Datasets:

izardy

/

malaysia-kehakiman-ejudgement

like 1

RA-28PW-4-05/2023

PEMOHON OOI LEE WEI (A contributory of the Respondent) RESPONDEN HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD PENCELAH PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD

Permohonan Interlokutari oleh Pelikuidasi Syarikat yang telah digulung untuk mendapatkan kebenaran memfailkan satu afidavit dan untuk Mahkamah menerima pakai afidavit tersebut dan seterusnya untuk pelikuidasi memfailkan afidavit lanjutan berdasarkan penemuan terkini berkenaan isu pertikaian - Mahkamah telah menolak permohonan tersebut. Pelikuidasi telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut - Sementara rayuan tersebut didengarkan dan diputuskan di Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah ini, setelah mendengar kesemua pihak telah membenarkan permohonan oleh pihak pencelah dan kes tersebut telah dilupuskan - Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa rayuan tersebut telah menjadi akademik.

09/02/2024

YA Dr Arik Sanusi Bin Yeop Johari

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8337a223-6de0-4e85-82e3-2dc40f743ef5&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - DRAFT GOJ HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD Another 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KANGAR IN THE STATE OF PERLIS, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) COMPANIES WINDING -UP NO RA-28NCC-4-03/2022 POST COMPANIES (WINDING UP) APPLICATION NO.: RA-28PW-4-05/2023 (COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO.:RA-28NCC-4-03/2022) In the matter of sections 465 (1)(e), and 466(1)(a), 471, 492, 492 and 494 of the Companies Act, 2016, And In the matter of HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (Company No.783563-M) (In Liquidation), And In the matter of the Companies (Winding- Up) Rules 1972, And In the matter of Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC : No.: 770220-09-5197), the Applicant 09/02/2024 12:30:38 RA-28PW-4-05/2023 Kand. 105 S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BETWEEN PECCA LEATHER SDN BHD ...... PETITIONER AND HUP HUAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) (Company No: 783563-M) …… RESPONDENT AND OOI LEE WEI (NRIC NO. 770220-09-5197) …… APPLICANT S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 JUDGMENT [1] This is an appeal by the Liquidator of the Respondent, Hup Huat Construction and Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) against the decision of this Court in dismissing the Liquidator’s interlocutory application in Forms of Summons (Liquidator’s Application to admit Enclosure 50, Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe and to seek leave to file further Affidavit) in Enclosure 55. [2] The Applicant in this case is a contributory and one of the shareholders of the Respondent, namely Hup Huat Construction and Engineering Sdn Bhd. [3] The Liquidator on the other hand is the private liquidator of Hup Huat Construction and Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) appointed by this Court by Winding-Up Order dated 2/3/2023. [4] Vide an Amended Form of Summons in Enclosure 11, the Applicant seeks for the following orders – S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (a) that Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC No: 770220-09-5197) be granted with leave to intervene and proceed with this application filed herein, if necessary; (b) that a Consent Judgment to be entered to stay the Order for Winding Up by the Court dated 2.3.2023; (c) that no order as to costs; and (d) such other and/or further reliefs this Honourable Court deems just and fair. [5] Pending the hearing of the main suit in Enclosure 11, on 13/9/2023, the Liquidator filed the Liquidator’s Application in Enclosure 55 for the following orders – (a) that leave is to be granted in favour of the Liquidator to regularize the filing of the Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe duly affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) which was filed under Enclosure 18 (Liquidator’s Application for Stay of Proceedings) S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 vide Post Companies (Winding Up) Application No.: RA-28PW- 4-05/2023; (b) that this Honourable Court admits Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe duly affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) to be taken into consideration for Enclosure 18 (Liquidator’s Application for Stay of Proceedings) vide Post Companies (Winding Up) Application No.: RA-28PW-4- 05/2023; (c) that this Honourable Court allows and admits Affidavit of Leong Ying Hoe duly affirmed on 04.09.2023 (Enclosure 50) to be taken into consideration for Enclosure 1 and/or 11 (Applicant’s Application to Stay Winding Up Order) vide Post Companies (Winding Up) Application No.: RA-28PW-4-05/2023; (d) that leave is also granted to the Liquidator to file a further Affidavit to state the latest discovery and development of facts pertaining to the matter; (e) that the costs for this application is to be cost in the cause; and S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (f) such further and/or other reliefs or orders as the Court deems fit and proper. [6] The Applicant and the Petitioner had objected to Enclosure 55. After hearing all parties, on 5/10/2023, this Court had dismissed Enclosure 55 with costs in the cause as there is no merits in the Liquidator’s Application. [7] Dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, the Liquidator had appealed against the said decision. [8] However, pending the hearing and disposal of the Liquidator’s appeal, upon hearing all parties on 11/1/2024, this Court had allowed Enclosure 11 (the main suit) for the following terms and conditions – “1. Ooi Lee Wei (NRIC No: 770220-09-5197) be granted with leave to intervene and proceed with this application filed herein; 2. the Winding Up Order dated 02.03.2023 granted by this Court against the Respondent (“Winding Up Order”) shall be stayed S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 until 11.04.2024 pursuant to Section 492 of the Companies Act 2016, subject to the following conditions; (1) the terms of the draft Consent Order (exhibit “OLW-4” of Enclosure 2) be amended and entered as follows: (2) the Respondent shall pay or the Applicant shall cause the Respondent to pay the Petitioner a total sum of RM654,741.58 being the full and final settlement sum (“Settlement Sum”) in one lump-sum payment by way of a cheque within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; (3) the payment of the Settlement Sum shall be secured by the Applicant’s own property with an address at No. 16, Jalan Ria, Taman Pertama, 01000 Kangar, Perlis (“Property”) as collateral for the payment and a personal guarantee by the Applicant, Mr. Ooi Lee Wei; (4) the Respondent shall hand-over or the Applicant shall cause the Respondent to hand-over all the following S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 documents within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; a. the cheque stated at paragraph (1) above in the sum of RM654,741.58; and b. the duly signed and stamped “Director’s Irrevocable Personal Guarantee & Indemnity”; (5) the Petitioner shall be entitled to enter a private caveat in respect of the Property for the purpose as stated at paragraph (2) above; (6) the management and control of the Respondent be granted to the Applicant from the date of this Order until 11.4.2024; (7) the Applicant be allowed to operate the Respondent’s current bank account no. 3141756216 with Public Bank S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Berhad at Kangar, Perlis from the date of this Order until 11.4.2024; (8) in the event of default on any of the payment terms and/or breach of any of the terms and conditions set out herein: a. the Petitioner shall be entitled to take necessary steps to recover any amount due and owing to the Petitioner; and b. any stay of the Winding Up Order shall immediately be ceased and/or terminated whereupon the Winding Up Order shall be reinstated and the Liquidator be allowed to execute his duties pursuant to the Winding Up Order; (9) upon clearance of the payment of RM654,741.58, the Petitioner shall have no objection for the Applicant or the Contributory of the Respondent to apply for termination of the Winding Up Order; S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (10) a copy of the Order herein should be lodged with Pendaftar Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; and 3. No order as to costs.”. [9] Since the main suit in Enclosure 11 has been disposed of by this Court on 11/1/2024, this Court is of the view that the Liquidator’s appeal in Enclosure 55 has become academic. Dated : 7 February 2024 (DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI) Judge High Court of Malaya, Kangar The State of Perlis S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 The Solicitor’s – The Applicant’s Solicitor: Mr. Low Eu Thuan (together with Ang Jinn Fenn) Messrs. Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle 49, Lebuh Gereja 10200, Pulau Pinang The Petitioner’s Solicitor: Ms. Alane Neo Messrs. YY Chin & Co VO3-05-03, Designer Office VO3, Lingkaran SV, Sunway Velocity, 55100 Kuala Lumpur The Liquidator’s Solicitor: Mr Tan Eng Keat Messrs. Gan, Lee & Tan Suite 13.03, Level 13 Menara IGB, Mid Valley City Lingkaran Syed Putra 59200 Kuala Lumpur S/N I6I3gBthU6C4y3ED3Q9Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023

PLAINTIF Kerajaan Malaysia DEFENDAN ELAYN CHAN KAR YEE

running down case - liability set at 100% against the Defendants - however Plaintiff is only awarded nominal sum as they failed to prove their claim for special damages.

09/02/2024

Puan Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4d27f85c-07fa-43fe-ac9e-ed0da09d84a3&Inline=true

1 IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT, KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR CIVIL SUIT NO.: WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023 BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA …PLAINTIFF AND ELAYN CHAN KAR YEE …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. BACKGROUND 1. The Plaintiff’s suit arise from a running down incident involving the Plaintiff’s motorcycle (WQG 7765) that was ridden by Effandi Bin Malek and the Defendant’s motorcar (WA 2963 A) that had occurred on 26.9.2017 at around 8.45am. The accident had occurred while Effandi was riding along the Mex Highway, just after passing the Salak South toll. While he was riding on the leftmost lane, suddenly the Defendant’s motorcar had hit the Plaintiff’s motorcycle from the right. As a result, the Plaintiff’s motorcycle had suffered damages. Plaintiff is now claiming for damages for the cost of repairs for the motorcycle. 09/02/2024 09:57:57 WA-A71KJ-3-02/2023 Kand. 40 S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. After 3 days of trial and after hearing the submissions from both parties, and on the balance of probabilities, this Court decided to allow a portion of the Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff. 3. To be specific, this Court finds that the Defendant is to be held 100% liable for negligently causing the accident however this Court only allows a nominal sum of RM10.00 of damages to the Plaintiffs. 4. Not satisfied with this Court’s decision, Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal against this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum (only) on 20.12.2023. Here are this Court’s grounds of decision on the issue of quantum. 5. At trial, Plaintiff had called a total of 5 witnesses while the Defendant did not call any witnesses. The list of witnesses are as follows; Name of Witness Role Label Witness Statement Effandi Bin Abd Malek Rider to Plaintiff’s motorcycle SP1 PSSP1 Inspector Muhammad Fauzi B. Ahmad Fuaat Investigating Officer SP2 PSSP2 Shahrinniswan Bin Abd Rahman Representative from Bahagian Logistik SP3 PSS3 S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Pengangkutan (Teknikal), IPKKL Maizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad Representative from Finance Unit, IPKKL SP4 PSSP4 Mohamad Zamri Bin Idris Director of Gerbang Cahaya Resources SDn Bhd SP5 PSSP5 B. THIS COURT’S GROUNDS OF DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTUM 6. In this suit, the Plaintiff claimed for the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s motorcycle which the Plaintiff claims amounted to RM18,310.00. After hearing all the testimonies from the witnesses at trial and after perusing through all the documentary evidences adduced, this Court finds at the Plaintiff had failed to prove succinctly how much was the cost of repairs, what was the basis of them claiming that amount and whether or not the motorcycle was indeed repaired as specified. This inadequacy makes it impossible for the Court to grant the whole amount as pleaded by the Plaintiff. 7. However, taking into account that the Defendant WAS liable for causing the accident, but it is just a failure on the part of the Plaintiff in proving the special damages that they had incurred, this Court hereby grants a nominal award of RM10.00 to the Plaintiff. S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 8. Before this Court goes into the basis of this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum, I will briefly state the law with regards to special damages. It is an established principle of law where special damages is to be pleaded specifically and proven strictly. Reference is made to the case of Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324 in where the Federal Court Judge, His Lordship Syed Agil Barakbah (as he was then) said as follows : “It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general damages have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. They are recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages and are not too remote (see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th edition, volume 11 page 218 [ara 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by Ong Hock Thye, FJ (as he then was) in Yee Hup Transport & Co and Anor v Wong Kong [1967] 2 MLJ 93 which was an appeal on quantum of damages. Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991; [1963] 2 All ER 879 he held that general damages should not be awarded as though they were special damages properly pleaded and proved. Similiarly Chong Swee Pian [1980] 1 MLJ 216 applied the principle in Ilkiw v Samuels (supra) that special damages if pleases as in that case could be recovered. The principle was also adopted by Mohamed Azmi, J (as he then was) in Sam Wun Hoong v Kader Ibramshah [1981] 1 MLJ 295 in the Federal Court. S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 The reason that special damages have to be specifically pleaded is to comply with its object which is to crystallise the issue and to enable both parties to prepare for trial (per Edmund Davies, LJ in Domsalla v Barr [1969] 1 WLR 630, 635. In special damages claims the exact loss must be pleaded where the precise amount of item of damages has been become clear before the trial either because it has already occurred and so become crystallised or because it can be measure with complete accuracy (MacGregor on Damages 14th edition page 1012 para 1498). The purpose is to put the defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on trial (per Cotton, LJ in Phillips v Phillips (1878) 4 QBD 127,139”. 9. Refernce is also made to the book Fundamentals of Running Down And Personal Injury Litigation where the author Jeyaseelan Anthony, at page 198-200 had listed the 4 elements that had to be fulfilled in every claim for special damages : “6.2 SPECIAL DAMAGES [6.007] Four elements must be satisfied to constitute special damages: 1. It is a damage which is actually suffered before the trial. 2. It is capable of precise quantification. 3. It must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim. 4. It must be proved either by receipts or some other evidence.” 10. At the forefront, this Court finds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove element 2 dan 4 as listed above. Among others, the basis for this Court’s decision on this issue S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 is due to the fact that the list of damages and/or damaged parts to the Plaintiff’s motorcycle is not proven at trial. 11. Firstly, reference is made to paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim in which the Plaintiff pleads as follows: “6. Perlanggaran tersebut telah menyebabkan Motosikal Plaintif mengalami kerosakan iaitu kangaroo bar kiri dan kanan bengkok, siren kiri dan kanan pecah, lampu becon kiri dan kana pecah, cover set kiri dan kanan pecah dan lain-lain kerosakan.” 12. Meanwhile, En Effandi Bin Abd Malek (SP1) who was the rider to the Plaintiff’s motorcycle at the time of accident had reported the damages to the motorcycle in his police report as follows: “…Saya tidak dapat mengawal m/sikal lalu terbabas diibahu Lebuhraya MEX tersebut. Kerosakan pada m/sikal kangaroo bar kiri dan kanan bengkok, siren kiri dan kanan pecah, lampu beaco light kiri kanan pecah, cover set kiri dan kanan pecah lain-lain kerosakan belum pasti…” 13. However, this Court began to notice a discrepancy as to which part of the motorcycle is damaged exactly, when the two evidences above is cross-referred to the statements of Encik Shahrinniswan Bin Abd Rahman from Bahagian Logistik IPKKL (SP3) and Pn Mizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad from the Finance Unit IPKKL (SP4). S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 14. In specific, reference is made to SP3's answer at question 6 of his Witness Statement (PSSP3) where he had stated that the document Pesanan Kerajaan was prepared to list out the repair works to be carried out on WQG7765. SP2 had also stated the list of damaged parts to be windshield, RHS Cowl, LHS Cowl, FR RHS Fireball, RR LHS Cowl and FR Upper Cowl. However, when SP3 is asked during cross-examination, SP3 confirms that the following parts that were stated in the Statement of Claim and in SP2’s police report, were not listed as the damaged parts in the Pesanan Kerajaan : a. Kangaroo bar (LH/RH); b. Messenger box; c. Siren (LH/RH); d. Beacon light (LH);and e. Coverset (LH/RH). 15. Similiarly, the witness Pn Mizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad (SP4) also confirms during cross-examination that there was no mention of any damage to parts such as kangaroo bar, messenger box, etc. In fact, SP4 went a step further by agreeing to the Defence counsel’s suggestion that there isn’t any list of damaged parts included in any of the Government documents uploaded in the ePerolehan system. For the record, the list of Government document extracted from the ePerolehan system is as follows: a. Pesanan Kerajaan (P5); b. Arahan Pembayaran (P6); c. Invois (P7); d. Pesanan Penghantaran (P8);and e. Nota Penerimaan Bekalan / Perkhidmatan (P9). S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 16. With reference to the testimonies and evidences stated under paragraph 11 until 15 of this Ground of Judgment, this Court notes that there is no same testimony or no same list adduced to explain what parts exactly of the motorcycle that needs to be repaired/replaced. The list of damaged parts stated in the Statement of Claim, report by SP1 differs from the testimonies given by SP3 and SP4. 17. On the issue of identification of damaged parts, this Court notes that the usual practice in these cases is for the Plaintiff to call a witness from Bahagian Workshop, Jabatan Kerja Raya whose task is to examine the damaged motorcycle and then prepare a list of parts that needs to be repaired / replaced. This witness was not present as a witness at trial. A copy of Borang/Senarai Kerosakan prepared by JKR was also not allowed to be admitted as reference in this trial due to non-compliance to pre-trial direction. 18. To counter this issue, the Plaintiff submits that a copy of the list of damaged parts was also provided in the “Senarai Kerosakan” and quotation provided by the workshop that had carried out the repair works, Gerbang Cahaya Resources Sdn Bhd. However, both documents were not tendered in Court. En Mohamad Zamri Bin Idris, a director of Gerbang Cahaya Resources Sdn Bhd, testified that his workshop had indeed carried out repair works as per requested by the Plaintiff. However, he was unable to tender a copy of the “Senarai Kerosakan” and quotation as his records were destroyed due to flooding. SP5 was also unable to give an oral explanation what works were carried out as the repair work had been carried out years ago. S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 19. Therefore, this Court finds that there was a failure on the Plaintiff to succinctly prove what are the damaged parts that needs to be replaced / repaired in order for them to be awarded damages to repair said parts. 20. Furthermore, this Court also notes that there is no breakdown of price for each of the spare parts that is allegedly needed to repair/replace the damaged parts on the motorcycle. What all of witness testimonies and the above Government documents shows is at best, the total of the cost of repair works that had been done. But the question of what spare parts, or what actual repair works that had been carried out on the motorcycle, plus how much cost per part is left unanswered. 21. Since this Court is unable to determine what parts are damaged and are in need of replacement / repair, how then will this Court determine how much the alleged replacement / repair is to cost? 22. For the record, this Court is satisfied that some level of repair work had indeed been carried out on the motorcycle (as stated by SP3, SP4 and SP5) and payment for works done has also been paid out. However the issue that remains a mystery to this Court is what repair works that had been done and whether the repair works or cost of spare parts that were used in the repair works are reasonable and had been carried out to the tee. No evidence or testimonies were adduced by Plaintiff that could elucidate on this matter. Therefore, this Court is unable to grant the special damages as pleaded by the Plaintiff. S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 23. Nevertheless putting aside the failure of the Plaintiff to sufficienly prove their claim for special damages, considering the fact that this Court had found the Defendants wholly liable for negligently causing the accident, this Court grants a sum RM10.00 as nominal damages for the Plaintiff. 24. Overall on the balance of probabilities, this Court decides to allow a part of the Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff. Case Details Magistrate : Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan Counsel for Plaintiff : Arina Azmin Binti Ahmad Marzuki, Federal Counsel Counsel for Defendant : Faliq Faizal and Ralizah (PDK), Messrs Murali B. Pillai & Associates Date of Decision : 8th December 2023 Date of Ground of Decision : 7th February 2024 S/N XPgnTfoH/kOsnu0NoJ2Eow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-62D-31-01/2024

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH AMINUDIN BIN AZIZ

PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 4 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan.

09/02/2024

Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5029d421-baa8-42f1-80a1-792b0ae61075&Inline=true

09/02/2024 14:47:54 CB-62D-31-01/2024 Kand. 9 S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N IdQpUKi68UKAoXkrCuYQdQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ca—62D—31—u1/2024 Kand. 9 . ,0;/22:4 4-4‘ :4 DALAM MAHKAMAH sssvsu DI TEMERLOH. DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA KES NO: cs—s2n.31.1/zrm ,~ DI ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA ...PENDAKWA DAN AMINUDDIN am AZIZ MTERTUDUH KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT, HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN 1. TEMERLOH TARIKH HIJKUMAN: 20 JANIJARI 2024 ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN cannnw mu N mapuxxaauxnaxncuvoan mm Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm FERMULAAN 1 Alasan penghakvmzn Inv dwsedlakan benkulan danpafla rayuan Tenuduh yang musk herpuas hzn Ierhadap kepmusan says yang 5 mbenxan pada 24.1.2024 dx rnana saya (elem mensabI|ksn Tenuuun an hawih Seklyen I5[1)(a) Am Dadah Berhallaya 1552 dan dvhukum pen] m salami a (man dx bawah soksyon 39C(1)(b) Aktu nmah Berbahaya 1952 dan dlperimahkan memalzm pengawasan AADK selama 2 mum se\epas menmam m hukuman m bawah semen :35 Am mush Eerbihaya 1952 2 Rayuan ada\ah (erhadap hukuman sahaja 3 Fenmih pemsmavaan ndak dnawakmkan PERTUDUHAN 4 Fzda 2412024. Terludun le\ah mhadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Temerloh flengan perluduhan sepem benkut gnaw >IVAV1AMI4A/Dwv!V>lALl nnm mam. H5: Page : sw mupumaumxmvuan -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW 2. used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 1n FAKTOR MITIGASI 24 D! sampmg nu says wga mempeflvmbangkan nInIgasITer\uduI1 Wa\au bzgaimanapun. saya max nampak sebarang alasan yang rnunasabah mkemukakan bag: membenarkan Tenuduh Ierus mengmangi kesmahan yang sama berulang xan. 25 Saya mendapau ml barmem sama sexan as: yang dvbenkan olsh Tenuduh max FENGAKUAN SALAH 2s. saya jug: menganmu klva pengzkuan sa\ah Tenuduh yang le\ah menyIma|kan masa din kaa plhak-pmak yang eembac 27 Walau bagarmanapun. pengakuan salah Tertuduh max amen memadw vakmr mMigas1 yang kual da\am xeaaaan an mana Tenuduh meming max mempunyal zpa—apz pemhelaan uka kes nu dubmarakan 2a Mahkamah Km menganmu pendekalan yang sama sehagalmana dalam kes TI: an Long 1/. Public Pm:-ecutor[2fl04] 4 cm 71 di mane VA Mukhlar Swdm HMR menyatakan '[1|Ammugh n 5 an zcoemafl Me n9waL1u>e|halan accused pevwn —who pluds gmuy cu an uvledme wnn whmh he has been chavged V snoum he awe/\ 3 msceunl an the senlzncethat wmm cuzwv V7114 M. u .y...Wmm yvzuln mum... N mupuMauKAaxwcuvuan ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm wa mum pm mhatwlsu have been Imposed an Inn naahebeen comm: me: a lnal‘ ye: mus ave m-pnnam aztoenhons la Hus aenemx mu: mean the Mlermes was (he Dangerous Drugs Ad 1952 .2 exceanons In Ims me- 29. Mahkamah Im se¥an'uInya merujuk kes up u. Amtuma/im lshak .5 saw Lagi [2013] 9 cm 559 m mama YA Mona Zawawl Safleh HMR |e¥ah menzalwkan pandangannya sebagalmana bervkuc ‘K21!Tuuaxdapamvpenrkawkaneanawa kssalahanyann mm... vs denaan mam adahh memvllun um K-uahhsn yang mums yang belch meuglnum kasnlamatzn din kuentelaman nsgara sen: xa..r..m. umum Dadamedah ausynnmn nebagal musuh nomhovsilu nsgava man Kerinan had: lamm ma Jus\eru Ma mahkamah memamhkan hukumnn yang nnvan mm um vs Iesalahan mu dvxelankan melalm mum“ sebavm xenus. sadan lemu Pfillmdungln ldwapmya mak dapzl mm" mud. many mmzl Dalam kn mmam. samm. V pp luupm) mzhknman msnegaskan The many or sentence can my be lo Mlecl zu Farhamenfs Inlenlmn mm mrmclrvn Var being m Dnssesslnn at a large imnum no my lnlm av nmmmx-a mummuslcommensumavnlmhnsamumxmlzlpassad cm In: pecmmvam Much ale :5 PESALAH TEGAR an Says jug: mempemmbangkan vaknor bahaw: semen kal Im bukanlzh kesalahan panama Terluduh Rekod sabman lampau Tenuduh wet yang dlkemukakan dw Mzhkamah menulwkkan (;cxmH1)2A >AM<AH\ul¢\Ifl1A1R .... mm sw muvumauxmxkmuvuan «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm bahawa Tenuuun mernpunyal 4 sannan Ialu nagu kesamhan yang sum: 31 Rekad sahnan lampau Tenudun IFS) menuruukkan banawa s Tenuuun mempakan Desalan (agar, masm behml msaman masxh nemm senk walaupun le\ah hemlang kall kelual masuk penjan. Kebanyakan kesalahan yang auaxuxan ‘uga adalah barman dengandadah w 32 oxen yang dermkwany sewajamya Tenuduh dikanakan hukuman yang ham 3: Berdasarkan kepada nas—nas an alas‘ saya berpuas nan hahawa hukuman penjzra s Iahun yang dlkanakan olen Mahkamah Im we adaml selan dengan kepuluszn Mahkamah masan m alas yang mengnennam Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman yang heral nagx keskes yang mehbalkan kepenimgan swam TIADA RASA INSAF DAN EERTAUEAT :4. Wa\aupun da1am mI|IgasInya, Terluduh menyatakan (e\ah kesal flan msal, «exam kewakuannya menuruukkan sebaluknya as Sekvvany: behau benar-benar msal. sudah lsnm hehau «max akzn 25 merlgulangw kesalahan yang same berwang kall Mn,..¢..¢. mAI4\\,|)0w|v1AuL W... xrum Pagen N muvumauxnaxwcuvuan um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m yaw .. mnuuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm 35 Mahkamah Im menquk Kes PP v. my Ah cneng [1973] 2 MLJ me an mana YA Abdocl CaderH |e\ah manyaxakan sepem benkm -rn. raipondafll also puls «mwm m m plea m mmgamn the cm mat he u employed and suppons an aged mama and fleobvomevs Ne should or course have ma-mm al ms belove wmrmllmg the awevwes ma nnl nnev, he 1: m iacl nrenam rvamshvp ansmn mm In wnsefluenues nl N5 awn 15!: mm : we-An vederale mm x mm mxzulun plzmuusly In Lmserve m m mmg. use um zn ulfnndal muuld not mm to exam 17! names; any sympalhy on an Ipie dual by laklna ma: slance m m. wmpeluuvs youm who kwea ms parents wnlh an are and men vluaea m mmaanon that he was an crum- z< KEPENTINGAN AwAM TERPELIHARA 37 saya percaya, kepemlngan awam akan Vebwh lelvelnhava uka Tenuduh masmgkan danpada masyarakzt dalam sualu Iempuh yang uaruang 3a Tempnh pememaraan yang paruang mg: amarapkan dapac membanlu Terluduh unluk melupakan naps dadah yang mungkm sudah memam dalah aagmg Tenuduh. 25 as Tempnh pemeruzvaan yang paruang mg: dmarapkan aapac memutuskan mmungan Terluduh dengan rakarnakan sepemenayan yang lam flan Tenuduh dapal men|a|Im program- progvam pemuhhan dengan aman can M. Wm. ». pa. u N muvuxnaauxnaxkrcuvuan um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm an Sermga selepas menglkun program-prngram yang nalan dlsusun semasa an penjarz nanll dzpat menglnsalkan Tenuauh flan rnunben peming kepada Terluduh un|uk bermuhzsabah dun dan s bsrubah Kepada ssarang insan yang Vebm baxk flan dapal menwnggmkan dadah segenunnya. 41 saya juga bevharap behau menganmn peluang semasa manyaxanx hukuman penjara unluk mempenayan pelbagal kemahxran m banaeaan yang holeh mgunakan unmk mencan rezekv yang ha\a| keuxa dubebaskan danpadz penyara nann PELUANG MEMEAIKI DIRI us 42 Semaga dengzn lempoh pemanyaman yang Vama ml rnarnben peluang kspida Tenuduh un|uk nanman dan memperhalkl um menpadl seovang wavganegara yang barguna dan menukav Cara hmuu kepada yang Vebm hawk 2» 43. D. penjara ‘uga, Temmun berpeluang unwk hehjar Hmu-nmu akadermk dan Hmu-Ilmu kemahxran kendm secara Ielsusun bersarna pegawavpegawai yang berlauhah 44 Adam: dvharapkan, selepas mnanaskan ganpaaa peruara nancn 25 Tenuduh Wu mm mm a new leaf dan membebaskan dm danpada najls dadah sens meruam seorang msan barn yang xemn produknl, menyayangn dan dusayangv oleh anggma masyavakal l!l>YV/B44 L M mm. swcwvynnvw. 1 mus n mupuxmaumaxkrcuvuan Nuns Snr1nVn:nhnrw\HI>e used m mm n. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dun-mm wa mum pm RUMUSAN 45. D1 akmr anallsns saya berpendapal hukuman yang le\ah s dumuhkan adalah menglkut Imdang—undang wa;ar dan munasabah sens aemnpal flengan kesalahan yang dllakukan men Terluduh Benarikh pada sub. Fumuarl 2024. Mamum-h Sesyen Temerlah, Pan:-g Dam! Makmm. (..,.m.,.,;. rl>ANA|A*4vDNvIWA1\Z 1:11 wm.....m men. sw muvumauxnaxncuvuan -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm P Ik-Plluk: Pendakwa Ray: diwa alell Puan TPR Wong Zhi Gian. s P-mmnmoalun Pundlkwl Ruyl, Temellnll. En Ahmad Zahid bin Ahu Hashim dzri vaax mewa .n...mm. |».v<u4\>4u>)>~|m~11 7-A1114 i:~munuus: mm w muvumauxnaxncuvoan -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm zu vcxwuuunw amuwa mmu Mm Ix HAKIBULAN oKmaE1<2n:3JAvI mam xuumn ms TENGAH mm. azxrmnr on u-man nammm smsnm mmvm wzmm mt, pmmr mnun mu. m mum meme mm. on mum wmm mums rwuu mxmun. man numum Mmuzmm Kumlm mm mwm Swami mmu RERBAHAVA mus MOKPDHNE" my mmm »¢w.;mm mu mum mm nu mm nun MIILAKUKAN mu xssaumw DWAWAII sax mum um mum seam-a.«u wsz mm mm: nmwummaawm szxsvm 3900 Ann uxc. sum. oumc/\ anznm snxsym mm mm own: HLRHAHAVA ms: HIIKIJMAN um mswlr xcsumw nevmmm nmuxum paw/um SLLAMA nwou 1l|7AK xuxmc nsmmuv my» mm u:nm um nnmuw mm nmmmm umummn sum nmk mam mm 4;; ssrunw um PENGAWASAN nmx mum zm-mu mm nmx MELEBIHA 2 msuw PENGAKUAN 5 Perluduhan an alas lelah amacakan derlgzn Ierang dan piss kepada Terluduh dalam Eahasa Malaysia yang mlahamx alen Tanuduh. 6 Tarluuuh dengan sukarels mengaku bevsalah kc alas perluduhan lersebul zuznxwnn ........u=m......u I47/N14 :7-umnnssr Page] sm muvumauxnaxmuvuau mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 1 Mahkamah se\erusnya menerangkan sum dan akrbat pengakuan sedan lersebm dan pemnmkan hukuman yang baleh dlkenakan ks alas Terluduh 5 e Terluduh memahaml penerangan Mahkamah dan mzsih mengaku salah ke eras perluduhan‘ dan laham swan flan ax-nax pengakuanrlyi nu RINGKASAN FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN 9 Selerusnya, Pegawal Fsndakwa |erpe\a;ar mengemukakan nngkasan Vakta kes pzndakwaan 1n Rmgkasan izklz kes Ielah dmacakan aan unerangkan kepada M Tenuaun me\aIuI jurubahasa Mahkzmah dan msankan sebagaw new 11 Rmgkasan vakca kes kemumannya dwandakan sebagan eksmm P1 10 EKSHIEIY-EKSHIEIT 12. Selerusnya‘ Twmbalan Pendakwa Rzya |erpe\z]zrmengemuKakan ekshnhnekshxhxl seperli bankur :5 (ap Mengkuang nepan No 346/2023 sehzgzx F2 (K7) Tnang Repon N1: 351 512023 sebagal P3 g.,.,..m. .....4...‘.m.~... 14m:v:4 sw<u)\Ixmz r. . IN muvuxmaumaxwcuvuan -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 1:7 Lapovan palolagu sebagax P4 — dnuruukkan dan mam (.1) 4 keplng gambav halo! min sabagax F5A»D - mmrwkkan flan dlakul. (e) Rekod Pusil Penaanaran Pemenayah wbzgar P6 — s umacakan dan mam RAVUAN TERTUEIUH 13 Mankamah setemsnya mendengar rayuin flanpada Tenudun In IA Terluduh me\alm peguam VBGK, da\am vayuannya menyaxakan (a) on berusxa 52 lahun my om bekena sebagaw buruh ladang dengan pendapalan Rmuousenuxan ws (c) on sudah berkzhwm, menanggung seovang men earn 5 nrang anak (.1) Fengakuan salah le\ah umalkan masa dan kos pendakwaan (e) OKTkasaIdan|nsa1serIaber[an] dakulangwkesalahanlagl (r) Mahkamah penu wmbangi kepenungan awam dengan zo kspanllngan on sendln dengan mengenakan hukuman yang rmmma Kevana secara langsungnya pemara yang rmruma akan benkan pengqaran dan peluang yang kedua kepada 0K1 unzuk kemuau Kepada masyanaxax dalam Keadian yang normal (9; on memahnn hukumin pemara rmmma ;...»...v.. Awvnum/nnmlmuu mu. (wmAnMl§/ Fag-:5 IN muvumaumaxkmuvuan -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm HUJAH PEMBERATAN OLEN PEGAWAI FENDAKWA 15 Twmhalan F-‘endakwa Raya lerpelapr berhujzh (a) Pnhun hukuman seumpal ks 3155 on. (b) Kepermngan awam me\eb|m kepen||ngan on (c) In: merupakan kesalahan kenma on d\ bawah 5 15(1) ADE 1952 (.1) Pnhon pemmhangkan Kekerapan kes a. bawah s. 390 ADE 1952 yang zaenaku dl Negev: Pahang m (e) Pom-n hukuman mkna danpada Iankh (angkap 15102023 kerana on mreman darn lankh |angkap SABITAN vs 15. Setelah mendengar pengakuan sa\ah Yenudun (anpa syaral‘ menganalisa Vakla kes. meneml eksmbwt-eksmbul yang Celah mxemuxaxan an hadapan Mahkamah‘ Mahkamah menenmz pengakuan salah Terluduh ks alas pefluduhan dan mensahflkan Temmuh sehagaumana penuduhan HUKUMAN 17. Se|e\ah menimbang rayuan Terluduh‘ man pemberalzn Twmhalarv Pandakwa Rays‘ Mahkamah menglmkum Tenuduh zs dsngan hukuman sepem beukm _ cnz>.nvuu ».m..m..w...m zvmun w.,mm. nus IN muvuxmaumaxwcuvuan -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm OKT dmukum vemara selzma a mm. m bawah Selxsyon ascmm) Akla Dzdah Earl-aahayu 1552 flan mpennxanxan rnen]a\am pengawasan AADK selama 2 lallun sdepas merualaru hukuman dw bawah Seksyen 335 Am umah Eerbzhaya 1:52 ALASAN ATAS HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUTUSKAN FRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG DALAM MENGHUKUM m 15 Pnnsup undzngamdang berhuhung hukuman (e\ah .eIas flan mama». Pertlmbangan mama rnengenaw hukuman ml se\aIn laklnwlaktm lam ada\ah Iaklor kepentmgan awam m samplng rlu. vakxov kepenlmgan awam ml pevlu dumbangw dengan vakcor m Igasi Terluduh 19 Eenepalan an slni unluk an xrnbas Kembah pznduan menghukum yang mnyanaxan da\am kes Public Pmucmo: v. Loo Choon Fafl[19‘/6] 2 MLJ 259 yang mengelaskan seperll benkm ‘One ul me mum cmmdevatmns m m assessmenl ac senlenoe Vs of mum: me uuaqmn m bum: waves! On lms poml u need only mm: a passage mm me |udgmenl av Hxlbery J m Rex V »<.m4n John nan as iaflowsr m decwdvng me apnmhrmle senlnnci a cum! mama zrways he gumea by uenam conswderatmns Tm ml and lovemoil rs me gum mlarssl The cnmmal Vaw .; pubhdy enimced‘ nu! nmy mm me gum» m punishing cnme but also m the 7&4 .».v.«.um.,‘. All 2-mu F1g»7 N mupumaumxmvuan mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm haul nfpvwannnq m A placer sentence‘ mm .n public. news! In: mun mleresl .n Iwc whys n mly nah! amen wno rmqhlbe hemmed m kyulma u Ieuvlmg Ia oilaveaiy many an lhesupwsllmn Huhlllve uflendanscaugmarld 5 mm: Iruuxlwca «n: plmlshmenl Ml! be neghjwe Such a senlznce mly also darn me pamcuhr cnmmal «mm cummmmg a crime again or Induce mm In mm mm a cnmmal in an nonesx Me The pubh: mam. _ mdaed mm, and best served. .1 (he aflender n. Induced In mm m Vmm alumna! my: to huncsl lwmg Om law am nu!‘ Ihevelnre. fix ma umanua la! a pamcmal mine‘ but fixes a maximum lenlancn and leaves m lo the coun Io demde mm mnm ms mmnunn me appmvflam senlelvue om aacn cnmIna\ m ma palllculav amumslanuts at am use Nm u umy .n realm to each cnme Imlm mgud lo each cnmmil‘ the com has In: mm imam: dulylu daufle wr-emeua he ‘amen! or ssvsm‘ Pzesmenls ind Mzgwslratas ave Mien Inchned qune namrafly la ba :1uIv»sympzIVreI1c cu the accused Hus .. . m>mu\ 2a vsyumlogbcal mcnon m we smmlmn m vmvm an. lundy muses Is seen Vining an army Mwvm-Hus with 2umorI|y The mmaanan suhmmed by x onnvuflgd pelwn mu am: namuny hung up pmbbms av mnny havdslup and me Mher usual pmblem! cl Ivmg In such a swluahon nne coun: mlgm pemavs find n dnlficuu nu mm» as m what senlznce snmm b mpnud :0 «nu ma wnvlclsd periou may not he mnher mmnm ml)! aaamm: namsmp ms 15 my new .. . wvung lppmach rne toned appmach .5 In sum . b-Vina. ax va as pass4b\:‘ belween me mleruls ul me nublxc and me mlevesm cl the m accused mm Gnddam LCJ Vn Rex V smnanawm altered some good aawc: wnen he saM— ,.....‘..... .........n..m......u >«wo:< 5x'<mAnan:z Pa:->8 sm muvumauxmxkmuvuau mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nnmnmy mm: dun-mm VII munc pm Theludge musl cmsmerme mhevesb ufluslme as we?! 1: me vrueveslx cl me pnsmlets u .5 (an altar: nawl m lhauwhl m seemslu hamnugm manna mlevetls ulwwea meam nmy the Inleveslx nflhu pnwners" BUDI BICARA 20 serain nu. say: juga mengamnu makvum hahawa undangrundang membenkan bum mcara sepenuhnya kepada hahm mcaua unluk H; menenlukan hukuman yang sepammya duamhkan ke alas Dasalah ledam kuasa Im hendsldah dflaksanakan secara am: flan szksama se\avas dengan prinswp undang-undang hemubung nukuman I5 21 Pnnsip W dInya|akan dengan Jena: dalam kes PP v. Jlfa bin Baud [1551] 1 ms 25, [1951] 1 MLJ 315. an mzna Hakim Morumeu Azmu (pada mesa nu) menggarlskan pnnsip-prlnswp hukuman yang sepamnya sehigalmana bankul: ‘A ‘seniance awarding «a um means that 0:: umamz mull nod zn amy ha wnmn m. ambn 0! m. punlihabk semen‘ mu u must aka :2. assented and passed -n aocovdanoe wlm eszannsneu lumual plmmp\es In assessmgsenlence‘ mm mm ma\n1acIors to be wnsxdeved .5 whelrver me cam/vcted person ‘s 3 mt nflender u ‘s «K Hus Durvvse um belure naxsmg sgmeuua a Mngwsinle . required «a nil! luv evidence or wnluvmahon N muvuxnaauxnaxkrcuvuan um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm venavdmv Ihe hackweund anxecadanl and sharing ml me accused Wheve me canmchd nlvmn has nmwnus vecums anfl mamas mum is owned m. cmm must mnildnv whvther ma client: nv uflencel cnmmmzd pmvmusly wavn cl mm name 2; me am: wm. mm. he -n pvesamry merged rm.» mun must then mum: me iemervces Imposed m mamevmusmvmns can mum nflenaes m determine whelhgv Ihey hive run any uexmm even an mm Wheve he .; «mm m no : vemmenx auemy luv .3 mm we av ufilnoss (Mn n 1: m in: mtawu nl m ....u.2 Ina! . delavlenl samance snoula be passed and‘ m such . cast nlzssmem ave axupmonax mroumslancevi me warmly nature or value at me suBpeI:l—n-miter ov me oflame mm mm he \s cunenflymamed can very rarely mnsnm a mmanww hum lemnhasws Maori)’ KESALAHAN SERIIJS 22 Kembah kepada kes lerhadap Terluduh m say: mengambll maldum bahawa kesalahan yang auakukan uleh Terluduh adalah 20 suaru kesalaharl yang senus dan dlpandang beral nleh Pammen yang meneiapkan hukuman pemara mmima 5 lahun hingga 7 Iahun dan sebalan holeh sampan 3 sebaun 23 Femrvlukan hukuman yang beret nu menumuxxan bahaw: Is kesalahan yang dllakukan men Terluduh adalah serlus ;..4»....:.,. ».m.m...m.~.« !<vr:14 S.-uu.z..m Pagan) sw muvuxmauxnaxxrcuvuan um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CB-62D-334-12/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH ARASU A/L VENUGOPAL @ VELUGOPAL

PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 3 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan.

09/02/2024

Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7f457c4d-0adb-4daf-ae2c-5ee77ca0d154&Inline=true

09/02/2024 14:52:06 CB-62D-334-12/2023 Kand. 13 S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TXxFf9sKr02uLF7nfKDRVA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ca—s2D—33a—12/2u23 DALAM MAHKAMAH sssvsu nu YEMERLOH, DALAM NEGERI PANANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAVSIA KES No: ca-520434.12/1023 s DI ANTARA PEMDAKWA RAVA ...PENoAKwA DAN ARASU A/I. VENUGUFAL @ VELUGOPAL ...YERYUDUM H KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT. HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESVEN 1. TEMERLOH TARIKH HUKUMAN: 22 DISEMBER 2023 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN mu...“ »,..m.m.,w_m....,.m. ,._. \wr\mIIuw$:>'i)1BI sw rx.m;mmmmum mm Sum INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm FERMULAAII 1 Nasan penghaklman my msemaxan benkulan danpada rayuan Tenuduh yang max berpuas nan lemadap kepulusan siya yang umenkan Dada 22.12.2023 a. mans saya |e|ah mensamnkan Terluduh m bawah Snksyon csmm ma Dudah Berhallaya I952 dan dmukum penjm selzmz a mum mulaw danpadz cam: 2n.9.2o2a darn 2 seblnan an bawah seksyen J5C(I](b) Akin mam Eerhlllaya 1952 dzn dlpenmahkan Dengawasan AADK se\ama 2 mum selepas memalam hukuman an bawah Sekayen sea Aktz Dzdzh Berbahayi 1952 memalam 2 Rayuan adalah |emadap hukuman sahqz 3 Pennlah pemenjaraan wax dnawakuflxan PERTUDUHAN 4 pm 21122023, Terluduh lelah umadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Temefluh dengan perluduhan sepem henkut pnzrunumm rmH.\\w. Kw!‘ MM 20 HAxmu|AN srvrwnrn 1()l3,JAM u-nm K|‘RANG mm PA(:I.BEl<1EMPAI uu>a1.«ans,amcum s[AsArAN xzmmx mxxom usu rmuw mzxm mu. m mum mm/unazm numumuzcnummm mxuu.m<Muu mm mmpm MrwaI:R|KA\‘ arm» um xmu swam mmm N rx.m;mmmn<u»zvA um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 25. Say: menuapau mmgasl yang dnberlkan oleh Tenufluh max bermenl sama sekan PENGAKUAN SALAH 25. save wga mengamml klra pengakuan salah Terluduh yang Ielah menumzlkzn mesa den ms pmax-pmax yang |embat 27 Wa\au bagalmanapuny pengakuan salan Terluduh «max boleh merqaw laklor mtligasl yang kuat dalam keadaan an mana Tenumm memang miak mempunyaw apaapa pembe\aan pka kes ml mbwaukan 25 Mahkamah ml mengamhn pendskalan yang sama seoagavnana damn kes Tia Ah Long y. Public Pmsacuh-ar[20U4] 4 cu 17 m mana YA Mokmar Sldln HMR menyalakan ‘In mm-mu :1 Vs an aooeunea mle nfpiamce mat an acnusad assay. 7 ma pleads umlly In an enema mm Much he has been Izhalged mm In given 2 ducoum an we aannenca um mm mamsanava beanlmpused unmm has n. hezncunwflad mar a mzl. ym an... 2.. nnpanam sxnapimns In om gmam Mu maeea, Ihe oiiewes under me Danpemus Dual An 1952 ave exoebnons m (ms mle‘ 29 Mankaman ml savamulnya msrujuk kes PP v. Abdul Naum /ahak 4 saw Lagi [2013] 9 cm 559 m mzna VA Mnhd Zawaw: sauen HMR Ielah menzalwkan pandangannya sebagaxmana benkm (£42-n)4w1.mz1 PP|wNAIl-QMAVVEVI/k0>r~k./EH/@¢M mm. s:'KmAI:-|as1Pagel1 N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKuRvA ma s.nn ...m.mm be used m yaw ma mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm ‘[2111-cak dzpfiiumennkarkan Dahzwakssahhanyind ‘xemauan denwan dadah aaaxan mempakan mu kenalahan yang sews vans boleh menaancam keselnmavan flan mememman nefiara sen: kzsmavan umum mm Ielah dusylmavkan sebavax musuh : nmubursmunegl aleh xmym pad: u.>m.. 1553 Juslem. pk: mahkamsh mimslmkan lmkuman yzng rmgin kapndx um mauanan vans u-mapxan me\aIu\ Parllmen wbagau sews‘ sudah llnw Demndungan myanmya max dine! «mum mm wan! um. Dalam ken Vusma/In Samsudm y FF 10 (smart) mahklmah meneanskan Yhe seveuly cl serllznce can my be in veiled p.m.m.m Imammn that mlvvlflmn luv bsmq m wsumn of a was amour-I 07 am term at vvommlad dtvgs mun wmmensmue mm the sentence 1» be name Is on me Dec-Aha: Incls oi mm case‘ PESALAH TEGAR so Saya juga memperlimhangkan laklm bahawa sabflan x zu bukamah kesalahan panama Tenuduh Rakod sabnan Iimpau Tenuduh (P5) yang dikemukakan dx Mzhkamah menunjukkan bahawa Tenuduh mempunym 3 samnan Varu bagv kasawahan yang sama 25 31 Rekod sabnan lampau Tenuduh menuruukkan bahawa Terluduh merupakan pesaxah legar‘ masm belum msav dan mam belum serik wedaupun Ielah beruxang kah keluar masuk pevuara. Semua xesawanan yang mlakukan yuga adalah berkadan denqan dadah W :2 sw YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 32 Oleh yang demlklany sewa.amya Temmun dxkenakan hukuman yang berat as Beraasarkan kepada nas-nas an mas, saya berpuas nan nanawa 5 nnkmnan peruava s lahun dzn 2 sehatzn yang mxenakan oleh Mankaman um auarah semi dengan kepulusan Mahkamah Alasan m axaa yang menghendakl Mahkamzh mengenakan hukuman yang berae nagx kes-kes yang melunawan kepemlngan awam Hukuman peruava 5 12mm dan 2 sanacan adalah wa.ar m marnandangkan om mempunyav 3 sabnan Vampau bagx kesakahan yang sama sebemm .n. TIADA RAsA INSAF um asnnuan 15 34 Walaupun da\am mmgaswnyay Terluduh menyalakan telah kesal dan msal, [slam kelakuannya menunjukkan sebalxknyi 35 Sekiranya behau benar—benar insav, sudan Ientu bellau max axan msngulangl kesalahan yang sama bevulang kah as. Mahkamah Im mevujuk kes PP V4 Tah An Cheng [1975] 2 MLJ 155 m mana YA Abdmfl Carter H |e\ah menya|akan sepem henk The mponaam am pm: lnrwlm .n N: mu m mmgalmn me :5 (ad um ha 15 emphyad lml supwfl: In lged maths! and steobmthers He should or course have |hmAgM ul ms belave wnnnnng me eifemes and nm am I1: \s m lam pleading cnunnxuzmj ,.....4nmma.‘..yaum... Wm :19: mam N YxxFmsKn1zuLnnrKDRvA ma saw ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: m.u.n wa mum puns! rvavdimp ansmg «nun me oonuquencns av ms awn an: and I wound rename wnal u had oocanon pveanusny m absent: m analhev cnse max an erlender snaum no! man «a exzns ov harness any symnanny on an ms: mm try Iakmfi max azanoe or the xmvfluuus mm whu kmad ms pnrams mm an us and (hen pmadad .n mmnxllun uunn wu an mphan' KEFENYINGAN AWAM TERPELJHARA 37. 33 39 40 saya psrcaya. Kepantmgan awam akan leblh (erpehhari Ma Termduh diasmgkan danpada masyarakal dalam sualu tempoh yang pamang Tempon pemeruaraan yang panpng mga dmaraykan flapal membanm Terluduh un|uk melupakan najls dadah yang mungkln a-man meluadl damn dagmg rammn Tempah pemeruaraan yang panyang Inga dmlvlpkan dapal hubungan Terluduh dengan Iakarrvakan sepemenayah yang lawn dan Tenuduh dapal memalam progvim» program pemuhhan dengan aman memuluskan Semaga se\epas rnenglkuh program-plcgvam yang (e\ah msusun sernasa dw pemara nanu dapal mengmsalkan Tenuduh dan membarl peluang kapada Tanudun umuk berrmmasabah dun dan bembah kepada aamang mszn yang lebm hawk flan dapal memnggalkan dadah sepenunnya I-mwuus«mvrwm mrnnrnnu nu/um Uumnn v:xPa;=.<u N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA Nuns a.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. annnnn mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm 41. Says wga bemarap belllu mengambvl pamang semasa meruaiam hukuman penjara Imtuk mempe\a‘an pehzagax kemahwan nerraeaan yang bolen dvgunakan unluk mencan vezekl yang ha\a! kaxika mbebaskan darlpada penjara nanll PELUANG MEMBAIKI DIRI 42. sernoga dengan (empnh pemerualaan yang Vamz Im member: pemang kepada Tsnuduh unmk herubah aan memperhilkw dun’ meruadl seclang warganegara yang berguna dan menuksr cars nnmp xepaaa yang Iebm balk 4: Di penjara ‘ugay Tertuduh bsrpeluang unmk bewayar nmu—un-u axaaannx din Ilmu-Ilmu kemamran kandm secara tersusun bevsama pegawa\—pegzwa| yang benaunan Auawan cnnarapxan, sekzpas dmebaskan danpada penya.-a nannn Tenuduh ‘mu mm mm a new leaf den membebzskan din davipada nans dadzh sena memadv seurang msan barn yang Islam 20 pmauknv, menyayangx din dwssyangl oxen :nggo|a masyaraka| Rulausm 45. D: aknn anansus, saya berpendapat hukumzn yang lelah dualuhkan adalzh menglkm unaang-unuang, wajar dan c..m,,.m, »..y.....g~.Mw...mm».. mm mn......n,n>;;us syn rx.m;mmnnn<u»zvn Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; .. nrimruflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum wrm munasabah ssna sehmpa\ dengan kssmahan yang dllakukan meh Terluduh Eonarlkh pad; arm. Fehmari 2024. Mahkamah Sasyen Temerloh, Pahang Damn Mukmur‘ Pvhak-Pihak: Pnndakwa Ray: dlwaklll clan Fuan TPR Ar-duul Azw: binli KAmaru|Anuzr zn Pnmm nmtunn Pan-ukwu Ruyu, Terllerlah. En Khziml Anna! bin Ahu Haszn Ashaa1irnew2kil|T:m|dulI. .w..m~. .mm.= -Lu/ufln 1xv11n1> mm. Mug. I5 sw rx.m;xmzumnmum -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm snxsamu news -woxrznm. l\l ADALAH KLSALAHAN mu xzzww mm m mmu mm Mzuxuux: snu xcsxunm mmwm sm mum um. mom BICKEAHAVA V152 am 301 m |J1Hw.LM nvmmu srxsvm wcu; mm ww: smu mum nrwm smvw sax-xum<u nnmu nrrumu/M N52 nmumn mm DYSABITKESALAHAN l[E\DAkLAHDlHUkU\1 FENIAKA sum“ mmaon nmx ma/mu rs) mum on nmx uznm mm m m mmw rm HENDAKI AH nnxzmmm snm nmx Ltam mm m srnmw mm PwGA\w\sAV mun KURAN * 2 mum I)/w YIDAK Mrvrmm Izmulx. PENGAKUAN 5 Pertumman m alas lelah dlbacakan dengan Ierang dan was kapida Tanuduh dakam Eahasa Tamfl yang dflahaml men Tenuduh za 6 Tenuduh dengzn sukarela mengaku bersalah ke alas nenuaunan (ersebul. 7 Mihkamah ssleruwlya manevangkan sflai den aklbal pengakuan salah lersebuldan perumukan hukuman yang bo\eh dlkenakan ke :5 alas Tenuduh ¢..mW..., .,........Mwm.mm... xwmvn sxIcmAI>I\v:1P2g<3 sw YxxFmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm a Tenuduh memahaml penerangan Mahkamah aan maslh mengaku salah ke alas penuduhan‘ dan (aham sifat dan zkmat pengakuannya ||u RINGKASAN FAKTA KES FENDAKWAAN 9 secemsnya, nmnaran Fendakwz Raya (evpelmar msngemuxakan nngkasan Iakla kes vendakwaan H) 10 Rmgkasan fakla kes lelah dwbacakan dan dnerangkzn kepada Tertuduh melahn guruhahasa Tamv Mahkamah din dwsahkan sebagal belul 11 Rlngkasan (akta kes kamudlinnya uwanaakan sehagal ekshibxl I5 P1 EKSH|B|T—EKSHlB|T 12 Selelusnya, Tlmbalan Fendakwz Raya Ielpelajar mengemukakan 20 ekshmn-sksmbvl sepem bsnkul (a) Tnang Repurl N 125/2023 sebagax F2 ([1) Tnang Reparl No 3135/2023 sebagaw P3 (ch Lapovan palolugu sebagax P4 — auumuxkan can dlakw s (a) Rekad Pusal Pendaflaran Pemenayah sebagai P5 — dnbacakan aan mam (;u2v1u\1mo:7 —.m..ww..W....v....m».. uvnvzl ;m.u»...;.m.; sw rx.m;mmmn<u»zvA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (ep 4 kepmg gambar new unn sebagav FSA-D — cmumukkan um mam RAVUAN Tsnumm 13 Mahkamah selemsnya mendengzv myuan flanpada Terluduh 14 Terluduh melaluv peguam vaex, dalam rayuannya menyatakan. (at on berusla 44 (shun m (h) old bekeqa sebagaw pemolong buah sawu dengan nenaapacsn RM! ‘ooo sebman. (C) OKT sudah berkahwm‘ menanggung seomng Isten din seorang anak yang masm belzgav (<1) Pengakuan salah celan jlmalkan mass dan kos pendakwaan 15 (e) on less! dan Insafsenz beqann hdak ulangl kesa\ahan Wag! ll) OKT penanggung mama Keluarga (g) on ada penyakfl asma my OKT memohun nukuman peruara mnuma bsrmwa dam tankh (angkap dan sehalan yang mwma zo HUJAH PEMEERATAN OLEH PEGAWAI psunmwa 15 nmnalan Pendakwa Raya lerpemar bemwah 15) Pnhon nukuman se(Impa\ beruemuk pengajaran agar em 25 hdak lag: mengmangi keszdahan yang sama pada masa hadavan 041:3)“:-nn ruwmxnsq/Axvin/w>nu.vluo<.a>u nurmv :1~c(nAI>Im1 Erzges aw YxxmsKmzuLnnrKuRvA -ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Pohnn hukuman yang dzpzt hen pengqaran kepada on flan masyarakax lam an luar sana agav «oak xenenak da\am gEja\a penaglhan dadah (cl Fohan amhu kw: rekcd simian Ian-pan ow sebanyak 3 hall 5 dibawahs15(1)(a)ADB1952 (up Kepenlmgan swam adalan maleblm kepermngan on (e) OKT diremzn dan (znkh |angkzp mm 20 9 2023 suamu m 15 Setelah mendengar pengakuan salzh Telluduh lanpa syarat. menganahsa ‘Iakla kes‘ menelm ekshnbll-eksmbn yang leiah mkemukakan m hadapan Mahkamah, Mahkzmah menenma pengakuan salah Yermduh ke alas psrtuduhan dan mensamxan ls Tenuduh sebagalmana perluduhan HLIKUMAN 17. Selelah memmbang rayuan Terluduh‘ mush pembeman In TImha\an Pendakwa Raya‘ Mahkamah menghukum Tenuduh dengan hukuman seperll benkm on dmukum peruava se\ama s mum mmaw 20.5.2023 den 2 sehatan an bawah Seksyell 39C(1)(b) Akin Dadah Bcrbahaya 1952 den aupenmankan merualam pengawasan AADK se\ama 1 mum se\epas merualam hukuman dw bawah Seksyen use Akla Dadah Eerhahay: 1952 cnznnaxzaeu ..W....;u._mw...mw.. mm xMmA|7n~:1V:gea sw rx.m;mmmn<um -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm ALASAN ATA5 HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUTUSKAN PRIMSIP IJNDANG-UNDANG mum MENGNUKUM 5 15 Pnnslp unnang-undang bemubung hukuman Ielah jelas dan manlap Pemmbangan mam: mengenau hukuman ml se\aIn vakxouakm lam adadah Iakxov kepenlmgan awam D: samplng nu, Vaklor kepenlmgan awam Im perlu dumbangw flengan vakxor mwigasi Tenuduh we aenepauan an sml unluk di Imbas kembah panduan menghukum yang mnyavakan dalam kes Public Pmsecular v. Loo Choon Fanlmel 2 MLJ 259 Van: merllelaskan sewn benkut ‘On: no the mam cnnswderzlmnl vn Ina uszssmem 04 senlence u ul cuulse ms nuuhun :11‘ pm: xmmut On this am u need onw qume a Fissaga lvom the wdgment cl Hnbaly J m Rex V Ksnrwm ./aim sau aa iofluws — :u ‘M aeudma me aPDropna|e semenoe a cam! muuld away: be named by cerlam mnsrdernhans Tnefirsland umemosa ws me name mines! The ctimmal xaw ws Duhlhsly enlcvoed‘ rum nmy war. In: ahgeul M pumsmng crime. am an m me maps no prevenlmg n A pmplv senlnnca. hissed m pm: 2s mm me Dubhc uneven M1 M0 way: u may delat mhers who mam betemuled to ny cnme aa seammg In ailarazxy mam math: supwsman (ha! vllhe Mendel wscaughl and broughl m mshce. Ine p1mIshmen|wflIbe negxwe Such 3 “Mann: may Ibo flelev we psmculm alumina! «mm xyvhlrn ~‘,NvnnASuAAv(MAd .m...... mvnnzx um... .31 F237 N YxxFmsKn1zuLnnrKDRvA ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm oumrmllmsl a cum: aaim. ul mane: mm to mm mm a mmmal la in nanesl me The pm: \meIes\ Vs mused served am besl served. iv me mum ‘a "mean In mm «mm anmmax way! «a mmax| Vnmlg Om Ilw does nut. s mecelurz. nx ms sentence my a pamcmal crime‘ an fixes a maxmm unlance and was n lo ma court lo «mas wna: us, wnmn It-a maximum. me avhmrmatae senlence hr each nnmlrm m me namcular chcumslanaes at each use Nm mum veqard In each mm: mu m mam m each cnmmnl m lheawnMsmengmnndllzdulylndactdnwhalharkube ramam nv revere’ Pvasrdam: am Magmmaa a. Man Inchmd quite nanmauy Io be vvauymvilheuc to live aamsa Tms m a nurrna\ hsychokzglcal veuuon m the suuamn m mm Ihe many 15 nccused 15 seen (saw an array atvmnesses wuh mnhonly ma rmlxg-lwn submmed by a carwuned palsun mu llw rmrmifly bring up pmmemt ow famny havdsmp and the ulnar uiua\ pvuhhms nl lwmg In such a snuauan the wane mam pemaps mm 1: menu «a dsade as to what semence should he Vmposed In so that me covwmled versan may nal he mm. huldened mm aaamanax hands 1:... mrvecl nnnvubch .a m xlnka a hlmnua a. 1:! aa vuunhm nanwaan the Interest: m ma publxc and ma mlevvsts m we hound Lam Goddard LCJ In Rex v smnatmm. oilered 25 someueodadwoe whenhes:>d— we M0512 mus! wwsxuet me Inlemsu onuslme as wefl as me vmetesls nl ma pnsmver: u .a (nu anan nvwidiys Yms .a my m. is a wmna iflbmicn lhauahl, m seems m be Ihcuglm Irmlne mheresl: nhullme mean) amyml Inlnvuts uflha winners BUDI BICARA cnabnmzxn ...m....Wma.a.a.maaa... ...m., ;1~(H|.\nnI~§1l7iReB sm YxxmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA “Nair am.‘ n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 w my a. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm zo Selam nu, saya .uga mengambll maklum bahawa unaang-unaang membenkan bud: blcara sepenuhnya kepada haklm bmara uruuk rnsnamukan nukuman yang sepalmnya dualuhkan ke alas 5 pesaxan lelapw kuasa m1 hendaklah dflaksanzkan secava aun dan saksama selalas dengan Prinmp undangdmdang belhubung nukuman 21 Pnnslp ml dlnyalakan dengan Aelas dalam kes as V. Jlh bin m mm: [1931] 1 ms 25‘ [1951] 1 MLJ 315. a. man: Hakim Mohamed Azmi (pads masa VIM) mengganskan pnnslp-pllnslp rmkuman yang sspamlnya sebagalmana benkm ‘A ‘senlvnce aconmmq In 1:»! main: max 1n: aamervue mus! no: why he wllmn me ambul 0! ms pumshalfls :ec1mn. mu 11 mm 1: 315° he assessnd and passed -n acwmance wlm estzbluhad ludmalnrvnmvles 1n assessmg senxenon one n! we rnamfadolx 1.: be oansmamfl 1: whemer Ihe umwmled person 15 : fivsl nflendel 11. [av ms pawns: mm heme passmi sen1en=e1 a Magnbale 1; veqmrad m can our ewdanne ur Inlavmalmn zu Isgammg (ha badgmund‘ anlscndam and Izhavaclal av me amused Wheve me cmwmled veuson has Nevlous rectum: mud adnms mem as auvvecl we own musl aonsmu whemel me nrflunca or Mltnces cammnled D1e»4mus\y wave 91 stmflar name .5 1n. an: Mm which in Is Dleienlly unnamed The com! mus! 25 men mlmdsrlhe semancu Imnnxed .n ma vvzvmuscnnvscmns m.m.1...., ...wn...;1...1.n.w..mwa«.. zzwwx ..:m.~1 n YxxmsKn1zuLnmKDRvA Nuns s.n.1 In-v1hnrw\H be used w my 1.. nnnmun mm: dun-mm wa nnum pm lav svmnm offence: to delemlme memeq may have hafl nnv flalnnunl anaax an nnn Wnlm ha 1: found In be 2 perxmam oflanflev ran a wvmav -we 0! Mver-oei. «nan n V; In (he mleveil 471 wines that a datelvenl semenoe snomu be passed ana, m such a case unlass there are exaeolmnnlalcumslances meauanmy name avvalue anne suh1eI:1~ma\lel Mme meme wllh which he n cunenlly umgea can very lively urmslllule . mmgahng fadur mnnnana mad)‘ H) KESALAHAN SERIUS 22. Ksmhall kepaaa Kas (avhadau Tenuduh mu. saya mengimbn maklum ballawa kesalahan yang mlakukan aleh Tenuduh ada\ah sualu kesamhan yang senus can mpamung bera! oleh Pammen Is yang menelapkan hukuman penjara Irwuma 5 tahun ningga 7 (ahun dan seba|an wen sampal 3 sebalan 23 Perunlukan hukuman yang beta! nu menunjukkan bahawa kesmahan yang anakukan oleh Tenuduh adalah senus FAKTOR MWIGASI 2A Dv samplng nu saya yuga mampemmbangkan mmgasx Tenuduh Walau nagannanapun, saya hdak nampzk sebzrang a\asan yang zs munasahah mkemukakan bagl membenarkan Tenuaun (ems mengmang. kesalahan yang sama bemlang kah war .n. Wnwr-Ar!-\w~\vrwawM yam nvnm) :1mnnI>ImzP:1guI0 N YxxFmsKmzuLnmKDRvA Nuns a.nn n-nhnrwm be used w my a. annnnn mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CA-42S-6-09/2022

PERAYU 1. ) MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI 2. ) Azreen Binti Junysar RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Kedua-dua Perayu telah disabitkan oleh HMS dengan pertuduhan di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 yang di baca bersama s. 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Kedua-dua Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 8 tahun mulai tarikh hukuman (13/9/2022). Kedua-dua Perayu juga diperintahkan melaksanakan bon berkelakuan baik dengan pengawasan selama 3 tahun menurut s. 31(2)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, serta diperintahkan untuk menjalani program khidmat masyarakat selama 120 jam menurut s. 31 (3A) Akta yang sama, yang perlu diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan. Pihak Pendakwaan pula memfailkan rayuan silang terhadap hukuman penjara lapan (8) tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS dan memohon hukuman penjara yang lebih panjang tempohnya. Mahkamah menolak rayuan kedua-dua Perayu dan mengekalkan sabitan oleh HMS. Mahkamah membenarkan rayuan Pihak Pendakwaan dan menukar hukuman penjara kepada kedua-dua Perayu dari 8 tahun kepada 10 tahun. Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan setiap intipati pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu, adalah dapatan yang betul yang tidak perlu diganggu oleh Mahkamah ini.

