CLJ Pulse #37/2024 (12 September 2024)

Issue #37/2024

12 September 2024

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

New This Week

Case(s) of the Week
1. OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS [2024] 8 CLJ 519
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2024 Volume 8 (Part 3)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS [2024] 8 CLJ 519
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABANG ISKANDAR PCA;
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ;
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ;
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ;
AB KARIM AB JALIL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 02(i)-70-08-2022(W), 02(i)-71-08-2022(W),
02(i)-72-08-2022(W), 02(i)-74-08-2022(W) & 01-(f)-1-01-2023(B)]
26 JULY 2024

(i) In Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals ('Ang Ming Lee'), the Federal Court had declared that reg. 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 was ultra vires the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. The decision, however, does not have a retrospective effect on extensions granted by the Controller of Housing before Ang Ming Lee. Extensions granted before Ang Ming Lee are valid. If Ang Ming Lee is to have a retrospective effect, there would be serious ramifications and repercussions to the housing developers that had placed reliance on the existing laws and had diligently complied with the said laws which were, at that time, valid; (ii) Where an innocent party had relied on an earlier decision made by a public authority that was subsequently declared ultra vires, the second actor theory applies and should be the perfect and preferred antidote; (iii) Parties to a sale and purchase agreement ('SPA'), who had agreed to extended completion periods in the SPA and have, in fact, received liquidated ascertained damages, cannot subsequently claim additional damages, even if the original extension is later found to be illegal.

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Completion period of development project - Extension of time ('EOT') - Developer applied for modification of sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') to vary prescribed completion period of development project - 36 months to 54 months pursuant to reg. 11(3) of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ('HDR') - EOT granted by Controller of Housing two years before execution of SPA with purchasers of project - Purchasers commenced proceedings against developer after Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals ('Ang Ming Lee') - Purchasers sought declaration that any EOT pursuant to reg. 11(3) of HDR inconsistent with decision of Ang Ming Lee - Whether developer required to comply with and was bound to Schedule H of HDR to deliver vacant possession and complete common facilities in 36 months, calculated from dates of SPAs - Whether developer ought to pay liquidated ascertained damages - Whether SPA which provides for period of completion of housing accommodation extended illegally under ultra vires reg. 11(3) of HDR should be reverted to three-year period as provided in standard Schedule H agreement

LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual - Sale and purchase agreement - Completion period of development project - Developer applied for modification of sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') to vary prescribed completion period of development project - 36 months to 54 months pursuant to reg. 11(3) of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ('HDR') - Extension of time ('EOT') granted by Controller of Housing two years before execution of SPA with purchasers of project - Purchasers commenced proceedings against developer after Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals - Whether developer ought to pay liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') for vacant possession of property and common facilities - Whether cause of action for late delivery LAD shall accrue to purchaser upon expiry of three-year period as provided in standard Schedule H agreement - Whether limitation period of claim for late delivery LAD shall commence only upon expiry of three-year period - When time for purchaser's claim for LAD start to run - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a)

LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Extension of time - Sale and purchase agreement - Completion period of development project - Developer applied for modification of sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') to vary prescribed completion period of development project - 36 months to 54 months pursuant to reg. 11(3) of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ('HDR') - Extension of time ('EOT') granted by Controller of Housing ('Controller') two years before execution of SPA with purchasers of project - Purchasers commenced proceedings against developer after Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals ('Ang Ming Lee') - Purchasers sought declaration that any EOT pursuant to reg. 11(3) of HDR inconsistent with decision of Ang Ming Lee - Whether Ang Ming Lee had retrospective effect on extensions granted by Controller before Ang Ming Lee - Whether extensions granted before Ang Ming Lee valid

APPEAL UPDATES

Tay Keong Kok & Ors v. Eastmont Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 1440 affirming the High Court case of Eastmont Sdn Bhd v. Tay Keong Kok & Ors [Writ No: BA-22NCC-82-06/2020]
Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Stamford College (Malacca) Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 1598 affirming the High Court case of Stamford College (Malacca) Sdn Bhd v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd [2023] CLJU 2337; [2023] 1 LNS 2337

