Back to Top


CLJ Logo CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2013, Vol 20
17 May 2013

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 Of The Week

a) KYROS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

c) PP v. HAW SWEE PO [2012] 2 SMC 247

b) JUDICIAL QUOTES

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2013 Volume 3 (Part 5)

3. Articles

a) Legal Network Series Article

4. Legislation Highlights

a) Principal Acts

b) Amending Acts

c) PU(A)

d) PU(B)


CASES OF THE WEEK

KYROS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LINTON ALBERT JCA; MOHTARUDIN BAKI JCA; HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER J
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01-16-2010]
10 JANUARY 2013

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Case stated, by way of - Appeal against decision of Special Commissioners of Income Tax (`Special Commissioners') - Appeal to High Court - Whether High Court interfered with Special Commissioners' finding of facts - Whether Special Commissioners' decision was based on misconception of law - Whether appellate court recognises special position of Special Commissioners - Whether Special Commissioners specialised in adjudication process - Whether finding of facts by Special Commissioners warranted appellate interference - Chua Lip Kong v. Director-General of Inland Revenue

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Special Commissioners - Decision of - Appeal to High Court - Whether High Court interfered with Special Commissioners' finding of facts - Whether Special Commissioners' decision was based on misconception of law - Whether appellate court recognises special position of Special Commissioners - Whether Special Commissioners specialised in adjudication process - Whether finding of facts by Special Commissioners warranted appellate interference - Chua Lip Kong v. Director-General of Inland Revenue - Income Tax Act 1967, s. 98

PP v. HAW SWEE PO [2012] 2 SMC 247
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, KUALA LUMPUR
HASBI HASAN HS
[KES TANGKAP NO: 62-59-2008]
18 NOVEMBER 2011

HAKCIPTA: Salinan langgaran - Cakera serbaguna digital dijumpai di dalam rumah OKT - Sama ada unsur milikan dibuktikan - Sama ada keperluan s. 42 Akta Hakcipta 1987 dipatuhi - Sama ada cakera untuk kegunaan domestik - Akta Hakcipta 1987, s. 41(1)(d)

JUDICIAL QUOTES

SAYED OMEID lwn. PP [2011] 8 CLJ 501

Issue: Sama ada Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa memutuskan kesahan pertuduhan sebelum memberikan perintah ekstradisi di bawah Akta Ekstradisi 1992:

"Di dalam kes ini, sepertimana dinyatakan di atas walaupun pertuduhan-pertuduhan dikemukakan terhadap pemohon, tetapi jelas ia kekurangan dari segi butiran-butiran khusus dan penting yang sepatutnya ada di dalam pertuduhan tersebut. Kekurangan butiran-butiran tersebut menunjukkan bahawa pihak berkuasa Australia tidak dapat mempastikan dengan tepat sama ada "fugitive criminal" ada terlibat di dalam kegiatan penyeludupan manusia ke negara itu atau pun tidak. Seterusnya saya berpendapat bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen di Malaysia memang mempunyai kuasa untuk menentukan kesahihan pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang telah dikemukakan terhadap pemohon di dalam kes ini, ini berdasarkan kepada kes-kes yang telah diputuskan di atas" - Oleh Ghazali Cha H di dalam Sayed Omeid lwn. PP [2011] 8 CLJ 501 di ms 508

PP v. SHAHRUL AZUWAN ADANAN & ANOR [2013] 2 CLJ 686

Issue: On the antiquated nature of the penal provision in s. 44(1) of the Animals Act 1953 - when allowing Public Prosecutor’s appeal against sentence of RM200 fine in default 1 month jail imposed by the learned Magistrate for each of the 30 offences under the aforesaid sub-section committed by the respondents:

"As a postscript it has to be said that the punishment for animal cruelty under the Act is archaic and out of touch with reality. When the Animals Ordinance (No. 17 of 1953) was enacted 59 years ago in 1953 the penalty for animal cruelty as provided by s. 44(1) was as follows:

... a fine of two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term of six months or to both.

When the Ordinance was revised 53 years later in 2006 by the present Act (Act 647), the penalty for animal cruelty as provided by s. 44(1)was as follows:

... a fine of two hundred ringgit or to imprisonment for a term of six months or to both.

