Back to Top


  CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2015, Vol 05
30 January 2015



Print this page
Introduction:

To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=subscription

Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=bulletinsubscribe


New This Week

1. Cases(s) Of The Week

a) PP v. AZILAH HADRI & ANOR

b) PP lwn. MOHAMAD TISHAM MOHAMAD IDRIS [2014] 2 SMC 261

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2015 Volume 1 (Part 5)

3. Articles

a) Legal Network Series Article(s)

4. Legislation Highlights

a) Principal Acts

b) Amending Acts

c) PU(A)

d) PU(B)


CASES(S) OF THE WEEK

PP v. AZILAH HADRI & ANOR
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ, RICHARD MALANJUM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK), ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ,
SURIYADI HALIM OMAR FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-185-09-2013(B)]
13 JANUARY 2015
[2015] CLJ JT(1)

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Defence of alibi - Station diary tendered to show first respondent was not at scene of crime - Failure to call maker to establish truth of contents - Whether defence mere denial - Whether call logs and records from Smart Tag device showed that respondents were present at scene of crime - Information leading to discovery - Location of scene of crime - Whether remains of deceased found - Whether respondents intimidated - Possession of deceased's jewellery - Whether presumption under s. 114(a) Evidence Act 1950 invoked - Whether common intention established

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 34 - Common intention - Murder - Whether there is requirement to prove who actually caused death of deceased - Whether respondents acted together to formulate crime - Whether common intention established

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Alibi - Murder - Entry in station diary tendered to show first respondent not at scene of crime - Failure to call maker to establish truth of contents - Whether defence mere denial

EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to call witness - Whether material witness - Whether amounted to suppression of evidence - Whether respondents deprived of opportunity to cross-examine witness - Whether evidence of witness contributed to respondents' defence - Whether caused unfairness to respondents - Whether s. 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 applicable

EVIDENCE: Information leading to fact discovered - Information leading to discovery - Whether information derived from respondents separately - Location of scene of crime - Whether remains of deceased discovered - Whether police had prior knowledge of location - Whether respondents intimidated - PP v. Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Ors - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27

EVIDENCE: Information leading to fact discovered - Information given by accused - Deceased's jewellery found in second respondent's jacket - Whether information led to discovery of jewellery - Whether information proved - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27

PP lwn. MOHAMAD TISHAM MOHAMAD IDRIS [2014] 2 SMC 261
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, JOHOR BAHRU
HABIBAH MOHAMED YUSOF HS
[SAMAN NO: 52-3753-2011]
15 JUN 2012

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 6 & 39A(1) - Memiliki 21.31g kanabis - Sama ada dibuktikan - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(d) digunapakai - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan tentang kewujudan dadah - Sama ada satu kes prima facie dibuktikan - Rahmani Ali Mohamad v. PP

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes prima facie - Memiliki 21.31 gram kanabis - Keterangan - Penilaian maksimum - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 digunapakai - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan tentang kewujudan dadah - Sama ada satu kes prima facie dibuktikan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 173(h)(iii)

To view a sample of the Sessions and Magistrates' Cases journal, click here. For product enquiries, contact priority@cljlaw.com.