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2024] CLJU 73	HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. SENG HIAP GLASS SDN BHD & ORS 1. The fact that an ex-parte order had lapsed per se does not prevent the court from dealing with the said order. Although the ex-parte order had lapsed, the application to set aside the ex-parte order is still relevant as it would allow the court to determine whether the ex-parte order should have been granted or otherwise in the first place. 2. An ex-parte order to summon a creditors' meeting pursuant to s. 366 of Companies Act 2016 ('CA') for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement could be set aside if the order contravenes the statutory provision in s. 368(6)(b) of CA or when the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement lacks bona fide and lacks full and frank disclosure. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Intervention - Application for leave - Application by unsecured creditors - Proceeding to set aside ex-parte order pursuant to s. 366 of Companies Act 2016 to summon a creditors' meeting for purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement - Whether proposed interveners have some interest which was directly related to subject matter of action - Whether proposed intervener has been directly affected by any order court - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2) COMPANY LAW: Arrangement, scheme of - Setting aside - Ex parte order pursuant to s. 366 of Companies Act 2016 ('CA') to summon a creditors' meeting for purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement - Ex-parte order had lapsed at time of hearing - Whether application became academic - Whether court was prevented from dealing with order - Whether ex-parte order contravenes statutory provision in s. 368(6)(b) of CA - Whether proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement lacks bona fide and lacks full and frank disclosure For the applicant - Gan Khong Aik & Gwee Xi Wen; M/s Gan Partnership For the proposed intervener 1 - Theng Kai Chi; M/s Sodhi Chambers For the proposed interveners 2 to 10 - Eng Yi Wang; M/s Armiy Rais For the proposed intervener 11 - Vitwat Sae Ng & Ng Chia How; M/s Vitwat Wong & Lim For the proposed intervener 12 - Rhubinii Nantaraja; M/s Rhubinii Nantaraja & Co
[2024] CLJU 91	TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD v. KAY CORPORATION SDN. BHD & ANOTHER CASE 1. In a setting aside of adjudication decision, the party who is alleging that the adjudication decision was procured by way of fraud by the other party in the latter's favour has the burden to prove on a balance of probabilities of the alleged fraud. Allegation of fraud will fail if the party who is alleging it has not taken any steps to raise the issue of fraud at the earliest opportunity during the adjudication proceedings itself. 2. Cogent evidence and compelling legal submission is required to justify an allegation that an adjudicator in the adjudication proceedings lacked independence or impartiality in arriving at her decision. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Application to set aside decision of adjudicator - Adjudicator allowed main contractor's claim for unpaid sum under construction contract for relocation of transmission pylons - Allegation that adjudication decision was procured by fraudulent means by relying on a document - Whether applicant had taken steps to stop adjudication proceedings at earliest opportunity - Whether there has been a denial of natural justice - Whether adjudicator had provided both parties opportunities to state their case respectively at adjudication proceedings - Whether adjudicator had acted impartially - Whether adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction For the Turnpike - Vatsala Ratnasabapathy, Khong Heng Kai & Sharizah Mohamed Shihab; M/s Zain & Co For the Kay Corporation - Jason Ng Kau & Bell Wong Chia Pei; M/s Jason Ng & Partners
