanun Keseksaan adalah berkenaan penyalahgunaan amanah oleh tertuduh untuk kegunaan sendiri dan adalah tidak perlu bagi pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan wang yang menjadi persoalan dalam pertuduhan telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun tertuduh.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Pecah Amanah Jenayah - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 409 - Pengurus kilang dengan curang menyalahgunakan wang yang telah diamanahkan kepadanya - Pembayaran berlebihan dibuat kepada pembekal bahan mentah berbanding dengan bahan mentah yang sebenarnya diterima - Sama ada tertuduh telah tidak amanah dalam menjalankan arahan yang diamanahkan kepadanya - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk pembuktian mengenai wang yang diterima oleh tertuduh dalam akaunnya bagi kesalahan bawah s. 409 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada tertuduh telah gagal mengikuti prosedur pembayaran yang biasa diamalkan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Saiful Ambar Abdullah Ambar; T/n Ambar & Azah
  • Bagi pihak responden - TPR Rullizah Hj Abdul Majid; Unit Komersial dan Jenayah Siber, Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara.

[2019] 1 LNS 1968

REMCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD lwn. PERSATUAN PENGANUT DEWA SRI MEENATCHI SOCKALINGESWARAR

Pihak yang mendakwa telah diberi kebenaran oleh pemilik asal untuk terus menduduki tanah harus mengemukakan bukti-bukti nyata yang menunjukkan kebenaran tersebut telah diberikan oleh pemilik asal. Ketiadaan tindakan oleh kerajaan negeri atau agensi di bawahnya tidak bermakna kebenaran telah diberikan secara tersirat kepada suatu pihak untuk memasuki dan menduduki tanah tersebut.

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Permohonan untuk milikan kosong - Permohonan oleh pemilik berdaftar dan benefisiari - Pembinaan struktur kuil yang mencerobohi tanah yang dibeli plaintif - Pihak kuil mendakwa kerajaan negeri sebagai tuan punya asal hartanah telah memberikan persetujuan kepada pihak kuil untuk menduduki tanah sebelum plaintif memilikinya - Sama ada terdapat keterangan nyata bahawa pemilik semasa dan pemilik terdahulu telah memberi kebenaran untuk defendan memasuki dan menduduki tanah - Sama ada defendan telah menceroboh tanah - Sama ada hak plaintif untuk milikan tanah adalah serta merta selepas plaintif didaftarkan sebagai pemilik hartanah bawah s. 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Prosiding terus pemilikan tanah - Permohonan untuk - Milikan kosong - Pembinaan struktur kuil yang mencerobohi tanah yang dibeli plaintif - Kegagalan mengemukakan keterangan nyata yang menunjukkan kebenaran telah diberikan oleh pemilik asal dan pemilik semasa untuk defendan terus menduduki tanah - Sama ada defendan adalah penceroboh yang menduduki tanah milik plaintif - Sama ada terdapat isu-isu untuk dibicarakan - Sama ada plaintif sebagai pemilik berdaftar berhak untuk pemilikan serta-merta - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 89

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Ramachandran Nana Pulle; T/n NP Ramachandran & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden - Effendi Syah Noordin; T/n Effendi & Co

CLJ 2022 Volume 2 (Part 2)

In a medical negligence action, where the injuries caused (herein serious brain injury resulting in plaintiff being in vegetative state) has been proved and the hospital has been found solely liable, damages should be awarded for loss of earnings, special damages, value of care and for pain and suffering, and for loss of amenities of life et cetera; it should be noted, however, that in awarding such damages, once a multiplier therefor has been decided, there is no more logic to make a further deduction on the quantum awarded.
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd v. Fareed Reezal Arund & Another Appeal [2022] 2 CLJ 173 [CA]

TORT: Damages - Medical negligence - Claim for - Plaintiff suffered serious brain injury resulting in him being in persistent vegetative state - Issue of quantum - Life expectancy - Loss of earnings - Pain and suffering - Value of life

 

 

HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA

(Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-566-04-2020)
  • For the appellant - Felix Raj & Ahmad Aizek Busu; M/s Felix Raj Chambers
  • For the respondent - MS Dhillon, KB Karthi & Jeremy Balang; M/s PS Ranjan & Co
(Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-572-04-2020)
  • For the appellant - MS Dhillon, KB Karthi & Jeremy Balang; M/s PS Ranjan & Co
  • For the respondent - Felix Raj & Ahmad Aizek Busu; M/s Felix Raj Chambers