09/02/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2a730156-6930-428e-84b7-6f2221bdeb4c&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ CA-42S-6-09-2022 Mohamad Zawani v PP (Akta Kanak-Kanak) 2.2024 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUANTAN DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. CA-42S-6-09/2022 ANTARA 1. MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI (NO. K/P: 880102-10-5179) 2. AZREEN BINTI JUNYSAR (NO. K/P: 881213-06-5194) ...PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA ...RESPONDEN (RAYUAN TERTUDUH) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUANTAN DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. CA-42H-1-09/2022 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA ...PERAYU LAWAN 1. MOHAMMAD ZAWANI BIN MOHAMMAD JASNI (NO. K/P: 880102-10-5179) 2. AZREEN BINTI JUNYSAR (NO. K/P: 881213-06-5194) ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN (RAYUAN SILANG PENDAKWA RAYA) (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah (4) Kuantan No. Kes: CA-62-41-10/2020) 09/02/2024 10:44:40 CA-42S-6-09/2022 Kand. 42 S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN LATARBELAKANG [1] Kedua-dua Perayu telah disabitkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (“HMS”) dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak- Kanak 2001 yang di baca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Kedua-dua Perayu dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 8 tahun mulai tarikh hukuman (13/9/2022). Kedua-dua Perayu juga diperintahkan melaksanakan bon berkelakuan baik dengan pengawasan selama 3 tahun menurut s. 31(2)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, serta diperintahkan untuk menjalani program khidmat masyarakat selama 120 jam menurut s. 31 (3A) Akta yang sama, yang perlu diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan dari tarikh hukuman. Mereka memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah ini bagi sabitan dan hukuman tersebut. [2] Pihak Pendakwaan pula memfailkan rayuan silang terhadap hukuman penjara lapan (8) tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS dan memohon Mahkamah ini meminda hukuman tersebut kepada hukuman penjara yang lebih panjang tempohnya. S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [3] Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan kedua-dua Perayu dan mengekalkan sabitan oleh HMS. Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan rayuan Pihak Pendakwaan dan menukar hukuman penjara kepada kedua-dua Perayu dari 8 tahun kepada 9 tahun, dan mengekalkan perintah-perintah lain yang diberikan oleh HMS mengenai bon berkelakuan baik dan program khidmat masyarakat. [4] Kedua-dua Perayu sekarang merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH SESYEN [5] Keterangan di hadapan HMS secara ringkasnya adalah seperti berikut: 5.1 Jam 12 tengah hari 9/7/2018 Jabatan Kecemasan Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan Kuantan (HTAA) menerima panggilan dari Perayu Kedua (ibu Simati) memaklumkan bahawa anaknya, Simati tidak sedarkan diri. 5.2 Ambulans sampai di tempat kejadian pada jam 12.30 tengah hari. S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 5.3 Sesampai di HTAA, pegawai perubatan bertugas, SP8, melakukan pemeriksaan terhadap Simati dan mendapati beliau sudah tidak bernyawa. 5.4 Dari pemeriksaan luar, SP8 dapati luka dan kecederaan berikut pada Simati: (i) lebam di pelbagai anggota badan Simati; (ii) gigi patah iaitu gigi depan bahagian atas dan bahagian bawah; (iii) satu luka di bahagian kepala; (iv) satu parut lama di bahagian lengan kanan; (v) lebam belah kiri lengan, ketiak kiri, dan bahagian belakang badan; (vi) luka kecil di kemaluan; dan (vii) parut lama kecil di bahagian perut. 5.5 SP8 menghubungi Perayu Kedua dan memaklumkan keadaan Simati. Perayu Kedua memaklumkan SP8 bahawa pada malam sebelumnya (8/7/2018) Simati mengalami berak cair dan Simati terjatuh semasa keluar dari tandas. Esok paginya (9/7/2018) Simati tidak ke sekolah kerana sakit kepala dan hanya tidur. Jam 11.00 pagi Perayu Kedua mendapati Simati dalam keadaan S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 pucat dan letih. Beberapa minit kemudian Perayu Kedua dapati Simati tidak sedarkan diri lalu beliau memanggil ambulans. 5.6 SP8 dapati sejarah yang diberikan oleh ibu Si mati adalah tidak konsisten dengan hasil pemeriksaan luaran yang dijalankan oleh SP8. SP8 selanjutnya membuat laporan polis sebagaimana Laporan Kuantan 19794/18 (Ekshibit P20). 5.7 Post mortem yang dijalankan oleh SP13 mendapati punca kematian mangsa adalah “gastro-intestinal bleed due to esophageal ulcer” sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Laporan Post Mortem yang dikeluarkan oleh SP13 (Ekshibit P89). 5.8 Hasil siasatan pegawai penyiasat (SP14) mendapati Simati merupakan anak kandung kepada Perayu Kedua dan berdasarkan Sijil Kelahiran Simati (Ekshibit P93), maklumat bapa adalah tidak diperoleh. 5.9 Simati tinggal bersama dengan kedua-dua Perayu dan seorang adik simati (Hudfurqan Zulqarnain bin Abdullah) di rumah tempat kejadian beralamat seperti dalam pertuduhan. S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 5.10 Pihak Pembelaan berhujah bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap kedua-dua Perayu atas alasan-alasan berikut: (i) Perayu Pertama telah mengemukakan Notis Alibi untuk menunjukkan bahawa Perayu Pertama tidak berada di tempat kejadian dari 7/7/2018-9/7/2018 kerana berada di Klang. (ii) Keterangan SP8 mengesahkan bahawa laporan polis beliau (eksibit P20) hanya menyatakan Simati mengalami “lebam dan luka pada anggota badan” dan tidak menyatakan secara terperinci kecederaan Simati. (iii) SP8 juga mengatakan beliau hanya mengesyaki terdapat penderaan pada diri Simati namun tidak pasti sama ada kecederaan pada diri Simati adalah betul-betul disebabkan penderaan. (iv) Kegagalan Pihak Pendakwaan memanggil adik simati (Hudfurqan Zulqarnain) membolehkan HMS S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 menggunakan s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap Pihak Pendakwaan. (v) Adalah jelas bahawa kematian Simati bukan disebabkan kecederaan fizikal pada badannya tetapi pendarahan salur makanan akibat ulcer oesophagus, sepertimana laporan post mortem SP13. (vi) Pihak Pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan hasil analisa forensik yang dilakukan oleh pihak polis terhadap 3 telefon bimbit dan 1 tablet milik kedua-dua Perayu yang dirampas dari mereka. [6] Mahkamah ini memutuskan dapatan HMS bagi semua analisa yang dibuatnya dalam menghuraikan intipati s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes-kes terdahulu dan selanjutnya merumuskan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan setiap intipati pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu, adalah dapatan yang betul yang tidak perlu diganggu oleh Mahkamah ini. S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [7] Setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti segala dapatan HMS seperti dinyatakan dengan terperinci dalam Alasan Penghakimannya, Mahkamah ini dapati HMS telah menggunapakai peruntukan undang- undang dan prinsip undang-undang yang betul tatkala memutuskan untuk memanggil kedua-dua Perayu membela diri bagi pertuduhan setelah berpuashati bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie: s. 180(1) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, PP v Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457, Low Kow Chai & Anor v PP [2003] 2 MLJ 69, Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85. [8] Keterangan Perayu Pertama (SD1) semasa membela diri adalah semata-mata untuk menujukkan bahawa beliau tiada di tempat kejadian pada tarikh dan waktu kejadian. Beliau menceritakan kali terakhir beliau berjumpa Simati ialah pada 6.7.2018. Pada pagi 7.7.2018 beliau bertolak ke Kuala Lumpur. Pada tengah hari 7.7.2018 beliau pulang ke rumah emaknya di Klang dan berjumpa emaknya (SD3). Pada petang 8.7.2018 beliau keluar minum bersama adiknya SD4. Pada pagi 9/7/2018 beliau mendapat panggilan telefon dari isterinya, Perayu Kedua, memaklumkan Simati tidak sedar diri, lalu Perayu Pertama terus bergegas balik ke Kuantan. S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [9] Perayu Kedua (SD2) memberi keterangan pada pagi kejadian Simati tidak pergi ke sekolah kerana Perayu Kedua terlewat bangun pada pagi itu dan tidak sempat menyiapkan Simati. Beliau lalu mengejutkan Simati dan memberitahu dia tidak perlu ke sekolah. Dalam pukul 11.00 pagi beliau kejutkan Simati tetapi Simati tidak buka mata dan tidak bangun. Apabila mendapati Simati tiada respon, beliau menelefon suaminya, Perayu Pertama, dan juga menelefon ambulans. [10] Mahkamah ini mendapati dapatan HMS yang memutuskan bahawa pembelaan alibi Perayu Pertama adalah penafian semata-mata tanpa disokong oleh mana-mana keterangan lain adalah dapatan yang betul. Walaupun keterangan SD3 dan SD4 digambarkan seolah-olah Perayu Pertama tiada di tempat kejadian pada tarikh dan hari kejadian, namun HMS mendapati keberadaan Perayu Pertama telah disahkan sendiri oleh kedua-dua Perayu semasa Pemeriksaan Utama. Keterangan SD3 dan SD4 yang merupakan saksi berkepentingan dinilai oleh HMS secara berhati-hati, sejajar dengan prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Kofri Mustafar v PP [2010] 9 CLJ 519, PP v Ng Nai Lim [2011] 1 LNS 487, PP v Shawal Senin [2012] 1 LNS 1229. [11] Mahkamah ini selanjutnya mendapati HMS telah membuat dapatan yang betul setelah beliau berpuashati bahawa keterangan SD3 dan SD4 S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 adalah tidak credible dan “tainted and tailored” memandangkan status mereka sebagai saksi berkepentingan. [12] Berdasarkan segala dapatan tersebut, Mahkamah ini dapati HMS telah membuat rumusan dan keputusan yang betul di akhir kes Pihak Pembelaan apablia memutuskan bahawa hasil penilaiannya secara menyeluruh ke atas keterangan saksi-saksi Pendakwaan dan pembelaan jelas menunjukkan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes melebihi keraguan munasabah manakala kedua- dua Perayu pula telah didapati gagal untuk menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes Pihak Pendakwaan. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH INI ISU PRELIMINARI: KEABSAHAN PERTUDUHAN [13] Pertamanya, Mahkamah ini ingin menyentuh mengenai Pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama antara 09/06/2018 hingga 09/07/2018 di rumah beralamat No. 32, Lorong Permatang Badak Maju 39, Taman Permatang Badak Maju, dalam Daerah Kuantan, di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, sebagai orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap seorang kanak-kanak iaitu S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Muhammad Luthhakim bin Abdullah, No. KP 080201-10-2349, telah mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapatkan rawatan perubatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi sehingga menyebabkan kanak-kanak tersebut mengalami kecederaan fizikal yang membawa kepada kematian kanak-kanak itu. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 31(1) Akta kanak-Kanak 2001 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” [14] Sebelum Mahkamah ini membacakan keputusannya, Mahkamah ini telah bertanya kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya sama ada pertuduhan dipinda oleh Pihak Pendakwaan pada mana-mana peringkat di hadapan HMS untuk menyatakan secara spesifik bahawa kedua-dua Perayu dituduh bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001? [15] Mahkamah membangkitkan persoalan ini kerana pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu seperti dinyatakan dalam perenggan di atas yang juga dikemukakan di ms 5 RR Jilid 1 hanya menyebut “seksyen 31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”. Namun demikian, Mahkamah ini dapati Hujahan Bertulis Pihak Pendakwaan di akhir Kes Pendakwaan (ms 2 - 28 RR Jilid 4) menyebut pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah di bawah “seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”. Manakala dalam Hujahan Pihak Pendakwaan bagi maksud rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 ini pula (Kand. 24), Timbalan Pendakwa Raya menyatakan kedua-dua Perayu dituduh di bawah “seksyen 31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001”. [16] Walaupun perkara ini tidak dibangkitkan oleh peguam kedua-dua Perayu sama ada di hadapan HMS atau dalam hujahannya di hadapan Mahkamah ini dan juga tidak dijelaskan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya di hadapan Mahkamah ini sehinggalah perkara ini dibangkitkan oleh Mahkamah ini, namun undang-undang adalah jelas bahawa Mahkamah ini semasa meneliti sesuatu rayuan di hadapannya mempunyai kuasa untuk meneliti semula segala keterangan dan dokumen di hadapan Mahkamah dan membuat dapatan sewajarnya. Peranan Mahkamah ini sebagai mahkamah rayuan adalah sebagaimana yang dihuraikan dalam petikan di bawah dalam kes Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP & Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737 di ms 752: “This Court speaking through another eminent Judge, Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (as he then was) explained the role of appellate court as follows:- “Clearly, an appellate court does not and should not put a brake and not going any further the moment it sees that the trial judge says that that is his finding of fact. It should go further and examine the evidence and circumstances under which the finding was made to see whether, to borrow the words of HT Ong (CJ Malaya) in Herchun Singh's case (supra)" there are substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the finding. "Otherwise, no judgment would ever be reversed on question of fact and the provision of s. 87 CJA 1964 that an appeal may lie not only on a question of law but also a question of mixed fact and law would be meaningless.” S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [17] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah ini memutuskan walaupun pertuduhan tidak menyebut secara spesifik sama ada kesalahan adalah di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, namun ketinggalan ini tidak menimbulkan sebarang ketakadilan kepada kedua-dua Perayu. Ini kerana Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa elemen pertuduhan telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam pertuduhan, yakni sebagai orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap Simati yang merupakan seorang kanak-kanak telah melakukan suatu pengabaian sehingga menyebabkan kecederaan fizikal yang membawa kepada kematian kanak-kanak terbabit. Perincian pengabaian juga telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam pertuduhan tersebut. [18] Atas alasan itu, Mahkamah ini memutuskan pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah teratur dan sah, dan walaupun pertuduhan hanya menyebut s. 31(1) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001, namun apabila pertuduhan itu dibaca secara keseluruhannya, adalah jelas bahawa kedua-dua Perayu dituduh di bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001. APA YANG PERLU DIBUKTIKAN OLEH PIHAK PENDAKWAAN [19] Peruntukan seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 yang mana kedua-dua Perayu dipertuduhkan adalah seperti berikut: S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “31.(1) Mana-mana orang, yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak: (a) yang menganiayai, mengabaikan, membuang atau mendedahkan kanak-kanak itu atau bertindak secara cuai dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi atau yang menyebabkan atau membenarkannya dianiayai, diabaikan, dibuang atau didedahkan sedemikian; .... melakukan suatu kesalahan dan apabila disabitkan boleh didenda tidak melebihi dua puluh ribu ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi sepuluh tahun atau kedua-duanya. (2) Mahkamah— (a) hendaklah, sebagai tambahan kepada apa-apa hukuman yang dinyatakan dalam subseksyen (1), memerintahkan supaya orang yang disabitkan atas suatu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen itu menyempurnakan suatu bon dengan penjamin untuk berkelakuan baik selama apaapa tempoh yang difikirkan patut oleh mahkamah; dan (b) boleh memasukkan dalam bon yang disempurnakan di bawah perenggan (a) apa-apa syarat yang difikirkan patut oleh mahkamah.” [20] Kesalahan di bawah s. 31(1) adalah dua jenis : Pertama: apabila orang yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak dengan sendirinya melakukan mana-mana perbuatan yang berikut: (a) menganiayai kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi; (b) mengabaikan kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi; S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 (c) membuang kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi; (d) mendedahkan kanak-kanak itu dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi; atau (e) bertindak secara cuai dengan cara yang mungkin akan menyebabkannya mengalami kecederaan fizikal atau emosi. Kedua: apabila orang yang merupakan orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan seseorang kanak-kanak tidak secara sendiri melakukan penganiayaan, pengabaian, pembuangan, pendedahan atau kecuaian itu tetapi menyebabkan atau membenarkan orang lain melakukan penganiayaan, pengabaian, pembuangan atau pendedahan kepada kanak-kanak itu yang mengakibatkan kecederaan fizikal atau kecederaan emosi kepada kanak-kanak itu. [21] Pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu secara khususnya adalah berkenaan kesalahan “mengabaikan Simati daripada mendapatkan rawatan perubatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi sehingga menyebabkan Simati mengalami kecederaan fizikal yang membawa kepada kematiannya.” S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [22] Maka, ini bermakna kedua-dua Perayu jatuh dibawah kategori pertama yakni mereka dituduh melakukan sendiri pengabaian terhadap kanak-kanak tersebut dan bukan menyebabkan orang lain melakukannya. [23] Apa yang perlu dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah: (i) kedua-dua Perayu merupakan orang yang mempunyai pemeliharaan terhadap Muhammad Luthhakim bin Abdullah (seorang kanak-kanak yang berumur 9 tahun 8 bulan pada waktu kejadian); (ii) kedua-dua Perayu telah melakukan pengabaian terhadap kanak-kanak tersebut, yang dilakukan sendiri oleh kedua-dua Perayu; (iii) pengabaian itu telah menyebabkan kecederaan fizikal kepada kanak-kanak tersebut. Isu 1: Penduaan Pertuduhan (Duplicity of Charge) [24] Perkara pertama yang dibangkitkan oleh Peguam Perayu-Perayu adalah bahawa terdapat penduaan pertuduhan (duplicity of charge) apabila pertuduhan menyebut : S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (a) mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapat rawatan perubatan; dan (b) mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut daripada mendapat pemeliharaan yang mencukupi. [25] Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan ini. Ia akan menjadi penduaan pertuduhan jika pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu menyebut, contohnya : “ ... telah mengabaikan dan menganiayai kanak-kanak tersebut” atau “... telah mengabaikan dan membuang kanak-kanak tersebut” atau “ ... telah mengabaikan dan mendedahkan kanak-kanak tersebut”. [26] Ini kerana “pengabaian”, “penganiayaan”, “pembuangan”, “pendedahan” atau “bertindak secara cuai” adalah bentuk-bentuk kesalahan yang berdiri dengan sendiri dan tidak boleh dicampur dalam satu pertuduhan. [27] Frasa “mendapatkan rawatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi” dalam pertuduhan bukan suatu bentuk kesalahan. Ia adalah cara dan huraian pengabaian, yang disebutkan sebagai “dengan cara yang mungkin atau menyebabkan” dalam subseksyen 31(1), yakni pengabaian mendapatkan rawatan yang mencukupi dan pengabaian mendapatkan S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 pemeliharaan mencukupi telah menyebabkan dan mengakibatkan kecederaan fizikal kepada Simati. [28] Pengabaian mendapatkan pemeliharan mencukupi tidak sama dengan penganiayaan, yang merupakan suatu bentuk kesalahan yang berdiri secara sendiri. [29] Kegagalan kedua-dua Perayu mendapatkan rawatan mencukupi dan pemeliharaan mencukupi adalah dua bentuk huraian cara pengabaian yang menyebabkan kanak-kanak itu mengalami kecedaraan fizikal. Tatkala Pihak Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kewujudan pengabaian melalui dua bentuk huraian tersebut maka kehendak s. 31(1)(a) telah dibuktikan sepenuhnya. [30] Maka saya memutuskan alasan pertama rayuan kedua-dua Perayu yang bergantung kepada hujahan bahawa pertuduhan terhadap kedua- dua Perayu adalah berbentuk penduaan adalah ditolak. Isu 2: Kesukaran Perayu-Perayu memfailkan Notis Alibi disebabkan Penduaan Pertuduhan S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [31] Susulan dapatan Mahkamah ini terhadap Isu 1 yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu-Perayu, maka Mahkamah ini memutuskan isu berkaitan Notis Alibi yang dikaitkan dengan Penduaan Pertuduhan adalah tidak berbangkit. [32] Alasan ini juga ditolak oleh Mahkamah ini. Isu 3: Pemakaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan - Kegagalan memanggil Mohd Hudfurqan Zulqarnain bin Abdullah, adik Simati [33] Peguam Perayu-Perayu berhujah bahawa kepentingan memanggil Mohd Hudfurqan sebagai saksi adalah timbul ekoran keterangan SP13 bahawa Simati tidak makan dalam tempoh 24 - 48 jam sebelum kematian. Memandangkan Hudfurqan, sebagai adik Simati, individu yang paling hampir dengan Simati kerana hidup dan tinggal bersama-sama Simati dan kedua-dua Perayu, maka adalah penting untuk dia dipanggil memberi keterangan untuk membantu Mahkamah mendapat keterangan mengenai bagaimana kedua-dua Perayu menjaga kebajikan makan-minum, pakai, kesihatan, pendidikan Simati. Peguam Perayu-Perayu juga berhujah bahawa apabila keterangan SP13 dilihat bersama dengan keterangan SP5 yang mengatakan Simati bertubuh gempal dan sihat, ini menunjukkan tiada pengabaian terhadap Simati. Maka, HMS terkhilaf S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 kerana tidak menggunapakai s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan atas kegagalan Pihak Pendakwaan memanggil Hudfurqan kerana kegagalan itu merupakan satu suppression of evidence. [34] Undang-undang berkaitan pemakaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan adalah jelas. Peruntukan ini terpakai tatkala suatu pihak gagal memanggil saksi yang boleh memberi keterangan yang material dan penting berkaitan isu untuk diputuskan Mahkamah kerana Mahkamah boleh membuat inferens bahawa kegagalan memanggil saksi memberi keterangan tersebut boleh menggagalkan kes pihak yang tidak memanggil saksi itu. [35] Seperti yang telah saya nyatakan awal tadi, apa yang perlu dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan adalah: (i) Kedua-dua Perayu merupakan orang yang mempunyai pemeliharan terhadap kanak-kanak berkenaan; (ii) Kedua-dua Perayu sendiri yang mengabaikan kanak-kanak tersebut; (iii) Pengabaian yang dilakukan oleh kedua-dua Perayu tersebut adalah pengabaian daripada mendapatkan rawatan perubatan dan pemeliharaan yang mencukupi; S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (iv) Pengabaian sedemikian telah menyebabkan kecederaan fizikal kepada kanak-kanak tersebut [36] Setelah meneliti fakta kes ini, saya memutuskan dalam kes ini, pengabaian yang berlaku bukan semata-mata pengabaian fizikal terhadap Simati. Laporan post mortem oleh SP13 menunjukkan pengabaian yang dilakukan dari segi kelewatan mendapatkan rawatan perubatan telah mengakibatkan kecederaan fizikal dalaman yang berlaku terhadap Simati sehingga akhirnya mengakibatkan kematian Simati. [37] Mahkamah ini putuskan ketiadaan Hudfurqan memberi keterangan tidak sama sekali memberi kesan kepada kes Pihak Pendakwaan. Mahkamah ini juga putuskan ketiadaan keterangan Hudfurqan tidak sama sekali membawa kepada suatu keadaan suppression of evidence yang menimbulkan ketakadilan kepada kedua-dua Perayu. Maka keputusan HMS untuk tidak memakai s.114(g) terhadap Pendakwaan kerana ketiadaan keterangan Hudfurqan adalah betul. [38] Setelah saya meneliti segala keterangan, Alasan Penghakiman HMS dan meneliti segala dokumen-dokumen dalam RR, saya berpuashati bahawa HMS telah membuat keputusan yang betul semasa memanggil kedua Perayu membela diri terhadap pertuduhan. Saya juga S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 dapati HMS telah meneliti segala keterangan pihak pembelaan dan membuat keputusan yang betul di akhir kes Pembelaan dan membuat dapatan dan rumusan yang betul menurut undang-undang semasa mensabitkan kedua-dua Perayu dengan pertuduhan. [39] Atas alasan itu, rayuan kedua-dua Perayu atas sabitan dan hukuman adalah ditolak RAYUAN PIHAK PENDAKWAAN [40] Seperti yang telah Mahkamah ini rumuskan dalam perenggan di atas, pertuduhan terhadap kedua-dua Perayu jatuh dibawah kategori pertama yakni mereka dituduh melakukan pengabaian terhadap kanak- kanak tersebut secara sendiri dan bukan menyebabkan orang lain melakukannya. [41] Ini bermakna apabila kedua-dua Perayu disabitkan dengan pertuduhan, maka hukuman hendaklah lebih berat berbanding jika mereka disabitkan dengan pertuduhan bagi kategori kedua. [42] Parlimen telah meminda hukuman di bawah s. 31(1) dengan menaikkan jumlah denda dan penjara yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Mahkamah. RM20,000.00 dipinda kepada RM50,000.00 dan 10 tahun dipinda kepada 20 tahun. [43] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak mengenai rayuan Pendakwaan, saya memutuskan untuk menaikkan hukuman penjara yang diperintahkan oleh HMS dari 8 tahun kepada 10 tahun. Memandangkan kedua-dua Perayu dibebaskan dengan jaminan selepas permohonan mereka untuk hukuman digantung sehingga selesai rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah ini dibenarkan oleh HMS, maka Mahkamah ini memerintahkan supaya hukuman penjara terhadap kedua-dua Perayu adalah bermula dari tarikh hukuman oleh Mahkamah ini dijatuhkan. Perintah-perintah lain yang diperintahkan oleh HMS adalah dikekalkan. Rayuan Pendakwaan adalah dibenarkan. Bertarikh pada : 08 Februari 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 PIHAK-PIHAK : Peguam Perayu-Perayu: Dato’ Zaharman bin Zainal Abidin Tetuan Fatin & Zaharman No. A-5 Tingkat 2, Lorong Tun Ismail 9 25000 Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur Pendakwa Raya/Responden: Puan Ain Fadilla binti Md Ali bersama Puan Haryati binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pahang No. 402, Tingkat 4, Mahkota Square Jalan Mahkota 25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur S/N VgFzKjBpjkKEt28iIb3rTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-42S-24-12/2022

PERAYU NUR FATIN NABILA BINTI AZMI RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - tiada mana-mana pihak yang membangkitkan isu sabitan di dalam petisyen - s.31(1)(a) akta kanak-kanak 2001 - okt membuat pengakuan bersalah - s.305 kanun tatacara jenayah - sama ada hukuman keterlaluan atau ringan - sama ada hakim mahkamah sesyen memberi pertimbangan faktor-faktor mitigasi serata kepentingan awam - sama ada hukuman penjara setimpal apabila terdapat hukuman denda - kesan pada mangsa dari segi fizikal dan emosi

09/02/2024

YA Dato' Norsharidah Binti Awang

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4ccd5076-a4fd-4103-b8ce-50815034aeaf&Inline=true

09/02/2024 15:21:14 BA-42S-24-12/2022 Kand. 27 S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dlDNTP2kA0G4zlCBUDSurw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—42S—24—12/2022 Kand. 27 as/oz/mm ,5 2; 14 MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SHAH ALAM DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAVUAN JENAVAH No. BA-42H-33-I2/2022 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA PERAVU DAN NUR FAYIN NAEILA awn AZMI RESPDNDEN (No. K/F 98020241345014) RAVUAM SILANG IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN. MALAVSIA RAVUAN JENAVAH No. EA-425-24-11/2022 ANTARA NUR FATIM NAEILA BINTI AZMI FERAVU (Nu. K/P’ 980202-06-6014) DAN FENDAKWA RAVA RESPONDEII ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN I. PENGENALAN Ini adaran mempakan vayuan Timbman Fendakwa Raya (Perayu) terhadap hukumsn (Kandungan 15) den rayuan suang o\eh Ienudun (OKT) jugs larhadap hukuman (Kandungan 22). sw mnnrvzmnsazwcaunsum E" W; Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm II. PERTUDUHAN Pertuduhan tamadap OKT adalah sepem benkul: ‘Bahawa kamu pads e Jun 2021 jam Islam kurang 10.30 pagi, benempal an bmk um kanakkanak m Babes 3. Ton Chfldcare Centre an avenue: Aras Bawah, Bkuk c, Kedlaman Kakllangan Hosp\la\ Sevdang. Jaxan Puchong, 43000 KaJang, m dalam Daevah Sepang, di dalam Megan Salangor Daml Ehsan. sebagal arena yang mampunyal penlagaan ks acas kanakxanak yang bemama Snfia Arm bin\i Muhammad Amman Al~Khair (No, MyKid: moo» m—11au) berumuv 1 lawn a bulan. maapau le\ah mendedahkan kanak—k.anak mu dengan cars mungkm menysbabkan keuederaan flzikm lerhadsp kanak-kanak lersebut. Gish yang damikxan, kamu cevah ms\akukan suam kaaavanan dan buleh dmukum di bawah Seksyen 31(1)(a| Akla Kanak-Kanak 2001." III. FAKYA KEs [11 Fans kes adamh sebagaimana dinyalakan di dalam Nasan Pengnmnan Hakim Mahkamah Sesysn (nuns; an muka sursl 13 mngga 15, Rskod Rayuan mm I dun jugs pads ekslhll F2, Rakod Rayuan Jwlid 3 Pengadu dw dalam kes wnl mempakan mu kepada mangsa yang bemmur 1 (shun a bulan pada mesa kejadwan dan beliau banugas sebagal Pegawai Pembatan dw Bahagwan Eumlngi dw Hnspilm Ssrdang aw aunwzxnnsmcaunsum -ma Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm mu 2 M as nngan dan dike! n. Peguam menquk kepada kes Tun Svl Abdul Ruhlm Mohd Nnor v. PP [21101] : MLJ I. [33] um damn: kes mvsebul, Paguam msnghujahkan bahawa Ievdapal pnnsm yang menyahkan bahawa keadaan dw mans kevarmngan swam sendm mewayarkan sssemang terluduh Mu fldak dlmasukkan ke dalam penjara m da\am tempuh yang panjang Kerana Ia akan membawa banyak keburukan danpada kebaxkan, mama seseumng pesalah mu am merviadi neruenayah Iegar sflepas msnjalani hukuman pamara [371 Feguam sekali I391 berhujah dengan merujuk kapada seksyen 3l11)(a) Am Kanak-Kanak‘ -Penganiayaan, vengabawan, pembuangan alau vandedahan kanak-kanak 31. (1) Marla-mana mang, yang merupakan urang yang mempunyav pernehharaan saeurang kanak-mak- (a) yang msngamayah menganaman‘ membuang atau mandedahkan kanak-kanak nu mu berlmdak secara cum dengan cars yang mungkln akan menyebabkannya mengaxamx kecaderaan fzika\ alau emusi atau yang rnenyebabkan alau membenarkanm mamayai, disbaikan, dlhuang alau didedahkan seaamman, alau sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ .nuN<: puns! P . u m 25 (b) yang mengsmayar nan saga seks kanawkanak nu avau yang menyehahkan atau mambenarkannyzi dianlayal sedemikwan. memkukan suslu kesakahan dan apsbHa msamxkan buloh dluonua lldnk m chihl liml puluh rihu tlnggll snau mpamarakan semma tampon Iidak mmehmi due p-mm Lahun acau kedua<1uanya.' [as] Feguam huiahkan bahawa mat ulama Parnman Malaysia da\am mengguhal undang-undang dan hukuman dw hawah seksysn W adalah bag mjuan mehndungi kanak—kanak den juga hukuman bsrbemuk denda adiflah hukuman yang ulama‘ [391 on yang panama kah mluduh ai bawah seksyen imdanlidak paman me\akukan apa—apa kesalahan jenayah m bawan manamana undang-undang di Malaysxa. [401 Femenjaraan sa\ama (smpah lapan aavas (15) bulan yang dwksnakan ks alas on merupakan sualu hukuman yang agank beta! bag: slluasx on (411 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (elah gage! mampemnmangkan secara kesemmhan kesamua lakwrrfaklor mmgasi yang re\evan yang memihak kepada Parayu/Respanden apawa lelah memaluhkan hukuman. [42] semasa dmuduh OKT hanyalah beruswa 23 vanun 4 bulan. Kami percaya hahama wujud kepenuan unmk mahkamah an auNrPzxAns4x\caunsum -ma sum ...na.. MU be used m van; ..a an,n.u.y mm; dun-mm wa mum PM Me <2 nu- mempsrumbangkan ksselunman faxcantaktor miligasx yang berplhsk kepada om xermas-man (mar usla muda dan laktnr-lakmr m gas! yang \am [43] Dawn perkars W Psguam (elah merujuk kepada kes-kes Ru Jam: an. Ram: [1155] 1 MLJ 55,- [1955] 1 ms 115, Shnnmugnmlhnn VPublic Prosecutor [1957] 1 MLJ 204,- Yea Thiam cnyu v Public Prosecutor 11952} 1 MLJ 391 ha * menuvuukkan bahawa oxr ssbag pesalah muda dengan psnakuan kesa\ehan panama wafer dtbenkan nukuman yang Iehm nngan [441 Seierusnya damn menghujahkan agar hukuman Iebm ringan dibsnkan kepada om, Feguam mengmuahkan hahawa kecedsraan yang malamx men pihak pengadu adalah udak serius dan fldak mempunyaw kesan yang berlamfan dan pamang [45] Dalam Isu Inl Feguam menghwahkan bahawa Laporan Fembaian yang dflerima tidak menuruukkan kecederaan teruk. um laporun Isngkap psmbalan dtkemukakan hanya Lapomn Awal Pemanksaan sedangkan pengadu Ie‘|ah membawa mangsa unluk rawatan kesihatan G? dUE hospim masmgrmasmg dw Hospuan Sevdang dan Hospila\ Pengapir Universwli Pulra Mzflaysla pads: 11 06.2021 flan 14.12 2021. [45] Feguam psrcaya bahawa keuedensan yang amam. oleh pengadu mam. Udak senus di mana kecedel-aan Ierssbut marupakan bruises sahsp dan kscsderaan ssdem n Udak sw auNrPzxAns4x\caunsum 'Nnl2 sum ...m.. WW .. used m van; M .m,m.u., mm; dun-mm VII mum W Page 1: M an [47] [45] [49] [50] [51] [521 sw auwvvzmnsmcaunsum -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm menlnggalkan sebarang parul kekm malah Iwdak jugs menyehahkan kacacalan anggova badnn terhsdap mangsa. Bsrkenaan dengan v-awalan Fslkiatn‘ Peguam hnqahkan bahawa xamapae Ismpah enam (5) bulan se|e\ah keuadlun barman mangsa mbawa unluk pemeriksaan dun ravmlan. Menuml rekod mangsa hsdnr kall panama ks hopntal psikialn aflsflah hanya pada1A.12.2(l21. 0\eh Mu sekivanya benar mangsa menghadapi masalah psikiam my krilikm pasmah mangsa (Blah mbawa mum awav unluk pemenksaan dsn awaken Tempah s hulan sebelum rawayan Iurul diperlikax kerana mungkinkah berlaku sesualu yang Iain damn: lsmpoh masa lersebul sehmgga menyebabkan Vaporan Iersehul memam udaklapal. Lew. lanjul Peguam mengmuankan bahawn sepatmnya rawaian mbual di Hospilifl Semang dan bukan m Hnspi1.a\ Pengajar Unlversm Pulra Mamysxa yang merupakan huspnaw swasta dw bawah keiolaan pihak Universih Pulra Malaysia. Peguam menquk kepada Eksibxl P23, muka suraI49. Rekad Rayuan ma 3 [13:13 perenggall 5 yang menyalakan. ‘‘5‘ made ciricin Sofia mengala asilah a|au isu barman kewewavan Derksmbangan, keeelsruan psrkemhangan samt {nsum develop mental drsorders] dan sehagainya ' Plus .4 m :- [521 Juslem, kelmuan mangsa rnandapalkan rawalan swa\ aw kfimk aamam lsnabulmsmbukllkan mangsa max mengalaml ssbarang ksoederaan mama! yang senus. [541 Akhimya Peguam huiahkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamsh Sesyen lelah gags! memberi usnimbangan sewayamya lamadap laklor-laklar mmgas. on. [55] Salem faklmusia muda ianu baruswa 23 xamm 4 bman semasa kejauian. on zuga nanya bernendidikan Sijil Kemamran Malaysia 1SKM) sahaja Klni on ndak bekena dan udak mempunya\ psmiapalan (slap setslah dmementikan danpada pusai Jagaan kanak-kanak Ievsebul [551 OKT Iidak Dernah memvurlyaw rekod Jenaysh Iampau dan mu adalah kesalahan panama behau. Mempakan anak hangsu davipada lujuh (7) mang aavmzaramk dan linggal dengan kakak befiau Eefiau mempunyai seurang bapa, berumur63 Iahun dan uaak bekena manaksfla mu kepada om Ielah memnggal duma pads 23.5.2022 alubal penyakn kannmg manis [57] on ssbagaw ssorang anak parempuan yang hemm berkahwm Isiah mengambH langgungjawab unluk menggantlkan ternpal Ibunya den menjaga ayahnya an kampung, Perak. [53] OKT fidak hernia! mencedarakan mangsa, sudah msal dan benanyi unmk Iidak mengulangl pemuacan sebegim sw auwwzknasmcaunsum -ma smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG mm ’W- '5 ='“ [59] Peguam OKT ken-umannya cewan mberikan kesempafan untuk mumlaflkan hujahan vambahan berkenaan dengan yambar-gambar flan rakaman CCTV. [an] um kerana Umiakan acau pemuacan on yang didakwa Ielah 'mendera' flan/alau mexaxuxan perbualan ke1am (cruel ksatmervt) fsrhadap mangsa/anak pengadu sepsmmana yang mputuakan olsh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ada\ah udak kansxstan flan henepatan yang maria fingkah Iaku OKT d1 dalam gambargambar pegurl ocrv lersebul. P161/A-G] [511 Gambar- gambar pagun ccrv Iarsebut hanya memaparkan keadaan Indwndu-Vndivldu u. dalam gambangamhar tersebm lam: OKT den mangsa yang sanllasa bembah-ubah dafl segw kedudukan/posxsx/pelgevaksn mereka dan Iidak ada pemuatan penderaan yang dx Vakukan we?‘ on larhadap mangsa. [52] Ianya |angsung lidak mamaparksn sebarang perbuatan berbahaya, bukamah perbualan 'mendera“ mangsa nan bukanxan punca mama yang menyebahkan dan/alau perbualan yang bmeh memnggalkan kesan nauma/kevakmnn kepada mangsa [63] Pemuacan-psmuaxan berkenaan adalah ndak kunsisten dam sama sekali udak nulan/ndak dapat dlkailkan dengan kwederaan menial (trauma) dan kecederaan fiflkal sspemmana yang (elah auaporkan ax dalam Eksmhil P12(A— syn auwwzmnsmcaunsum , -um Sum ...n.. wmlxeusedmvamImenv\g\ruHIyM1M5 m.u.m...num puns! “=9 '°”' Hi dun iuga Laponln Pembalan mangsa (muka swat 47.52, Rekod Rayuan mm 3). [54] Seterusnya Feguam on menghulahkan bshawa rakaman ccw iailu Eksxbil FZBKA) dan P2B(B) max peman dwserahkan kepada oxr sabalum on msmhual psngakuan sa\ah. [55] lanya hananoangan dengan ssksyen 51A Kanun Tamara Jena)/ah [ea] Psguam meruluk kes Data‘ Sari Anwar bin Ibrahim Iwn Fnndakwa Rays [201|'l] 1 MLJ 579‘ bemubung pemakaian seksyen 51A Kanun Talacara Jena)/ah. Dw dalam kes ml‘ Yang Arii Hakim Mamkamah Tmggl Kuala Lumpur lelah nuenmen dapalan befiau (erhadap kepentingan seksyen am Kanun Talacara Jenayah as da\am memaslikan keaduan Kepada semua pnhak [67] Eksrbm 923(5) amanan pemlng bagx msmbuklukan prima fauis case yang mann dckumen nu ak pendakwaan untuk mempakan lakta yang menyebelahi pmnk pendakwaan Gan sekiranyn on tidak membuut psngakuan narsaxan dan mgin msnemskan dengan pammaan. samssfinya dckumen lersehul Vain: vniea ccw akan digunakan u\eh pandskws dalam perbwcariirlv [ea] AdsVah lldsk wajar Eksxbit P2815] dilandakan pads nan yang sama on diialuhkan nukuman an aunwzmnmxwcaunsum -ma sum ...n.. MU be used m van; me an,n.n, MIN; dun-mm vu mum W ‘W W W N [591 Ada\ah dwlegaskan bahawa video cc1'v Eksxbxl P28(B) yang dipavcayai sebagax om adalah di akuv setakal kehamran om dw damn video wrssbul. Wabubagaxmanapun om menafikan bahawalerdapatpemua|an—perbua1an pendenaan secara singkat a|au berparuangan yang di lukukan olsh pihak OKT terhadap mangsa [70] oven in secara ksswmpulannya Peguam menghujahkan bahawa alas faktor-laktar an ass, Sena kecederaan yang Hdak kelara‘ lerdapamya kelengahan sehingga enam (5) hman unluk vawalan psmam meruyu agur hukuman (erhadap on mkevepikan aluu sekuanya ak mbsnarkan‘ on msmohon hukumsn berbenluk denda lidak max jamman sebanyak RM 1o,oun.uu wang VI. DAPATAII MAHKAMAH [71] Mahkamah um sekalx Vagi merujuk kepada Pensyen Rayuan bagt keduadua kss. yang neran mvaivkan m da\am Rakod Rayuan Tambahan, liada mama-mana pmak mambang isu berksnaan dervgan ssnuan yang mkanakan ke atas OKT an [72] one denuan sabwan dapal dibangkilkan a. dalam rayuan Ra vm sek ' agv mtagaskan bahawa Mada isu berksnaan Alasan Panghaklman mi akan nanya merujuk kepada raynan mmauap hukuman sahafi. [73] Rwukan kepada asksyen 305 Kanun Talacara Jenayah adalah sepem berikut: sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Fun ‘I M 2| ‘When plea of guuty lwmned ngm of appsaV When an accused has pleaded guilly and been eonmea by a Magistrate that men, there shaH be appeal m<oep\ as to me exfenl Of Iegewy ol the sentence " U4] Merujuk Kepada ks: Rex v. Bull 35 Cr. Ann R. 134: vn me firs! place, we Court does nez after e sentence which is me subject of en appeal merely because one members of the Coufl might have passed 8 drffslsnr sentence The ma] judge has seen me pnsonev and heard ms hisfury and any wrtnssaes m character he may neve enesen to ca//. me only when e senzenee appears err In principle [hat (his Court will alter if [M sentence ls excessive orilv adsquala to such an extent as lo sausly we Court that when n was passed mere was e reume Iv app/y me ngm prmcip/ss, men Ilws com will intervene. /n ueerarng me sppmplfals sentence e cum should always be guided by cellam considerations The firs! and Iorsmosf rs me pub/M: mlsmsr.‘ :75} Ss|emsnya dalam msnenlukan suatu nukumen, pnnsip an dalam kas PP v. Loo Chuun Fall [1919] 2 IIILJ 25¢ ada!ah diteliu seWni bsrikul. Wham Hashim veop sam'./ (es mi men was) was ofma View mar (‘Presidents and Magistrates are onen inclined quite naturally to be avez—sympameo'c to ma syn annrvzxansmcaunsum % "Nara Snr1n\n:uhnrw\HI>e used m van; .. en,n.n, mums m.n.n vu mum Wm! Far I m N accused. This re a normal psyehelogrealraactien to the siluat/an In whlch the lonely accused ls seen leerng an array at witnesses wrth authollry. The mlligarlon auhrnitteu by a eonvretedperson wlll also normally errng up problems of lernlly hardslvlp and the other usual prob/ems plllving. ln such a smratron the courts might perhaps find lt mmeult to decide es lo whet sentence should he imposedso thattne eonvretetlperacn maynal be lurther burdened wllh addltlollsl hardship. This in my View re a wrong approach. The correct approach ls ta strike a balance, as lar as possible, between the lnlslssts oflhs public and the rnterests olthe accused’ [76] Mahkamah in: nuerutuk kee on La! Kim v. Public Proucuter[1w1]:IlI|.l111 ‘The Court wl//be leilrng in it: duryifir does no! impose a deterrent sentence in this case The gulllshmanl must not only date! the appellants from Damm/fling 5 sfrlular offence in Ms Iumra bill It must also deter nrhsrs from cammilfing such an Ufi87IC9.... /rl this case thsrsfbrs the punishment has to be sufllclenlly harsh and propanronete [0 the harm done, otherwise society will leel that the ptrnrshrnenl ls rnenilestly inadequate. The punishment must also relleet public dlseppmval cf the crime committed by the appsllanls. see R v Roberts [1992] 1 All ER 60 at 61.‘ SW aDm'PzhAns4xtcauDsurw % -we e.n.t ...nmn be ts... m van; .. m,n.u., aunts mmn ta mum W Pm "1 M" [21 on pula adavan Pembanlu Taaka m‘ Taska Babes 5. Tots chuucare Centre, Aras Bawah. wok c. Kamaman Kaklxangan Hospman Serdang, .la\an Puchong, moo Kzuang, Selsngnr. [3] Menurul pengadu, pads 86.2021 baHau |e\ah menghamar anaknya pads jam 7.50 pagn unluk uaga oleh OK7 di (aska l.ersabu| [41 Kemudwannya pads jam 2.50 penang, on Ielah memaklumkan kepada Fangadu hahawa mangsa lelsh mengaflami keeederaan pads pm Vuka dan kedua belah mata d1 hahaglan bawah Iuka serla lebam CKT mamhsnvahu pengadu bahawa lsnuduh lidak perasan mengenai Vuka lerszbut dun hanya sedar sslspas mendengar mangsa menangws. [51 Fakta selsmsnya adalah berkailan dengan usaha Fengadu mendzpalkan dun menonlon rakaman CCTV 'da|am tasks berkenaan. Melalul raksman cow yang dmanda sebsgsu Eksvbil P1415), pengadu memiapau bahawa anaknya (srah dwpsrlakukan dengan kasar dan ganas. [5] Lanju|an an nu, pengadu lelah membawa mangsa ke Bshagian Kecamasan, Haspilm Serdang pm 9 D6.2D21‘]am 1 JD pagi m Rujuk Eksxhit FZD mu Laporan Perubatan dan Hnspxtal Serdang, m muka Surat ea Rekud Rayuan Jana 3, mm: yang sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG mm m. x m 2. U7] D1 detanu kes R V. Hamil: [law] 1 All ER 541 tellen dipuluskan hahawa: ‘Courts should always bsar tn rnlnd lnat mmlnal sentences were in almost every case tnlenae-1 to protect the pub/t'c, whether by punishing me alrender or reion-mng turn, 01 by deterring mm and utllers, or by all of mass lnlngs Comte cannnt and should rm! be tmmmdlul L7! the important public mmenslen of mnunal sentencing and the lntponenee of mamlslnlrlg putzlls cunfidence lrl lne sentenclng system.‘ ma] Manakala berkenaan dengan bidang kuasa rayuan, pnnsip kas H: v. Llnu Len Ho. [2015] 4 cu m‘ dlpuluskan bahawa: The appellate calm can and will inlerfevs In tne sentence imposed by me lows! caun mt ls satlsfisd met any anne fc//owmg Iour gmunds are made out. (5) The sentenarng [udgs had made a wrong declston es to me proper faclualbasls for tne sentence. (DJ There had been an em)! on me pen DI the trial /udgs tn appnactaflng the material facts placed before film.’ (0) The sentence was wrong ln prlnclple; ov la) The sentence lmposed was manrieslly excessne or lnat1aquala.' an auNrP2kAns4xtcaunsum fl ‘Nata smut ...n.Mn be ts... m van; .. .n,nn., mt. dun-mnl VII mum W F‘-we 11 at 1- V9] Mahkamah mi merujuk kapada Alasan Psnghakiman cleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen an muka suraI11 mngga as. Rekcd Rayuan Jmd 1 dan berseluju (emadap a\asan-a\assn mbenkan hukuman yang amenkan ke alas on. [an] Di aawam msmbual kapulusan lamadap hukuman, Hakim Mahkamah sesyen |e\ah memmbang semua Vaklur Iarrnasuklah memaluhi kehandak undsngmndang, kspenhngan awam, pangakuan bersalah on lak\or—Vakwr mmgasi dan mjukan lemadap beherapa kes yang bersamaan [s11 seam asasnya rzryuan lerhadap hukuman yang amujanxan Meh on ada\ah kersna saksyen yang dxperluduhkan Ierhadap om hdak mewajlbkan hukuman penjara sebahknya membenarkan hukuman denda dwkenakzn, [32] Dalam isu mi adaksh bermakna hukuman yang le\ah dvkenakan kn alas OKT ada\ah salah Ruwk kepada seksyan 1730:) Kamm Tatacava Jenayah (Akla 59311 -(17) Jika |enuduh mengsku sa\ah alas penuduhan nu, sama ada da\am bentuk asamya acau yang dipinda‘ akuan mu hendaldah dwrekndkan dan ma blfleh disabxlkan atasnya dan Mahkamah hendaklah menialuhkan hukuman menwkul undang-Imdang:" [931 Berdasarkan seks‘/en :11(1)Ia)A1<1a Kanak-Kanak, hukuman yang bmeh dqaluhkan |emadap on ada\ah ‘.apab'1\a msahllkan ho\sh didemia lldak mevehmu hma puluh nbu ringgn sw anNrPzxAns4x1caunsum -ma 5.11.1 ...m.. WW be .15.. m mm 1.. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm >=a- 12 0' 1- atau dxpemarakan sslama Iempuh «ask mslebmi dua punm vahun alau keduaduanya ~ [941 Sebagalmsna dmyalakan pads perenggan 22 Nasan Penghaldman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, di muka sum la .mia 1. Rakud Rayuan yang Ialah menuuk kepada kes Lolllln Busmun v Public Pro-acueor man: 5 mm 211, ‘alas bahswa spams uaaanya hukuman mandalnu dmyalakan. haknm mempunyaw bud! mam unmk mengenakan hukuman yang bersesuaxan dengan kesawanan dam on [as] (Nah nu, Mahkamah mi bersemu Ham Mahkamah Sesyen uaak me\akukan kasawahan apanua mengenakan hukuman penjara flan bukan hukuman denda lerhadau DKT [35] Hukuman Denjara yang dikenakan a\eh Hskxm Mahkamah sesyen sexexan behau menimbangkan Kesalahan yang anakukan alsh om, kepenlmgan awam dan lakwr-faklcr mifigasi. [an Hakxm Mahkamah Sesyen telah menuhs berkenaan dengan perkara mi secara kcmprehenswfpada muka sure! 19 Mnpga 35 [aa] Mahkamah mu lurm meneliti Iemadap lakmr mmgasi kepenlmgan awam dalam memuuusm unruk mengekalkan hukuman mg dijaluhkan men Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pm 15 M1- [as] Mahkamsh mangambu laK|cr»lak|or m\ligas< yang amenxan msh OKT bshawa hsfiau adalah hanya bemmur hanya 23 vamm A bman semasa kejaman, berkamlusan sm. snak bnngsu nan sepalulnya membanlu keluarga msncan nafkah kerani masmah xasmanan hapanya. Vbunya Ielah meninggal duma dsn beflau lsrpaksa bemndak mamaga bapanya Selspas kejadwan befiau aikanaxan sudah musk bekena [901 Pm mass sama Mahkamah peflu mmangi dengan kepenlmgan swam. CKT hukan sahaja Iemba| dl GHVEVVI kes yang meunatkan saurang kanak-kanak yang hanya beruswa 1 Iahun a buhan mam-an behau benugas dx puss! 1agaan yang diamanahkan untuk msmaslikan Jagaan temam bagl anak Ierssbul. [911 Ka,aman sepeni . karap berlsku den masysrakal panu dituniukkan pengajaran peflakuan ganas aana pangabauan oamaaap kanak-kanak sdalah suam yang |idak bavk dan perlu dxkenakan lmdakan tsgas bukan setakal pembayaran denda sahala. [92] Melahn r-akaman ccw .1. Exam 1223(5) menuniukkan psflakuan on msmukul sarla menghempas mangsa ke Iamav dan wenya aaavan salu tindakan yang max wajar Iarhadap mangsa yang hanya herusna 1 (ahun a bman [93] mm mamnu pemmbangan adalah iaklor kecedevaan Iemadap mangsa. Wilaupun geguam on menghujahkan bahawa Mada Keoedsman flzlka1 yang leruk lerhadap aw aunwzxansmcaunsum -ma sum ...ua.. MU be used m van; ..a agm.u., MIN; dun-mm Va nF\uNG W has 1‘ M Z- mangsa‘ «exam ianya masih suam kecedeman Iarhadap searang kanak»kanak yang mak boksh mevawan [94] Merujuk kepada rskod parubalan psfldalri (1iE|s\bitP23 muka xural 51 dan 52. Rekeu Rayuan ma 3. jevas menunjukkan dapaxan nleh Fegawaw Pevubaan bahawa mangsa menga\amikeua1aman sues pzsca trauma (PTSD) dan wanya memberi Kesan (erhadap perkembangan kognnif, emosw Imgkah laku mangsa Axmamya ihu mangsa sacrang Pegawal Perubacan larpaksa bemenli kena unmk lllemaganya bagi menjaganya [951 Peguam menghwahkan bahawa tampon masa sebelum rawaian pmkialri ml auaxukan msnunjukkan hahawa uadanya masa\ah senus kepaaa mangsa Walau pun Mahkamah Udsk menjumpax alasan mengapa kewewacan ml Ierjadi, telapw xanya paslilah alas «em: mangsa dan keluarga mu senam daVam menangani «muma PTSD lsrsebul. [96] In: aapamimmuskan melalui lapor-an Hnsi|a\ Psiklaln Iemshm pads Eksmm P23 tsrsebut. [97] Trandlerk keskesmehba|kankesalahandibawahseksyan 30(1)(a| Akfia Kanak-kanak menuruukkan [rend hukuman yang sam. [93] Eardasarkan kepeda alasan-axasan di mas Mahkaman um mendapam bahawa hukuman yang «swan dhaluhkan ulah sw annvvzxansmcaunsum % Wane s.n.‘...u..Mm.w....nmy....mm,.mm..u.m...num W P -W" Hakim Eicara adalah adil flan ssumpax yang mana Mahkamah in dak perlu un|uk menguhah penmah Isrsebui [99] Hakim mesa fiada malakukan spa-spa krmaman segv (akta flan urmang-undang. Huxuman (s\ah dussmlhangkan dengan fakior-lakmr rayuan alsh om dan juga kepevmngan swam [100]Mahkamah wn mengekmkan venmah Hakim Mahkamah Sesysn benankh 20.11.2022. O\sh Mu Rayuan Fandakwa Raya (erhadap hukuman dan rayuan sflang u¥eh Tenuduh ada\ah dmflak Mahkamah Tmggx Jenayih (7) Shah Bevlankh 3i Pmsk-pmak: Pen-ayu/Respam1an— Tuan Lnkman bin Kaiim [Pejabac TimbaVan Pendakwa Raya Negen sewangml Responden/Perayu» uik lllohd Faris Synzwan bln hinuuamlnl Mohammad Shafiq bin Muhammad Laxlm [Tetuan Namrl Mahmud. Fans 5. Nadia] sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Pm 1' M 2' merewel mangsa menyalakan hahawa marlgsa rriengeleirii keoeoereeri seperli berikul. "Pemerlksaan Flslkal (Physical Exerriirieiiorri: Alan, pink, ::n< zsees, good pulse volume. warm peripneriee, not (achypneic Upper limbs. bruises over rigrrr elbow -lerii. Lower limbs‘ rrrillrirrie bruises over laileierel iiiigri. aria rigm eeil -leiri ska linear eereieh mark over rlgm cheek ~acrii, pelacrilae bilateral lower eyelid.“ ls] selaniuzriya rujuk Lapcrsn Perubeleri Exsloil F21 di mukai surai M, Rekod Rayuan Jllid 3: Mulllple ecers noise. 1 2am and Liam linear eoresiori over me riglil cheek. 2 Bruise aver irie riglii lower eyelld. radish in colour, size around 2cm. 3 Bruise over lelerel aspect cf lefl proximal radius, yellow gmanlsh in oolour erio srze 05cm x 0.59m. 4 Bruise over leu rriidsriin, yellow greenish iii wioul and size 1cm x «cm 5 Bruise uvsr leii medial Hugh, yellow greenish iri mlour and size zorri x iorri. 6 Bmise aver rlgm medial lmgn, yellaw greenish in colour and sIZe< u.5ciri. 7 Bruise over right rriidsriin. yellvw greeriieri in colour and size 1 cm x 0 5cm. SIN aDNl'PzlrAns4zlcaul3surw -roe Sunni In-vlhnrwfll be used e mm ms nrwlruilly mi. dun-mm via nFluNG rm rue. A 91 ac [0] Pengadu Iurul membual salu Laponan P3115 yang dwandakan ssbaga|Eks1hilP3 darn balsh Lflrujuk di muka sm-am, Rekod Rayuan mm 3. [101 on lslah dwluduh di Mahkamah Sssyen Sepang pads 21.05.2021 flan diluduh uz bawah seksyen 3l(1)|a) ma Kanak Kanak 2001. [11] Kes \e|aI1 anecapkan unluk kncava pemm kali perlama pads 13.07.2021 selslah rsprssamasi on mwlak namun dwangguhkan unluk OKT memiailkan plea bargammg den xamumannya pada 21.09.2022 drmaklumkan hahawa plea bargaining yang dipahnn lelah mxolak (121 Pads wikh mam selamulnya imlu 30112022, on le\ah mengaku salah (erhadap penuduhan dun Halum Mahkamah Sesyen telah menarima dan merekodkan uengakuan sa\ah on Ruiuk muka swat 17 hingga 22 Rekod Rayuan Jvhd 2. [13] men nu DKT (elah mdapau barsalah flan disabnkan dengan Imkuman d1 bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akla Kanak-Kanak sspemberikur 11) FenjaIa15 bulan davi vankh mun hukum (11) OKT nendakvan sempumakan ban berkelukuan hawk dengan jumhah jamman bemagarsebanyak RM5,0D0,DD dengan ssulang pslqamin h5g1 tempo?! salama dua (2) lahun di bawah seksyen 31(2)(a) Akla Kanak-kanak. Lnpar dun d1 Ba|a1PoIis berhamuiran lempat nnggav OKT sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum 10.2 5.11.1 ...m.m11 be used .2 mm 1.. 0011.11-y mm. dun-mm VI] .r1uNG pm Pan: 5 n. is seuap salu hanbulan sefiap bulan sepamang dua cam fzrsebut se|e\ah sewesav menjalsni hukuman penjara (m) om mxenenaakz melaksanakan Pevimah Kmdmat Masyarakal selama (empeh seratus enam puluh (160) ]am agnagat dengen psmanlauan Pegawax Kebapkan Masyarakal dakxm Iempoh enam 16] bman dad lankh penniah se\aras dengan pemmukan as hawah seksyen 31(2)(n) Akca Kanak-kanak. W. HUJAHAN PENDAKWA RAVA [14] Rujuk kenada Peusyen Rayuan bag! ksduadua kes. yang wan dwankan an dalam Rekod Rayuan Tambahan‘ (iada mana-mans pmak msnmangknkan wsu berkenaan dsngan satman yang dikenakan ke alas OKT [15] Rujuk pula kepada Nola Ksterangan a. da\am Rekod Rayuan Jflld 2 G1 muka sum: 17. OKT telah mengaku sa\ah (erhadap penuduhan yang amacaxan. om iuga telah duersngkan den amamxan swan dan aklbat pengakuannya man on masm mengaku salah. on jugs ada rflwakfli o\eh Peguam semasa pengakuan sa\ah Iersanut dan wanya dmuax lanpa syaral. us] Dleh nu ma isu berkanaan dengan sabilan dapat tflbangkltkan til dalam myuan kes ink [17] Pmak pendakwaan an dalam Pemsyen Rayuan di muka sursl 5 mngga 9, Rakad Rayuan Tambahan menyaxakan aVasan mengapa Timbakln Pendakwa Rays hdak berpuas nan sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG Wm! mg u mi dengan kapulusan yang diberikan oien Hakim Mahkamah sesyen [18] Secara nngkasnya, pihsk pendakwaan msnyalakari bahswa hukumen yang diberikan terlampau ringan (mannaauy inadequate) ks atas OKT bagi kesai.-man di bawah seksyen 31(I)(a)Akta Kanik-Kanak 2001. [19] Hukuman W dibsrikan Ianpa mengambii Kira gravliti kesaianan sens kekeriapavi beflakunya Kesalahan seumpania IN kebeiakangan Ini flan ienamaau mengimbil Kira fnklcr pengakuan salah oien on [20] Tlada sabararig special cncunisiances yang boien menjuslmkasi hukuman-hukuman yang rsndah Isrsebul diberikan Kepada OKT dan is amallah Udak berpadanan unluk menjaga kepenlirlgarl awam den menjadi iakmi deterrence sens Dengaiaran kepada on uan aakai pesaian (woi.IId—be offends!) yang lain. [21] Di daiam nuianan raynannya, pihak pendakwaan merighuiahkan bahawa Hakim Bicara gagai mengambi kessluruhan lakia kes dengan lelill dslam menenmkan hukuman yang 5%suai tevhadap OKT [221 Selemsaya menyaiakan bahawa Akia Kansk-Kanak 2001 men vat kanalvkanak sehagai kunci ksniaupan. pembangunan dan kemakmuran masyarakal yang sekahgus mengakui bahawa kanak-kanak men-enukan peninaungan pemahharaari flan bariluan khas sslspas kelamnan unluk lurul SIN auNrPzxAns4xicaunsum -nag a.n.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm a. nflflinnflly MIN: dun-mm y.. arium mm P-w 7 M 26 sena dawn flan menyumbang secara posmt ka arah memhenluk suam masyavakal Ma\ay:As yang unggul. [23] Mangsa adakm kanak-kanak yang herumur 1 (ahun s bman yang mama maslh sangal muda darn (idak msmpunyai apa- apa ksupsyaan unluk mehndungw mrinya. Manakala on ada\a7I Fambanlu Taska yang sudah devmsa dun diamanahkan unluk menjaga mangsa [24] Fmak pendakwaan m da\am rayuannya msrujuk kepada muka sural 5, ma 3 Reknd Rayuan bagi menurwkkan betxpa ksiamnya perlakuan OKT Ierhadap mangsa [25] Tmdakan ganas (emadap mangsa yang dihmahkan o\eh Pendakwa Raya adalah dengan menemx rakaman CCTV adalah m on (elah menoederakan mangsa dengan kasar sena benindak ganas dengan Cara menghempas mangaa ks mam, menarik hangan dan menampar peha mangaa. (H) Femsnksaan pemuaxan lemadap mangsa mendapan mangsa msngalalm keuederaan fizlkal yang pelbagaw Uapursn perubalan :11 make sure: 37dan 41 Jim 3 Rekod Rayuan dimjuk) (HI) Pamanksaan pamnan |smadap mangsa mendapau mangsa mengalami kecekuruan slress pasca trauma dan keadaan Ierssbul «elm: memberikan kssan bukan hanya kepada psrkembangan sma -aeaual, xogmm dan lmgkahlaku mangsa, ma\ahan ibu bapa dan keluargi Jllga Iurul nemesan bwamana ibu mangsa Ierpaksa bemanu aw aum'PzxAns4x\cauDsum -ma Sum ...ua.. WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Fri: a mu kena ksvana keadaan emusi mangsa yang tidak soabiv (Iaparan perubaxan di muka sure! 44 den 46 Jilid 3 Rekod Rayuan mmuk) [25] Mangsa mengaxamu trauma keoewuan suass pasca trauma dan kaadaan terssbul «slan membenkan kesan bukan hanya kepaaa perkembangan emosx, swan, kognmv dan lingkahlaku mangsa [27] Fendakwaan luvu\ barman bahawa pmdaan kepada Akla Kanak—KarIak Dada Blwn 2016 dengan menaikkan hukuman dsnda danpada RM2o,ooa.oo ka RM50,000 oo dan (ampoh hukuman pemara duamban daripsda an lahun ke 20 Oahun msmbayangkan swkap Parhman msmandang beral a|as kesalahan per-deraan Ierhadav kanak—kanak [23] Permakwaan manghxqahkan baharwa salu hukuman banal hams\ah dmenxan agar pengmaran diberikan bukan sav-a;a kevada csnuauh, mamh orang lam supaya Iidak melakukan kesalahan yang sama an masa hadapan [291 Pendakwa Rays memohun supaya hukuman lemadap on dlkelepikan dan mganlikan dangan sa|u hukuman yang Vebih Imggn. V. HUJANAN FEGUAM [so] Peguam on L1! da\am hujahannya luml menyatakan bahawa Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara adalah sw auwwzmnmxwcaunsum -ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm ua nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Plea u ulzl manrfesr/y excessive dan bmeh mkalakan bsrsflat banenman la\ah dlhukum (erhadap Psrayu dan/atau Respondan. [313 Peguam rnenghumhkan bahawa dsngan Jabs :1! dalam seksyen 31mm Ana Kanak-Kanik zoo: lsrsabux. benluk hukumsn yang panama yang ax perunlukkan adalah hukuman berbemuk dends wm ads\ah jslas memmjukkan bahawa kesalahan m bahawa sexsyen mi adamh salu kesalahan yang wen m denda. [32] Hukuman bevbanluk pemara pma adalah merupakan saw when apabna dinyalakan sehagai “almf sekiranya hukuman penjara adalah Vebih bersesuawan diksnakan kepada psrayu danlalau responden d‘ dalam Kes In‘. [33] Dawn wsu ini Peguam OKT ssvarusnya menghujahkan hahswa hukuman Dams:-a jug: bo\eh msyaralkan haIsama- sama hukuman denda seklranya perayu gagal unmk membayar denda yang akan m kanakan oxen Hakwm Mahkamah Sesyen [34] OKT meVa|u7 naslhal yang telah d1 berikan uleh pihflk Deguam (shah menukar pengakuan bagi tujuan memudahkan prose: dw Mahkamah Perbuzaraan an Mahkamah flan dengan Nat Imluk mermapalkan Sam hukuman berbentuk denda dan OKT bersedxa unluk hukuman denda tersebul [35] Peguam menghmahkan banawa Kepenlmgan seseorang lenuduh dw dalam sesuam kss iuga lidak bo\eh m pindang sw auwvvzmnsmcaunsum -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm m. In mu

