| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #28/2025
10 July 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
TUN DR MAHATHIR MOHAMAD v. TUN MD RAUS SHARIF & ORS [2025] 6 CLJ 650 Under the second limb of s. 18 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, it is only discretionary and not imperative for a Royal Commission of Enquiry to allow a request to attend the entire duration of an enquiry, if the applicant is not a person who is subject to, implicated or concerned with matters under the enquiry. In such a circumstance, the remedy of mandamus will not be available to the applicant. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Mandamus - Application to compel Royal Commission of Enquiry ('Commission') to allow applicant to attend entire duration of enquiry under s. 18 of Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 ('Act') - Whether applicant was person subject to, implicated or concerned with matters under enquiry - Whether Commission established to enquire into conduct of applicant - Whether imperative or discretional for Commission to allow request for attending entire duration of enquiry under s. 18 of Act - Whether remedy of mandamus still available if Commission had submitted report to Yang di-Pertuan Agong APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2025 Volume 6 (Part 3) Knowledge and possession in drug trafficking can be inferred from a convergence of circumstantial evidence that would connect the accused to the drugs found in their exclusive domain, particularly when coupled with their reactions upon the discovery of the said drugs and the absence of credible alternative explanations. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced to death - Drugs found in studio apartment unit occupied by accused persons - Whether knowledge could be inferred - Reactions of accused persons when drugs were found - Whether accused persons aware of existence of drugs - Whether conduct of accused persons during discovery of drugs supported presence of knowledge of drugs - Whether others had access to apartment - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) - Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023
Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA
The duty of the Minister, under s. 14A of the Customs Act 1967, is to determine whether it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to grant a remission of the whole or any part of the duty demanded. If it has been established that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty by Customs is entirely in accordance with the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1994 and the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014, read together with the Customs Duties Order 2017, then the decision by the Minister under s. 14A to not remit any part of a customs duty that has been properly imposed in accordance with the law cannot constitute a disproportionate action. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CUSTOMS & EXCISE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Imposition of anti-dumping duty - Appeal for remission of customs duties - Whether duty imposed under bill of demand in accordance with law - Whether action by Customs to categorise goods and impose anti-dumping duty correct - Whether certification of exporting member state binding - Whether use of wrong tariff code wilful act on taxpayer's part - Whether decision by Minister to not remit any part of customs duty constituted disproportionate action - Whether duty arose on part of Minister to provide reasons dismissing application for remission - Whether imposition of anti-dumping duty by Customs entirely in accordance with Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 read together with Customs Duties Order 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Proceedings - Contention of illegality of subsidiary legislation - Failure to properly articulate case - Whether court retains discretion to address contention of illegality where it had not been raised or included in O. 53 r. 3(2) of Rules of Court 2012 statement - Whether must be predicated on condition that all necessary evidence received before High Court - Whether applicant should not be permitted to argue unpleaded points CUSTOMS & EXCISE: Duties and taxes - Anti-dumping duty - Imposition of anti-dumping duty - Appeal for remission of customs duties - Whether duty imposed under bill of demand in accordance with law - Whether action by Customs to categorise goods and impose anti-dumping duty correct - Whether certification of exporting member state binding - Whether use of wrong tariff code wilful act on taxpayer's part - Whether decision by Minister to not remit any part of customs duty constituted disproportionate action - Whether duty arose on part of Minister to provide reasons dismissing application for remission - Whether imposition of anti-dumping duty by Customs entirely in accordance with Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 read together with Customs Duties Order 2017
Kamaludin Md Said JCA
When a company is in severe financial distress, and there is an absence of an extant scheme of arrangement which feasibility is respectably arguable, a company would be considered as irreversibly insolvent. With no light at the end of the tunnel, and in the interests of its creditors, the company should be wound up. The company should not be allowed to continue to burn whatever cash or assets that remain, which in reality belonged to the creditors. It would be against commercial morality and public policy to sanction a scheme of a hopelessly insolvent company, allowing it to continue trading and to incur more debt. COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Scheme of arrangement - Convening order - Application for order convening scheme meetings of selected creditors for purpose of approving scheme of arrangement - Whether there was insufficient financial disclosure for creditors to fully consider scheme - Whether respectably arguable that scheme was feasible - Whether scheme had reasonable prospect of being sanctioned under s. 366(4) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether unnecessary to make convening order to put doomed scheme to creditors
Saheran Suhendran JC