A defendant in a defamation suit, who has executed a consent judgment to withdraw the impugned defamatory statement and to refrain from repeating the same but went on nonetheless to thereafter repeat and publish the statement, has clearly committed an act of contempt and is susceptible to be slapped with a contempt order; likewise, his solicitor too, for advising, aiding or abetting him to repeat the contemptuous factual matters, could be equally guilty of contempt, and be liable to be censored accordingly.
Saraswathy Kandasami v. Datuk Saravanan Murugan & Another Appeal [2022] 2 CLJ 202 [CA]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal order - Appeal against - Appeal against committal order made by High Court - Consent judgment entered between parties - Appellants proceeded to hold press conference to repeat and publish impugned statements referred in defamation suit - Whether breach of undertaking in consent judgment amounted to contempt of court - Whether contempt proceedings defective and bad in law - Whether there was misinterpretation of undertaking in consent judgment - Whether appellants committed act of contempt of court by refusing to comply with undertaking in consent judgment

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Consent judgment entered between parties - Appellants proceeded to hold press conference to repeat and publish impugned statements referred in defamation suit - Whether breach of undertaking in consent judgment amounted to contempt of court - Whether contempt proceedings defective and bad in law - Whether there was misinterpretation of undertaking in consent judgment - Whether appellants committed act of contempt of court by refusing to comply with undertaking in consent judgment

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Duty to client - Failure to advise clients not to breach undertaking in consent judgment - Whether solicitor failed in professional duty as officer of court - Whether solicitor committed act of contempt of court

 

LAU BEE LAN JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA

(Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2341-11-2018)
  • For the appellant - Saraswathy Kandasami; M/s S Kandasami & Co
  • For the respondent - Premshangar Venugopal & Muralidharan Balan Pillai; M/s Lewis & Co
(Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2369-11-2018)
  • For the appellant - M Manoharan & P Thavamalar; M/s Sathiya Devi & Co
  • For the respondent - Premshangar Venugopal & Muralidharan Balan Pillai; M/s Lewis & Co

An ex parte injunction could not be extended beyond 21 days. The execution of an Anton Piller order, after its expiry, is illegal and an invalid execution, apart from being an abuse of court process. Such non-compliance could not be corrected by subsequent compliance.
Ageson Enterprise Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Esa Pile Sdn Bhd) v. LKD Trading Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) [2022] 2 CLJ 226 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Anton Piller order - Expiry - Anton Piller order obtained to gain access to premise - Anton Piller order executed after expiry - Whether execution legal and valid - Whether principles of law governing Anton Piller injunction satisfied - Whether there was abuse of court process - Whether occasioned miscarriage of justice - Whether Anton Piller order ought to be complied with - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29 r. 1(2B)

 

 

NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JC

  • For the applicant - Mohd Izzul Faris Mohd Ghani & Sandra Tan Xue Qi; M/s Syed Ibrahim & Co
  • For the respondent - Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal & Arun Ganesh Boopalan; M/s Raj & Sach

In an action for striking out, inexcusable delay in prosecuting the claim or appeal thereon can be decisive in sealing the fate of the plaintiff. Where the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR'), after filing an appeal in July 2014 against the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, had sit on the appeal and had practically done nothing on it and not bothering even to follow up with the finalised case stated until June 2019, whereof it affirmed its intention to proceed with the appeal, then such inexplicable and inordinate delay must or must be deemed to have seriously prejudiced and caused serious financial hardship to the defendant taxpayer; it needs no emphasis that the DGIR's appeal ought to be struck off for want of prosecution.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Pulai Spring Resort Sdn Bhd [2022] 2 CLJ 247 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Want of prosecution - Appeal to High Court by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') against deciding order of Special Commissioners of Income Tax - Delay in expediting appeal process - Whether provided satisfactory explanation for inaction - Whether caused prejudice to taxpayer - Whether showed DGIR disinterested in appeal - Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable - Whether case stated satisfied statutory requirements - Whether abuse of court process - Whether appeal could be rendered incompetent and could be struck out

