Source: https://www.cljlaw.com/bulletin/?CLJBulletin;2020;11;b;
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 23:34:39
Document Index: 546083985

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 147', 'art. 147', 'art. 147', 'art. 147']

CLJ Bulletin #11/2020 (05 March 2020)
Issue #11/2020
N GANESAN N NARAYANAN v. WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY [2020] 3 CLJ 1
SYED MOHAMED NUR ALI v. WEDDRIN MOJINGKIN & ORS [2020] 3 CLJ 133
CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 1)
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: N-02(NCVC)(W)-1540-07-2018]
In the tort of libel, where the impugned article did not state the defendant as its author and the defendant had altogether denied making the statement, it is for the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was responsible for causing the publication. The plaintiff too cannot rely on the defendant's failure to refute as a basis to prove his case, and must independently establish a 'perfect' case that the article was published or caused to be published by the defendant; failing which, the plaintiff's case must fall.
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Allegation that article published in newspaper contained defamatory statements against complainant - Whether first defendant responsible for writing, printing, dissemination and publication of article - Whether complainant adduced evidence as to how, where and when first defendant caused publication of impugned article - Whether complainant case mere conjecture - Whether complainant discharged initial burden of proof in proving pleaded case - Failure to call material witness to prove link between first defendant and newspaper - Whether fatal to complainant's case - Whether complainant's case vis-a-vis first defendant proved
[CIVIL SUIT NO: JA-22NCVC-226-11-2017]
It is the duty of the police to ensure that a detainee under their custody is not harmed and that proper necessary medical care be given during the period of custody. Where the duty has been breached and a detainee assaulted to death during his detention, the court must send a strong message of censure and disapproval of such conduct and incidents, inter alia by awarding hefty quantum as damages for misfeasance in public office and other tort or crime committed upon the detainee.
CIVIL LAW ACT: Damages - Dependency claim - Deceased died whilst in police custody - Claim by parents - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether claimants entitled to damages - Civil Law Act 1956, ss. 7 & 8
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Death whilst in police custody - Whether death caused by beating inflicted by police arresting team - Extensive 61 injuries - Whether consistent with being involved in commotion with more than one person - Whether post mortem report described injuries sustained when under custody - Whether police owed duty of care to ensure deceased not harmed and proper medical care given whilst in custody - Whether there was failure to provide reasonable and necessary medical attention - Whether duty of care breached
“The sole question in respect of which the leave to appeal was given, brings into focus the effect of the provisions of s. 6 of the Kedah Malay Reservations Enactment. This necessarily involves the exercise of the function of a court in construing a statute.”
“In our view, under s. 6, it is clear that sale at the instance of a chargee is prohibited, but there is nothing thereunder which prohibits the creation of a charge of a Malay reservation land owned by a Malay to a non-Malay. In other words, under the Kedah Malay Reservations Enactment, there is no express prohibition against the creation of a charge over Malay reserve land in favour of non-Malays. That, in our view, is deliberate. If the Legislature had intended to prohibit the creation of such a charge, it would have expressly provided so.” — per Ahmad Maarop PCA in Affin Bank Bhd v. Jamaludin Jaafar; The Association of Banks in Malaysia & Anor (Interveners) [2019] 7 CLJ 541
[2018] 1 LNS 2100
SUHAIRIZA ZALI lwn. ROSLI AHMAD & YANG LAIN
Pengeluaran surat amaran secara pentadbiran oleh pengarah jabatan pendidikan adalah suatu tindakan dalaman yang tidak bersifat tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993. Surat amaran secara pentadbiran bukan merupakan suatu keputusan di bawah peruntukan A. 53 k. 2(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan kebenaran - Semakan kehakiman terhadap pengeluaran surat amaran pentadbiran - Sama ada surat amaran pentadbiran bersifat tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 - Sama ada surat amaran pentadbiran yang dikeluarkan oleh pengarah jabatan pendidikan merupakan suatu keputusan di bawah peruntukan A. 53 k. 2(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada kebenaran wajar diberikan
Bagi pihak pemohon - Alia Syahida; T/n Ibrahim & Fuaadah
Bagi pihak responden-responden - SFC Natra Idris, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2018] 1 LNS 2103
DALJIT KAUR GRIMALE SINGH lwn. MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
Kaveat yang difailkan oleh Majlis Peguam dibawah s. 17 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 atas asas kesihatan pempetisyen wajar diketepikan setelah pempetisyen telah beransur pulih. Petisyen penerimaan masuk pempetisyen wajar dibenarkan setelah segala syarat-syarat di bawah s. 11 dan 12 dipenuhi.