No prize for spotting the difference but it will be interesting to see if anything will be done to rectify the situation. Having to pay a fine of two hundred dollars in 1953 would probably hurt the pocket but to pay a two hundred ringgit fine in 2012 is not even a slap on the wrist for businessmen like the respondents. If the two hundred dollars of 1953 were to be pegged against today's worth of two hundred ringgit, the fine of RM200 under the Act which has remained stagnant for the past 59 years will be more of a friendly pat on the back rather than a punishment. It cannot be the case that cruelty against animals is viewed less seriously today than it was in 1953. In my view the need to increase the penalty for animal cruelty, in particular the sentence of fine is long overdue. A substantial increase will at least give some semblance of protection to these poor defenceless creations of God." per Abdul Rahman Sebli J in PP v. Shahrul Azuwan Adanan & Anor [2013] 2 CLJ 686 at p. 695

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2011] 1 LNS 652

TEAMFORCE BUILDERS SDN BHD v. PRINSIPTEK (M) SDN BHD

ARBITRATION: Stay of the proceedings - Application - Refusal to release retention sum - Whether defendant intentionally delaying paying plaintiff the retention sum - Whether there was nothing to arbitrate as there was no plausible dispute - Whether defendant was ready and willing to go to arbitration - Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to sign final judgment

[2011] 1 LNS 653

EON BANK BERHAD v. LIOW SIEW LENG

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Share Margin Financing - Plea of non est factum and that facility was utilised by Mr. Hwang, Managing Director of Kenmark absolving defendant of liability - Whether defendant knowingly opened the account for Mr. Hwang and allowed him to operate the account - Whether plaintiff negligent in disposal of charged shares - Whether negligence proved - Whether claims in negligence were excluded by the terms of facility - Whether any triable issues raised

[2011] 1 LNS 716

PRAI POWER SDN BHD v. GE ENERGY PARTS, INC & ORS

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interim preservation of property - Application to inspect and conduct tests on equipment forming subject matter of plaintiff's claim - Whether inspection and conduct of tests necessary to enable experts to provide reports which would assist plaintiff and Court in determining merits of claim - Plaintiff required to provide an indemnity - Whether condition imposed by defendants unreasonable and imposed in bad faith - Whether condition imposed was to preserve ownership rights of defendants over the equipment

[2011] 1 LNS 718

SHANKAR RP ASNANI v. VESTIME CORPORATION SDN BHD & ANOR

LEGAL PROFESSION: Retainer - Entitlement - Claim by a lawyer for his fees - Written retainers signed and executed by 1st and 2nd defendants - Whether RM100,000.00 was total fees payable to plaintiff - Whether RM100,000.00 only a non-refundable deposit paid towards full fees payable to plaintiff - Whether 2nd defendant signed retainers under pressure - Whether plaintiff misrepresented to 2nd defendant that signing of the written retainer was a mere formality - Whether plaintiff breached his retainer and was negligent - Whether issues raised by defendants had sufficient prima facie plausibility to give rise to bona fide issues which called for further investigation - Whether defendants bound by what they had signed - Quantum of fees claimed not agreed to - Whether plaintiff entitled to have his bill of costs taxed by the court

[2011] 1 LNS 1154

RE: TING BING CHEONG; EX-PARTE: RHB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL

BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Setting aside - Appeal against dismissal of application - Whether there was miscalculation of interest on judgment sum - Interest claimed in bankruptcy notice less than what it actually was - Whether a "formal defect" which was curable under s. 131 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 - Whether claim for interest barred by Item 44 of Sarawak Limitation Ordinance - Whether Ordinance applies to bankruptcy proceedings - Case number not stated in bankruptcy notice - Whether an impediment to judgment debtor filing an affidavit to challenge bankruptcy notice

CLJ 2013 Volume 3 (Part 5)

COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

Ee Chong Pang & Ors v. The Land Administrator Of The District Of Alor Gajah & Anor
Abu Samah Nordin, Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Aziah Ali JJCA
(Land Law - Acquisition of land - Acquisition by State Authority) [2013] 3 CLJ 649 [CA]

Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd v. Tan Peng Foo
Raus Sharif PCA, Alizatul Khair Osman JCA, Mah Weng Kwai J
(Contract - Contractual terms - Sale and purchase agreement ('S&P') - Delivery of vacant possession) [2013] 3 CLJ 663 [CA]

Suheri Ibrahim v. PP
Ahmad Maarop, Clement Skinner, Azahar Mohamed JJCA
(Criminal Law - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B - Conviction and sentence) [2013] 3 CLJ 676 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Charanjit Singh Santokh Singh v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Anor
Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Zainal Adzam JJ, Choong Siew Khim JC
(Legal Profession - Professional discipline - Restoration to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors) [2013] 3 CLJ 688 [HC]

Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Bank & Ors v. The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors And Another Case
Lau Bee Lan J
(Tort - Defamation - Libel - Articles published in newspaper) [2013] 3 CLJ 700 [HC]

Mas Anita Abdullah v. Lew Wai Koung
Yeoh Wee Siam J
(Civil Procedure - Security for costs - Application for) [2013] 3 CLJ 737 [HC]

Metrobus Nationwide Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Pelesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan Semenanjung Malaysia & Anor
Alizatul Khair Osman J
(Administrative Law - Remedies - Mandamus - Conditions under s. 44(1) Specific Relief Act 1950) [2013] 3 CLJ 743 [HC]