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022

PLAINTIF Kerajaan Malaysia DEFENDAN 1. ) AZEMAN BIN HAIRUDIN 2. ) SPANCO SDN BHD

running down case - Government motorcycle involved with a collision with a motorcar - liability is set for 100% against the Defendant - However Plf is only awarded nominal sum due to the Plaintiff's failure to prove their claims for special damages.

09/02/2024

Puan Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1c6cd1bf-c5f7-48bf-ae70-1ab5c491cf22&Inline=true

1 IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR CIVIL SUIT NO..: WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022 BETWEEN KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …PLAINTIFF AND 1. AZEMAN BIN HAIRUDIN [I/C NO.:630125-01-6679] 2. SPANCO SDN BHD [COMPANY NO..172957-U] …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. The Plaintiff’s claim arises from a road accident that had occurred along Jalan Tun Razak heading from Pusat Bandar towards Jalan Duta on 29.7.2019 at about 1.30pm. On the day of the accident, Sergeant Kamaluddin Bin Jalal, was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle (WPP 4529) while conducting his rounds along Jalan Tun Razak. 09/02/2024 09:54:35 WA-A71KJ-18-07/2022 Kand. 30 S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 The road was congested with traffic and at one point, Sergeant Kamaluddin had stopped his car behind another car. Suddenly, the Defendant’s car, a Proton Preve (W7066L) came from behind and hit the Plaintiff’s car from the back. Due to this collision, the Plaintiff’s car was damaged, and the Plaintiff is now claiming for the cost of repairs amounting to RM16,600.00 from the Defendant. 2. After a day of trial and after hearing the submissions from both parties, and on the balance of probabilities, this Court decided to only allow a portion of the Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff. 3. To be specific, this Court finds that the Defendant is to be held 100% liable for negligently causing the accident, however this Court only allowed a nominal sum of RM10.00 of damages to the Plaintiffs. 4. Not satisfied with this Court’s decision, Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal against this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum (only) on 20.12.2023. Here are this Court’s grounds of decision on the issue of quantum. 5. At trial, Plaintiff had called a total of 2 witnesses while the Defendant did not call any witnesses. The list of witnesses is as follows; Name of Witness Role Label Witness Statement Sofiyuddin Bin Zakaria Representative from SP1 PSSP1 S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Worksyop, Jabatan Kerja Raya Sergeant Kamaluddin Bin Jalal Driver of Plaintiff’s vehicle SP2 PSSP2 B. THIS COURT’S GROUNDS OF DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTUM 6. Before this Court goes into the basis of this Court’s decision on the issue of quantum, I will briefly state the law with regards to special damages. It is an established principle of law where special damages is to be pleaded specifically and proven strictly. Reference is made to the case of Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] 2 MLJ 324 in where the Federal Court Judge, His Lordship Syed Agil Barakbah (as he was then) said as follows : “It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general damages have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. They are recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages and are not too remote (see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th edition, volume 11 page 218 [ara 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by Ong Hock Thye, FJ (as he then was) in Yee Hup Transport & Co and Anor v Wong Kong [1967] 2 MLJ 93 which was an appeal on quantum of damages. Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991; [1963] 2 All ER 879 he held that general damages should not be S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 awarded as though they were special damages properly pleaded and proved. Similiarly Chong Swee Pian [1980] 1 MLJ 216 applied the principle in Ilkiw v Samuels (supra) that special damages if pleases as in that case could be recovered. The principle was also adopted by Mohamed Azmi, J (as he then was) in Sam Wun Hoong v Kader Ibramshah [1981] 1 MLJ 295 in the Federal Court. The reason that special damages have to be specifically pleaded is to comply with its object which is to crystallise the issue and to enable both parties to prepare for trial (per Edmund Davies, LJ in Domsalla v Barr [1969] 1 WLR 630, 635. In special damages claims the exact loss must be pleaded where the precise amount of item of damages has been become clear before the trial either because it has already occurred and so become crystallised or because it can be measure with complete accuracy (MacGregor on Damages 14th edition page 1012 para 1498). The purpose is to put the defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on trial (per Cotton, LJ in Phillips v Phillips (1878) 4 QBD 127,139”. 7. Reference is also made to the book Fundamentals of Running Down And Personal Injury Litigation where the author Jeyaseelan Anthony, at page 198-200 had listed the 4 elements that had to be fulfilled in every claim for special damages : “6.2 SPECIAL DAMAGES [6.007] Four elements must be satisfied to constitute special damages: 1. It is a damage which is actually suffered before the trial. 2. It is capable of precise quantification. S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 3. It must be specifically pleaded in the statement of claim. 4. It must be proved either by receipts or some other evidence.” 8. In this instant case, this Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim for special damages cannot be granted in full due to its non-fulfillment of elements 2 and 4 of the elements stated in the paragraph above. 9. For the element of ‘It must be capable of precise quantification’, reference is made to the testimony given by Encik Sofiyuddin (SP1) who was holding the post of Jurutera Mekanikal Gred J41 at JKR Worksyop Persekutuan at the time the Plaintiff’s vehicle was sent for inspection. SP1 stated that the inspection was carried out by a subordinate (Pembantu Kemahiran) and that subordinate’s findings is later verified by himself. SP1 concedes that he personally did not carry out the inspection, however he is able to verify the findings of the inspection as he was present at the location when the inspection was carried out. Reference is made to his testimony as below: “DF Encik Sofi, sebelum membuat pengesahan di dokumen di muka surat 5, dokumen di muka surat 5 dan 6 di Bundle C, adakah Encik Sofi telah memeriksa kenderaan tersebut sebelum membuat pengesahan? SP1 Saya menyaksikan pemeriksaan. 1DF Soalan saya adakah Encik Sofi memeriksa kenderaan tersebut sebelum membuat pengesahan? SP1 TIdak S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 DF Setuju dengan saya, Encik Sofi mengesahkan anggaran kerosakan tersebut hanyalah berdasarkan penilaian oleh pembantu kemahiran dan juga penolong jurutera? Setuju? SP1 Saya minta ulang. DF Encik Sofi mengesahkan anggaran kerosakan tersebut hanyalah berdasarkan penilaian oleh pembantu kemahiran dan juga penolong jurutera? SP1 Ya, saya. “ 10. In gist, it was another individual who had carried out the inspection and prepared a report listing the damages, SP1’s task was only to verify it. Based on his verification, a total of 26 damaged parts needed to be repaired or replaced on the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The estimated cost of repairs assessed by SP1 amounted to RM16,600.00. 11. Based on this Court’s assessment of SP1’s testimony and documents tendered through him, this Court finds that basis which SP1 used to assess the cost of damages is unclear/unexplained. As stated above, SP1 did not personally carry out the inspection, he merely verified the findings. SP1 stated that there were pictures taken to show proof of the damages listed, but after the defence counsel showed him each and every photo, SP1 himself admitted that most of the listed damages cannot be seen / shown in the pictures appended. 12. Next, reference is made to ‘Borang Kerosakan’ (P2, page 6) under ‘Perkara Kerosakan’ where SP1 had listed out all 26 items that needed to be repaired or replaced. For items 1 until 23, it is noted that the items are to be replaced whereas for items 24 to 26, it is noted that the items could be repaired. However, there is no S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 statement or notation stating how much each and every item would cost. There is only a statement at the bottom of the document stating “Anggaran Tafsiran Pembaikan : RM16,600.00”. 13. When questioned by the Defendant’s counsel as to how he had come up with the estimation of repairs, SP1 had answered as below: “DF En Sofi saya rujuk Encik Sofi kepada soalan 9 yang menyatakan bagaimanakah anggaran tafsiran pembaikan seperti yang anda nyatakan di dalam Borang Laporan Kerosakan tersebut dibuat? Dan Encik Sofi telah menyatakan telah kenderaan tersebut yang telah menyatakan telah merujuk kepada data dan rekod yang boleh didapati di dalam rekod kami untuk melihat julat (“range”) harga bagi setiap bahagian kenderaan. Encik Sofi merujuk kepada rekod apa ya? SP1 Rekod kerosakan untuk kenderaan jenis Proton Waja.” 14. SP1 states that his estimation was made by referring to a ‘record kerosakan’ however this record was not tendered or referred to in Court. Furthermore, SP1 also offered no explanation as to how the total amount RM16,600.00 came to be: “DF Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya anggaran tafsiran pembaikan sebanyak RM16,600. Telah dinyatakan tanpa menyatakan harga setiap perkara kerosakan dengan spesifik? SP1 Setuju.” S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 15. The action of merely giving a lump sum amount, and to claim that THAT is the estimated cost of repairs is unacceptable. This Court is minded that the nature of an estimation is fluid/flexible as it is subject to changes, however the basis on which the estimation is derived from has to be clear. This Court finds that SP1’s mere oral assertion that the amount was derived from a supposed ‘rekod kerosakan’ is not sufficient to support this claim as SP1 himself is not able to explain what are estimated cost listed for each item listed there. 16. Next, on the element of ‘It must be proved either by receipts or some other evidence’. Looking through the testimonies by both SP1 and SP2, this Court finds that there is no proof to show that the vehicle has actually been repaired and no proof to show that if there were repairs done, the cost to repair it was RM16,600.00 as claimed by Plaintiff. 17. SP1 confirms that his task was only to inspect and to provide an estimation of the costs needed to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle. SP1 also confirms that the actual cost of repair may differ than the estimation which he had provided. An extract of his testimony is put below for reference: “DF Encik Sofi, oleh kerana JKR hanya memeriksa, dan tidak membaiki. Soalan saya, adakah pihak yang membaiki harus mengikut anggaran JKR? SP1 Tidak DF Jawapan Encik Sofi tidak? SP1 Tidak DF Encik telah nyatakan bahawa pihak Jawapan Encik tidak? S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 SP1 Tidak DF Encik Sofi, Encik Sofi telah nyatakan pihak pembaiki tidak perlu julat harga yang telah ditetapkan oleh JKR. Oleh itu, mungkin tak apabila kenderaan tersebut dibaiki, harga pembaikan sebenar berbeza dengan julat harga JKR? SP1 Mungkin DF Jadi Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya, pemeriksaan dan anggaran tafsiran dari JKR mungkin berbeza dengan kos pembaikan yang sebenar? SP1 Ya ….. DF Encik Sofi setuju dengan saya RM16,600.00 ini adalah angka bagi anggaran tafsiran pembaikan dan bukan kos pembaikan kereta tersebut. SP1 Setuju …. DF Encik Sofi, soalan terakhir saya lah kepada Encik Sofi. Anggaran sebanyak RM16,600.00 ini bukanlah resit pembaikan tetapi hanyalah anggaran tafsiran pembaikan, betul? SP1 Setuju.” 18. Based on the extract above, it is clear to this Court that SP1 was not able to provide information whether or not the actual cost of repairs tallies with the amount estimated by JKR. 19. Another important point that needs to be taken into account is that the Plaintiff had failed to show that the vehicle had indeed been repaired. Both SP1 dan SP2 was S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 not involved in the reparation of the vehicle and could not confirm to the Court whether or nor the vehicle has been repaired. An extract of the relevant testimony from SP1 is as below : “DF Encik Sofi telah mengesahkan Borang Laporan Kerosakan pada muka surat 5 tersebut pada 19.7.2017, setuju? SP1 Setuju DF Adakah itu tarikh terakhir Encik Sofi melihat kenderaan tersebut? SP1 Ya DF Saya nyatakan kepada Encik Sofi bahawa setelah Encik Sofi sahkan Borang Laporan Kerosakan dan juga anggaran tafsiran tersebut, Encik Sofi tidak lagi mempunyai pengetahuan tentang kenderaan tersebut, setuju? SP1 Pengetahuan mengenai kenderaan tersebut sama ada dibaiki ataupun tidak? DF Ya. Maksudnya Encik Sofi tidak mempunyai pengetahuan selepas Encik Sofi sahkan? SP1 Sama ada kenderaan tersebut dibaiki atau tidak? DF Ya SP1 Ya, saya tak ada pengetahuan.” 20. Whereas, the relevant extract from SP2’s testimony is as below: “DF Sarjan selepas kemalangan tersebut, adakah Sarjan masih menggunakan kenderaan tersebut ataupun tidak? S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 SP2 Selepas kemalangan itu, kenderaan itu saya tidak gunakan lagi dan saya serahkan kepada pihak PDRM untuk dibaiki. DF Maksudnya selepas daripada kemalangan tersebut, Sarjan menggunakan kenderaan lainlah semasa bertugas? SP2 Ya DF Sarjan boleh sahkan yang sehingga hari ini Sarjan selepas kemalangan tersebut, memang Sarjan tidak ada guna langsung kenderaan tersebut? SP2 Tidak ada langsung saya gunakan kenderaan tersebut.” 21. Based on the two testimonies above, this Court finds that there is no sufficient proof to support whether or not the Plaintiff’s vehicle has been repaired. 22. Taking into account all of the issues stated above, the main point that remains a mystery to this Court is what repair works that had been carried out, and whether the repair works or cost of spare parts that were used in the repair works are reasonable and had been carried out to the tee. No evidence or testimonies were adduced by Plaintiff that could elucidate on this matter. The two witnesses that HAD been called could only, at best, give evidence that there were damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and there is an estimation on how much the repairs were going to cost. The question of whether or not the recommended repair works were reasonable and whether or not the repair works were actually carried out is left unanswered. Therefore, this Court is unable to grant the special damages as pleaded by the Plaintiff. 23. Nevertheless putting aside the failure of the Plaintiff to sufficiently prove their claim for special damages, considering the fact that this Court had found the S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Defendants wholly liable for negligently causing the accident, this Court grants a sum RM10.00 as nominal damages for the Plaintiff. 24. Overall on the balance of probabilities, this Court decides to allow only a part of the Plaintiff’s claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff. Case Details Magistrate : Shairil Farhana Binti Ruslan Counsel for Plaintiff : Raveena a/p Mogan, Federal Counsel Counsel for Defendant : Muhammad Alif Lamra, Messrs Gan, Ho &Razlan Hadri. Date of Decision : 8th December 2023 Date of Ground of Decision : 7th February 2024 S/N v9FsHPfFv0iucBq1xJHPIg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-44-103-08/2023

PEMOHON AZHARUZAMAN BIN WAHAB RESPONDEN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.i) First issue - the detention order is defective for contradictions in the first and second allegations of fact - read together all the allegation, no confusion there - no merit to the first issue.ii) Second issue - Non-compliance of s. 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP Saravanan - the type of dangerous drugs stated in the grounds and allegation of fact to the detention order is consistent with the finding of both the IO PDRM and IO KDN - there is no merit.iii) Third issue - The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug trafficking location is non-existent - no merit to this issue.

09/02/2024

YA Puan Julia binti Ibrahim

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=17f99c03-a4bd-4323-b3d9-ca933bf86b2d&Inline=true

JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: BA-44-103-08/2023 BETWEEN AZHARUZAMAN BIN WAHAB …APPLICANT [IC No.: 890705-11-5041] AND 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGARAH PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK BATU GAJAH, PERAK 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA …APPELLANT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [ 1 ] The application was heard on the 23rd of January 2024 and this court had dismissed the application. The reasons for the dismissal are set out below. [ 2 ] A detention order dated 24.3.2023 was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs (“the Deputy Minister”) against the applicant 09/02/2024 11:53:47 BA-44-103-08/2023 Kand. 24 S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 2 under section 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (“the Act”), ordering that the applicant be detained at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Batu Gajah, Perak for two (2) years with effect from the date of the detention order. The applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus citing procedural non-compliance with the Act and the Federal Constitution. THE ISSUES [ 3 ] The applicant’s counsel in his written submission raised three issues viz. - (i) Procedural non-compliance when the detention order is defective for contradictions found in the first and second allegations of fact; (ii) Non-compliance of section 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP Saravanan a/l Divanantong when he failed to apply his mind correctly before allowing the applicant’s detention for investigation exceeding 14 days; and (iii) The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug trafficking location is non-existent i.e. “di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan Eco-Shop Marketing Sdn Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang”. S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 3 THE LAW ON HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS [ 4 ] Subsection 11C(1) of the Act allowed judicial review for non- compliance of any procedural requirement of the Act – “Judicial review of act or decision of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Minister 11C. (1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.” (emphasis added) [ 5 ] Various decisions of the Federal Court had strictly applied such provisions as in the following case of Rovin Joty Kodeeswaran v. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors And Other Appeals1 - “[10] Judicial review on the decision of the tribunals exercising similar functions to the Board should not be questioned except on procedural non-compliance. Such discretion in determining the substantive / policy matter by the Board was outside the reach of the courts…” [ 6 ] The burden of proving compliance with the law and procedures is always on the Respondents. [see S.K. Tangakaliswaran v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors.2, Muhammad Jailani Kasim v Timbalan 1 [2021] 4 CLJ 1 2 [2009] 6CLJ 705 S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 4 Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors.3]. A detenu can also take advantage of any technical imperfections in the action taken by the detaining authorities. [see Ng Hong Choon v Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & 1 Lagi SC4]. THE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDING First issue: The detention order is defective for contradictions in the first and second allegations of fact [ 7 ] Learned counsel submitted that the detention order is defective, confusing and prejudicial to the applicant as there are contradictions in the first and second allegations of fact. The first allegations of fact stated that the applicant had been involved in drug trafficking activities from end of March 2022 to 12 February 2023 not continuously (secara tidak berterusan). But in the second allegations of fact stated that the applicant’s sale of the drugs was carried out every day (“menjual dadah tersebut dengan kekerapan pada setiap hari”). [ 8 ] Learned counsel compared the allegations of fact in a detention order as similar to a charge in a criminal trial. As such, the applicant’s representation hearing under Article 151 of the Federal Constitution is defective which in turn would render the recommendation by the Advisory Board to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under subsection 10(1) of the Act also defective. 3 [2006] 4 CLJ 687] 4 [1994] 4 CLJ 47, at p.55]. S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 5 [ 9 ] Learned Senior Federal Counsel (“SFC”) argued that this issue is not an issue of procedural non-compliance but questioning the exercise of the Deputy Minister’s power in issuing a detention order under section 6(1) of the Act. Section 11C(1) of the Act prohibits judicial review of any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (“YDPA”) or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act. [ 10 ] It was also submitted that the purpose of the allegations of fact is to enable the applicant to make a representation before the Advisory Board concerning his detention. The mandatory procedure with regards to the grounds and allegations of fact on which his detention is based on is to furnish the applicant with the same under subsection 9(2) of the Act which was duly complied with in this case. ANALYSIS AND FINDING [ 11 ] The allegations of fact are reproduced below for a clearer picture of the alleged contradictions – “PENGATAAN-PENGATAAN FAKTA YANG ATASNYA PERINTAH ITU DIASASKAN - 1. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari sekumpulan besar orang didapati terlibat dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah jenis pil kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine sejak penghujung bulan Mac 2022 sehingga 12 Februari 2023 S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 6 secara tidak berterusan di sekitar kawasan tepi jalan berhampiran Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Seri Damai, Kuantan, Pahang, di sekitar kawasan Kampung Seri Damai, Kuantan Pahang, di sekitar kawasan Taman Tas, Kuantan, Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan rumah beralamat No.252-B, FELDA Sungai Panching Selatan, Kuantan, Pahang, di sekitar kawasan belakang Restoran Nasi Lemak Zaman, Jalan Kuantan-Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan Eco-Shop Marketing Sdn. Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang dan di sekitar kawasan Kampung Tengah, Kuantan, Pahang. 2. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari sekumpulan besar orang didapati menjual dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dalam bentuk tongkol (10 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM7,000.00 hingga RM8,000.00 setongkol, dalam bentuk peket (5 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM3,500.00 hingga RM3,800.00, dalam bentuk peket (3 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM2,000.00, dalam bentuk kandang (peket berisi 200 biji) dengan harga RM1,000.00 hingga RM1,200.00 sekandang dan dalam bentuk baris (tiub straw berisi 10 biji) dengan harga RM100.00 sebaris. Bahawa kamu juga mengaku menjual bekalan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan kekerapan setiap hari. S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 7 3. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari sekumpulan besar orang didapati membeli bekalan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dalam bentuk kandang (peket berisi 200 biji) berharga RM700.00 sekandang dan dalam bentuk tiga (3) tongkol (peket berisi 2,000 biji setongkol) berharga RM18,000.00 daripada rakan-rakan sejenayah dan membuat pembungkusan semula dalam bentuk peket kecil pelbagai saiz bagi tujuan pengedaran. Bahawa kamu mengaku membeli bekalan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan kekerapan satu (1) peket hingga tiga (3) kali seminggu bagi tujuan pengedaran kepada rakan-rakan sejenayah. 4. Bahawa kamu merupakan sebahagian dari sekumpulan besar orang didapati mengendalikan aktiviti pengedaran dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan merekrut rakan-rakan sejenayah sebagai pengedar dadah dengan membekalkan dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dalam bentuk tongkol (10 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM7,000.00 hingga RM8,000.00 setongkol, dalam bentuk peket (5 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM3,500.00 hingga RM3,800.00, dalam bentuk peket (3 peket plastik berisi 200 biji sepeket) dengan harga RM2,000.00, dalam bentuk S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 8 kandang (peket berisi 200 biji) dengan harga RM1,000.00 hingga RM1,200.00 sekandang bagi tujuan pengedaran. Bahawa kamu juga didapati mempunyai rakan sejenayah yang berperanan sebagai penjaga stor simpanan dan sebagai penghantar bekalan (runner) dadah jenis Pil Kuda yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine dengan membayar upah RM500.00 kepada rakan sejenayah berkenaan bagi penghantaran bekalan dadah dalam sehari.” (emphasis added) [ 12 ] The court finds itself in agreement with learned SFC on this issue. The issue raised is not a procedural non-compliance issue. The applicant had been duly served and furnished with a copy of the grounds and allegations of fact together with the detention order as provided under subsection 9(2) of the Act. The applicant had been given the opportunity to make representation before the Advisory Board. A recommendation was duly submitted to the YDPA for his approval. [ 13 ] There is no provision in the Act on how the content of the grounds and allegations of fact should be narrated or then considered by the Advisory Board. As stated in Lee Kew Sang v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors5 “It is not for the courts to create procedural requirements because it is not the function of the courts to make law or rules.” 5 [2005] 3 CLJ 914, page 930-931 S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 9 [ 14 ] In any case, the court found no contradictions between the two allegations of fact as each paragraph of the allegations refers to a different activity and all paragraphs must be read together to have a complete picture of the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking activities. The first allegation refers to the different areas of the applicant’s drug trafficking activities in Kuantan, Pahang, not continuously simply means drug is not trafficked everyday in every area stated. The second allegation specifically focussed on the sale of drugs in different forms referred to as “tongkol, kandang, peket and baris” priced differently and sold every day without reference to any particular area. The third allegation detailed how the applicant bought his drug supply and repackaging the drugs for sale. The fourth allegation laid out how the applicant recruited accomplices for the storage and delivery of the drugs. Read together, no confusion there, thus the court finds no merit to the first issue. Second issue: Non-compliance of section 3(2)(c) of the Act by DSP Saravanan a/l Divanantong when he failed to apply his mind correctly before allowing the applicant’s detention for investigation exceeding 14 days. [ 15 ] It was submitted by learned counsel that the applicant’s case file submitted by the Investigation officer Inspector Abang Annuar bin Abang Kaderi (“IO/PDRM”) to DSP Saravanan a/l Divanantong (“DSP Saravanan”) was defective and incorrect. Learned counsel based this argument on an incorrect reference to the type of drug that the applicant was suspected to be trafficking. This can be seen at paragraph 4, line 9 and 10 of DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit (enclosure 12) where he stated the S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 10 type of dangerous drug as ‘Heroin’. In the grounds and allegations of fact the type of dangerous drug is stated as ‘Methamphetamine’. [ 16 ] Learned counsel then questioned whether the applicant was actually involved with the trafficking of ‘Heroin’ or ‘Methamphetamine’? Consequently, it was argued that the report made by DSP Saravanan to ACP Mohamed Fadzil bin A. Rahman (“ACP Mohamed Fadzil”) which was submitted to the Minister under section 3(2)(c) of the Act was also defective. There was no Affidavit filed by DSP Saravanan to amend the incorrect reference in his Affidavit Jawapan. This shows that DSP Saravanan and ACP Mohamed Fadzil did not use their mind correctly in allowing the continued detention of the applicant. [ 17 ] On the other hand, learned SFC submitted that the incorrect reference of the drug type was a typing error. Although a correction was not made by DSP Saravanan, the mistake is not material to the case and did not prejudice the applicant. The learned SFC relied on the case of Tay Lay Beng v Menteri Hal-Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Anor6, PP v Chean Hua Sey & Ors7 and Mohd Fazli bin Md Daud v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & 2 Lagi8 as support for his argument. [ 18 ] It was also argued that the procedural requirement for detaining the applicant beyond 14 days under section 3(2)(c) of the Act is the reporting of the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and detention to ACP Mohamed Fadzil and to the Minister. This was duly complied with by DSP Saravanan and ACP Mohamed Fadzil. The Minister had 6 [2004] 8 CLJ 674 7 [2008] 9 CLJ 657, para 8 [2022] 1 LNS 913, para 21 S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 11 acknowledged receipt of the report in his Affidavit Jawapan, in paragraph 6 (enclosure 5). ANALYSIS AND FINDING [ 19 ] Section 3(2)(c) of the Act requires the reporting of the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and detention by a a police officer of or above the rank of DSP to the Inspector General of Police (”IGP”) or a police officer designated by him to be forwarded forthwith to the Minister. There is no provision that details what are the circumstances of an applicant’s arrest and detention that must be stated in such report. [ 20 ] A perusal of the IO/PDRM’s Affidavit (para 6, enclosure 9) shows that the investigation on the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking activities could not be completed within 14 days; as such, a report of the circumstances of his arrest and detention was made to DSP Saravanan. In paragraph 5 of DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit (supra), he stated that upon his perusal of the applicant’s case file, he was satisfied that the investigation is yet to be completed and the applicant’s detention should be extended to more than 14 days. DSP Saravanan then complied with section 3(2)(c) of the Act by reporting the circumstances of his arrest and detention to ACP Mohamed Fadzli to be extended to the Minister. The mandatory procedural requirement was duly complied with thus far. [ 21 ] The court found that the incorrect reference of the type of drug in DSP Saravanan’s Affidavit i.e. Heroin instead of Methamphetamine be it a typing error or not is immaterial and not prejudicial to the applicant. At this stage, the investigation into the applicant’s drug trafficking activities S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 12 with a substantial number of people is not yet complete. The investigation report by the IO/PDRM under section 3(3) of the Act was only completed on 3.3.2023 and sent to the Minister and inquiry officer of the Home Ministry (“IO/KDN”). [ 22 ] Only upon receipt of both the reports from the IO/PDRM and the IO/KDN under section 5(4) of the Act will the Minister consider the necessity to issue a detention order against the applicant. The type of dangerous drug stated in the IO/PDRM’s Affidavit Jawapan (para 14, enclosure 9) and the IO/KDN’s Affivadit Jawapan (para 12, enclosure 6) is Methamphetamine. The Minister in turn based his decision to issue a detention order on these two complete reports and not on the report of ACP Mohamed Fadzil and DSP Saravanan’s report. Thus, the type of dangerous drugs stated in the grounds and allegations of fact to the detention order is consistent with the finding of both the IO/PDRM and IO/KDN. The court finds no merit to this issue. Third issue: The detention order is ex-facie defective as one of the drug trafficking location is non-existent i.e. “di tepi jalan, sekitar hadapan Eco- Shop Marketing Sdn Bhd., Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang”. [ 23 ] In the applicant’s Affidavit Sokongan (enclosure 3), photos of Eco- Shops in Pahang sourced from the company’s website were attached as “AH-2”. It was contended that none of the Eco-Shop’s stores in Kuantan showed an address as stated in the first paragraph of the allegations of fact i.e, Eco-Shop Marketing, Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang (“the Eco-Shop”). Therefore, learned counsel submitted as the address does not exist, it renders the detention order ex-facie defective. S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT AP/BA-44-103-08/2023 (uo) 13 [ 24 ] It was also argued that the IO/PDRM’s reply in his Affidavit Jawapan had failed to discharge the Respondent’s burden to answer a specific issue raised by the applicant. This in turn raised the question of whether the IO/PDRM had actually visited the place since no proof of the visit like a photograph of the area was not appended to his Affidavit Jawapan to challenge the applicant’s allegation. [ 25 ] Learned SFC maintained that this issue is also not a procedural non-compliance issue. As submitted before, the procedure under section 9 of the Act is the service and furnishing of the grounds and allegations of fact to the applicant for his representation before the Advisory Board. Learned SFC also argued the fact that the IO/PDRM had actually visited the place i.e. at the road side, around the front of Eco-Shop Marketing Sdn. Bhd, Batu 3, Kuantan, Pahang (para 36 of his Affidavit Jawapan). The emphasis is on “the road side, around the front of the Eco-Shop” (di tepi jalan, sekitar hadapan Eco-Shop), not the shop itself. On the other hand, the learned counsel had only obtained his information on his search the company’s website. ANALYSIS AND FINDING [ 26 ] The court agrees with learned SFC’s argument that this is another non-issue of procedural compliance. On closer inspection, it is correct to say that the emphasis is on the “surrounding area in front of the shop, at the road side”; not the shop itself. This is consistent with the description of the other areas of drug trafficking activities listed such as “di sekitar kawasan Taman Tas, Kuantan, Pahang, di tepi jalan sekitar hadapan S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N A5z5F72kI0Oz2cqTO/hrLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-12BNCvC-49-12/2022

PERAYU HUAT SIANG HARDWARE SDN BHD RESPONDEN AMIR FAEZAL NORZELA & CHONG

Conveyancing transaction – Role and responsibilities of conveyancing lawyers – Whether conveyancing lawyer was guilty of professional negligence, misrepresentation and had breached of the terms of appointment – Standard of care expected of solicitors in conveyancing matters – Power of Attorney – Failure to register in land office.

09/02/2024

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=197136a3-bc69-4cb5-a37e-218619250708&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12BNCVC-49-12/2022 ANTARA HUAT SIANG HARDWARE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 258849-U) …PERAYU DAN AMIR FAEZAL NORZELA & CHONG (mengamal sebagai satu firma perkongsian) …RESPONDEN (Dalam perkara Mahkamah Sesyen di Shah Alam Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan Guaman Sivil No. BA-B52NCVC-164-07/2020 Antara Huat Siang Hardware Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 258849-U) …Plaintif Dan Amir Faezal Norzela & Chong (mengamal sebagai satu firma perkongsian) …Defendan Diputuskan oleh Puan Hakim Azian Binti Othman pada 09.12.2022) 09/02/2024 09:50:02 BA-12BNCvC-49-12/2022 Kand. 26 S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Vendors and purchasers of properties place their total trust on the expertise, advice and acts of their conveyancing lawyers to help them complete the tasks of property conveyancing transactions that they are involved in. In this regard, the significance of a conveyancing lawyer's role and responsibilities cannot be overstated. The duties and functions undertaken and discharged by those responsible in such property conveying transactions are indeed onerous. [2] The present suit/appeal before this Court underscores the above observations and put the spotlight on the professional duties expected of conveyancing lawyers in this country. The Issues in the Present Suit/Appeal [3] The overriding issue in the present appeal is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in dismissing the Appellant’s suit initiated against the Respondent based on professional negligence, misrepresentation and breach of the terms of appointment for the sum of RM673,000.00. [4] In determining this prevailing issue, this Court will have to consider whether a case has been made out against the Respondent for professional negligence, misrepresentation and breach of the terms of appointment on a balance of probabilities. S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [5] Foremost is the pivotal issue of whether the Respondent had failed to exercise the standard of care expected of solicitors in the same matter. The Parties, the Background Facts and the Suit in the Sessions Court [6] The Appellant in the present appeal, Huat Siang Hardware Sdn Bhd, was the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court. [7] On the other hand, the Respondent in the present appeal, Amir Faezal Norzela & Chong, a legal firm, was the Defendant in the Sessions Court. [8] On or around Jun 2018, the Appellant had appointed the Respondent to represent them as its solicitors for the purchase a parcel of freehold land at the purchase price of RM6,600,000.00. [9] The land in question is registered in the names of 4 individuals, namely, Mohd Rohim Bin Maskor, Ismail @ Haji Ismail Bin Maskor, Siti Rahmah Binti Maskor and Zaiman @ Zainab Binti Maskor. [10] The Respondent had advised the Appellant that Messrs Malek & Associates was the vendors’ solicitors. [11] On 30 July, 2028, in reliance on the Respondent’s advice, the Appellant executed a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the terms of which were drafted by the Respondent) and the Memorandum of Transfer (that was prepared by the Respondent). S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [12] On the Vendors’ part, this Sale and Purchase Agreement and Memorandum of Transfer was executed by Mohd Rohim Bin Maskor for himself and as attorney for Ismail @ Haji Ismail Bin Maskor, Siti Rahmah Binti Maskor and Zaiman @ Zainab Binti Maskor purportedly pursuant to a Power of Attorney dated 25 June, 2018. [13] Although the Power of Attorney was duly registered at the Shah Alam High Court on 25 June, 2018 vide Presentation No. PA10480/18, it was not registered at the relevant land office notwithstanding that registration of the Power of Attorney at the land office is mandatory under section 310 of the National Land Code. [14] In reliance on the Respondent’s advice as the Appellant’s solicitors, the Appellant made the following payments to Messrs Malek & Associates, namely: 1. the sum of RM132,000.00 vide a cheque dated 22 June, 2018 being the Earnest Deposit prior to the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement; and 2. the sum of RM528,000.00 vide a cheque dated 11 July, 2018 being the Balance Deposit upon execution of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement. PA. Therefore, the total amount paid by the Appellant to Messrs Malek & Associates was RM660,000.00, being 10% of the Purchase Price of the land in question. S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [15] On or around February 2019, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the Memorandum of Transfer cannot be executed due to the non-registration of the Power of Attorney at the relevant Land Office. In order to resolve the matter, the Respondent advised the Appellant to “re-execute” the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum of Transfer with the vendors/landowners in their personal capacity, discarding the Power of Attorney. [16] On 13 March, 2019, in reliance on the Respondent’s advice and instructions, the Appellant re-executed a new signing page. Thereafter the Respondent removed the existing signing page from the original Sale and Purchase Agreement (which was executed under the Power of Attorney) and replaced it with the newly executed signing page keeping all other terms and conditions therein the same, [17] The Appellant was also required to sign a new Memorandum of Transfer for the vendors/land owners’ execution in their personal capacity. The signing of this new Memorandum of Transfer was purportedly witnessed by one Siti Narida Binti Mohd Nor, Penolong Pentadbir Tanah, Pejabat Daerah Tanah Klang. [18] Sometime in April 2019, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the Respondent suspected fraud in the land transaction. [19] The Appellant then instructed the Respondent to demand the return of the Deposit paid to Messrs Malek & Associates together with liquidated damages pursuant to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. The Appellant also instructed the Respondent to transfer the file to another firm of solicitors, Messrs Hisham Yoong – KC Lim. S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [20] Prior to the said transfer, the Respondent demanded payment of the sum of RM13,000.00 being the Respondent’s legal fee for conduct of the Land transaction, which the Appellant paid under protest. [21] The Appellant claimed that it had thus suffered losses amounting to RM673,000.00 in the above land transaction. [22] The particulars of the claim by the Appellant against the Respondent before the Sessions Court, for negligent and misrepresentation, are as follows: (a) The Respondent had failed to ascertain the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the vendors’ solicitors; (b) The Respondent had failed to discover that the vendors’ solicitors did not have a valid practising certificate; (c) The Respondent had failed to detect signatures on the Letter of Authorisation was different from the signatures on the Power of Attorney and that the Power of Attorney was not registered with the Land Office; and (d) The Respondent had failed to obtain a copy of the title to the Property or certified copies of the vendors’ NRICs. In addition, the Appellant also alleged breach of the terms of appointment by the Respondent. S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [23] The Respondent’s defences are, inter alia, as follows: (a) The Appellant had failed to establish a case for professional negligence, misrepresentation and breach of terms of appointment; (b) The Appellant’s primary witness (SP-1) had admitted under oath that it was the vendors’ solicitors, and not the Respondent, that caused the loss; (c) if a finding of negligence were made against the Respondent (which the Respondent denied), the actions of the Appellant/purchaser (by expediting on a “bargain deal” and then pleading ignorance) and its solicitors had broken the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens); (d) The Appellant ought to have pursued and exhausted all legal remedies against the vendors’ solicitors to recover its loss; and (e) It was on the Respondent's good advice and due diligence that prevented the Appellant from releasing the partial balance purchase price of RM4.5million to the vendors’ solicitors. The Decision of the Sessions Court [24] The reasonings of the learned Sessions Court Judge for dismissing the claim by the Appellant against the Respondent can be gleaned from S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal paras [25] – [40] of her Grounds of Judgment. The learned Sessions Court Judge explained as follows: [25] Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Defendan yang merupakan seorang peguam bela dan peguam cara mempunyai kewajipan berjaga- jaga semasa mengendalikan urusan PJB Tanah kerana Plaintif telah melantik Defendan bagi maksud itu. [26] Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah melakukan suatu kecuaian profesional dalam pengendalian PJB tersebut. [27] Memandangkan Defendan merupakan seorang peguam bela dan peguam cara, maka, Plaintif hendaklah membuktikan kehendak elemen standard berjaga-jaga bagi membuktikan sama ada seseorang peguam itu telah melakukan suatu kecuaian profesional. [28] Merupakan suatu undang-undang yang mantap bahawa untuk membuktikan kecuaian profesional terhadap seseorang peguam bela dan peguam cara, elemen standard berjaga-jaga yang berikut hendaklah dibuktikan terlebih dahulu - (a) sama ada Defendan mempunyai kewajipan berjaga- jaga terhadap Plaintif; (b) apakah standard jagaan profesional yang diharapkan daripada seseorang peguam yang cukup kompeten semasa mengendalikan transaksi Jual Beli; (c) sama ada terdapat apa-apa pelanggaran standard jagaan profesional; S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (d) sama ada Plaintif telah mengalami apa-apa kerugian akibat daripada pelanggaran langsung standard jagaan profesional itu; [29] Oleh yang demikian, bagi kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, memandangkan Defendan merupakan seorang peguam bela dan peguam cara, Plaintif hendaklah membuktikan elemen standard sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 28. [30] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan sebagai seorang peguam bela dan peguam cara telah, dengan cukup kompeten menjalankan transaksi PJB dengan cukup berhati-hati dengan kewajipan berjaga-jaga. [31] Hal perkara ini dapat dilihat melalui Pembelaan Defendan yang telah menerangkan tentang standard jagaan yang telah dilakukan oleh Defendan. [32] Malah, saksi utama Plaintif iaitu Sim Ann Huat [“SP1"], semasa pemeriksaan balas telah mengaku bahawa carian yang dilakukan oleh Defendan sememangnya melindungi kepentingan Plaintif sebelum pembayaran Earnet Deposit - PD Mr. Sim, I just took you through many documents, based on all the documents shown to you, do you agree that before this 22.6.2018 your lawyer the Defendant had conducted a land search, bankruptcy searches, I showed you the letter of authorisation signed by the 4 land owners and also the Malaysian Bar Website search. Do you agree? S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal SPI I agree. PD Mr. Sim, do you agree that all of these searches, authorisation, verifications done by your lawyer Miss Sim were done to protect the Plaintiff before the earnest deposit was paid. Agree? SPI Agree. PD I therefore put it to you' Mr. Sim that the Defendant had taken reasonable and prudent step to protect the Plaintiff's position before the earnest deposit was paid to Malek & Associates. Agree? SP1 Yes. [33] Malah, saksi pakar Plaintif iaitu Mahendran Shanmuhan Sundaram, [“SP2”] juga telah mengaku semasa pemeriksaan balas bahawa Earnesf Deposit yang dilepaskan adalah munasabah dalam hal keadaan sedemikian yakni carian telah dilakukan oleh Defendan walaupun dalam tempoh yang singkat iaitu 9 hari. [34] Dengan pengakuan SP1 dan SP2 itu, maka, adalah fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan bahawa sememangnya Defendan telah melakukan transaksi PJB dengan cukup kompeten dan penuh berhati-hati. [35] Adakah Plaintif berjaya membuktikan kecuaian profesional terhadap Defendan? S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [36] Mengikut kes Shearn Delamore & Co v Sadacharmani Govindasamy [2011] 1 MU 486 - “... .... beban adalah ke atas Plaintif untuk membuktikan standard berhati-hati telah dimungkiri sebelum Defendan dikehendaki untuk memanggil saksinya untuk mematahkannya. ” [37] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif gagal membuktikan standard berhati-hati yang dimungkiri oleh Defendan. [38] Dalam erti kata Iain, Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan kecuaian profesional terhadap Defendan yang, lantaran itu, tiada apa-apa kerugían dialami oleh Plaintif. [39] Dalam apa jua keadaan, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Defendah telah bertindak mengikut standard pengamal undang- undang yang profesional dan secara munasabah ketika mengendalikan transaksi Jual Beli, dan dalam nasihat Defendan kepada Plaintif tentang pelepasan Earnest Deposit kepada Tetuan M & A. [40] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa bukan merupakan suatu kecuaian mahupun salahnyataan di pihak Defendan semasa transaksi Jual Beli itu dikendalikan sehingga menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami kerugían sebagaimana didakwa, TETAPI, salah laku oleh Tetuan M & A yang menjadi penyebab utama Plaintif mengalami kerugían. [25] The learned Sessions Court Judge was satisfied that the Appellant had failed to establish negligence on the part of the Respondent. The learned Sessions Court Judge was influenced by the fact that the S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Respondent had conducted a land search, bankruptcy searches and having letters of authorization signed by the four land owners/vendors in their conduct of this conveyancing transaction. The Decision of this Court [26] This Court is of the considered view that the facts suggesting that the Appellant had “instructed” and “directed” the Respondent “to secure the property as soon as possible” and for “the transaction to be completed on an urgent basis” do not absolve the Respondent of the duty owed to the Appellant. Nor is the fact that the sale of this land was at a bargain price. These facts have no bearing on the outcome of the central issue under consideration. [27] On the crucial issue of whether the Respondent had failed to exercise the standard of care expected of solicitors in the same matter, foremost in the mind of this Court is the following question, that is, having been made aware of the intended execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement using a Power of Attorney, would an attending solicitor be said to have failed to discharge his/her duty of care if the solicitor fails to ensure that the Power of Attorney be deposited with the relevant land office prior to advising his/her client to execute the Sale and Purchase Agreement, Memorandum of Transfer and to release the balance deposit to the Vendor’s solicitors? [28] In matters involving Sale and Purchase Agreements over immovable property, where a person claiming to be the Attorney for the vendor(s) utilises a Power of Attorney to execute the Sale and Purchase S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Agreement, solicitors engaged to attend to the transaction will be expected to, inter-alia: (i) scrutinise the contents of the Power of Attorney to ensure that the powers conferred therein include the powers of sale, disposal, execution of all related documents and receipts of proceeds in relation to the subject immovable property; (ii) ensure that the Power of Attorney has been validly executed in accordance with the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 and duly registered with the High Court; (iii) (where the immoveable property has been issued with a separate document of title), ensure that the Power of Attorney has been deposited with the relevant land office/land registry pursuant to the National Land Code; and (iv) ensure that the Power of Attorney is still valid, subsisting and has not been revoked. [29] As for (iii) above, it is the usual practice for conveyancing lawyers: (i) to sight a certified true copy of the Power of Attorney (as certified by the High Court); (ii) to sight a certified true copy of the identity cards of the Attorney and of the Donor, S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (iii) to state expressly in the Sale and Purchase Agreement the particulars of the Power of Attorney, including the particulars of the registration with the High Court and the particulars of the deposit of the Power of Attorney with the land office. These particulars can be found endorsed on the copy of the Power of Attorney sighted by the solicitors. [30] In the present case, the Respondent firm failed to ensure that the Power of Attorney has been deposited with the relevant land registry/land office before execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement by the Purchaser/Appellant and release of the cheque to Messrs Malek & Associates. The Respondent ought to be aware that the Power of Attorney must be deposited with the relevant land registry/land office, for otherwise the Memorandum of Transfer cannot be registered. [31] It would be prudent for a solicitor to ensure that the Power of Attorney is first deposited with the relevant land registry/land office before advising his/her client to execute the Sale and Purchase and pay the deposit. Depositing the Power of Attorney with the land registry/land office is a quick and simple process of filing the Power of Attorney with the requisite fees. It will not be unreasonable to expect solicitors acting for a purchaser to insist that this be done before the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement and payment of the deposit. [32] The facts in this case demonstrate the importance of having a Power of Attorney duly deposited with the land office prior to the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum of Transfer. This is because the land office would in appropriate circumstances be able to S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal detect impropriety, raise the necessary alert and avert fraudulent transactions. [33] Had the Respondent insisted on the deposit of the Power of Attorney with the land office, the Respondent would be made aware of the rejection by the land office of the deposit of the Power of Attorney. The Respondent acting reasonably with the alert would be expected to find out the reasons for the rejection, instead of just agreeing to the re-execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum of Transfer. Re- executing the SPA by just swapping the signing page without fresh dating the Sale and Purchase Agreement should not be a practice to be condoned. Having been alerted of the issue over the Power of Attorney, on receipt of the Memorandum of Transfer purportedly executed by the 4 registered proprietors personally, it would be prudent practice for the Respondent to verify the execution with the person who purportedly attested the execution. If this had been done, the fraud would have been discovered and the Appellant would have not have paid the Balance Deposit of RM528,000.00. [34] The preparation, execution, verification and lodgement of numerous legal documents are important elements of conveyancing. These duties extent beyond the conducting of land and bankruptcy searches. [35] However, as for the Earnest Deposit of RM132,000.00 which was paid prior to the Respondent being informed of the intended use of the Power of Attorney, it cannot be said that the Respondent had been negligent. S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [36] The decision of the Sessions Court is hereby set aside. [37] The Appellant’s claim is allowed, for the amount of RM528,000.00. [38] The Respondent to pay the Appellant costs of RM20,000.00, subject to allocator. Dated: 9 February, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Tee Kuo Ying for the Appellant (Messrs. Hisham Yoong – K C Lim) Tan Keng Teck with Goh Gin Jhen for the Respondent (Messrs. Lim Kian Leong & Co.) S/N ozZxGWm8tUyjfiGGGSUHCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-24NCvC-131-05/2023

PEMOHON SINIAH @ ITAM BINTI SHARIF @ SHARIFF RESPONDEN PENDAFTAR HAK MILIK NEGERI PAHANG

Saman Pemula untuk deklarasi bahawa Pemohon telah diberikan hakmilik selama-lamanya di bawah Land Code (Chapter 138) - Mohon Pentadbir Tanah membuat pembetulan dalam suratan hakmilik di bawah seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara - Permohonan ditolak.