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2013] 1 LNS 1192 PP v. ZAHRA RAJABALI DORIDOLATABADI & ORS & OTHER CASES EVIDENCE: Exhibits - Identity of exhibits - SP4 put 4 pairs of seized slippers together with incriminating drugs wrapped in transparent plastic into 4 envelopes - I.O. threw away relevant and vital exhibits in the form of envelopes containing the slippers which had identified the wearer when the slippers had yet to be marked - Whether SP4 was in a position to mark them according to the accused who wore them in the sequence of A to D according to the first to fourth accused - Identification of the slippers vis a vis the amount of drugs found in them as against which accused person had worn which pair of slippers - Whether a significant and fatal gap in the prosecution case
EVIDENCE: Exhibits - Break in chain of evidence - Significant and glaring difference in gross weight of the drugs in the slippers stated in police report lodged by SP4, search lists 45A-D and P52 as against the gross weight obtained by the chemist - Whether resulted in a break in the chain of evidence - Whether created a reasonable doubt on the identity of the drug exhibits which should be resolved in favour of the accused persons - Whether unsafe to call for the defence of the four accused persons - Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case against them
[2013] 1 LNS 1193 PP v. RINO JOHNNY CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - S. 300 - Murder - Whether accused caused such injuries which resulted in deceased's death - Whether act of causing death was committed with mens rea under s. 300(d) of the Penal Code - Whether Prosecution's case against accused was weak - Whether prosecution adduced sufficient and credible evidence to prove the third ingredient of the charge and consequently the fourth ingredient
EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - Murder - No direct evidence pointing towards accused - Circumstantial evidence adduced an incomplete chain or a frayed rope that did not point irresistibly to the guilt or complicity of the accused - Whether sufficient to prove it was accused who caused the stab wound to deceased resulting in his death
[2013] 1 LNS 1194 REDZUAN STAPHA v. TUAN MAZLAN TUAN MAT & ORS ELECTION: Petition - Appointment of advocate - Failure by the Petitioner's advocates to comply with Rules 9 and 34 of the Election Petition Rules 1954 - Delay in filing notice of acceptance of the appointment - Whether delays were consistent with the word "immediately" in Rule 34 - Whether a clear non-compliance of Rule 34 - Petitioner did not authorise Cik Raihanah Ashriqin to be his advocate - Whether she had authority to act for the Petitioner under Rule 9 - Whether rules 9 and Rule 34 of the Election Petition Rules 1954 were in mandatory terms - Whether their non-observance was fatal to petitioner's petition
ELECTION: Petition - Service - Notice of presentation of a petition accompanied by a copy of the petition - Failure to state "the day of the week" the documents were served, "where they were served" and "how they were served" - Whether these were mandatory requirements of Rule 15(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 - Whether Affidavits of service defective for non-compliance - Whether there was no proper service of the petition
ELECTION LAW: Petition - Allegation of corrupt practice - Allegation of undue influence and bribery under s. 9(1), s. 10(a) and s. 32 (c) of the Election Offences Act 1954 - Failure to plead s. 11(1)(b) to constitute a complete cause of action on the grounds of corrupt practice - Whether election petition could be dismissed on this ground alone
[2014] 1 LNS 140 DATUK M KAYVEAS lwn. SHANMUGANATHAN NADARAJAN & SATU LAGI TORT: Fitnah - Libel - Penulisan, pencetakan, penerbitan dan penyebaran perkataan-perkataan berunsur fitnah dalam surat khabar tempatan - Tafsiran biasa dan lazim - Sama ada perkataan-perkataan yang diterbitkan mempunyai implikasi memfitnah dalam tafsiran biasa dan lazim - Sama ada terdapat kecederaan nama dan reputasi yang telah dialami oleh plaintif akibat penerbitan perkataan-perkataan dalam surat khabar
TORT: Fitnah - Pembelaan - Perlindungan bersyarat - Sama ada defendan mempunyai pembelaan perlindungan bersyarat yang sah - Sama ada defendan mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk menerbitkan penerbitan berkenaan plaintif kepada orang-orang awam
KETERANGAN: Kenyataan - Kenyataan saksi - Saksi tidak hadir ke mahkamah untuk memberikan keterangan - Sama ada kenyataan saksi boleh diterima sebagai keterangan jika saksi tidak hadir ke mahkamah ketika bicara - Sama ada saksi perlu mengangkat sumpah atas kebenaran kenyataan saksi yang dibuat dan menandatanganinya bagi membolehkan kenyataan saksi tersebut diterima sebagai keterangan di mahkamah
[2014] 1 LNS 141 TEO KIAN GIAP lwn. TEO TEONG SEEN UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Kaveat - Pembatalan - Pembatalan kaveat persendirian oleh pendaftar - Kesahihan - Sama ada kaveat persendirian boleh dibatalkan apabila terdapat perintah mahkamah yang melanjutkan tempoh masa kaveat - Sama ada keputusan pendaftar boleh dicabar
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Kaveat - Tempoh masa - Perlanjutan - Perlanjutan masa berdasarkan perintah mahkamah - Sama ada tempoh masa kaveat boleh dilanjutkan berdasarkan perintah mahkamah - Sama ada munasabah untuk mengenakan pembayaran fi untuk melanjutkan tempoh masa kaveat berdasarkan perintah mahkamah

CLJ 2015 Volume 1 (Part 5)

