Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #20/2025
15 May 2025

Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents.

New This Week

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

PP & ORS v. WONG ONG HUA & ANOR [2025] 5 CLJ 79
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; SEE MEE CHUN JCA; MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-66-02-2023]
18 DECEMBER 2024

Extradition proceedings, conducted pursuant to s. 4 read with s. 20 of the Extradition Act 1992, do not constitute an exercise of judicial power. Therefore, the involvement of the Minister of Home Affairs in directing the application of s. 20 and the Sessions Court's role in these proceedings do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers under art. 121(1) of the Federal Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Judicial power - Extradition - Constitutionality - Suspected fugitive criminals arrested by police - Minister of Home Affairs issued order to Sessions Court that procedures under s. 20 of Extradition Act 1992 ('EA') to apply to extradition proceedings - Whether there was Executive interference with Sessions Court's judicial power - Whether ss. 4 and 20 of EA unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect - Whether in contravention of arts. 4(1), 5(1) & (2), 8(1) & (2), 9(1) & (2) & 121(1) of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 20 of EA in breach of doctrine of separation of powers - Whether s. 20 of EA encroached on judicial independence

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Extradition - Proceedings - Constitutionality - Suspected fugitive criminals arrested by police - Minister of Home Affairs issued order to Sessions Court that procedures under s. 20 of Extradition Act 1992 ('EA') to apply to extradition proceedings - Whether ss. 4 and 20 of EA unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect - Whether in contravention of arts. 4(1), 5(1) & (2), 8(1) & (2), 9(1) & (2) & 121(1) of Federal Constitution


JUDICIAL QUOTES

In the development of law on the interpretation of statute, 'mischief rule' is considered as a canon of interpretation. Although rarely used, much of the “mischief” can be discerned in the preamble of the statute. In Re Application Of Tan Boon Liat v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [1976] CLJU 126; [1976] 1 LNS 126; [1976] 2 MLJ 83, Abdoolcader J said that: “The preamble undoubtedly throws light on the intent and design of the enacting authority and indicates the scope and purpose of the legislation itself but it should not be read as a part of a particular section of that written law.” Be that as it may, s. 15 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 now provides that the preamble shall be construed and have effect as if it were a part of the Act. In addition to the usage of preambles, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in Citibank Bhd v. Mohamad Khalid Farzalur Rahaman & Ors [2000] 3 CLJ 739 stated that the courts have in recent years extended the rule beyond the common law position at the time of the passing of an Act to include “the whole state of the law at the time an Act was passed to see the mischief it sought to cure.” Consequently, the mischief rule has been extended and is nowadays known as a purposive approach. - Per Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA in Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tuv Sud (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 5 CLJ 46

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2025] CLJU 20

TEE KIM SANG v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (PARTY INTERESTED)

1. The mere use of the word 'shall' under s. 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 does not necessarily mean that the requirements of the provisions are mandatory since s. 38(6) allows for an extension of time for the land administrator to make a land reference to the court.

2. Land reference proceedings stem from an objection to compensation arising from one's land being compulsorily acquired. Adequate compensation in land acquisition is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, and any attempt to stifle that right with technical objections cannot be allowed to succeed.

LAND LAW: Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Interested party applied to strike out land reference - Reference was filed beyond time stipulated under s. 38(5) of Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Land reference was heard and decided - Rehearing - Extension of time to file Form O - Whether court has jurisdiction to hear land reference made beyond six months time period - Whether applicant was entitled for an extension of time to file Form O - Whether filing of Form O was within control of applicant - Whether applicant should suffer any injustice for land administrator's failure to file Form O within time stipulated - Whether any prejudice had been occasioned to interested party

  • For the applicant - Brenda Chan & Seah Jay Shearn; M/s Meng Wai & Asociates
  • For the respondent - Mohd Abdul Hakim Mohd Ali; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
  • For Party Interested - Steven How & S Shahman; M/s Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah

[2025] CLJU 21

TEE KIM TIN v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (PARTY INTERESTED)

1. The mere use of the word 'shall' under s. 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 does not necessarily mean that the requirements of the provisions are mandatory since s. 38(6) allows for an extension of time for the land administrator to make a land reference to the court.

