Back to Top


CLJ Logo CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2013, Vol 51
20 December 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) BUKIT JONG QUARRY SDN BHD v. DATO' TAN YUNN SIONG & ORS

b) SUPERBOOM PROJECTS PERMAI LAKE VIEW MGT SDN BHD & ORS v. CHEONG CHIEW FAT & ORS [2013] 2 SMC 130

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2013 Volume 9 (Part 8)

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

BUKIT JONG QUARRY SDN BHD v. DATO' TAN YUNN SIONG & ORS
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AZIZAH NAWAWI JC
[SUIT NO: 22NCC-392-03-2012]
12 JUNE 2013

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Writ of summons and statement of claim - Whether plaintiff's solicitors lacked authority to act on behalf of plaintiff - Plaintiff's Directors' Circular Resolution authorising commencement of suit passed one year after issue of statement of claim - Whether resolution invalid

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Affidavit in reply - Application to strike out writ and statement of claim - Opponent's failure to serve affidavit within 14 days - Whether contravened O. 32 r. 13(2)(b) Rules of Court 2012 - Whether affidavit excluded from consideration - Perbadanan Nasional Insurans Sdn Bhd v. Pua Lai Ong

SUPERBOOM PROJECTS PERMAI LAKE VIEW MGT SDN BHD & ORS v. CHEONG CHIEW FAT & ORS [2013] 2 SMC 130
SESSIONS COURT, IPOH
KHAIRUL ANUAR ABD HALIM SJ
[SUMMONS NO: 52-1552-08]
29 MARCH 2012

BANKRUPTCY: Capacity of bankrupt - Claim against bankrupt - Whether leave of bankruptcy court required - Whether claim contractual or tortious in nature - Whether leave required to proceed with claim when case tortious in nature - Bankruptcy Act 1967, s. 8(1)

EVIDENCE: Witness - Non-calling of witnesses - Names mentioned in statement of claim not called - Whether explanation given on why attendance of witnesses not secured - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101 & 118

TORT: Inducement of breach of contract - Interference with contractual relations - Incitement towards other purchasers not to pay maintenance fees of apartment - Non-payment of maintenance - Claim for - Whether claim contractual or tortious in nature - Whether claim proven

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

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2013] 1 LNS 295

DATUK HAJI ABDUL KARIM ABDUL GHANI & ANOR v. M-CON ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD & ORS

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Stakeholders - Duties of a stakeholder - Whether all three conditions fulfilled when 3rd defendant released the documents to 1st defendant - Whether 3rd defendant breached their undertaking and stakeholder duties under the Agreement in respect of the release of documents to 1st defendant - Whether 3rd defendant remained in a neutral position when he acted as a stakeholder – 3rd defendant aware of contractual dispute between plaintiffs and 1st defendant - Whether 3rd defendant should have taken an interpleader proceeding instead of forming a view on the dispute in favour of 1st defendant

[2013] 1 LNS 327

IN RE: KANAWAGI SEPURUMANIAM; EX-PARTE: PENANG PORT COMMISSION

BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Application to set aside - Appeal against dismissal of judgment debtor's application - Whether Bankruptcy Notice invalid in law as interest claimed in notice was time barred under s. 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 - Whether bankruptcy notice was invalid as premised on a Court of Appeal judgment which was null and void as it contravened Article 121(1B)(a) of the Federal Constitution - Whether court was bound by the judgment of the Court of Appeal - Whether this court had jurisdiction to ascertain whether a judgment of a superior court was null and void - Whether proper for judgment debtor to attack judgment of the Court of Appeal in order to avoid repercussions arising from bankruptcy notice

[2013] 1 LNS 338

CHEONG KA WANG & ANOR v. TAN CHOEN

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Specific performance - Sale and purchase agreement - Whether contract frustrated because of raid by the Customs Dept on the tenant of condominium for a drug offence - Whether defendant raised any triable issue

CONTRACT: Frustration - Impossibility - Whether contract frustrated because of the raid by the Customs Dept on the tenant residing at condominium - Whether a real doubt if the sale could be finalised as condominium was implicated in drug bust - Whether drug bust affected proprietary rights of defendant over the property - Whether drug bust made it impossible for defendant to conclude sale of the condominium in accordance with terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement - Whether condominium could still be sold and vacant possession given

[2013] 1 LNS 339

HAJI AFIFI HAJI HASSAN v. NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG SDN BHD & ORS