COURT

FEDERAL COURT

PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Evidence - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether presumption under s. 114(a) Evidence Act 1950 invoked - Whether common intention established - Alibi - Whether defence mere denial - Failure to call witness - Whether material witness - Information leading to fact discovered) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Kerajaan Malaysia v. Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Arbitration - Award - Application to set aside specified paragraphs of award - Variation - Whether breach of s. 37(1)(a)(iv) of Arbitration Act 2005 could be basis for varying award)) [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [CA]

Wong Ban Chong v. PP
(Criminal Procedure - Convicted for murder and sentenced to death - Accused suspected to be of unsound mind - Procedure to be followed) [2015] 1 CLJ 640 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Jaya Letchumi KK Kuttan lwn. Pengarah Negeri Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Cawangan Negeri Sembilan)
(Prosedur Sivil; Kebankrapan - Tuntutan oleh pihak ketiga ke atas harta yang dikatakan milik si bankrap - Sama ada si bankrap hanya pemegang amanah kepada harta pihak ketiga - Bidang kuasa mahkamah) [2015] 1 CLJ 645 [HC]

Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v. Wong Keng Fatt
(Banking - Banker and customer - Duty of care when bank is paying out monies - Whether in capacity as agent to customer) [2015] 1 CLJ 659 [HC]

PP v. Billion Nova Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Criminal Law - Money laundering - Application to forfeit properties seized - Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, ss. 56(1), 61(2)) [2015] 1 CLJ 678 [HC]

PP lwn. Roslan Yahya
(Undang-Undang Jenayah; Keterangan - Rasuah - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada tujuan pemberian wang perlu dibuktikan - Kegagalan memanggil saksi - Sama ada mewujudkan kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan) [2015] 1 CLJ 691 [HC]

Razman Abdullah v. Azim Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Aziz
(Contract - Specific performance - Sale and purchase of property - Whether parties executed formal agreement) [2015] 1 CLJ 706 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ARBITRATION

Award - Setting aside - Application to set aside specified paragraphs of award - Whether arbitrator decided on dispute contemplated by or falling within terms of submission - Whether award in clear excess of jurisdiction - Whether arbitrator's conclusion perverse and required intervention of court - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 37(1)(a)(iv), (2)(b), (3) & 42
Kerajaan Malaysia v. Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Mah Weng Kwai, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [CA]

Award - Variation - Whether breach of s. 37(1)(a)(iv) of Arbitration Act 2005 could be basis for varying award - Whether power to effect variation only available under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Criteria to be established for varying final award - Determining what constitutes question of law - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 42(1A)
Kerajaan Malaysia v. Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Mah Weng Kwai, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [CA]

BANKING

Banker and customer - Duty of care when bank is paying out monies - Disbursement of loan - Whether done in capacity as agent to its customer - Defendant assigned absolutely to bank his rights, title and interest under sale and purchase agreement - Whether bank owed duties of trustee to defendant - Whether there was implied duty on bank to undertake site visits before disbursing loan - Duty of inquiry - Whether there were circumstances putting bank on inquiry as to any fraud perpetrated - Whether bank wrongfully disbursed loan in contravention of its duty - Allegation of fraud against bank - Whether proved - Whether bank's claim for amounts outstanding under loan allowed
Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v. Wong Keng Fatt
(Azizul Azmi Adnan JC) [2015] 1 CLJ 659 [HC]

Banks and banking business - Loan facilities - Disbursement of loan - Duty of care - Defendant assigned absolutely to bank his rights, title and interest under sale and purchase agreement - Whether bank owed duties of trustee to defendant - Whether there was implied duty on bank to undertake site visits before disbursing loan - Duty of inquiry - Whether there were circumstances putting banker on inquiry as to any fraud perpetrated - Whether bank wrongfully disbursed loan in contravention of its duty - Allegation of fraud against bank - Whether proved - Whether bank's claim for amounts outstanding under loan allowed
Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v. Wong Keng Fatt
(Azizul Azmi Adnan JC) [2015] 1 CLJ 659 [HC]

