Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #13/2023
23 March 2023

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

SILVAM SELLAPAN & ANOR v. TAMIL SELVAM VELUSAMY & ORS [2023] 3 CLJ 371
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; NORDIN HASSAN JCA; MARIANA YAHYA JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(NCVC)(W)-374-08-2020]
25 JANUARY 2023

Trustees are not registered owners of a land and have no right to transfer a land to any other entity. Any transfer obtained by insufficient instrument and in clear violation of a declaration of trust ought to be set aside. In such case, there should be a reversion to the status quo ante; the name of the rightful owner should be restored to the issue document of title.

LAND LAW: Ownership - Dispute - Dispute over ownership of parcel of land on which Government-aided school sits and operates - Trustees transferred land from school to charitable entity - Whether done in violation of declaration of trust - Whether transfer obtained by insufficient instrument - Whether transfer valid -Whether school legal entity that can hold land or otherwise entitled to hold land by being beneficiary of trust

TRUSTS: Trustees - Dispute on ownership of land - Parcel of land on which Government-aided school sits and operates - Trustees transferred land from school to charitable entity - Whether done in violation of declaration of trust - Whether transfer obtained by insufficient instrument - Whether transfer valid - Whether school legal entity that can hold land or otherwise entitled to hold land by being beneficiary of trust


APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Aizat Abdullah Othman v. PP [2023] 1 LNS 28 affirming the High Court case of PP lwn. Aizat Abdullah Othman [2020] 1 LNS 846

  2. Choongcons (Penang) Sdn Bhd v. Ms Elevators Engineering Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 29 overruling the High Court case of Choongcons (Penang) Sdn Bhd v. Ms Elevators Engineering Sdn Bhd [Guaman Sivil No.: PA-22C-2-03/2019]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 67

VALERIE CHEE SUAN SIM v. OLIVE NAVAMONY DEVADASON

A party intending to dispute or challenge a will must offer sufficient grounds to support his allegations in the statement of claim. Failing to do so, the statement of claim could be rendered disclosing no cause of action or lack of particulars justifying striking out of the same.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Claim for decree probate of a will - Statement of claim lacking particulars - Issue of locus standi - Action to challenge validity of previous will - Will does not name plaintiff as executrix nor trustee - Whether statement of claim failed to disclose cause of action - Whether plaintiff an interested party which has locus standi to file action - Whether court was seised with jurisdiction to decree probate of earlier will that has been revived by new will - Whether claim was obviously unsustainable

  • For the plaintiff - M/s See Ramsun & Tan
  • For the defendant - Syarikat P Subbaiyah

[2022] 1 LNS 151

LOO ZHI WEN v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & ORS

A Deputy Minister exercising power to issue a restriction order under s. 6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 must mention in allegations of fact the basis that formed the issuance of the said restriction order. The defect in the grounds of the restriction order and allegation of fact cannot be made good by the affidavit of the Deputy Minister.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Remedies - Habeas corpus - Applicant placed under police supervision for two years - Restriction of transfer of residence - Whether applicant had acted alone or in association with a substantial body of persons in trafficking of dangerous drugs - Whether restriction order was a nullity for being ultra vires art 149 of Federal Constitution and preamble of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Whether defect in grounds of restriction order and allegation of fact could be made good by affidavit of Deputy Minister

  • For the applicant - Naizatul Zamrina Karizaman; M/s K L Chee & Co
  • For the respondent - FC Norazlin Mohamad Yusof; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2022] 1 LNS 154

GENASAN A J KARUPPIAH v. PP

The prosecution has no obligation to call every person involved with an exhibit to testify, for the prosecution should only endeavour to call material witnesses.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused was sentenced to six years imprisonment for consuming morphine under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Dispute on urine specimen and analysis - Whether finding of fact on analysis of urine sample ought to be disturbed - Whether conviction was safe

EVIDENCE: Admissibility - Urine specimen - Accused disputing authenticity of urine sample - Allegation that arresting officers were not called to testify regarding collection of urine sample - Part of urine sample bottle label smudged with only serial number visible - Whether there was necessity to call arresting officer - Whether necessity arise to produce original bottle used to store urine sample - Whether there was sufficient particulars to identify sample specimen