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Additional assessment - Appeal against notice of additional assessment by taxpayer allowed by Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') appealed to High Court against SCIT's decision - Delay in expediting appeal process - Whether provided satisfactory explanation for inaction - Whether caused prejudice to taxpayer - Whether showed DGIR disinterested in appeal - Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable - Whether case stated satisfied statutory requirements - Whether abuse of court process - Whether appeal could be rendered incompetent and could be struck out

 

NOORIN BADARUDDIN J

  • For the appellant - Mohammad Hafidz Ahmad; SRC & Nurul Amalina Mantaza; RC
  • For the respondent - Anand Raj, Foong Pui Chi, Abhilaash Subramaniam & Yeoh Yu Xian; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

(i) Members of the Ahmadiyya sect are generally not Muslims and are not to be subjected to the dictates of Islamic law or statute, or any Syariah investigation or prosecution. However, to properly determine their constitutional and legal status, a differentiation must be made between those who were adherents of the faith by origin, and those who were professing the religion of Islam before embracing the doctrinal beliefs of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Civil Court is seized with jurisdiction to deal with those in the first category but not in the second; for the latter category, the right to determine belongs exclusively to the Syariah Court.
(ii) The Ahmadiyya worshippers in this judicial review application are made up of those who were born into Ahmadiyya families and were Ahmadiyya adherents by origin, and Muslims who had subsequently come to adopt the Ahmadiyya faith. Clearly, the applicants in the second category who are Malaysians fall squarely within the 'renunciation' cases and would therefore come within the jurisdiction of the Islamic Authorities respondents, and be subject to the two fatwas herein, until and unless they obtain an order from the Syariah Court that they are followers of the Ahmadiyya sect.
Maqsood Ahmad & Ors v. Ketua Pegawai Penguatkuasa Agama & Ors [2022] 2 CLJ 259 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Judicial review against decision of public authority - Jurisdiction - Officers of Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor ('JAIS') raided premises used by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group to perform prayers - Applicants compelled to appear before Syariah Court on pain of monetary penalty - Whether applicants Ahmadiyya faith by origin or subsequent adherents - Whether applicants Muslims under law - Whether applicants fell within jurisdiction of JAIS - Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, s. 97

 

 

VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J

  • For the applicants - Aston Paiva & Michael Cheah Ern Tien; M/s Amerbon
  • For the 1st & 4th respondents - Hasnan Hamzah & Qushwa Hasnan; M/s Hasnan Hamzah
  • For the 2nd, 3rd & 5th respondents - Muhammad Haziq Hashim; SLA, Selangor

Winding-up proceedings are not subject to or caught by an arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement does not stop a party from presenting and proceeding with a winding-up petition. The proper test to be applied for the grant of a Fortuna injunction where there is an arbitration agreement or clause is for the applicant to establish a prima facie dispute that the debt falls within the arbitration agreement.
PRPC Utilities And Facilities Sdn Bhd v. PBJV Group Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 2 CLJ 276 [HC]

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Petition - Disputes between parties - Application to restrain presentation of winding-up petition - Whether winding-up proceedings subject to or caught by arbitral proceedings or arbitration agreement/clause - Whether arbitral proceeding proper forum for parties' dispute to be determined - Impact of arbitral proceedings and arbitration - Applicable tests

 

 

WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA JC

  • For the plaintiff - Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam, Lee Shen Yee & Yap Jia Cheng; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
  • For the defendants - Ismail Mohamed Arifin & Amirah Nadiah Muhamad; M/s Ram Reza & Muhammad

Construction work contracts, to which the Government is a party, is not included in the list of categories of contracts set out in the Schedule to Part II of the Temporary Measures for Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 ('Covid-19 Act'). If Parliament had intended to include Government construction work contracts in item 1 in the list of categories of contracts as set out in the Schedule for the purposes of s. 7 of the Covid-19 Act, it would have provided words to that effect. By not having done so, Government construction work contracts were meant to be covered by necessary implication.
SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia [2022] 2 CLJ 302 [HC]

CONTRACT: Construction contract - Works - Construction work contracts to which Government is party - Whether construction work contracts included in list of categories of contracts set out in Schedule to Part II of Temporary Measures for Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 ('Covid-19 Act') - Whether Covid-19 Act applicable - Whether elements of s. 7 of Covid-19 Act established