2. Land reference proceedings stem from an objection to compensation arising from one's land being compulsorily acquired. Adequate compensation in land acquisition is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, and any attempt to stifle that right with technical objections cannot be allowed to succeed.

LAND LAW: Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Interested party applied to strike out land reference - Reference was filed beyond time stipulated under s. 38(5) of Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Land reference was heard and decided - Rehearing - Extension of time to file Form O - Whether court has jurisdiction to hear land reference made beyond six months time period - Whether applicant was entitled for an extension of time to file Form O - Whether filing of Form O was within control of applicant - Whether applicant should suffer any injustice for land administrator's failure to file Form O within time stipulated - Whether any prejudice had been occasioned to interested party

  • For the applicant - Brenda Chan & Seah Jay Shearn; M/s Meng Wai & Asociates
  • For the respondent - Mohd Abdul Hakim Mohd Ali; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
  • For interested party - Steven How & S Shahman; M/s Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah 

[2025] CLJU 28

SATHISH KUMAR AYYASWAMY & ANOR v. PEERAN SYED MOHAMED SYED MAHABOOB

1. In an application for striking out action premised on tort of defamation pursuant to O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, the courts may only consider the statement of case on the face of it and it cannot take into account the merits of the plaintiff's claim or any of the evidence in the affidavit filed by both parties.

2. Where the alleged defamatory publication is to a specific group of persons, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to plead that the defamatory words were published to the said specific group of persons. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead the names of all the members of the group of persons who had read or heard the defamatory words.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Defamation - Reasonable cause of action - Whether statement of claim had disclosed a reasonable cause of action for defamation - Whether requisite facts to establish all elements necessary for a cause of action in defamation pleaded - Whether plaintiff should plead all members of group who had read or heard defamatory words - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a)

  • For the appellants - Mirdhulekha Muralidharan & Divesh Ramani; M/s David Gurupatham & Koay
  • For the respondent - Rohan Arasoo Jeyabalah, Tey Siaw Ling & Damia Amani Shaiful Bahri; M/s Harold & Lam Partnership

[2025] CLJU 24

PP lwn. MOHD NOOR AFFENDI ZAUKLFLI

1. Suatu penjelasan yang jujur ('innocent explanation') yang diberikan oleh tertuduh sepertimana yang dituntut oleh undang-undang adalah merupakan suatu keterangan yang boleh mengakas anggapan di bawah s. 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009.

2. Syak wasangka tidak boleh mengambil tempat pembuktian melampaui keraguan munasabah. Seseorang tertuduh tidak boleh disabitkan berdasarkan syak wasangka walau sekuat mana sekali pun kewujudannya.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Pemerolehan suapan secara rasuah - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan bahawa responden ada menahan, melepaskan kapal atau tidak mengambil tindakan terhadap bot nelayan asing yang mempunyai pertalian dengan intipati suapan - Sama ada pembelaan telah berjaya mematahkan anggapan di bawah s. 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 di atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh merupakan penjelasan yang jujur - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, s. 17(a)

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 - Seksyen 4(1)(b) - Sejumlah wang tunai yang banyak ditemui di rumah tertuduh - Tertuduh menjelaskan wang bertujuan membayar gaji pekerja dan perbelanjaan perladangan - Sama ada seseorang tertuduh boleh disabitkan berdasarkan syak wasangka

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Aznika Mohd Anas, Tulaila Jamaludin & Mariah Omar; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohammad Rafaei Adnan & Muhammad Syahri Adnan; T/n Rafaei & Co