  • For the appellant - Zaileen Nadia Zubir; Deputy Public Prosecutor
  • For the respondent - Paul Aisu; Law Office of Paul

[2021] 1 LNS 1389

LOH SEE LEI lwn. PP

Penjara bukan satu-satunya institusi untuk membentuk seseorang tertuduh menjadi insan yang baik. Dalam keadaan sesuatu kes, mahkamah boleh mengetepikan hukuman penjara dan memberi peluang kepada tertuduh untuk menjadi seorang warganegara yang baik dalam kalangan masyarakat.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman 5 tahun penjara, bon berkelakuan baik selama 3 tahun dengan cagaran sebanyak RM10,000 dan khidmat masyarakat selama 180 jam - Kesalahan bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 - Pengakuan bersalah - Tertuduh memukul anak kandungnya sehingga mendatangkan kesakitan pada tubuh badan - Sama ada tertuduh telah bertindak keterlaluan dalam mendidik anak yang masih kecil - Sama ada kepentingan tertuduh dan kepentingan awam wajar dipertimbangkan - Sama ada tertuduh wajar diberi peluang untuk menjadi seorang warganegara yang baik - Sama ada hukuman penjara wajar dikekalkan

[2021] 1 LNS 1501

CHANG WENG CHOON lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

Lembaga penasihat tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan sapina terhadap saksi-saksi yang ditahan di Jabatan Penjara. Justeru, pemohon yang ingin memohon saksi-saksi yang ditahan di Jabatan Penjara hadir semasa pendengaran representasi di hadapan lembaga penasihat harus membuat permohonan mengikut peruntukan s. 31(1)(a) Akta Penjara 1995 kepada Komisioner Jeneral Jabatan Penjara bagi membolehkan saksi-saksi tersebut dikeluarkan dan dibawa ke hadapan lembaga penasihat. Hal ini adalah kerana hanya Komisioner Jeneral Jabatan Penjara sahaja yang mempunyai kuasa untuk mengarahkan banduan hadir di mana-mana tempat di Malaysia termasuklah di hadapan lembaga penasihat.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan bawah s. 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Pemohon mendakwa tidak terlibat dalam pengedaran dadah bersama sindiket dadah - Sama ada pemohon telah membuat pengedaran dadah secara bersendirian atau melibatkan 'substantial body of person' bagi maksud mukadimah Akta dan perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan bawah s. 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Lembaga penasihat tidak mengeluarkan sapina terhadap kesmua saksi-saksi yang dipohon oleh pemohon - Saksi-saksi berada di tahanan Jabatan Penjara - Rakaman percakapan pemohon tidak dibekalkan - Sama ada pemohon berupaya membentangkan kes representasinya dengan lebih baik - Sama ada berlaku ketidakpatuhan s. 12(1) Akta - Sama ada lembaga penasihat mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan sapina terhadap saksi-saksi yang ditahan di Jabatan Penjara - Sama ada pemohon seharusnya membuat permohonan bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Penjara 1955 bagi membolehkan saksi-saksi dibawa ke hadapan lembaga penasihat - Sama ada terdapat keperluan undang-undang untuk membekalkan rakaman percakapan pemohon

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - S Suresh; T/n S Suresh Law Chambers
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden - Nuur Izham Ismail, Peguam Persekutuan Unit Litigasi; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

CLJ 2023 Volume 3 (Part 2)

A moneylending business comes into play when there exists some degree of system and continuity in the moneylending transactions. A single loan at interest, while sufficient to raise a rebuttable presumption under s. 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 ('MLA'), it is important to differentiate between an isolated act of moneylending and engaging in the business of moneylending. The MLA does not apply to an individual who lends money, even with interest, unless he makes a business from it.
Anuar Abd Aziz v. Dato’ John Lee Siew Neng & Ors [2023] 3 CLJ 159 [CA]

MONEYLENDERS: Moneylending transaction - Loan with interest - Loan secured by pledging properties as security - Claim for repayment of loan with interest - Whether lender carrying out 'business of moneylending' - Whether isolated act of moneylending - Whether presumption under s. 10OA of Moneylenders Act 1951 applicable - Whether lender imposed exorbitant interest