CONTRACT

Specific performance - Claim for - Sale and purchase of property - Whether parties executed formal agreement - Defendant filed application for leave to sell property - Whether amounted to concluded contract - Whether consent of all beneficiaries of estate prerequisite for order to be made under s. 60(4) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Whether court has power to order specific performance - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 11(2)
Razman Abdullah v. Azim Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Aziz
(SM Komathy Suppiah JC) [2015] 1 CLJ 706 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Money laundering - Forfeiture - Application to forfeit properties seized - Allegation that first respondent sold cigarettes and liquor to buyers outside duty free port to unknown buyers in Malaysia - Deposits made into first respondent's account were stated as 'cash sale-cigarette' - First respondent transferred several big sums of money into accounts of third, fourth and fifth respondents - Whether respondents engaged in money laundering which entitled prosecution to seize and to forfeit sums in bank accounts - Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, ss. 56(1), 61(2) - Customs Act 1967, ss. 135(1)(g), 155(1)(b)
PP v. Billion Nova Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Stephen Chung J) [2015] 1 CLJ 678 [HC]

Penal Code - Section 34 - Common intention - Murder - Whether there is requirement to prove who actually caused death of deceased - Whether respondents acted together to formulate crime - Whether common intention established
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Defence of alibi - Station diary tendered to show first respondent was not at scene of crime - Failure to call maker to establish truth of contents - Whether defence mere denial - Whether call logs and records from Smart Tag device showed that respondents were present at scene of crime - Information leading to discovery - Location of scene of crime - Whether remains of deceased found - Whether respondents intimidated - Possession of deceased's jewellery - Whether presumption under s. 114(a) Evidence Act 1950 invoked - Whether common intention established
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Accused - Unsound mind - Convicted for murder and sentenced to death - Accused suspected to be of unsound mind - Procedure to be followed - Whether Judicial Commissioner complied with procedure under ss. 342 and 343 of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether failure to comply curable under s. 422 - Whether trial was proper
Wong Ban Chong v. PP
(Mohtarudin Baki, Zakaria Sam, Abdul Rahman Sebli JJCA) [2015] 1 CLJ 640 [CA]

Defence - Alibi - Murder - Entry in station diary tendered to show first respondent not at scene of crime - Failure to call maker to establish truth of contents - Whether defence mere denial
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - Failure to call witness - Whether material witness - Whether amounted to suppression of evidence - Whether respondents deprived of opportunity to cross-examine witness - Whether evidence of witness contributed to respondents' defence - Whether caused unfairness to respondents - Whether s. 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 applicable
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

Information leading to fact discovered - Information given by accused - Deceased's jewellery found in second respondent's jacket - Whether information led to discovery of jewellery - Whether information proved - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

Information leading to fact discovered - Information leading to discovery - Whether information derived from respondents separately - Location of scene of crime - Whether remains of deceased discovered - Whether police had prior knowledge of location - Whether respondents intimidated - PP v. Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Ors - Evidence Act 1950, s. 27
PP v. Azilah Hadri & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop FCJJ) [2015] 1 CLJ 579 [FC]

INDEKS PERKARA

KEBANKRAPAN

Bidang kuasa - Bidang kuasa mahkamah - Tuntutan oleh pihak ketiga ke atas harta yang dikatakan milik si bankrap - Pengarah Insolvensi meletak hak separuh nilaian harta kepada si bankrap - Sama ada pihak ketiga boleh merayu terhadap keputusan - Sama ada pihak ketiga orang yang terkilan - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa bagi menentukan pertikaian - Akta Kebankrapan 1967, s. 86
Jaya Letchumi KK Kuttan lwn. Pengarah Negeri Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Cawangan Negeri Sembilan)
(Che Mohd Ruzima PK) [2015] 1 CLJ 645 [HC]

KETERANGAN

Saksi - Kegagalan memanggil saksi - Pertuduhan di bawah Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Keperluan memanggil saksi - Sama ada budi bicara pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada kesemua nama-nama dalam pertuduhan perlu dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi mewujudkan kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan - Sama ada s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai
PP lwn. Roslan Yahya
(Nordin Hassan PK) [2015] 1 CLJ 691 [HC]

PROSEDUR SIVIL

Relif-relif - Perintah susulan - Tuntutan oleh pihak ketiga ke atas harta yang dikatakan milik si bankrap - Sama ada pihak ketiga boleh memulakan guaman terhadap Pengarah Insolvensi di bawah peruntukan undang-undang selain daripada Akta Kebankrapan 1967 - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa serentak di bawah Akta Relief Spesifik 1950
Jaya Letchumi KK Kuttan lwn. Pengarah Negeri Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Cawangan Negeri Sembilan)
(Che Mohd Ruzima PK) [2015] 1 CLJ 645 [HC]