09/02/2024

YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a27e3f5-f058-41bc-94d0-16525695d514&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - SINIAH v PTD CAMERON HIGHLANDS 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: CB-24NCVC-131-05/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Hakmilik Yang Dipegang Di Bawah Geran AA 10/41 Dan C.T. 847, Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Pelan Bagi Lot 53, Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang (Pelan Diakui 12513); Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Hakmilik Yang Dipegang Di Bawah PN 3006 Lot 74, PN 3093 Lot 77 Dan PN 3094 Lot 73 Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 417 dan 380 Kanun Tanah Negara; 09/02/2024 12:06:57 CB-24NCvC-131-05/2023 Kand. 28 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 7 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Seksyen 41 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950. ANTARA SINIAH @ ITAM BINTI SHARIF @ SHARIFF (NO. K/P: 341007-10-5354) Lot 70 Taman Kelana, Jalan Sungai Palas, Tanah Rata 39000 Cameron Highlands, Pahang … PEMOHON DAN PENDAFTAR HAK MILIK NEGERI PAHANG Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pahang Bangunan PTG Bandar Indera Mahkota 25990 Kuantan, Pahang … RESPONDEN S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Pemohon melalui saman pemula ini memohon agar satu deklarasi diberikan bahawa tanah-tanah hakmilik PN 3006 Lot 74, PN 3093 Lot 77 dan PN 3094 Lot 73 Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang yang didaftarkan sebagai pajakan 99 tahun adalah tidak sah dan terbatal. Pemohon juga meminta supaya Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Pahang hendaklah menggantikan pajakan 99 tahun bagi tanah- tanah tersebut dengan mengeluarkan suratan hakmilik geran pegangan selama-lamanya. [2] Di dalam Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon telah dinyatakan bahawa Pemohon adalah merupakan tuan punya tanah berdaftar bagi tiga hakmilik tanah-tanah tersebut. Pemohon menyatakan bahawa tanah itu pada asalnya adalah dirujuk sebagai Approve Plan (AA) No. 10/41 dan Pelan Tanah Nombor Lot 52 dan Lot 53 Mukim Ulu Telom Cameron Highlands. [3] Pemohon menyatakan juga bahawa hakmilik-hakmilik tanah tersebut dikeluarkan pada tahun 1941. Ini membawa maksud hakmilik tersebut dikeluarkan di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) iaitu tanah-tanah pertanian dikeluarkan di bawah Certified of Title (CT). S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [4] Pemohon juga menyatakan bahawa apabila Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 diwartakan maka hakmilik-hakmilik tanah bagi Certified of Title (CT) akan dikategorikan di bawah geran di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Ia membawa maksud tempoh pegangannya adalah selama-lamanya. [5] Pemohon juga menyatakan carian yang dilakukan di Pejabat Tanah Cameron Highlands menunjukkan bahawa tanah CT No. 846, No. 847 dan No. 848 “Cancelled”. Pemohon menyatakan bahawa maklumat yang diberikan oleh Responden adalah terkhilaf berkenaan CT No. 847 dan Lot 53 Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands. Pemohon mendakwa terdapat kekhilafan di dalam mendaftarkan hakmilik tanah-tanah tersebut yang sepatutnya berstatus selama- lamanya telah ditukarkan kepada pajakan 99 tahun. [6] Sebaliknya Responden dalam Affidavit Atirah binti Nor Hashim iaitu Timbalan Pendaftar Hakmilik yang bertugas di Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Pahang serta bertanggungjawab terhadap pendaftaran hakmilik di Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Pahang menyatakan bahawa tiada kesilapan dalam pengemaskinian maklumat serta endorsan dalam suratan hakmilik yang melibatkan pihak Pemohon dalam kes ini. Malahan di dalam Lampiran yang dikemukakan melalui Affidavit Jawapan tersebut telah dicerakinkan proses pemberian hakmilik tanah tersebut daripada awal sehinggalah kini yang dapat dinyatakan melalui carta seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [7] Responden menyatakan bahawa Pemohon hanya menerima pindah milik tanah-tanah ini melalui Nombor Perserahan 2183/75 bertarikh 17.11.1975 daripada James Robertson yang diendorsekan dalam hakmilik SL 502, SL 604 dan SL 501. Responden menyatakan bahawa tempoh hakmilik bagi tanah-tanah tersebut adalah tanah pegangan selama 99 tahun bagi PN 3093 Lot 77 dan PN 3094 Lot 73 tempoh hakmilik berakhir pada 07.10.2040. Manakala bagi PN 3006 Lot 74 berakhir pada 26.06.2040. Responden juga menyatakan bahawa keputusan carian oleh Pemohon bagi hakmilik CT 847 tertera perkataan ‘cancelled’ disebabkan CT 847 itu telah dikeluarkan hakmilik sambungan kepada Approve Application (AA)(10/41) pada 27.06.1941. Seterusnya kepada State Lease (SL) 604 pada 16.03.1954 dan hakmilik muktamad Pajakan Negeri (PN) 3006 pada 15.08.1998. Hakmilik sambungan dan hakmilik muktamad tersebut didaftarkan di Lot 74 dengan keluasan 1 ekar, 2 rod dan 1 pol dengan pegangan bertempoh selama 99 tahun daripada 27.06.1941 dan akan luput pada 26.06.2040. [8] Dalam Affidavit Balasan Pemohon bertarikh 05.09.2023 di perenggan 6, Pemohon menyatakan bahawa penafian Responden bahawa tanah-tanah di bawah Master Title CT 846, CT 847 dan CT 848 bukanlah merupakan tanah yang mempunyai pegangan selama- lamanya adalah penafian semata-mata memandangkan tiada peruntukan dalam Land Code (Cap. 138) yang membenarkan “lease of state land” selama 99 tahun. S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [9] Pemohon juga menyatakan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk menggantikan taraf pegangan selama- lamanya kepada pajakan 99 tahun selepas hakmilik SL 502, AA 10/41 / SL 604 dan SL 501 dikeluarkan. Ia adalah satu tindakan yang bertentangan dengan undang-undang. Analisa Sejarah ringkas undang-undang bertulis berkaitan tanah di Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur [10] Penelitian kepada undang-undang bertulis berkaitan tanah di Pahang mendapati bahawa terdapat undang-undang tanah semenjak tahun 1889 iaitu Pahang General Land Regulations 11 of 1889. Tujuan Pahang General Land Regulations 11 of 1889 ini telah dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Tengku Haji Jaafar Ibni Almarhum Tengku Muda Ali & Anor v Government of Pahang [1987] 2 MLJ 74 seperti berikut: “… It is unthinkable that this land should be left out of the system since the Regulations were intended to be so comprehensive as to cover all the lands in the State of Pahang. For this reason the Regulations enacted that all lands in the State were divided into the following four classes: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Class I land available for agricultural purposes; Class II land in occupation of natives under Malay tenure; Class III building allotments in towns and villages or government reserves; and Class IV mining reserves. The main aim of the Regulations was to introduce a system of compulsory registration of lands in the State with a view to exercising some control over the Sultan's power of issuing concessions indiscriminately. We are not concerned here with the 3rd and 4th classes of lands since the gift land is neither a building allotment nor a mining reserve. Thus, we will only deal with the first two classes of lands. Under the Regulations all holders of concessions of Class I lands (lands available for agricultural purposes) granted by the Sultan had first to be recognized by the State Government and only the recognized concessions were required to be registered in the District Land Office. Failure to register them, despite recognition by the Government, rendered these concessions void. As regards Class II lands i.e. lands occupied by natives under Malay tenure, such lands were required by the Regulations to be registered in the "Register Native Holdings" kept by the District Collector within three months of the date of the Regulations. Failure to register S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 them rendered the rights of the occupiers in respect of such lands liable to forfeiture.” [11] Mahkamah Agong dalam kes Tengku Haji Jaafar Ibni Almarhum Tengku Muda Ali (supra) telah memberikan urutan sejarah ringkas undang-undang tanah di Negeri Pahang dengan menyatakan seperti berikut: “One of the primary reasons of the British intervention in Pahang was their concern at the indiscriminate concessions of agricultural lands given out by the Sultan to all and sundry in order to boost- up the State's revenue. The British were fearful that unless the grant of concessions was exercisable on a rational basis there would be chaos and disputes would arise which would finally affect their commercial interests adversely. Hence once they obtained control over the government they lost no time in introducing their system of administration. A number of regulations were soon made and the most important one is the Government Land Regulations dated December 31, 1889. The Regulations were the beginning of the present system of land administration in Pahang. Until then the land law applicable was Shariah Law of the Shafie school. Eight years later the Regulations were repealed and replaced by the Land Enactment 1897, and the Registration of Title Enactment 1897 which came into force on November 29, 1887 and December 24, 1897 respectively. The 1897 Land Enactment was subsequently S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 replaced by the Land Enactment 1903 which came into force on July 1, 1903, and this Enactment was later superseded by FMS Land Code 1926 on December 24, 1926 and finally by the present National Land Code in 1965.” [12] Penelitian kepada Pahang General Land Regulations 11 of 1889, adalah didapati bahawa terdapatnya peruntukan berkenaan dengan sewaan untuk selama-lamanya. Ini dapat dinyatakan seperti berikut: “Tenure – the tenure on which lands in class I. may be held is a lease in perpetuity, in form I. hereto annexed, subject to the following conditions: (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) … … ” [13] Penelitian kepada seksyen 29 dalam Pahang General Land Regulations 11 of 1889 tersebut tiada sebarang petanda menunjukkan ada digunakan frasa geran merujuk kepada hakmilik kekal selama- lamanya. [14] Seterusnya rujukan kepada Pahang Land Regulations Amendment 11 of 1896. Ia hanya merupakan beberapa pindaan kecil kepada Pahang General Land Regulations 11 of 1889 yang juga tidak terdapat penggunaan frasa geran di dalamnya. S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [15] Seterusnya, Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa terdapat penggubalan Land Enactment 1897 pada 29.11.1897 yang mana ia telah menggantikan Pahang General Land Regulation 1889. Dalam Land Enactment 1897 ini frasa geran telah dinyatakan seperti berikut: “Grant” means a grant of State Land issued by or on behalf of the Ruler of the State, and includes a lease of State land issued prior to the coming into operation of this Enactment. [16] Format geran telah dinyatakan dalam Jadual C Land Enactment 1897 tersebut seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [17] Adalah didapati bahawa geran diberikan bagi tanah bandar di bawah seksyen 21. Tanah negeri (Country land) yang melebihi 100 ekar tetapi tidak melebihi 640 ekar seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 46 yang perlu dikeluarkan geran seperti dalam Jadual C Land Enactment 1897. [18] Pada tahun 24.11.1911 telah diperkenalkan Land Enactment No. 11 Tahun 1911 iaitu undang-undang berkaitan dengan tanah yang terpakai kepada Negeri-negeri Melayu Bersekutu termasuklah Pahang. Dalam takrifan enakmen tersebut telah dinyatakan istilah geran yang digunakan adalah membawa maksud seperti berikut: “In the state of Perak, Selangor, and Pahang, “Grant” means a grant of State land issued by or on behalf of the Ruler of the State and includes a lease of State land in perpetuity of for a terms of not less than 999 years issued prior to the commencement of this Enactment.” [19] Dalam konteks ini Land Enactment 1911 itu telah memberikan takrifan “State land” kepada tanah bandar dan kampung, tanah negeri seluas 100 ekar atau tanah negeri yang melebihi daripada 100 ekar. Ia dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 3 dalam Land Enactment 1911 seperti berikut: “3. (i) State land, for the purposes of this Enactment, is divided into the following classes – that is to say, (a) Town and village lands; S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (b) Country lands of 100 acres in area and under; (c) Country lands exceeding 100 acres in area. (ii) Subject to the provisions of this Enactment, the Resident in the States of Perak, Selangor, and Pahang, on behalf of the Ruler of the State, and in the State of Negri Sembilan in the name and on behalf of the Ruler of the State, may alienate State land for such interest and in such manner as is authorized by this Enactment and may, with the approval of the Chief Secretary, impose special conditions in respect thereof to be set out in the title. (iii) Nothing is this section shall apply to mining lands except in so far as such lands may be occupied for purposes other than those for which they were alienated.” [20] Land Enactment 1911 ini telah memansuhkan The Land Enactment 1903 (Pahang No. 9 of 1903) dan Amendment Enactment 1906. Dalam Land Enactment 1911 ini terdapat borang dalam Jadual D (i) iaitu geran untuk tanah yang dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 25, 32 dan 55 Land Enactment 1911 tersebut. [21] Seterusnya Land Code (Cap. 138) telah diperkenalkan pada 01.01.1928 di mana frasa geran digunakan seperti sama dalam Land Enactment 1911 tersebut. Di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) juga terdapat suatu format ataupun borang di Jadual VI yang menyatakan “grant for land” di mana seksyen 56 Land Code (Cap. 138) tersebut S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 telah menghendaki supaya Borang VI digunakan. Apa yang menarik ialah dalam Jadual VI itu dinyatakan peruntukan seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [22] Istilah geran dalam Land Code (Cap. 138) ialah merujuk kepada hakmilik selama-lamanya seperti yang telah dinyatakan dalam Land Enactment 1911 seperti berikut: “In the state of Perak, Selangor, and Pahang, “Grant” means a grant of State land issued by or on behalf of the Ruler of the State and includes a lease of State land in perpetuity of for a terms of not less than 999 years issued prior to the commencement of this Enactment.” [23] Namun “State land” telah diberikan takrifan baharu seperti berikut: “State land. “State land” means all land in any State including (i) the bed of any river stream, lake, pond or water- course, and (ii) the foreshore and bed of the sea within the territorial waters of the State except land which is for the time being, (a) lawfully alienated, or (b) reserved for a public purpose under this or any other Land Enactment and not leased under Section 24 of this Enactment, or (c) reserved forest under the Forest Enactments or any other Enactment, and land held under a licence for temporary occupation or under approved application shall be taken and deemed to be State land.” S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [24] Jika diteliti kepada seksyen 31 Land Code (Cap. 138) tersebut menyatakan bahawa mana-mana tanah yang telah diberikan selepas 31.12.1909 hendaklah tertakluk kepada semakan berkala berkenaan cukai tanah sama ada ia akan dikurangkan atau ditambah. “31. (i) Subject to the provisions of the following sub-sections the rent of all land alienated after the 31st day of December, 1909, shall be liable to periodical revision which may result in either enhancement or reduction. (ii) The first revision under this section may take place on of after the 1st day of January, 1940, and subsequent revisions may take place at intervals of not less than thirty years. (iii) At each revision the rent reserved to the State may be revised and a new rent fixed by the Resident but in making such revision no improvements made by the proprietor or his predecessors in title shall be taken into account. (iv) The rent of any land alienated under a lease of State land containing therein provision for the revision of rent at intervals of not more than thirty years shall not be liable to revision under this section.” [25] Penelitian kepada undang-undang tanah yang diluluskan dan berkuatkuasa di Pahang sebelum Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 adalah penting bagi memahami sama ada hakmilik tanah yang diberikan S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 melalui geran adalah sesuatu yang membawa maksud pemilikan selama-lamanya dan ia tidak dibatasi oleh penguatkuasaan Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Ini adalah disebabkan hujahan pihak Pemohon hakmilik yang diberikan berkenaan tanah tersebut adalah suatu geran yang ditakrifkan di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) adalah membawa maksud hakmilik selama-lamanya sahaja atau sebaliknya. Ini adalah disebabkan dalam Land Code (Cap. 138) terdapat borang yang menyatakan format geran diberikan dan geran tersebut terpakai kepada “lease” dan juga pemberian tanah oleh Pihak berkuasa Negeri. Ini mencadangkan bahawa istilah geran dalam konteks Land Code (Cap. 138) tidak semestinya mempunyai kaitan langsung dengan tempoh masa pemilikan tanah tersebut untuk selama-lamanya. [26] Namun demikian, Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti hujahan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pemohon yang menyatakan bahawa pemakaian Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 tidak menjejaskan kedudukan hakmilik selama-lamanya oleh Pemohon. Ini adalah sesuai dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 135. Dalam kes tersebut fakta menunjukkan bahawa jawatankuasa tanah telah mengeluarkan arahan bahawa pemilikan pemilik yang mempunyai hakmilik selama-lamanya yang telah diberikan di bawah Land Enactment 1891 dan juga Land Code (Cap. 138) untuk digantikan dengan hakmilik 99 tahun telah diputuskan sebagai satu keputusan yang tidak boleh dipertahankan. Tindakan tersebut diputuskan sebagai sesuatu yang telah mengurangkan hak pemilikan S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 tuan punya tanah. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Raja Azlan Shah seperti berikut: “It remains to deal with the order made by the learned judge. He found that the respondents had fulfilled all the conditions under the National Land Code and accordingly he made an order to the effect that the Land Executive Committee approve the applications for conversion and sub-division but excluding the impugned condition, and that the Registrar issue titles in continuation of the grant in perpetuity to the sub-divided lots retained by the respondents in accordance with section 202(3)(a) of the National Land Code. With respect, that is not an appropriate order to make and one which certainly does not commend itself to this Court. In the first place it must be made clear that the existence of a statutory remedy is no bar to an action for a declaration. This case falls within the general principle that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be taken away without express words; and this applies to an action for a declaration: see Pyx Granite (ante). Secondly, all that a declaration does is to declare the rights of the parties, and the effect of making a declaration would be that it would give the Land Executive Committee an opportunity of having second thoughts at the problem. Lastly, it is not the province of the courts to review the decisions of government departments merely on their merits. Government by judges would be regarded as an usurpation. That clear statement of principle has since been approved and applied by the appellate courts. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (ante), Lord Greene M.R. in the course of a judgment since approved by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736 763, and in Fawcett Properties Ltd. v. Buckingham County Council (ante), in dealing with the power of the court to interfere with the decision of a local authority which has acted unreasonably, said (page 686): "The power of the court to interfere in each case is not that of an appellate authority to override a decision of the local authority, but is that of a judicial authority which is concerned, and concerned only, to see whether the local authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which Parliament has confided in it." That is the reason for such cases to be remitted to the relevant authority for a fresh consideration and conclusion according to law. In Kingston-upon-Thames Royal London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1974] 1 All ER 193, the case was sent back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration; in R. v. Hillingdon London Borough Council (ante), the Council was required to reconsider the application for planning permission and reach a conclusion on it according to law. In my opinion the appropriate order would be to remit the case to the Land Executive Committee for reconsideration and reach a conclusion on it according to law.” S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [27] Penelitian kepada kes tersebut menunjukkan bahawa Jawatankuasa Tanah tidak boleh memberikan syarat-syarat yang menghilangkan hakmilik selama-lamanya yang telah diberikan sebelum daripada Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Malahan dalam kes tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan telah mengembalikan kes tersebut untuk dipertimbangkan semula oleh Jawatankuasa Tanah dan tidak bersetuju bahawa Jawatankuasa Tanah mempunyai kuasa untuk menukarkan tanah yang mempunyai hakmilik selama-lamanya kepada yang lain. Sebaliknya dalam kes ini Mahkamah mendapati yang menjadi isu dalam kes ini ialah adakah semata-mata disebabkan tanah tersebut telah dikatakan diberikan geran maka ia telah menyebabkan hakmilik tersebut adalah selama-lamanya. Mahkamah ini berpeluang meneliti pandangan yang dikemukakan oleh Hakim Elphinstone CJ dalam kes The Jelai Concession (Pahang) Limited v Datoh Wan Tanjong (Dato Maharaja Perba Jelai), John Harold Irving [1931-32] FMSLR 1 dalam menjelaskan maksud geran di bawah Land Enactment No. 11 of 1911 seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [28] Mahkamah juga meneliti takrifan “lease” di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “ “Lease” means a lease of alienated land whether such land is comprised in a grant, lease of State land, certificate of title or entry in the mukim register.” [29] Mahkamah juga meneliti kepada bentuk pemberimilikan (alienation) yang dinyatakan di bawah Part 2 Land Code (Cap. 138) yang meliputi seksyen 8 hingga 24 seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [30] Begitu juga berkenaan dengan tuan punya (proprietors) di bawah Part 5 Land Code (Cap. 138) yang meliputi seksyen 42 hingga 54 seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [31] Begitu juga berkenaan dengan Sijil Milikan (Certificate of Title) yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 60 dan 61 Land Code (Cap. 138) dibaca bersama dengan Jadual VII seperti berikut: S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [32] Ini semua ditinjau bagi melihat adakah frasa geran yang dinyatakan adalah merujuk kepada jenis hakmilik selama-lamanya ataupun hanya merujuk kepada dokumen yang dikeluarkan bagi tujuan pendaftaran ataupun pemilikan tanah tersebut. [33] Dalam kes ini Mahkamah perlu melihat dalam eksibit yang dikemukakan dalam Affidavit Sokongan sama ada terdapatnya apa-apa petanda yang menunjukkan bahawa hakmilik yang diberikan di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) tersebut adalah sesuatu yang mempunyai hakmilik selama-lamanya kepada Pemohon. Ini adalah disebabkan adalah hakmilik selama-lamanya boleh diberikan di bawah undang- undang Kanun Tanah Negeri-Negeri Bersekutu. Ini dinyatakan oleh David S.Y. Wong dalam Tenure and Land Dealings in The Malay States, Singapore University Press 1975 di halaman 86 seperti berikut: “Section 76 of the Code provides that State alienation of State land shall consist of its disposal by the State “in perpetuity or for a term not exceeding ninety-nine years”. Under the former F.M.S. Land Code, as had long been so, the State could alienate land to private person in perpetuity or for any fixed period of years. Now, apparently, where land is not to be disposed of in perpetuity it may not be otherwise alienated for any term which exceeds ninety-nine years.” S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [34] Adalah menjadi undang-undang jelas dan mantap bahawa Responden tidak boleh sekali-kali membuat penukaran hakmilik kekal selama-lamaya sekiranya ia diberikan kepada Pemohon. Ini dapat dilihat daripada kes Sri Lempah Enterprise (supra). Ia juga dinyatakan dalam kes Leo Leslie Armstrong (as the President and Committee of The Young Men' s Christian Association of Kuala Lumpur) (Persatuan Pemuda Kristian Kuala Lumpur) v Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (previously held by Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor) [2015] 1 MLJ 255 oleh Mahkamah Rayuan seperti berikut : “[41] In this case, the respondent or its predecessor clearly has no authority or legal power to reduce the tenure of the appellant's land holding from perpetuity to leasehold. Therefore, by resorting to such an act (ie to change the land tenure from freehold to leasehold) as a condition for approval of the appellant's application for subdivision of Lot 152 which was registered to the appellant into two lots – Lots A and B, the respondent or its predecessor had exceeded its legal power. Therefore, the act is null and void.” [33] Mahkamah juga perlu memberikan perhatian kepada peruntukan seksyen 4 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 yang memberikan kedudukan kepada perkara-perkara yang telah diberikan di bawah undang-undang tanah sebelum daripada penguatkuasaan Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 “4 Savings (1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the past operation of, or anything done under, any previous land law or, so far as they relate to land, the provisions of any other law passed before the commencement of this Act: Provided that any right, liberty, privilege, obligation or liability existing at the commencement of this Act by virtue of any such law shall, except as hereinafter expressly provided, be subject to the provisions of this Act. (2) Except in so far as it is expressly provided to the contrary, nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of- (a) any law for the time being in force relating to customary tenure; (b) any law for the time being in force relating to Malay reservations or Malay holdings; (c) any law for the time being in force relating to mining; (d) any law for the time being in force relating to sultanate lands; (e) any law for the time being in force relating to wakaf or bait-ul- mal; (f) the Trengganu Settlement Enactment, 1356 [En. 65 of 1356]; (g) the Padi Cultivators (Control of Rent and Security of Tenure) Ordinance, 1955 [Act 528]; (h) the Kelantan Land Settlement Ordinance, 1955 [Act 460]; (i) the Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act, 1960 [Act 530]; (ia) the Perlis Land Settlement Enactment 1966 [Perlis En. 6 of 1966]; or (j) any law for the time being in force relating to exemptions from the payment of land revenue; S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 and, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, if any provision of this Act is inconsistent with any provision of any such law, the latter provision shall prevail, and the former provision shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.” [35] Seksyen 4 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 ini telah menjadi sandaran kepada Mahkamah Tinggi dalam keputusan Sri Lempah Enterprise (supra) yang berpandangan bahawa hakmilik kekal tidak boleh ditukarkan kepada sewaan (lease). Namun demikian, Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa pemakaian seksyen 4 ini perlu dihadkan kepada proviso yang menyatakan tertakluk kepada Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 sebarang hak atau keistimewaan obligasi atau tanggung jawab yang dinyatakan dalam undang-undang terdahulu. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Silvam Sellapan & Anor v. Tamil Selvam Velusamy & Ors [2023] 3 CLJ 371 seperti berikut: “[37] As for the "expectation of title" argument, we noted that the name entered on the Roll of Approved Applications in 1959 was that of the school. But, even if it can be argued that the Ashrama had "expectation of title", it was superseded in 2004 when a separate IDT was issued by the State Authority to the school. The proviso to s. 4(1) of the NLC states that any existing right is subject to the provisions of the Act.” [36] Pihak Responden berhujah bahawa hakmilik yang diberikan sebelum daripada penguatkuasaan Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 perlu disuaikan dengan peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Rujukan telah dibuat oleh Responden kepada seksyen 438 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “438 Repeal and amendment of existing laws (1) The enactments specified in the Eleventh Schedule are hereby repealed as from the commencement of this Act. (2) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, at any time within the period of two years beginning with the commencement of this Act, by order under this section- (a) repeal any other written law in force immediately before that commencement and rendered obsolete or unnecessary by any provision thereof; (b) make such repeals or amendments in any such law as he may consider necessary for the purpose of bringing the provisions thereof into accord with the provisions of this Act, or of supplementing the last-mentioned provisions in any respect: Provided that the power conferred by this sub-section shall not be exercised in respect of a State law otherwise than with the concurrence of the State Authority.” S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [37] Peguam Responden juga merujuk kepada seksyen 441 dan 442 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini kes ini tidak melibatkan isu sama ada undang-undang tanah yang telah dikuatkuasakan sebelum Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 ini masih berkuatkuasa ataupun sebaliknya. Apa yang menjadi isu dalam kes ini ialah adakah hakmilik yang telah diberikan untuk selama-lamanya masih berkuat kuasa di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa tujuan penggubalan Kanun Tanah Negara ialah untuk menyelaraskan undang-undang tanah di negara ini. Ini dapat dilihat melalui tajuk panjang Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 itu sendiri yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “An act to amend and consolidate the laws relating to land and land tenure, the registration of title to land and of dealings therewith and the collection of revenue therefrom within the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor, Terengganu and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and for purposes connected therewith. WHEREAS it is desired to introduce in the form of a National Land Code a uniform land system within the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor, Terengganu and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur: AND WHEREAS provision has been made by the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963, for the introduction of a system of registration of title to land in the States of Penang S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 and Malacca, for the issue of replacement titles, for the assimilation of such system to the provisions of the National Land Code, and for matters incidental thereto: AND WHEREAS it is now expedient for the purpose only of ensuring uniformity of law and policy to make a law with respect to land tenure, registration of titles relating to land, transfer of land, leases and charges in respect of land, and easements and other rights and interests in land: NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of Clause (4) of Article 76 of the Constitution BE IT ENACTED by the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the advice and consent of the Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:” [38] Oleh itu dalam kes ini Mahkamah perlu ditunjukkan bahawa hakmilik tanah-tanah yang diperolehi Pemohon adalah merupakan geran yang mempunyai hakmilik selama-lamanya. Ini membawa maksud terdapat dokumen-dokumen yang dapat mengesahkan hakmilik selama-lamanya tersebut. Pada hemat Mahkamah penentuan berkenanan hakmilik selama-lamanya tersebut tidak boleh dibuat hanya berdasarkan kepada tafsiran geran di bawah Land Code (Cap. 138) tersebut. Jika ini dilakukan ia boleh membawa kepada kesilapan dan kekeliruan dengan istilah atau dengan frasa geran yang merupakan suratan hakmilik seperti di Bahagian VI Enakmen tersebut. S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 [39] Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa terdapat juga dokumen yang dinyatakan di dalam ekshibit-ekshibit dan juga affidavit-afidavit kedua- dua pihak yang melampirkan suratan yang berkaitan dengan tanah- tanah milik Pemohon. Namun demikian, Mahkamah mendapati tiada sebarang dokumen yang dapat mengesahkan bahawa hakmilik tanah- tanah Pemohon tersebut diberikan sebagai hakmilik selama-lamanya. Penelitian kepada dokumen-dokumen yang menunjukkan susur galur hakmilik tanah-tanah tersebut juga adalah menunjukkan bahawa tidak terdapatnya hakmilik selama-lamanya diberikan kepada Pemohon. [40] Mahkamah ini berpendapat ketiadaan dokumen tersebut tidak membolehkan Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa Pemohon adalah mempunyai hakmilik selama-lamanya terhadap tanah-tanah tersebut. Ia juga membawa maksud Responden tidak boleh diminta untuk membetulkan kesilapan yang dikatakan oleh Pemohon telah dilakukan oleh pihak Responden bagi membolehkan pembetulan dibuat di bawah seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tiada sebarang keterangan yang menunjukkan terdapat kesilapan seperti yang didakwa telah berlaku. Ini adalah berdasarkan kepada penelitian dan pemerhatian Mahkamah terhadap dokumen- dokumen berkaitan dengan tanah-tanah tersebut yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini. Penutup [41] Sesungguhnya, pemahaman dan penelitian kepada sejarah perundangan tanah di Negeri Pahang dalam konteks kes ini adalah S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 penting bagi membolehkan penghayatan yang lebih mantap kepada peruntukan-peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 yang mempunyai kaitan dengan undang-undang tanah yang pernah dikuatkuasakan di Negeri Pahang. Kegagalan memahami susur galur undang-undang tersebut boleh menyebabkan pihak yang mentadbirkan dan mentafsirkan undang-undang tanah akan tersasar daripada hasrat penggubalan undang-undang tanah yang telah berada dalam khazanah undang-undang. Ia adalah wajar dielakkan. [42] Akhirnya Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa permohonan pihak Pemohon adalah ditolak dengan kos. Bertarikh: 09hb. Februari 2024 (ROSLAN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Pemohon Norazura binti Mohamed Mokhtar Tetuan Azura Mokhtar & Low No. 4A, Bangunan MBI, Jalan Ghazali Jawi 31400 Ipoh Perak Darul Ridzuan Bagi Pihak Responden Umira binti Mohd Noor Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Tingkat 2, Blok B Wisma Sri Pahang 25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur S/N 9eMnSljwvEGU0BZSVpXVFA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-42H-33-12/2022

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN NUR FATIN NABILA BINTI AZMI

rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - tiada mana-mana pihak membangkitkan isu sabitan di dalam petisyen - s.31(1)(a) akta kanak-kanak 2001 - okt membuat pengakuan bersalah - s.305 kanun tatacara jenayah - sama ada hukuman keterlaluan atau ringan - sama ada hakim mahkamah sesyen gagal memberi pertimbangan faktor-faktor mitigasi serta kepentingan awam - sama ada hukuman penjara setimpal apabila terdapat hukuman pilihan yang membenarkan hukuman denda - kesan pada mangsa dari segi fizikal dan emosi

09/02/2024

YA Dato' Norsharidah Binti Awang

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9421504d-d505-4427-b7cb-9641bdd15f7e&Inline=true

09/02/2024 15:08:55 BA-42H-33-12/2022 Kand. 23 S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TVAhlAXVJ0S3y5ZBvdFffg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—42H—33—12/2022 Kand. 23 D9/02/2LV4A , 3; 57 MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SHAH ALAM DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAVUAN JENAVAH No. BA-42H-33-I2/2022 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA PERAVU DAN NUR FAYIN NAEILA awn AZMI RESPDNDEN (No. K/F 98020241345014) RAVUAM SILANG IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN. MALAVSIA RAVUAN JENAVAH No. EA-425-24-11/2022 ANTARA NUR FATIM NAEILA BINTI AZMI FERAVU (Nu. K/P’ 980202-06-6014) DAN FENDAKWA RAVA RESPONDEII ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN I. PENGENALAN Ini adaran mempakan vayuan Timbman Fendakwa Raya (Perayu) terhadap hukumsn (Kandungan 15) den rayuan suang o\eh Ienudun (OKT) jugs larhadap hukuman (Kandungan 22). sw wAmAxv.ms:Iy5zamFNq 3 mm Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm II. PERTUDUHAN Pertuduhan tamadap OKT adalah sepem benkul: ‘Bahawa kamu pads e Jun 2021 jam Islam kurang 10.30 pagi, benempal an bmk um kanakkanak m Babes 3. Ton Chfldcare Centre an avenue: Aras Bawah, Bkuk c, Kedlaman Kakllangan Hosp\la\ Sevdang. Jaxan Puchong, 43000 KaJang, m dalam Daevah Sepang, di dalam Megan Salangor Daml Ehsan. sebagal arena yang mampunyal penlagaan ks acas kanakxanak yang bemama Snfia Arm bin\i Muhammad Amman Al~Khair (No, MyKid: moo» m—11au) berumuv 1 lawn a bulan. maapau le\ah mendedahkan kanak—k.anak mu dengan cars mungkm menysbabkan keuederaan flzikm lerhadsp kanak-kanak lersebut. Gish yang damikxan, kamu cevah ms\akukan suam kaaavanan dan buleh dmukum di bawah Seksyen 31(1)(a| Akla Kanak-Kanak 2001." III. FAKYA KEs [11 Fans kes adamh sebagaimana dinyalakan di dalam Nasan Pengnmnan Hakim Mahkamah Sesysn (nuns; an muka sursl 13 mngga 15, Rskod Rayuan mm I dun jugs pads ekslhll F2, Rakod Rayuan Jwlid 3 Pengadu dw dalam kes wnl mempakan mu kepada mangsa yang bemmur 1 (shun a bulan pada mesa kejadwan dan beliau banugas sebagal Pegawai Pembatan dw Bahagwan Eumlngi dw Hnspilm Ssrdang aw wAmAxv.msJy5zavaFNq -ma Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm mu 2 M as nngan dan dike! n. Peguam menquk kepada kes Tun Svl Abdul Ruhlm Mohd Nnor v. PP [21101] : MLJ I. [33] um damn: kes mvsebul, Paguam msnghujahkan bahawa Ievdapal pnnsm yang menyahkan bahawa keadaan dw mans kevarmngan swam sendm mewayarkan sssemang terluduh Mu fldak dlmasukkan ke dalam penjara m da\am tempuh yang panjang Kerana Ia akan membawa banyak keburukan danpada kebaxkan, mama seseumng pesalah mu am merviadi neruenayah Iegar sflepas msnjalani hukuman pamara [371 Feguam sekali I391 berhujah dengan merujuk kapada seksyen 3l11)(a) Am Kanak-Kanak‘ -Penganiayaan, vengabawan, pembuangan alau vandedahan kanak-kanak 31. (1) Marla-mana mang, yang merupakan urang yang mempunyav pernehharaan saeurang kanak-mak- (a) yang msngamayah menganaman‘ membuang atau mandedahkan kanak-kanak nu mu berlmdak secara cum dengan cars yang mungkln akan menyebabkannya mengaxamx kecaderaan fzika\ alau emusi atau yang rnenyebabkan alau membenarkanm mamayai, disbaikan, dlhuang alau didedahkan seaamman, alau sw rvAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ .nuN<: puns! P . u m 25 (b) yang mengsmayar nan saga seks kanawkanak nu avau yang menyehahkan atau mambenarkannyzi dianlayal sedemikwan. memkukan suslu kesakahan dan apsbHa msamxkan buloh dluonua lldnk m chihl liml puluh rihu tlnggll snau mpamarakan semma tampon Iidak mmehmi due p-mm Lahun acau kedua<1uanya.' [as] Feguam huiahkan bahawa mat ulama Parnman Malaysia da\am mengguhal undang-undang dan hukuman dw hawah seksysn W adalah bag mjuan mehndungi kanak—kanak den juga hukuman bsrbemuk denda adiflah hukuman yang ulama‘ [391 on yang panama kah mluduh ai bawah seksyen imdanlidak paman me\akukan apa—apa kesalahan jenayah m bawan manamana undang-undang di Malaysxa. [401 Femenjaraan sa\ama (smpah lapan aavas (15) bulan yang dwksnakan ks alas on merupakan sualu hukuman yang agank beta! bag: slluasx on (411 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (elah gage! mampemnmangkan secara kesemmhan kesamua lakwrrfaklor mmgasi yang re\evan yang memihak kepada Parayu/Respanden apawa lelah memaluhkan hukuman. [42] semasa dmuduh OKT hanyalah beruswa 23 vanun 4 bulan. Kami percaya hahama wujud kepenuan unmk mahkamah an wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq -ma sum ...na.. MU be used m van; ..a an,n.u.y mm; dun-mm wa mum PM Me <2 nu- mempsrumbangkan ksselunman faxcantaktor miligasx yang berplhsk kepada om xermas-man (mar usla muda dan laktnr-lakmr m gas! yang \am [43] Dawn perkars W Psguam (elah merujuk kepada kes-kes Ru Jam: an. Ram: [1155] 1 MLJ 55,- [1955] 1 ms 115, Shnnmugnmlhnn VPublic Prosecutor [1957] 1 MLJ 204,- Yea Thiam cnyu v Public Prosecutor 11952} 1 MLJ 391 ha * menuvuukkan bahawa oxr ssbag pesalah muda dengan psnakuan kesa\ehan panama wafer dtbenkan nukuman yang Iehm nngan [441 Seierusnya damn menghujahkan agar hukuman Iebm ringan dibsnkan kepada om, Feguam mengmuahkan hahawa kecedsraan yang malamx men pihak pengadu adalah udak serius dan fldak mempunyaw kesan yang berlamfan dan pamang [45] Dalam Isu Inl Feguam menghwahkan bahawa Laporan Fembaian yang dflerima tidak menuruukkan kecederaan teruk. um laporun Isngkap psmbalan dtkemukakan hanya Lapomn Awal Pemanksaan sedangkan pengadu Ie‘|ah membawa mangsa unluk rawatan kesihatan G? dUE hospim masmgrmasmg dw Hospuan Sevdang dan Hospila\ Pengapir Universwli Pulra Mzflaysla pads: 11 06.2021 flan 14.12 2021. [45] Feguam psrcaya bahawa keuedensan yang amam. oleh pengadu mam. Udak senus di mana kecedel-aan Ierssbut marupakan bruises sahsp dan kscsderaan ssdem n Udak sw wAmAxv.ms:Iy5zavaFN§ 'Nnl2 sum ...m.. WW .. used m van; M .m,m.u., mm; dun-mm VII mum W Page 1: M an [47] [45] [49] [50] [51] [521 sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm menlnggalkan sebarang parul kekm malah Iwdak jugs menyehahkan kacacalan anggova badnn terhsdap mangsa. Bsrkenaan dengan v-awalan Fslkiatn‘ Peguam hnqahkan bahawa xamapae Ismpah enam (5) bulan se|e\ah keuadlun barman mangsa mbawa unluk pemeriksaan dun ravmlan. Menuml rekod mangsa hsdnr kall panama ks hopntal psikialn aflsflah hanya pada1A.12.2(l21. 0\eh Mu sekivanya benar mangsa menghadapi masalah psikiam my krilikm pasmah mangsa (Blah mbawa mum awav unluk pemenksaan dsn awaken Tempah s hulan sebelum rawayan Iurul diperlikax kerana mungkinkah berlaku sesualu yang Iain damn: lsmpoh masa lersebul sehmgga menyebabkan Vaporan Iersehul memam udaklapal. Lew. lanjul Peguam mengmuankan bahawn sepatmnya rawaian mbual di Hospilifl Semang dan bukan m Hnspi1.a\ Pengajar Unlversm Pulra Mamysxa yang merupakan huspnaw swasta dw bawah keiolaan pihak Universih Pulra Malaysia. Peguam menquk kepada Eksibxl P23, muka suraI49. Rekad Rayuan ma 3 [13:13 perenggall 5 yang menyalakan. ‘‘5‘ made ciricin Sofia mengala asilah a|au isu barman kewewavan Derksmbangan, keeelsruan psrkemhangan samt {nsum develop mental drsorders] dan sehagainya ' Plus .4 m :- [521 Juslem, kelmuan mangsa rnandapalkan rawalan swa\ aw kfimk aamam lsnabulmsmbukllkan mangsa max mengalaml ssbarang ksoederaan mama! yang senus. [541 Akhimya Peguam huiahkan bahawa Hakim Mahkamsh Sesyen lelah gags! memberi usnimbangan sewayamya lamadap laklor-laklar mmgas. on. [55] Salem faklmusia muda ianu baruswa 23 xamm 4 bman semasa kejauian. on zuga nanya bernendidikan Sijil Kemamran Malaysia 1SKM) sahaja Klni on ndak bekena dan udak mempunya\ psmiapalan (slap setslah dmementikan danpada pusai Jagaan kanak-kanak Ievsebul [551 OKT Iidak Dernah memvurlyaw rekod Jenaysh Iampau dan mu adalah kesalahan panama behau. Mempakan anak hangsu davipada lujuh (7) mang aavmzaramk dan linggal dengan kakak befiau Eefiau mempunyai seurang bapa, berumur63 Iahun dan uaak bekena manaksfla mu kepada om Ielah memnggal duma pads 23.5.2022 alubal penyakn kannmg manis [57] on ssbagaw ssorang anak parempuan yang hemm berkahwm Isiah mengambH langgungjawab unluk menggantlkan ternpal Ibunya den menjaga ayahnya an kampung, Perak. [53] OKT fidak hernia! mencedarakan mangsa, sudah msal dan benanyi unmk Iidak mengulangl pemuacan sebegim sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -ma smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG mm ’W- '5 ='“ [59] Peguam OKT ken-umannya cewan mberikan kesempafan untuk mumlaflkan hujahan vambahan berkenaan dengan yambar-gambar flan rakaman CCTV. [an] um kerana Umiakan acau pemuacan on yang didakwa Ielah 'mendera' flan/alau mexaxuxan perbualan ke1am (cruel ksatmervt) fsrhadap mangsa/anak pengadu sepsmmana yang mputuakan olsh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen ada\ah udak kansxstan flan henepatan yang maria fingkah Iaku OKT d1 dalam gambargambar pegurl ocrv lersebul. P161/A-G] [511 Gambar- gambar pagun ccrv Iarsebut hanya memaparkan keadaan Indwndu-Vndivldu u. dalam gambangamhar tersebm lam: OKT den mangsa yang sanllasa bembah-ubah dafl segw kedudukan/posxsx/pelgevaksn mereka dan Iidak ada pemuatan penderaan yang dx Vakukan we?‘ on larhadap mangsa. [52] Ianya |angsung lidak mamaparksn sebarang perbuatan berbahaya, bukamah perbualan 'mendera“ mangsa nan bukanxan punca mama yang menyebahkan dan/alau perbualan yang bmeh memnggalkan kesan nauma/kevakmnn kepada mangsa [63] Pemuacan-psmuaxan berkenaan adalah ndak kunsisten dam sama sekali udak nulan/ndak dapat dlkailkan dengan kwederaan menial (trauma) dan kecederaan fiflkal sspemmana yang (elah auaporkan ax dalam Eksmhil P12(A— syn wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq . -um Sum ...n.. wmlxeusedmvamImenv\g\ruHIyM1M5 m.u.m...num puns! “=9 '°”' Hi dun iuga Laponln Pembalan mangsa (muka swat 47.52, Rekod Rayuan mm 3). [54] Seterusnya Feguam on menghulahkan bshawa rakaman ccw iailu Eksxbil FZBKA) dan P2B(B) max peman dwserahkan kepada oxr sabalum on msmhual psngakuan sa\ah. [55] lanya hananoangan dengan ssksyen 51A Kanun Tamara Jena)/ah [ea] Psguam meruluk kes Data‘ Sari Anwar bin Ibrahim Iwn Fnndakwa Rays [201|'l] 1 MLJ 579‘ bemubung pemakaian seksyen 51A Kanun Talacara Jena)/ah. Dw dalam kes ml‘ Yang Arii Hakim Mamkamah Tmggl Kuala Lumpur lelah nuenmen dapalan befiau (erhadap kepentingan seksyen am Kanun Talacara Jenayah as da\am memaslikan keaduan Kepada semua pnhak [67] Eksrbm 923(5) amanan pemlng bagx msmbuklukan prima fauis case yang mann dckumen nu ak pendakwaan untuk mempakan lakta yang menyebelahi pmnk pendakwaan Gan sekiranyn on tidak membuut psngakuan narsaxan dan mgin msnemskan dengan pammaan. samssfinya dckumen lersehul Vain: vniea ccw akan digunakan u\eh pandskws dalam perbwcariirlv [ea] AdsVah lldsk wajar Eksxbit P2815] dilandakan pads nan yang sama on diialuhkan nukuman an wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ ,, -ma Snvmn-nhnvwmlxeusedmvamImenv\g\ruHIyM1M5dnu-mnlvunF\uNG W "av" ‘*6 [591 Ada\ah dwlegaskan bahawa video cc1'v Eksxbxl P28(B) yang dipavcayai sebagax om adalah di akuv setakal kehamran om dw damn video wrssbul. Wabubagaxmanapun om menafikan bahawalerdapatpemua|an—perbua1an pendenaan secara singkat a|au berparuangan yang di lukukan olsh pihak OKT terhadap mangsa [70] oven in secara ksswmpulannya Peguam menghujahkan bahawa alas faktor-laktar an ass, Sena kecederaan yang Hdak kelara‘ lerdapamya kelengahan sehingga enam (5) hman unluk vawalan psmam meruyu agur hukuman (erhadap on mkevepikan aluu sekuanya ak mbsnarkan‘ on msmohon hukumsn berbenluk denda lidak max jamman sebanyak RM 1o,oun.uu wang VI. DAPATAII MAHKAMAH [71] Mahkamah um sekalx Vagi merujuk kepada Pensyen Rayuan bagt keduadua kss. yang neran mvaivkan m da\am Rakod Rayuan Tambahan, liada mama-mana pmak mambang isu berksnaan dervgan ssnuan yang mkanakan ke atas OKT an [72] one denuan sabwan dapal dibangkilkan a. dalam rayuan Ra vm sek ' agv mtagaskan bahawa Mada isu berksnaan Alasan Panghaklman mi akan nanya merujuk kepada raynan mmauap hukuman sahafi. [73] Rwukan kepada asksyen 305 Kanun Talacara Jenayah adalah sepem berikut: sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Fun ‘I M 2| ‘When plea of guuty lwmned ngm of appsaV When an accused has pleaded guilly and been eonmea by a Magistrate that men, there shaH be appeal m<oep\ as to me exfenl Of Iegewy ol the sentence " U4] Merujuk Kepada ks: Rex v. Bull 35 Cr. Ann R. 134: vn me firs! place, we Court does nez after e sentence which is me subject of en appeal merely because one members of the Coufl might have passed 8 drffslsnr sentence The ma] judge has seen me pnsonev and heard ms hisfury and any wrtnssaes m character he may neve enesen to ca//. me only when e senzenee appears err In principle [hat (his Court will alter if [M sentence ls excessive orilv adsquala to such an extent as lo sausly we Court that when n was passed mere was e reume Iv app/y me ngm prmcip/ss, men Ilws com will intervene. /n ueerarng me sppmplfals sentence e cum should always be guided by cellam considerations The firs! and Iorsmosf rs me pub/M: mlsmsr.‘ :75} Ss|emsnya dalam msnenlukan suatu nukumen, pnnsip an dalam kas PP v. Loo Chuun Fall [1919] 2 IIILJ 25¢ ada!ah diteliu seWni bsrikul. Wham Hashim veop sam'./ (es mi men was) was ofma View mar (‘Presidents and Magistrates are onen inclined quite naturally to be avez—sympameo'c to ma syn wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq . -nee s.n.n...n..Mn.w...eM»,....engmn,.nn.m.n.nv...nune W Pa: hm accused. This re a normal psyehelogrealraactien to the siluat/an In whlch the lonely accused ls seen leerng an array at witnesses wrth authollry. The mlligarlon auhrnitteu by a eonvretedperson wlll also normally errng up problems of lernlly hardslvlp and the other usual prob/ems plllving. ln such a smratron the courts might perhaps find lt mmeult to decide es lo whet sentence should he imposedso thattne eonvretetlperacn maynal be lurther burdened wllh addltlollsl hardship. This in my View re a wrong approach. The correct approach ls ta strike a balance, as lar as possible, between the lnlslssts oflhs public and the rnterests olthe accused’ [76] Mahkamah in: nuerutuk kee on La! Kim v. Public Proucuter[1w1]:IlI|.l111 ‘The Court wl//be leilrng in it: duryifir does no! impose a deterrent sentence in this case The gulllshmanl must not only date! the appellants from Damm/fling 5 sfrlular offence in Ms Iumra bill It must also deter nrhsrs from cammilfing such an Ufi87IC9.... /rl this case thsrsfbrs the punishment has to be sufllclenlly harsh and propanronete [0 the harm done, otherwise society will leel that the ptrnrshrnenl ls rnenilestly inadequate. The punishment must also relleet public dlseppmval cf the crime committed by the appsllanls. see R v Roberts [1992] 1 All ER 60 at 61.‘ SW wAmAxv.tnsJy5zavaFN§ -we e.n.t ...nmn be ts... m van; .. m,n.u., aunts mmn ta mum W Pm "1 M" [21 on pula adavan Pembanlu Taaka m‘ Taska Babes 5. Tots chuucare Centre, Aras Bawah. wok c. Kamaman Kaklxangan Hospman Serdang, .la\an Puchong, moo Kzuang, Selsngnr. [3] Menurul pengadu, pads 86.2021 baHau |e\ah menghamar anaknya pads jam 7.50 pagn unluk uaga oleh OK7 di (aska l.ersabu| [41 Kemudwannya pads jam 2.50 penang, on Ielah memaklumkan kepada Fangadu hahawa mangsa lelsh mengaflami keeederaan pads pm Vuka dan kedua belah mata d1 hahaglan bawah Iuka serla lebam CKT mamhsnvahu pengadu bahawa lsnuduh lidak perasan mengenai Vuka lerszbut dun hanya sedar sslspas mendengar mangsa menangws. [51 Fakta selsmsnya adalah berkailan dengan usaha Fengadu mendzpalkan dun menonlon rakaman CCTV 'da|am tasks berkenaan. Melalul raksman cow yang dmanda sebsgsu Eksvbil P1415), pengadu memiapau bahawa anaknya (srah dwpsrlakukan dengan kasar dan ganas. [5] Lanju|an an nu, pengadu lelah membawa mangsa ke Bshagian Kecamasan, Haspilm Serdang pm 9 D6.2D21‘]am 1 JD pagi m Rujuk Eksxhit FZD mu Laporan Perubatan dan Hnspxtal Serdang, m muka Surat ea Rekud Rayuan Jana 3, mm: yang sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG mm m. x m 2. U7] D1 detanu kes R V. Hamil: [law] 1 All ER 541 tellen dipuluskan hahawa: ‘Courts should always bsar tn rnlnd lnat mmlnal sentences were in almost every case tnlenae-1 to protect the pub/t'c, whether by punishing me alrender or reion-mng turn, 01 by deterring mm and utllers, or by all of mass lnlngs Comte cannnt and should rm! be tmmmdlul L7! the important public mmenslen of mnunal sentencing and the lntponenee of mamlslnlrlg putzlls cunfidence lrl lne sentenclng system.‘ ma] Manakala berkenaan dengan bidang kuasa rayuan, pnnsip kas H: v. Llnu Len Ho. [2015] 4 cu m‘ dlpuluskan bahawa: The appellate calm can and will inlerfevs In tne sentence imposed by me lows! caun mt ls satlsfisd met any anne fc//owmg Iour gmunds are made out. (5) The sentenarng [udgs had made a wrong declston es to me proper faclualbasls for tne sentence. (DJ There had been an em)! on me pen DI the trial /udgs tn appnactaflng the material facts placed before film.’ (0) The sentence was wrong ln prlnclple; ov la) The sentence lmposed was manrieslly excessne or lnat1aquala.' an wANAxv.lnsJy5zavaFN§ ,, -we Smntn-nhnrwmlxeusedmvamlnentigtnnfllyMimsdnu-mnlvunF\uNG we Pm" "- V9] Mahkamah mi merujuk kapada Alasan Psnghakiman cleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen an muka suraI11 mngga as. Rekcd Rayuan Jmd 1 dan berseluju (emadap a\asan-a\assn mbenkan hukuman yang amenkan ke alas on. [an] Di aawam msmbual kapulusan lamadap hukuman, Hakim Mahkamah sesyen |e\ah memmbang semua Vaklur Iarrnasuklah memaluhi kehandak undsngmndang, kspenhngan awam, pangakuan bersalah on lak\or—Vakwr mmgasi dan mjukan lemadap beherapa kes yang bersamaan [s11 seam asasnya rzryuan lerhadap hukuman yang amujanxan Meh on ada\ah kersna saksyen yang dxperluduhkan Ierhadap om hdak mewajlbkan hukuman penjara sebahknya membenarkan hukuman denda dwkenakzn, [32] Dalam isu mi adaksh bermakna hukuman yang le\ah dvkenakan kn alas OKT ada\ah salah Ruwk kepada seksyan 1730:) Kamm Tatacava Jenayah (Akla 59311 -(17) Jika |enuduh mengsku sa\ah alas penuduhan nu, sama ada da\am bentuk asamya acau yang dipinda‘ akuan mu hendaldah dwrekndkan dan ma blfleh disabxlkan atasnya dan Mahkamah hendaklah menialuhkan hukuman menwkul undang-Imdang:" [931 Berdasarkan seks‘/en :11(1)Ia)A1<1a Kanak-Kanak, hukuman yang bmeh dqaluhkan |emadap on ada\ah ‘.apab'1\a msahllkan ho\sh didemia lldak mevehmu hma puluh nbu ringgn sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq -ma 5.11.1 ...m.. WW be .15.. m mm 1.. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm >=a- 12 0' 1- atau dxpemarakan sslama Iempuh «ask mslebmi dua punm vahun alau keduaduanya ~ [941 Sebagalmsna dmyalakan pads perenggan 22 Nasan Penghaldman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, di muka sum la .mia 1. Rakud Rayuan yang Ialah menuuk kepada kes Lolllln Busmun v Public Pro-acueor man: 5 mm 211, ‘alas bahswa spams uaaanya hukuman mandalnu dmyalakan. haknm mempunyaw bud! mam unmk mengenakan hukuman yang bersesuaxan dengan kesawanan dam on [as] (Nah nu, Mahkamah mi bersemu Ham Mahkamah Sesyen uaak me\akukan kasawahan apanua mengenakan hukuman penjara flan bukan hukuman denda lerhadau DKT [35] Hukuman Denjara yang dikenakan a\eh Hskxm Mahkamah sesyen sexexan behau menimbangkan Kesalahan yang anakukan alsh om, kepenlmgan awam dan lakwr-faklcr mifigasi. [an Hakxm Mahkamah Sesyen telah menuhs berkenaan dengan perkara mi secara kcmprehenswfpada muka sure! 19 Mnpga 35 [aa] Mahkamah mu lurm meneliti Iemadap lakmr mmgasi kepenlmgan awam dalam memuuusm unruk mengekalkan hukuman mg dijaluhkan men Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pm 15 M1- [as] Mahkamsh mangambu laK|cr»lak|or m\ligas< yang amenxan msh OKT bshawa hsfiau adalah hanya bemmur hanya 23 vamm A bman semasa kejaman, berkamlusan sm. snak bnngsu nan sepalulnya membanlu keluarga msncan nafkah kerani masmah xasmanan hapanya. Vbunya Ielah meninggal duma dsn beflau lsrpaksa bemndak mamaga bapanya Selspas kejadwan befiau aikanaxan sudah musk bekena [901 Pm mass sama Mahkamah peflu mmangi dengan kepenlmgan swam. CKT hukan sahaja Iemba| dl GHVEVVI kes yang meunatkan saurang kanak-kanak yang hanya beruswa 1 Iahun a buhan mam-an behau benugas dx puss! 1agaan yang diamanahkan untuk msmaslikan Jagaan temam bagl anak Ierssbul. [911 Ka,aman sepeni . karap berlsku den masysrakal panu dituniukkan pengajaran peflakuan ganas aana pangabauan oamaaap kanak-kanak sdalah suam yang |idak bavk dan perlu dxkenakan lmdakan tsgas bukan setakal pembayaran denda sahala. [92] Melahn r-akaman ccw .1. Exam 1223(5) menuniukkan psflakuan on msmukul sarla menghempas mangsa ke Iamav dan wenya aaavan salu tindakan yang max wajar Iarhadap mangsa yang hanya herusna 1 (ahun a bman [93] mm mamnu pemmbangan adalah iaklor kecedevaan Iemadap mangsa. Wilaupun geguam on menghujahkan bahawa Mada Keoedsman flzlka1 yang leruk lerhadap aw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ _ -ma Snvmnnnhnvwmlxeusedmvan;mem\g\ruHIyMimsdnu-mnlvunF\uNG W M 1-W- mangsa‘ «exam ianya masih suam kecedeman Iarhadap searang kanak»kanak yang mak boksh mevawan [94] Merujuk kepada rskod parubalan psfldalri (1iE|s\bitP23 muka xural 51 dan 52. Rekeu Rayuan ma 3. jevas menunjukkan dapaxan nleh Fegawaw Pevubaan bahawa mangsa menga\amikeua1aman sues pzsca trauma (PTSD) dan wanya memberi Kesan (erhadap perkembangan kognnif, emosw Imgkah laku mangsa Axmamya ihu mangsa sacrang Pegawal Perubacan larpaksa bemenli kena unmk lllemaganya bagi menjaganya [951 Peguam menghwahkan bahawa tampon masa sebelum rawaian pmkialri ml auaxukan msnunjukkan hahawa uadanya masa\ah senus kepaaa mangsa Walau pun Mahkamah Udsk menjumpax alasan mengapa kewewacan ml Ierjadi, telapw xanya paslilah alas «em: mangsa dan keluarga mu senam daVam menangani «muma PTSD lsrsebul. [96] In: aapamimmuskan melalui lapor-an Hnsi|a\ Psiklaln Iemshm pads Eksmm P23 tsrsebut. [97] Trandlerk keskesmehba|kankesalahandibawahseksyan 30(1)(a| Akfia Kanak-kanak menuruukkan [rend hukuman yang sam. [93] Eardasarkan kepeda alasan-axasan di mas Mahkaman um mendapam bahawa hukuman yang «swan dhaluhkan ulah sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq . -um Snr1n\nnuhnrw\HI>eusedmvammsnr1g\ruHIyMwsdnu-mnlvunF\uNG puns! 7 *5 “'1' Hakim Eicara adalah adil flan ssumpax yang mana Mahkamah in dak perlu un|uk menguhah penmah Isrsebui [99] Hakim mesa fiada malakukan spa-spa krmaman segv (akta flan urmang-undang. Huxuman (s\ah dussmlhangkan dengan fakior-lakmr rayuan alsh om dan juga kepevmngan swam [100]Mahkamah wn mengekmkan venmah Hakim Mahkamah Sesysn benankh 20.11.2022. O\sh Mu Rayuan Fandakwa Raya (erhadap hukuman dan rayuan sflang u¥eh Tenuduh ada\ah dmflak Mahkamah Tmggx Jenayih (7) Shah Bevlankh 3i Pmsk-pmak: Pen-ayu/Respam1an— Tuan Lnkman bin Kaiim [Pejabac TimbaVan Pendakwa Raya Negen sewangml Responden/Perayu» uik lllohd Faris Synzwan bln hinuuamlnl Mohammad Shafiq bin Muhammad Laxlm [Tetuan Namrl Mahmud. Fans 5. Nadia] sw rvAmAxv.msJy5zavaFNq . , -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum mm P v 1' M 2' merewel mangsa menyalakan hahawa marlgsa rriengeleirii keoeoereeri seperli berikul. "Pemerlksaan Flslkal (Physical Exerriirieiiorri: Alan, pink, ::n< zsees, good pulse volume. warm peripneriee, not (achypneic Upper limbs. bruises over rigrrr elbow -lerii. Lower limbs‘ rrrillrirrie bruises over laileierel iiiigri. aria rigm eeil -leiri ska linear eereieh mark over rlgm cheek ~acrii, pelacrilae bilateral lower eyelid.“ ls] selaniuzriya rujuk Lapcrsn Perubeleri Exsloil F21 di mukai surai M, Rekod Rayuan Jllid 3: Mulllple ecers noise. 1 2am and Liam linear eoresiori over me riglil cheek. 2 Bruise aver irie riglii lower eyelld. radish in colour, size around 2cm. 3 Bruise over lelerel aspect cf lefl proximal radius, yellow gmanlsh in oolour erio srze 05cm x 0.59m. 4 Bruise over leu rriidsriin, yellow greenish iii wioul and size 1cm x «cm 5 Bruise uvsr leii medial Hugh, yellow greenish iri mlour and size zorri x iorri. 6 Bmise aver rlgm medial lmgn, yellaw greenish in colour and sIZe< u.5ciri. 7 Bruise over right rriidsriin. yellvw greeriieri in colour and size 1 cm x 0 5cm. SIN l'vA:ilAxv.lnsJy5zavaFN§ -roe Sunni In-vlhnrwfll be used e mm ms nrwlruilly mi. dun-mm via nFluNG rm rue. A 91 ac [0] Pengadu Iurul membual salu Laponan P3115 yang dwandakan ssbaga|Eks1hilP3 darn balsh Lflrujuk di muka sm-am, Rekod Rayuan mm 3. [101 on lslah dwluduh di Mahkamah Sssyen Sepang pads 21.05.2021 flan diluduh uz bawah seksyen 3l(1)|a) ma Kanak Kanak 2001. [11] Kes \e|aI1 anecapkan unluk kncava pemm kali perlama pads 13.07.2021 selslah rsprssamasi on mwlak namun dwangguhkan unluk OKT memiailkan plea bargammg den xamumannya pada 21.09.2022 drmaklumkan hahawa plea bargaining yang dipahnn lelah mxolak (121 Pads wikh mam selamulnya imlu 30112022, on le\ah mengaku salah (erhadap penuduhan dun Halum Mahkamah Sesyen telah menarima dan merekodkan uengakuan sa\ah on Ruiuk muka swat 17 hingga 22 Rekod Rayuan Jvhd 2. [13] men nu DKT (elah mdapau barsalah flan disabnkan dengan Imkuman d1 bawah seksyen 31(1)(a) Akla Kanak-Kanak sspemberikur 11) FenjaIa15 bulan davi vankh mun hukum (11) OKT nendakvan sempumakan ban berkelukuan hawk dengan jumhah jamman bemagarsebanyak RM5,0D0,DD dengan ssulang pslqamin h5g1 tempo?! salama dua (2) lahun di bawah seksyen 31(2)(a) Akla Kanak-kanak. Lnpar dun d1 Ba|a1PoIis berhamuiran lempat nnggav OKT sw rvAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ 10.2 5.11.1 ...m.m11 be used .2 mm 1.. 0011.11-y mm. dun-mm VI] .r1uNG pm Pan: 5 n. is seuap salu hanbulan sefiap bulan sepamang dua cam fzrsebut se|e\ah sewesav menjalsni hukuman penjara (m) om mxenenaakz melaksanakan Pevimah Kmdmat Masyarakal selama (empeh seratus enam puluh (160) ]am agnagat dengen psmanlauan Pegawax Kebapkan Masyarakal dakxm Iempoh enam 16] bman dad lankh penniah se\aras dengan pemmukan as hawah seksyen 31(2)(n) Akca Kanak-kanak. W. HUJAHAN PENDAKWA RAVA [14] Rujuk kenada Peusyen Rayuan bag! ksduadua kes. yang wan dwankan an dalam Rekod Rayuan Tambahan‘ (iada mana-mans pmak msnmangknkan wsu berkenaan dsngan satman yang dikenakan ke alas OKT [15] Rujuk pula kepada Nola Ksterangan a. da\am Rekod Rayuan Jflld 2 G1 muka sum: 17. OKT telah mengaku sa\ah (erhadap penuduhan yang amacaxan. om iuga telah duersngkan den amamxan swan dan aklbat pengakuannya man on masm mengaku salah. on jugs ada rflwakfli o\eh Peguam semasa pengakuan sa\ah Iersanut dan wanya dmuax lanpa syaral. us] Dleh nu ma isu berkanaan dengan sabilan dapat tflbangkltkan til dalam myuan kes ink [17] Pmak pendakwaan an dalam Pemsyen Rayuan di muka sursl 5 mngga 9, Rakad Rayuan Tambahan menyaxakan aVasan mengapa Timbakln Pendakwa Rays hdak berpuas nan sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFNq -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG Wm! mg u mi dengan kapulusan yang diberikan oien Hakim Mahkamah sesyen [18] Secara nngkasnya, pihsk pendakwaan msnyalakari bahswa hukumen yang diberikan terlampau ringan (mannaauy inadequate) ks atas OKT bagi kesai.-man di bawah seksyen 31(I)(a)Akta Kanik-Kanak 2001. [19] Hukuman W dibsrikan Ianpa mengambii Kira gravliti kesaianan sens kekeriapavi beflakunya Kesalahan seumpania IN kebeiakangan Ini flan ienamaau mengimbil Kira fnklcr pengakuan salah oien on [20] Tlada sabararig special cncunisiances yang boien menjuslmkasi hukuman-hukuman yang rsndah Isrsebul diberikan Kepada OKT dan is amallah Udak berpadanan unluk menjaga kepenlirlgarl awam den menjadi iakmi deterrence sens Dengaiaran kepada on uan aakai pesaian (woi.IId—be offends!) yang lain. [21] Di daiam nuianan raynannya, pihak pendakwaan merighuiahkan bahawa Hakim Bicara gagai mengambi kessluruhan lakia kes dengan lelill dslam menenmkan hukuman yang 5%suai tevhadap OKT [221 Selemsaya menyaiakan bahawa Akia Kansk-Kanak 2001 men vat kanalvkanak sehagai kunci ksniaupan. pembangunan dan kemakmuran masyarakal yang sekahgus mengakui bahawa kanak-kanak men-enukan peninaungan pemahharaari flan bariluan khas sslspas kelamnan unluk lurul SIN i'vAniAxv.ins1y5zavaFN§ -nag a.n.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm a. nflflinnflly MIN: dun-mm y.. arium mm P-w 7 M 26 sena dawn flan menyumbang secara posmt ka arah memhenluk suam masyavakal Ma\ay:As yang unggul. [23] Mangsa adakm kanak-kanak yang herumur 1 (ahun s bman yang mama maslh sangal muda darn (idak msmpunyai apa- apa ksupsyaan unluk mehndungw mrinya. Manakala on ada\a7I Fambanlu Taska yang sudah devmsa dun diamanahkan unluk menjaga mangsa [24] Fmak pendakwaan m da\am rayuannya msrujuk kepada muka sural 5, ma 3 Reknd Rayuan bagi menurwkkan betxpa ksiamnya perlakuan OKT Ierhadap mangsa [25] Tmdakan ganas (emadap mangsa yang dihmahkan o\eh Pendakwa Raya adalah dengan menemx rakaman CCTV adalah m on (elah menoederakan mangsa dengan kasar sena benindak ganas dengan Cara menghempas mangaa ks mam, menarik hangan dan menampar peha mangaa. (H) Femsnksaan pemuaxan lemadap mangsa mendapan mangsa msngalalm keuederaan fizlkal yang pelbagaw Uapursn perubalan :11 make sure: 37dan 41 Jim 3 Rekod Rayuan dimjuk) (HI) Pamanksaan pamnan |smadap mangsa mendapau mangsa mengalami kecekuruan slress pasca trauma dan keadaan Ierssbul «elm: memberikan kssan bukan hanya kepada psrkembangan sma -aeaual, xogmm dan lmgkahlaku mangsa, ma\ahan ibu bapa dan keluargi Jllga Iurul nemesan bwamana ibu mangsa Ierpaksa bemanu aw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -ma Sum ...ua.. WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Fri: a mu kena ksvana keadaan emusi mangsa yang tidak soabiv (Iaparan perubaxan di muka sure! 44 den 46 Jilid 3 Rekod Rayuan mmuk) [25] Mangsa mengaxamu trauma keoewuan suass pasca trauma dan kaadaan terssbul «slan membenkan kesan bukan hanya kepaaa perkembangan emosx, swan, kognmv dan lingkahlaku mangsa [27] Fendakwaan luvu\ barman bahawa pmdaan kepada Akla Kanak—KarIak Dada Blwn 2016 dengan menaikkan hukuman dsnda danpada RM2o,ooa.oo ka RM50,000 oo dan (ampoh hukuman pemara duamban daripsda an lahun ke 20 Oahun msmbayangkan swkap Parhman msmandang beral a|as kesalahan per-deraan Ierhadav kanak—kanak [23] Permakwaan manghxqahkan baharwa salu hukuman banal hams\ah dmenxan agar pengmaran diberikan bukan sav-a;a kevada csnuauh, mamh orang lam supaya Iidak melakukan kesalahan yang sama an masa hadapan [291 Pendakwa Rays memohun supaya hukuman lemadap on dlkelepikan dan mganlikan dangan sa|u hukuman yang Vebih Imggn. V. HUJANAN FEGUAM [so] Peguam on L1! da\am hujahannya luml menyatakan bahawa Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara adalah sw rvAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm ua nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Plea u ulzl manrfesr/y excessive dan bmeh mkalakan bsrsflat banenman la\ah dlhukum (erhadap Psrayu dan/atau Respondan. [313 Peguam rnenghumhkan bahawa dsngan Jabs :1! dalam seksyen 31mm Ana Kanak-Kanik zoo: lsrsabux. benluk hukumsn yang panama yang ax perunlukkan adalah hukuman berbemuk dends wm ads\ah jslas memmjukkan bahawa kesalahan m bahawa sexsyen mi adamh salu kesalahan yang wen m denda. [32] Hukuman bevbanluk pemara pma adalah merupakan saw when apabna dinyalakan sehagai “almf sekiranya hukuman penjara adalah Vebih bersesuawan diksnakan kepada psrayu danlalau responden d‘ dalam Kes In‘. [33] Dawn wsu ini Peguam OKT ssvarusnya menghujahkan hahswa hukuman Dams:-a jug: bo\eh msyaralkan haIsama- sama hukuman denda seklranya perayu gagal unmk membayar denda yang akan m kanakan oxen Hakwm Mahkamah Sesyen [34] OKT meVa|u7 naslhal yang telah d1 berikan uleh pihflk Deguam (shah menukar pengakuan bagi tujuan memudahkan prose: dw Mahkamah Perbuzaraan an Mahkamah flan dengan Nat Imluk mermapalkan Sam hukuman berbentuk denda dan OKT bersedxa unluk hukuman denda tersebul [35] Peguam menghmahkan banawa Kepenlmgan seseorang lenuduh dw dalam sesuam kss iuga lidak bo\eh m pindang sw wAmAxv.ms1y5zavaFN§ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm m. In mu