MONEYLENDERS: Moneylending transaction - Loan with interest - Loan secured by pledging properties as security - Claim for repayment of loan with interest - Whether lender carrying out 'business of moneylending' - Restitutionary remedy - Whether may be ordered to prevent injustice or unjust enrichment - Whether borrower entitled to redeem properties upon repayment of loan - Whether retention of properties would cause lender to be unjustly enriched

 

 

LEE SWEE SENG JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the appellant - Kuldeep Kumar Jamna Dass & Athari Bahardin; M/s Kuldeep Kumar & Co
  • For the respondent - Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi, Nicola Tang Zhan Ying & Colin Yoong Shern Zian; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

The correct approach to an assessment of damages that a judge should adopt is to apply the principle that the measure of damages should be as defined in Livingstone v. Raywards Coal Co as 'that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.' When there is ample evidence before the court, both oral and documentary, that the injured party had suffered substantial damages, the judge should not be awarding merely nominal damages.
Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2023] 3 CLJ 175 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of - Quantum - General damages - Correct approach to assessment - Proof of loss and damages - Measure of damages - Whether injured party ought to be put in same position as it would have been if it had not sustained wrong for which it is now getting compensation or reparation - Whether quantum of general damages awarded manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of - Quantum of - Loss of wages to be paid to employees during period of factory closure - Whether disconnection of electricity supply only lasted 13 days and not for three-month period - Whether reasonable award ought to be given

 

 

AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA

  • For the appellant - Jack Yow Pit Pin & Kan Hui Ling; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
  • For the 1st respondent - Balvinder Singh Kenth & Gurmesh Kaur; M/s Kenth Partnership

A scheme of arrangement is not workable when there is non-disclosure of materials needed, the proposed scheme is unreasonable and the composition of the scheme creditors is unfair. There is no reason to allow a company, that is saddled with enormous debts, to continue operating without a clear strategy to effectively manage its serious difficulties. It would only invite further woes to sanction a scheme of arrangement.
MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v. Adrian Sia Koon Leng [2023] 3 CLJ 191 [CA]

COMPANY LAW: Scheme of arrangement - Sanction and approval of court - Application for - Whether composition of scheme creditors fair - Whether composition fairly representative of class in question - Whether there was full disclosure of materials needed - Whether scheme of arrangement reasonable - Companies Act 2016, ss. 366, 368 & 369

 

 

AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Lee Shih; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
    Nathalie Ker & Jaspal Singh Gill; M/s Sekar Gill & C Suren
  • For the respondent - Ho Yuk Yuen, Tan Kah Kiat, Nai Mei Kei & Bryan Boo Wei Xiang; M/s YY Ho & Lee

Going by the language of s. 56(1) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ('AMLATFPUAA'), there is no requirement that a conviction under s. 4(1)(a) of the AMLATFPUAA or a terrorism financing offence must first be obtained before the applicant can apply for a forfeiture order. What is required is for the Public Prosecutor to satisfy himself that the seized property falls under paras. (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of s. 56(1) of the same Act. If any property is derived from any unlawful activity such as the criminal offence of smuggling migrants to Malaysia by obtaining professional work permits improperly by way of falsifying academic documents, education certificates and also work application documents, it must be forfeited, irrespective of whether any person had been convicted or otherwise of the offence of money laundering.
PP v. Mokbul Hossain & Anor [2023] 3 CLJ 207 [CA]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences - Smuggling of migrants - Application for forfeiture of monies and properties - Whether properties proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether conviction under s. 4(1)(a) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 must be obtained before application for forfeiture order - Failure to explain source and frequent flow of cash deposits into account - Whether properties acquired as result of illegal activities under s. 26A of Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 - Whether order of forfeiture ought to be made - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 56 - Passports Act 1966, s. 12(1)(h)

CRIMINAL LAW: Forfeiture - Order of - Application for forfeiture of monies and properties - Whether properties proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether conviction under s. 4(1)(a) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 must be obtained before application for forfeiture order - Failure to explain source and frequent flow of cash deposits into accounts - Whether properties acquired as result of illegal activities under s. 26A of Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 - Whether order of forfeiture ought to be made - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 56 - Passports Act 1966, s. 12(1)(h)