[2023] CLJU 354

JAFFET KRISTU P MARSHALL PEREIRA v. UCSI HOTELS SDN BHD & ANOR

Being a court of equity and good conscience, the Industrial Court should act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. It would be inconsonant with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the principles of equity for the Industrial Court not to exercise its discretion judiciously when it decides to strike out a claim with no liberty to file afresh on the basis that the claimant failed to attend court mention.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Industrial Court striking out case without liberty to file afresh - Claimant failed to attend mention dates - Delivery of notice of mention disputed - Whether there was evidence of complaint being notified of mention dates by Industrial Court - Whether benefit of doubt should be given to applicant on receipt of notification - Whether Industrial Court had fallen into error and made an irrational and unreasonable decision - Whether Industrial Court had exercised discretion judiciously

  • For the applicant - Anthony Gomez; M/s Gomez & Associates
  • For the 1st respondent - Chin Yu Yen; M/s YY Chin & Co

CLJ 2025 Volume 4 (Part 6)

(i) Elemen ketiga, dalam membuktikan kesalahan bunuh bawah s. 300(c) Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu bencana tubuh atau kecederaan tersebut mencukupi pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian, adalah elemen yang paling kritikal untuk dibuktikan. Dalam kes ini, perbezaan ditekankan antara 'boleh' dan 'lazimnya menyebabkan kematian'. Penggunaan perkataan 'boleh' hanya kemungkinan sahaja dan tidak semestinya terjadi, manakala 'lazimnya' menunjukkan kebarangkalian yang tinggi; (ii) Niat bersama boleh disimpulkan daripada tindakan dan keadaan kes. Walaupun tidak semua tertuduh melakukan tindakan yang sama, mereka boleh dipertanggungjawabkan jika mereka mempunyai niat bersama untuk mencapai matlamat yang sama.
Muhammad Akmal Zuhairi Azmal & Yang Lain lwn. PP [2025] 4 CLJ 837 [FC]

| |

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman dan sabitan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan - Tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi atas kesalahan membunuh si mati bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan ('KK') - Si mati dikatakan mencuri komputer riba - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur pada hampir 80% bahagian tubuh dengan 90 kesan lecur bakar - Mahkamah Tinggi mensabitkan tertuduh-tertuduh bawah s. 304(a) KK dan menjatuhkan hukuman 18 tahun penjara - Mahkamah Rayuan mensabitkan tertuduh-tertuduh atas kesalahan membunuh dan menjatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati - Sama ada elemen-elemen pertuduhan dibuktikan - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman wajar

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Subahat - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dikatakan mencuri komputer riba - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur pada hampir 80% bahagian tubuh dengan 90 kesan lecur bakar - Sama ada tertuduh bersubahat - Sama ada subahat bawah ss. 304(a) atau 330 Kanun Keseksaan - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 109

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Membunuh - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dituduh mencuri komputer riba - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur pada hampir 80% bahagian tubuh dengan 90 kesan lecur bakar - Sama ada elemen-elemen pertuduhan dibuktikan - Sama ada terdapat niat bersama - Sama ada keterangan mencukupi dan melampaui keraguan munasabah untuk sabitan bawah s. 304(a) dan bukan s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan

PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: 'lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian' - 'lazimnya' - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 300(c) - 'kebiasaannya atau selalunya membawa kematian' - Sama ada perkataan 'boleh' mempunyai maksud yang sama dengan 'lazimnya'

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim HB (Malaya)
Nordin Hassan HMP
Ab Karim Ab Jalil HMP

  • Bagi pihak perayu pertama & kedua - Amer Hamzah Arshad, Joshua Tay H'ng Foong, Lee Yee Woei & Siti Summaiyah Ahmad; T/n Amerbon & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak perayu ketiga - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Low Wei Loke; T/n Hisyam Teh
  • Bagi pihak perayu keempat - M Ramachelvam & Ameerul Radzi Azlan; T/n Rama-Rozi & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak perayu kelima - Hazman Ahmad, Premman Gopal & Rahimi Abdul Ghazi; T/n Omar Ismail Hazman & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mangaiarkarasi Krishnan, Iznina Hahim Hashim, Solehah Noratikah Ismail & Joy Jothi Nadrarasan; TPR