Saman pemula - Tuntutan untuk milikan - Tuntutan oleh pihak ketiga ke atas harta yang dikatakan milik si bankrap - Sama ada milikan harta dibuktikan oleh pihak ketiga - Sama ada penjelasan dan bukti sokongan dipertimbangkan sewajarnya - Sama ada si bankrap hanya pemegang amanah kepada harta pihak ketiga - Akta Kebankrapan 1967, s. 48(1)(a)(i)
Jaya Letchumi KK Kuttan lwn. Pengarah Negeri Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (Cawangan Negeri Sembilan)
(Che Mohd Ruzima PK) [2015] 1 CLJ 645 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH

Rasuah - Memberi suapan secara rasuah - Elemen-elemen kesalahan - Sama ada perbuatan 'memberi' suapan dibuktikan - Sama ada anggapan bahawa suapan adalah secara rasuah sebagai dorongan untuk melakukan suatu perbuatan terpakai - Sama ada tujuan pemberian wang perlu dibuktikan - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, s. 50(1)
PP lwn. Roslan Yahya
(Nordin Hassan PK) [2015] 1 CLJ 691 [HC]

ARTICLE
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 765 Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 764 Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 24; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 27 -Nil-
ACT 763 Yayasan Guru Tun Hussein Onn Act 2014 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 762 Goods And Services Tax Act 2014 1 July 2014 - Parts I, II, IV, VI and XVI, ss 10, 11, 17, 18, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 50, 56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 160, 163, 183, 184 and 197, the First Schedule and Second Schedule to the Act; 1 April 2015 - Parts IX, XIII, XVII and XVIII, ss 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 70, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 98, 106, 108, 109, 110, 122, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196, the Third Schedule and Fourth Schedule to the Act [PU(B) 319/2014] -Nil-
ACT 761 Finance Act 2014 See s 3 for the Income Tax Act; s 33 for the Stamp Act; s 36 for the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act; s 44 for the Real Property Gains Tax Act and s 50 for the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act -Nil-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1478 Companies Commission Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 614
ACT A1477 Limited Liability Partnership (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 743
ACT A1476 Registration Of Businesses (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 197
ACT A1475 Inland Revenue Board Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2015 6 January 2015 ACT 533
ACT A1474 Prison (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 537

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 12/2015 Customs (Prohibition Of Imports) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2015 26 January 2015 2 February 2015 PU(A) 490/2012
PU(A) 11/2015 Customs (Prohibition Of Imports) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 26 January 2015 1 March 2015 PU(A) 490/2012
PU(A) 10/2015 Customs (Prohibition Of Exports) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 26 January 2015 2 February 2015 PU(A) 491/2012
PU(A) 9/2015 Customs (Prohibition Of Imports) (Amendment) Order 2015 26 January 2015 2 February 2015 PU(A) 490/2012
PU(A) 8/2015 Customs (Prohibition Of Exports) (Amendment) Order 2015 26 January 2015 2 February 2015 PU(A) 491/2012

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 27/2015 Appointment And Revocation Of Appointment Of Registrar Of Credit Reporting Agencies 28 January 2015 4 August 2014 ACT 710
PU(B) 26/2015 Notice To Third Parties 28 January 2015 9 February 2015 ACT 613
PU(B) 25/2015 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 201143 Mukim Setapak 26 January 2015 27 January 2015 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 24/2015 Notice Of Designation Of Site As Heritage Site 23 January 2015 Specified in column (5) of the Schedule ACT 645
PU(B) 23/2015 Declaration Of Heritage Object 2015 23 January 2015 24 January 2015 ACT 645
[2015] 1 LNS(A) ix MALAYSIA