Nehemiah Reinforced Sdn Bhd v. Patrick Cyril Augustine & Anor
Mariana Yahya J
(Contract; Patents - Infringement - Validity) [2013] 3 CLJ 774 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Remedies - Mandamus - Conditions under s. 44(1) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Whether satisfied to qualify for grant of order ofmandamus - Whether Licensing Board had statutory duty to enforce common fare rates on all stage buses - Whether Board acted ultra vires in allowing RapidKL to charge lower fare rates than statutorily prescribed - Whether there were losses suffered as direct result of RapidKL's lower fares - Ingredients to establish case for unfair discrimination - Whether proved
Metrobus Nationwide Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Pelesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan Semenanjung Malaysia & Anor
(Alizatul Khair Osman J) [2013] 3 CLJ 743 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Security for costs - Application for - Failure to disclose residential address - Plaintiff frequently out of country - Whether plaintiff required to furnish security for costs - Whether plaintiff able to pay costs if claim dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff - Whether order justified - Rules of Court 2012, O. 23 r. 1
Mas Anita Abdullah v. Lew Wai Koung
(Yeoh Wee Siam J) [2013] 3 CLJ 737 [HC]

CONTRACT

Agreement - Business operations - Patent on process of stablising walls using multiple anchors - Payment of fee per square metre of wall area built where system in patent used - Whether patent valid - Whether involved novelty and inventive steps - Whether patent null and void - Whether agreement became frustrated
Nehemiah Reinforced Sdn Bhd v. Patrick Cyril Augustine & Anor
(Mariana Yahya J) [2013] 3 CLJ 774 [HC]

Contractual terms - Sale and purchase agreement ('S&P') - Delivery of vacant possession - Delay of - Claim for damages - Issuance of architect's certificate granting extension of time - Reasons for extension of time stated in certificate - Validity of - Whether challenged - Whether appellant entitled to rely on certificate - Whether certificate was final, conclusive and binding on respondent - Whether court can intervene with terms and conditions in S&P - Whether respondent willingly accepted terms in S&P
Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd v. Tan Peng Foo
(Raus Sharif PCA, Alizatul Khair Osman JCA, Mah Weng Kwai J) [2013] 3 CLJ 663 [CA]

Sale and purchase of property - Sale and purchase agreement ('S&P') - Delivery of vacant possession - Delay of - Claim for damages - Issuance of architect's certificate granting extension of time - Reason for extension of time stated in certificate - Validity of - Whether challenged - Whether appellant entitled to rely on certificate - Whether certificate was final, conclusive and binding on respondent - Whether court can intervene with terms and conditions in S&P - Whether respondent willingly accepted terms in S&P
Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd v. Tan Peng Foo
(Raus Sharif PCA, Alizatul Khair Osman JCA, Mah Weng Kwai J) [2013] 3 CLJ 663 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B - Trafficking in 879 grams of cannabis - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Drugs found concealed in front part of appellant's trousers - Whether appellant in "possession" of drugs - Whether appellant merely an innocent carrier - Whether judge carried out maximum evaluation of evidence - Whether conviction of appellant safe
Suheri Ibrahim v. PP
(Ahmad Maarop, Clement Skinner, Azahar Mohamed JJCA) [2013] 3 CLJ 676 [CA]

LAND LAW

Acquisition of land - Acquisition by State Authority - Failure to publish Form A pursuant to s. 4(1) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Whether issuance of Form A mandatory requirement - Whether acquisition contrary to art. 13(1) Federal Constitution
Ee Chong Pang & Ors v. The Land Administrator Of The District Of Alor Gajah & Anor
(Abu Samah Nordin, Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Aziah Ali JJCA) [2013] 3 CLJ 649 [CA]

LEGAL PROFESSION

Professional discipline - Restoration to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors - Dishonouring client's cheque - Applicant's name struck off Roll for 13 years - Seriousness of offence committed - Whether there was strong basis for restoration - Conduct of applicant - Whether applicant fit and proper person to resume practice - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 107
Charanjit Singh Santokh Singh v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Anor
(Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Zainal Adzam JJ, Choong Siew Khim JC) [2013] 3 CLJ 688 [HC]

Roll of Advocates and Solicitors - Restoration to Roll - Dishonouring client's cheque - Applicant's name struck off Roll for 13 years - Seriousness of offence committed - Whether there was strong basis for restoration - Conduct of applicant - Whether applicant fit and proper person to resume practice - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 107
Charanjit Singh Santokh Singh v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia & Anor
(Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Zainal Adzam JJ, Choong Siew Khim JC) [2013] 3 CLJ 688 [HC]