(i) The correction, amendment or revision made to the amount of adjusted loss claimed by the claiming companies does not violate the requirement of an 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA'). The clear words of s. 44A do not prohibit a taxpayer from claiming what is now a higher loss when overall the amount of adjusted loss surrendered and claimed remain the same and constant; (ii) Applying the principle of harmonious interpretation to the two different provisions of the ITA, clearly s. 131(1) is not repugnant to s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) of the ITA and that room may be given for claiming a relief under an 'error or mistake' which is still reconcilable with the scope of the 'irrevocable election.' Invoking s. 131(1) does not have the effect of revoking the 'irrevocable election' but rather that of giving room for an 'error or mistake' to be redeemed.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Berjaya Golf & Resort Bhd [2025] 4 CLJ 882 [CA]

|

REVENUE LAW: Tax - Assessment - Losses of one company may be surrendered to reduce taxable gains made by other companies within group - Irrevocable election - Whether irrevocable election confined only to companies to which losses were transferred and amount surrendered and claimed accordingly or extended to cover actual amount claimed by claimant companies - Whether correction, amendment or revision made to amount of adjusted loss claimed by claimant companies violated requirement of 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether clear words of s. 44A prohibit taxpayer from claiming higher loss when overall amount of adjusted loss surrendered and claimed remain same - Whether 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) amenable to correction under 'error or mistake' under s. 131 of ITA - Whether invoking s. 131(1) has effect of revoking 'irrevocable election' - Whether gives room for 'error or mistake' to be redeemed - Whether s. 44A ought to remove unnecessary obstacles to companies harnessing its beneficial provision in tax planning - Whether just and reasonable for taxpayer to be granted relief under s. 131(1)

REVENUE LAW: Tax - Assessment - Losses of one company may be surrendered to reduce taxable gains made by other companies within group - Change and revision regarding amount apportioned as being claimed between claimant companies - Whether 'irrevocable election' remained in place - Whether same tax collected irrespective of change in amount utilised by claimant companies - Whether irrevocable election confined only to companies to which losses were transferred and amount surrendered and claimed accordingly or extended to cover actual amount claimed by claimant companies - Whether correction, amendment or revision made to amount of adjusted loss claimed by claimant companies violated requirement of 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether clear words of s. 44A prohibit taxpayer from claiming higher loss when overall amount of adjusted loss surrendered and claimed remain same - Whether 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) amenable to correction under 'error or mistake' under s. 131 of ITA - Whether invoking s. 131(1) has effect of revoking 'irrevocable election' - Whether gives room for 'error or mistake' to be redeemed - Whether s. 44A ought to remove unnecessary obstacles to companies harnessing its beneficial provision in tax planning - Whether just and reasonable for taxpayer to be granted relief under s. 131(1)

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Taxing statutes - Interpretation - Whether s. 44A and s. 131 of Income Tax Act 1967 ought to be interpreted harmoniously with each other - Whether 'irrevocable election' under s. 44A(2)(a)(iv) amenable to correction under 'error or mistake' under s. 131 - Whether s. 131(1) has effect of revoking 'irrevocable election' - Whether gives room for 'error or mistake' to be redeemed - Whether s. 44 should be read generously to remove unnecessary obstacles to companies harnessing its beneficial provision in tax planning

 

Lee Swee Seng JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh JCA

  • For the appellant - Normareza Mat Rejab & Syazana Safiah Rozman; LHDN
  • For the respondent - S Saravana Kumar & Nur Hanina Mohd Azham; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership

Pension adjustments under the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 are linked to salary revisions for serving Government employees. When serving Government employees receive a salary revision, pensioners are also entitled to a corresponding adjustment to their pensions. Service circulars are evidence to determine whether salary revisions have occurred. Mere enhancements or restructuring of salary scales, without actual salary increases, do not constitute salary revisions for pension adjustment purposes. A clear and unconditional salary adjustment, however, in this case a 'Kenaikan Gaji Tahunan (KGT)', constitutes a salary revision that triggers corresponding pension adjustments.
Aminah Ahmad (Menyaman Atas Kapasiti Peribadinya Dan Bagi Pihak 56 Pesara Perkhidmatan Awam) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2025] 4 CLJ 909 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Challenge against decision of Public Service Department - Pensions - Pensions regulated by Pensions Act 1951 and Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 amended by Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 - Amending Act changed pensions adjustment formulas - Changes affected those retired before 1 January 2013 - Impugned amendments resulted in situation less favourable to pensioners when compared with preceding retirement adjustment scheme - Demand by pensioners that retired before 1 January 2013 for pensions adjustments and payment of arrears - Pensions reverted to December 2012 - Whether there could be retrospective adjustments - Whether adjustment could be made without salary scale changes - Whether service circulars showed that salary revisions occurred - Whether judicial review sought abuse of process - Whether there was res judicata

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public servants - Pensions - Pensions regulated by Pensions Act 1951 and Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 amended by Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 - Amending Act changed pensions adjustment formulas - Changes affected those retired before 1 January 2013 - Impugned amendments resulted in situation less favourable to pensioners when compared with preceding retirement adjustment scheme - Demand by pensioners that retired before 1 January 2013 for pension adjustments and payment of arrears - Pensions reverted to December 2012 - Whether there could be retrospective adjustments - Whether adjustment could be made without salary scale changes - Whether service circulars showed that salary revisions occurred

 

 

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J

  • For the applicant - Abd Shukor Ahmad, Baljit Singh, Gurpreet Kaur Pannu Karam Singh & Aaron Aiman Thangarajoo; M/s Shukor, Baljit & Partners
  • For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Kogilambigai Muthusamy; FC

A secured creditor, under the Insolvency Act 1967 ('Act'), is prohibited from charging interest on a bankrupt's debt if the security is not realised within 12 months from the date of the bankruptcy order. The express prohibition of s. 8(2A) of the Act cannot be overridden by contractual agreements or estoppel. Even though the bankrupt is a co-borrower, the prohibition of charging interest on the bankrupt's portion of the debt still stands; the debt must be segregated. Although a full redemption statement may be issued including the co-borrower's debt, any payment made must be applied to the bankrupt's portion of the debt, without the addition of illegal post-bankruptcy interest. There would also be no overpayment refund, but rather a deduction of the illegally charged interest.
Ariffin A Ghani v. Malayan Banking Bhd [2025] 4 CLJ 929 [HC]

BANKING: Bank and banking business - Bank and customer - Customer co-borrower of loan granted by bank - Customer later adjudged as bankrupt - Various payments made into loan account since act of bankruptcy - No segregation of loan account between customer as bankrupt and as co-borrower - Bank continued to charge interest on loan account - Whether bank prohibited from charging interest in respect of customer's debt - Whether bank had realised security held within 12 months from date of bankruptcy order - Whether monies paid based on continued charging of interest amounted to overpayment and ought to be refunded to customer - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 8(2A)

 

 

Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid J

  • For the plaintiff - Ahmad Musthafi Mohamad; M/s Hashim Amran Tabian Ahmad
  • For the defendant - Mohd Faizal Rosli; M/s Jal & Lim