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023

PERAYU AT Engineering Solution Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN Rank Electronics Sdn Bhd

1. The Appellant-Plaintiff (P) and the Respondent-Defendant (D) went to trial in the Magistrates Court (MC). The MC dismissed P’s claim. P appealed to the High Court.2. In the Appeal proceeding, D filed an Application to strike out the Appeal on the ground that P did not serve the Notice Of Appeal within the prescribed time under Order 55 Rule 3(4) of the Rules Of Court 2012.3. Does P’s non-compliance render P’s Appeal defective and incompetent, and so should be struck out?

09/02/2024

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f0bd3182-4d4c-47ed-8f90-9d953eec4ac0&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN SIVIL NO. PA-11BNCVC-4-03/2023 ANTARA AT ENGINEERING SOLUTION SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 631531-X) ...PERAYU DAN RANK ELECTRONICS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1039886-D) …RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG WRTI SAMAN NO. PA-A722NCVC-430-08/2021 ANTARA AT ENGINEERING SOLUTION SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 631531-X) ...PLAINTIF DAN RANK ELECTRONICS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1039886-D) …DEFENDAN JUDGMENT (APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT THE APPEAL) 09/02/2024 12:44:27 PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023 Kand. 17 S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PRELUSION [1] The Appellant-Plaintiff (P) and the Respondent-Defendant (D) went to trial in the Magistrates Court (MC). [2] The MC dismissed P’s claim. P appeals to the High Court. [3] In the Appeal proceeding, D filed an Application to strike out the Appeal on the ground that the Appeal is “null and void” because P did not comply with the mandatory Order 55 Rule 3(4) of the Rules Of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). Order 55 governs post-trial Appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court. [4] D’s Application to strike out the Appeal is Enclosure 4 in this Appeal proceeding. THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY [5] This is the pertinent chronology relating to this Appeal— 24.2.2023 — MC dismissed P’s claim 8.3.2023 — P filed Notice Of Appeal (NOA) — within time 10.3.2023 — P’s deadline to file and serve the NOA — 14 days from the “date of decision” per Order 55 Rule 2 and Order 55 Rule 3(4) of the ROC 2012 6.4.2023 — P finally served on D the NOA – 27 days out of time THE LAW ON THE COMPETENCY OF APPEALS [6] First, the Court Of Appeal—in Gurbachan Singh v Seagrott & Campbell (No 2) [1962] 1 MLJ 370 (CA); [1962] LNS 48; [1962] 1 MLRA 91—propounded the principle that “an appeal could only be said to be brought when the notice of appeal was served on the respondent”. S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [7] Second, Gurbachan Singh (supra) was cited with approval by the Federal Court in Tong Lee Hwa & Anor v Malayan Banking Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 257 (FC); [1978] 1 MLRA 342, at MLJ page 258. The Federal Court also held (at MLJ page 258) that “there is a statutory requirement for [the] service of the notice [of appeal]”. The Federal Court dismissed an application by the appellant there for an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal out of the prescribed time to serve the notice of appeal, and struck out the appeal. [8] Third, in Tong Lee Hwa (supra), the Federal Court also reiterated with agreement another judgment of the Federal Court in Tan Ting Kok v Cheong Lep Keen & Anor [1969] 1 MLJ 153 (CA); [1969] 1 LNS 186; [1969] 1 MLRA 197, and held (at MLJ page 153) that— …when notice of appeal is filed with the court, a copy must at the same time be served on the respondents or their solicitors. On this interpretation, the Federal Court was of the opinion that where notice had not been served on the other side within time, the appeal had not been brought before it. [emphasis added] [9] Fourth, the Court Of Appeal in Majlis Perbadanan Kangar v Sonati Development Corporation Sdn Bhd [2007] 1 MLJ 133 (CA); [2006] 6 AMR 647; [2006] 4 CLJ 953; [2006] 2 MLRA 331, cited the three case law authorities above and held that— [12] …this court is bound by the decisions in Gurubachan Singh, Tan Ting Kok v Cheong Lep Keen & Anor [1969] 1 MLJ 153 and Tong Lee Hwa, so that the result still remains that an appeal is not 'brought' until the notice of appeal is both filed and served. Accordingly, the earlier appeal lodged by S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the instant appellant had not been properly brought and was utterly incompetent… [emphasis added] THE PERTINENT FACTS HERE [10] In P’s Affidavit In Reply to this Enclosure 4, P admits that the NOA was not served within time. P avers that it was inadvertent. P avers that they only realised that the NOA was not served when they were preparing the Record Of Appeal for filing. P’s ARGUMENTS [11] P submits that this Court can exercise its discretion under Order 55 Rule 13 to allow P to serve the NOA out of time. [12] P submits that their omission to serve the NOA was inadvertent. [13] P submits that their omission to serve the NOA on D caused no prejudice to D. MY FINDINGS Discretion under Order 55 Rule 13 [14] On the use of the Court’s discretion under Order 55 Rule 13—I set out below the terms of Order 55 Rule 13 for reference— High Court may direct service on person not served (O. 55, r. 13) 13. When an appeal is called on for hearing or at any previous time on the application of any person interested, the High Court may direct that the record of appeal, or any notice of cross appeal, be served on any party S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal to the cause or matter who has not been served therewith, or on any person not already a party to the cause or matter, and may, for the purpose of such service, adjourn the hearing upon such terms as are just, and may give such judgment and make such order as might have been given or made if the parties served with such record or notice had been originally parties. [15] I find that Order 55 Rule 13 is not applicable. First, Order 55 Rule 13 requires an application to be made by a “person interested”. P has not made such an application here. P merely submits that this Court can exercise its discretion under Order 55 Rule 13 to allow P to serve the NOA on D out of time. [16] Second, Order 55 Rule 13 relates only the Record Of Appeal and the Notice Of Cross Appeal. The NOA in an appeal proceeding is expressly not included in this Rule. [17] Third, I cannot exercise the discretion available under Order 55 Rule 13 to circumvent or override the mandatory requirement to serve the NOA under Order 55 Rule 3(4) Inadvertence [18] On the submission that P’s omission to serve the NOA was inadvertent—I am of the view that the explanation that P gives does not absolve or relieve P from complying with the mandatory requirement to serve the NOA, and to serve it within the prescribed time. This fundamental non-compliance is fatal to P’s Appeal. Prejudice [19] On the submission that P’s non-compliance with the requirement to serve the NOA did not cause D any prejudice—I am of the view that P’s S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal averment that their failure to serve the NOA on D did not cause any prejudice to D—is untenable. I find that P’s non-compliance had indeed caused a prejudice to D. [20] D was successful in the MC, after the trial of the case. I reiterate that the MC’s judgment in favour of D was given on 24.2.2023. P had 14 days to lodge an Appeal. Fourteen days after 24.2.2023 was 10.3.2023. The deadline to file and serve the NOA was 10.3.2023. P filed the NOA on 8.3.2023 but did not serve it on D. In other words, D was not notified about P’s purported Appeal. [21] On the 10.3.2023 deadline, D must have, in some manner, waited to see if P would serve on them a NOA. When no NOA was served, D would have concluded that P was not appealing against the MC’s decision. D would have thought that the dispute concerning the rights and obligations of the parties in the MC suit had finally ended. D would have found closure to the litigation that P had instituted against them. [22] It was not until about a month later, on 6.4.2023, that P served the NOA on D. D must have been, to say the least, surprised by the purported service of the NOA on them. D would have thought that all of a sudden, P is again thrusting D into further litigation on the same dispute. [23] This, I find, is the prejudice that is caused upon D. I am compelled to find that P’s non-compliance of not serving the NOA on D within time, is seriously prejudicial to D, with the manner of prejudice that is not reparable or compensable. The non-compliance is not curable and is procedurally lethal, rendering P’s Appeal defective and hence incompetent. S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal CONCLUSION [24] On the case law authorities that both guide and bind me, and for the reasons that I allude to above, I allow D’s Application in Enclosure 4, and strike out P’s Appeal, with costs of RM7K to be paid by P to D by 7.3.2024. Costs are subject to the allocator. Dated: 9 February 2024 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Appellant: Syarifah Amnah Syed Zainal [Messrs. LC Ng & Associates (Ipoh)] For the Respondent: Cheah Ee Keong [Messrs. See, Ramsun & Tan (Penang)] Legislation referred to: 1. Order 55 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 2. Order 55 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 Cases referred to: S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1. Gurbachan Singh v Seagrott & Campbell (No 2) [1962] 1 MLJ 370 (CA); [1962] LNS 48; [1962] 1 MLRA 91. 2. Tong Lee Hwa & Anor v Malayan Banking Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 257 (FC); [1978] 1 MLRA 342. 3. Tan Ting Kok v Cheong Lep Keen & Anor [1969] 1 MLJ 153 (CA); [1969] 1 LNS 186; [1969] 1 MLRA 197. 4. Majlis Perbadanan Kangar v Sonati Development Corporation Sdn Bhd [2007] 1 MLJ 133 (CA); [2006] 6 AMR 647; [2006] 4 CLJ 953; [2006] 2 MLRA 331. S/N gjG98ExN7UePkJ2VPuxKwA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-33-205-04/2023

PEMPETISYEN LIOW KENG LUAN RESPONDEN 1. ) TAN SI HAI @ TAN SI YEN 2. ) ELAINE SEAH LI HUEI

Family law - Wife's application for non-molestation order - Meaning of molestation - Whether necessary for violence to occur to grant non-molestation order- Whether wife entitled to such order - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, section 103Family law - Wife's application for non-molestation order - Whether Court empowered to exclude husband from Wife's residence - Factors to consider for such order - Civil Law Act 1956, section 3

09/02/2024

YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4e1db485-6b46-4bf4-8ad3-6cc92ac3f2f2&Inline=true

WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA DIVORCE PETITION NO: WA-33-205-04/2023 In the matter of sections 54, 64, 76, 77, 78, 86 and 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 BETWEEN LIOW KENG LUAN ....PETITIONER AND TAN SI HAI @ TAN SI YEN ...RESPONDENT AND ELAINE SEAH LI HUEI ...CO-RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 09/02/2024 19:14:46 WA-33-205-04/2023 Kand. 65 S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Introduction [1] This was an application (“this Application”) by the Petitioner Wife in enclosure 23 for the following, namely (i) that the Respondent Husband including the Co-Respondent, be restrained until further order from molesting, harassing, or threatening the Petitioner; and (ii) that the Respondent be restrained from bringing, authorising, or allowing his agents, including the Co-Respondent, from entering the residence at Bukit Damansara (“the Bukit Damansara Residence”). The factual background [2] The Petitioner and Respondent, (collectively, “the Parties”), both aged 64 at the time of the hearing of this Application, registered their marriage in Malaysia in October 1987, and were blessed with two daughters, born in 1991 and 1997 respectively. [3] Throughout their married life, the Parties resided in various locations. This was due to the Respondent's professional obligations as a nephrologist at Prince Court Hospital which necessitated a dynamic lifestyle, prompting the family to divide their time between residences in Bandar Utama and Binjai on the Park (“the Binjai Residence”). Notably, the Petitioner's presence at the Binjai Residence dwindled progressively, culminating in a complete cessation of visits in the year 2017. The Petitioner eventually moved to their residence in Bukit Damansara (“the Bukit Damansara Residence”) in 2021. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 [4] As the years unfolded, the marital bond began to fray, marked by allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Respondent. These issues escalated, prompting the Petitioner to file for judicial separation, in April 2023. This was followed by a response by the Respondent in June 2023. [5] In July 2023, the Petitioner filed this Application pursuant to section 103 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act”), which reads: Section 103 – Injunctions against molestation The court shall have power during the pendency of any matrimonial proceedings or on or after the grant of a decree or divorce, judicial separation or annulment, to order any person to refrain from forcing his or her society on his or her spouse or former spouse and from other acts of molestation. [Emphasis added.] The issues [6] The pivotal matters under consideration in the present case encompassed three main facets, namely: (i) delineating the scope and significance of 'molestation'; (ii) assessing the justification for a non- molestation order in the current circumstances; and (iii) determining the extent to which a non-molestation order could impinge upon the Respondent's access to the Bukit Damansara Residence. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 [7] Given the nature of this application as an injunction, additional points of contention revolved around the presence of serious questions to be tried and in whose favour the balance of convenience lay. [8] This Application was allowed partially for the following reasons. Contentions, findings, and evaluation The meaning of ‘molestation’ [9] At the outset, it was crucial to determine the meaning of ‘molestation’ in the context of section 103 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act. [10] The word ‘molestation’ is not defined in the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act. This was acknowledged by Abdul Malik Ishak J (as he then was) in Chan Ah Moi @ Chan Kim Moy v Phang Wai Ann [1995] 3 CLJ 846 in the following passage, where reference was made to the English cases of Vaughan v. Vaughan [1973] 3 All ER 449, George v. George [1986] 2 FLR 347 and Johnson v. Walton [1990] 1 FLR 350, as well as the Britannica World Language Edition of The Oxford Dictionary: Unfortunately, the word "molestation" is not defined in the Act. The Britannica World Language Edition of The Oxford Dictionary defines "molestation" as: the action of molesting or condition of being molested; annoyance, disturbance, vexation Whereas the Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English compiled by F.G. Fowler & H.W. Fowler, 4th Edn. defines "molestation" simply as "troublesome". Davies LJ, in Vaughan v. Vaughan [1973] 3 All ER 449 CA, S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 referred to two dictionaries for the meaning of the word "molestation". His Lordship said this (p. 452): According to Counsel for the husband we find two different definitions respectively in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The former gives the meaning for 'molest' as: 'meddle hostilely or injuriously'. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives a much wider definition of these terms: 'to cause trouble; to vex; to annoy; to put to inconvenience. George v. George [1986] 2 FLR 347 and Johnson v. Walton [1990] 1 FLR 350 adopted Davies LJ's approach to the meaning of "molestation" in Vaughan v. Vaughan (supra). [Emphasis added.] [11] In the case of Sheng Lien @ Shen Len Yee v Tan Teng Heng & Anor [2010] 11 MLRH 849, the Court granted an injunctive order pursuant to section 103 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act. Such decision was grounded in the wife’s apprehension, even in the absence of tangible evidence of physical abuse or a filed police report. The court, in that case, adopted the perspective that it was not obligated to delay intervention until a moment of actual violence transpires, asserting that ‘the court does not have to wait for the day when violence occurs before it grants such order, that would be too late’. This underscores the Court's proactive stance in safeguarding the well-being of individuals and preventing potential harm before it materialises. [12] The concept of molestation therefore extends beyond mere physical violence or abuse, encompassing a broad spectrum of behaviour. This principle is underscored by the precedent set in the case of Lee Sook Kwan v Yap Woon [2010] 11 MLRH 167, where Her Ladyship Yeoh S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Wee Siam J (as she then was) drew from the case of Chan Ah Moi @ Chan Kim Moy v Phang Wai Ann to grant a non-molestation order. Whether ‘non-molestation’ order was warranted [13] Recognising that both the act of molestation and the experience of being molested encompass elements of annoyance, disturbance, and vexation, I found it imperative to grant a non-molestation order in the current context. Such decision was rooted in the profoundly acrimonious relationship between the involved parties, accentuated by previous distressing encounters that had inflicted considerable emotional turmoil upon the Petitioner. [14] For instance, it was undisputed that the Respondent had brought the Co-Respondent to the Bukit Damansara Residence, an action that had induced distress, mental anguish, and embarrassment for the Petitioner. Although both the Respondent and Co-Respondent had disputed the latter’s involvement in the breakdown of the marriage of the Parties, it was essential to note that the Petitioner had explicitly named the Co-Respondent in the petition for judicial separation. The determination of this specific issue has yet to be made. [15] Furthermore, the Petitioner experienced heightened pressure and anxiety due to the Respondent's actions, including cancellation of the Petitioner’s supplementary credit cards and the Respondent’s refusal to contribute to household expenses. This behaviour, perceived by the Petitioner as a form of financial coercion, compounded her emotional distress. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Whether this Court had jurisdiction to exclude Respondent from the Bukit Damansara Residence [16] In the present case, the Petitioner not only sought a non-molestation order under section 103 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, but she had also prayed for an order to bar the Respondent from the Bukit Damansara Residence, until the disposal of the hearing of the judicial separation petition. The pivotal question at hand, therefore, was whether this Court possessed the jurisdiction to grant an exclusion order. [17] In my view, the Court indeed had the power to bar the Respondent from the Bukit Damansara Residence. I drew guidance from the precedent set in the case of Jayakumari a/p Arul Pragasam v Suriya Narayanan a/l V Ramanathan [1996] 4 MLJ 421, where the Court had derived its jurisdiction from section 3(1)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, and the English cases of Gurasz v Gurasz [1969] 3 All ER 822 which delineated the common law position in England by citing Bendall v McWhirter [1952] 2 QB 466 and Silverstone v Silverstone [1953] P 174. The relevant provision, section 3(1)(a) of the Civil Law Act, states: Section 3 – Application of UK common law, rules of equity and certain statutes (1) Save so far as other provision has been made or may hereafter be made by any written law in force in Malaysia, the Court shall – (a) in Peninsular Malaysia or any part thereof, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity as administered in England on the 7 April 1956; ... S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 [Emphasis added.] [18] In Jayakumari a/p Arul Pragasam v Suriya Narayanan a/l V Ramanathan, addressing the matter of whether one spouse could restrict the other's access to the matrimonial home, James Foong J (as he then was) articulated the following position: As the English common law prior to 7 April 1956 is applicable to our country, the English case of Silverstone v Silverstone [1953] P 174 may be of relevance as regards jurisdiction. Here, Pearce J expressed as follows at p 177: In my view, she has a right to be in a matrimonial home while a petition is pending before this court, and this court is entitled to protect that right and ensure that pressure is not put on a wife to abandon her petition by evicting her from the home. In the present case, I am satisfied that if I let the husband go back to the house I am really driving her out. By the same token, the court should have jurisdiction to evict a husband from the matrimonial home pending the trial of the action, if there is evidence based on considered principles to do so, otherwise the wife will be bullied out of her remedy or deterred by pressure from seeking the help of the court. This proposition of the wife's right to remain in the matrimonial home is based on the ruling by Denning LJ (as he then was) in the case of Bendall v McWhirter [1952] 2 QB 466, where he affirmed that a wife is not without rights in the matrimonial home even though it belongs to the husband, and her right to stay in the matrimonial home is presumed in law to have been conferred upon her by her husband flowing from the concept of a marriage. This issue of jurisdiction is further confirmed by the English courts in the case of Gurasz v Gurasz [1969] 3 All ER 822 which is a strong persuasive authority to our laws and can even be applicable under s 47 of the Act which provides that: (47) Principles of law to be applied Subject to the provisions contained in this Part, the court shall in all suits and proceedings hereunder act and give relief on principles which in the opinion of the court are, as nearly as may be, conformable to the principles on which the High Court Justice in England acts and gives relief in matrimonial proceedings. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 In the case of Gurasz v Gurasz, the parties being husband and wife lived with four children in a matrimonial house jointly owned by the parties. The wife due to intolerable conditions left the matrimonial home with the children. The husband remained in the house and subsequently took in another man to live with him. The wife sought relief from the court to evict the husband and to reinstate her possession of the house with the children. The county court judge granted her application and on appeal to the Court of Appeal, Denning MR reiterated the position of the wife's right to occupy the matrimonial home and to evict an errant husband under common law. This proposition is common law was supported by fellow panel judge, Edmund Davies LJ in the same case when he expressed that: that such a general power (the power to evict a husband from the matrimonial home) unquestionably existed has, if I may say so, been amply and convincingly demonstrated by Lord Denning MR. Based on the aforesaid authorities, this court is convinced that it has jurisdiction to entertain, and if found satisfied, to grant the second relief of the petitioner's application in encl 8. [Emphasis added.] [19] I also maintained the view that Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“Rules of Court”) provided ample authority for this Court to grant an order excluding the Respondent from accessing the Bukit Damansara Residence. The pertinent provision reads: Order 92 – Miscellaneous Rule 4 – Inherent powers of the Court For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. [Emphasis added.] S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 [20] Reference was additionally made to the case of Tan Boon Lang v Lim Tong Sin [1997] 4 MLJ 485, where the Brunei High Court asserted its inherent jurisdiction under the Brunei High Court Rules Order 86 rule 4 (the equivalent of Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court) to mandate a party to vacate the matrimonial house, notwithstanding proprietary rights, as long as matrimonial proceedings were pending. The court, in that case, emphasised the necessity to ensure that a party has the right to pursue legal remedies without pressure or intimidation, allowing them to proceed freely with matrimonial proceedings. [21] Furthermore, in Chan Ah Moi @ Chan Kim Moy v Phang Wai Ann, in deciding whether to make an order to exclude one spouse from the matrimonial home, guidance was drawn from the insights in Family Law by PJ Pace, where learned author articulated: While it has been said that an injunction excluding one spouse from the matrimonial home (as opposed to one restraining molestation) is a "drastic order" (Hall v. Hall [1971] C.A.), it is recognised that it is "fair, just and reasonable" that a spouse should be excluded, the Court will so order (Walker v. Walker [1978] CA). In deciding whether to make such an order the Court will have regard to such matters as: (a) the parties' behaviour; (b) the effect on the children if exclusion is, or is not, ordered; (c) the personal circumstances of the person sought to be excluded; (d) the accommodation available to the parties; (e) the likelihood of injuries to the parties; and (f) the parties' health. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 [Emphasis added.] [22] The palpable tension in the relationship between the Parties was not only evident but reached a point of strain that could not be ignored. To compound the already delicate circumstances, the Respondent made the highly reprehensible decision to introduce the Co-Respondent into the Bukit Damansara Residence. This move, devoid of sensitivity, exacerbated an already difficult situation. [23] Living under the same roof was not just inappropriate; it subjected the Petitioner to a constant state of harassment, anxiety, and discomfort due to the presence of the Respondent. Drawing guidance from the precedent set in the case of Johnson v. Walton [1990] FCR 568, 1 FLR 350, it was clear that ‘molestation also applies to any conduct which intentionally causes harassment.’ [24] The Respondent argued that being excluded from the Bukit Damansara Residence would be unfair, citing his desire to host friends at that location. In my view, the Respondent’s contention was bereft of merit, given the unchallenged fact that the Binjai Residence offers sufficient space to accommodate a substantial number of guests. Considering the heightened animosity between the Parties, it would be more suitable for the Respondent to host gatherings at the Binjai Residence. [25] Furthermore, as the Respondent has enjoyed quiet and undisturbed living at the Binjai Residence, to the exclusion of the Petitioner, since S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 2017, it would only be equitable for the Petitioner to be afforded a similar environment at the Bukit Damansara Residence. Whether there were serious questions to be tried [26] In this Application, it was imperative for the Petitioner to convince this Court that there is a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience lies in her favour. [27] The necessity for a serious question to be tried pertains to the cause of action between the parties. My reference point for this principle was gleaned from the case of ABC & Anor v JKL [2020] 11 MLJ 421, wherein the Supreme Court decision in Tien Ik & Ors v Peter Kuok Khoon Hwong [1993] 1 CLJ 9; [1992] 2 MLJ 689, was referred to. In the latter case, Hj Mohd. Jemuri Serjan SCJ articulated the significance of a serious question to be tried in the following passage: In an application for an interim injunction, the court is not called upon to make any final decision on any question of fact. What is required at that stage is for the learned judge to decide on the affidavits available before him that the claim in the originating summons is not frivolous or vexatious, in other words, there is a serious question to be tried, and having so decided he must go on to consider the question of balance of convenience. [Emphasis added.] [28] In the current context, Parties are involved in judicial separation proceedings, and it was evident that there are serious questions to be tried in such proceedings. S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Where the balance of convenience lay [29] It was also my view that the balance of convenience and the broader principles of justice favoured the Petitioner for several compelling reasons. Firstly, both Parties have been residing in distinct residences, indicating a pre-existing separation. Secondly, the Respondent has enjoyed exclusive and quiet enjoyment of the Binjai Residence since 2017. As such, allowing this Application would not be prejudicial to the Respondent. [30] Furthermore, it was imperative to take into account the emotional well- being of the Petitioner. The visible presence of the Respondent had a discernible impact on the Petitioner’s state of mind, emphasising the need for a resolution that prioritises her emotional welfare. Conclusion [31] Counsel for the Respondent argued that allowing this Application would be unjust, invoking the adage that a man’s home is his castle. However, it was essential to emphasise to the Respondent that the sanctity of ‘a man’s home is his castle’ holds true, but only ‘until his queen arrives.’ Consequently, it was ordered that the Respondent, including the Co-Respondent, be enjoined until further order, from molesting, harassing, threatening, or otherwise forcing his or her society upon or interfering with the Petitioner. [32] However, in the interest of justice and fairness, and in light of the Respondent's expressed desire to visit the Bukit Damansara S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Residence, allowance was made for the Respondent, by himself only, to enter the Bukit Damansara Residence between the hours of 12 noon and 6 pm every Saturday. Dated: 9 February 2024 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge High Court, Kuala Lumpur Counsel: For the Petitioner – YN Foo, Kiran Dhaliwal, and John Heng; Messrs YN Foo & Partners For the Respondent – WH Kan, Goh Loh Boon and Lim Yee; Messrs WH Kan For the Co-Respondent – WH Kan, Goh Loh Boon and Lim Yee; Messrs WH Kan Cases referred to: ➢ ABC & Anor v JKL [2020] 11 MLJ 421 ➢ Bendall v McWhirter [1952] 2 QB 466 S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-205-04/2023 9 February 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 ➢ Chan Ah Moi @ Chan Kim Moy v Phang Wai Ann [1995] 3 CLJ 846 ➢ George v. George [1986] 2 FLR 347 ➢ Gurasz v Gurasz [1969] 3 All ER 822 ➢ Jayakumari a/p Arul Pragasam v Suriya Narayanan a/l V Ramanathan [1996] 4 MLJ 421 ➢ Johnson v. Walton [1990] 1 FLR 350 ➢ Lee Sook Kwan v Yap Woon [2010] 11 MLRH 167 ➢ Sheng Lien @ Shen Len Yee v Tan Teng Heng & Anor [2010] 11 MLRH 849 ➢ Silverstone v Silverstone [1953] P 174 ➢ Tan Boon Lang v Lim Tong Sin [1997] 4 MLJ 485 ➢ Tien Ik & Ors v Peter Kuok Khoon Hwong [1993] 1 CLJ 9; [1992] 2 MLJ 689 ➢ Vaughan v. Vaughan [1973] 3 All ER 449 Legislation referred to: ➢ Civil Law Act 1956 – section 3(1)(a) ➢ High Court Rules (Brunei) – Order 86 rule 4 ➢ Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – section 103 ➢ Rules of Court 2012 – Order 92 rule 4 Other sources referred to: ➢ Britannica World Language Edition of The Oxford Dictionary S/N hbQdTkZr9EuK02zJKsPy8g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BC-62JSK-112-11/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Matheri

Ini adalah Rayuan OKT terhadap hukuman sahaja. Kes ini OKT telah mengaku salah. DPP telah mengemukakan fakta kes yang kemudiannya telah dibacakan fakta tersebut kepada OKT. OKT faham dan mengakui fakta kes adalah benar.

09/02/2024

Puan Norshila binti Dato'Haji Kamaruddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8c45b1de-9a42-4278-8043-b9b7ad5c249e&Inline=true

AP Matheri.pdf 09/02/2024 11:43:22 BC-62JSK-112-11/2023 Kand. 8 S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3rFFjEKaeEKAQ7m3rVwkng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m 20 15 Kand. 5 :o,a2,;m 11 LCUAA ac—62.Jsk—112—11/2023 DALAM MAHKAMAH szsvzn DI AMPANG DALAM NEGERI ssuwaon mam EHSAN KES JENAVAH : EC-5ZJSK»112-11/1023 PENDAKWA RAVA LAWAN MATNERI ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Lgjgr Bglgkgng 1 Ini ada\ah Rzyuan on lemadap hukuman sahaja Dalam kes Im, on |e\ah dmuduh dengan penuduhan seperu benkm. Bahawa kamu pads so/1a/2023 jam /em kurang aaa pelang mngga [am 330 pelarlg nenempa: m daram stun belakang /lat Taman Sn Taryung, 43500 semenym Dalam Daerah Ka;ang‘ da/am Negerl Selangar, reran melakukarl amang seksual lrzrkal Dag: man seksuat mm; dsngan msnggessl ksmaluan kamu kepeda Kemaluan seonsng kana)<~ksnak perempuan bemama Nurul Dahllsya Khahssya mm Nurul Aszrm (No K/P 1712234» 1 5w w.z»usmnmm»<m 3" mm Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm D524) yang barumur 5 zanun 9 man kelrks ks/swan. O/sh yang dermkran, kamu Ie/ah melakukan kesalahan m‘ bawah Seksyen an ma) Akta Kssa/ansn»kasa/ahan Seksua! Tsmsdap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang be/eh dmukum m bawah Seksyerl 14 Akla yang same” 2 Dalam Res ml on telah mengaku sa\ah ow le\ah mengsmukakan [akla kes yang kemumannya Lelah dvbacakan as lakla tersebut kepada on on laham dan mengakw cam kes ada\ah benar. Fakla kes nu duandakan sehagan P1. 3 Psngadu da\am kes mu adalah mu kapaaa kanak-kanak yang ‘age mangsa dalam kes im. secara nngkasnya. kejadwan ml nenaku w sewakm mu mangsa mencan anaknya (mangsa) yang bemama Nurul Dahheya berumur s Lahun an seknar kawasaan perumahan kerana mangsa maapan naaa dw dalam rumah ><e.aa.an benaku pada 30/10/2023 pada Jam 3 an pelang lbu mzngsa |e\ah nampak mangsa ksmar dan kawasan kebun newakang pemmanan «arsanm as (Taman Sen Taruung Semenywh), dengan senrang lakw-lam lndnnsswa |av|u on on man jlran meraka yang umumya 55 lahun Apabila pengadu nenanya kepada rnangsa, mangsa membenlahu on yang dipanggu aluk nelan mengqak mangsa unluk mengambll buah varnoman Sewaklu sampaw dw rumah, so mangsa \ems ke landas den ssper1vke\aku\an Mangsa mengadu pada pengaau l/Eng kemamannya sakll Mangsa rnernoemanu pengadu bahawa on ma memasukkan kemamannya ke da\am kemaluan mangsa namun udak berlaya on Juslél |e\ah benkannya RM1u.ou. Pengadu dan ayan psngadu le\ah pergw 2 N :IvFF1EK2sEKAn7nw:arw0<rv! ma Sum Mn... Mu be used m mm a. nnmnaulv mm; nnmmnnl vn mum Wm S5 benumpa aengan om namun on wax msngakm. Falvs lelah dmubungi om melankan dm namun benaya mxangkap Hasu swasatan menaapan ow telsh melakukan amang ssksual Iemadap mangsa dengan menggeselkan kemamannya kepada kemaluan mangsa. on |eIah mnmuh m bawah Seksyen Wat so Akla Kesa\ahan Seksual Tevhadap Kanak—Kanak 2017 Fakla kes W cmanuaxan sebagan F1. 4 DPP ma ls\ah mengemukakan barang kss wallu Laparan Pohs Pengzdu, Lapavan Polls Tangkzpan, 9 kepmg gambar Iempal as kejaman, 2 kspmg gambar mangsa. sskepmg gambar on. sun Lamr mangsa‘ Laporan Pembatan pemenksaan awa\ mangsa dan Vakaran rqah anagram ‘a‘ (record tear). Mahkamah |s\ah menandakan barang kes Ievsebm sebagm P2 — P9 70 5 OKT |e\ah mehhal dan mengakw benar P2 — P9 tersebm Ss\an;u|nya Mahkamah |e|ah mendapah OKT ada\ah bersalah dam mensabmkan on dengan kesahhan sepem mane perluduhan R-ayuan our 75 e on berumur 55 tahun ox? mohon hukuman nngan on nekeqa membma rumah qmmm kenlrak) dw Ma\aysva. Ksmarga sekarang berada dw lndnneswa lbubapa te\ah men-nggax duma on bwayaw keluarga dw negara asa\ om sudah ma dan mlma maav alas w kesawanan. N w.z»usmnmm»<m mm Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm :5 mo :05 Hu ahan P mboratan Fendakwa Raya 7 DPP yang buaksana dawn muahan memberalkan hukumannya berhulah agar hukuman yang bevbentuk pengajaran/deterrent mbsnkan kepada on nan mohan Mahkamah ambu kura bahawa kes sepem Im serlng beliaku dan amat befleluasa DPP juga monon hukuman sebalan mkenakan. DPP .uga menghxuahkan bahawa on cuba merogm seorang kanak-kanak yang masm kecfl namun max benaya. lm kesalahan yang senus. Perbua|an Mu Ielah menyebabkan mzngsa oedera on ml wavgz asmg yang aepammya beksna sana.a m Malaysia den aepammya menghormau undang-undang negara W Saya mohon hukuman beral berbenluk Dengqaran Kogutunn Mahkamnh/Alann a Mahkamah (e\ah memaumkan hukuman saxama 5 Iahun peruara can 2 kalw sebatan femadap on Dalam memmbangkan hukuman yang sawaamya yang perm duahmkan, Mahkamah mangamnn kva bebevapa laklor dalam merualuhkzn hukuman 9 Mahkamah mendapall Im adalah Jenam yhng senus can sewaamya on amenkan hukuman pemsnjaraan yang Vama sebagaw suam oenmk pengmaran kepadanw. khasnya dan juga kepada masyarakat awam, amnya. Mahkamah wga mengambfl mra pnnswp kepemmgan swam adalah mengalasw kepentmgan mdmdu. N :|vFF1EK2sEKAD7m:Irw0<IV! ma Sam M... M“ be used m mm a. nvVWuH|Y mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm no 10 Pnnslp kepenlmgan awam sepeni yang dinyahkan a\eh Hr/bery .I ex ealam kes R v. sen (19511 35 cnnnner A;mea/ Ream 154. Ekemen im semiasa |erpaka\ an dalam kes—kesIempalan sepem kes PP v. Loo Choon an [1976] 1 ms 102‘ [1576] 2 MLJ 25, PF v. Ra!/indran .9. or: (supra), PP -/. ren Ah CIleng[1976]1 LNS116, 115 Tea Slew Pang A Ors. v. PP [1954] 1 ms 71 and PF v. Nazarudin bin Ahmad 4. 2 015 [1993] 2 cm 543; Hflbery .1 d1 ealem kes R v. Ball [supn) «swan msnyatakan sepem eenkm "In decrdmg me aporopnats sentence a com should no always be gurded by cenern consrderaxrons The firs! and/memos! rs me pub/rc rntsrasl The Cnmmal Law rs pub/rc/y en/weed, not only mm me 013/99! 0/ pumshmg enme, em a/so m (he nope evprevennng u A ploper sentence, passed in pub/rc, serves me 115 public mlersst In two ways. /1 may dstsr amsrs Mm might be Iempled la Ily cnme as seen-mg to offer easy money on the supposman, that .1 me allendsr .5 caught and Brought to justice, me punishment will be neglrgrb/9 Such a msntence may also deter me no pamcurer crlmmal Irum commmmg a crime again, or mducs mm to mm from a crvmmal to an honest we rne pub/rc mleresl Is maeed served and besrserved‘ rflhs ollendsr IS meueed 10 (um Imm cnmmal ways lo harvest llvmg Our law does not merelme fix me 135 sentence rma pamcurer enme, bu! fixes a maximum 5 N JvFF:EK:sEKAn7m:arvwkrv§ we Sum Mn... Mu be used m mm we mwvuulv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm 140 ms 150 .5; Isa H 12. ssnlsncs and/eaves n to the com to dscrds what rs, wrarnn ma: maxmmm, the appmprvale semence Io: each cnmmal In the namcu/arcrrcumstancss o/sacn case. Nor on/ylrl regard to each crime‘ but In regard to each cnmmak ms mun has me rvghl and me my fa decrde whemerxo be lemenf or severe " Paaa hemal Mahkamahy hukuman yang dlkenakan oxen Mahkamam lam: 5 |ahun neruara flan 2 kah sebalan rolan ada\ah sualu hukuman yang wajarbagl memben pengayanan kepada on Hukuman Im yuga mampu msmben reneku kepada kesenusan yenayan tersebul. on Im seovang yang sudah beruswa 56 tahun yang sepalumya menyam pelmdung kspada mangsa yang hanya berumur 5 Lahun Mawahnn mangsa um bmeh manggap sepem cucunya ssndm Mahkamah yuga msmpemmbangkan nanawa mangsa dalam usia yang lerlalu kecil mak mampu unluk me\awan on yang yaun wamn ma darlpadanya dan mempunyaw Isnaga yang Veblh kuat danpada mangsn fakva kes lerdapalnya cubaan merugal mangsa namun naslb mangsa hawk Mahkamah yuga mempemmbangkan bahawa Kenna OKT tldak benaya merogoxnya aenaasamnn P1, mangsa menyaxakan on berkala kepadanya bahawa kemamannya mam keenly make cubaan nu gagal lm menumukkan Ierdapal ma! jahat on im umuk mercgm mangsa yang masm kecfl Akxbat kegagalan Iersebut makn om nanya damn menggesexkan kemamannya kepada kemaluan mangsa sanmgga kemaluan mangsa camera. 5 n :IvFF1EK2sEKAD7m:Irw0<rv! ma Sam M... wm be used m mm a. nflmrufllv Mm; nnmmnnl vn mum Wm 155 no 175 m 135 13 «A. 15. on ‘age (elah msngupah mangsa dengan wang RMIO supaye mangsa max memberflahu seswapa .|e\as sekah pevbuatan yanayan vm sepsm Ielah dwancang olsh on. Perbualan ml sangal bahaya kepada kanakrkanak lngatan yuga narus mbenkan kepada mubana unluk lvdak dengan numah mempsrcayav manamana warga ma yang kellhalan sepem ovang yang balk dan kenalan Keluarga pula. namun yalas msmpunyax rua| mala fids. Mankaman yuga msmpemmbangkan on W xalah wan kepada mangsa yang mmah mereka adzlah bevdekman sana.a Jelas aakan on (em: mengambu kesempalan sebagau man flan mpanggu amk oleh mangsa namun mempunyaw silat dan niaz yang yanax kepada mangsa. Mahkamah berpendapal hukuman yang wajardan pa|u| sens seIAmpa\ bag KT ml adalah 5 tahun peruara flan 2 xan ssbatan. Mahkamah memmbangkan .uga on ml |s\ah mengaku sawarn umur mangsa dan umur on sewaklu kejad n beflaku. Mahkamah dapah pertuduhan an bawah Seksyen may «oak menetapkan hukuman pemeruaraan nwnm, Dalam menenmkan hukuman yang dualuhkan, Mahkamah Ielah mengambfl klra kesemua Vaklor mmgasw uleh om dan mga htuahan DPP Mahkamah pemaya hukuman penyara Slahun aan 2 sebavan adalah ssumpal bag on A|as a\asan W Mahkamah memumskan bahawa hukuman Duiiara sllnma 5 uhun dari urikh mlgkw dun 2 km sohuan lerllzdap om ada\ah wa‘an amx dan bersesuawan. 7 N :|vFF1EK2sEKAD7m:Irw0<IV! ma Sam M... Mu be used m mm na nnmnaulv mm; nnmmnnl vn mum Wm 190 Kogumsan Mahkamah 16 Mahkamah «swan meruahmkan hukuman semma 5 |ahun peruars dan 2 kall sebalan lemadap OKT .9; Pgnngh Lyn nokumermokumen kepada Ian Mahkzmah ma Bsrlankhnada an/2024. (NORSHILA sum KAMARUDDIN) Hakim ms Mahkamah Sesyen JSKK Ampang, Selangur Pihak Responden: TImba\an Pendakwa Raye zw d/a Pe]aba|Penas|ha1Undang—Undang Negerl sewangw Bangunan suuan sawanuaam Abdul Am Shah 40503 Shah mam, Selangor Dam! Ehsan ak Perayu: us Mm-«Em sw w.z»uszmnmm»<m -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CB-62D-333-12/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH AZDI BIN ALWI

PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 2 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39C(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan.