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Petition - Just and equitable grounds - Elaborate scheme enabled petitioner to own 65% shares of the Company on trust for another - Petitioner a facade of the Company - Whether establishment of such 'Ali Baba' companies against public policy and illegal - Whether agreements unlawful under s. 24(a) and (b) of the Contracts Act 1950 - Whether Company operating in breach of the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 - Whether Court duty bound to address the illegality issue (even if not pleaded), regardless of whether the fraudulent party was the ultimate beneficiary - Whether it was just and equitable to wind up the Company

[2013] 1 LNS 340

INGAT KAWAN (M) SDN BHD v. BOUSTEAD NAVAL SHIPYARD SDN BHD

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ and statement of claim - Application for - Validity of licence obtained by plaintiff to deal with abandoned LV cables - Whether object of Sales Order No 21 lawful - Whether in contravention of ss. 6 and10 of the Second-Hand Dealers Act 1946 - Whether contract void and unenforceable under ss. 24(a) and 25 of the Contracts Act 1950 - Whether plaintiff's claim for breach of contract sustainable

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Powers under the Act - Second Hand Dealers Act 1946, ss. 6, 10 - Validity of plaintiff's licence to deal with abandoned LV cables located at Lumut, Perak pursuant to contract with defendant - Licence to be issued by the Chief Police Officer of the State of Perak or his delegate - Plaintiff holding licence to conduct such business within Selangor - Whether any licence given was restricted to a particular State - Effect on contract between plaintiff and defendant

CLJ 2013 Volume 9 (Part 8)

COURT

FEDERAL COURT

Ikatan Kelab-Kelab Melayu Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors v. Yayasan Bumiputra Pulau Pinang & Ors And Another Appeal
Hashim Yusoff, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ
(Civil Procedure - Striking out - Locus standi - Breach of trust and fiduciary duties) [2013] 9 CLJ 941 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v. Admal Sdn Bhd
Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Alizatul Khair Osman, Anantham Kasinather JJCA
(Trade Marks - Copyright - Infringement of - Joint venture) [2013] 9 CLJ 955 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Bukit Jong Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Dato' Tan Yunn Siong & Ors
Azizah Nawawi JC
(Civil Procedure - Striking out - Application for - Writ of summons and statement of claim - Affidavit in reply) [2013] 9 CLJ 978 [HC]

Glamour Ideals Sdn Bhd v. Ho Hau Wong & Ors
Lee Swee Seng JC
(Land Law; Civil Procedure - Caveat - Removal of - Judgment and orders) [2013] 9 CLJ 986 [HC]

KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v. Mission Biofuels Sdn Bhd
Vernon Ong J
(Company Law - Winding-up - Inability to pay debts - Locus standi) [2013] 9 CLJ 1003 [HC]

Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais Perak & Anor v. Ting Meng Hwa
Ahmad Nasfy JC
(Customs And Excise - Seizure - Vehicle - Classification of vehicle - Damages) [2013] 9 CLJ 1020 [HC]

Petrolium Nasional Bhd (Petronas) v. Khairulniza Md Yasin & Ors
Suraya Othman J
(Contract; Civil Procedure - Limitation of action - Agreement - Loan to finance education) [2013] 9 CLJ 1027 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Affidavits - Affidavit in reply - Application to strike out writ and statement of claim - Opponent's failure to serve affidavit within 14 days - Whether contravened O. 32 r. 13(2)(b) Rules of Court 2012 - Whether affidavit excluded from consideration -
Perbadanan Nasional Insurans Sdn Bhd v. Pua Lai Ong Bukit Jong Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Dato' Tan Yunn Siong & Ors
(Azizah Nawawi JC) [2013] 9 CLJ 978 [HC]

Judgment and orders - Order made by court - Variation of - Application to vary order to include direction for removal of new caveats lodged - Whether court functus officio - Whether court had power to vary order - Whether there was abuse of process
Glamour Ideals Sdn Bhd v. Ho Hau Wong & Ors
(Lee Swee Seng JC) [2013] 9 CLJ 986 [HC]

Limitation of action - When cause of action accrued - Agreement - Loan to finance education - Computation of time - Whether six years limitation started from date of termination from employment or six months from completion of studies - Whether action time barred
Petrolium Nasional Bhd (Petronas) v. Khairulniza Md Yasin & Ors
(Suraya Othman J) [2013] 9 CLJ 1027 [HC]

Locus standi - Commencement of action - Appellants suing respondents for breach of trust and fiduciary duties - Whether appellants had necessary locus standi to initiate action - Whether beneficiary under trust had locus standi to bring action in breach of trust against company limited by guarantee under Companies Act 1965 pursuant to objective of trust - Whether appellants had a share, or was a trustee or director of respondents - Whether appeal dismissed
Ikatan Kelab-Kelab Melayu Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors v. Yayasan Bumiputra Pulau Pinang & Ors And Another Appeal
(Hashim Yusoff, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ) [2013] 9 CLJ 941 [FC]