When an Anton Piller order is found to be improperly granted, the affected party is entitled to seek damages. The damages may include: (i) special damages which are recoverable for quantifiable financial losses directly resulting from the order, such as costs incurred in complying with associated court orders; (ii) general damages for distress, embarrassment, and mental anguish caused by the execution of the order. The length of the execution, and the invasion of private spaces are factors to be taken into account. While legal fees themselves are not special damages, the financial burden of litigation can be factored into general damages; (iii) aggravated damages which may be awarded when the applicant's conduct in obtaining the order is particularly egregious, such as introducing false evidence or acting with malice, to compensate for heightened distress and to express the court's disapproval.
M3 Technologies (Asia) Bhd & Anor v. Voon Sze Lin & Ors [2025] 4 CLJ 936 [HC]

|

DAMAGES: Assessment - Anton Piller order - Anton Piller order granted by High Court set aside by Court of Appeal - Assessment of damages payable - Whether damages incurred resulted from order - Quantum of damages entitled to, considering relevant factors and impact of failed order - Whether entitled to special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages - Factors considered in awarding damages

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Anton Piller order - Anton Piller order granted by High Court set aside by Court of Appeal - Assessment of damages payable - Whether damages incurred resulted from order - Quantum of damages entitled to, considering relevant factors and impact of failed order - Whether entitled to special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages - Factors considered in awarding damages

 

Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC

  • For the plaintiffs - Ng Zong Hui; M/s Kheng Floe & Lee Yuen
  • For the 2nd defendant - Mohd Rizal Bahari & Amirfarid Nawawi; M/s Bahari & Bahari

(i) For copyright to subsist in an 'artistic work', including drawings, the work must be original in character and reduced to material form and sufficient effort must be expended to render the work original. The work must also fall within a category of protected works under the Copyright Act 1987 ('CA'); (ii) A statutory declaration by an authorised person can serve as evidence of copyright ownership, provided it meets the requirements of s. 42 of the CA; (iii) To establish copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove: (a) sufficient objective similarity between the original work and the infringing copy; (b) a causal connection between the original work and the infringing copy; and (c) the infringement involves a substantial part of the original work. All three elements must be proven conjunctively. Minor similarities, however, are not sufficient to prove infringement.
Termguard Pty Ltd & Anor v. Rapidkill Pest Control (KL) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 CLJ 952 [HC]

|

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Copyright - Infringement - Allegations that alleged infringer reproduced claimants' works without claimants' permission, consent or license - Whether works fell within meaning of 'artistic work' protected under Copyright Act 1987 - Whether works in form of drawings original in character and had been reduced to material form - Whether claimants had shown that sufficient efforts had been expended to render claimants' work original - Whether works complied with qualifications for copyright protection - Whether there was infringement of copyright - Whether there was sufficient objective similarity between original works or substantial part thereof and infringing copy - Whether there was causal connection between original works and infringing copy - Whether infringing copy copied from original work either directly or indirectly - Whether what had been infringed constituted substantial part of original works

TORT: Passing off - Claim - Allegations that alleged tortfeasor reproduced claimants' works without claimants' permission, consent or license - Whether there was goodwill and reputation attached to claimants' works by association with particular get-up which would be recognised by public as distinctive of claimants' goods and services - Whether there was misrepresentation on part of alleged tortfeasor which was likely to lead public to believe goods sold by alleged tortfeasor were those of claimants' - Whether claimants suffered or would suffer loss due to alleged tortfeasor's misrepresentation - Whether tort of passing off established

TORT: Unlawful interference - Claim - Allegations that alleged tortfeasor reproduced claimants' works without claimants' permission, consent or license - Whether alleged tortfeasor had interfered with claimants' trade or business by unlawful means and with intention to injure claimants

 

Mohd Radzi Harun J

  • For the plaintiffs - Lourdes Abishegam & Nga Koo Koy; M/s Ngeh & Co
  • For the defendant - Maggie Khon Chee Peng, Choo Hong Seng & Chong Xin Tian; M/s CP Khon & Tan