09/02/2024

Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=66be9c26-d112-49f5-9588-3ff1ab7bd5da&Inline=true

09/02/2024 14:55:47 CB-62D-333-12/2023 Kand. 11 S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JpyZhLR9UmViD/xq3vV2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ca—s2D—333—12/2023 Kand. 11 . ,0;/22:4 4-» u DALAM MAHKAMAN sesvsu DI TEMERLOH. DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA KES N0: ca-52D-3:53-12/2n2J . DI ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA ...PENDAKWA DAN AZDI am ALWI ...TERTUDUH V5 KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT, HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESVEN 1. TEMERLOH TARIKH HUKUMAN‘ 21 DISEMEER mu :0 ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN mg: 1 mafia fi;mW_q»5mgum...m M V.” mum mm Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm PERMULAAN 1 Alasan pengnakuman inn dlsedlakan benkman danpada Iayuan Yerluduh yang uaak berpuas ham |emadap kepulusan saya . yang umenxan paaa 21.12.2023 yang mana saya telah mensamxan Temmuh an bawah Seksyen 15(1](:) Akla Dadlh Enrbahaya 1952 dan dmukum penjara selnma 5 lahun mma. danpada tankh 21.122202: den 1 senaun an bawah Seksyen $9C(1)(|1) Aku Dadnh Bcrhlhaya 1952 dan aupennnamn m memalaru pangawasan AADK selama 2 mm" smspas memalaru hukuman ax bawah Seksyen axe Am Dadan Barhahnya 1552 2 Rayuan ada\ah xemaaap hukuman sahala 3 Penman pememaraan mak dnawakmkan PERTUDUHAN :u 4 Pass 21.122023‘ Terluduh le\ah amaaapkan xe Mshkamah Sesyen Temenrm dengan pafluduhan sepem berlkul ,,mmWfl1mv‘D_m,,w.;.7‘ ..~ MW! A1h.I!1Al mu m 1131 Page ; -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 23 Prmsnp yang sama Jugs niuelaskan nagn man Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Gnlnesnln .I/I Nlcnllppln A Ors v. Pcndakwa REVS [2000] 3 AMR 2621 yang menyatakan 5 “The pawemn stnlsrlclng gwen m 3 man cmm ns 3 dnsmehnnary an: nnd In under (or us. as me appennane mun, |a ansnnnm ms sennenme nmnasea, we mnnsn be wrwnnoed man the man Judas rnaa evved m avwylng he oorvs¢1 plwnclpbs ufxememzlng or had embavkad on same unllllhunlefl ar emaneaus exemnse cl m dnscvellm nsee FP V Lou Chow! Far! have! 2 MLJ 255 and annmuramaa Jayatflaks v PV|1vEZ] 1 Mu 9:) ' 24 Fandangan yang sama dnegaskan nnanam Ines Tan syn Abdul mm». Mend Noor Iwn. PP [2001] 1 cm 545 El: rnanaman 553 h an mana Mahkamah nnenyanakan ‘Kuasa Denghukuman adalah Ierlelak dn alas nmanmcana mahkamah ma memmcznaxan seiualu m Mahbnzmah lerseuul mempnnnyan flak din Ialwfiungpawnb “mm nkan :0 nansnnap lemhnt nan kerns. Maw budlhnnara nensennnn heudnklah ninlnlfianaksn menuml pnnsnponmsnp pemnanan huknman my man dnervna vakal salami um nsnna nman Punm: Pmsuwarv Knmamn usezy 1 mm 331) 1» Pnnsvp nnmnanmmnnansn ‘IBM: meflflnavnspandu raw?" Medan hukuman yang annannnrnxan oleh mahkamah ylng nnnnmnnmnnnm. panama kah sesualu ks! xdmah mgn nenann .enas nnnpnnnusnnan sebelum nnnn Mnhkamnh Rayuan max akan menguanswnn dengnn sesualu hukuman yang duanuhkan malinnkan Iarw: >0 nnaaan dnunlnkkan bahawa dalam Iul keadaln sesuntu kes nmmn‘ hukumzn (usebul aflllih Izvmmmu man man Nigel: S’fiWHw%v‘D’XaW MW IV Mon mnnnmw 31 Pa: H «-ms smm nmnmrwm be used m mm .. nmmmuly mm. dun-mm VII .mnc v-man alaunun dahm nnenetankan hukumarv Iersebul‘ mahkzmah Iehh gm» seclm mellcukupv mnmmbang ssmlu Iiklnf-hklnr yang vdevan samadn mm man terhadav nesalah yang berkenaan (SH: mm Puma Pruseculovv Sn/mman am Anmaa » .1993} 1 MU 74) Adam: ma» melqaaw suatu nmahn ylng mlenma hahawn Mahkamah Rayuan mak mu mengubah mum rmkuman mm kerana xanya mungkm meruzluhkan hukuman yang baflaman Wa\au bagalmanapun hukuman yang .1 mm hendildah melvglmhangw a. umavu kepefllmgan m awam flan kevenlmgan Iznudun (sun mm mm Prosecutor V L00 cr-can Fa!I[1975I 2 ML! 255} Dalam kes um Guan Eng v Pub»: Ptuaccular [ma] 3 cu vew mm. Gupnl Sn Ram, mm dxlam menyxmpaxkan klpmussn mmmn mm anlava lam menyalakan sepem henkm Suffioe to say that a cow! mama, man unvemng an amused, uke mm awmml =\|cunsrdera1mn:. rzlevnm in me case mclufllng me grawly al me aflenw. the mrcumslancai smmunmng me zumnussmn ulme uifenoe‘ lbs lnlncldsnu n! ma accused. (ha dslevrsn|aWm:1 Ihal punuhmem .; m hnve. Any Lnaar |7Ii| warvanls spemal allemmn emu m Vavnuv ov awamsl In: accused and shame all me punnc wmevest Reasons mufl bu gwen fov wmposmg a pamculir senlence m eruble an nppeHaI.2 :« mun In ensure Ihauhete has [men ..n arm m vnncwme “ KESALANAN SERIUS 25 Kembalx kepada kes Ierhadap Termduh Inv, saya mengamhxl m maklum bahawa kesa\ahan yang dnakukan oleh Terluduh s,n.,9;mQ%v‘D,X§Mwun‘.....m ,‘ wzzvm u..m.»...‘-5; mu: «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm admah suatu kesmahan yang senus dan dlpandang berat aleh Pavllmen yang menetapkan hukuman psruara mlmma 5 (ahun darn bcleh sampal 7 lamm dan sebalan bnleh sampal 3 sebalan an hawah soksyen 39C(1)AkIa naaan Berbaluy: 1952 26 Penmlukan hukuman yang beral xtu menuruukkan banawa kesalanan yang mlakukan aleh Tenuduh ada\ah senus FAKTOR MITIGASI m 27 D. sampmg flu saya ;uga mernpenlmbangkan mlllgasx Tertuduh Walau bagamlanapuru saya ugak nampak seharang alasan yang munasahah dlkemukakan bag‘! memhenarkan Terluduh levus mengulangi kesalahan yang same hemlang kalv is 23 saya nuenaapan rmllgasw yang dxbenkan uleh Tenuduh max helmenl sama sekan PEMGAKIJAN SALAH 2» 29 saya Jugs mengambil klva pengakuan salah Terluduh yang lelah menumalkan masa dan kas pnnamamak yang lerhbal so Wa\au bagalmanapun. pengakuan sakah Terluduh max hcleh 1: menjadl faklor mmgzsw yang kual dalam keadaan an mana Terluduh mernang Iidak mempunyal apa—apa pembe\aan pka kes ml dnbucarakan ,fiW§fi*v‘D,X&munwn~ALvn Wm mun”. wm hne u -ma saw ...m.mn be used m van; .. mn.u.y mm: dun-mm wa mum puns! 31 Mahkamah ml mengamw pendekatan yang sama sebagawmana daram kes Tia Ah Lang 1/. Public Fmsecutor [2004] 4 CLJ 77 as man: YA Mokmar Stdln HMR menyalakan “|1[A|mm1gh n \s an act>ep|ed rule av practice that an amused pevscn , who pveaas gumym an ofieme wulh Much he has been chmgnd . shall! be grvan . dxscmml on line sentaenoe max would mherwxse hnve been Impcsad on him had he bun m cnnvlcled my a max ye| mere ale nnpmnz axcstalmru m on; general ml: Indeed, he nflenczs may nn. Dangerous Drugs AcI1952 are excephans to (Ms male" 32. Mahkamah im selaruuinya memjuk kes PP v. Abdul Hllim 1, Ishak & snu Lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559 an mane VA Mohd Zawewx sauen HMR |e\ah menzahrrkan pandangannya sebagaimana henkul [21] Txdak mm dwpemkaxknn bahawa kesmahan yang 10 berkzvlan German dzaan admin mempakan szlu kaaauhan yang senus yang lumen mengantzm kexe\im.llnn dun ketcnleaman negirn mu kesmanan umum Dauah lelah dusylxhimnn sebagm musuh nombov salu negava man Kalapan padz Iamm was Jusrenn uka mahkznlah mengnluhkan :4 hukuman yang Hngan kzpafla um xesaxanm yang uuaapxan maLI\m Pimmen senagm semis. sudah lenlu perlmdungan sewayamya udak dapal dvhenkan kepada cram lama: Dalam Res Yusmarm sammmn V wmm; mnhkamah menegisknn 5,~.,5,,m,mW,X¢,,,,h.mw.m xvrvmun ,3 mun ,1 wmu «-um smm n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mn.ny mums dun-mm VII mum pans! The sevemy oi sentence can my he no veflecl wamamnns mnnon mal oonvwlwon my bemg n possassmn gr 2 large amoum cl 3")’ «Mn no Piummted drugs mus\ commensuvate wwh Ihe sentence m be Dassed an me vecmrar lacis mam. case” PESALAH TEGAR 33 saya juga mempemmbangkan «am: bahswa samlsn xan nu m bukamah kesamhan pertama Terluduh Rekmi saman Iampau P5 yang dlkemukakan di Mahxamah mervunjukkan bahawa Terluduh sebagannana yang dvcermlnkan dalam eksh Tenuduh mempunyaw 2 amun ken an bawah saksyon 15(1) Am uaaah Eerbahaya 1952. In: adalah kenlahnn mag.- .s on as hawah aeksyen yang sama. 34. Rekod samcan Vampau Tenuduh menurwkkan bahawa Tenuuun merupaxan pesalan cegar, masm bemm wnsal dan masm hemm senk walaupun lelah berulang kah keluar masuk :n peruara 35 men yang gamma", sawayamya Ts.-nuduh dnkenakan Iwkuman Vang beraf 2; as Berkenaan perkara um. suka saya memenx ksputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes FF y Muhammad Falz Full Mahmud [2016] 1 ms 523 yang telah membenarkan rayuan ,M’w2§t“,guhv‘D,XflN|’gAzw-‘Mum n mm: sw..y..ym rm w: ‘Nuns sum In-nhnv wm be used m yaw u. nflmnnflly mm; flan-mm wa mum wrm plhak pendakwaan Ke a|ss hukuman pemara 7 nanun yang mkenakan uleh Hakim Mahkamah Tmggl bag! kesalahan an bawah Soksyon sum ADE 1952 nan menggannkannya dengan 10 lahun peruava Mahkamah Rayuan menegaskan 5 aepembenkul ‘13]AlteI pemsmg the Recon alADDea\ and having considered me iubrmiivuni ny mn pames we had unammuusly agreed |7Ii||h!VmPHSOH1l|SlV|fEllfl avsmn years .5 was mam ml by m we Venmed Hwgh Cam Judge was manflesfly Inadequate ml Uvbermosl on om we when daalmg wnn Ims mg ml an appeal ‘s the fador ov punnc wmelesl A: Is um, ulmmal mm ‘s pumldy enfurued and Iha unison undenymg mm palmy has been |ha| a cnme mus| be dean mm m such a way man wuu|d— :: he anenam wnmr! be dulelved «mm mmmmng sumlar Mfume Gvanled (Hal rahablmznon mny aka a. . vabvlnl farlnr m be mnsxdeved m dese rages me Court mvanalfly mu lean m «mm of melmg out . delzvrenl sentence laklng me account we ma ol oflenoe mat was wmmmad by we Mfendar mm the 2» ramparvcy nu? man an uwence Havmg mnudered Ilmse Metals. We Own mu Ihen :32 mm Ihe (rend an senlencmg my sumlar mu nvaflevme lhalwas being ea-masvea an appeal would be nx. Having um mat. lha Com ws wsfl swans man (here ‘s no such (Mug as . ‘one mm flu aw km of sentence for an oflances The law memes lnr a vange oa senlence wuhm which we Conn Vs emnoweled |a me|e am an avmopnate ssmannsx never-amg on ma vmcvanl «mm: as We cwcumsmnces cl Ihe cast: m¢Y P-new [See genmwy, the mse nf R V new [1951] 35 0! Ann R 164019 an-cued nmamem M Hune-y J] m [15] In We use me valevanl law on Dunrshmenl cm the mm M offence wmmmed by (he Raspundam as cnnumed nude! 5,,,,5,mm,;,W__u,m m...m mm xvwrmxuvmsx »..g.m «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm secmn 39A42\ al me om, has numaea my a maxnnum semenoe M we xmpnsunmenl nmny yams! em a mwumum Imwlwnmenl av rm years‘ on uamnemn und am e mwmmum nf Ian shake: nl me whnppmg In me me, me veamen mgr. Ca-m Juflge had Imposed an Ampnsanmenltaerm ul seven yeavs Havmg scmlwused at me lacls ow om sale and me umumshnoes sunuundmg me ulnmrsslnn :71 me ewenee and me 05:! than me Respnneem had nlemsed smny ana was a yaumnn oneneer. we were at me wnswdeved vnuw mat me no weemea Hvgn Cami Judge had enea m alamsmg ms ameuon wn pasung such a sentence of nnpueanmem on me nespomen: u was me Women to us «nan had me Lavdsmn liken unm aeeomu me wane mleresl as me pammoum eomldevinan‘ he would nm have menea am such a senlawe a ne am There :5 wax nu auenemxe rensnn ‘uxhfymg In mefiy Venuenlssvulenae mm was wmvnsed an we Flespnnflem In me case at Elvamtulananda ./ayal/(aka v PP [mail 1 mu 5:, ma apex Cmnl nad uncaswon In any ‘Hem (2) we learned ma! gudge was Jusur-ea m 2» antlwewghmg me Dlea of mmuamn In «avwr er we won: Waves! wnn a uewe In upmxa me dmnfly and iulhcmly nl (he wew In Ims can-my ‘ pa} Cansndenng me public mleresl and me Item an sememmg «or slmflav ewenee m vwew onne lam amnunl cl Cannabli, we :5 aaveed mm ma weeznea ow «nan nne senlence Dewy appeibd Iglnm was minflnsfly midequale in me cwcumslanoes we had seen new an aflevme ohms name nugm co bednlt mm In pnewo-my uemea eases and time was no veamn fuv us m dapafl mm me p-evemng Irena mat wwd be diycemed «am we cne senlenurvg palteln «auamea by we Com m snnuar cases we range at sentencmg «nan we named was nerween len lo 5mwmW_,,,W,X§ nw .....w WM Show Ann wsl W n “Nnne sanaw n-nhnrwm be LAIQ4 m may he anmn.u-y em. dun-mm VII muNG v-mm |mneen years Vmpmonmenl Yha\ gave us nn nee Mwml me approwwlle senlevice nugm In be mm mm amount me Daculmnlnes cl we use The amount at Cznnams m |ms sale was an gvavvvnes Tha| amoum had vsvlsscmsd move man 5 mn «me; me mreslvmd amwm L11 so glimmes mm wmfld hugger me opemuun ea secxmn 3 av Ihe um um xi pumsneme Imdev sewnn awn ac |he same Au To be mu, m was sevenlean «mes mu me Ihvuhold amnum of so gnlmmes mm aermnexy would reflecl me aevmusrless Mme mfenue The m lac1 mm Ihe Respondenl had vleadefl mm to In: change doe! not mean mal he was enuuea In an amomeuc vedunmu m we senlenne In D: -mpum Sqnlanclng V: amIre)y .| Iha meaeum. at me Cmm umess me ‘aw under scrmmy supmauea meme m me case 07 Szcmk Vs Aoam Rah/nan v PP [2004] 2 cu 512 (“Baum Am: Rahnun case“) n was held mar (here can lherelore he rm aummaiu: Ma (hat 2 gm, pwee an as awn enmes an accused m a lesser Dumshmem - Even u an acmsed pevsurv Vs armed to e veducnon such veducvun must mum ms Wwlxar cwvumstancss vf ma vsmcular cue Sn‘ any veduclmn M xanlsnci must be 42:1-sensmve u mus! he ampry msmea by me exlenualmg mrcumiunces ac me case before me senlencmy Court m shall‘ 1: sum: um [13 lwardad armxuniy‘ rather n mama be a mm‘ at a mnmve exzrcnse M ,uu.m.| amenen As was held by we mm m we Eachnk bm Abdul Rzhman case [sunval wag a raqunmn ws nu . sum rule wn Ina! “In axzvmsa -7? ns aweuom u may refine ln glam any mxcmIm' [17| Hamng so censrdered, we um bum: to our unanimous m decwsuon man me semenw M umpnsonmenn D‘ seven years ougm m be 521 um and m It: phcl. we ma wmpmed an 5mfiflWmW,,M.mr...m..e. zvr'11Im XMUI)1DII‘7;I Page xx mm. sew ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm»-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-max ImpHsL7nmen| term alien yeavs m be effective mm 01: Gabe av mg arlesl We had a\so deemed noc to mslurh Ihe semenue M (en slmkcs er live wnlppmg mm was nnpnsea by the learned Hnn Cmm Judge We had lheveluve ifluwed the appuw by In: \ mun Pvasecmov ‘ 37 Berdasarkan kepada rvas-nas m alas, saya berpuas nan bahawa hukuman Danjnu 5 man can 1 sebalan yang dlkenakan o\ah Mahkamah .n. ada\a?I selavl dengan kepumsan wu Mankamah Rayuan dw alas yang menghendakx Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman yang beral bagx kes-kes yang mellbalkan kepemlngan swam Hukunun pemm 5 mum flan 1 Iebatan «mahun melupaknn hukuman yang paling rinqln yang Mahkamah bnren .amnkan an bawah seksyen .~ seam) Aka Dndah Eerbahaya 1952. Hukuman peruara mpenmah benalan dan (avikh jnmn hukum kevana sebelum ml, on herada dalam ;amman TIADA RASA INSAF DAN BERTAUBAY 20 as Wa\aupun aaram mmgaslnya. Tenuduh ada menyacakan vasa kesal nan mar, |efapI kelakuan OKT menunjukkan sebahknya 19 Seklranya bellau benar-benar man man Ientu behau hdak 5 akan mengmang: kesawahan yang sama berulang kalu ,fi.,E,mmw_ M WW. ,. W/77V :.wqn4mLw:1 Pu: «y -um am ...n.mn be used m mm n. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm Au Mahkamah Im meruwk kes PP v. ren Ah cnenq [ms] 2 MLJ «as m mana YA Abacus! Cedar H (elah menyatakan seperll benkul . ‘The vespundem also pms comm M: II: {flea wn mmgauon me nu ma? he \s empbyed and suppons an aged mmhev and shenbmlhevs He mun m own: have moughl 01 W5 mm commmmg the nflenaes and um am, he V5 m (ad weadmg haldsmp anslng [mm the consequences of ms UWII 3:15 mud n m womd vwtsmie vmal I had masm plevmusly to observe m number case mu .In awmm shuwd nol exam lo excnle ov harness any Svmnamy on an wpse dun by (alum mac ilarwe ac the Impmuoui youth who med ms paveals wllh nn axz and men yielded m mmgamn mm he was an nrpnan - KEFENTINGAN AWAM TERPELIHARA 41 Saya percaya, kepenllngan swam akan Vebuh Ierpemwara jlka Termduh duasmgkan danpada masyaraka| dalam sua|u lempoh 21> yang paruang 42 Tempnh pemeruavaan yang paruang ;uga amarepxan dapat membanlu Tenuduh unmk melupakan naps dadah yang mungkm sudah memadl darah dagwng Temxiuh 43. Tempoh pemeruaraan yang panrang jugs mnarapkan dapal memuluskan hubungan Terluduh dengan rakan»rakan M,§m1W§mv‘D_§m mwunm 1 vzmx \:«...»m ..;. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm m;RILuuHAN EAHAWA mum mu w umnu AN smwmrx 2; um man-1 xnuuc us yI:rANu BLKILMVAI D1 max: a,m/xuuw sxAsA1’Ar\ nsmwm wwmonx mu mum mus umm-1 mu. , m mum mnwl saw. at mm»: NEGERI mmwu uAku| MAKMUR. T|:LAn namvm Mmnnzum m».m mm KAMU swam mmu BERBAHAYA news -mrucumnxs" um ’M[TILAMP||ETA‘/IINE". mu “man KESALAHAN KALI «mm oma nu KAMU mm MIZLAKUKAN snu KESALAHAV nuuwm m sax um...) AKTA mm" BERBAHAVA H132 mu noun Dlnuxuw nnmwm: smsyw 190:) um vane smm uuma nmasam snksvm mm mm mum seam-ma N52. mmuwm .< um DISAI-ill’ xmwum umw¢,\n mi-1Ui{uM vrwmu Sr. MA xwmu nmx xra/mo (51 muux mm mm (Ham um m mam mu H!-‘v\D.\KLAH nnxemmm sHsA1‘I’n>Ax mm mm m sFuAr».r\ um vmemmszm In)/\K xx/RAM. 2 wmu on nu/\K MELLHINHTAHUN PENGAKUAN 5 Perm-man m ates lelah dmacakan dengsn lerang din jelas kepada Terluduh dalam Banasa Mamysaa yang mcahami oxen 2: Terluduh 5 Terlumm dsngan sukarela mengaku bevsalah ke atas pefluduhan tersebm swwmummumm" “" W‘ «W. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 45 sepemenayah yang lam dan Tenuuun dapaf merualam pmgrarwprugram pemuhhan dervgan arnan semoga se\apas menglkun program-program yang (e\ah disusun semasa m pemara nann dapal mengmsafkan Terluduh dan member: pemang kepada Termduh unluk belmuhasabah dun dan beruhah kepada samang wnsan yang Vebih balk dan dapal menlnggalkan dadah sepenuhnya. saya Juga berharap behau mengannnl peluang semasa merumanx hukuman penjara unluk rnen\paxa;an pelbagau kemamran benaaaan yang buleh dlgunakan unluk mencarl vezem yang halal kellka amebaskan aanpaaa peruara narm PELUANG MEMBAIKI DIRI As 47 Semoga dengan lempah perneluavaan yang Varna um menmen pemang kevada Terluduh un|uk bevubah dan mernpemam am menjadl seorang wanzanegava yang berguna din menukar cars hldup kepada yang Iebih balk D: peruara ]uga Tertuduh berpeluang umuk gelayar I|mu—Ilmu akademwk dan Ilmlmlmu kemamran kendm secara uzvsusun bersama vegawahpegawal yang benaulvah Pugs :1 43. Aaaxan duharapkan, se\epas dxbebaskan danpada perqara nanu, Tertuduh ‘will turn mm a new lea!‘ dan membebaskan dm danpada najls dadah sena meruam seuvang msan Dam yang wenm produkm menyayangr din msayangl oleh anggma » masyarakae numusm 49 D: akhlr anal-sus, says. bevpendapal hukuman yang telah .0 dua|uhkan adaran menglkul unaang--maang, wsjar den murvasaban sens seumpal dengan kesalahan yang dllakukan men Tenuduh 1: Eenarikh pad: Bhb. Fehnuri 2024. unm am HAJI MAT Hakim zn Mahkamah Sesyen Yemerluh, Paham: |>aruI Mnkmur. W,,1p.:y2mm_.,._"v‘D,X;5V.¢,,w,.;.,;‘...... 1. mm. \.m.,A... m mm: mm Sum In-nhnv WW .. used M my u. nvmnnfily mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Fmak-Pihak: Fendakwa Raya dlwaklll oleh Pun" TFR Alidazul Azwa mu. Kamarul Amm. Pajabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, remerloh. Enctk Khalrul Anuav bln Abu Hasnn Ashaari, Peguzm VEGK mewzk 'lerIuduh. :uazmwmmuyxe.nww"‘~‘~-W A -m Sum M... M“ be used m van; M nugvuuly mm; “Mm. VII mum puns! 7 Mahkamah selerusnya menerangkan snfal dan akxbal pengakuan sa\ah (ersebm dan perunmkan hukuman yang men dxkenakan ke alas Tenuduh > 5 Yerluduh memahaml penerangan Manxaman dan maslh mengaku salah ke alas perluduhan‘ nan «anam snal den akwhat pengakuannyi rm. RINGKASAN FAKTA xss PENDAKWAAN m 9 secerusnya, Tlmbalan Pendakwa Raye (erpeleuar mengemukakan rmgkasan lakta kes pendakwaan so Rmgkasan fakla kes telah amacakan kepada Tenuduh mehlul :. wrubahasa Mahkamah den dnsahkan sabagal mm. 11 Rmgkasan lakta kes kemumannya dwtandakan sebagau eksmm P1 In EKSHIBIT-EKSHIBIT 12 Selerusnya, Tlmbalan Pendakwa Raye cerpexapar mengemukakan ekshwbmekshiblt sepem berIku| ,,g,_,&wmmvm \”wI1fl\II4MW1 mm. mm ‘ mun VJS1 W 1 mm Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! (3) Banner 32 Report Nu 777/23 ssbagax P2 (17) Tnang Report No 3120/23 sebagax P3 (:1 Lapnran patolagn sehagau P4 — mmnjukkan flan mam (:1) Rekod Pusat Pendaharan Perqenayah sebagan P5 » . mnacakan dan mam (e) 4 xepvng gambar mm urin sebagal PEA-D — dilunwkkan aan dlakul RAYUAN TERTUDUH m 13 Mahkamah seterusnya mar-dengav rayuan daripada Terluduh <4 Tertuduh me\a\uI peguamnya menyacaxan (a) on berusxa 44 tamm V» (b) OKT sudah berceraw (c) on bekeria sebagaw buruh av waaang kelava sawu dengan pendapalan flakam Rm ‘coo sebulan my on mempunyax 3 (anggungan ‘am; 3 arang anak yang masm berseknlah :0 (e) on msar dan menyesaL Sena berjanu Iwdak ulangl wag: kesaVaharv yang sama pada masa hadapan (0 Pengakuan saflah hams\ah dmenma sebagav laktm mwllgasx xevana telah jvmalkan mass‘ (snaga dan sumber pIhak~pmak seklranya kss w dxbncarakan‘ dan memudahkan kena :3 semua pmak (g) on lelah bevikan kenasama sepenuhnya kepada pnhak puhs dan |arIkh langkapan sehlngga (ankh pendakwaan ,mmmhv‘D,XflW Imuw: zmzwmx <x'w::u-Ivlsww Page » -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (n) on adalah pencan narkan mama kemavga (:1 on when hukuman penlara sebatan dan pengawasan yang rmmma den dlkua dan lankh tangkap : NUJAH PEMBERATAN OLEH TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA 15 TImha\an Pendakwa Raya lerpe\a;ar berhwah sepem berlkur 0) Puhan Sam hukuman yang beret mxenaxan Kepada on dengan mengamhll kua faklur kepentmgan awam melebxm wu kspermngan on (n) lnl merupakan kesawanan ke-3 OKT dx bawan s15(1Ka) ADE 1952 (ml Berdasarkan ersnmn P5 cersenuc, menunmkkan bahawa OKT Ixdak sevik dan benamsan memehakkan dm dalem 15 game penagunan dadan (wt OKT berafla dalam iamman selepas dnangkap sehin9§aIah mmuun dw Manxamah pada nan Im. SASITAN 15 Se1elah mendengav pengakuan salah Terluduh tanpa syamc. menganahsa lakla kes, menelm eksmbllekshlbn yang wan dlkernukakan dw hadapan Mahkamah‘ Mahkamah menerima pengakuan salan Temmun Ks alas pertufluhan dan Z: rnensabmkan Terluduh sebagalmana perluduhan ,N.,5mmmW_¢,mw. .....m 2. new sun H -mu vm Page .. -ma saw ...n.mn be used m mm .. mmnmly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm HUKUMAN 17. sexelah menimbang vayuan Terluduh dun hwah pemberatan Twmbalan Psndakwa Raya‘ Mahkamah menghukum Terluduh . dengan nukuman sepem benkul OKT dmukum perqara selama 5 Iahun mma: aanpaaa 21.12.2023 dan 1 sehalan dx bawah seksyen 39c(1)(n) Akl: Dadlh Berbuhaya 1952 darn dupenncankan m2n]a\am I/I psngawasan AADK se\ama 2 uhun se\epas menya\am hukuman dw bawah seksyan 335 Akfl DIE-I|'I Berbahuya I952 ALASAN ATAS HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUTUSKAN PRINSIP UNDANGVUNDANG DALAM MENGHUKUM 13. Pnnswp undang-undang berhubung hukuman lelah je\as dan manlap Femmbangan mama mengenax hukuman vm selam zn !ak(or-!aklnv Lam ada\ah laklov kepemlngan awam D. samplng mu‘ faklor Kepentmgan awam ml penu dumhangw dengarv vakxor mmgasl Termduh 19 Eenepatan m sum un|uk dnmbas kembah panduan menghukum :: yang dlnyalakan da\am kes Fuhlic Pmsecutnr -/. Lno Chonn Fan [1976] 2 MLJ 259 yang memexasxan sepem benkul ,,fi5mmmWD,Xmm.mM..n. .m,;. sxmmn ‘:1 may -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns! ‘One at me mmn mnsnieralmns m me assessment al sentence :5 av nouvse me uuesuon ul Dubhc Imerzsl on um: new I ma my me: a paws: hum me ludamem 01 Hllbaly J m Re: V Kenneth John Hall as inflows. ; ‘In decnmng me appropriate semenoe . mun shnmd aways be uunea by certain conihialanons The N51 and common Is my pubhc m|erss| rue cwmnll Viw ws puuwy enfomed no! my wmn me amen at punlshmg cnme‘ hm 3150 m we have 01 Dvevennnv l| A warm sentence‘ m pasud m yuan; ssrvas me pIIbYvc\merus1In Mu way: u may deter wlhers who mgm be Izmpled In fly mm: as seemmg Ln we. easy money an we suppnsman mm Wlhe Wendel ws mughl and nmuam Ia Alxswe. me Dumshmen| wm be neglwglble Sum a ientarvce may ilw delev Lhs \» plmcmlr cnmmll «mm cumrmllmg . cnme :9“ ur mm mm m mm mm a cnmma\ m an honest we me am: Imeresl Is Indeed skewed‘ and um served n ma wane» Is induced tn mm «mm cHmIna\ wnys |u hune:| mg Our law does nm. nmevma. H: the semen: for . m uamauxau curve, but ms 3 maxvnum sentence and Weave: n to we own to name what vs, wrmm me mamum. me apwapnala umsnce «or each I:limma\ m Ihe pimwlir circumstances :4 each case No! mm m mama to each crime mu m regard In each cnmmal, me x wall has me -gm and me my In «em vmsther In be Vumem or xsvem ‘ msmsms and Mnmslrales ave oflsn Irmlmed we nnmvaly m be ovev—symna|net>c to me accused This u a nwmal pmnoxogucan vaadwn «o the mama m much my loneiy an acmea us men hcmg an army mwnngammm lulhumy The mnlngahan suhmmed by a cnrwxcled vevsan w-VI aha nermalw 5,,«,,M¢,§WWD,X_qf my mum: mm.‘ A‘1‘KIHM)l\'I§A Paar x mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm hung uv pvamems at «my namsnv and me my usua\ nmmsms oe wing In such a slluanun Ins canni rmgm Pumapx M m mum: In deuce as m wha\ sentence shuuld be wmpaxed so Ihal me oanwued pecsen may nnl be lunher mmenea wnn admmnm hardship ms Vs my vwew Is a wmnsl avbmach me corvan appvuach w |u sink: a balance, as can as posswble‘ belween me unnemsu nl me pm: and me mlewesls M the accused Loni Goddard LCJ In Rex v Gmndkowskr aflered some am advwrae when he mu — H) ‘The mdga mun oonmdav m. Imuvssh aflusune u mu as me mterests :71 me pnsanevx u ‘s ma Mien nowadays mougm. or seems to he moum mac Ine wmevests cl mm means omy Ihe Imeresls our-e pnsnners - h 217 Eerdasavkan kepada nas-nas an a|as, Mallkamah perm menlmbangkan bahawa kepe an awam adalah menemm kepenllngan perlbadl pesalah EUDI BICARA 2a 21. sewam mu, saya Auga mengambn maklum bahawa undangr undang memoenxan my mom sepenuhnya kepada haklrn bucara untuk menentukan hukuman yang sepatmnya flualuhkan ke a|as pesalah tetapl kuasa ml hendaklah dulaksanakan secara 2~ adn dan saksama selalas dengan Dvmswp undang—u-mang bemubung hukuman »-.5. v 5,mMMmW,mfMw.‘ MW 2‘ vnm smruwaurx «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 22 Prinswp mu mnyacakan dengan ]e¥as dalam kes PP v. Jala bin Dlud[I9B1] < ms 25, [1951] 1 MLJ 315, d\ mans Hakim Mohamed Azrm (pada masa mu msngganskan pnmlp-grlnswp nukuman yang sepamnya sebagawmana benkut ‘A ‘senlenoe zcmmmg In um means mm Ine sentence mm mm nnly n. mnnn the zmbn av me pumshame secnon am an mus| mu :7: assessed and pamc m acouvdanoe wnn eslzbhshed mam: Dvmclples xn anessmg sentence, one -71 m m mam canons |o be consndemd Vs whelher me cnnvnfled pe/xan us . am wenaer u \s «on (ms purpose that won passmg SE1’\|EHDS.i Miglnrals is vsquved lo caH my evldsnce oi mlonnanun regammg me backgmund nnmmdem and charanev of me accused Where the convmed pennn has Y; pmvlmls vswvds anu gums mum is cmm me court must oonsnier whelhcr the wane: ur nflsnces cummmed prewoasvy me an smlar naluve as me one wmh whch he \s pnasemrv dvavged The com! mus| then cousins! the sentences Impnsed m me nlevmus mnwcmns lur swmlav oflences xu detevmme an whether they have mm iny dehenenl .«m an nnn Whale he \s mna «o be a nemscenn Mlendev cm a swmlhr Iype uvanmzs, men n u m the Wales! at wshae Inzl a delenem sealenae snoma be pnsxed mu‘ n such 2 cm, uman (hm ave exaeonanal cwrcumslanees me fiuinmy‘ nllm: nr vahle of me :, summmang: or me uflmce with whmh he \s cwreully charged can very lirefiy mnsmnla a mmgalmg may (emphasxs aaaear S,fl.,9ymwfmv‘D_55mw.;nnn.... lmwzuzx s1cr(uAm M2 Page m “Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm vu mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023

PEMOHON URS ELLER RESPONDEN CHEONG KIAT WAH

This Court allowed the Plaintiff to avail to the right of reciprocity by granting the registration of the validly obtained Singapore judgments. See Marina Bay Sand Pte Ltd v Wong Kah Hin [2017] 1 LNS 680; [2017] MLJU 491. This Court was satisfied that all the processes and procedures were complied with. The Defendant must make good all sums owed of which jurisdiction on this side of the Johor Straits would not shield him from.

08/02/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=261a8444-d9cd-4198-96ad-2816ea83e3fe&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 BETWEEN URS ELLER (SINGAPORE PASSPORT No: X8097860) …. PLAINTIFF AND CHEONG KIAT WAH (NRIC NO: 780416-14-5669) .… DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Enforcement of Judgments from the High Court and the Appellate Division of the High Court – both from the Republic of Singapore [1] In this application, this Court came to see man's endless capacity for evasion of responsibility and liability. The Plaintiff, having had established in open court across the causeway clear rights to payment 08/02/2024 15:00:17 WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 Kand. 20 S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 due, found itself chasing the debtor (Defendant) on these shores to extract what has been decreed judicially as the Plaintiff’s. The Defendant who had yet satisfied his legal obligation, had employed what this Court opined as unsustainable objections to the Plaintiff’s application to register the judgments from the Republic of Singapore (Singapore). On 24.1.2024 after hearing arguments from counsels representing both parties, allowed the Plaintiff’s application to register the following judgments from Singapore as Judgments of the High Court of Malaya pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99) (REJA): 1. Judgment of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore – Case No. HC/C176/2019 where it was adjudged that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff: (a) judgment dated 10.11.2021 for RM3,032,233.25; (b) judgment dated 6.12.2021 for SGD97,000.00 which is equivalent to RM299,759.10; (c) judgment dated 22.2.2022 for SGD39,350.00 which is equivalent to RM122,264.39; (d) judgment dated 6.4.2022 for SGD4,000 which is equivalent to RM12,405.60; (e) judgment dated 4.5.2022 for SGD18,344.00 which is equivalent to RM57,880.82; S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2. Judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore Case No. AD/CA 126/2021: (a) judgment dated 26.4.2022 that affirmed the judgments in Case No. HC/S176/2019 above and for SGD10,000 which is equivalent to RM31,713.00. 3. Interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum for the sums above in the sum of RM350,208.33; 4. The Defendant is at liberty to apply to set aside this registration within 14 days of service upon him in Malaysia of such notice of such registration pursuant to Order 67 Rule 7 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC0 if the Defendant has grounds for so doing, and execution upon the said judgment will not issue until the expiration of that period or any extension of the period granted by this Court, or if an application be made to set aside the registration, until such application has been disposed of; 5. Costs of RM5,000 is awarded to the Plaintiff subject to allocator. [2] The Defendant has appealed against this Court’s decision. Here has yet to be a draft order filed. The said judgments above from Singapore have yet to be registered. The material background facts [3] The Defendant is a Malaysian citizen with his last known address at No 29 Jalan 4/149L Bandar Baru Sri Petaling, 57000 Kuala Lumpur. In 2021 and 2022 the Plaintiff obtained the said judgments from Singapore S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 against the Defendant. The judgments from the High Court of Singapore were validly obtained and the Defendant was ordered on 10.11.2021 to pay to the Plaintiff equitable compensation of RM3,032,233.25. Costs of SGD97,000 was ordered on 6.12.2021 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Additionally, on 22.2.2022 the Defendant was ordered to pay to the Plaintiff SGD39,350 as fees relating to the Plaintiff’s expert witness and miscellaneous expenses. There was a further order on 6.4.2022 for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff costs of SGD4,000. And on 4.5.2022 the Plaintiff was awarded disbursements in the amount of SGD18,344 which the Defendant was ordered to pay. This was never disputed by the Defendant. [4] In fact, the Defendant had appealed against those judgment sums to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore. His appeal was dismissed on 26.4.2022 whereby the orders of the High Court were all affirmed. The Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal in the sum of SGD10,000. The records show that the Defendant had to deposit SGD20,000 as security for costs of the said appeal. [5] The Plaintiff had initially sought to register the said judgments of the Singapore courts, but it was struck out on 7.8.2023 with liberty to file afresh. Hence this application. As at the hearing of the arguments of this application, the Defendant had yet to satisfy the judgment sums affirmed by the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore. The Plaintiff’s application [6] The law under s4(1) REJA allows the plaintiff to seek an application within six years after the date of the judgment – here they were all within S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 the required time limit. The judgements at the Singapore courts were granted on 10.11.2021, 6.12.2021, 22.2.2022, 6.4.2022 and 26.4.2022 and 4.5.2022. This application was filed by the Plaintiff on 25.9.2023. The judgment sums were not satisfied by the Defendant. [7] Singapore is listed as a reciprocating country in the First Schedule of REJA. The judgments were also from the court prescribed which is the High Court of Singapore. Order 67 Rule 2 RoC was complied with as this application was made via originating summons. The judgments from the Singapore courts exhibited were certified true copies – Order 67 Rule 3(1)(a) RoC was complied. As with Order 67 Rule 3(1)(b) Roc that required the name and last known place of abode of the judgment creditor (Defendant). The Plaintiff had stated the details required by Order 67 Rule 3(1)(c)(i)-(iv) RoC – that the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the judgments as they remained to be satisfied. The Plaintiff had stated that the Singapore judgments were not within any of the cases in which they may not be ordered to be registered under s4(2) REJA. It was also stated that the Singapore judgments could be enforced by way of execution in Singapore, and that if they were registered, they would not be liable to be set aside. The amount of interest was specified – RM350,208.33 that is mandated by Order 67 Rule 3(1)(d) RoC. For easy reference, the Plaintiff had exhibited the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 which provided the calculation of interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum. [8] As to the amount which the Singapore judgments sums represented in Malaysian Ringgit, they were stated pursuant to calculation at the prevailing exchange rate at the date of the respective Singapore judgments. Thus, the requirement under s4(3) REJA and Order 67 Rule S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 3(2) Roc were complied with. The Singapore Rules of Court 2014 were enclosed that showed how the Singapore judgments could be enforced by way of execution in Singapore. So were the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 of Singapore – all of which fulfilled Order 67 Rule 3(4) RoC. [9] As the Singapore judgments are valid debts outstanding owed by the Defendant that could be sued upon, the Plaintiff submitted that they ought to be recognised and registered to affirm the principle of international conformity and substantial reciprocity between the nations as statutorily provided under REJA. Reference was made to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mann Holdings Pte Ltd & Anor v Ung Yoke Hong [2019] 6 CLJ 475; [2019] 8 MLJ 186 where it expounded REJA at para 59: “The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 Is specific legislation enacted by Parliament to confer specific jurisdiction on the Courts to register Judgments given the superior Court of those reciprocating countries listed in the First Schedule to the Act. The whole basis of the Act starts with the concept or principle of comity and substantial reciprocity between nations.” The Defendant’s objection [10] The only objection the Defendant argued at length was the exchange rate used for the judgment sum of SGD18,344 awarded on 4.5.2022. The Plaintiff had produced the exchange rates provided by our Bank Negara Malaysia on its website. The exchange rates for 29.4.2022 and 5.5.2022 were published but nothing in between. For 29.4.2022 the S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 exchange rate was SGD1 to RM3.1510. For 5.5.2022 the exchange rate was SGD1 to RM3.1553. The Defendant insisted that the exchange rate used should have been the higher one on 5.5.2022 because it was the nearest date to the judgment of 4.5.2022. As such, the Defendant insisted on paying RM57,880.82 not the lower amount claimed by the Plaintiff of RM57,801.94. [11] This Court did not see that as a reason to defeat the Plaintiff’s application. After much argument, the Defendant confirmed that it took the position that it should be the higher exchange rate of 5.5.2022. This Court hence allowed that figure to be registered as the judgment sum of the High Court of Malaya pursuant to REJA. The Defendant thus for the judgment sum of SGD18,344 was required to pay the equivalent of RM57,880.82. [12] It must be stated here that this Court did not allow the admission of the Defendant’s further affidavit as pleadings were closed and submissions already filed. Moreover, the Defendant’s further affidavit sought to address his objection as to the exchange rate that ought to be applied, facts of which were already before this Court to properly determine. [13] The Defendant had also raised the matter that negotiations for settlement were conducted amongst the parties. It was argued on his behalf that the Defendant had the intention to settle the judgment sums. The Defendant had deposited a part payment of RM5,000.00 as a gesture of goodwill that was not accepted by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had explained that after the wait over a period of time since the judgments in 2021 and 2022, it required the full payment of the sums owed. As such S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 the Plaintiff had not credited the said RM5,000.00 payment although it was not yet returned to the Defendant. [14] This Court opined it was a trivial issue of which the Plaintiff was ordered to set off the said sum of RM5,000.00 when it collected the balance of the judgment sums from the Defendant. [15] The Defendant had raised objection on the accuracy of the calculation of interests on the judgment sums but his affidavit was devoid of this matter. As such, this Court took it that the Defendant had accepted and admitted the fact as they were unrebutted. This Court did not allow submissions on the same from the bar during the arguments (the Court of Appeal’s decision in See Kok Kol v Chong Kui Seng & Ors and Another Appeal [2010] 2 CLJ 481 and Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 AMR 622 were referred to. The Plaintiff had also cited Malayan Banking Bhd v Boo Hock Soon [2012] 1 LNS 971; [2013] 2 MLJ 843, Binary Force Sdn Bhd v Lembaga Pelabuhan Johor [2009] MLJU 296 and Loo Sze Kin v Cheong Choy Teik [1997] 4 MLJ 537. This Court’s decision [16] This Court allowed the Plaintiff to avail to the right of reciprocity by granting the registration of the validly obtained Singapore judgments. See Marina Bay Sand Pte Ltd v Wong Kah Hin [2017] 1 LNS 680; [2017] MLJU 491. This Court was satisfied that all the processes and procedures were complied with. The Defendant must make good all sums owed of S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 which jurisdiction on this side of the Johor Straits would not shield him from. DATED 7 FEBRUARY 2024 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Saresh a/l Mahendaren and John Rolan T/n Christopher & Lee Ong For the Defendant: Lee Yen Jia San & Co. S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-34-01/2022

PEMOHON ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD RESPONDEN PBJV GROUP SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. An application by the Plaintiff in enclosure 1 herein (Enclsoure1) for a stay (“Stay”) of the Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021 in adjudication proceedings no. AIAC/D/ADJ-3799-2021 (“AD”) until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (“Arbitration”) pursuant to section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA.

08/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=24ff60e2-99cb-4870-a0c0-874c75594fb3&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - 50. Enquest Petroleum v PBJV Group. Stay s 16 - appeal 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES, MALAYSIA (CONSTRUCTION COURT) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-24C-34-01/2022 In the matter of an Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021, in respect of the adjudication proceedings No. AIAC/D/ADJ-3799-2021 under the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 between PBJV Group Sdn Bhd (Claimant) and EnQuest Petroleum Production Malaysia Ltd (Respondent) And In the matter of Section 16(1)(b) of the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 And In the matter of Orders 7, 28, 69A Rules 2, 3, 4 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD (Company No.: 201402000028 (995518-V)) …PLAINTIFF 08/02/2024 13:05:32 WA-24C-34-01/2022 Kand. 127 S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 AND PBJV GROUP SDN BHD (Company No.: 200001021929 (524536-A)) …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) [1] There is before me, an application by the Plaintiff in enclosure 1 herein (Enclsoure1) for a stay (“Stay”) of the Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021 in adjudication proceedings no. AIAC/D/ADJ - 3799-2021 (“AD”) until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (“Arbitration”) pursuant to section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA. [2] Enclosure 1 was premised on the following grounds: a. clear and unequivocal error in the AD b. risk of the Defendant being unable to repay the adjudicated sum (Adjudicated Sum) in the event the Arbitration is decided in favour of the Plaintiff herein c. on the interest of justice on balance of considering issues taken as a whole or cumulatively Brief Facts [3] The Defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad (“Barakah”). The Defendant provides and carries S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 out, amongst others, onshore and offshore contracting works such as pipeline pre-commissioning, commissioning and de-commissioning, pipeline installation, fabrication, hook up and topside maintenance works. [4] The Plaintiff is appointed as the operator for and on behalf of Petronas Nasional Berhad (“Petronas”) and the Plaintiff’s partner Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd under various production sharing contracts for the development and production of hydrocarbons at specific oil and gas blocks of offshore Malaysia. At all material time, the oil and gas blocks operated b he Plaintiff are:- 6.1 PM8 (Extension) consisting of Seligi Field and PM8 Block; and 6.2 PM409 Block. [5] Vide the Letter of Award bearing reference no.: EQ(SCM)/PBJV/18/115-AD dated 13.7.2018 (“Letter of Award”) and the “Provision of pan Malaysia Maintenance, Construction and Modification for year 2018 to 2023” (“PM-MCM Contract”); the Defendant was engaged by the Plaintiff as one of the Plaintiff’s contractors for a period of 5 years. [6] The Scope of Works of the PM-MCM Contract sets out a description of a wide array of works which may be performed by the Defendant for the duration of the PM-MCM Contract. However, it is alleged. That based on the PM-MCM Contract, there is no predetermined scope of works for which the Defendant is required to carry out until specifically instructed by the Plaintiff by way of Call Off Orders(s)(“COO”). S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [7] Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s Notice of termination date 11.2.2021, the PM-MCM Contract between the parties was terminated effective on 14.3.2021 following the Defendant’s alleged acts of default under Article 17 of the PM-MCM Contract. [8] On 3.5.2021, Defendant served the plaintiff with a payment Claim for a claim of RM73,570,587.19. [9] On 10.6.2021, Defendant served the Notice of Adjudication for the same claimed amount. [10] The Plaintiff via its solicitors/representative, had thereafter issued its Payment Response disputing the entirety of the Payment Claim and raised set-offs against the Defendant. [11] The Learned Adjudicator, Ir. Katheresan Murugan, issued the Adjudication Decision on 29.12.2021, determining the following:- 14.1 Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant the sum of RM71,567,429.55 being the Adjudicated Sum; 14.2 Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the Adjudicated Sum, form the respective payment due date as stated in the Adjudication Decision until full payment of the Adjudicated Sum; and 14.3 Plaintiff to bear 100% of the costs of the adjudication proceedings being the amount of RM154,995.69. [12] On 26.1.2022, Plaintiff issued its Notice of Arbitration. Vide the Notice of Arbitration dated 26.1.2022 Plaintiff demanded that the disputes S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 detailed therein be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 29 of the Contract. The Plaintiff had, amongst others, sought the following relief and/or remedy in the Notice of Arbitration:- 15.1 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff the loss and/or damage as a result of the Defendant’s wrongful suspension and/or demobilization; 15.2 A declaration that the Plaintiff’s termination of the Contract is rightful; 15.3 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff for the loss and/or damage arising from the Defendant’s breaches and non- compliance of the terms of the Contract; 15.4 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff additional cost incurred by the Plaintiff arising form the Defendant’s termination as the Plaintiff’s contractor; 15.5 A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to claim RM70,021,965.19 for blasting and painting activities, in particular, the claims for garnet as a separate chargeable consumable; 15.6 A declaration that there are no sums due to the Defendant for its alleged supply of firm personnel for the PMT from January 2020 to December 2020; 15.7 A declaration that there are no sums due to the Defendant for its alleged supply of manpower. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Analysis & Findings [13] The approach this Court has to consider on a Stay application as per Enclosure 1 i.e under section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA is as per the Federal Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 which held that: “[82] We are in agreement with the contention of the appellant that a more liberal reading of s 16 of the CIPAA would allow some degree of flexibility to the courts to stay the award where there are clear errors, or to meet the justice of the individual case. It is accepted that a stay of the award ought not be given readily and caution must be exercised when doing so.” and the law as stated in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257 pertaining to whether there are ‘special circumstance existing’ wherein the Federal Court held: “An attempt was made to define special circumstances by Raja Azlan Shah (as His Majesty then was) in the case of Leong Poh Shee v Ng Kat Chong [1966] 1 MLJ 86, viz: 'Special circumstances, as the phrase implies, must be special under the circumstances as distinguished from ordinary circumstances. It must be something exceptional in character, something that exceeds or excels in some way that which is usual or common.' The definition only serves to emphasize the fact that there are myriad circumstances that could constitute special circumstances with each case depending on its own facts” S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Defendant’s Alleged Financial Impecuniosity [14] I will address firstly the issue of the alleged financial impecuniosity of the Defendant. [15] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted at length on this issue and in summary the contentions to support this point rests on the following: (i) there is strong evidence that the Defendant’s financial capacity is at doubt; (ii) there is serious risk that the Plaintiff will not be able to recover Adjudicated Sum in the event the Arbitration is decided in favour of the Plaintiff herein. [16] This Court was referred to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (“CCM”) search on the Defendant done on 19.1.2022, which I have since perused at exhibit A-15 of enclosure 6 which was based on the financial year end 30.6.2021, and which I find shows:- 16.1 there are a total of 51 unsatisfied charges which amount to more than RM2.2 billion; 16.2 their current assets stands at RM145,437,000 and their non current assets at RM149,151,000, thus totaling RM294,588,00; 16.3 their current liabilities are RM222,684,000 and their non current liabilities is at RM1,983,000 totalling RM 224,667,000; S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 16.4 the Defendant has a pre tax profit of RM212,084,000; 16.5 the Defendant has a revenue of RM105,132,000. [17] I have also taken into consideration the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant’s Audited Accounts 2022 at exhibit A-2 of enclosure 34 shows inter alia the Defendant’s current assets of RM76,881,000, current liabilities of RM182,383,000 thus showing a deficit of RM105,502,000 and that there are negative cash flows and reduction in the Defendants reserves. It was also submitted that there are serious doubts that the Defendant will be able to maintain its investments and recover the sums owed by its subsidiaries. [18] Premised on the above figures, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is insolvent and relies inter alia on Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 217 and Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v MBf Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 313. [19] I have however observed that the same Defendant’s Audited Accounts 2022 shows as at 30.6.2022 that the non current assets of the Defendant were RM156,752,000 and their total assets were RM233,633,000 as against their total liabilities of RM185,876,000. From a simple perusal of the said figures, the Defendant’s total assets would outweigh their total liabilities by RM47,757,000. [20] The Defendant instead argues that this is a typical and straight forward case of a contractor who has duly carried out works but never the less been kept out of pocket for a sum of RM73,570,587.19 and submits that: S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 20.1 based on View Esteem Sdn Bhd (supra) the discretion of the Court to grant a Stay ‘ought not to be readily given and caution must be exercised when doing so”; 20.2 the Stay is an attempt to defeat the purpose of CIPAA; 20.3 the mere issuance of the Notice of Arbitration dated 26.1.2022 (Arbitration Notice) does not warrant a Stay under section 16 CIPAA; 20.4 there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant this Court’s intervention; 20.5 the AD has a temporary binding effect and the Plaintiff ought to pay the Adjudicated Sum; 20.6 the allegation of the financial impecuniosity of the Defendant is contrived and irrelevant and an after thought; 20.7 they are not in liquidation; 20.8 the 50 odd bank charges are an indication that the Banks are confident of the Defendant’s financial position; and 20.9 the Defendant’s financial position in 2017, when the PM-MCM Contract was executed, was much worse than current but the Plaintiff decided to award the PM-MCM Contract to the Defendant. [21] I have been referred by the Defendant to its Financial Statement ending 30.6.2021 to show that it has no term loans and is not owing any bank, thus evidencing that it has no dependence on financial assistance. [22] From the facts before me, I do not find any evidence that there are any threats of liquidation on the Defendant and instead find that the S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 evidence before this Court shows that the Defendant has a pre tax profit of RM212,084,000, and after deduction of the total assets against total liabilities, there is the sum of RM 69,921,000. [23] Upon looking at the evidence in toto and carefully considering the respective parties submissions, I find that the Defendant is in good financial health as there would only be a differential sum of RM3,649,587.10 after deducting the Adjudicated Sum of RM73,570,587.19 from the sum of RM69,921,000 mentioned in the paragraph above and that they are well placed to meet its obligations to the Banks if called upon to do so and/or to refund the said Adjudicated Sum in full to the Plaintiff should the Plaintiff be successful in the Arbitration. [24] In coming to my said decision, I have accepted that the Defendant had to fork its own monies to commence Works and that had the Adjudicated Sum been paid in full to the Defendant, the Defendant would have, to say the least, recorded a higher value of net profits. [25] I also agree that the number of Bank Charges do not by itself show that the Defendant is financially impecunious but that the same is evidence of the Banks being confident of the Defendant’s ability to repay the said loans thereto, and the fact that the Defendant has, based on the CCM search dated 10.1.2023 at exhibit A 1 of enclosure 38, shown that the Defendant has satisfied 49 out of the 52 charges is further corroboration that the Defendant is financially strong and committed to settle their outstanding owed . S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [26] I further hold that the Defendant’s financial position being less or similar to when the PM-MCM Contract was awarded to the Defendant, as shown in and evidenced at the CCM search report as at financial year end 31.12.2017 in exhibit A-4 of enclosure 7 at page 155, is not a ground in itself to justify a Stay, see Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd v Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU 1824. [27] I am of the view that the Plaintiff here is attempting to nick pick on the figures shown in the Defendant’s financial documents in order to justify the alleged Defendant’s financial impecuniosity and I have found that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of this Court as such for all the reasons mentioned in my grounds herein. Court Convened Meeting [28] I have, for the sake of completeness also considered that the Defendant had applied to the High Court for a court convened meeting pursuant to section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 for a compromise between its creditors. [29] I acknowledge the fact that a section 366 Order is intended to revive a distressed company as a going concern as per Ong Chee Kwan JC ( as he then was) in Re Top Builders Capital Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 693; [2021] 10 MLJ 327. [30] I am also urged to accept that the High Court in approving the Scheme of Arrangement on 26.4.2021 shows the confidence of the creditors of the Defendant in restoring the Defendant as a going S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 concern and that the Defendant has made payment to its creditors as per the Scheme, to which from the facts before me, I agree. [31] After perusing the facts and documents before me, in particular the evidence found in enclosure 7 exhibit A5, of payments made to the Defendant’s creditors inter alia the sum of RM64 million to its Group A creditors via the defendant’s solicitors, Messrs Chellam Wong, a Notice of Discontinuance with regards a civil suit where payment has been made and a settlement of RM14.5 million to its Group C creditors; I am thus satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the payments under the Scheme does indicate that the Defendant is a going concern and that it has the ability to satisfy its payment to its own creditors. Alleged Suspension of Petronas Licence [32] There is also the further contention by the Plaintiff of the alleged suspension of the Defendant’s Petronas licence for 3 years from July 2019 which the Plaintiff say support their contention the Defendant will be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum. [33] On this issue the alleged suspension has been shown by the Defendant to have expired in July 2022 and that the Defendant is now entitled to apply again for the said Petronas licence. Whether the Defendant will eventually apply or be granted the licence is at this moment is alleged by the Plaintiff to be speculative. [34] However, looking at the Defendant’s conduct as whole including but not limited to the scheme which it had applied under section 366 of S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 the Companies Act 2016, the payments it has made to its creditors including the banks, and attempting to keep itself as a going concern, I am agreeable to take cognizance that the Defendant having had 19 years of business with Petronas will, at the very least, be able to apply for the said Petronas Licence. Defendant’s Current Businesses [35] There is also the averment, which is not disputed, that the Defendant is involved in 4 current ongoing projects. This in my view is prima facie further evidence of the Defendant being an ongoing concern for the time being. Material Litigation involving the Defendant [36] I have observed, as submitted by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant is involved in a number of alleged material litigation as per its Audited Accounts. [37] Again, I do not find nor has it been shown to this Court’s satisfaction by the Plaintiff that the said civil suits involving the Defendant has been proven to have a material impact on the Defendant’s financial position. For this I have also taken the entire situation of the Defendant in toto based on my findings in my grounds herein. [38] Thus, I hold that the issue of any material litigation involving the Defendant as a ground for a Stay is in the circumstances before me, as being irrelevant and misconceived. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Suits by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas [39] With regards the Civil Suits filed by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas, I am of the opinion that any civil suits filed by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas are no longer relevant for consideration in the Stay here as the said Suits have been withdrawn Barakah’s Financial Position [40] There is also the submission by the Plaintiff on Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad (“Barakah”) financial health, whereby the Defendant is the wholly owned subsidiary of Barakah, whereby Barakah has been placed as a PN 17 company since May 2019. [41] With respect I cannot accept that Barakah’s financial position has any bearing nor relation directly or otherwise to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. I have not been shown any contractual nor legal relations between Barakah and the Plaintiff vis a vis the matter herein between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [42] I have however been shown a correlation between Barakah’s financial standing with that of the Defendant in that the financial standing of the Defendant and that of Barakah are intertwined as Barakah’s PN 17 status appears to be inter linked to the fact that their consolidated Financial Statements takes into account the Defendant’s financial standing and that it derives its income exclusively from the Defendant’s operations. Barakah has todate been unsuccessful in resolving its PN 17 status. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [43] It is settled law that a holding company, and its wholly owned subsidiaries are separate legal entities, see Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli v Rego Multi-Trades Sdn Bhd [2018] 7 CLJ 197; ; [2018] 1 LNS 222; ; [2018] MLJU 147; [2018] 2 AMR 912; ; [2018] AMEJ 0119 CA and Golden Plus Holdings Bhd v Teo Sung Ngiap and another appeal [2020] MLJU 2037. [44] However, for the afore said reasons I have stated in my grounds, I hold that the contention of an alleged financial impecuniosity of the Defendant and that of its Holding Company, Barakah, is not a relevant factor in the circumstances. Is the Subject Matter of the Stay Pending Final Determination By The Arbitration [45] The Defendant had argued that the subject matter of the Stay is not entirely disputed pending final determination by the Arbitration as there has allegedly been an admission by the Plaintiff in the pleadings that the sum of RM2,374,940.20 which relates to the claim for manpower equipment and consumables is not disputed. [46] The Plaintiff in return states that there is no merit in the above Defendant’s submissions as: (i) the Arbitration is still ongoing; (ii) there is no Award in respect of the said sum of RM2,374,940.20; (iii) the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim challenges seeks for the entire AD to be set aside. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [47] I agree with the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s said contention that there any alleged ‘admission’ is still subject to the decision in the Arbitration and after perusing the said Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, I find that the Plaintiff is seeking for a declaration that the AD be set aside. [48] Therefore, there is in my decision an entire challenge to the AD in the Arbitration and that it fulfills the requirement under section 16 (1) (b) CIPAA i.e the subject matter of the AD is pending final determination by arbitration. Clear & Unequivocal Errors in the AD [49] The Plaintiff submits that there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD and raises the issue that the Defendant as the Claimant in the Adjudication proceedings are bound by their pleaded position, their supporting documents do not adhere to the Contract, and that the Adjudicator had switched the burden of proof in the said Adjudication. Thus, it is argued that the Plaintiff’s challenge to the AD is not only on the issue of liability but also quantum; thus the Adjudicators decision was plainly wrong. [50] The Defendant submits that the issues raised by the Plaintiff mirrors that raised in the setting aside application and that the High Court has rejected the said issues. [51] The Plaintiff on the other hand states that the considerations for a Stay application and that in a setting aside application are different and distinct. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [52] I do not propose to go into the issues with regards the challenges to the AD as this Court had dealt with the same in the setting aside application save to say that I do find that this issue of clear & unequivocal errors in the AD are now to be decided in the Arbitration and would for the purpose of the Stay herein not be a ground which I accept in support of the Stay. I therefore reject this contention. Decision [53] It is the Plaintiff’s submission that the Court is entitled to take into account (i) the justice of the case and (ii) the totality of the evidence and circumstances of the application for a Stay. [54] Based on all of my above grounds, I hold that there are no exceptional circumstances existing before me and that the justice of the case does not require that a Stay of the Adjudication Decision i.e the AD, be given until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (Arbitration) and I hereby dismiss Enclosure 1 with costs. Dated: 18th day of December 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Belden Premaraj a/l Joseph Rajadurai, See Jooi Hong, Kee Meng Fai, Georgina Lim Ern Ling and Haris Hilman [Messrs Belden] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Balan Nair a/l Thamodaran, Naveen a/l Sri Kantha and Justin Yap Khai Wen (Messrs Fairuz Ali & Co.] S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-34-01/2022

PEMOHON ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD RESPONDEN PBJV GROUP SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. An application by the Plaintiff in enclosure 1 herein (Enclsoure1) for a stay (“Stay”) of the Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021 in adjudication proceedings no. AIAC/D/ADJ-3799-2021 (“AD”) until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (“Arbitration”) pursuant to section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA.

