Back to Top

    CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2015, Vol 22
29 May 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) NIRMALA BONAT lwn. YIM PEK HA & SATU LAGI

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2015 Volume 4 (Part 3)

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

NIRMALA BONAT lwn. YIM PEK HA & SATU LAGI
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
SITI KHADIJAH BADJENID PK
[GUAMAN NO: S-22-72-2010]
25 JANUARI 2015

GANTIRUGI: Kecederaan diri - Tuntutan ganti rugi - Sama ada kecederaan-kecederaan pada badan plaintif diakibatkan oleh defendan - Sama ada kecederaan-kecederaan 'self inflicted' - Ganti rugi khas dan ganti rugi am - Award yang wajar - Sama ada plaintif berperanan menyumbang ke arah kecederaan

TORT: Kecuaian - Kewajipan berjaga-jaga - Sama ada defendan kedua selaku majikan gagal memastikan plaintif bekerja dalam keadaan yang selamat - Sama ada defendan kedua gagal menyediakan keperluan perubatan, kebajikan serta perlindungan plaintif - Sama ada plaintif berfikiran waras - Sama ada plaintif telah memungkiri terma kontrak pekerjaan dengan menyembunyikan faktor-faktor material

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2013] 1 LNS 1376

TEH HENG CHUN lwn. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah sekatan - Kesahihan perintah - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur penyiasatan - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 3(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1985 - Sama ada terdapat had dalam bilangan saksi yang percakapan mereka dirakam oleh pegawai penyiasatan polis

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah sekatan - Kesahihan perintah - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur penyiasatan - Penyiasatan oleh mana-mana orang yang mengetahui atau biasa dengan fakta dan keadaan - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 4(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1985 - Sama ada hanya pegawai polis berpangkat sahaja yang boleh membuat penyiasatan

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah sekatan - Kesahihan perintah - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur penyiasatan - Pertikaian kelayakan pegawai siasatan - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 5(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1985 - Sama ada pegawai penyiasat perlu melampirkan surat perlantikan dan kelayakan sebagai seorang yang dilantik secara sah

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah sekatan - Kesahihan perintah - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur penyiasatan - Tarikh sekatan berkuatkuasa - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan kepada s. 6(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1985 - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur apabila tarikh perintah sekatan dikeluarkan adalah awal sehari sebelum tarikh penguatkuasaan sekatan

[2014] 1 LNS 138

LIM BENG BROTHERS SDN BHD v. SERI DINAR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants' applications to strike out plaintiff's claim as plaintiff failed to comply with terms of Consent Order - Whether Consent Order was a contract between the parties and was binding - Whether full compliance with the terms of the Consent Order was imperative before plaintiff could be said to be at liberty to file afresh - Whether plaintiff, by filing the present Suit, without compliance of paragraphs (e) and (f) of the Consent Order, was in breach of the Consent Order - Whether the Consent Order operated as an estoppel and gave rise to plea of res judicata - Whether issue of prejudice against the defendant was relevant

[2014] 1 LNS 168

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD lwn. EM PLASTIC INDUSTRY SDN BHD

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Tindakan - Kuasa untuk mendakwa - Kuasa khas dibawah s. 38(3) & 38(5) Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 - Tuntutan bil kebelakangan - Kerugian hasil akibat pengusikan pada meter elektrik - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk suatu pendakwaan dimulakan terlebih dahulu untuk membuktikan suatu kesalahan atau sabitan sebelum plaintif boleh menguatkuasakan hak dibawah s. 38(3) Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990

KETERANGAN: Beban pembuktian - Peralihan - Pencabaran pengiraan tuntutan bil kebelakangan - Sama ada pihak yang mencabar pengiraan sesuatu tuntutan mempunyai beban pembukti untuk menunjukkan pengiraan yang dianggap betul

KETERANGAN: Pernyataan - Pernyataan bertulis oleh pekerja Tenaga Nasional Berhad berkenaan kehilangan hasil - Keterangan prima facie - Pembayaran tertunggak - Sama ada pernyataan bertulis oleh pekerja Tenaga Nasional Berhad ke atas amaun kehilangan hasil adalah merupakan keterangan prima facie keatas pembayaran yang tertunggak - Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990, s. 38(4)