[2024] CLJU 93	MOHD AZHAR LAMSAH v. PP It is the duty of the trial judge at the defence stage to consider the defence of the accused categorically and test it against the evidence led by the prosecution to see if it raises any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. When calling upon the accused to enter his defence, the trial judge must keep an open mind as to the accuracy of the evidence led by the prosecution until the defence's evidence has been tendered. At the close of the case for the defence and after submissions, the court must review the evidence adduced with regard to all the elements to be proved and then decide whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Offence of self-administration of drugs under s. 15(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Accused denied consuming any drugs - Urine sample shows diverse results - Allegation of urine sample mix up - Whether trial court had appreciated consistent defence of accused - Whether there was tangible evidence proffered by prosecution to show urine sample taken belonged to accused - Whether defence of accused could be a mere denial For the appellant/accused - G Nanda Goban; M/s Goban & Company; Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan Malaysia For the respondent/public prosecutor - DPP Aqilah Ishak
[2024] CLJU 74	PP lwn. MOHD NAZRI WAHAB & SATU LAGI 1. Keterangan ejen provocateur boleh diterima tanpa keterangan sokongan jika keterangan saksi ejen provocateur tersebut adalah kredibel, kompeten serta tiada motif yang memungkinkan saksi tersebut tidak bercakap benar dan alasan untuk meragui saksi. 2. Fakta bahawa kedua-dua tertuduh hadir di tempat kejadian dengan membawa dadah yang dirampas meskipun hanya salah seorang tertuduh berhubung dengan ejen provocateur dengan jelas membuktikan elemen jagaan dan kawalan oleh kedua-dua tertuduh. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Niat bersama - Tertuduh-tertuduh ditangkap semasa berurusan dengan ejen provocateur untuk pembelian dadah - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan mengenai dadah - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh yang melarikan diri semasa serbuan adalah relevan untuk membuktikan kebersalahannya - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah terpakai - Sama ada ejen provocateur adalah saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten - Sama ada rantaian keterangan boleh terputus apabila dadah yang dirunding dan dadah yang dirampas adalah berlainan - Sama ada tindakan tertuduh yang melarikan diri menimbulkan inferens kewujudan pengetahuan mengenai keberadaan dadah PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh menafikan berjumpa dan berhubung dengan ejen provocateur - Sama ada keterangan yang mencukupi telah dikemukakan untuk mengakas anggapan pengedaran dadah - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah menyakinkan Bagi pihak pendakwa raya - Siti Norliza Abdullah; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - Mohd Fazaly AN Mohd Ghazaiy Bagi pihak tertuduh kedua - Lydiana Mansor; T/n Lydiana Law Chambers
[2024] CLJU 90	KOPERASI PEKEBUN KECIL NEGERI SEMBILAN BERHAD lwn. AGRO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT BERHAD & YANG LAIN Tindakan yang dibawa oleh koperasi berkaitan suatu transaksi yang tidak mematuhi s. 54 Akta Koperasi 1993 ('Akta') tidak akan menjadikan transaksi tersebut tidak sah meskipun koperasi tersebut terdedah kepada penalti jenayah di bawah s. 54(3) Akta tersebut. Justeru, alasan ketidakpatuhan peruntukan s. 54 Akta tersebut tidak boleh dijadikan sebagai alasan oleh pihak defendan untuk melepaskan diri mereka daripada bertanggungjawab ke atas tuntutan koperasi berkenaan dengan transaksi tersebut. TORT: Konspirasi - Konspirasi untuk menipu - Representasi palsu - Kecuaian - Dakwaan bahawa plaintif telah diperdaya untuk memasuki skim pelaburan - Tuntutan untuk pemulangan wang pelaburan - Sama ada skim pelaburan telah tamat - Sama ada jumlah wang pelaburan wajar dipulangkan - Sama ada perjanjian yang dimasuki adalah tidak sah - Sama ada ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 54 Akta Koperasi 1993 boleh menjadikan pelaburan plaintif dan perjanjian yang dimeterai sebagai tidak sah - Sama ada ketiadaan salahnyataan mengenai pelaburan boleh menafikan hak plaintif bagi relief yang dituntutnya Bagi pihak plaintif - Muhammad Shafiq Samsul Anuar; T/n Azri & Co Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Esther Yong Zhen Ying; T/n L Y Yu & Co