PATENTS

Infringement - Validity - Patent on process of stabilising walls using multiple anchors - Patent sought to monopolise length of tie members within certain range - Whether patent involved novelty and inventive steps - Whether patent infringed
Nehemiah Reinforced Sdn Bhd v. Patrick Cyril Augustine & Anor
(Mariana Yahya J) [2013] 3 CLJ 774 [HC]

TORT

Defamation - Libel - Articles published in newspaper - Whether words and statements contained in articles defamatory - Whether articles referred to plaintiffs - Defence of justification - Whether defendants failed to adduce evidence to prove truth of allegations - Whether defendants could avail themselves of defence of qualified privilege under s. 12 Defamation Act 1957 - Whether defendants liable to plaintiffs for libel - Damages - Assessment of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Bank & Ors v. The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors And Another Case
(Lau Bee Lan J) [2013] 3 CLJ 700 [HC]

ARTICLE

Legal Network Series Article

1. THE CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2012 [Read excerpt]
     by: CHAI YEE HOONG* [2013] 1 LNS(A) xxix

2. EFFECT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF LAW [Read excerpt]
     by: ARUNACHALAM KASI [2013] 1 LNS(A) xxx

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 755 Finance Act 2013 11 January 2013 -Nil-
ACT 756 Traditional And Complementary Medicine Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 757 Strata Management Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 758 Financial Services Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 759 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1448 Central Bank Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2013 8 February 2013 [PU(B) 44/2013] ACT 701
ACT A1449 Industrial Designs (Amendment) Act 2013 1 July 2013 [PU(B) 86/2013] ACT 552
ACT A1450 Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT 318
ACT A1451 Perbadanan Kemajuan Filem Nasional Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2013 1 April 2013 [PU(B) 89/2013] ACT 244
ACT A1452 Animals (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT 647

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 151/2013 Electricity (Amendment) Regulations 2013 3 May 2013 3 May 2013 ACT 447
PU(A) 152/2013 Ministers Of The Federal Government Order 2013 7 May 2013 6 May 2013 ACT 2
PU(A) 153/2013 Factories And Machinery (Exemption To Petronas Gas Berhad, Export Terminal, Kemaman, Terengganu) Order 2013 14 May 2013 15 May 2013 ACT 139
PU(A) 154/2013 Factories And Machinery (Exemption To BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd) Order 2013 14 May 2013 15 May 2013 ACT 139
PU(A) 155/2013 Factories And Machinery (Exemption To Petronas Gas Berhad, Gas Processing Plant-6, Paka, Terengganu) Order 2013 14 May 2013 15 May 2013 ACT 139

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 205/2013 Appointment Under Paragraph 45(5)(a) - Corrigendum 2 May 2013 3 May 2013 ACT 267
PU(B) 206/2013 Appointment Under Subsection 3(1) 2 May 2013 See schedule of PU(B) 206/2013 ACT 115
PU(B) 207/2013 Notice To Third Parties 3 May 2013 4 May 2013 ACT 613
PU(B) 208/2013 Notice To Third Parties 3 May 2013 4 May 2013 ACT 613
PU(B) 209/2013 Appointment Of Members Of The Commission 7 May 2013 8 May 2013 ACT 695
[2013] 1 LNS(A) xxix MALAYSIA

THE CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2012

by

CHAI YEE HOONG*


IN THIS ARTICLE, CHAI YEE HOONG HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2012.

The Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“the CMSA”) came into effect from 28 September 2007 (except for Division 2 Part VI which came into effect on 1 April 2010) to consolidate the Securities Industry Act 1983 and the Futures Industry Act 1993, and to regulate and provide for matters relating to the activities, markets and intermediaries in the capital markets.

The Capital Markets and Services (Amendment) Bill 2012 (“the Bill”) was passed by the House of Representatives on 19 April 2012 to amend the CMSA.

We refer to some of the principal amendments proposed by the Bill.


. . .

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


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2013] 1 LNS(A) xxx MALAYSIA

EFFECT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF LAW

by

ARUNACHALAM KASI


It is well known that the general effect of an arbitration agreement is that the parties are bound by it just like any other agreement and hence should submit their disputes, if any arise, to arbitration for resolution. If a party institutes a legal action in breach of the agreement, then the aggrieved party may apply for stay of the court proceedings and in such event a stay is generally mandatory by virtue of the Arbitration Act 2005. Though the mandatory stay under the Arbitration Act is the most popular relief, this is not the only relief available for breach of an arbitration agreement. Relief may be available under other heads of the law, namely, Contracts Act 1950, Specific Relief Act 1950, Courts of Judicature Act 1964. There might be cases where such alternative relief becomes particularly significant because the popular mandatory stay is not available for some reason. This article purports to explore such alternative reliefs as well as relief by popular mandatory stay.

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Copyright ® 1997 - 2013 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: (603)-4270-5400

Content for Link 3
Content for Link 3
x