 

 

ALIZA SULAIMAN J

  • For the plaintiff - Yusman Mohd Badar & Muhammad Nazmi Hanafi; M/s Chambers of Yusman Azlin Anwar
  • For the defendant - Zureen Elina Mohd Dom & Aida Mastura Mohamed Aman; SFCs & Khong Hui Li; FC

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

  1. Gender Discrimination An Affront To Common Sense
    An Observation Of The Recent Decision In Suraini Kempe & Ors v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 979
    [Read excerpt]
    by Kevin De Rozario* [2022] 2 CLJ(A) i

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

    Gender Discrimination An Affront To Common Sense
    An Observation Of The Recent Decision In Suraini Kempe & Ors v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2021] 9 CLJ 979


    by
    Kevin De Rozario*

    Introduction

    The drafters of the Federal Constitution (FC) had in mind a framework to serve and administer the rule of law in a manner that would produce a just and fair result depending on the circumstances of the case, to all sections of society and walks of life. Equality and arbitrariness have got no place in the Constitution. The Judiciary who is the third branch of the Government plays a vital role. Judicial dynamism is expected of judges in a country with a written Constitution to protect social justice within the Constitutional framework; more so when they have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

    Citizenship is embodied in Part 3 of the Constitution which is further divided into three chapters which are Chapter 1 (Acquisition of Citizenship), Chapter 2 (Termination of Citizenship), Chapter 3 (Supplemental) and the provisions of the Second Schedule. Each country and nation places importance and emphasis on the acquisition of citizenship, and stringent requirements are normally placed on those who are not born in that particular country, however due deliberation and consideration need to be given in exceptional and extenuating circumstances.

    . . .

    * Senior Litigation Partner, M/s Khairuddin Ngiam & Tan

LNS Article(s)

  1. ETHICS AND STANDARDS IN PRACTICE: FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES+ [Read excerpt]
    by Rob Reis* [2022] 1 LNS(A) xiii

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) xiii
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    ETHICS AND STANDARDS IN PRACTICE: FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES+

    by
    Rob Reis*

    Under Rule 4 of the ACT Solicitors Conduct Rules, a solicitor must be honest in all dealings in the course of legal practice, and deliver legal services competently, diligently, and as promptly as reasonably possible. In this case study, disciplinary proceedings led to a solicitor being removed from the roll when a judge determined that the solicitor's remorse and insight were not accompanied by evidence of genuine recognition of wrongdoing.

    On 8 September 2021, the Tasmanian Supreme Court delivered its decision in disciplinary proceedings against one of its solicitors. Brett J, presiding, made an order recommending that Mr William Frederick Lester be removed from the roll of legal practitioners.[1]

    Mr Lester was admitted to the roll of legal practitioners in the ACT Supreme Court, and commenced practice in the ACT. By the time the Tasmanian decision was delivered, Mr Lester had retired from practice. He has since not held a practising certificate.

    . . .

    + Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 262 Summer 2021.

    * Professional Standards Manager, ACT Law Society.

  3. ENFORCEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE: A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE [Read excerpt]
    by Nor Hasliza Mat Hasan[i] Tengku Noor Azira Tengku Zainudin[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xiv

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

    ENFORCEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE:
    A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE


    by
    Nor Hasliza Mat Hasan[i]
    Tengku Noor Azira Tengku Zainudin[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    Occupational safety is one of the most significant issues concerning the workplace. Enforcement of occupational safety at the workplace in Malaysia is conducted by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health ('DOSH'). The OSHA 1994 in enforcing the law and examine the importance of mastering the knowledge in management on the part of the legal authorities. This ensures that they will be better equipped to carry out enforcement at the workplace effectively. The research focused on conceptual analysis, and it examines literature from various research journals and papers. The study found that legal and management disciplines have equally important aspects that are essential to be emphasised by the legal authorities to ensure the effectiveness of the enforcement of occupational safety at the workplace.

    . . .

    [i] Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Jalan Ayer Keroh Lama, 75450 Melaka, Malaysia. Email: norhasliza.hasan@mmu.edu.my.

    [ii] Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor. Email: tna@ukm.edu.my.