Although s. 148 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') grants the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') the power to impose or vary conditions over a tax exemption granted under s. 44(6) of the ITA, should there be any variation of conditions or imposition of new conditions over the said exemption, good administration requires the DGIR to convey or communicate any such conditions to the party that received the tax exemption.
Yayasan Buah Pinggang Kebangsaan Malaysia v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2025] 4 CLJ 983 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for - To quash decision of Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') revoking tax exemption given to charitable foundation ('CF') under s. 44(6)(a) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') in 1970 - Decision to revoke made due to non-compliance with conditions for approval of tax exemption under s. 44(6) of ITA - No conditions were imposed when tax exemption was granted in 1970 - Whether decision to revoke tax exemption correct - Whether application for judicial review ('application') time-barred - Whether there was no full and frank disclosure - Whether 'Violation Point System' used to assess non-compliance of conditions made known to CF - Whether tax exemption, being gazetted, had similar status to subsidiary legislation - Whether CF had vested rights in tax exemption granted - Whether CF had legitimate expectation of continuous enjoyment of unconditional tax exemption

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Exemption - Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') revoked tax exemption granted under s. 44(6)(a) of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') to charitable foundation ('CF') in 1970 - Revocation due to non-compliance with conditions for approval of tax exemption which were not originally imposed upon CF during granting of tax exemption in 1970 - Whether decision to revoke tax exemption correct - Whether 'Violation Point System' used to assess non-compliance of conditions made known to CF - Whether tax exemption, being gazetted, had similar status to subsidiary legislation

 

Shahnaz Sulaiman J

  • For the appellant - S Saravanan Kumar & Nur Hanina Mohd Azham; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership
  • For the respondent - Mohd Harris Hanapi & Mohd Asyraf Zakaria; SRCs

 


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. 'THE STATE OF THE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE IN SINGAPORE'*
    PEECH AT THE 8TH JUDICIAL SEMINAR ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION+
    [Read excerpt]
    by Justice Goh Yihan** [2025] CLJU(A) xliv

  2. [2025] CLJU(A) xliv
    SINGAPORE

    'THE STATE OF THE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE IN SINGAPORE'*

    PEECH AT THE 8TH JUDICIAL SEMINAR ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION+


    by
    Justice Goh Yihan**

    Introduction

    Introduction

    1. At risk of over-simplification, the debate in the law of illegality broadly comes down to a choice between a discretionary approach and a rule-based approach. The majority in the UK Supreme Court case of Patel v. Mirza selected the former approach. In contrast, the Singapore approach following the Court of Appeal decision of Ochroid Trading Ltd v. Chua Siok Lui is a more limited discretionary one.

    Structure of presentation

    2. My paper traces the recent developments in the illegality defence within Singapore law before setting out some outstanding issues for consideration. In the next 23 mins or so, I will make four main points: (1) recent developments of the illegality defence in Singapore, (2) the differences between the Singapore approach and that of the majority in Patel, (3) the potential application of the illegality defence as developed in Ochroid to different areas of private law, and (4) some further observations.

    . . .

    This paper was delivered at the 8th Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation held between 14 March 2024 and 15 March 2024 at Hong Kong. I would like to thank my law clerk, Mr Adam Goh, for all their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this paper. All errors remain mine. Also, the views expressed within are mine alone, and do not represent the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore.

    +Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/justice-goh-yi-han--speech-at-the-8th-judicial-seminar-on-commercial-litigation.