CLJ 2024 Volume 8 (Part 3)

Being the biological father of a child does not automatically mean that one is the father recognised in law. The presumption under s. 112 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides a cloak that presumes that a father in a lawful marriage is both the biological and legal father of the child. That cloak ought not to be shared with a third party as of right, regardless of whether the third party is the biological father of the child, much less when the third party is unsure and unable to prove his purported paternity. In this light, a forced paternity test on a child is an extreme measure that would invade the personal autonomy of a child, more so, when the child is not seeking to know her paternity. The court's jurisdiction under s. 24(d) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, is only over the person and property of an infant; the section does not provide with any enabling power to the courts to order DNA testing.
MPPL & Anor v. CAS [2024] 8 CLJ 359 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE | FAMILY LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Inherent jurisdiction - Child born during subsistence of valid marriage of parents - Application for deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') test to determine paternity of child by third party - Whether DNA test allowed in civil proceedings - Whether written statutory provision or common law provide power for DNA test against adult of child in civil proceedings - Whether inherent jurisdiction under O. 92 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 exercised only to prevent procedural injustice - Whether could be invoked to facilitate substantive right

EVIDENCE: Presumption - Presumption of fact - Section 112 of Evidence Act 1950 - Birth during marriage conclusive proof of legitimacy - Child born during subsistence of valid marriage of parents - Application for deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') test to determine paternity of child by third party - Whether paternity and legitimacy two different concepts - Whether legitimacy of child fact in issue - Whether evidence could be admitted to rebut presumption - Whether 'conclusive proof' in s. 112 bars admissibility of scientific evidence to prove paternity of child born out of wedlock - Evidence Act 1950, s. 4(3)

FAMILY LAW: Children - Legitimacy - Child born during subsistence of valid marriage of parents - Application for deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') test to determine paternity of child by third party - Whether paternity and legitimacy two different concepts - Whether legitimacy of child fact in issue - Whether evidence could be admitted to rebut presumption - Whether 'conclusive proof' in s. 112 bars admissibility of scientific evidence to prove paternity of child born out of wedlock - Whether DNA test allowed in civil proceedings - Evidence Act 1950, s. 4(3)

FAMILY LAW: Children - Paternity - Child born during subsistence of valid marriage of parents - Application for deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') test to determine paternity of child by third party - Whether paternity and legitimacy two different concepts - Whether legitimacy of child fact in issue - Whether evidence could be admitted to rebut presumption - Whether 'conclusive proof' in s. 112 bars admissibility of scientific evidence to prove paternity of child born out of wedlock - Whether DNA test allowed in civil proceedings - Whether protective jurisdiction of parens patriae successful - Whether best interest and welfare of child outweighs 'right to know' - Whether DNA test would be damaging and disrupting to child's status quo - Rules of Court 2012, O. 92 r. 4 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 4(3)

ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
NORDIN HASSAN FCJ
ABU BAKAR JAIS FCJ

For the appellants - Foo Yet Ngo, Kiran Dhaliwal & Yu Yi Lin; M/s YN Foo & Partners
For the respondent - Tay Kit Hoo; M/s Seira & Sharizad

(i) In a scenario where the High Court's written judgment/grounds of decision is only available after the expiry of the 90 days' period (filing of record of appeal), r. 18(7) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ('RCA') does not mandatorily require an appellant to file a record of appeal which contains a memorandum of appeal before the lapse of the 90 days' period. Rule 18(7) of the RCA is subject to r. 18(7A) of the RCA due to the use of the word 'Notwithstanding' in r. 18(7A) of the RCA. Rule 18(7A) has expressly provided that, in the mentioned scenario, an appellant 'shall' file the memorandum of appeal within three weeks after being notified of the availability of the High Court's written judgment/grounds of decision. The use of the opening words 'Notwithstanding subrule (7)' in sub-r. 7A makes it abundantly clear that r. 18(7A) is to prevail over r. 18(7); (ii) Whether or not the broad grounds of judgment of a court may contain binding ratio decidendi must depend on a proper reading of the broad grounds issued in each case. The broad grounds of a case may contain a complete analysis of the issues at hand but may omit a complete narration of the background facts. This should not relegate the grounds so issued into some lesser category of judgment. Thus, the ratio decidendi of a case in respect of which only broad grounds were issued would still operate as binding precedent for the purposes of the principle of stare decisis. Where, however, the Court of Appeal is presented with two conflicting prior decisions of the Court of Appeal, the court would be well entitled to prefer the decision containing the full grounds of judgment of the court, over the decision delivered only with broad grounds.
Firdaus Khan Parit Khan & Anor v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2024] 8 CLJ 399 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Record of appeal - Whether there was mandatory requirement under r. 18(7) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ('RCA') to file record of appeal containing memorandum of appeal within 90 days of High Court's decision - High Court's written judgment only available after expiry of 90 days period - Whether r. 18(7A) of RCA provides plaintiff 'shall' file memorandum of appeal within three weeks after being notified of availability of High Court's written judgment - Whether r. 18(7A) should prevail over r. 18(7) of RCA - Whether intervention of r. 18(1), (7) and (7A) in consonance with justice as mandated by r. 1A of RCA - Delay in filing supplemental record of appeal containing High Court's written judgment and memorandum of appeal - Whether due solely to non-availability of High Court's written judgment