KETERANGAN: Inferen bertentangan - Kegagalan memanggil saksi - Kegagalan memanggil pegawai yang mengarahkan pemeriksaan - Kegagalan memanggil kontraktor elektrik pihak ketiga atau pakar - Sama ada wujud penahanan dan penyekatan keterangan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)

[2014] 1 LNS 544

CAVEMAN I T SERVICES SDN BHD v. TOKUTOMI INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

COMPANY LAW: Loan - Shareholder loan - Recovery of - Whether plaintiff advanced RM890,000.00 or any other amount to defendant - Plaintiff's shares in defendant increased from 15,000 units to 75,000 units without plaintiff's consent and knowledge - Whether there was a fraudulent increase in shares - No loan agreement - Company dissolved itself without making any provision for alleged debt of defendant to plaintiff - Whether monies meant to assist defendant in its operation and was not repayable - Whether money advanced by plaintiff was a loan or a gift

COMPANY LAW: Suits by company - Locus standi - Application to set aside the reinstatement order dismissed - Whether plaintiff reinstated and had locus standi to bring present action

LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Recovery of loan - Last payment made to plaintiff on 1.6.2006 - Writ of summons filed on 10.10.2012 - Whether more than six (6) years set out in s. 6 of the Limitation Act - Whether plaintiff's claim time-barred - Reliance on defendant's auditor's report as an acknowledgment of debt - Whether qualified opinion by auditor could amount to an acknowledgment of debt within s. 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 - Disability - Plaintiff struck out from the register of SSM on 1.3.2007 until reinstatement - Whether plaintiff could qualify to be under a disability as plaintiff voluntarily struck out - Whether plaintiff could use its self-imposed disability to seek protection against limitation - Limitation Act 1953, s. 24

[2014] 1 LNS 633

ONG CHIH SENG v. YANG GUANG FURNITURE (SARAWAK) SDN BHD

PARTNERSHIP: Retirement - Effect - Whether 1st defendant still a partner - Whether Deed of Dissolution enough to absolve 1st defendant's liability as a partner - No public notification of his retirement from partnership - Whether plaintiff considered a regular and/or old customer of partnership - Whether plaintiff entitled to be specifically notified of withdrawal of 1st defendant as a partner - Whether 1st defendant still treated as a partner - Whether 1st defendant jointly liable with other partner, 2nd defendant, for plaintiff's claim - Partnership Act 1961, s. 11

CLJ 2015 Volume 4 (Part 3)

COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

Duta Wajar Sdn Bhd v. Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Contract; Civil Procedure - Breach - Agreement - Res judicata) [2015] 4 CLJ 281 [CA]

Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v. Asmah Hj Mohd Nor
(Tort - Defamation - Libel - Negligence - Nervous shock - Sexual harassment) [2015] 4 CLJ 295 [CA]

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam v. Hjh Marina Hj Mustafa
(Administrative Law; Constitutional Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Public officer) [2015] 4 CLJ 312 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Dato' Liong Kee Huat v. Permastulin Sdn Bhd
(Contract - Offer and acceptance - Sale and purchase of land) [2015] 4 CLJ 321 [HC]

Nirmala Bonat lwn. Yim Pek Ha & Satu Lagi
(Gantirugi; Tort - Kecuaian - Kewajipan berjaga-jaga) [2015] 4 CLJ 334 [HC]

Perspec Prime (M) Sdn Bhd v. Metro Tegas Development (M) Sdn Bhd
(Company Law - Winding up - Disposition of property) [2015] 4 CLJ 382 [HC]

Synergy Power Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar Dan Wilayah & Anor
(Contract - Claims - Sums due under contract) [2015] 4 CLJ 394 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Disciplinary proceedings - Public officer - Reduction in rank - Right to be heard - Failure to grant oral hearing - Whether contravened art. 135(2), Federal Constitution - Whether respondent's representation complete without oral hearing
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam v. Hjh Marina Hj Mustafa
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Rohana Yusuf, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 312 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Res judicata - Parties and issues same as in previous application - Claim for payments for piling works rendered - Matter decided in another suit - Whether parties precluded from raising same issues - Whether res judicata applicable
Duta Wajar Sdn Bhd v. Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 281 [CA]

COMPANY LAW

Winding up - Disposition of property - Application for validation order - Sale and purchase agreement - Developer wound up prior to completion of project - Whether sale and purchase agreement regulated by Schedule G of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether consideration towards purchase price should be deposited into separate housing development account - Whether there was clear violation of provisions of Regulations - Whether agreement illegal - Whether application for validation order allowed
Perspec Prime (M) Sdn Bhd v. Metro Tegas Development (M) Sdn Bhd
(Asmabi Mohamad J) [2015] 4 CLJ 382 [HC]