08/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=24ff60e2-99cb-4870-a0c0-874c75594fb3&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - 50. Enquest Petroleum v PBJV Group. Stay s 16 - appeal 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES, MALAYSIA (CONSTRUCTION COURT) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-24C-34-01/2022 In the matter of an Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021, in respect of the adjudication proceedings No. AIAC/D/ADJ-3799-2021 under the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 between PBJV Group Sdn Bhd (Claimant) and EnQuest Petroleum Production Malaysia Ltd (Respondent) And In the matter of Section 16(1)(b) of the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 And In the matter of Orders 7, 28, 69A Rules 2, 3, 4 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN ENQUEST PETROLEUM PRODUCTION MALAYSIA LTD (Company No.: 201402000028 (995518-V)) …PLAINTIFF 08/02/2024 13:05:32 WA-24C-34-01/2022 Kand. 127 S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 AND PBJV GROUP SDN BHD (Company No.: 200001021929 (524536-A)) …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) [1] There is before me, an application by the Plaintiff in enclosure 1 herein (Enclsoure1) for a stay (“Stay”) of the Adjudication Decision dated 29.12.2021 in adjudication proceedings no. AIAC/D/ADJ - 3799-2021 (“AD”) until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (“Arbitration”) pursuant to section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA. [2] Enclosure 1 was premised on the following grounds: a. clear and unequivocal error in the AD b. risk of the Defendant being unable to repay the adjudicated sum (Adjudicated Sum) in the event the Arbitration is decided in favour of the Plaintiff herein c. on the interest of justice on balance of considering issues taken as a whole or cumulatively Brief Facts [3] The Defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad (“Barakah”). The Defendant provides and carries S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 out, amongst others, onshore and offshore contracting works such as pipeline pre-commissioning, commissioning and de-commissioning, pipeline installation, fabrication, hook up and topside maintenance works. [4] The Plaintiff is appointed as the operator for and on behalf of Petronas Nasional Berhad (“Petronas”) and the Plaintiff’s partner Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd under various production sharing contracts for the development and production of hydrocarbons at specific oil and gas blocks of offshore Malaysia. At all material time, the oil and gas blocks operated b he Plaintiff are:- 6.1 PM8 (Extension) consisting of Seligi Field and PM8 Block; and 6.2 PM409 Block. [5] Vide the Letter of Award bearing reference no.: EQ(SCM)/PBJV/18/115-AD dated 13.7.2018 (“Letter of Award”) and the “Provision of pan Malaysia Maintenance, Construction and Modification for year 2018 to 2023” (“PM-MCM Contract”); the Defendant was engaged by the Plaintiff as one of the Plaintiff’s contractors for a period of 5 years. [6] The Scope of Works of the PM-MCM Contract sets out a description of a wide array of works which may be performed by the Defendant for the duration of the PM-MCM Contract. However, it is alleged. That based on the PM-MCM Contract, there is no predetermined scope of works for which the Defendant is required to carry out until specifically instructed by the Plaintiff by way of Call Off Orders(s)(“COO”). S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [7] Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s Notice of termination date 11.2.2021, the PM-MCM Contract between the parties was terminated effective on 14.3.2021 following the Defendant’s alleged acts of default under Article 17 of the PM-MCM Contract. [8] On 3.5.2021, Defendant served the plaintiff with a payment Claim for a claim of RM73,570,587.19. [9] On 10.6.2021, Defendant served the Notice of Adjudication for the same claimed amount. [10] The Plaintiff via its solicitors/representative, had thereafter issued its Payment Response disputing the entirety of the Payment Claim and raised set-offs against the Defendant. [11] The Learned Adjudicator, Ir. Katheresan Murugan, issued the Adjudication Decision on 29.12.2021, determining the following:- 14.1 Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant the sum of RM71,567,429.55 being the Adjudicated Sum; 14.2 Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the Adjudicated Sum, form the respective payment due date as stated in the Adjudication Decision until full payment of the Adjudicated Sum; and 14.3 Plaintiff to bear 100% of the costs of the adjudication proceedings being the amount of RM154,995.69. [12] On 26.1.2022, Plaintiff issued its Notice of Arbitration. Vide the Notice of Arbitration dated 26.1.2022 Plaintiff demanded that the disputes S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 detailed therein be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 29 of the Contract. The Plaintiff had, amongst others, sought the following relief and/or remedy in the Notice of Arbitration:- 15.1 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff the loss and/or damage as a result of the Defendant’s wrongful suspension and/or demobilization; 15.2 A declaration that the Plaintiff’s termination of the Contract is rightful; 15.3 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff for the loss and/or damage arising from the Defendant’s breaches and non- compliance of the terms of the Contract; 15.4 That the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff additional cost incurred by the Plaintiff arising form the Defendant’s termination as the Plaintiff’s contractor; 15.5 A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to claim RM70,021,965.19 for blasting and painting activities, in particular, the claims for garnet as a separate chargeable consumable; 15.6 A declaration that there are no sums due to the Defendant for its alleged supply of firm personnel for the PMT from January 2020 to December 2020; 15.7 A declaration that there are no sums due to the Defendant for its alleged supply of manpower. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Analysis & Findings [13] The approach this Court has to consider on a Stay application as per Enclosure 1 i.e under section 16 (1) (b) of CIPAA is as per the Federal Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 which held that: “[82] We are in agreement with the contention of the appellant that a more liberal reading of s 16 of the CIPAA would allow some degree of flexibility to the courts to stay the award where there are clear errors, or to meet the justice of the individual case. It is accepted that a stay of the award ought not be given readily and caution must be exercised when doing so.” and the law as stated in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257 pertaining to whether there are ‘special circumstance existing’ wherein the Federal Court held: “An attempt was made to define special circumstances by Raja Azlan Shah (as His Majesty then was) in the case of Leong Poh Shee v Ng Kat Chong [1966] 1 MLJ 86, viz: 'Special circumstances, as the phrase implies, must be special under the circumstances as distinguished from ordinary circumstances. It must be something exceptional in character, something that exceeds or excels in some way that which is usual or common.' The definition only serves to emphasize the fact that there are myriad circumstances that could constitute special circumstances with each case depending on its own facts” S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Defendant’s Alleged Financial Impecuniosity [14] I will address firstly the issue of the alleged financial impecuniosity of the Defendant. [15] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted at length on this issue and in summary the contentions to support this point rests on the following: (i) there is strong evidence that the Defendant’s financial capacity is at doubt; (ii) there is serious risk that the Plaintiff will not be able to recover Adjudicated Sum in the event the Arbitration is decided in favour of the Plaintiff herein. [16] This Court was referred to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (“CCM”) search on the Defendant done on 19.1.2022, which I have since perused at exhibit A-15 of enclosure 6 which was based on the financial year end 30.6.2021, and which I find shows:- 16.1 there are a total of 51 unsatisfied charges which amount to more than RM2.2 billion; 16.2 their current assets stands at RM145,437,000 and their non current assets at RM149,151,000, thus totaling RM294,588,00; 16.3 their current liabilities are RM222,684,000 and their non current liabilities is at RM1,983,000 totalling RM 224,667,000; S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 16.4 the Defendant has a pre tax profit of RM212,084,000; 16.5 the Defendant has a revenue of RM105,132,000. [17] I have also taken into consideration the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant’s Audited Accounts 2022 at exhibit A-2 of enclosure 34 shows inter alia the Defendant’s current assets of RM76,881,000, current liabilities of RM182,383,000 thus showing a deficit of RM105,502,000 and that there are negative cash flows and reduction in the Defendants reserves. It was also submitted that there are serious doubts that the Defendant will be able to maintain its investments and recover the sums owed by its subsidiaries. [18] Premised on the above figures, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is insolvent and relies inter alia on Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 217 and Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v MBf Finance Bhd [1992] 1 MLJ 313. [19] I have however observed that the same Defendant’s Audited Accounts 2022 shows as at 30.6.2022 that the non current assets of the Defendant were RM156,752,000 and their total assets were RM233,633,000 as against their total liabilities of RM185,876,000. From a simple perusal of the said figures, the Defendant’s total assets would outweigh their total liabilities by RM47,757,000. [20] The Defendant instead argues that this is a typical and straight forward case of a contractor who has duly carried out works but never the less been kept out of pocket for a sum of RM73,570,587.19 and submits that: S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 20.1 based on View Esteem Sdn Bhd (supra) the discretion of the Court to grant a Stay ‘ought not to be readily given and caution must be exercised when doing so”; 20.2 the Stay is an attempt to defeat the purpose of CIPAA; 20.3 the mere issuance of the Notice of Arbitration dated 26.1.2022 (Arbitration Notice) does not warrant a Stay under section 16 CIPAA; 20.4 there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant this Court’s intervention; 20.5 the AD has a temporary binding effect and the Plaintiff ought to pay the Adjudicated Sum; 20.6 the allegation of the financial impecuniosity of the Defendant is contrived and irrelevant and an after thought; 20.7 they are not in liquidation; 20.8 the 50 odd bank charges are an indication that the Banks are confident of the Defendant’s financial position; and 20.9 the Defendant’s financial position in 2017, when the PM-MCM Contract was executed, was much worse than current but the Plaintiff decided to award the PM-MCM Contract to the Defendant. [21] I have been referred by the Defendant to its Financial Statement ending 30.6.2021 to show that it has no term loans and is not owing any bank, thus evidencing that it has no dependence on financial assistance. [22] From the facts before me, I do not find any evidence that there are any threats of liquidation on the Defendant and instead find that the S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 evidence before this Court shows that the Defendant has a pre tax profit of RM212,084,000, and after deduction of the total assets against total liabilities, there is the sum of RM 69,921,000. [23] Upon looking at the evidence in toto and carefully considering the respective parties submissions, I find that the Defendant is in good financial health as there would only be a differential sum of RM3,649,587.10 after deducting the Adjudicated Sum of RM73,570,587.19 from the sum of RM69,921,000 mentioned in the paragraph above and that they are well placed to meet its obligations to the Banks if called upon to do so and/or to refund the said Adjudicated Sum in full to the Plaintiff should the Plaintiff be successful in the Arbitration. [24] In coming to my said decision, I have accepted that the Defendant had to fork its own monies to commence Works and that had the Adjudicated Sum been paid in full to the Defendant, the Defendant would have, to say the least, recorded a higher value of net profits. [25] I also agree that the number of Bank Charges do not by itself show that the Defendant is financially impecunious but that the same is evidence of the Banks being confident of the Defendant’s ability to repay the said loans thereto, and the fact that the Defendant has, based on the CCM search dated 10.1.2023 at exhibit A 1 of enclosure 38, shown that the Defendant has satisfied 49 out of the 52 charges is further corroboration that the Defendant is financially strong and committed to settle their outstanding owed . S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [26] I further hold that the Defendant’s financial position being less or similar to when the PM-MCM Contract was awarded to the Defendant, as shown in and evidenced at the CCM search report as at financial year end 31.12.2017 in exhibit A-4 of enclosure 7 at page 155, is not a ground in itself to justify a Stay, see Puncak Niaga Construction Sdn Bhd v Mersing Construction & Engineering Sdn Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU 1824. [27] I am of the view that the Plaintiff here is attempting to nick pick on the figures shown in the Defendant’s financial documents in order to justify the alleged Defendant’s financial impecuniosity and I have found that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of this Court as such for all the reasons mentioned in my grounds herein. Court Convened Meeting [28] I have, for the sake of completeness also considered that the Defendant had applied to the High Court for a court convened meeting pursuant to section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 for a compromise between its creditors. [29] I acknowledge the fact that a section 366 Order is intended to revive a distressed company as a going concern as per Ong Chee Kwan JC ( as he then was) in Re Top Builders Capital Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 693; [2021] 10 MLJ 327. [30] I am also urged to accept that the High Court in approving the Scheme of Arrangement on 26.4.2021 shows the confidence of the creditors of the Defendant in restoring the Defendant as a going S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 concern and that the Defendant has made payment to its creditors as per the Scheme, to which from the facts before me, I agree. [31] After perusing the facts and documents before me, in particular the evidence found in enclosure 7 exhibit A5, of payments made to the Defendant’s creditors inter alia the sum of RM64 million to its Group A creditors via the defendant’s solicitors, Messrs Chellam Wong, a Notice of Discontinuance with regards a civil suit where payment has been made and a settlement of RM14.5 million to its Group C creditors; I am thus satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the payments under the Scheme does indicate that the Defendant is a going concern and that it has the ability to satisfy its payment to its own creditors. Alleged Suspension of Petronas Licence [32] There is also the further contention by the Plaintiff of the alleged suspension of the Defendant’s Petronas licence for 3 years from July 2019 which the Plaintiff say support their contention the Defendant will be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum. [33] On this issue the alleged suspension has been shown by the Defendant to have expired in July 2022 and that the Defendant is now entitled to apply again for the said Petronas licence. Whether the Defendant will eventually apply or be granted the licence is at this moment is alleged by the Plaintiff to be speculative. [34] However, looking at the Defendant’s conduct as whole including but not limited to the scheme which it had applied under section 366 of S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 the Companies Act 2016, the payments it has made to its creditors including the banks, and attempting to keep itself as a going concern, I am agreeable to take cognizance that the Defendant having had 19 years of business with Petronas will, at the very least, be able to apply for the said Petronas Licence. Defendant’s Current Businesses [35] There is also the averment, which is not disputed, that the Defendant is involved in 4 current ongoing projects. This in my view is prima facie further evidence of the Defendant being an ongoing concern for the time being. Material Litigation involving the Defendant [36] I have observed, as submitted by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant is involved in a number of alleged material litigation as per its Audited Accounts. [37] Again, I do not find nor has it been shown to this Court’s satisfaction by the Plaintiff that the said civil suits involving the Defendant has been proven to have a material impact on the Defendant’s financial position. For this I have also taken the entire situation of the Defendant in toto based on my findings in my grounds herein. [38] Thus, I hold that the issue of any material litigation involving the Defendant as a ground for a Stay is in the circumstances before me, as being irrelevant and misconceived. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Suits by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas [39] With regards the Civil Suits filed by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas, I am of the opinion that any civil suits filed by the Defendant and Barakah against Petronas are no longer relevant for consideration in the Stay here as the said Suits have been withdrawn Barakah’s Financial Position [40] There is also the submission by the Plaintiff on Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad (“Barakah”) financial health, whereby the Defendant is the wholly owned subsidiary of Barakah, whereby Barakah has been placed as a PN 17 company since May 2019. [41] With respect I cannot accept that Barakah’s financial position has any bearing nor relation directly or otherwise to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. I have not been shown any contractual nor legal relations between Barakah and the Plaintiff vis a vis the matter herein between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [42] I have however been shown a correlation between Barakah’s financial standing with that of the Defendant in that the financial standing of the Defendant and that of Barakah are intertwined as Barakah’s PN 17 status appears to be inter linked to the fact that their consolidated Financial Statements takes into account the Defendant’s financial standing and that it derives its income exclusively from the Defendant’s operations. Barakah has todate been unsuccessful in resolving its PN 17 status. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [43] It is settled law that a holding company, and its wholly owned subsidiaries are separate legal entities, see Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli v Rego Multi-Trades Sdn Bhd [2018] 7 CLJ 197; ; [2018] 1 LNS 222; ; [2018] MLJU 147; [2018] 2 AMR 912; ; [2018] AMEJ 0119 CA and Golden Plus Holdings Bhd v Teo Sung Ngiap and another appeal [2020] MLJU 2037. [44] However, for the afore said reasons I have stated in my grounds, I hold that the contention of an alleged financial impecuniosity of the Defendant and that of its Holding Company, Barakah, is not a relevant factor in the circumstances. Is the Subject Matter of the Stay Pending Final Determination By The Arbitration [45] The Defendant had argued that the subject matter of the Stay is not entirely disputed pending final determination by the Arbitration as there has allegedly been an admission by the Plaintiff in the pleadings that the sum of RM2,374,940.20 which relates to the claim for manpower equipment and consumables is not disputed. [46] The Plaintiff in return states that there is no merit in the above Defendant’s submissions as: (i) the Arbitration is still ongoing; (ii) there is no Award in respect of the said sum of RM2,374,940.20; (iii) the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim challenges seeks for the entire AD to be set aside. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [47] I agree with the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s said contention that there any alleged ‘admission’ is still subject to the decision in the Arbitration and after perusing the said Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, I find that the Plaintiff is seeking for a declaration that the AD be set aside. [48] Therefore, there is in my decision an entire challenge to the AD in the Arbitration and that it fulfills the requirement under section 16 (1) (b) CIPAA i.e the subject matter of the AD is pending final determination by arbitration. Clear & Unequivocal Errors in the AD [49] The Plaintiff submits that there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD and raises the issue that the Defendant as the Claimant in the Adjudication proceedings are bound by their pleaded position, their supporting documents do not adhere to the Contract, and that the Adjudicator had switched the burden of proof in the said Adjudication. Thus, it is argued that the Plaintiff’s challenge to the AD is not only on the issue of liability but also quantum; thus the Adjudicators decision was plainly wrong. [50] The Defendant submits that the issues raised by the Plaintiff mirrors that raised in the setting aside application and that the High Court has rejected the said issues. [51] The Plaintiff on the other hand states that the considerations for a Stay application and that in a setting aside application are different and distinct. S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [52] I do not propose to go into the issues with regards the challenges to the AD as this Court had dealt with the same in the setting aside application save to say that I do find that this issue of clear & unequivocal errors in the AD are now to be decided in the Arbitration and would for the purpose of the Stay herein not be a ground which I accept in support of the Stay. I therefore reject this contention. Decision [53] It is the Plaintiff’s submission that the Court is entitled to take into account (i) the justice of the case and (ii) the totality of the evidence and circumstances of the application for a Stay. [54] Based on all of my above grounds, I hold that there are no exceptional circumstances existing before me and that the justice of the case does not require that a Stay of the Adjudication Decision i.e the AD, be given until the disposal of the arbitration proceedings (Arbitration) and I hereby dismiss Enclosure 1 with costs. Dated: 18th day of December 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Belden Premaraj a/l Joseph Rajadurai, See Jooi Hong, Kee Meng Fai, Georgina Lim Ern Ling and Haris Hilman [Messrs Belden] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Balan Nair a/l Thamodaran, Naveen a/l Sri Kantha and Justin Yap Khai Wen (Messrs Fairuz Ali & Co.] S/N 4mD/JMuZcEigwIdMdVlPsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCC-38-06/2023

PLAINTIF NGC Sdn. Bhd. DEFENDAN Petrogas Energy Sdn. Bhd.

Interlocutory application – Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the Defendant for the repayment of the outstanding sum owed for the goods sold and services rendered under the agreements.- Whether there are bona fide triable issues raised to defeat the Plaintiff’s claim.- The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to raise any triable issues before this Court. - The Plaintiff’s application is allowed with costs.

08/02/2024

YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bebd3d62-24da-4bee-ad37-7695e2b8afbd&Inline=true

08/02/2024 12:39:21 PA-22NCC-38-06/2023 Kand. 31 S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Yj29vtok7kutN3aV4rivvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—22NCC—3E—D6/2023 Kand. 31 22/02/20:: ,2v3~3 2; DALAM MAMKAMAH YINGGI MALAYA or PULAU PINANG [BAHAGIAN DAGANG) GUAMAN N0 FA ZNCCJ «/2023 ANTARA NGC ENERGY SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 2|l|2|l1fl127I6IBM23J~W) PLAINTIF DAN PETROGAS ENERGY sou sun (No. warikat: 2o15n1o3o429I1155753—A) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT lmaiuiw m The Plamm commenced these vmeeedings clawing a sum at RMIA83.49a.e6 bemg the sum omstandmg for petroleum pmducts sw v,m.,«mm.mwu Page I at 1! mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm IDIG and deltverud lo the Defendant. However. upon the Dahrldarll filing tnetr statement at uetenae, tne Hamhfl men filed an aapttcauan tar summary ‘udgmenl pursuant to Ordur 44 of tn. Ruln ol Court 2012. [2] Upun hearing learned counsel with tne benefit of their wrttten submtssxms, I found no meme tssuse and :HONed the Pteinm to enter summary .udgmen¢ r wiH heretnafter set out me facts of me mse arm pmvlde the reasons tor my nauing attuned tne Ptatncttrs appticauun «or summary tudgmenl Background F u [3] The baotgrwnts facts can be ghanad vrorn the amaavns mad and can be summansea As loltowa. [41 The PIIIMM ts tn the buamess uf nlhng gee Lyltrldarx Ind lhatr oomunnanll and filling cf Llqumed Penateum Gas (nerainaner reigned In as “LPG“) under me name at 'M|RA“ gas. [5] on 20'“ October 2015, me a letter of afler uuea 'Suuply of NGC Energy Gas'. tne Ptatntm agreed to saw and ma Devandant agreed to nurcnase LPG «ram lhe Platntm VII the quantities and at me nriae Igmed belween tne Iwn perttes tneretnener reqenea to as me -pnnctpar agreemenf) vortne use our-e oevendant WI its busmsss and was asssgned Account No P23I00O329. me: at n monlhly slalemenls hnve always been sent mcnlnly in ma Defendant and ms Defendant under «ms agreemanl has 30 days lrom the date 01 «ms slalamanl lo lodge a complaint or disoranancles. ll ls um disputed that no complaint was raised an me malarial lime am no queries n ues raised within 30 days as mnlzaaually agreed As such. VI my view. it is dearly an aflerlhoughl and a feeble altemnl In raise a viable Issue which WI myvlewls not. conclusion [341 Under all mcumstarloes, l mu that the laslenuam has lailsd lo satisfy mls Cour! that there is a bona Me defence and/or lrlable issues and as sua. will allow the Plainllmn emer summary Judgment wlm costs at Rmuoo ca sublealo allocawr Dale: 8''‘ February 2024 ANAND PONNUDURAI Judge High COHII seorgsmn Pulau Pinarlg. Ms. Soma Jayamkumar Shah vmm Messrs. Suma, Shah 3. Co for me Plainhlf. Mr. Mnhd Azmani Ein Abdm Hamid from Messrs Abdm Mallk, Zamn 8. on luv the Defendant Dill! relerrad l ' Bank New: MalayS4'a 1/ Mohd /smar/A/1' labor a. 015 119921 1 MLRA 190. [1992] 1 ,/LJ 400, (19921 1 cu (Rep) 14 Cempaka Finance End 11 Ho Lai Ymg (rmnng as KH Yradmg) .: Anor[20D5] 2 MLRA 735, (200612 ML./ 535; [2006] 3 cu 544, (201271 1 AMI? 525 CFBA/urmnium Exlruuon Sdn Bhd v. um Soon Sang [2014]MLRHU 1202 Lu: securmes (Pie) m Name A Co sun 511.1 [1989] 2 cu Rep 75, [19199] 1 ML./ 321 National Company [at Foralgn Trade v. Kayu Rays Sdn an-1[19a4] 1 MLRA 190, (195412 ML] 300, (1954) 1 cu (Rap) 233 snum East Asia Insurance Bhd v Keralaan Maraysia (199612 MLRA 559, (199311 cu 1045 [1998] 110.11? 657 We Mm En A on 1/. Lung Chung Fsn[19a2} 1 MLRA 5451 1195212 MLJ 241 1 Ml//annium Intaman‘ona/ S41! and v. Neon Ghee Ksong A. Anor [2023] MLRNU 53 Lug Ions ufonofl to: Rules of com 2012, om: 14 :11 v.m.«mm.vw.1q me 11 cl :2 111.2 s.1.1...m.m111.. .1‘... .1: mm 1.. 11111.1-1 mm: dun-mm 1.. mum Wm [6] Subsefiuenfly, on 29' June 2020, was a Lemar olAPDOintmenl med ‘NGCE GAS LPG Bulk Resever‘. me Defendam was awcmted as a Bmk Reseller lor me Plannlrws LPG wherein we netendanx can re sell me LPG purchased «mm the P\amMl to us cuslnmers rn Penrnsula Ma\aysia and this was assigned Acoaune Nos Pzawouass, P23100054? and P23IO0D553 171 Tnereansr, was an ofler Iener uuea ‘Supmy M NGC Energy Gas" named 29” January 2021, me Plaintm‘ had upon the request at the Defendant agreed1oseIl1.8DOMT NGCE LPG Gas more Defendant (ar me exclusrve use or me Defendanfs customer knvwn as Ivory Glove Sun and (nere-naner referred to as 'F'eIro-lvoty Agreernenr) bearing Account No. P23100D328. [a] on v! Maren 2021. me Plamfifl, me Derenaann and Ivory Glove San am enlaed into an agreement known as ‘Tn—Parme Agreement’ whevem me P\amM was lo pmvlde LPG dehvery sewn-,e anemy lo Ivory crave Sdn End s prermses (henamafler nalemad to as me sand ‘Tn-Farms Agrsamenrj. [9] In aaaiuan, me Flamhfl had a\sc agreed to loan Ivory Glove Sdn and storage equnpmem We rank; and aacessanes, me deLaHs of wmen ave stated In Scnedme 2 c4 me Tn-Panua Agraemem for smrage nl Ihe LPG aeuvared by me P\amUll [1 0] Fmaw, me an ofler lallu uuea ‘Supply of NGC Energy Gas‘ dated 17‘" December 2021. me P\amU|l on me request or me Delendunl had agreed to sen NGCE LPG an no me Defendant hr the excluswa use onne Derenaem. cuslomav known :1 Baum spnngs srn vumawkumzavonvvu vase 2 m 12 Nuns smnw n-nhnrwm as used m mm s. mrmu-y mums flan-mnl wa .nuNG wnxr sdn and fheremafler rufened n: as ‘Petra-semen Agreement") beannqAoouun| No P23100055: [11] I: vs me Pnammrs case man in furtherance M the above offer weneus/agreemems and on me requescovme Delendant, me namdw had sold and delivered products and pmwded semces m me agreed quanxmes and agreed pnees [12] On mm May 2123, me Plainmf via ns sohcilnrs served a Ndmce of Demand demandirvg me remaining sum uf RM1,522,7A1 es bemg mesum dueand Uwlng as at 30'" April 2023 but me Delendanuaued to make any naymem. The Plainufl has exmbited us Surlernent oi Acwuns m Exhibit KK—6 ov ms Amdavn in suppon which prowdes a devaued scatemem Iefledmg the transactions and me amount due to the Flamlllf [13] The Plalnlifl contends mat Io date, the Delendanl has laued in pay n the omsundmg sum due as an aw June 2023 m me amount of RM1,4B3,498 65. 4e [14] u ‘s ma that me wvaimm has la rm sansry ma prelmmary rem-iramens under Ord-r14 ROC 21:12 Is enunciated 171 me oflan- dudted Federal Caurl ease omauian Enlllpally fur Fmgn mad v. Kayu Ray: Sdn Bhd[1lM] 1 MLRA190; mu] 2 MLJ mo: mu] 1 cu (Rap) 23:. Having sallsfiod me same, ma Plainlifl win have aslahllshsd a pm: «ame case and u bewmas IN vumdxvkucmavonvvq Page a m u -we saw ...m.mm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nF\uNG wrm entitled to luastrnent against the Deiermnl [See the Federal court case or corriizelu Financu and v. Ho |.ni Vina (hiding as KN finding) A Aiier [ms] 2 MLRA no; [zoos] 2 MLJ ass; mos: : cL.l 544; [2007] 1 AMR 5251 The burden then shins to the Detendant to satisfy the Court why summary iuagriienl should not be gianitea. [15] in an Ordcr 14 R00 2011 application, the court must look at the matter asa whole and ask llssif whether lrie Delerittant has ealisfiert the court that there are issues/quesuons of law and «acts in dlspule which ought |o be med. or triere ought tor some other reason |o he a aeterriiinatiori via a trial olttiat claim or part otthat claim. [is] where a Deteridant is able to demons1m|e facts lo SNOW that he has raised liona lide defence. he ought to be given leave to delend and the Flaimlfi would not be entitled Io summary iudgment A Deleridant must raise an arguable issue that requires iuuieial aeterrninalion via trial [see the cases 01 voo Mlii Eu 1. or: v. Leoiig churig Fall [1952] t MLRA 54:; [tau] 2 ML! 241 and seitlt N: a milmle v. Moria leiriall All John: a. on [1DI2] 1 MLRA loo, [I992] 1 IIILI 400: (19911 1 cu (Rev) IA] [in As such, it is now ineuinoerit upon the court to ooneirter the issues raised by the Delenaarit and ascertain ii any ad lrie sanie ralsad are inatile issues which woula than oeteat the Pleinlllrs application herein. ll 1! trite law that a finding aleveh a single Inah ' uelenaanl [see the cases Msoutlt East Asia lriuur-nu and v. Ku rt Muluyun [tau] 2 MLRAGW, (199511 cu I046; [1995] IN vimiemuiiiasvwiiq van 5 at 12 wane s.ii.i llnnflhlv will he used M van; iie nllglruflly MVM5 dnunvllnl vn .ritiiie mi 1 AME 557 and 1 Nlillunnium Inllrnatlmul sun and v. Nneh cnee Keong & Anor [2n2:1u|LRHu 5:] [ca] From the Defendant's Svatemem of Defence. the emttavns and me wrmen submissions, me Devendant has ratsed lh: Iotluwmg Issues‘ a. whathsr there were names at lermtnauon In tetauan lo the pnnctpal agreement flaled 217" Omaha: 2015 and other agreements? b. whether Ihe Platnnvre clam: Is vrerualura’? c. whether me Felro-Eellnn Agreement dated 17"‘ December 2021 ms based on e pla»paid nests? a. wnetner the Fslro—|vory Agvaamanl (mind 29'" January 2021 was pmpar1yIarmIna|ad7 a whether the PlIIn1M‘s claim undo: |he rri-Parma Agreement dated 1-‘ March 21:21 Vs pmmaM97 and 1 whether the suuumenl 0! account is awumle7 balkiutu Issue No.I: whonhor nhm warn notion of lamination In r-Ianlon to one grlnclul Inrnmult datad 29-" ocnolm 2:215 and othor sgminonna /Whulhu nlw Plainliffs claim is gnmmuro7 [19] on Ims issue. nne Dslsndarlt mmerlds man In ma said principal agreement daled 2n1~ ocncean zms and other agrearnenls, man. waia clauses nnal prvvlded nnan Ihe sale sgrsemenns woule mmaln In lance unless enlher party gave prion names in wnnnng lo nemnnala |he same. in inns vagaldl in is mus canlsndad man since nerlharpany had lermlnalnd ma agreemanls, ma Plalnllll nas ne eause er acnian as a cause cl action can only arise aflar (he oenlmcl has been lermlna|sd [20] in my view, firs| aria lmmosnl I none lhalthls issue is rims maflar nleaued In nne Sla(emenlofD91enoe bun raised in ma Delenaanrs amdavil in reply. Hawevsr, as eoneclny sulmilnnaa by me Dedenaann, a Deieneann in Drdlr l4 Rm: 2011 proceeding ' not bound by me (our comers n71 nna pleadings bun IS annlnlsa lo VEISE annar issues/defences by relying on nne alfidavlls filed The issue in an um: 14 Ron: zolz applicanlon is whether nne Delenaann nas ialssa a aelenceluiable issue and nun whelher nnie slanemenn on Defense provides in wlnn a aeienca. [See the High ceun case cl Lin secinlnnea (Pie) v. Noam 1. ca sun and [less] 2 cu Rep 15; [law] I IIILJ :21]. lznl Having oorlsldeled ma above issue. I do not find menn WI Ihe Delendanfs eennennian nnan nne Painlinl has to nsrmmane me agreements nu provide in mm a necessary locus to commence prweedlngs againsn me oeiamann. The nalannnann nas rial relenaa l-imam me In any dause In Ina agreements ar any auIIIonIIes In support men oonIemIon nuns same [22] A: sum, In my mnsmsna: view, as long as the PIaIna« has eslahhshed that mere were bmdlng agreemems beiween Ina Plaintiff and me oevenaanu and man goods were sum and dehvered and/er services rendered pursuam In sum agmernems and (here are ouIsIanuIng sums due and owing for me same, Ihe PIaI'nIm Is snlmed to commence proceedmgs lo remvenhe ouIsIanaIng sums. I see no basis that mere InusI be a vannax Ierminaninn of Ins agreements before me Mainhff may commence proceedings [23] As such. I find that Ims Issue of mere Iaemg no pnor IemIInaIIon nor nmiws oi terrninamn Issued In nalanon Io me pnnmpal agreamem dated 20" October 2015 and atl1eragreemsnIs\s nola Insure Issue. 124] nus vInaIng nl Mme equaHy applnes In the oerenuancs mnlenliou Iflal Ine P\aInM's cIa.nI Is premature due to Ihe nomerrmnauon 01 Ifle agreemams between the F\aIn|ifl and the Delgndam. lsggo No. 2: whmm (III P >BQ|mn Agmmgm gggg 1g Dtcum : 21 [251 On Ims ISSUE. the P1aInII«re1¢I In Ins Petm-Bellnn Agraemenmatad 17*" nanember 2021 and mnuanas Ina: In regards to Account No. Pzswnnnssx II was based on pra~pm Iransacuons In Ina: goods are unly lo be dehvared upon paymm by the Defendxnl. nmum [26] The Plalntlfl however has drawn ma ceurrs allenllon to Exhibll MNM4 in the DsIemIenI's Nlidavlt In Reply whlch cleanly Islleels me sum of RM1U,l1D0 on paid uy me Delenaam belng Iaken in|o acwunl in the Plalnnlrs statement el aomunl dated 31“ May 2u23 as reflecled in Exhlbn KK-1 elme Plalnllrs Alfidayll In Reply [271 I else Iunller nme mel mere IS no dispute by me Defendant el having reoewed such goods As suen, I do not me Ihls a lnahle Issue el all [25] In solar es me TII-P|rUIgAg1eemerlIwIlh Ivory Glove Is noneemed. the ueleneanl eenlenas lhallrle Plelnws clllm Is eremelure. In Inel Ivoey Glove: ms ya! la pay the uelsnaenl lor (ha supply ol gone: and semen renderad by me I=IaInIIIl In Ivory Glove In Ims mgem. me ueleneenl Ilsa raise: me Issue mm me Flalnlifl has fallen la exhibll Ins purchase nrdars |o Ivory Glnva Io suppon its mun. [see me ease ol era Alumlnlum Exlru-Ion sen and y. Llm Sm-an s-nnI2n14lMLRI<lu12o21 However, I have noted Mal |ha aumal dehverlu are no! In dlipula. [291 In so Ieres me non-exhlbllirlli uilha delivery areas, this lo me IS an lune Valued belatsdly as the Defendant has not II any lime mused ar dlspuled me dellvsry Ie Ivory Slave but new wrllends me: Ine Delenaenl would only need to nay me I>IeInII« onus Ivory slave pays thorn. l>1lR5ul :2 [301 Having perused me Tri-Parme Agreement, «ms arrangemsnl us not reflectad at all. on me oanlrary. Clause 7 renanng 10 paymenl expressly provides that n the nmenuanc defaults its payment, me P|ain|IW Is ennfled In serve rmlroe on the Defendam reamring immediate payment and to sue {or ms pnoe oHI1a pmdua [31] The Delenaam nmner submits man the re\a|ionsmp between me Plamlwfl and me Devenaann Is mare like a pm! vemure and than me P\a|ntM snoum awa|lfcrpayman| from Ivory Gkwe in ms Dalandanl firs! Hawever, Ihws nonlenliun ova Jam! vsnune finds no mom vnm me as clause 21 of the Tri-Panne Agreement expressly supulanss that 1! 15 nut a Joml vsnzure. Clause 21 reads as lonoms. ‘/mm/ng /n ms Agreement shall be construed as um»/isnmg or Imprymg a pannerslv/p orjomr venture betwaon ms Fame: ushnll be deemed to consume elmor Party as me again aims other or to allow either Party to new Ilse/foul as acling on behaflalme other. [32] As such, i| is cor mo Detonoam In eummanw ms nwn pmcesdmgs aglmsl Ivury Glove -1 need be and I no not find mm a lnabia issue wn mesa prvcesdings. No An mam g Inm tIu|rnnIolAccount:’l [33] on mus nssue, the Devenaanx refers to me svacernent omoooums du\y exninim and one army was pointed In he allegedly an emx in ralsunn lo Aocoum Na. P23ID00§53. In ms ragard, I note Ihanhese IN vlzmxakvkmmavonvvq Puunutu -nos s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms m1mn.HIy mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-22NCvC-7-01/2023

PLAINTIF CHYE SIEW FOON DEFENDAN TAN AH TIANG

Claim by the plaintiff for a deceased’s undivided half share of a house – Counterclaim by the defendant that the grant of probate obtained by the plaintiff is tainted with fraud and deceit, and is in breach of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 – Absence of a residuary clause in the Will of the deceased – Whether the other assets of the deceased which are not disposed under his Will are to be distributed to the defendant and her son.

08/02/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ab56620b-e6c3-4dae-849c-78218c2ee336&Inline=true