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Notice of motion - Extension of time - Application for - Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal - Whether there was mandatory requirement under r. 18(7) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ('RCA') to file record of appeal containing memorandum of appeal within 90 days of High Court's decision - High Court's written judgment only available after expiry of 90 days period - Whether r. 18(7A) of RCA provides plaintiff 'shall' file memorandum of appeal within three weeks after being notified of availability of High Court's written judgment - Whether r. 18(7A) should prevail over r. 18(7) of RCA - Whether intervention of r. 18(1), (7) and (7A) in consonance with justice as mandated by r. 1A of RCA - Delay in filing supplemental record of appeal containing High Court's written judgment and memorandum of appeal - Whether due solely to non-availability of High Court's written judgment

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Grounds of judgment - Broad grounds - Whether binding - Whether per incuriam r. 18(7A) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Principle of stare decisis

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Rules 18(7) & (7A) - Whether there was mandatory requirement under r. 18(7) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ('RCA') to file record of appeal containing memorandum of appeal within 90 days of High Court's decision - Whether r. 18(7A) provides plaintiff 'shall' file memorandum of appeal within three weeks after being notified of availability of High Court's written judgment - Words employed in provision - 'Notwithstanding sub-r. (7)' - Whether r. 18(7A) should prevail over r. 18(7) of RCA

RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
WONG KIAN KHEONG JCA
AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA

For the 1st appellant - Hafizah Johor Ariff Johor; Malaysian Department of Insolvency
For the 2nd appellant - Kumaresan Thurairaju & Azleen Farahannis Evani Azlan; M/s Thurairaj T Kumar & Assocs
For the respondent - Praveena Sivanandan; M/s Seow & Megat

(i) Niat bersama untuk melakukan jenayah masih boleh dibuktikan walaupun tanpa keterangan perancangan terdahulu, persepakatan awal atau konspirasi terancang. Niat bersama boleh terbentuk pada saat tertuduh-tertuduh berkumpul untuk melakukan satu jenayah. Kehadiran tertuduh-tertuduh di tempat kejadian, ditambah dengan penyertaan aktif mereka dalam perbuatan jenayah tersebut, sudah memadai untuk mewujudkan niat bersama. Tindakan kolektif tertuduh-tertuduh, walaupun tanpa perancangan terdahulu, adalah mencukupi untuk membuat kesimpulan wujud niat bersama untuk melakukan jenayah; (ii) Membantu dalam satu-satu jenayah, dalam kes ini pembunuhan, melalui persubahatan adalah sama dengan melakukan jenayah itu sendiri secara langsung; (iii) Hal-hal keadaan dan fakta kes jenayah yang mencerminkan kekejaman melampau, tidak berperikemanusiaan dan tiada penyesalan oleh tertuduh-tertuduh adalah faktor-faktor yang memberatkan lagi justifikasi penjatuhan hukuman mati. Faktor-faktor ini lebih diberatkan berbanding faktor-faktor mitigasi tertuduh-tertuduh.
Muhammad Akmal Zuhairi Azmal & Yang Lain lwn. PP & Rayuan Yang Lain [2024] 8 CLJ 421 [CA]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH | UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman dan sabitan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi - Rayuan oleh tertuduh-tertuduh dan pihak pendakwaan - Pertuduhan atas kesalahan dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan si mati bagi maksud mendapatkan pengakuan bersalah daripada si mati - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dituduh mencuri laptop - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak oleh pelajar-pelajar lain sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur hampir 80% pada tubuh - Terdapat 90 kesan lecur bakar pada darjah pertama hingga ketiga - Setiap tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman tiga tahun penjara - Sama ada sabitan selamat dan wajar dikekalkan - Hukuman yang wajar dijatuhkan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 330