PROFESYEN GUAMAN: Penerimaan masuk - Petisyen penerimaan masuk - Bantahan oleh Majlis Peguam - Kaveat yang difailkan di bawah s. 17 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 ('Akta 1976') - Permohonan pengetepian kaveat - Perubahan keadaan - Kaveat difailkan atas alasan pempetisyen mengalami penyakit schizorphrenia - Keadaan kesihatan pempetisyen telah beransur pulih - Sama ada pempetisyen telah memenuhi segala syarat-syarat yang digariskan di bawah s. 11 dan 12 Akta 1976 - Sama ada terdapat sebarang asas untuk kaveat dikekalkan
Bagi pihak pemohon - R Shankar; T/n Ramachandran Shankar & Co
Bagi pihak responden - Ganeshalingam; T/n Farez Jinnah
[2018] 1 LNS 2191
PELUANG KARISMA SDN BHD v. LEE HOCK GUAN
(i) A notice of termination is only valid if sufficient notice period is given in accordance with the termination clauses under the tenancy agreement.
(ii) Where a landlord fails to comply with the terms of a tenancy agreement and takes the law into his own hands by unlawfully taking vacant possession of the premises; thereby depriving the tenant of the use and peaceful enjoyment of the rented premises, exemplary damages is appropriate.
LANDLORD AND TENANT: Tenancy - Termination of Tenancy Agreement - Non-payment of water, electricity bills and outstanding rental later remedied by the tenant - Allegation of tenant subletting the premises to a third party without the landlord's prior written consent - Allegation of wrong and unlawful termination of the tenancy by the landlord - Insufficient notice of termination - Whether landlord committed trespass when vacant possession was taken back - Whether the tenant breached any terms of the Tenancy Agreement - Whether the termination of the Tenancy Agreement by the landlord is valid and proper - Whether vacant possession was handed over to the landlord
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Assessment of damages - General damages - Special damages of RM5 million - Loss of business opportunity - Burden of proof - Exemplary damages - Whether the landlord's action in unlawfully taking possession of the premises was so outrageous warranting exemplary damages
For the plaintiff - Frank Wong; M/s Rahman Rohaida
For the defendant - Teh Soo Jin; M/s Marcus Chua & Co
[2018] 1 LNS 2192
IZMEER AIZAT IDRUSAM v. PP
(i) The appeal is premature as the DNAA is not a final order that can be appealed against by the accused. Section 254A of the CPC allows the prosecution to continue with the prosecution for the same offence as if no discharge order was made.
(ii) Where there was no express application by the DPP to seek a discharge of the accused, the court can order a DNAA.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal (DNAA) - Offence of robbery - Complainant withdrew the First Information Report - ss. 254 and 254A of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether the DNAA is a final order that can be appealed against - Whether withdrawal of First Information Report ipso facto discontinues a criminal action or demolishes the foundation of a case - Whether the Court can order a DNAA instead of an order for Acquittal and Discharge where the complainant withdrew the First Information Report.
For the appellant - Balvinder Singh; M/s Shahrul Balvinder & Co
For the respondent - Noor Husnita Mohd Radzi, Deputy Public Prosecutor; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
N Ganesan N Narayanan v. Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy [2020] 3 CLJ 1 [CA]
For the appellants - Gurdial Singh Nijar, S Thilaga & Abraham Au; M/s S Thilaga
For the respondent - S Vengadeswaran; M/s S Vengadeswaran
In an ex parte application for leave to issue contempt proceedings, service of the notice to show cause against the alleged contemnor under O. 52 r. 2B of the Rules of Court 2012 is mandatory, and failure to comply with it is not curable under O. 1A and O. 2 thereof. Contempt proceedings is criminal in nature and involves the liberty of the proposed contemnor; hence any ambiguity or uncertainty as to service must be resolved in his favour.