Winding up - Liquidators - Sale of property agreement prior to winding up - Consideration for property deemed settled by way of contra payment - Developer wound up prior to completion of project - Revival of project by liquidator - Demand of purchase price by liquidator upon completion of project - Whether liquidator held property in trust for purchaser - Whether bona fide purchaser - Companies Act 1965, s. 223
Perspec Prime (M) Sdn Bhd v. Metro Tegas Development (M) Sdn Bhd
(Asmabi Mohamad J) [2015] 4 CLJ 382 [HC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitution - Federal Constitution, art. 135(2) - Request for oral hearing - Failure to grant - Whether contravened art. 135(2) - Whether right to reasonable opportunity of being heard under art. 135(2) synonymous with right to oral hearing
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam v. Hjh Marina Hj Mustafa
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Rohana Yusuf, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 312 [CA]

CONTRACT

Breach - Agreement - Claim for works rendered - Subcontract agreement entered for piling works - Contractor failed to make payments claimed by subcontractor after completion of piling works - Defects in piling works - Allegation of - Whether subcontractor informed about defects - Whether payment for piling works subject to back-to-back payment arrangement - Whether parties entered into agreement - Whether subcontractor signed agreement - Whether parties bound by agreement
Duta Wajar Sdn Bhd v. Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 281 [CA]

Breach - Agreement - Contract to supply, install, test and commission hybrid system to selected villages - Plaintiff's claim for sums due under contract - Whether hybrid system had to be tested and commissioned before plaintiff could make claims - Terms of contract relating to guaranteed performance of system - Whether fulfilled - Failure to provide and install equipment for measuring and recording of energy - Whether plaintiff met requirements of clauses in contract - Whether plaintiff entitled to balance sum and retention sum of contract - Whether plaintiff discharged burden of proving case on a balance of probabilities
Synergy Power Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar Dan Wilayah & Anor
(Mary Lim J) [2015] 4 CLJ 394 [HC]

Claims - Sums due under contract - Whether plaintiff entitled to claim for balance sum and retention sum of contract - Contract to supply, install, test and commission hybrid system to selected villages - Whether hybrid system had to be tested and commissioned before plaintiff could make claims - Terms of contract relating to guaranteed performance of system - Whether fulfilled - Failure to provide and install equipment for measuring and recording of energy - Whether plaintiff met requirements of clauses in contract - Whether there was a breach - Whether plaintiff discharged burden of proving case on a balance of probabilities
Synergy Power Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar Dan Wilayah & Anor
(Mary Lim J) [2015] 4 CLJ 394 [HC]

Formation - Terms - Whether terms agreed upon - Whether contract binding only upon execution of formal contract - Whether requirements for acceptance of offer fulfilled - Whether contract binding and enforceable
Dato' Liong Kee Huat v. Permastulin Sdn Bhd
(Teo Say Eng J) [2015] 4 CLJ 321 [HC]

Offer and acceptance - Sale and purchase of land - Offer to purchase land - Revocation of proposal before acceptance - Whether revocation valid and effective in law - Whether acceptance absolute and unqualified - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 5 & 7(a)
Dato' Liong Kee Huat v. Permastulin Sdn Bhd
(Teo Say Eng J) [2015] 4 CLJ 321 [HC]

TORT

Defamation - Libel - Plaintiff accused of sexual harassment at workplace - Whether defendant justified in making statement against plaintiff - Whether defendant's allegations proven - Whether allegations amounted to defamation - Whether judge erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim
Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v. Asmah Hj Mohd Nor
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, Mah Weng Kwai JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 295 [CA]

Negligence - Nervous shock - Sexual harassment - Verbal harassment under Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace 1999 - Whether act of sexual harassment serious enough to cause adverse psychological effect on defendant - Whether plaintiff's words and acts fell within ambit of tort of intentionally causing nervous shock
Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v. Asmah Hj Mohd Nor
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, Mah Weng Kwai JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 295 [CA]