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman dan sabitan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi - Rayuan oleh tertuduh-tertuduh dan pihak pendakwaan - Pertuduhan bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana menyebabkan kematian si mati - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dituduh mencuri laptop - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak oleh pelajar-pelajar lain sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur hampir 80% pada tubuh - Terdapat 90 kesan lecur bakar pada darjah pertama hingga ketiga - Mahkamah Tinggi mensabitkan tertuduh-tertuduh bersalah menyebabkan kematian si mati tanpa niat membunuh, bawah s. 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Setiap tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman 18 tahun penjara - Sama ada sabitan selamat dan wajar dikekalkan - Hukuman yang wajar dijatuhkan

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan pada si mati bagi maksud mendapatkan pengakuan bersalah daripada si mati - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dituduh mencuri laptop - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak oleh pelajar-pelajar lain sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur hampir 80% pada tubuh - Terdapat 90 kesan lecur bakar pada darjah pertama hingga ketiga - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan dipenuhi - Sama ada terdapat niat bersama - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 330

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Membunuh - Si mati pelajar universiti - Si mati dituduh mencuri laptop - Si mati dipukul, ditumbuk dan disepak oleh pelajar-pelajar lain sebelum ditekap dengan seterika wap panas ketika soal siasat pemerasan pengakuan - Si mati meninggal dunia akibat kecederaan luka lecur hampir 80% pada tubuh - Terdapat 90 kesan lecur bakar pada darjah pertama hingga ketiga - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan dipenuhi - Sama ada terdapat niat bersama - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34, 109, 300 & 302

HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL HMR
MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN HMR
AZMI ARIFFIN HMR

Bagi pihak OKT1 & OKT2 - Amer Hamzah Arshad, Joshua Tay H'ng Foong & Lee Yee Woo; T/n AmerBon
Bagi pihak OKT3 - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Low Wei Loke & Kee Wei Lon; T/n Hisyam Teh
Bagi pihak OKT4 - M Ramachelvam & Ameerul Radzi Azlan; T/n Rama-Rozi & Assocs
Bagi pihak OKT5 - Hazman Ahmad, G Premman RS Gopal & Muhammad Irsyad Mohammad Hassan; T/n Omar Ismail Hazman & Co
Bagi pihak OKT6 - Mohd Zamri Mohd Idrus, Mohd Fadly Hashim & Sharifah Dyana Syed Azmi; T/n Zamri Idrus & Co
Bagi pihak OKT7, 13 & 19 - AG Kalidas & Wesley Wong; T/n K Nadarajah & Partners
Bagi pihak OKT9, 10 & 12 - Azizzul Shariman Mat Yusoff, Ariff Azami Hussein & Nurain Shaheira Khalid; T/n Azizul & Ariff
Bagi pihak OKT11, 14 & 15 - Abdul Karim Abd Rahman & Fatimah Azzahrah Rumaizi; T/n Hazizah & Co
Bagi OKT16, 17 & 18 - Ariff Azami Hussein, Azizzul Shariman Mat Yusoff & Nurain Shaheira Khalid; T/n Azizzul & Ariff
Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Mangaiarkarasi Krishnan, Solehah Noratikah Ismail & Joy Jothi Nadrarasan; TPR