GOVERNANCE OF THE FAMILY UNIT:
REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES UNDER THE LAW REFORM (MARRIAGE & DIVORCE)
ACT 1976

by

MAGESWARY SIVA SUBRAMANIAM*


1: INTRODUCTION

1.1: Legal Governance of the Family Unit

The family unit forms the basic building block of any society. It is irrefutable that on the foundation of the family lies the strength and stability of societies and nations. Should this basic unit disintegrate it will undeniably have an adverse impact on the whole of society. It is therefore a legitimate social concern that the family unit is protected, strengthened and safeguarded as an institution. It can be argued that the legal protection provided by the governance of the family unit is one of the fundamental functions of the law in any state. These principles have been clearly reiterated in Article 19 of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD 2012)[1] which provides as follows:

The family as the natural and fundamental unit of society is entitled to protection by society and each ASEAN Member State. Men and women of full age have the right to marry on the basis of their free and full consent, to found a family and to dissolve a marriage, as prescribed by law.

Legal governance of the family unit covers a wide ranging area of interest including the formation of marriage, dissolution of marriage, maintenance, property distribution and child custody. Mimi Kamariah in her book Family Law in Malaysia defines a modern family as follows:

A family in the modern world consists of a man, a woman and their children. Marriage between the children's mother and the father is central to the family.[2]


. . .

* Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Multimedia University, [Paper presented at the UUM International Conference on Governance 2014 (ICG2014), Penang, Malaysia, November 29-30, 2014]


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2015] 1 LNS(A) x MALAYSIA

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PATENT INFRINGEMENT:
PRIOR MANUFACTURE AND USE - IS IT AN EXEMPTION FROM OR DEFENCE TO INFRINGEMENT?*

by

WOO WAI TENG


IN THIS ARTICLE, WOO WAI TENG LOOKS AT THE DEFENCE OF PRIOR MANUFACTURE AND USE UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE PATENTS ACT 1983.

Scenario

Company A manufactured and sold high powered drilling equipment in its home country overseas. The high powered drilling equipment manufactured by Company A was then supplied to an unrelated Malaysian company, Company B. Thereafter, Company B modified the high powered drilling equipment to meet the specifications of its customer, Company C. The modifications made to the high powered drilling equipment by Company B and the use of all requisite technology for the modification process belonged to and was licensed by Company A. The technology for the modification also necessitated having knowledge of the original technology for the manufacture of the high powered drilling equipment. Such original technology formed part of the licensing arrangement between Company A and Company B. Company B applied for and had been granted Malaysian patents for the original technology and the high powered drilling equipment and, also, the technology for the modification process and the modified high powered drilling equipment (the "Malaysian Patents"). Subsequently, Company A appointed Company D as its new licensee and importer after the termination of the appointment and licence of Company B. The question is whether Company A and/or Company D infringed the Malaysian Patents of Company B?

Is there a defence for Company A and Company D under section 38 of the Patents Act 1983 (the "Act")?

Section 38 of the Patents Act 1983 reads:


. . .

* Published with kind permission of M/s Shearn Delamore & Co.


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xi UNITED KINGDOM

IMPROVING JUDICIAL DIVERSITY
WESTMINSTER LEGAL POLICY FORUM KEYNOTE SEMINAR*

by

THE RIGHT HON. LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING


CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Why a diverse judiciary is important

The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently said that justice, fairness and equality are central values in the law which should be reflected in the composition of the judiciary itself. The report said that judges are independent of Parliament and the executive but they should not stand apart from the society in which they adjudicate. A judiciary which is visibly more reflective of society, it said, will enhance public confidence.

Why diversity and appointment solely on merit are complementary

Our firm view is that appointment must be solely on merit. The Constitution Committee agreed. The Crime and Courts Bill makes that plain. Appointment solely on merit is not at odds with the concept of promoting diversity.

The mistake of concentrating solely on appointments to the High Court and above

There is a danger when considering diversity of over concentrating on the (160) judges who make up the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Twenty-two are women. Two are from a black and minority ethnic background. There is no doubt we need to do all we can to increase diversity within that group.

There are well over three and a half thousand judges, including fee-paid (but excluding magistrates) who sit in courts. The mostly recently available statistics show that in April last year over 22% of these judges were women. 5% had identified themselves as from a black and minority ethnic background.


. . .

* The Right Hon. Lord Justice Goldring, Senior Presiding Judge (23 May 2012). Published with kind permission of the Judicial Communications Office, Judiciary of England and Wales (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/spj-speech-improving-judicial-diversity-23052012a.pdf).


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
x