INDEKS PERKARA

GANTIRUGI

Kecederaan diri - Tuntutan ganti rugi - Sama ada kecederaan-kecederaan pada badan plaintif diakibatkan oleh defendan - Sama ada kecederaan-kecederaan 'self inflicted' - Ganti rugi khas dan ganti rugi am - Award yang wajar - Sama ada plaintif berperanan menyumbang ke arah kecederaan
Nirmala Bonat lwn. Yim Pek Ha & Satu Lagi
(Siti Khadijah Badjenid PK) [2015] 4 CLJ 334 [HC]

TORT

Kecuaian - Kewajipan berjaga-jaga - Sama ada defendan kedua selaku majikan gagal memastikan plaintif bekerja dalam keadaan yang selamat - Sama ada defendan kedua gagal menyediakan keperluan perubatan, kebajikan serta perlindungan plaintif - Sama ada plaintif berfikiran waras - Sama ada plaintif telah memungkiri terma kontrak pekerjaan dengan menyembunyikan faktor-faktor material
Nirmala Bonat lwn. Yim Pek Ha & Satu Lagi
(Siti Khadijah Badjenid PK) [2015] 4 CLJ 334 [HC]

ARTICLE

CLJ 2015 Volume 4 (Part 3) Article(s)

1. LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON JUDGMENT DEBTS ARISING FROM
    FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHARIAH*
    (ORDER 42 R. 12A RULES OF COURT 2012)
[Read excerpt]
    by: TUN ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD** [2015] 4 CLJ(A) ix

Legal Network Series Article(s)

1. THE SYARIAH COURT: ITS POSITION UNDER THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM+ [Read excerpt]
    by: ROSLI DAHLAN*, FAWZA SABILA FAUDZI** [2015] 1 LNS(A) xl

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 766 Netting Of Financial Agreements Act 2015 30 March 2015 [PU(B) 131/2015] -Nil-
ACT 765 Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 20 February 2015 [PU(B) 37/2015] -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-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1481 Quantity Surveyors (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 487
ACT A1480 Architects (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force except for paragraphs 3(d) and (p) and section 23 come into operation on 1 June 2015 ACT 117
ACT A1479 Registration Of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 138
ACT A1478 Companies Commission Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2015 20 February 2015 [PU(B) 45/2015] except sections 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 ACT 614
ACT A1477 Limited Liability Partnership (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 743

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 97/2015 Stamp Duty (Adhesive Stamp) Rules 2015 26 May 2015 1 February 2009 ACT 378
PU(A) 96/2015 Farmers’ Organization (Amendment) Regulations 2015 25 May 2015 25 May 2015 PU(A) 303/1983
PU(A) 95/2015 Land Public Transport [Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Rates Of Fare) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2015] Regulations 2015 22 May 2015 23 May 2015 PU(A) 242/2000
PU(A) 94/2015 Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) (Amendment Of First Schedule) Order 2015 22 May 2015 23 May 2015 ACT 605
PU(A) 93/2015 Price Control And Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking Of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 3) Order 2015 21 May 2015 24 May 2015 to 2 June 2015 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 229/2015 Returns And Statements Of Election Expenses - Chempaka, Kelantan 26 May 2015 Specified in column (4) of the Schedule ACT 5
PU(B) 228/2015 Notification Of Approved Officer Under Section 39 25 May 2015 26 May 2015 ACT 532
PU(B) 227/2015 Special Direction Of The Minister 22 May 2015 23 May 2015 ACT 621
PU(B) 226/2015 Notice Of Proposed Revocation Of Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose 22 May 2015 1 June 2015 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 225/2015 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 58601 Mukim Kuala Lumpur 22 May 2015 3 March 2003 ACT 56/1965
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xl MALAYSIA

THE SYARIAH COURT: ITS POSITION UNDER THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM+

by

ROSLI DAHLAN*, FAWZA SABILA FAUDZI**


It has been said that Islamic law and the civil law exist as parallel systems in Malaysia. The proposition, while attractive, is grossly inaccurate in law. As it stands today, the administration of Islamic law is confined to personal law for Muslims and the Syariah court is subordinate to the courts established by the Federal Constitution and under federal law, as this article will show.

The Syariah court has in recent years become a prominent subject in public discussion, not least of all with the constitutional provision that "Islam is the religion of the Federation".[1]

It is vital that the history of how religion came to be inserted in the Federal Constitution be first examined, objectively and dispassionately, given that the subject is fraught with difficulty.