Striking out - Appeal against - Locus standi - Action for breach of trust and fiduciary duties - Whether appellants had necessary locus standi to initiate action - Whether beneficiary under trust had locus standi to bring action in breach of trust against company limited by guarantee under Companies Act 1965 pursuant to objective of trust - Whether appellants had a share, or was a trustee or director of respondents - Whether appeal dismissed
Ikatan Kelab-Kelab Melayu Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors v. Yayasan Bumiputra Pulau Pinang & Ors And Another Appeal
(Hashim Yusoff, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari FCJJ) [2013] 9 CLJ 941 [FC]

Striking out - Application for - Writ of summons and statement of claim - Whether plaintiff's solicitors lacked authority to act on behalf of plaintiff - Plaintiff's Directors' Circular Resolution authorising commencement of suit passed one year after issue of statement of claim - Whether resolution invalid
Bukit Jong Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Dato' Tan Yunn Siong & Ors
(Azizah Nawawi JC) [2013] 9 CLJ 978 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

Winding-up - Inability to pay debts - Whether proved - Whether there was debts due and owing - Reliance on financial statements - Whether respondent insolvent and unable to pay debts - Whether there were surplus over liabilities - Holding company - Whether able to provide financial support - Whether winding-up petition allowed - Companies Act 1965, ss. 218(1)(e) & 218(2)(c)
KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v. Mission Biofuels Sdn Bhd
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 9 CLJ 1003 [HC]

Winding-up - Locus standi - Meaning of - Contingent or prospective creditor - Whether petitioner a contingent creditor - Whether petitioner had locus to present winding-up petition - Companies Act 1965, s. 217(1)(b)
KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v. Mission Biofuels Sdn Bhd
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 9 CLJ 1003 [HC]

CONTRACT

Agreement - Loan - Education loan - Compulsory service of seven years for loan to be transferred into scholarship - Termination from employment - Whether breach of material clause in loan agreement - Whether repayment of loan due upon termination from employment - Whether amount claimed disbursed for benefit of first defendant
Petrolium Nasional Bhd (Petronas) v. Khairulniza Md Yasin & Ors
(Suraya Othman J) [2013] 9 CLJ 1027 [HC]

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Seizure - Vehicle - Classification of vehicle - Import duty paid - Mistake in classifying vehicle as van instead of car - Failure to pay compound - Whether Customs Department made mistake in classification of vehicle - Failure to return seized vehicle - Whether doctrine of estoppel applied - Damages - Value of vehicle - Whether respondent estopped from claiming damages pursuant to s. 132 Customs Act 1967 - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 31 & 115
Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais Perak & Anor v. Ting Meng Hwa
(Ahmad Nasfy JC) [2013] 9 CLJ 1020 [HC]

LAND LAW

Caveat - Removal of - Caveats lodged by another caveator after court order granted - Application to vary order to include direction for removal of new caveats lodged - Whether court order had been perfected - Whether caveats were lodged to cancel effect of court order - Whether there was abuse of process - Whether caveator had caveatable interest - Whether court order varied
Glamour Ideals Sdn Bhd v. Ho Hau Wong & Ors
(Lee Swee Seng JC) [2013] 9 CLJ 986 [HC]

TRADE MARKS

Copyright - Infringement of - Collaboration between parties to jointly run English spelling competition - Non materialisation into joint venture - Whether NST Spell It Right eligible for copyright protection - Whether NST Spell It Right compilation of existing information widely available in public domain - Whether trial judge took into account 'functional object' behind competitions of this nature - Whether appellants copied NST Spell It Right concept - Whether trial judge erred in applying 'commonplace' test to exclude similarities in both concepts
The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor v. Admal Sdn Bhd
(Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Alizatul Khair Osman, Anantham Kasinather JJCA) [2013] 9 CLJ 955 [CA]

ARTICLE

Legal Network Series Article

1. LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
    S. 114A EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT)(NO. 2) ACT 2012
[Read excerpt]
    by: GITA RADHAKRISHNA* [2013] 1 LNS(A) ixxxv

2. THE VEIL OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT [Read excerpt]
    by: ARUNACHALAM KASI* [2013] 1 LNS(A) ixxxvi