    *Supreme Court of Singapore.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 864 Data Sharing Act 2025 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 863 Measures For The Collection, Administration and Enforcement of Tax Act 2024 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 10; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 20; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 43; the Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 [Act 592] see s 46; the Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 48; and the Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 52 - -
ACT 862 Finance Act 2024 Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 18; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 23 the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 28 the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 30 and the Finance (No 2) Act 2023 [Act 851] see s 32 - -
ACT 861 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2024 1 January 2025 [PU(B) 521/2024] - -
ACT 860 Malaysia Border Control and Protection Agency Act 2024 1 January 2025 [PU(B) 509/2024] - for the area of Rantau Panjang, Kelantan; 1 February 2025 [PU(B) 509/2024] - for areas other than Rantau Panjang, Kelantan - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1759 Labuan Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Act 2025 23 April 2025 ACT 707
ACT A1758 Labuan Foundations (Amendment) Act 2025 23 April 2025 ACT 706
ACT A1757 Labuan Trusts (Amendment) Act 2025 23 April 2025 ACT 554
ACT A1756 Labuan Companies (Amendment) Act 2025 23 April 2025 ACT 441
ACT A1755 Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2025 9 May 2025 [PU(B) 183/2025] ACT 166

PU(A)


PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 183/2025 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 8 May 2025 9 May 2025 ACT A1755
PU(B) 182/2025 Appointment of Judges of The Syariah Subordinate Court 8 May 2025 6 March 2025 ACT 505
PU(B) 181/2025 Notice To Third Parties 8 May 2025 9 May 2025 ACT 613
PU(B) 180/2025 Notification of Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right 6 May 2025 7 May 2025 ACT 634
PU(B) 179/2025 Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of An Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard To Imports of Polyethylene Terephthalate Originating Or Exported From The People's Republic of China and The Republic of Indonesia 6 May 2025 7 May 2025 ACT 504

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 371 Registration of Pharmacists Act 1951 (Revised 1989) PU(A) 116/2025 15 April 2025 First Schedule
AKTA 342 Akta Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit 1988 AKTA A1742 1 Mei 2025 [PU(B) 169/2025] Seksyen 2, 10, 14A, 15A, 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 23, 24, 24A, 25, 26 dan 31
ACT 342 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 ACT A1742 1 May 2025 [PU(B) 169/2025] Sections 2, 10, 14A, 15A, 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 23, 24, 24A, 25, 26 and 31
SWK. CAP. 76 (1958 ED.) Labour Ordinance Sarawak ACT A1754 1 May 2025 [PU(B) 165/2025] except Part IVA Sections 2, 2B, 3, 7, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, 8I, 8M, 9A - 9H, 10D, 19A, 19B, 58, 60, 71A, 73, 74C, 75A, 76, 77, 79, 79A, 84, 92A, 92B, 97, 98, 101, 101A, 103, 104, 105, 105A, 105C, 105E, 105EA, 108C, 109, 109A, 109B, 111, 111A, 117, 117A, 117B, 117D, 119A, 119B, 119F, 121A, 121B, 124BA, 124BB, 125A, 125B, 127, 129, 130A, 130C, 130D, 130E, 130F, 130G, 130H, 130I, 130J, 130L, 130LA, 130M, 130N, 130O, 130P; First Schedule, Second and Third Schedules
SABAH CAP. 67 Labour Ordinance ACT A1753 1 May 2025 [PU(B) 166/2025] except Part IVA Sections 2, 2B, 3, 6, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F, 7I, 7M, 7Q - 7W, 13, 18, 18A, 18B, 70A, 72, 73B, 73C, 74A, 75 - 82, 83, 86A, 91A, 96, 100, 100A, 116, 116D, 118A, 118B, 120A, 120B, 122A, 123BA, 125A, 127, 129, 129B, 130A, 130C, 130D, 130E, 130F, 130G, 130H, 130I, 130J, 130L, 130M, 130N, 130NA, 130NB and 130O; First Schedule, Second Schedule and Third Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 183/2009 Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009 PU(A) 323/2024 1 November 2024
PU(A) 231/2009 Universiti Malaysia Pahang (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009 PU(A) 322/2024 1 November 2024
PU(A) 181/2008 Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2008 PU(A) 320/2024 29 October 2024
PU(A) 347/2009 Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009 PU(A) 318/2024 1 November 2024
PU(A) 221/1999 Universiti Utara Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999 PU(A) 310/2024 27 October 2024

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here