WORDS & PHRASES: 'proceeds of unlawful activity' -Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 56 - Whether property derived from unlawful activity - Criminal offences under s. 26A of Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrant Act 2007 - Whether properties and monies ought to be forfeited

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
GHAZALI CHA JCA

  • For the appellant - Atiqah Abdul Karim; DPP
  • For the respondent - Harpal Singh, Nadia Syaza Rahizam & Putri Noor Syazwani Ismadi; M/s T Harpal & Assocs

The municipal council is not estopped from entering and demolishing an illegal structure/building on account of there being notices issued as per the procedure laid down under the law. Similarly, the granting of extensions of time do not estop the municipal council from entering and demolishing an illegal structure; especially when no representation is made that no enforcement action would be taken.
Chuah Hee Huat v. Majlis Bandaraya Seberang Perai [2023] 3 CLJ 226 [HC]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local authority - Municipal council - Allegation of breach of duty of care - Claim for losses and damages - Claimant built building/structure on land without approval of municipal council - Municipal council issued notices and gave extensions of time to claimant before finally entering and demolishing building/structure - Whether notices issued and/or served properly - Whether claimant given reasonable time to vacate and remove items in building/structure - Whether, having granted extensions of time, municipal council was estopped from entering and demolishing building/structure - Whether claimant deprived of fundamental liberty under art. 5(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether conduct/action of municipal council in accordance with law and reasonable - Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, ss. 72 & 120

 

 

ANAND PONNUDURAI J

  • For the plantiff - Siva Subramaniam, Kartini Devi Manimoly & Venukumar; M/s Subramaniam & Shafiq
  • For the defendant - Kanesh Sundrum & Nurul Jannah Zakariah; M/s Kanesh Sundrum & Co

An adopted child born after Malaysia Day who was registered as a Malaysian citizen, albeit based on false information given by her adoptive parents, meant that it would have been legally impossible for her to have acquired within one year after her birth the citizenship of any other country by virtue of any provision corresponding to s. 1(c) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution ('FC') or otherwise. Thus, the child was a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law pursuant to art. 14(1)(b) and s. 1(e) and s. 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the FC.
LKP & Anor v. Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran Dan Kematian, Malaysia [2023] 3 CLJ 243 [HC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Malaysian citizen couple adopted child - Identity of biological parents unknown - Child registered as Malaysian citizen based on false information and was issued birth certificate stating child as 'citizen' - Whether legally possible for child to acquire within one year of birth citizenship of any other country - Whether child citizen of Malaysia by operation of law pursuant to art. 14(1)(b) and s. 1(e) and s. 2(3) of Part II of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether child ought to be registered as citizen of Malaysia

 

 

FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

  • For the plaintiffs - Eric Toh Kah Yung & Wong Chee En; M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
  • For the defendant - Krishna Priya Veenagopal FC; AG's Chambers

A sub-contractor of a project owes contractual duties and a duty of care to the main contractor. However, as there is no contract between the main contractor and the sub-contractor's consultant, the latter does not owe any contractual duty to the former for the reason that there is no sufficient legal proximity. It is not in the public interest for a main contractor to commence a suit against the sub-contractor's consultant when the main contractor can institute a suit or arbitration against the sub-contractor regarding breaches of the sub-contractor's duties.
MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v. Liang United Engineering Studio [2023] 3 CLJ 258 [HC]

|

TORT: Negligence - Professional negligence - Duty of care - Main contractor appointed sub-contractor to complete certain works - Sub-contractor appointed consultant to complete works - Damages occurred to works - Main contractor commenced suit for professional negligence against sub-contractor's consultant - Whether suit ought to be allowed - Whether sub-contractor's consultant owed duty of care to main contractor - Whether there was sufficient legal proximity between main contractor and sub-contractor

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Claim for damages - Professional negligence - Main contractor appointed sub-contractor to complete certain works - Sub-contractor appointed consultant to complete works - Damages occurred to works - Main contractor commenced suit for professional negligence against sub-contractor's consultant - Whether sub-contractor's consultant owed duty of care to main contractor - Whether suit ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d)

 

WONG KIAN KHEONG J

  • For the plaintiff - Lam Ko Luen & Hamsavartheni Sivalingam; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
  • For the defendant - Alicia Ng Yan Ying & Shasha Chin Sim Cheng; M/s Gananathan Loh

