Category: Malayan Law Journal

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
CIVIL SUIT NO BA-22NCC-77-06 OF 2020
15 August 2022

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(Enc. 9 and Enc. 19)Introduction

[1]  The application in Enc. 9 is the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) against the first, second, third and fourth defendants (“D1, D2, D3 and D4”) for the following:

• (a)the sum of RM4,701,760.39;
• (b)interest on the principal amount in the sums of RM782,401.04 and RM985,000.00 at the rate of 4.91% from 01.05.2020 until full settlement;
• (c)interest on the principal amount in the sum of RM500,000.00 at the rate of 4.90% from 01.05.2020 until full settlement;
• (d)interest on the principal amount in the sums of RM1,000,000.00 and RM1,200,000.00 at the rate of 4.86% from 01.05.2020 until full settlement; and
• (e)costs.

[2]  The application in Enc. 19 is the plaintiff’s application to strike out D1’s counterclaim under Order 18 rule 19 of the RoC.

MAHKAMAH TINGGI (TEMERLOH)
ROSLAN MAT NOR PK
GUAMAN SIVIL NO CB-22NCVC-21-12 TAHUN 2021
20 June 2022

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

[1]  Ini adalah permohonan Defendan Kedua supaya tindakan terhadap beliau dibatalkan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 Kaedah- kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). Alasan permohonan ini ialah tiada kausa tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua. Ini adalah disebabkan Defendan Kedua tiada hubung kait dengan perjanjian yang melibatkan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama.

[2]  Plaintif di dalam Affidavit Jawapannya menyatakan bahawa pada klausa 12 Perjanjian bertarikh 21.01.2008 Defendan Kedua telah menandatangani Surat Ikatan Waad (Deed of Covenant [DOC]).

[3]  Di dalam Affidavit Jawapan Defendan Kedua telah dinyatakan bahawa tiada hubung kait di antara beliau dengan Plaintif sebagai pemilik berdaftar untuk menandatangani perjanjian Surat Ikatan Waad (DOC) melalui surat bertarikh 14.12.2021. Hasrat itu dinyatakan melalui surat bertarikh 06.02.2021.

[4]  Apa yang dapat difahami setelah Mahkamah meneliti eksibit- eksibit yang dikemukakan bahawa Defendan Kedua enggan untuk menandatangani perjanjian Surat Ikatan Waad (DOC) dengan Plaintif seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama. Ini akan menyebabkan sebarang pembangunan di atas tanah tersebut tidak lancar dan akan menjejaskan pihak-pihak.

[5]  Persoalannya adakah terdapat kausa tindakan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua? Secara umumnya undang-undang yang termaklum bahawa pendekatan yang perlu digunakan dalam menentukan terdapat kausa tindakan atau tidak boleh dirumuskan seperti berikut:

• (a)Mahkamah akan meneliti pliding dan fakta-fakta asas di dalam pliding.
• (b)Mahkamah meneliti fakta-fakta asal yang dinyatakan oleh Plaintif berkenaan tindakannya terhadap Defendan Kedua.
• (c)Mahkamah tidak akan mengandaikan bahawa jika terdapat fakta-fakta yang tidak jelas maka ia perlu dibuktikan di dalam perbicaraan penuh.

[6]  Mahkamah perlu meneliti apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan kausa tindakan seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam kes Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 ; [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 63. Secara ringkasnya kausa tindakan yang munasabah membawa maksud fakta-fakta yang ada membolehkan seseorang itu berhak untuk mendapatkan daripada Mahkamah remedi terhadap seseorang.

[7]  Di dalam kes ini, fakta-fakta yang diperolehi daripada Plaintif menunjukkan hubungan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama seperti di perenggan di 17 hingga 23 Penyata Tuntutan.