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 759 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 30 June 2013 [PU(B) 277/2013] - except para(s) 1 to 10 of Schedule 9 and para(s) 13 to 19 of Schedule 9 -Nil-
ACT 758 Financial Services Act 2013 30 June 2013 [PU(B) 276/2013] - except s 129 and Schedule 9 -Nil-
ACT 757 Strata Management Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 756 Traditional And Complementary Medicine Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 755 Finance Act 2013 See s 3 for the Income Tax Act; s 41 for the Stamp Act; s 47 for the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act and s 55 for the Real Property Gains Tax Act -Nil-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1456 Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT 166
ACT A1455 Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT A1444
ACT A1454 Supplementary Supply (2013) Act 2013 2 November 2013
ACT A1453 Supplementary Supply (2012) Act 2013 7 September 2013
ACT A1452 Animals (Amendment) Act 2013 20 August 2013 [PU(B) 359/2013] ACT 647

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 362/2013 Crematorium (Federal Territory Of Kuala Lumpur) By-Laws 2013 19 December 2013 1 January 2014 ACT 171
PU(A) 361/2013 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 14) Order 2013 19 December 2013 20 December 2013 ACT 53
PU(A) 360/2013 Customs (Prohibition Of Imports) (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 2013 19 December 2013 1 January 2014 PU(A) 490/2012
PU(A) 359/2013 Printing Presses And Publications (Control Of Undesirable Publications) (Revocation) Order 2013 17 December 2013 18 December 2013 ACT 301
PU(A) 358/2013 Private Healthcare Facilities And Services (Private Hospitals And Other Private Healthcare Facilities) (Amendment) Order 2013 16 December 2013 17 December 2013 PU(A) 138/2006

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 485/2013 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 80558 Mukim Batu 17 December 2013 18 December 2013 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 484/2013 Declaration Of Vacations Of The High Court In Malaya 16 December 2013 17 December 2013 PU(A) 326/1985
PU(B) 483/2013 Vacations Of The Federal Court 12 December 2013 13 December 2013 PU(A) 150/1996
PU(B) 482/2013 Appointment Of Director General Of The Board 9 December 2013 9 February 2010 ACT 551
PU(B) 481/2013 Appointment Of Deputy Directors General 9 December 2013 Specified in column (2) of the Schedule ACT 551
[2013] 1 LNS(A) lxxxv MALAYSIA

LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
S. 114A EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT)(NO. 2) ACT 2012

by

GITA RADHAKRISHNA*


1. Introduction

The basis of the adversarial system of justice is best described in the Latin maxim “ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probation” he who asserts a matter must prove it, but he who denies it need not prove it. [1] This holds true in both criminal and civil proceedings. In a criminal proceeding the accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution is able to prove the accused’s guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.[2] In a civil claim the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his claim on a balance of probabilities against the defendant. However one needs to distinguish between the legal and evidential burden of proof. The legal or persuasive burden of proof is the burden which is discharged at the end of the trial when the court makes a decision. The evidential burden is the burden of adducing sufficient evidence to convince the judge there is an issue to put before the court. Generally the party who bears the legal burden also bears the evidential burden. However there are exceptions to this as the burden could shift during the course of a trial as where defendant plans to raise a particular defence or if the statute purports to reverse the burden by way of a ‘presumption’ in which event the accused in a criminal proceeding or the defendant in a civil proceeding may carry both the legal and evidential burden.[3] In PP v. Cocolin Industries Sdn Bhd.[4] a presumption was said to be “an inference of fact, drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which the courts are authorised to draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other evidence.” Though the Evidence Act 1950 (EA 1950) does not define the meaning of a ‘presumption’ the application of the law in respect of presumption is given in s. 4 of EA 1950.


. . .

* Faculty Of Law Multimedia University (Melaka Campus) gita@mmu.edu.my


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

THE VEIL OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

by

ARUNACHALAM KASI*


1. Abstract

An arbitration clause or any dispute resolution mechanism clause is commonly included within a master agreement between parties. These clauses can be classified into a different category from all other clauses or agreements. The reason is that these clauses come into play at the outbreak of dispute between the parties. At this point, the dispute may concern the validity of the master agreement. At face, the master agreement includes the arbitration clause or the dispute resolution mechanism clause. This might seem to suggest that when the validity of the master agreement is disputed, the arbitration clause cannot be enforced with the result that the dispute must be resolved by the court. However such a position would inherently defeat the very purpose of the arbitration clause that is purported to come into play only at the outbreak of a dispute.

Accordingly there developed a concept of separability of arbitration agreement. The arbitration clause, although contained within the master agreement, will be treated as a separate agreement from the rest of the master agreement. This concept will save the object of the arbitration agreement. This article proposes to undertake a study on this concept.


. . .

* Advocate & Solicitor


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