The court, in a striking out application, should not conduct a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case. If the case, on the face of it, raises issues to be tried, the mere fact that the case is weak or that one party believed that the opposing party would likely not be successful in his case, could not be the basis for striking out the pleadings.
Muhammed Yusoff Rawther v. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim [2023] 3 CLJ 278 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Defence - Application to strike out paragraphs in defendant's statement of defence - Whether statements baseless and irrelevant to case - Whether defendant allowed to plead facts deemed necessary for defence - Whether statements intended to shed bad character evidence - Whether statements ought to be expunged - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Application to strike out defendant's counterclaim - Whether defendant fulfilled elements for claim of tort of abuse of process - Whether process complained of had been initiated - Whether collateral purpose of counterclaim sufficiently pleaded - Whether reasonable cause of action raised by defendant in counterclaim - Whether there were conflicting facts and serious issues to be tried - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)

 

 

JOHAN LEE KIEN HOW JC

  • For the plaintiff - Mahajoth Singh; M/s Abd Halim Ushah & Assocs
  • For the defendant - Navpreet Singh; M/s Jeffrey Tan & Ching

The meaning of 'welfare of child/children' must be considered in the widest sense and all factors necessary must be weighed against one another to arrive at a decision. While the welfare of child/children also encompasses their moral upbringing, the court must be cautious so as not to impose its own moral values on the parties and their child/children.
Tang Heng Kit v. Cindy Ong Pik Yin [2023] 3 CLJ 291 [HC]

FAMILY LAW: Children - Welfare - Sole guardianship, custody, care and control of children - Application by husband/father - Allegations that wife/mother led very liberal and exhibitionist lifestyle, indulged in extramarital affairs and brainwashed and abused children - Whether allegations proven or substantiated with evidence - Whether conduct of wife/mother compromised parenting skills - Factors considered in deciding best interest of children

 

 

EVROL MARIETTE PETERS J

  • For the plaintiff - Ezane Chong; M/s Ariff Rozhan & Co
  • For the defendant - Kamales Shanmugam; M/s Kamales & Partners

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

  1. ESTABLISHING THE PROPER FRONTIERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION CASE COMMENTARY – MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED [Read excerpt]
    by WILSON TAY TZE VERN* [2023] 3 ILR(A) xi

  2. [2023] 3 ILR(A) xi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    ESTABLISHING THE PROPER FRONTIERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION CASE COMMENTARY – MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED

    by
    WILSON TAY TZE VERN*

    In view of the constitutional prohibition on 'discrimination against citizens on the ground only of ... gender' in art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution, is the court at liberty to interpret s. 1(b) of Part II in the Second Schedule so as to remove the discriminatory effects of that provision, or must that task be left to Parliament?

    The Court of Appeal recently confronted this question in Mahisha Sulaiha Abdul Majeed v. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran & Ors and Another Appeal[1], concluding by a 2-1 majority that 'matters concerning sensitive and controversial moral and social issues are inherently legislative questions'.[2] Accordingly, the court could not re-interpret s. 1(b) of Part II of the Second Schedule so as to grant citizenship by operation of law to children born outside Malaysia to Malaysian mothers and non-Malaysian fathers.

    . . .

    * Senior Lecturer, Taylor's Law School, Taylor's University PhD (NUS), LLM (NUS), LLB (London). Member of the Malaysian BarUniversity of Malaya Constitutional Literacy Initiative and of the Taylor's University Impact Laboratory on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The views expressed herein are the author's own.

LNS Article(s)

  1. WHAT'S NEXT WHEN THE APPROVED SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT FAILS? A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT* [Read excerpt]
    by Kho Feng Ming** [2023] 1 LNS(A) xxiii

  2. [2023] 1 LNS(A) xxiii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    WHAT'S NEXT WHEN THE APPROVED SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT FAILS?
    A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT*


    by
    Kho Feng Ming**

    ABSTRACT

    The scheme of arrangement is one of the corporate rescue mechanisms embodied in our Companies Act 2016. However, there may be situations where the court sanctioned the scheme and yet it fails to be implemented subsequently. The question which now saddles in the minds of the creditor(s) is the next possible course of action against the company. Are they allowed to come to the court to seek legal remedies to improve or resolve the situation even after the court has sanctioned the scheme? Unfortunately, our existing law fails to address this specific area post the Sanction Order. Using content analysis as the methodology of research, this article seeks to address the power and jurisdiction of the court after sanctioning the scheme of arrangement.