Tan Boon Thien & Anor v. Tan Poh Lee & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 28 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Leave order - Setting aside - Application for - Procedural issues - Whether service of notice to show cause under O. 52 r. 2B of Rules of Court 2012 on proposed contemnor mandatory before ex parte application for leave could be properly made - Whether Attorney General's ('AG') consent required in contempt proceedings initiated by party in civil proceedings - Whether cause papers ought to be served on AG in proceedings
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Contempt proceedings - Leave order - Setting aside - Application for - Procedural issues - Whether service of notice to show cause under O. 52 r. 2B of Rules of Court 2012 on proposed contemnor mandatory before ex parte application for leave could be properly made - Whether Attorney General's ('AG') consent required in contempt proceedings initiated by party in civil proceedings - Whether cause papers ought to be served on AG in proceedings
For the 1st appellant - Vijaya Segaran, Nicole Wee, Norazali Nordin & Ling Li Ching; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
For the 1st respondent - Michael Chow, Sunita Sankey, Wendy Yeong & Surachetth Jostsuwan; M/s Liza Khan & Sankey
For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Ng Thiang Tuan, Keith Kwan, Chia Poh Yee & Tan Sin Yee; M/s Tuan, Mohd Zain & Co
The court will not make a declaratory judgment when the issue in dispute is purely academic; likewise it will not answer an academic question which is no longer a live issue.
Tan Sri Musa Hj Aman v. Tun Datuk Seri Panglima Hj Juhar Hj Mahiruddin & Anor And Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 42 [CA]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Executive - Appointment of new Chief Minister - Dismissal of appellants as Chief Minister and Minister of Local Government and Housing of Sabah - Appeal against - Preliminary objection raised - Whether appeal competent - Admission and reliance on fresh evidence on special grounds - Whether new Chief Minister had majority support of members of State Legislative Assembly - Whether appointment of new Chief Minister constitutional - Whether outcome would have no effect and status quo remained if appeal successful - Whether court would make declaratory judgment when issue in dispute purely academic - Whether issue live issue - Whether appellant met threshold under art. 6(3) of Sabah State Constitution - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 7(3A)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Competency - Appeal against dismissal of appellants as Chief Minister and Minister of Local Government and Housing of Sabah - Preliminary objection raised - Whether appeal competent - Admission and reliance on fresh evidence on special grounds - Whether even if appeal successful, outcome would have no effect and status quo remained - Whether court would make declaratory judgment when issue in dispute purely academic - Whether issue live issue - Whether appellant met threshold under art. 6(3) of Sabah State Constitution - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, r. 7(3A)
(Civil Appeal No: S-01(NCVC)(A)-692-12-2018)
For the appellant - Anantham VA Kasinather, Tengku Ahmad Fuad & Wilson Chang Khai Sim; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
For the 1st respondent - Zaleha Rose Pandin, Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof, Dayang Ku Fazidah Hatun Pangeran Bagul & Rafidah Maqbool Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Sabah
For the 2nd respondent - Douglas Lind; M/s Lind Willie Wong & Chin
For the Law Society - Brendon Soh & Marianne Ghani
(Civil Appeal No: S-01(NCVC)(A)-693-12-2018)
For the appellant - S Vanugopal; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
For the 1st Respondent - Douglas Lind; M/s Lind Willie Wong & Chin
For the 2nd and 3rd respondents - Zaleha Rose Pandin, Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof; Dayang Ku Fazidah Hatun Pangeran Bagul, & Rafidah Maqbool Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Sabah
The amendment to s. 3(1) of the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 by the Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 is not ultra vires art. 147 of the Federal Constitution and did not alter the rights of the retired members of public services to a 'less favourable' position; under art. 147 of the Federal Constitution, Parliament had expressly provided the necessary safeguard to preserve the constitutional rights of pensioners.