[8]  Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan-Defendan secara sebenar atau konstruktif mempunyai notis berkenaan skim pembangunan dan terikat kepada Waad-waad tersebut. Ini dinyatakan di perenggan 24 sehingga 40 penyata tuntutan. Apa yang jelas diperhatikan semasa penelitian kepada Affidavit Sokongan dan Affidavit Jawapan pihak- pihak ialah terdapat perhubungan bertulis di antara Defendan Pertama dan Plaintif. Apakah itu sudah mewujudkan satu kausa tindakan? Ini perlu dilihat kepada remedi terhadap Defendan Kedua iaitu untuk deklarasi bahawa Defendan Kedua adalah tertakluk kepada Waad-waad tersebut sedangkan beliau tidak menandatangani apa-apa surat Ikatan Waad (DOC) dengan Plaintif.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-459-09 OF 2020
1 April 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  The 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Defendants’ filed a notice of application in enc. 94 on 15.10.21 to strike out paragraphs 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 38, 40, 42, 45, 50, 60 and 62 of the Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”) for non-compliance with an Unless Order in enc. 91 to furnish further and better particulars and in consequence of the striking out of the above paragraphs, the Amended Writ and ASOC dated 20.10.2020 against the1^st, 3^rd, 4^th 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Defendants be struck out as no longer disclosing any reasonable cause of action against these Defendants.

[2]  On 25.01.2022, the application in Enc. 94 was allowed with costs.

[3]  The 5^th Defendant also made an application on 25.1.2022 in Enc. 122 to strike out the Amended Writ and ASOC against him on the grounds that with the striking out of paragraphs 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 50, 60 and 62 of the ASOC, the ASOC (as it now stands) does not give rise to any enforceable claim against the 5^th Defendant.

[4]  On 23.02.2022, the application in Enc. 122 was allowed with costs.

[5]  As the matters were related, it is convenient to deal with both Enc. 94 and Enc. 122 in one judgment.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ J
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCvC-203-03 OF 2021
18 April 2022

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 17)

[1]  The Second Defendant (“D2”) applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s (“P”) Statement of Claim (“SOC”) dated 29.03.2021 under O.15 r.6(2)(a), O.18 r.19 (1) (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this court pursuant to O.92 r.4 of the Rules of Court (“ROC”) 2012.

[2]  The relevant cause papers and written submissions are as follows:

(i) Notice of Application dated 03.08.2021 (enclosure 17);

(ii) Affidavit in Support affirmed by Dato’ Haji Mohd Sarit Bin Haji Yusoh on 17.08.2021 (enclosure 21);

(iii) Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Mohamad Tirmizi Bin Ishak on 03.09.2021 (enclosure 22);

(iv) Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Dato’ Haji Mohd Sarit Bin Haji Yusoh on 17.09.2021 (enclosure 23);

The parties’ respective written submissions/replies.

[3]  Parties were heard on several hearing dates. On the 11.02.2022, after perusing the cause papers filed, parties’ respective written submissions, I dismissed enclosure 17 with costs of RM8,000.00, inclusive of allocator fees to be paid within 14 days. Dissatisfied, D2 filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows:

HIGH COURT (PULAU PINANG)
AZIZAN MD ARSHAD JC
GUAMAN SIBIL NO PA-23NCVC-11-02/2018
16 November 2022

JUDGMENTINTRODUCTION

[1]  This court had on 27.10.2022 allowed the Plaintiff’s claim against all the Defendants for tort of defamation with costs. This is an Appeal against the decision of this Court. This judgment contains the reason for my decision.

[2]  The Plaintiff was the only witness on his behalf and the Defendants have called 7 witnesses. The parties are referred to as they were in the High Court. The Plaintiff who is an advocates and solicitors, practicing under the name of Messrs Subramaniam and Shafiq.

[3]  The First Defendant (“D1”) is the Senior Claims Manager of the Third Defendant which process and claims arising from motor and non-motor insurances policies.

[4]  The Second Defendant (“D2”) was the Head of Claim Division and Seniors Sales Consultant in the Third Defendant until 20.09.2019.

[5]  The Third Defendant (“D3”) is an Insurance Company under Companies Act 1965 and is the current employer of the D1 and previous employer of the D2.

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN (PUTRAJAYA)
SURAYA OTHMAN, SUPANG LIAN DAN GHAZALI CHA HHMR
RAYUAN SIVIL NO C-02(NCVC)(W)-178-01 TAHUN 2020
29 December 2022

PENGHAKIMAN MAHKAMAHPENGENALAN

[1]  Ini adalah rayuan Perayu PDI DESIGN & ASSOCIATES SDN BHD terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Temerloh pada 15 Januari 2020 yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden SITRAC CORPORATION SDN BHD untuk perintah-perintah, deklarasi-deklarasi, injunksi-injunksi dan ganti rugi-ganti rugi terhadap Perayu dengan kos sebanyak RM20,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.

[2]  Pada 30 Januari 2020, Perayu telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 15 Januari 2020 tersebut.