    . . .

    *All the ideas and views expressed via this humble writing are based on the author’s personal opinion and do not, in any circumstances, reflect the views of the esteemed professional body that the author is employed at present.

    **LLB (1st Class Honors) UKM; Associate Qualification in Islamic Finance (IBFIM); Certificate in Book-keeping & Accounts (LCCI). Email: khofengming@gmail.com.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 843 Preservation of Public Security (Sabah) Act 1962 (Revised 2023) 1 March 2023 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 15 February 2023; First enacted in 1962 as Sabah Ordinance No 6 of 1962 Emergency Powers Ordinance
[Sabah Cap. 41]
Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1962
[Sabah Ordinance No. 6 of 1962]
ACT 842 Penang Free School Act 1920 (Revised 2023) 1 March 2023 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 15 February 2023; First enacted in 1920 as Straits Settlement Cap 259 - Penang Free School Ordinance, 1920
[S.S. Cap. 259]
ACT 841 Pensions Act 1951 (Revised 2022) 15 November 2022 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2022; First enacted in 1951 as Ordinance No 1 of 1951 - -
ACT 840 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 839 Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022 1 July 2023 [PU(B) 574/2022] - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1678 Consolidated Fund (Expenditure On Account) Act 2022 1 January 2023  
ACT A1677 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 638/2022] ACT 438
ACT A1676 Goods Vehicle Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 637/2022] ACT 294
ACT A1675 Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 636/2022] ACT 592
ACT A1674 Departure Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 1 January 2023 [PU(B) 635/2022] ACT 813

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 66/2023 Syarie Legal Profession (Federal Territories) (Accounts of Peguam Syarie) Rules 2023 14 March 2023 15 March 2023 ACT 814
PU(A) 65/2023 Kuantan Port Authority (Scale of Rates, Dues and Charges) By-Laws 2023 13 March 2023 15 March 2023 ACT 488
PU(A) 64/2023 Pesticides (Exemption) 2004 (Amendment) Order 2023 9 March 2023 15 March 2023 PU(A) 13/2004
PU(A) 63/2023 Pesticides (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2023 9 March 2023 15 March 2023 ACT 149
PU(A) 62/2023 Sports Development (Amendment of Third Schedule) Order 2023 9 March 2023 10 March 2023 ACT 576

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 106/2023 Appointment of Deputy Director of Forestry 22 March 2023 1 December 2022 ACT 313
PU(B) 105/2023 Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director of Forestry 22 March 2023 1 December 2022 ACT 313
PU(B) 104/2023 Notification Under Section 60 22 March 2023 26 February 2023 to 26 March 2023 ACT 206
PU(B) 103/2023 Notice Regarding The Certification and Inspection of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month of February 2023 17 March 2023 18 March 2023 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 102/2023 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 31 Town Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 16 March 2023 17 March 2023 ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 13/2004 Pesticides (Exemption) Order 2004 PU(A) 64/2023 15 March 2023 Schedule
PU(B) 258/2022 Senarai Pemegang Lesen PU(B) 100/2023 11 Mac 2023 Jadual
PU(B) 258/2022 List of Licensees PU(B) 100/2023 11 March 2023 Schedule
AKTA 149 Akta Racun Makhluk Perosak 1974 PU(A) 63/2023 15 Mac 2023 Jadual Pertama
ACT 149 Pesticides Act 1974 PU(A) 63/2023 15 March 2023 First Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 65/2011 Kuantan Port Authority (Scale of Charges) By-Laws 2011 PU(A) 65/2023 15 March 2023
PU(A) 358/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 17) Order 2022 PU(A) 49/2023 28 February 2023
PU(A) 370/2022 Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan 2022 PU(A) 27/2023 Lihat perenggan 1(2)
PU(A) 370/2022 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2022 PU(A) 27/2023 See paragraph 1(2) of this Order
PU(A) 373/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 15) 2022 PU(A) 5/2023 8 Januari 2023 hingga 7 Februari 2023

Copyright © 2023 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here