  5. SHOULD THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES BE PROTECTED? A STUDY FROM A JURISPRUDENCE PERSPECTIVE [Read excerpt]
    by Shahrul Mizan Bin Ismail[i] Anbahnanthy G Krishnan Murthy[ii] Visalini Sivaji[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xv

  6. [2022] 1 LNS(A) xv
    logo
    INTERNATIONAL

    SHOULD THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES BE PROTECTED?
    A STUDY FROM A JURISPRUDENCE PERSPECTIVE


    by
    Shahrul Mizan Bin Ismail[i]
    Anbahnanthy G Krishnan Murthy[ii]
    Visalini Sivaji[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    A refugee is someone who has fled violence, conflict, war, persecution and crossed an international territory or border to find asylum in another State. They have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, which results in them being unable to return to their country of origin. Despite having legal frameworks to protect the rights of the refugees, the States continue to violate those rights by discriminating against them in various ways. This article aims to address the refugee crisis from the jurisprudence perspective. The objective of this paper is to discuss the issues related to refugees in Malaysia and the discrimination faced by them generally. In addition, this paper also discusses the obligations of the States under the treaty and customary international law to protect the rights of the refugees. The results of this study will provide exposure to the thoughts of selected jurists on how the refugee crisis should be addressed in Malaysia.

    . . .

    [i] LLB (Hons) (IIUM), LLM (Human Rights) (Nottingham), PhD (UKM); Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya) (Non-practising); Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, the National University of Malaysia (UKM).

    [ii] [iii] Third Year Law Student, Faculty of Law, the National University of Malaysia (UKM).

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
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]
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 - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1644 Anti-Trafficking In Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 670
ACT A1643 Small Estates (Distribution) (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 98
ACT A1642 Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet In Force ACT 000
ACT A1641 Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amendment) Act 2022 14 January 2022 ACT 829
ACT A1640 Advocates Ordinance (Sabah) (Amendment) Act 2021 10 January 2022 [PU(B) 5/2022] SABAH CAP. 2

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 31/2022 Customs (Amendment) Regulations 2022 8 February 2022 15 February 2022 PU(A) 397/2019
PU(A) 30/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 2) Order 2022 4 February 2022 5 February 2022 to 5 June 2022 ACT 723
PU(A) 29/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 3) Order 2022 4 February 2022 5 February 2022 to 5 June 2022 ACT 723
PU(A) 28/2022 Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 2022 3 February 2022 4 February 2022 ACT 50
PU(A) 27/2022 Income Tax (Restriction On Deductibility of Interest) (Amendment) Rules 2022 31 January 2022 1 February 2022 PU(A) 175/2019

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 89/2022 Notification Under Subregulation 3(3) For The Purpose of General Election For The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore 9 February 2022 10 February 2022 PU(A) 185/2003
PU(B) 88/2022 Notification Under Paragraph 3(1)(e) For The Purpose of General Election For The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore 9 February 2022 10 February 2022 PU(A) 185/2003
PU(B) 87/2022 Notice To Hold A General Election To The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore 9 February 2022 10 February 2022 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 86/2022 Determination of Electoral Roll For The General Election of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore 9 February 2022 10 February 2022 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 85/2022 Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions 9 February 2022 10 February 2022 ACT 388

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 57/2002 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2002 PU(A) 499/2021 Year of assessment 2021 Paragraphs 2 and 4; Schedule
PU(A) 103/2007 Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing (Invocation of Part IV) Order 2007 PU(A) 496/2021 31 December 2021 Paragraph 4
PU(A) 293/2006 Perintah Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram (Penggunaan Bahagian IV) 2006 PU(A) 495/2021 31 Disember 2021 Perenggan 2 dan 4
PU(A) 293/2006 Anti-Money Laundering (Invocation of Part IV) Order 2006 PU(A) 495/2021 31 December 2021 Paragraphs 2 and 4
AKTA 50 Akta Perubatan 1971 PU(A) 28/2022 4 Februari 2022 Jadual Kedua

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
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
PU(A) 100/2013 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2013 PU(A) 483/2021 Year of assessment 2020
PU(A) 14/1977 Dental Regulations 1976 PU(A) 443/2021 1 January 2022
PU(A) 219/2011 Income Tax (Exchange of Information) Rules 2011 PU(A) 436/2021 2 December 2021