Aminah Ahmad v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 75 [HC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | WORDS & PHRASES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Amendment - Constitutionality - Declaratory order that amendment to s. 3(1) of Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 by Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act 2013 ultra vires art. 147 of Federal Constitution - Whether amendments infringed fundamental rights of retired members of public services - Whether amendment resulted in 'less favourable' pension increment - Whether Parliament provided express safeguard to ensure constitutional guarantee preserved - Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3(1), (2), (3), 6 & 7
WORDS & PHRASES: 'relevant day' - Federal Constitution, art. 147 - Relevant day for person granted pension after Merdeka Day or person who first became member of any public services on or after Merdeka day - Whether date on which he first became such member
For the defendants - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC
The overriding consideration in the exercise of discretion to consider the suitability of a joint trial under s. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with s. 165 thereof is whether such trial will be fair and just, and whether an accused will be prejudiced by the trial; also, a finding that there was one transaction should not without more result in the making of an order for a joint trial.
Where the charge against an accused is not relevant to the case of another, and a joint trial would result in an inordinate delay to either or both trials, or jeopardise an accused's fundamental rights, it is manifest that a joint trial is not desirable. The prejudice resulting from such joint trial is disproportionate to its purported convenience and will likely occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Daniel Yong Chen-I v. PP [2020] 3 CLJ 86 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Revision against decision of joint trial - Applicant charged with offence under s. 29A of Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 - Sessions Court ordered joint trial of applicant with two other accused persons charged under ss. 188(2)(a) & 188(3)(a) of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Whether charges against all accused persons connected as to form part of same transaction - Whether joint trial would cause prejudice to applicant - Whether charges against other two accused persons relevant to case against applicant - Whether joint trial would result in inordinate delay in trial of applicant - Whether joint trial would jeopardise applicant's fundamental rights - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 170 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 122
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Joint trial - Application for revision against decision of joint trial - Applicant charged with offence under s. 29A of Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 - Sessions Court ordered joint trial of applicant with two other accused persons charged under ss. 188(2)(a) & 188(3)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Whether charges against all accused persons connected as to form part of same transaction - Whether joint trial would cause prejudice to applicant - Whether charges against other two accused persons relevant to case against applicant - Whether joint trial would result in inordinate delay in trial of applicant - Whether joint trial would jeopardise applicant's fundamental rights - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 170 - Evidence Act 1950, s. 122
For the applicant - Chong Loong Men & Rachel Lim; M/s Lim Chong Phang & Amy
For the respondent - Shoba Venugobal, DPP
For the Tan Giap How - Guok Ngek Seong; M/s Guok Partnership
The court is not seized with the jurisdiction to inquire into Forms H and N filed under s. 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 objecting to the Land Administrator's award, if they did not state the apportionment for the compensation thus awarded by the Land Administrator to the parties named in Forms G and H.
KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru & Anor And Other Cases [2020] 3 CLJ 112 [HC]
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Award - Reference - Dissatisfaction over awards by Land Administrator - Awards omitted to state apportionment/entitlement of compensation awards for each individual party named in Forms G and H - Matter referred to High Court - Whether High Court seized with jurisdiction to hear matter when award did not state apportionment for compensation awarded to parties named in Forms G and H - Whether High Court could invoke jurisdiction under s. 44 of Specific Relief Act 1950 - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 3(1) & 38
For KCSB - Raymond Mah, Denise Phang & Eric Toh; M/s Mah Weng Kwai
For the Land Administrator - Suhana Sabil; State Legal Advisor, Johor
For Johor Corporation - Vijay Raj & Tan Hui Wen; M/s Skrine
For The Store (JA-15-174-07-2017) - Izzat Zamri; M/s Tan Norizan & Assocs
For JA-15-97-04-2017, JA-15-99-04-2017 & JA-15-100-04-2017 - T Gan; M/s Gan & Lim
For MINDEF- Rusita MD Lazim
For LR (JA-15-98-2017 & JA-101-04-2017) - Hamidah Arshadi; M/s Hasnal & Partners
For MBSB - K Gobinath; M/s Sanjay Mohan
For the rest of tenants - Muhammad Fahmi A Jamil; M/s Sharifuddin & Co
Syed Mohamed Nur Ali v. Weddrin Mojingkin & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 133 [HC]
CIVIL LAW ACT | TORT
For the plaintiff - M Visvanathan; M/s Saibullah M V Nathan & Co
For the defendants - Jailani Rahman; State Legal Advisor, Johor
A LOOK INTO THE COURT OF APPEAL'S RECENT DECISION IN SUBERAN A/L CHANDRAN v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD*
by WONG KIAN JUN [2020] 1 LNS(A) xviii
[2020] 1 LNS(A) xviii
Suberan was to oversee the implementation of the Touch N Go Project for Xerox Business Services Malaysia Sdn Bhd (“Company”) as the Project Director. Suberan’s role as Project Director had ceased to exist on his last day of employment with the Company and the Company never recruited another Project Director upon Suberan’s release.
At the time of retrenchment, Suberan’s position ceased to exist because the implementation of the Touch N Go Project had been completed and the Company was about to commence maintenance and warranty work for the coming years which was undertaken entirely by the team in India. At the material time, Suberan was not the only one affected as the Key Accounts Manager for Touch N Go was also released.
(Disclaimer: This article is presented for information purpose only and covers legal issues in a general way. The contents are not intended to constitute advice on any specific matter and should not be relied upon as a substitute for detailed legal advice. © 2019 Shearn Delamore & Co. All rights reserved.)
REGULATING POST-MENOPAUSAL PREGNANCY IN MALAYSIA: A BRIEF ANALYSIS ON THE LEGAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES [Read excerpt]
by DR. HANIWARDA YAAKOB* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xix
[2020] 1 LNS(A) xix
REGULATING POST-MENOPAUSAL PREGNANCY IN MALAYSIA:
A BRIEF ANALYSIS ON THE LEGAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES
The advancement of Assisted Reproductive Technologies has paved the way for post-menopausal women to procreate either using donated or own ova. This development has been greeted with both enthusiasm and apprehension due to the possible risks of post-menopausal pregnancy to women and the child born. Criticisms such as selfishness, an unnatural act and medical risks to the woman and child are the main concerns expressed over this practice. Nonetheless, these fears need to be carefully evaluated and weighed against the potential benefits of post-menopausal pregnancy. This task is undertaken in this paper where the main critics over post-menopausal pregnancy are critically analysed and refuted. Upon careful evaluation of the issues raised, this paper concludes that post-menopausal pregnancy should be viewed objectively and any move to legally prohibit the practice must be based on sound evidence. However, in the context of Malaysia, the role and influence of Islam in making law and policy is undeniable. This warrants an examination into Islamic views on pregnancy among post-menopausal women.
* Faculty of Law Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email: hani75@ukm.edu.my
PU(A) 36/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Jitra-Sungai Dua (Butterworth) Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 229/1993
PU(B) 53/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Parliament 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 52/2020 Appointment Under Subsection 45(5) 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 ACT 267
PU(B) 51/2020 Appointment of Protectors 28 January 2020 29 January 2020 ACT 611
PU(B) 50/2020 Amendment to the List of Licensees 28 January 2020 29 January 2020 PU(B) 232/2019
ACT 605 Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 PU(A) 34/2020 1 February 2020 First Schedule
AKTA 605 Akta Badan-Badan Berkanun (Tatatertib Dan Surcaj) 2000 PU(A) 34/2020 1 Februari 2020 Jadual Pertama
PU(A) 97/1998 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Malaysia-Singapore Second Crossing Bridge and Expressway and Perling Expressway) Order 1998 PU(A) 35/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and Second Schedule
PU(A) 551/1996 Federal Roads (Sarawak) Order 1996 PU(A) 33/2020 31 January 2020 First and Third Schedules