[3]  Bagi tujuan penghakiman ini, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk sebagaimana prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi. Oleh itu Perayu dirujuk sebagai Defendan dan Responden dirujuk sebagai Plaintif. Berikut adalah alasan kami untuk keputusan tersebut.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
YAACOB MD SAM, RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU AND GHAZALI CHA JJCA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO W-01(A)-567-10/2019
27 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURTINTRODUCTION

[1]  This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in quashing the award of the Industrial Court dated 18.12.2018 pursuant to a reference under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA).

[2]  The central issue in this appeal is whether the constructive dismissal of the first respondent by the first appellant was with just cause and excuse.

[3]  After carefully considering parties’ written submissions and upon hearing oral submissions and the authorities cited therein, we were of the view that there are merits in the Appellants’ appeal and as such, we unanimously allowed the appeal with costs of RM15,000 subject to payment of allocator fee. In view thereof the decision and order of the High Court is set aside and the award of the Industrial Court reinstated.

[4]  We now provide our reasons for the said decision.

[5]  The first respondent shall be referred as the Claimant and first appellant as the Company in this appeal. The Claimant is the former country manager of the Company until the change of his position from country manager to senior principal consultant on 10.3.2016.

[6]  The second and third appellants are the Company’s associated companies sharing common management.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
CHAI GUAN HOCK SAR
POST BANKRUPTCY NO WA-29NCC-1114-11 OF 2021
10 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURTIntroduction

[1]  This is the Judgment Debtor’s (“JD”) application by way of Summons in Chambers in Encl. 23 to set aside the amended creditor’s petition dated 1.4.2022 and affidavit verifying the petition affirmed on 31.3.2022.

[2]  Parties filed their respective affidavits in Encl(s). 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and their written submissions in Encl(s). 32, 34, 37 and 38.

[3]  The JD’s application in Encl. 23 prays for the following:

• (a)Bahawa Petisyen Pemiutan Terpinda bertarikh 1.4.2022 diketepikan dan/atau dibatalkan;
• (b)Bahawa Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen yang diikrarkan pada 31.3.2022 adalah tidak sah dan dibatalkan; dan
• (c)Bahawa tiada sebarang perbuatan kebankrapan yang telah dilakukan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman;
• (d)Bahawa kesemua perkara dan keseluruhan prosiding kebankrapan yang difailkan oleh Pemiutan Penghakiman terhadap Penghutang Penghakiman di bawah Akta Insolvensi 1967 diketepikan dan/atau dibatalkan;
• (e)Kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman; dan
• (f)Sebarang perintah selanjutnya yang difikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat diberikan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini

Evidence — Legally privileged communications — Admissibility of — Whether court could rely on O 33 r 3(1) and/or (2) of Rules of Court 2012 to adopt an appropriate procedure to resolve admissibility issue — Whether defendants could rely on alleged offence committed — Whether court could apply provisos (a) and/or (b) to s 126(1) of Evidence Act 1950 — Whether defendants had discharged burden under s 103 of Evidence Act 1950 — Evidence Act 1950 s 126(1) — Rules of Court O 33 r 3(1) & (2)

INDUSTRIAL COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE, P
AWARD NO. : 372 OF 2020
10 February 2020

AWARD

[1]  The Complainant filed the Form S pursuant to s. 56 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 & Rule 24A of the Industrial Court Rules 1967 on 14 November 2019 in respect of a complaint of Non-Compliance in the matter of Award No. 1835 of 2019 dated 26 June 2019 in Industrial Court Case No. 28(6)/4-1138/16 (consolidated with Case No. 28(6)/4-1141/16 Tan Poh Hui v. Cairnhill Hotel (M) Sdn. Bhd. vide Interim Award No. 1780 of 2017 dated 12 December 2017) between Tan Poh Hui v. Cairnhill Hotel Sdn. Bhd.

[2]  The two cases were registered separately as follows:

• (a)6/4-1138/16 Tan Poh Yee (1^st Claimant)
• (b)6/4-1141/16 Tan Poh Hui (2^nd Claimant)

[3]  A complaint is hereby lodged by the 2^nd Claimant that the provisions of the abovementioned Award in paragraph 30 have not been complied that the Respondent is to pay the Claimant a sum of RM377,600.00 through the 2^nd Claimant’s solicitors Messrs Lim Kian Leong & Co. within 14 days from the date of the hereof (26 June 2019) for release to the 2^nd Claimant after income tax clearance.