The word 'may', in s. 45C(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987, does not confer a discretion but, rather, imposes a mandatory obligation on police officers investigating alleged drunk driving offences to require a suspect to provide breath, blood or urine specimens for analysis. Section 45C(1) aims at ensuring a fair and accurate determination of alcohol levels and a strict adherence to s. 45C(1) is essential for a valid conviction under s. 45A(1) of the same Act. By failing to comply with s. 45C(1), an accused is deprived of essential procedural safeguards and the integrity of the evidence is compromised.
Kannan Letchumanan v. PP [2024] 8 CLJ 486 [HC]

ROAD TRAFFIC | WORDS & PHRASES

ROAD TRAFFIC: Dangerous driving - Drunk driving - Substantive procedure to be followed by police officer in carrying out investigation - Duty to require suspect to provide two specimens of breath for analysis or specimen of blood or urine for laboratory test - Whether substantive procedure complied with - Whether s. 45C(1)(a) of Road Transport Act 1987 mandatory - Whether must be read together with s. 45B(1) to prove offence under s. 45A(1)

WORDS & PHRASES: Interpretation - Section 45C(1) of Road Transport Act 1987 - 'may' - Language and usage - Whether directory and used in permissive sense that is not obligatory - Whether confers discretion - Whether 'may' in s. 45C(1) creates obligation or duty - Whether has mandatory force - Whether s. 45C(1) mandatory - Intention, object and scheme of provisions

BHUPINDAR SINGH J

For the appellant - Ranjit Singh Sandhu; M/s Ranjit Singh Sandhu & Co
For the prosecution - Khazrin Haffiz Khalil; DPP

A foreign judgment, although from a country which is not listed under the First Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, can still be enforced here in Malaysia via common law. However, it must be shown that in respect of the foreign judgment: (i) it was decided by a court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) its enforcement will not be contrary to the Malaysian public policy; (iii) its attainment was not due to a breach of the rules of natural justice; and (iv) if only the copied and translated versions of the foreign judgment were produced, the said documents had satisfied the requirements under ss. 78 or 86 of the Evidence Act 1950.
Mah Sau Cheong v. Wee Len [2024] 8 CLJ 501 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | EVIDENCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Foreign judgment - Enforcement of - Judgments decided by courts in China - China not listed under First Schedule of Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 - Whether judgments could be enforced via common law - Whether courts in China courts of competent jurisdiction - Whether enforcement of judgments contrary to Malaysian public policy - Whether judgments attained by breach of rules of natural justice - Whether in satisfied requirements under ss. 78 or 86 of Evidence Act 1950

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Foreign judgment - Requirement to produce original copy of foreign judgment - Only copies and translations of foreign judgments produced before court - Whether copies and translations of foreign judgments could be admitted as evidence - Whether requirements under ss. 78 or 86 of Evidence Act 1950 satisfied

ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JC

For the plaintiff - Ashok Kandiah & Celine Teh; M/s Ashok Kandiah & Celine Teh
For the defendant - Justin Voon, Tan Ko Xin & Lee Chooi Peng; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

UNVEILING THE IMBALANCE: EXAMINING THE LAW ON GENDER INEQUALITY IN CITIZENSHIP, SEXUAL ASSAULT, DIVORCE, AND ADOPTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 8(2) OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION^* ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Wong Xin Yi** [2024] CLJU(A) lxxv

'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN JUDICIAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION: POTENTIAL USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN TRAINING AND EDUCATION OF JUDGES' - SPEECH AT THE INAUGURAL SINGAPORE-INDIA CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY⁺ ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Justice Goh Yihan* [2024] CLJU(A) lxxvi