Federation of Malaya

The Federal Constitution has its roots in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 ("the FMA 1948") which established a federation known as the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu comprising the nine Malay states[2] and the Settlements[3] of Penang and Malacca.[4] It was envisaged that the Federation, while remaining under British rule for the time being, would progress towards eventual self-government.[5]


. . .

+This article is reproduced, with permission, from the Legal Herald (May 2015 issue), a publication by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

* Rosli Dahlan (rd@lh-ag.com) heads the Corporate & Commercial Disputes Practice Group at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill and regularly appears at the High Court and appellate courts on public law issues.

** Fawza Sabila Faudzi (fawza@lh-ag.com) graduated from the Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia, and is currently a pupil-in-chambers with the firm


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2015] 4 CLJ(A) ix MALAYSIA

LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON JUDGMENT DEBTS ARISING FROM FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHARIAH*
(ORDER 42 R. 12A RULES OF COURT 2012)

by

TUN ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD**


When the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC 1980) and the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 (SCR 1980) were drafted, Islamic banking had not been introduced yet in Malaysia. So, the rules on 'Interest on Judgment Debts' (O. 42 r. 12 RHC 1980 and O. 29 r. 12 SCR 1980)[1] were drafted to cater for all judgment debts without any thought being given to judgment debts arising from financial transactions in accordance with Shariah.[2] Hence, it was provided that a judgment debt carries interest from the date of judgment until the date the judgment is fully satisfied. Of course, 'interest' is prohibited by the Shariah but that was not an issue then.

In late 1980s Islamic banking was introduced. It grew by leaps and bounds over the next 30 years. Like the conventional counterpart, customers began to default and civil suits were filed in courts. I understand that, unlike conventional banks, Islamic banks did not ask the court to make an order for interest after judgment as interest is prohibited under the Shariah.[3]

However, that practice had led to two negative effects. First, Islamic banks were losing money because they were deprived of the 'interest after judgment' which conventional banks were entitled to, which could cover the legal and related expenses in the execution of the judgment and also the loss incurred as a result of the delay in the settlement of the judgment debt. Secondly, there is another aspect which is worse. As the judgment debts of Islamic banking cases carries no after-judgment interest, it was in the interest of judgment debtors to delay the settlement of judgment debts of Islamic banking cases. It was more profitable for them to settle judgment debts of conventional banks first. In other words they would gain by delaying the settlement of judgment debts in Islamic banking cases and the longer they were able to delay, the more they would gain.


. . .

* Even when we were drafting the rule, I had said that when the rule comes into force, "someone" should write an article to explain it. However, when Miss Huma Sodhera, a Phd. Candidate from Bangor University, Wales, UK and Visiting Fellow, ILSP, Harvard Law School (2012-2013) visited me on the Aidil Fitri 1433 (19 August 2012) she convinced me that I should write it myself and I began writing it the same evening. That was four days before my cervical surgery. I continued working on it at Tanjung Room, Ward 7 and finalised it later at Mawar Room, Ward 14, Kuala Lumpur Hospital. The production of this rule (indeed the writing of this article) had involved experts from various disciplines like common law lawyers, Shariah scholars, regulators, bankers and others. I am grateful to all of them.

** Former Chief Justice of Malaysia and Chairman of the Law Harmonising Committee, Bank Negara Malaysia.


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

TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE JUDGES' EXPECTATION OF LAWYERS

by

YAA TAN SRI DATO' SERI ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDIN*


Introduction

First and foremost may I take this opportunity to thank the Dean and the academic staffs of Pusat Pengajian Undang-Undang, Kolej Undang-Undang, Kerajaan dan Pengajian Antarabangsa, Universiti Utara Malaysia and the Law Students Society, Universiti Utara Malaysia for inviting me to deliver a lecture on the occasion of this Asian Law Students Association (ALSA) National Conference 2014.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to put on record here that the invitation to deliver a lecture at this conference was first extended to the Right Honourable Chief Justice, Tun Arifin bin Zakaria. However, due to his busy schedule in the discharge of his official duties he could not make it to this conference. The Right Honourable Chief Justice has requested me to replace him and in this regard he had asked me to convey his utmost apology for not being here and he wishes all of us a successful conference.


. . .

* Chief Judge Of Malaya.
Delivered at the Pusat Pengajian Undang-Undang, Kolej Undang-Undang, Kerajaan dan Pengajian Antarabangsa, Universiti Utara Malaysia on 31 October 2014 on the occasion of the Asian Law Students Association (ALSA) National Conference 2014


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