Fungsi mahkamah dalam semakan kehakiman tidak terhad pada penilaian bagaimana keputusan dicapai oleh satu tribunal tetapi merangkumi merit keputusan itu sendiri. Asas semakan kehakiman adalah ketidakabsahan, ketidakwajaran dan ketidakaturan prosedur dan juga ketidaksetimpalan. Walau bagaimanapun, dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan tuntutan tatatertib oleh badan awam, badan awam itu adalah pihak yang lebih mengetahui dalam membuat apa-apa peruntukan kesalahan disiplin. Bukan tugas mahkamah untuk menambah ganti mana-mana peruntukan tatacara disiplin dan mahkamah harus berwaspada dalam mengganggu keputusan tribunal disiplin badan awam. Budi bicara mahkamah harus terhad pada keadaan kecacatan atau kekhilafan prosedur asas sahaja. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Pembuangan kerja - Permohonan terhadap keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib dan Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam - Ketidakhadiran ke tempat kerja tanpa cuti - Sama ada alasan munasabah diberi - Sama ada pemohon diberi peluang menjawab pertuduhan - Kegagalan memberi dokumen-dokumen yang dirujuk dalam surat tunjuk sebab pada pemohon - Sama ada melanggar prinsip keadilan asasi untuk mendapat pendengaran adil - Sama ada kegagalan memberi alasan untuk keputusan satu kesalahan prosedur - Sama ada pemohon wajar diberi peluang mengemukakan rayuan mitigasi hukuman - Sama ada representasi mitigasi hukuman berbeza dengan representasi menjawab pertuduhan - Sama ada terdapat ketidakabsahan prosedur asas dan pelanggaran prinsip hak asasi - Sama ada keputusan pembuangan kerja wajar diketepikan
Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid H
A company that embarks on businesses related to petroleum in Malaysia is required to obtain a license under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the Petroleum Regulations 1974. Any non-compliance of the license would be subject to statutory punishment. In this case, the company, as a license holder issued by Petroliam Nasional Berhad ('PETRONAS'), is deemed to have committed a fundamental breach of the PETRONAS license's general and special conditions by virtue of its association and/or relationship with blacklisted companies. Thus, PETRONAS's act of blacklisting the company and its directors did not amount to a fundamental breach of the license. Since PETRONAS's action of blacklisting the directors of the company is well-founded, a letter published stating as such is done so on an occasion of qualified privilege, and are fair comments and justified. CONTRACT | TORT
CONTRACT: Breach - Allegation of - Company holder of license issued by PETRONAS - Whether company breached PETRONAS license's general and special conditions and other applicable regulations and laws - Decision to blacklist company and its directors - Whether unlawful, wrongful and unjustified - Whether license established contractual relationship between company and PETRONAS - Whether PETRONAS act of blacklisting company amounted to fundamental breach - Whether PETRONAS intentionally and wrongfully interfered with company's business - Whether company could claim for damages - Petroleum Development Act 1974 - Petroleum Regulations 1974 TORT: Defamation - Allegation of - Company holder of license issued by PETRONAS - Impugned letter by PETRONAS stating company and its directors blacklisted -Whether action of blacklisting company justifiable and well founded - Whether publication of impugned letter on occasion of qualified privilege - Whether justified and constituted fair comment
Dean Wayne Daly J
(i) The fact that an alleged offender is charged in the Sessions Court does not prevent the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor from exercising prosecutorial discretion, as s. 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows discontinuation of proceedings (nolle prosequi) at any stage before judgment. There is also no requirement under the law which imposes any legal duty on the prosecution to give any reason in allowing and/or rejecting a representation made by an alleged offender; (ii) To proceed with judicial review, an applicant must provide strong and compelling evidence to meet the high threshold required. If there is no clear evidence showing that the impugned decision is made irrationally or unreasonably, the necessary legal threshold to challenge is not met. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave to commence proceedings - Seeking to challenge prosecution's decision to apply for acquittal and discharge of alleged sexual assault offender in criminal case - Failure of prosecution to provide sufficient basis, reason or particulars to support making of impugned decision - Whether prosecution acted ultra vires art. 145(3) of Federal Constitution and s. 254 of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether impugned decision amenable to judicial review - Whether necessary legal threshold to challenge impugned decision met - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Discontinuation of proceedings - Prosecution's decision to apply for acquittal and discharge of alleged sexual assault offender in criminal case - Failure of prosecution to provide sufficient basis, reason or particulars to support making of impugned decision - Whether prosecution acted ultra vires art. 145(3) of Federal Constitution and s. 254 of Criminal Procedure Code
Shahnaz Sulaiman J
While the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over adjudication tribunals under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, the court's intervention while an adjudication proceeding is underway is rare and must be sparingly entertained lest, it will encourage the opening of floodgates to frustrate or defeat the utility of statutory adjudication as a swift remedy for unpaid parties in the construction industry. Courts should, therefore, sparingly entertain an application for intervention to halt and terminate an adjudication proceeding before the delivery of the adjudication decision. CONSTRUCTION LAW | JURISDICTION
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication proceedings - Pending adjudication proceedings against main contractor for release of retention sum and non-certification and under-certification of value of works under contract - Main contractor filed suit to render adjudication proceedings unreasonable, oppressive and abuse of process - Application less than a month before adjudication decision - Application premised on fraud and conspiracy in claiming for payment for works not carried out - Whether fraud raised in adjudication proceedings - Whether two wholly different and contradictory defence in adjudication proceedings and this court - Whether court intervention would halt and terminate adjudication proceedings CONSTRUCTION LAW: Claims - Payment claim - Pending adjudication proceedings against main contractor for release of retention sum and non-certification and under-certification of value of works under contract - Main contractor filed suit to render adjudication proceedings unreasonable, oppressive and abuse of process - Application less than a month before adjudication decision - Application premised on fraud and conspiracy in claiming for payment for works not carried out - Whether issuance of certificate of practical completion showed works approved JURISDICTION: Courts - High Court - Whether court has power to prohibit progress of adjudication proceedings on jurisdictional grounds - Whether High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over adjudication tribunals - Whether jurisdiction statutorily provided - Whether adjudication proceedings brought unreasonably and oppressively - Whether court intervention while adjudication proceedings underway must be sparingly entertained - Courts of Judicature Act 1964
Aliza Sulaiman J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|