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 855	Preservation of Public Security (Sarawak) Act 1962 (Revised-2024)	30 July 2024 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 July 2024; First enacted in 1962 as Sarawak Ordinance No 13 of 1962	-	-
ACT 854	Cyber Security Act 2024	26 August 2024 [PU(B) 334/2024]	-	-
ACT 853	Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act 2024	30 August 2024 [PU(B) 342/2024]	-	-
ACT 852	Control of Smoking Products For Public Health Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 851	Finance (No. 2) Act 2023	The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 35; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 51;the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 71;the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 79;the Entertainments Duty Act 1953 [Act 103] see s 87; the Customs Act 1967 [Act 235] see s 89; the Excise Act 1976 [Act 176] see s 91; the Goods Vehicle Levy Act 1983 [Act 294] see s 93; the Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 [Act 592] see s 95; the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791] see s 97; the Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 110; the Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 126 and the Departure Levy Act 2019 [Act 813] see s 141	-	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1714	Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2024	10 July 2024 [PU(B) 247/2024]	ACT 597
ACT A1713	Universities and University Colleges (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 30
ACT A1712	Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 2024	7 July 2024 [PU(B) 243/2024]	ACT 127
ACT A1711	Money Services Business (Amendment) Act 2024	1 August 2024 [PU(B) 274/2024]	ACT 731
ACT A1710	Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) (Amendment) Act 2024	1 July 2024 [PU(B) 216/2024]	ACT 231

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 237/2024	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) (Revocation) Order 2024	10 September 2024	11 September 2024	ACT 333
PU(A) 236/2024	Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 2024	2 September 2024	3 September 2024	ACT 50
PU(A) 235/2024	Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (South Klang Valley Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2024	30 August 2024	31 August 2024	PU(A) 309/2013
PU(A) 234/2024	Speed Limit (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024	30 August 2024	31 August 2024	PU(A) 153/2019
PU(A) 233/2024	National Speed Limit (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024	30 August 2024	31 August 2024	PU(A) 18/1989

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 355/2024	Appointment of Probation Officers	10 September 2024	1 August 2024	ACT 611
PU(B) 354/2024	Reservation of Land For Public Purpose	10 September 2024	11 September 2024	ACT 828
PU(B) 353/2024	Appointment of Probation Officers	10 September 2024	1 August 2024	ACT 611
PU(B) 352/2024	Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation of Electronic Land Administration System	9 September 2024	7 September 2024	ACT 318
PU(B) 351/2024	Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation of Electronic Land Administration System	9 September 2024	7 September 2024	ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 50	Akta Perubatan 1971	PU(A) 236/2024	3 September 2024	Jadual Kedua
ACT 50	Medical Act 1971	PU(A) 236/2024	3 September 2024	Second Schedule
PU(A) 309/2013	Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (South Klang Valley Expressway) Order 2013	PU(A) 235/2024	31 August 2024	Paragraph 2; First and Second Schedule
PU(A) 153/2019	Speed Limit (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) Order 2019	PU(A) 234/2024	31 August 2024	First and Second Schedules
PU(A) 18/1989	Perintah Had Laju Kebangsaan 1989	PU(A) 233/2024	31 Ogos 2024	Jadual

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 121/2024	Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 6) 2024	PU(A) 237/2024	11 September 2024
PU(A) 121/2024	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) Order 2024	PU(A) 237/2024	11 September 2024
PU(A) 288/2019	Perintah Mesin Cetak Dan Penerbitan (Kawalan Hasil Penerbitan Tidak Diingini) (No. 3) 2019	PU(A) 213/2024	13 Ogos 2024
PU(A) 288/2019	Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 3) Order 2019	PU(A) 213/2024	13 August 2024
PU(A) 420/1989	Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (Pendaftaran Orang-Orang Yang Melibatkan Diri Dalam Pemprosesan Atau Pemasaran Keluaran Pertanian) 1989 [Diganti oleh PU(A) 195/2024]	PU(A) 195/2024	16 Julai 2024 (edisi semakan); 22 Disember 1989 [PU(A) 420/1989]; Disemak sehingga 1 Julai 2024 oleh Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang di bawah seksyen 13 Akta Penyemakan Undang-Undang 1968 [Akta 1]

To unsubscribe click here