Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 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 QUOTESIn 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 CASESLegal Network Series
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. PROSEDUR JENAYAH | UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH | PERKATAAN & ISTILAH
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)
(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. REVENUE LAW | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
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
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. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
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
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. BANKING
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
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. DAMAGES | CIVIL PROCEDURE
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
(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. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY | TORT
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
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. CIVIL PROCEDURE | REVENUE LAW
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
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|