08/02/2024 15:58:52 PA-22NCvC-7-01/2023 Kand. 33 S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA-22IlCvC-7-D1/2023 Kand. 33 be/a2/202»: 13:59 32 \n the High Ccurl or Malaya in Penang In the slats a! Penang, Malaysua Cwll Sm! No. PAQZNCVC-7-D1/2023 aetween Chye siew Faun P\amMf And Tan An Tiang oevendam Grounds 0! Judgment mtmduchnn 1 The dispute harem concerns a Last VWIV and Tssfiamsnl dated 252017 (‘W'|'j that was executed by une Ang Huat cneng (“Daeoasnd') The Deceased was me regwsleved pvopnelor of an undmded nawsnare in a house sn-med al No. 65, Jalan Tasek Mulwava I, Bands! Tasek M-mars. s-rnpang Ampal. Penang 1“Sa|d House"). 2 The Plaunnfl ('9') was appomled as me execulnx and umsxee under the wm. On 10.7 2012;, P obtained a Grant oi Probate lmm me Penang Hwgh Cuurl .n o na|ing Summuns Nu PA—32Ncvc4ows/zma (“Grant :71 Puma! 3 3. P \s |he Iegwslered pwpnelorahhe onner undivided nawsr-are -n me Said House. In me Inslanl sun. P sought (or a dsdarauon that the Said House belongs to her mlely Ahemalwely‘ (or an omer man we ueoeaseds undwnded new share in the Saxd House he Iranslerred to ner. A The Deiendanl ('n') in «urn med 2: counterclaim against P Vn me counlerdawm, D saugm Var the tcuawung. (a) a declarauon mat me Gmm cl Pmhale daled ca 7 mm untamed by w x5 tamlad wnn wand and deuen wmmmed Dy P Funhsv, that m bmachao the Pluvmuns olma Pmbala and Admmlrlvahon Acl wsv. (I2) 1 declfimlmn «nu ma Demand‘: undmdld MW shave M the send Hans: and Mn vehufles n e a Memedes Benz and 3 Honda CMC1 me “two Vohlclos') are not mcmded as assas III we wm m be dwsmhmsd under |he w-H runner, lhanhuse asse1s «om van dune eslateoflhe Deceased And m czIwuIFmn.2EnHnmt:1:Nw «mm. snn ...m.mn .. U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! are In be mememeu in me ber\efu:\enes ca me emu er me Deceased. vvarvmy D and hvmn.aocnr\1\»g ue the law ovamnmmen. (c) in order men P and me Msvanl ems memes: m a eu matsmenls or ncommls and ducumams m velalmn In Ihe aexeue ov me vsiuvnm em eomens mamtawnud en Puhhc Bunk sea and Hong Lwng Bank and Including aueue acme money whmrawn am me «new lmnnce Mme send bank enemas. mud my mdamzgesiovfvaud em osunind breach evme pmvmonurflhl Pmbnle and Mmmume Am 1959, no nggva»/med damagsl and my exempmy damages 5. After a lull men, I dismissed P‘s clam. I men msmussed D's counterclaim Here are me grounds at my judgmem aeekgmund vague 6 D :3 the we ov me Deceased may were memed m Nuvenmer19a7. may have a son, who was born in March 2005. The Deceased passed away an 29 5 2015. Upon ms deem, me Deeeesed Vefl bemnd me ionowing assets: 4:» me eme eeeve an e muss sdualed il Na 1 Jelan Am Ru 2, Tamil: Mme Rm‘ Bukll Menagam‘ Panama ( Haun No. 1'), my me suture sham of e hnuse sueenea al No «a Lumwg Dean Cahaya Cl. Tamln nee. Cnhsya‘ Tamar: Des: Cahaya. Eu|u|MerIa1eme Penang‘ re) nn undhnded nan ihave m we see Hausa. my a Yamaha ugeme mmmtzyme beznng vegmuuee ne PMK 3949; (5) . mm. was vehicle Dealvvg mgevemn nu up sen, 17) e Memedsl em 0200 vshmle benrma remslralmn nu ma seen u e we ov me Twu Vahllfles)‘ [g] e Honda Cum 1 5 TC veme bearing regwslralxen no PMV new u 5 ans M the Two vemcmy, my mansy m e bank eeceem 3| Fubhc Bank arm, and (.7 money m e bank awuum at Hang Leone am am: The Grant o!Pmbale Q hg Pig Mf em czIwqsFmn.2EnHgmc'nNy 7 “Nana em lunhnrwm e. med e my e. nrW\n|U|Y MIMI dnuamnl VI mum v-ms! 53. under order 72 rule 213) ol the Rules ol court 2012, ‘A wm eegtnnm an aetttrn tor the rwecallon or the win! nl pvohlh at the wllt. or letters dledrntnlstratlon artne estate, ova d and purmn xlull net lre lsstud unless a clhllon under ml. 1 her be rt lulnd Dr the archaic nl letters at adrntnletratlen. us the me mly be, has or have been lodnld In In: RnuIIIry' 6A order 72 rule 7 of the Rules or Calm 2012 tn turn brnvldes: ‘M an lcuon luvlhn IIA/ncllilzn dtthe gum at prolme al the wlll, or letters L71 adrrllnletretlen er the estate at a deceased person, a eltatlon adatrtet the bereen te whom the prelme or letters ol adnllntsnettdn, as the use may be me Dr were gram: nqnlrinn hlm In hrlttu tnte and leave at the Re ry the prebnm ar letters ol adnltnlstratlen, as the can lrley b may be netted en the adnlleatlen or the plalrlmr 65 To my knowledge, nd such erta Dn under order 72 rule 7 ot the Rules at court 2ut2 had been Issued by D ag ‘nst F, reqdlrlng P to lodge the Grant of Probale at the Htgh Court Regislry. Nor has P depdslted the Grant of Probate at the Hlgh court Reglslry as secondly, D alleges that P had by way oHraud and deceit obtained the Grant at Probate ever the other asse|s dltthe Deceased whrch are not nlerltloned ln the Wlll Thls ls on the ground that P had lnsetted the Dsoeaseds undtvtded hell share at the sand Hduse and ttle Two Vehlcles ln the llet :71 assets that was filed ln the appllcetlorl tor a grant or probate Eu| that in rteelt, ln my vlaw, would no| nuttlty the Grant ul Probate. 37 In this regard, P explalnsd that the Grant dl Probate able ed by her was |o edrnlnister, whleh she dld, enly House Me. 7 This betnt was adnlttted by D tn cross examlnaltun ‘o I reter you to bundle M, lrateryeute ge tzn Nye: ardlsaaree wlrh nle From tzo, lt rhtms evanlullly the e ntltt tdat ednlnleter Number65 tor the deceased beredn-e wlll, enty l rephrase l repeat DK nledarn tan. l reter you la pigl 12a E4 by laokmg at thls serterat asset lhls hIl(Ir—bmIrlIalIa pesakn eerte Ianmurlggarl slntatl agree ol dlsagree The btalntltt. lint nlerely adnnrtlsrer Number seven, only when the plalntllte epely tar grant er probate let the last wlll at the deceased, agree A Yes‘ as D dtd no| rebut lhts pdlnt ND rE—examInaIlarl was rrlade tn respect cl D‘s atoresard answer to thus questlcn an czIwt;sFnln.2EnHghtc'nNy “ “Nair Smut luvlhnrwm ae t... e may he bflnlnnllly MVMI dnuavlml vn nFluNfl vwul 69 As regards the Two Vehivtes, P explained that they were not administered by her because the said vehicles were repossessed by the banks due to default at the hire purchase Iuan Recalt that the TWO Vehicles were not included tn the its! 0! assets In relation to the appttcatlon tor Letters ot Adrlltntsvatlon that was med by D. 70. t arii satistied that P had only administered House No 7 under the Grant ot Probate As such, D‘s altegatiori regarding troud arid deception pertaining to the Grant ot Pruhala is devnld oi inant Tt under the Grant ot Probate, F is obliged to taithtutty administer the Deceaseds estate and to render a iust arid tnie account thereol. It P has tailed to do so, then D might take action against P tor breach other duty as trustee at the Deoeassd‘s estate But that is not the pleaded case betore rrie b whether h ceased's undivided hattahare otthe i House and the Two vehictes are to distributed to the Detendant and her son — Mn 9 y ot prom-)edtrig§ 72 Nan, D sought tor a dectaratien that the Deoeaseds undivided hatt share or the said House and the Two vehicles are not included as assets in the will to be distributed under the will Instead, those assets torni part or the estate of the Deoeaaed And are to be distributed to the benericiaries of the estate oi the Deceased, riarnety D and her son, in aeoordanoe with the Distribution Act tau. 7:. tdectirie to grant such a declaration Because it ts and shoutd be the subiect matter ot the orooeedings tor Letters of Administration that had been lited by D hersett. As such, D‘: oounterclaini oonatitutes multiplicity or proceedings and ts tantamount to an abuse at oourts orooeas. 74 In her own words, D applied tor the Letters or Administration because the other assets in the estate at the Deceased had not been distributed D vmrits the Letters oi Administration in order to deat with all the assets not mentioned in the will And distribute them intestate in accordance with the Distribution Act 1955 75 The application tor Leflevs ot Administration by D was tiled earlier in August 2022. That apptication is still pending Now in this counteictaim Med abouts months tater in February 2023, D wants me to declare that the Deooaseds urtdtvtded halt share ol the said House and the Two IN ClIWt:BFmn.2ErtHgltlC7lNg “Nair a.n.i nuvthnrwttt a. HIQG In vuny i... nttgtruttly mthtn dnumtnrtl VI aFtuNQ pmut vehtctes, ie the ether assets in the estate at the Deceased, are to he distribu|ed to D and her son. 76 I wttl not grant such a oeetaratton because that is oroperty the subtecl matter at the proeeeotnga tor Letters ot Adm tstratton. whtett rs eurrentty pendtng By her own admtsstont D ts applying tor the Letters of Artnttntstration because the other assets in the estate at the Deceased had not been drstnbuteo And she wants In tttstntaute thent ttntter the authortty ct Letters o1Admtttts|ratt'ort. 77. Furtherntere, F 15 oppoetng D's apptteetton tor Letters ot Artnttntstrattort In so appustngt P canvassed the Iallowtng argurhents 73. As the trustee at the estate at the Deceased. P asserts that she ts empowered by secttcn 5 at the Dtstritrution Ant 1953 lo aorntntster the other assets at the Det:eased’s estate. Section 3 ot the Distrtbttttun Act tests reads where any person ates Ieavtng a ettt oenehetatty otspastrte at pan or hts DVoDer|Yt the Dvovtsrmts at thts Ant shatt have etrear as respeas the part or hts property not so tttstzosea or, sumsct lo the DIG‘/Iiwni eontatnaa tn Ins wttt Pvuvtdsd that the pmartat npnunlllivl shtttt. strtrteat to he lights Elnfl Dewar: ter the purposes at ldmtnlsilllton. ta a Intunn lot In! persons enr er: ttntter tttte rtet tn rupoet erttte pm er the osuln net uplusslv atsposea or untess rt appsats try the wtH that the persona: representatrtre ts ertttttert to take such part eenanoatty ‘ 79. P cited the t-ttgh court case at Lynette Met Lt Ponnratt v Lrrn Swes Gm [2018] 1 LNS 1446. In that case there was no restttuary ctause eontarneo tn the test wttt ot the tteeeased. The oetenoant oblatrted at grant at probate tn respect ot the properly whtch the deceased bequeathed to the oatenrtant. A quesltcn arose regardtng the p|atrt|tW‘s rntereets tn the restttttary estate at the deceased so. The High Court tn Lynette Met Ll (supra) amrrneo the detenoants aonttntetrettve Dwsr. The Htgh court sent. ‘The Deceased‘ wrtt apes not cater tor hrs restouary estate — rt has no restuuary ctatrse As sum assets at the estate that are not sasetttaatty beqnsalvtad or devtssd to anyone wrrt tatt wtthtn me arnmt or the Dlilnbulton Ac\1V5B sno be otetnettteo aceorotrra to the prettstrtnr L71 that net Ssdtun 2 also :11: am the eortsaquence 04 PNDBVIN5 or a aeeeasatt not otspeseo ttntter n ettt am the optrgatton pttntt persannt vepteumiltve the ten personat vepIEsertVal\ve' ts oettnect unoer seetten 2 er the Pmbate ano rtonttrttstrattarr rtet test: where tt ts statett snr c2Iwt:SFrttn.2ErtHnlttC1tNv ‘° «era. s.n.t luvthnrwm be u... In mm r... anttntttt urn. dnuavtml vn .rttttra v-nut ‘pmsonll llplssnmzllvd" mlllll ml Ixlcnlof ertgtnat or by tepreserttatrerr, eraarntrttstratattar the tttne being al a neoeaeea person, we as regards any rtaotttty tor the uaymenl cl aeath auttes mcludu my oereert who lakes puueumn et er mlermeddles wtth the prupofly at a deceased patsett wtthattt the attthettty etttte petsettat rswissnulrvex at the Count The Detemtattt ts the BXBCLIIIIX at the Isli|e at the Deeeasatt, rtawrg pmbahed the wttt and havmg entatttea a grim et prenate on the 29- at May znts Awaratr-gty the Dnflndlm, as IM s etttnx 01 mt bank of the mmsee atta Ihul pl on lepvesnllhllltlt. ts callililulld a tmme amt. mtttuary uni: tmtt. ttemsett tertrre eehertt al nttat atres the ptatrttttt by reasert attrta ptetntttrs entttterttent tmttar mttert B at the natntttnran AM was‘ as the lawful da\ISlh|e'r at the dwaassd “ st. Here, 1 retratn tmrtt makmg any detetnttnatrert regarding who ts ertttttett to adrntrtister the teetttuary estate at the Deceased. As that te the ettmect matter vi dtspule tn the praeeetttngs tor Letters otnttrtttrttstrattnn. 52 By the eerne taken. t woutd retrain tretn makmg any uectatatton that the Deeeaeeea undtvlded hatt share ol the sets House and the Two Vehicles rnust he dtsmbulsd to n and her SDVI As that should property be ueatt with in the pmoeedtngs tat Letters of Admlnlslralton. as Moreover‘ as tort te note party to the trtstant stttt If and when D ebtatrts the Lettets enxtttntntsttatttzrt, she may adm er the assets of the Deoeasetfs estate and dtslrtbule them awertttrtgty. That D has made a oottntetetatnt tor such a ueetatatttan, te my tntrta, ts a knee jerk teaettan in the acttort trtourtteu by P tn the trtstartt sutt. 34 I note that the two vetttctes were ummsd tram the Itst ot assets that was rtlee by D tn her eppttcatton tot Letters ul Aattttntetrattort. whether such omtssiun was ttettoerate ur madverlenl ts urtctear In etther case, tt cartnol be used as an excuse by D to seek a dectaratton trt reepeu at the Two vehtctes tn the trtstartt set as The tact that the pantes heretn have stayed the preaeedtrtga tat Lettets et /Ndmlnlslrallunt pending the atsaosal ol the tnstartt SUIL demonslrales that there ts rnutttpttetty at pmcssdmgs The arguments by P‘ as reterrea to above. have been pm tetttt trt the pmeeedmgs luv Letters of Atttntntettattort and are best addressed there as tt VIWSI be potrttea out that the judge heartrtg De appttcatton rot Letters orAt1tntrtstt-ettort eouta do one at two ttttrtgs He may dtspose ot the matter tn a summary manner. or he may dtvect that the ptovtatone at srn czIwt:sFrttn.zErtHgvttc7tNg “ «wet. s.n.t nuvthnrwm be ta... a my t... nflmruflly sun. dnuuvtml Vfl mutta Wm! Ordev 72 toontenttotrs probate prooee ' 33 ol the Rules ol court 2012 5)shat| apply. see omer7t rule c) whether the Plernml and the relevant banks are to sc1o§g to the Detenoant ttetatls ot the relevant hank acoeunta 87 Next. D sought for an order that F and the relevant banks titsclase to D all statements 01 accounts and documents in letatlun to the detalls M the relevant bank accounts malrllalned at Pubtlc Eank Ehd and Hong Leortg aantt BM 88 I consider lhls oounmrctaim to be nttsonncatvsd. Thls ls because B Is applying for Leltels 0| Adminlslratlah ln alder to atimlnlsler the other assets Of the Deceasecfs estate whlch were not disposed under the Will Indeed the bank accounts main ed by the Deceased at Public Bank Bhd ant: Hang Leortg Bank Ehd were lrlcluded In the net at assets that was trtett by D In oortnectlon with her applieatton tor Letters or Admlnlstraticlh 39 ll and when D ohtatns the Letters at Adnrrnrstratron. she would tnen have the standtrtg to wrrte to the banks drreotly tor oatatls at the relevant bank accounts. In her capaclty as the aonrrnistrator of the estate ot the Deneasedt D would be able to request the banks wnoerneo to dtscloae detatls at the relevant eentt accounts 90 Cunversety, if D dues net sueeeeo ln obtatntng the Letters ol Aorntntstrattun, then she wuuld not possess the authonty to request the banks concerned to dlsclose oetarls or the relevant bank aocounte. ln that event, B would not be entttled to the same at. srtherway, D cannot seek such an ontertrorn rne tn the lnslant sult She has no standlng at thls polht lh llme D has yet to obtatn Lelters 07 Adminlshatlon Whether she WI“ obtatn Letters at Adrvttntstrattorl ls of course a matter to be declded In the perldlhg pmosedtngs [or Letters of Adnrrntstratton. Thls again retrrtoroes my new that there ls muttlptlclly of prooeedtngs 92 It Is also penrnent that the atteetett banks. I e Puolte sent and and Hung Leung aantt Bhd, have not treen heard on the matter. ‘lo my knvwledge. the saro banks were net nutrneo at thrs proposed orderwhtch D Is seektrtg egarnst them I would hesrtate to oornpel the banks to dtsclase docurnertts and rntorrnatton without altordtng them an opportunity to be heard IN czIwosFntn.2EnHghtcnNg ‘5 «use s.n.t luvlhnrwlll r. t... In may r... nttnlnullly MIMI dnuavlnht VI nrlutta vmul d) Damageegz g gyme Delendanl 93 D sougm damages lor lraud and deded adrnmilled by P and luv nreacri oi me provisions dune Probate and Admlnlslralvon Acl 1959 Flrsl, D has not proven mar P mmmilled lradd and deoell or breach at me provisions at me Proaale and Adrnrnislranon Am 1959 As sum me question dlawarding damages agarnsl P does not zvlse second, D has nal pmven wnai damages she has surlered in shun, D has lalled to wave hum lialarlrly and duamurn oi damages. 94 Al paragraph 21 onne Amended Caunlerclslm, D Dlsaded as (allows “A5 a mwll ul ma hand and dean and me arenan al me dmvlsmns dune r-rdoaie and Admwmhatmn Au less cnmmllled ny ma Plalnllflr ma nelendani aa ma benfllcllly dime decensecfs esiaie slmemd low due as a vault of bllflg denied as a aenendiary la me immovable and mm/able aaaala dune deceased‘: ealale’ 95 D claims |o have sullered luss as a beneliciary or me ealale al lhe Deceased ii 50. perhaps her claim rnrgm be framed on me aaars al a dream oi F‘s duty as the lmslee oi the Deceaseds eslale. But lhal is rial me pleaded case oi D VI me insrani suit 96 AI paragrapn 22 OHHS Amended Counlerclaim, D pleaded as fulluws ‘Fmlher. me neiendani iaaes dmlcdiny In ohlalmng Denali ac Admrmanrainn M Orlglrmlmq Summons No PAa31NCvCa6l?74)8I2022 due in ma IIIJOVI man (he Plalnlllhmenuonalry and wmrlgfully ralduad In agree ~ 97. De application lor Lellevs oi Adm lurallcn is at caurse me sumecl maner oldispule In the pending pmceedmgs [or Leners c1AdmlnlsIrallorl. The queanon olwhelher nlermonally and wmnglully reldaed id agree’ does not arise for delelmlnallorl in the instant suit 95. D lunher aodgm aggravaled and exemplary damages. in suhmlssiuns, D requested RM50,0DD lor aggravaled damages and rwisomc lor exemplary damages. on me (acts oi me presenr case, i consider agglavaled and exemplary damages to be unwarraniad as mere are no exceptional clrcumslances |o pusllly the same. Conclusion 99 For the reasons above, I nnd Lhal P has not pruven her case on a balance 0! pmbshllilies l merelore drsrnrssed l='s claim I alsu dismissed am czIwdsFmn.2EnHdmcnNg ‘5 “Nana s.n.i nuvlhnrwlll a. d... a may r... nflnlrullly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl aFluNa Wm! D's cmmlemlsvm as n was hkewnse nnl Dmven on a bs\ance of pmnahixmes sme ham pa as am not succeed m msirrespecnve claims, \ mdered them |u bear men own costs Daced 21 November 2023 £ Quay Chew Soon Judge High com 0! Mamya‘ Penang own Dmsion NCVC 1 Counsel: um an Leone and um Ee menu (Messrs Lrm 5 Lrml mum ma-mm Aug Khoon Chaang‘ Ham: Nabwla bum mm and cwng Gm vs. (Messrs on Aug 5 company) «m cm navsnaam sm c21wusFmn.zEnHnm::1:Nw " «mm. sm-1 nanhnrwm .. H... w my .. mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum W sw cuwqaPmmzEnHmc1:Nv «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 1 In me the Deceased bequeathed Huuse Md 7 la P sdtety and absotutety There is no restdusry clause tn tne wttt 3. As the appdmted executnx and trustee at the wtu, P epptied tor a grant t-A probate we an Ortgtna|Ing summons dated 6 s.2cta tntttetty, F speemed Heuse Me 7 only In tne hsl etassets tnat was med In connectmn with tne apptrdatidn tor a grant or propate 9 suhsequentty by way at at supptementary Amdevtt dated 13 6 2015. P added otner assets at the Deceased wtucn were not mertltoned tn the wttt. Namety tne Deceaseds undmded natt snare M tne Satd House and the we Vehictes, as pan at tne estate at tne Deosased. Thg and House (house no 6§ to The Deceased purcnased tne Sand House someltme tn 2003 through a housmg loan tmm Cmbsnk Bhd ‘me sad House was regts|ered tn the Deceaseds name as me sate dwner. A charge an the Sam House was created In tavpur ot Ctllbank and The sad Ctltbank housing tean taken by me Deeeased was paid an in zone The dnarge on tne Satd Hnusewas cunseqttenlly dtscharged In zone 11 P came to own an undtvtded new share at the Said House when tne Deceased gave tne same to ner tnrougn a need at Glfl dated 24 5.200. 12 In 2011. the Deceased and P dptamed a teen trcrn Puhllc Bank and Tne Satd Hduse was pm up as seeunty td Public Eank and Tne prior challenge by the Delendant agamsr me Will 13 D attempted te enattenge tne vettdtty at tne wttt tn edurt Vtde Peneng Hugh ceun cm: sutt Na. FA»22NCvC-20942/2021. D soupnt tar a declaralton tnat tne WiH dated 2 52017 IS mvahd And tnat sne ts |he ngnttut executnx and trustee dt tne Deoeaseds estate acoordtng la a WIN dated 9 12 2013 made by the Deceased W D contended tnat tne Deceased eoutd not have stgned on the Wm dated 2.6.2017 and tacked testamentary capactly.Am1 that there was an eartter wttt dated 9 12 2013 made by tne Deceased, bequealhtng all of ms assets to D, wntcn snoutd take precedence 15 On 23 3 2022‘ P med an spdltcatton Io slrtke out the storesatd eaten The grounds set out tn tne Mrtktrtg out scltort were tnese. P evened tnat IN c2Iwt:BFrnn.2EnHnIttC1tNv 3 “Nate s.n.r IIJVVDIVWW .. u... e mm r... pflmnuflly en. dnuanml VI mum we the Grant at Probate obtained by her is valid and subsisting And mat no application has ever been made to set aside the Grant at Probate P aiso evened thal D's action IS barred by res yudicata This is because lhe Court or Appeal has mied that tne wiii dated 2 a 2ot7 is valid in civii Appeai Nu P—D2(NCvC)(A)-475-D3/2020. 16 The next day on 29 3.2022‘ D tried a notice or discontinuance at her action, but with titrerty to file a1resh.t= objected to liberty tor D to file atresh and insisted on costs 17. on 5.4 2022. the atorememinned iegal aclmn by D was struck nut by the Penarig High Court The minutes on the cms (case Management System] retieets the icilowtng ‘Mahkamah » Pihaiepinati nadir urituk ndinh alas kns dart isu pemtaiiari selviula Kes fllbalalkan ttsrigan kus RM1i50fl no kznafla Detendan * The Ending gfleadings fol Letters or AdmmI§Iatmrl tzy the Deleriderit in D is presontty In the process ot obta ing Letters oi Administration to the estate at ttie Deceased n respect at the assets not mentioned or bequeathed to anyone in the witi on 95.2022, D filed an apptlcatlon to obtain Letters et Administration via Pertarig g|'i Court originating Summons Me FAr31NCvC-697-08/2022 19. In the said application, D listed the Deceaseds undivided hatt snare oi the said House as one oi the assets at the Deceeseds estate to be administered. For reasons much are not apparent, the Two vetiiotes were not included in the list of assets 20 D says that she appiied tor Letters oi Attmtnlstratlon because the other assets oi the estate at the Deceased had not been distributed D wants the Letters oi Admin sti-attori in order to deal with all the assets not mentioned in the wiit And distribute them intestate in aeoordanee with the law at distribution‘ presumabiy the Distribution Act 1955 2t F‘ intervened In the abovemertttoried proceedings for Letters at Administration Thereahel P mmrvtericsd the instant suit against D on ta.t.2u23 By ecrtserit. parties stayed the pmeeedirigs tor Letters ot Adm sti-aliarti pending the uutcume DI the instant sutt Issue tor detenninatiah rn o2rwan=ninzenn.n.or.n, “Nat: s.n.i mmhnrwiii be in... e vuny i... nrtgiruiily mihil dnuuviml VI .rionn pmui 22. The crux of the case can be dsuued to one prlncxpal Issue Nameh/. Whelhev the Wamllfl Is enlvlled to the Deceased‘: undivided hall share 0' the Sald House‘ [7 e Kern no 2 07 the ‘Issues In he Tned' dccumenl and revealed In «em no. 3 cnerevn 23. My answer we no. «or me «ouewmg reasons: An) me Deceased: undmded new share dc lhe Sam House was not hequeexhed In P under mewuu (D) P received an nndlmdad new share only In In Sam House undev me Deed ul em‘ and Ac) u was nednev weaned nor maven hy P that In: Deceased new rns undnnded new share ollhe Sand House on wsum P 24. Here we my explanamn. a The Deceaseds undwmed haw share In me Send House was no! m gglhgg :1 me Wawrmfl under me Will 25 The cperauive document here is me wm The Deceased uwns an undwided haw share onhe Sawd House He could have made Dmwsmn lar n under the wm. But nolmng ws menuoned m me Wm conoermng lhe Sam House. 23 In me wm, me Deceased stipulated Ihat House No. 7 x5 |c be gwen lo P am naming Is said about me dislnhulmn dune Saxd House. or (or lhal manen any unhe other assets of me Deceased 27 The relevant Dmvlsxcn ws dause 5 oi the wm which reads *5 lghre dense and aequeun my ennre shave .n 3 unn cl duuma storey bunaalowheannw aswssmenladdvessm 7, Ja\an Nma me. YamanAlma ms, 14000 sum Manaam, Pulau Fmang hem under Gavan No 159057 (pravwuusly known ai Hakmlhk Samumara No H sun) 54313 Lot Na 19521, Mukwm 15. Dlemh Sebeving Perl: Yengnh. useen Pmau Pvnahg limo Chye Swew Faon wmc Na 57099442-seat) smew and ahsclmelyf 2a The Deeeased ounher expressed that ms a|her heirs shomd have no dawn to House Na 7 As he had pmwded for them suflwcwemly m ms hlewne Here agam‘ nothing Is expressed m le\a|iun|u|I1e Sawd House. 29. clause 5 av the wm reads SIN c1IwuIFmn.2EnHnNC11Nv 5 «us. send! nmhnrwm .. u... e my .. mnuu mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-ms! 5 As in my mneI DSMSL I am my lave and lflawan In IneIn and I daclava that I have pnmded suI«:IeIIIIy IarIIIenI dunno my me IInIe and IneIsIuIe. Iney srIaH have no cIeInI vmalxoever In Ine above prommy under my ss|a|a‘ so The InIen II o! Ihe Deceased Io gwe House ND 7 |a F Ie dear EquaHy II Is clear IIIaI mere Ie nolhmg InaI was declared cnncermng Ine saId House in me wIII. 31 ms Is even more so gwen me aheenee ol e reslduary clause in Ina wIII. A IesIduaIy clause is a devise in a wIIl wIIIcII allows a Ieslalar In mepese oune IenIeInIng assevs under me esIaIe whnch ere noI specIIIcaIIy provmsd rm In Ine will 32 The I=ederaI Cam! In Dawd wee Eng Srew (admInIsI1sIoI Io the esrare o1LI'n Eang Tee, deceased) VLVN Lean seng & Arm! (as executors and rrusrees orme eaIaIa amm Eow Thoon, deceased) (2613) supp ML! 50 eI 53 had IIIIs Io say concemmg a resIduaIy cIause 1191 To OVBVCOWB any unfinuhed bus/Hess onesaueI property a IegeI melllod may 00 d.vIs.I1.a by me uaaga ovprovmons In In. mu c.II.d III. rasII1uaIy or rvsvdua clauae whereupon the romawwvg pmpmy ml] n. Imposed or Now In. nsvdunty 01541391510 be wumtd and given me necssaary mean/ng ormtuntrorv mu be Isl! In my Ingsnuw em nnlovor nIs soIIcIIoI Sum a nsldulry cllun en-I-rm Ilfldrvsus my mII.InIng pmperm arm an In. ems, Ines sxpanavs. and spemfic bequests end devrses haw [nan IIIIIy ssnslied ms ruxldulry clnuse easures Mal rm flmslmflif of Mu 1-nltofs pmplrw I; dindband In [In p-Ieen orplrsom Irclntnnds In bequest" 33. Here, lhere Is no pro smn In me wIII to me eIIecI IIIaI Ine Deceased has hequeemed III; un ded new share of Ihe saId House to F Nur Is Inere e reemuary clause me Will ms InusI mean IhaI Ine Deceaseds undwided IIaII snare In Ine saId House does run IzeIong Io P solely D) Tne I=IaInII« renewed an und vIded nan sngg gnly In me saId House under me Deed I21 GIII 34 AnoIIIeI sIgIIIIIcanI lac| Is IIIaI Ine Deceased onIy made a gm M an undIuIded new share In Ine said House In F’ Inmugn Ine Deed oIGIII aaIed 24 Ia.zuI7. I! II nad been me InIenIIen {or P |a own me sad House ahstllulely, Ine Deceased muld have easI|y gwan Ihe enIIIe saId House In Plhsn am ne dm rIoI dn so am ClIWI:BFmn.2EnHglIIC7INy 5 «we. SnI1|InuvIhnrwIHI>e UIQG e may I... nrW\ruU|Y unn. dnuumnl Vfl nFIuNfl WVM 35 In the Deed ot em. t| ts plath that the Deceased gtfled onty an ttntttvtaett hatt share tn the Said House to F And kept the other unomoed halt share at the Said House tor htmsett as stntttarty tn the WI rt ts plain that the neoeasett are not bequeath hts undivided hett share ot the sattt House to F upun hts death. As that name etherwtse have been spett out by the Deceased in the WIII c tt was not gleaded nor preven by the Ptatnttft that the Deeeagd hetd ht§ undivided hatt share tn the Sam House on trust tor the Ptatntttt 37. At paragraph 4 ot the statement otctatrn, F ctatnts that ‘all matters tn retatton to sale and pumhase, bank luant repayment ul toan, ntatntenanee and repatr of the Said House are handled sotety by her“ 33. At paragraph 7 at the statement at ctetm, P avers that 11 who has never cctntrtbttled hnanctatty pr through etton tawants the Satd House. does not have any nght agatnst the same and theretore hatt wmngty tnetuaed the sato House tn the Ltst ot Assets tn the applluatinn at Letters at Admtrltstratton". 39. At paragraph a at the statement at Ctalmt P asserts that she ‘as the registered owner and raspnnstbte party to the sets House, as wet: as the persun whu has been oonlrtbullng nnanctatty or ethetwtse to the the Satd House, ts entttted to the same“ 40. On that basts, paragraph 9 0' the Statement of Claim pleads that "the owrtershtp at the Séltd House petengs to F sulelf 41 It is not clear on what pasts P ts taytng alarm to the Deceasetfs undtvtded hatt share tn the satd House Atthough P pteadsfl that she has contrtbuled financially to the satd House. P tailed to plead the extstenee at any form at trust To wtt, that the Deceased hotos his undivided hatt share at the Satd House on trust I e resutttng or conslvucllve trust fur P 42 In the statement of Ctalmt F ttttt not prey tor a aeetarstton ot a resuttrng ur oonstruettve trust that the Deeeasett hotos hn. undivided halt share at the Satd House tn her tavour tt that ts P‘: ease, tt pught to be susotncatty pleaded and prpyed tor tn the statement or ctatm 4: F ts bound by her pleadings. (See the Federat Court case ot Samue/ Natk sang nng V Pupttt: Bank Bhd 12015) 5 cm 944 at sea) tt ts not open to me te make a findmg tn tavour at P on resutttng or constructtve 7 IN c2IWuBFrnn.2EnHnNC1tNv “Nair Smut navthnrwm s. u... e vslty r... nttmhnflly MIMI dnuavtml VI artuttfl vtmxt lmsl, wnen such was nol pleaded by P 1See|he ooun ol Appeal ease ol Herrrage Grand Vacalron Club and v Paclru: Fantasy vacalion Sun End (2016) 1 CLJ 679 at page 652) 44 As ll was never P's pleaded case lhal a lrusl ol lne Deceased‘: undwu-led hall snare ol lhe Sald House exlsled ln ner lavour, F has railed lp make our a clalm lorlne same 45 Moreover, F has nol pmven lhal any such lruslexisled. The punthase ol lne Sald House was made solely oy lne Deceased Hvnugh e neusrng loan lrprn cruoank and back in zoos The sale Clllbarlk loan was lully pals on by me Deceased in 2005 P made no lrnancral corllribu|iDn lo lhe purchase ol the Sabd House. 45. The Puplrc Bank loan laxen by both me Deoeaseo and P In 2017, in wnrch the Sand Huuse was pul up as collateral‘ opuld nor have grven P any enllllerrrenno the Deeeaseds undlvlded hall‘ snare ollhe Sand House Even rl P rnade payments on me monlnly rnslallrnenls ol the Fuollc Bank lean alter lne demlse or lhe Deceased. 47 P pmduosd payrnenl slips as evldence lnal she had made paynrenls towards me Publlc Bank loan However, |hass payments occurred aller the death pl me Deceased 4: Aller the passing ol lne Deceased, lne estate onhe Deceased and P are lolnlly lraole lor lne oulslanolng Puolrc Bank lean. P cannot lay clalm lo me Deceaseds lmdlvlded nall snare ol me Sald House slrrlply because she luck It upon nerselr lo oonunue payll1g|I'le rnonlnly lnslallrnenls, 42 sunrlarly, lhe upkeep pl me sard House by P would not enmle ner lo lhe Deceaeeos undwrded hall share rn lne Said House The upkeep pl a propeny by the owners allhe propeny somelnrng lnal is to oe expeded so l agree wrln D lhal a lplnl owner cannot clarrn another lolnl owners rnleresl in lne properly merely by mainlalmng the propeny. ll lhls ls the case, a jolrll Dwner oan sunply lose his reglslereo lnleresl ln lne properly lo anolner lolrll owner oy no more men me an pl lhal lolnl owner ln rnalnlerrung lhe propeny Such eannol oe lne pcsmorr ol lne law 51 For me reasons appue, P's claun lo lne Deceaseds unfllvlded nall share ol the Sand House ls Imsuslalnable l move on (D deal wlln D's ccurllenialm. ru czIwesFnm.2EnHpnlc'nNp «mu. s.n.l luvlhnrwlll r. u... u my r... nflglrullly urn. dnuavlml VI .nuuo we The Deterrdan 's couhtercla’ 52. To recapitulate, n tn her oourrtercierm against P suugm tor the tottowrhg retreta tar a dectarehen that the Grant ni Pmhale dated 10 7 ants omatned by P Ii tainted with «retro and deceit committed by P, and tr ill breach ot the Dmvtstans at the Pmbale and AdmthIs|ia|ton Act rose. to) a declaration that the Deceased 5 undrvtdod hart shit: at the Said House and the rwd Vahtulsi an m:| tmfludted as assets in the WM In be fltslrthuted kmdov the Will instead, than assels rbnh nan M the estate ul the oaeaaaad And arete be batntarrted |a the aenerrarartesotthe estate otthe oeeeaaed nantety o and her son. In aoourdartua with the Dtitnbuluzrt AL1 tees. tut an order that F and in. ratavant banks drsctesa (D D detarts al the reievanl bank auwurtts maintained .I| mire Bank am and Hnhg Leohg Eahk aha, and hat (I) damages lnrhaud and decattand breach ettna prourrronsotthe Pmhate and Administration I\c|1U59‘{HJiggVlvl|Ed damages and (iii) exemplary damage: 53 I will deat with each in mm a) whether the Grant ot Probate ghfiifled by the Ptaihtrtt is tainted with trend and deceit eommttted b the Palm! and re chad the rovtstons of the Probate and Aunt trattorr Act 1959 54 D sought tor a declaration that the Grant at Probate dated 10.7 2915 obtained by P is tatnted with hand and deoett wmmtlled by P. and Is in breach oi the prov ns oi the Pruha|e and Adrrtrhtstratrort Act 1959. However, D did not spectfy which pmvtsiun(s) or the Probate and Aflmtrttslrauon Act 1959 was suoposedty breached 55 I oonsrder this oounterctatm to be miseancetved tor the tottowthg reasons Frrstiy, the Grant or Pmba|e was oblairted by virtue at P having proved the will The Grant ul Probate and the vtntt goes hand in hand The Grant at Probate would not have oonre intu place it not tor the writ. 56. D had chatten ed the vattdtty oi the win in an earlier acltun Via Penang High Cuurl ct |Sui| No FA»22NCvC-209-12/2021. However, her action was struck out by the Penang High Court Further, in yet another suit Dewveen the pants‘: hevetn vtde Pertartg High court civil suit No PA- 9 am czIwt$Fmn.2EhHgh‘c7‘Ny “Nair s.n.t lurthnrwm a. tr... e vufiy r... nhgtrtuttly MIMI flnuartnrtt VI artuha pom! 24NCv<>B2~D1/2019, wmdlr went up an appeal Ihe com or Appeal had ruled Ihal lhe Will ls valrd 57. clearly. me valldlty omre wlll is a rrranermal has been finally declded and cannol he re-lmgaled The Order of the court or Appeal dated 14 7 2021 m Clvll Appeal No P-D2(NCvC)1AH754I3/2020 slales: -la; Waslsl Ang Husl Chang‘ 5: ma|l yang bsrlarlkh 2 Jun zmv ma lah muklamad dan Parayu‘ Chye SEW FDDH mo K/P fl7n%4'D25sM) memnakan blrlaflslarl yang sa» dan mullak Keoada Hznanah t.evsabu\.' 53 wdn regards lu me Granl M Fmbaler me pusllion dl a Is wnlusing Tn be clear, mere ls no relrel prayed ldr by n lo revoke me Gram 01 Pmbale. Nevenheless, ll seems lo me Ihal a necessary consequence 01 N19 Gram Ol F‘l'0ba|e belllg lalllled by (read and dscsll oommllled by P and In breach of (he pro»/Islons of me Probate and Admlnlslrallon AC1 1959, as alleged by D, >5 lhal ll must be revuked 59 D admmed as much an paragraph 12 cl lhe Amended Detenoe and Amended Cnumemlalm. Wham she averred Ihal “me Gram‘ ur‘ Probate was glverl lrl breach of me provislorls under me Pmnale and Admlnislratlon Ad 1959 and ls lharslors null and void". In pleadlng Ihal the Gram ol Pmbale VS ‘null and vold'. D ls easenually saymg lhal me Gram ol Prebale ougm ll) be vevaked. so. A revocallon M a gram a1 pmba|e ammmls to a ednlenuaus probate acuon under order 72 ol the Rules dl Cuun 2012. Order 72 rule 1(2) nl me Rules at Court 2012 demnes ‘probale action‘ as lollams ‘lrl lhuaa Rnlts, 'vml7aIe acuarr means an mm «or In; glam av nmbsle dune mu dr lelrers dl admmlsllallun dl lhu anala. dl a demsed person or rar me mouuerr M men a gram drvdr a decree drdrrdrmrrd ldror agzlrlsl ma valldlly 0! an alleged wlll‘ ml dmrrg an acllon which rs mn—corllerl|lous' 51 As lar as I can lell, me rnalanl sull ls nm a comerrlidus probate aclldn ms ls because me requlremenls penalnlrlg lo a conlerlllous pmbale acllon, as sel out m order 72 rule 2 ol me Rules ol com 2012. have ndl been cdrrrplied wllh e2. The wnl In me mslanl sull was rrul “endorsed wrm a elalemenl ollhe nalure nl me lnleresl cl the plamull and at me delendanl ln me estate ol me deceased lo men we acliorl velales“ (see order 72 rule 212) dl me Rules dl cdun 2012) m czIwqsFmn.2EnHgmcnNy “Nana Saul luvlhnrwlll r. d... a M, r... mruury mm: dnuavlml VI aFluNQ pmul

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018

PLAINTIF TAN BON KIAT DEFENDAN 1. ) Badan Pengurusan Pelita Indah 2. ) Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Kang Hock Hin 4. ) Jothi A/P Muniandy 5. ) Indra Devi A/P Lechanam

Civil trial - adjournment - trial of counter-claim - defendant is a body corporate - solicitor not present in court - O 5 r 6 RoC - O35 r (1) (2) RoC

08/02/2024

Puan Lailawati Binti Ali

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bf778aa7-f0fc-4b88-925c-a9e861e5b6cc&Inline=true

JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BHARU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 BETWEEN TAN BON KIAT … PLAINTIFF AND 1. BADAN PENGURUSAN PELITA INDAH 2. BANDARI SIMMA REALTY SDN. BHD. 3. KANG HOCK HIN 4. JOTHI A/P MUNIANDY 5. INDRA DEVI A/P LECHANAM … DEFENDANTS (in the original claim) BETWEEN BANDARI SIMMA REALTY SDN. BHD. … PLAINTIFF AND TAN BON KIAT … DEFENDANT (in the counter-claim) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. On 3.12.2023, this Court dismissed Bandari Simma Realty Sdn Bhd’s counter-claim with costs of RM10,000.00 payable to Tan Boon Kiat 08/02/2024 12:01:36 JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Kand. 216 S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 2 (“the order”). The order was made after Bandar Simma Realty Sdn Bhd was not prepared to proceed with the trial fixed on that day. 2. Dissatisfied with the order, the Bandari Simma Realty Sdn Bhd filed an appeal to the High Court. 3. The court now provides its grounds as follows. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 4. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as in the original claim. On 7.10.2020, the defendant’s counter-claim was allowed by the Sessions Court with costs in a trial where the plaintiff was absence due to miscommunication with the office of the Director-General of Insolvency. The plaintiff appealed against that decision to the High Court and on 27.2.2023, the plaintiff’s appeal was allowed and the counter-claim by the defendant was remitted to the Sessions Court for a re-trial before another Sessions Judge (“the decision of the High Court”). 5. The case was fixed for case management before this Court on 10th and 15th May 2023 to fix trial date. Trial dates were fixed on 16th and 30th July 2023 with consent of all parties. Usual orders of the pre-trial case management was made on the 15th of May 2023 itself. 6. On the trial date 16.5.2023, the Court was informed by Mr Gunaseelan who appear with Mr Krishna Murthi (“Mr Krishna”) for the defendants, that the defendant was going to file a stay application in S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 3 the High Court pending disposal of the defendant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court. The defendant applied for the trial to be postponed pending disposal of the stay application in the High Court. 7. The Court granted the adjournment and the trial dates were vacated. The court fixed 3.10.2023 for Case Management for parties to update the Court on the outcome of the stay application. 8. On 24.8.2023, the defendant filed an application vide Enclosure 179 for an order that Messrs Aida & G Ravi, the plaintiff’s solicitors be removed from representing the plaintiff in the counter-claim and any solicitors from the same firm also be removed from representing the plaintiff in the counter-claim. Enclosure 179 was fixed for decision on 5.11.2023. 9. On 3.10.2023, new trial dates were fixed after the Court was informed that the High Court had dismissed the defendant’s stay application. The trial date was fixed on 3rd, 8th and 12th December 2023. The Court was informed that the defendants had yet to file trial documents despite the order to do so had been made in May 2023. The court gave stern warning to Mr Krishna who appeared that day for the defendant, that failure to comply with PTMC order will result in adverse consequences to the defendant’s counter-claim. 10. On 5.11.2023 the Court dismissed Enclosure 179 with costs RM1,500.00 to be paid within 14 days from the date of the decision. On this occasion as well, the Court reminded counsels who appeared for both parties to be ready for trial and no adjournment whatsoever S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 4 shall be granted since this matter had been outstanding for quite some time. 11. On 30.11.2023, through the e filing system, the defendant’s solicitors filed Enclosure 203, an application to withdraw themselves from representing the defendant in this claim. The application was fixed for hearing on 3.12.2023 i.e. the same trial date for the counter-claim. 12. On 3.12.2023, the plaintiff’s solicitors were in attendance. The defendant’s solicitor Mr Krishna was not present. Since Mr Krishna was a sole proprietor of Messrs Krish & Co, it was not expected that anyone else would turn up that day. In attendance was the defendant’s director one Jothi a/p Muniandy. Together with her in the courtroom were three other individuals who identified themselves as witnesses for the defendants. 13. Upon inquiry by the Court as to whereabout of Mr Krishna, Miss Jothi said she could not contact Mr Krishna. She was aware that today was fixed for hearing of Enclosure 179 and trial for the counter-claim. She said the defendant was informed orally by Mr Krishna 2 weeks before the trial date that he and his firm wished to withdraw from representing the defendant in this case. Miss Jothi said the defendant did not object to Mr Krishna’s request despite the fact the trial date loomed nearer. 14. The court told Miss Jothi that the Court intended to proceed with the trial and under no circumstances that it shall be postponed. Miss Jothi informed the Court that the defendant was not ready to proceed with its counter-claim because the defendant needed to appoint new S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 5 solicitors. Miss Jothi also informed the Court that the defendant needed time to find a new one. 15. The application for postponement was objected to by the plaintiff’s solicitors. They informed the court that they were ready for trial and they have four witnesses on standby. They also submitted that Enclosure 203 was just a tactic to delay the trial further, just like the stay application in the High Court and Enclosure 179. 16. The court disallowed the application for adjournment and proceed to dismiss the counter-claim with costs RM10,000.00 payable to the plaintiff. DELIBERATION AND DECISION OF THIS COURT 17. Order 35 r (3) Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) provides: 3 Adjournment of Trial The judge may, if he thinks it expedient in the interest of justice, adjourn a trial for such time, and upon such terms, if any as he thinks fit. 18. It is trite that the trial judge has a discretion whether or not to allow an application for an adjournment. The Court refers to Lee Ah Tee v Ong Tiow Pheng & Ors [1984] 1 MLJ 107 where the Federal Court laid down guidelines on granting or refusing such an application. In this case the trial judge refused the appellant’s application for adjournment that was made on the hearing day itself when the court had in fact adjourned the matter several times before, at the request S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 6 of the appellant based on various reasons. The Federal Court held that: “It can be seen clearly here that this is not really a case of refusing an application for adjournment but a case of refusing to further adjourn the hearing after a number of adjournments granted previously. If nothing else can be said in favour of refusing the adjournment on June 24, 1982 at least it can be said that the facts of this case with the numerous adjournments already granted should warrant the same sort of censure as was done in the recent Privy Council case of K Ratnasingam v Kow Ah Dek & Anor [1983] 2 MLJ 297. The discretion of the Judge to allow or refuse an application for adjournment was a subject dealt with in depth by the Court of Appeal in Dick v Piller [1943] 1 All ER 627. We agree to and adopt the following principles as regards the discretion in allowing or refusing an adjournment:- (1) Whether or not a party should be granted an adjournment is wholly at the discretion of the Judge. He would exercise the discretion solely upon his view of the facts. (2) Prima facie this discretion is unfettered. (3) The question to ask in any particular case is whether on the facts there are adequate or sufficient reasons to refuse the adjournment …” 19. The Court also refers to GM Star Trading Sdn Bhd v Wadoodun Corporation Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2840 whereby in this case the appellant’s solicitor was discharged by the Magistrate from representing the appellant a week before the trial took place. On the day of the trial the appellant was unrepresented and send a representative to appear before the Magistrate. It was made known to the Magistrate that the appellant needed 2 to 3 months to appoint S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 7 new solicitors and that they were not ready to proceed with the trial on that day. The respondent objected to the adjournment’s application. The Magistrate proceeded to hear and allow the respondent’s claim and dismissed the appellant’s counter-claim without calling any witnesses. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the said decision of the Magistrate. 20. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal and affirmed the decision of the Magistrate. The High Court held that: “[21] … The Appellant had to be represented by a solicitor in court as it was a body corporate. On the date of the trial, the Appellant had not appointed a new solicitor … [22] As the Appellant is a company, Order 5 rule 6(2) RoC requires the company litigant to be represented by a solicitor in court proceedings: “Except as expressly provided by or under any written law, a body corporate may not begin or carry on any such proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor.” [23] The law as per illustrated in the High Court’s decision in Jun Cheng Construction Sdn Bhd v Shazalis Construction Utara (M) Sdn Bhd [2015] MLJU 228 is that the effect of the Appellant in not appointing solicitor to represent them at trial, though a representative from the Appellant was present, was that the Appellant was not represented: “Semasa memerintahkan agar kes ini diteruskan (seperti mana dinyatakan di atas), saya telah mengambil kira Aturan 35 kaedah 1(2) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. Saya juga bersetuju dengan hujahan peguamcara Plaintif terpelajar bahawa walaupun wakil Defendan hadir tetapi dalam undang-undang, dia tidak dapat mewakili S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 8 Defendan kerana Defendan hanya boleh diwakili oleh peguamcara. Kesannya, Defendan boleh dikatakan tidak hadir dalam perbicaraan ini.” Further the High Court said: [26] … the Magistrate was correct in applying Order 35 rule 1(2) RoC as its first condition on the non-appearance of the party who is a body corporate is fulfilled. It is correct to have ruled in law that the Appellant did not appear when the trial for the action was called upon on 1.6.2022. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the Magistrate took the approach that the Appellant’s former lawyers were still on record on the reason that the faired order to discharge was not filed, nor sealed. As at the end of the day, the Appellant knew that its former lawyers had discharged themselves and had failed to appoint another for the trial. [27] ... In fact, the Appellant’s conduct on the day of trial showed that it did not take the case seriously - it sent a representative who came to court late who had again asked for a postponement of trial and had refused to proceed with trial. Neither did such conduct show any respect to the court proceedings. [28] To the argument by the Appellant that the Magistrate erred when she entered the judgment when no ex-parte trial was conducted, Order 35 rule 1(2) RoC that provided three options to the courts - the judge may proceed with trial in the absence of that party (ex-parte trial) OR without trial given judgment or dismiss the action OR make any other order as the judge thinks fit. [29] It was entirely up to the discretion of the Magistrate to exercise the options available. … 21. The Court finds the above case very instructive as the facts of that case are almost similar to this case. In this case, the defendant was S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 9 also a company which by virtue of O5 r 6 RoC had to be represented by a solicitor before it can carry on with the trial. The fact that the defendant’s director was present in court on that day did not amount to appearance or attendance. It means that the defendant was not present at the trial date. 22. To make the matter worse, the defendant’s solicitors Messrs Krishna Murthi & Assoc was still on record since Enclosure 203 was yet to be heard and disposed by the Court. Mr Krishna from the firm was not present for the hearing of Enclosure 203. The defendant’s director only said she tried to contact Mr Krishna Murthi but it seemed that he was missing in action on that day and did not pick up her call. 23. On 5.11.2023, when the Court delivered its decision on Enclosure 179, the Court had reminded the parties that the trial would proceed on the 3.12.2023 and no adjournment would be allowed. At that point of time there was not an inkling of indication coming from Mr Krishna who was present that day that he and his firm Messrs Krish & Co intended or had in mind to discharge themselves from representing the defendant. 24. The reason given by Mr Krishna in his affidavit in support of Enclosure 203 was that the firm was moving from its current location in Johor Bharu to Kuala Lumpur at the end of November 2023 and that it would be cumbersome for him to continue attending to this matter in Johor Bharu. Further he averred that 2 weeks prior to the filing of Enclosure 203, he had informed the defendant of his S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 10 intention. He further said that the defendant would not have enough time to appoint new solicitors for the trial. 25. In the Court’s opinion, the decision to move office from one location to another is a serious business and certainly does not materialize in one day. It would have involved careful planning ahead of time especially with regards to the clients’ brief and interest. The court is confident that the decision to move the firm was made much earlier than November 2023, which means Mr Krishna could have informed the defendant much earlier than what he averred in the affidavit in support. 26. Further the Court finds that his averment that it would be difficult for him to attend to this case after moving to Kuala Lumpur is also unconvincing. Kuala Lumpur is just 3 hours away from Johor Bharu by the highway and many solicitors or firms based in Kuala Lumpur have their cases and clients in Johor Bharu. The Court feels that in this age of highways and airways, distance is not an issue. Mr Krishna could have easily come from Kuala Lumpur to Johor Bharu to continue with this case. 27. The fact that he only informed the defendant at the last minute even though he knew that the defendant would need time to find a new solicitor before the trial date could either show his lackasaidal attitude towards this whole matter or that all of them colluded to avoid from proceeding with the trial on 3.10.2023. S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 11 28. The Court held that latter is the truth behind all this conundrum. This is fortified by the fact that Mr Krishna himself was missing on that day itself unable to be contacted. Had Mr Krishna attended court that day, the Court would definitely dismiss Enclosure 203 and directed the defendant to proceed with the trial. Thus in order to avoid that from happening, it was much easier if Mr Krishna did not turn up at all although his application or rather the firm’s application was still pending before the Court. 29. The Court is of the opinion that the defendant was doing all it can to avoid the trial of the counter-claim from proceeding for reasons known to them. If we looked at the chronology of events above, the defendant filed a stay application, a recusal application and now a discharge application just when the trial was about to take place when all of it can be done much earlier. 30. The fact that the defendant knew all about the trial dates which were fixed beforehand and still consented to their solicitors discharging themselves at the eleventh hour and failed to appoint a new one immediately only show that the defendant made light of the Court’s instruction and did not take the matter seriously. It also shows that the defendant had no respect to the court’s procedure. The Court is of the view that the defendant thought they could get away with the trial on the ground that they were unrepresented. But the defendant was wrong. The Court was yet to hear and dispose Enclosure 203. Thus, the defendant was still represented by Messrs Krish & Co and their solicitor failed to turn up. S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 12 31. Based on the above, the Court feels that there is no valid reason and justification for another adjournment of the trial. This is a 2018 suit and the counter-claim were in fact had been tried before (even though it was done ex-parte). The decision of the High Court was made in February 2023 and yet in December 2023, after all the case management sessions and applications, the trial still cannot take place. 32. Again, the court refers to GM Star Trading Sdn Bhd, supra, whereby it was held that by virtue of O 35 r 1(2) RoC the Court has three options when it comes to a situation like this. The court can either proceed with the trial in the absence of another party, without trial given judgment or dismiss the action or make any other order as the Court thinks fit. CONCLUSION 33. Since the trial is in relation to the defendant’s counter-claim only and the defendant as the claimant in the counter-claim was not present, the Court thinks it is fit that the counter-claim be dismissed with costs. The Court awarded costs of RM10,000.00 to the plaintiff. Enclosure 203 was also dismissed. S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 Grounds of Judgment 13 Dated 8th of February 2024 ………………………………… LAILAWATI BINTI ALI Judge Civil Sessions Court 3 Johor Bharu, JOHOR For the Plaintiff: For the defendant: Aida Hassan - G Ravi Messrs Krish & Co Messrs Aida & G Ravi S/N p4p3v/zwiEuSXKnoYeW2zA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-7-01/2023

PLAINTIF CHYE SIEW FOON DEFENDAN TAN AH TIANG

Claim by the plaintiff for a deceased’s undivided half share of a house – Counterclaim by the defendant that the grant of probate obtained by the plaintiff is tainted with fraud and deceit, and is in breach of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 – Absence of a residuary clause in the Will of the deceased – Whether the other assets of the deceased which are not disposed under his Will are to be distributed to the defendant and her son.

08/02/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ab56620b-e6c3-4dae-849c-78218c2ee336&Inline=true

08/02/2024 15:58:52 PA-22NCvC-7-01/2023 Kand. 33 S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N C2JWq8Pmrk2EnHghjC7jNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA-22IlCvC-7-D1/2023 Kand. 33 be/a2/202»: 13:59 32 \n the High Ccurl or Malaya in Penang In the slats a! Penang, Malaysua Cwll Sm! No. PAQZNCVC-7-D1/2023 aetween Chye siew Faun P\amMf And Tan An Tiang oevendam Grounds 0! Judgment mtmduchnn 1 The dispute harem concerns a Last VWIV and Tssfiamsnl dated 252017 (‘W'|'j that was executed by une Ang Huat cneng (“Daeoasnd') The Deceased was me regwsleved pvopnelor of an undmded nawsnare in a house sn-med al No. 65, Jalan Tasek Mulwava I, Bands! Tasek M-mars. s-rnpang Ampal. Penang 1“Sa|d House"). 2 The Plaunnfl ('9') was appomled as me execulnx and umsxee under the wm. On 10.7 2012;, P obtained a Grant oi Probate lmm me Penang Hwgh Cuurl .n o na|ing Summuns Nu PA—32Ncvc4ows/zma (“Grant :71 Puma! 3 3. P \s |he Iegwslered pwpnelorahhe onner undivided nawsr-are -n me Said House. In me Inslanl sun. P sought (or a dsdarauon that the Said House belongs to her mlely Ahemalwely‘ (or an omer man we ueoeaseds undwnded new share in the Saxd House he Iranslerred to ner. A The Deiendanl ('n') in «urn med 2: counterclaim against P Vn me counlerdawm, D saugm Var the tcuawung. (a) a declarauon mat me Gmm cl Pmhale daled ca 7 mm untamed by w x5 tamlad wnn wand and deuen wmmmed Dy P Funhsv, that m bmachao the Pluvmuns olma Pmbala and Admmlrlvahon Acl wsv. (I2) 1 declfimlmn «nu ma Demand‘: undmdld MW shave M the send Hans: and Mn vehufles n e a Memedes Benz and 3 Honda CMC1 me “two Vohlclos') are not mcmded as assas III we wm m be dwsmhmsd under |he w-H runner, lhanhuse asse1s «om van dune eslateoflhe Deceased And m czIwuIFmn.2EnHnmt:1:Nw «mm. snn ...m.mn .. U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! are In be mememeu in me ber\efu:\enes ca me emu er me Deceased. vvarvmy D and hvmn.aocnr\1\»g ue the law ovamnmmen. (c) in order men P and me Msvanl ems memes: m a eu matsmenls or ncommls and ducumams m velalmn In Ihe aexeue ov me vsiuvnm em eomens mamtawnud en Puhhc Bunk sea and Hong Lwng Bank and Including aueue acme money whmrawn am me «new lmnnce Mme send bank enemas. mud my mdamzgesiovfvaud em osunind breach evme pmvmonurflhl Pmbnle and Mmmume Am 1959, no nggva»/med damagsl and my exempmy damages 5. After a lull men, I dismissed P‘s clam. I men msmussed D's counterclaim Here are me grounds at my judgmem aeekgmund vague 6 D :3 the we ov me Deceased may were memed m Nuvenmer19a7. may have a son, who was born in March 2005. The Deceased passed away an 29 5 2015. Upon ms deem, me Deeeesed Vefl bemnd me ionowing assets: 4:» me eme eeeve an e muss sdualed il Na 1 Jelan Am Ru 2, Tamil: Mme Rm‘ Bukll Menagam‘ Panama ( Haun No. 1'), my me suture sham of e hnuse sueenea al No «a Lumwg Dean Cahaya Cl. Tamln nee. Cnhsya‘ Tamar: Des: Cahaya. Eu|u|MerIa1eme Penang‘ re) nn undhnded nan ihave m we see Hausa. my a Yamaha ugeme mmmtzyme beznng vegmuuee ne PMK 3949; (5) . mm. was vehicle Dealvvg mgevemn nu up sen, 17) e Memedsl em 0200 vshmle benrma remslralmn nu ma seen u e we ov me Twu Vahllfles)‘ [g] e Honda Cum 1 5 TC veme bearing regwslralxen no PMV new u 5 ans M the Two vemcmy, my mansy m e bank eeceem 3| Fubhc Bank arm, and (.7 money m e bank awuum at Hang Leone am am: The Grant o!Pmbale Q hg Pig Mf em czIwqsFmn.2EnHgmc'nNy 7 “Nana em lunhnrwm e. med e my e. nrW\n|U|Y MIMI dnuamnl VI mum v-ms! 53. under order 72 rule 213) ol the Rules ol court 2012, ‘A wm eegtnnm an aetttrn tor the rwecallon or the win! nl pvohlh at the wllt. or letters dledrntnlstratlon artne estate, ova d and purmn xlull net lre lsstud unless a clhllon under ml. 1 her be rt lulnd Dr the archaic nl letters at adrntnletratlen. us the me mly be, has or have been lodnld In In: RnuIIIry' 6A order 72 rule 7 of the Rules or Calm 2012 tn turn brnvldes: ‘M an lcuon luvlhn IIA/ncllilzn dtthe gum at prolme al the wlll, or letters L71 adrrllnletretlen er the estate at a deceased person, a eltatlon adatrtet the bereen te whom the prelme or letters ol adnllntsnettdn, as the use may be me Dr were gram: nqnlrinn hlm In hrlttu tnte and leave at the Re ry the prebnm ar letters ol adnltnlstratlen, as the can lrley b may be netted en the adnlleatlen or the plalrlmr 65 To my knowledge, nd such erta Dn under order 72 rule 7 ot the Rules at court 2ut2 had been Issued by D ag ‘nst F, reqdlrlng P to lodge the Grant of Probale at the Htgh Court Regislry. Nor has P depdslted the Grant of Probate at the Hlgh court Reglslry as secondly, D alleges that P had by way oHraud and deceit obtained the Grant at Probate ever the other asse|s dltthe Deceased whrch are not nlerltloned ln the Wlll Thls ls on the ground that P had lnsetted the Dsoeaseds undtvtded hell share at the sand Hduse and ttle Two Vehlcles ln the llet :71 assets that was filed ln the appllcetlorl tor a grant or probate Eu| that in rteelt, ln my vlaw, would no| nuttlty the Grant ul Probate. 37 In this regard, P explalnsd that the Grant dl Probate able ed by her was |o edrnlnister, whleh she dld, enly House Me. 7 This betnt was adnlttted by D tn cross examlnaltun ‘o I reter you to bundle M, lrateryeute ge tzn Nye: ardlsaaree wlrh nle From tzo, lt rhtms evanlullly the e ntltt tdat ednlnleter Number65 tor the deceased beredn-e wlll, enty l rephrase l repeat DK nledarn tan. l reter you la pigl 12a E4 by laokmg at thls serterat asset lhls hIl(Ir—bmIrlIalIa pesakn eerte Ianmurlggarl slntatl agree ol dlsagree The btalntltt. lint nlerely adnnrtlsrer Number seven, only when the plalntllte epely tar grant er probate let the last wlll at the deceased, agree A Yes‘ as D dtd no| rebut lhts pdlnt ND rE—examInaIlarl was rrlade tn respect cl D‘s atoresard answer to thus questlcn an czIwt;sFnln.2EnHghtc'nNy “ “Nair Smut luvlhnrwm ae t... e may he bflnlnnllly MVMI dnuavlml vn nFluNfl vwul 69 As regards the Two Vehivtes, P explained that they were not administered by her because the said vehicles were repossessed by the banks due to default at the hire purchase Iuan Recalt that the TWO Vehicles were not included tn the its! 0! assets In relation to the appttcatlon tor Letters ot Adrlltntsvatlon that was med by D. 70. t arii satistied that P had only administered House No 7 under the Grant ot Probate As such, D‘s altegatiori regarding troud arid deception pertaining to the Grant ot Pruhala is devnld oi inant Tt under the Grant ot Probate, F is obliged to taithtutty administer the Deceaseds estate and to render a iust arid tnie account thereol. It P has tailed to do so, then D might take action against P tor breach other duty as trustee at the Deoeassd‘s estate But that is not the pleaded case betore rrie b whether h ceased's undivided hattahare otthe i House and the Two vehictes are to distributed to the Detendant and her son — Mn 9 y ot prom-)edtrig§ 72 Nan, D sought tor a dectaratien that the Deoeaseds undivided hatt share or the said House and the Two vehicles are not included as assets in the will to be distributed under the will Instead, those assets torni part or the estate of the Deoeaaed And are to be distributed to the benericiaries of the estate oi the Deceased, riarnety D and her son, in aeoordanoe with the Distribution Act tau. 7:. tdectirie to grant such a declaration Because it ts and shoutd be the subiect matter ot the orooeedings tor Letters of Administration that had been lited by D hersett. As such, D‘: oounterclaini oonatitutes multiplicity or proceedings and ts tantamount to an abuse at oourts orooeas. 74 In her own words, D applied tor the Letters or Administration because the other assets in the estate at the Deceased had not been distributed D vmrits the Letters oi Administration in order to deat with all the assets not mentioned in the will And distribute them intestate in accordance with the Distribution Act 1955 75 The application tor Leflevs ot Administration by D was tiled earlier in August 2022. That apptication is still pending Now in this counteictaim Med abouts months tater in February 2023, D wants me to declare that the Deooaseds urtdtvtded halt share ol the said House and the Two IN ClIWt:BFmn.2ErtHgltlC7lNg “Nair a.n.i nuvthnrwttt a. HIQG In vuny i... nttgtruttly mthtn dnumtnrtl VI aFtuNQ pmut vehtctes, ie the ether assets in the estate at the Deceased, are to he distribu|ed to D and her son. 76 I wttl not grant such a oeetaratton because that is oroperty the subtecl matter at the proeeeotnga tor Letters ot Adm tstratton. whtett rs eurrentty pendtng By her own admtsstont D ts applying tor the Letters of Artnttntstration because the other assets in the estate at the Deceased had not been drstnbuteo And she wants In tttstntaute thent ttntter the authortty ct Letters o1Admtttts|ratt'ort. 77. Furtherntere, F 15 oppoetng D's apptteetton tor Letters ot Artnttntstrattort In so appustngt P canvassed the Iallowtng argurhents 73. As the trustee at the estate at the Deceased. P asserts that she ts empowered by secttcn 5 at the Dtstritrution Ant 1953 lo aorntntster the other assets at the Det:eased’s estate. Section 3 ot the Distrtbttttun Act tests reads where any person ates Ieavtng a ettt oenehetatty otspastrte at pan or hts DVoDer|Yt the Dvovtsrmts at thts Ant shatt have etrear as respeas the part or hts property not so tttstzosea or, sumsct lo the DIG‘/Iiwni eontatnaa tn Ins wttt Pvuvtdsd that the pmartat npnunlllivl shtttt. strtrteat to he lights Elnfl Dewar: ter the purposes at ldmtnlsilllton. ta a Intunn lot In! persons enr er: ttntter tttte rtet tn rupoet erttte pm er the osuln net uplusslv atsposea or untess rt appsats try the wtH that the persona: representatrtre ts ertttttert to take such part eenanoatty ‘ 79. P cited the t-ttgh court case at Lynette Met Lt Ponnratt v Lrrn Swes Gm [2018] 1 LNS 1446. In that case there was no restttuary ctause eontarneo tn the test wttt ot the tteeeased. The oetenoant oblatrted at grant at probate tn respect ot the properly whtch the deceased bequeathed to the oatenrtant. A quesltcn arose regardtng the p|atrt|tW‘s rntereets tn the restttttary estate at the deceased so. The High Court tn Lynette Met Ll (supra) amrrneo the detenoants aonttntetrettve Dwsr. The Htgh court sent. ‘The Deceased‘ wrtt apes not cater tor hrs restouary estate — rt has no restuuary ctatrse As sum assets at the estate that are not sasetttaatty beqnsalvtad or devtssd to anyone wrrt tatt wtthtn me arnmt or the Dlilnbulton Ac\1V5B sno be otetnettteo aceorotrra to the prettstrtnr L71 that net Ssdtun 2 also :11: am the eortsaquence 04 PNDBVIN5 or a aeeeasatt not otspeseo ttntter n ettt am the optrgatton pttntt persannt vepteumiltve the ten personat vepIEsertVal\ve' ts oettnect unoer seetten 2 er the Pmbate ano rtonttrttstrattarr rtet test: where tt ts statett snr c2Iwt:SFrttn.2ErtHnlttC1tNv ‘° «era. s.n.t luvthnrwm be u... In mm r... anttntttt urn. dnuavtml vn .rttttra v-nut ‘pmsonll llplssnmzllvd" mlllll ml Ixlcnlof ertgtnat or by tepreserttatrerr, eraarntrttstratattar the tttne being al a neoeaeea person, we as regards any rtaotttty tor the uaymenl cl aeath auttes mcludu my oereert who lakes puueumn et er mlermeddles wtth the prupofly at a deceased patsett wtthattt the attthettty etttte petsettat rswissnulrvex at the Count The Detemtattt ts the BXBCLIIIIX at the Isli|e at the Deeeasatt, rtawrg pmbahed the wttt and havmg entatttea a grim et prenate on the 29- at May znts Awaratr-gty the Dnflndlm, as IM s etttnx 01 mt bank of the mmsee atta Ihul pl on lepvesnllhllltlt. ts callililulld a tmme amt. mtttuary uni: tmtt. ttemsett tertrre eehertt al nttat atres the ptatrttttt by reasert attrta ptetntttrs entttterttent tmttar mttert B at the natntttnran AM was‘ as the lawful da\ISlh|e'r at the dwaassd “ st. Here, 1 retratn tmrtt makmg any detetnttnatrert regarding who ts ertttttett to adrntrtister the teetttuary estate at the Deceased. As that te the ettmect matter vi dtspule tn the praeeetttngs tor Letters otnttrtttrttstrattnn. 52 By the eerne taken. t woutd retrain tretn makmg any uectatatton that the Deeeaeeea undtvlded hatt share ol the sets House and the Two Vehicles rnust he dtsmbulsd to n and her SDVI As that should property be ueatt with in the pmoeedtngs tat Letters of Admlnlslralton. as Moreover‘ as tort te note party to the trtstant stttt If and when D ebtatrts the Lettets enxtttntntsttatttzrt, she may adm er the assets of the Deoeasetfs estate and dtslrtbule them awertttrtgty. That D has made a oottntetetatnt tor such a ueetatatttan, te my tntrta, ts a knee jerk teaettan in the acttort trtourtteu by P tn the trtstartt sutt. 34 I note that the two vetttctes were ummsd tram the Itst ot assets that was rtlee by D tn her eppttcatton tot Letters ul Aattttntetrattort. whether such omtssiun was ttettoerate ur madverlenl ts urtctear In etther case, tt cartnol be used as an excuse by D to seek a dectaratton trt reepeu at the Two vehtctes tn the trtstartt set as The tact that the pantes heretn have stayed the preaeedtrtga tat Lettets et /Ndmlnlslrallunt pending the atsaosal ol the tnstartt SUIL demonslrales that there ts rnutttpttetty at pmcssdmgs The arguments by P‘ as reterrea to above. have been pm tetttt trt the pmeeedmgs luv Letters of Atttntntettattort and are best addressed there as tt VIWSI be potrttea out that the judge heartrtg De appttcatton rot Letters orAt1tntrtstt-ettort eouta do one at two ttttrtgs He may dtspose ot the matter tn a summary manner. or he may dtvect that the ptovtatone at srn czIwt:sFrttn.zErtHgvttc7tNg “ «wet. s.n.t nuvthnrwm be ta... a my t... nflmruflly sun. dnuuvtml Vfl mutta Wm! Ordev 72 toontenttotrs probate prooee ' 33 ol the Rules ol court 2012 5)shat| apply. see omer7t rule c) whether the Plernml and the relevant banks are to sc1o§g to the Detenoant ttetatls ot the relevant hank acoeunta 87 Next. D sought for an order that F and the relevant banks titsclase to D all statements 01 accounts and documents in letatlun to the detalls M the relevant bank accounts malrllalned at Pubtlc Eank Ehd and Hong Leortg aantt BM 88 I consider lhls oounmrctaim to be nttsonncatvsd. Thls ls because B Is applying for Leltels 0| Adminlslratlah ln alder to atimlnlsler the other assets Of the Deceasecfs estate whlch were not disposed under the Will Indeed the bank accounts main ed by the Deceased at Public Bank Bhd ant: Hang Leortg Bank Ehd were lrlcluded In the net at assets that was trtett by D In oortnectlon with her applieatton tor Letters or Admlnlstraticlh 39 ll and when D ohtatns the Letters at Adnrrnrstratron. she would tnen have the standtrtg to wrrte to the banks drreotly tor oatatls at the relevant bank accounts. In her capaclty as the aonrrnistrator of the estate ot the Deneasedt D would be able to request the banks wnoerneo to dtscloae detatls at the relevant eentt accounts 90 Cunversety, if D dues net sueeeeo ln obtatntng the Letters ol Aorntntstrattun, then she wuuld not possess the authonty to request the banks concerned to dlsclose oetarls or the relevant bank aocounte. ln that event, B would not be entttled to the same at. srtherway, D cannot seek such an ontertrorn rne tn the lnslant sult She has no standlng at thls polht lh llme D has yet to obtatn Lelters 07 Adminlshatlon Whether she WI“ obtatn Letters at Adrvttntstrattorl ls of course a matter to be declded In the perldlhg pmosedtngs [or Letters of Adnrrntstratton. Thls again retrrtoroes my new that there ls muttlptlclly of prooeedtngs 92 It Is also penrnent that the atteetett banks. I e Puolte sent and and Hung Leung aantt Bhd, have not treen heard on the matter. ‘lo my knvwledge. the saro banks were net nutrneo at thrs proposed orderwhtch D Is seektrtg egarnst them I would hesrtate to oornpel the banks to dtsclase docurnertts and rntorrnatton without altordtng them an opportunity to be heard IN czIwosFntn.2EnHghtcnNg ‘5 «use s.n.t luvlhnrwlll r. t... In may r... nttnlnullly MIMI dnuavlnht VI nrlutta vmul d) Damageegz g gyme Delendanl 93 D sougm damages lor lraud and deded adrnmilled by P and luv nreacri oi me provisions dune Probate and Admlnlslralvon Acl 1959 Flrsl, D has not proven mar P mmmilled lradd and deoell or breach at me provisions at me Proaale and Adrnrnislranon Am 1959 As sum me question dlawarding damages agarnsl P does not zvlse second, D has nal pmven wnai damages she has surlered in shun, D has lalled to wave hum lialarlrly and duamurn oi damages. 94 Al paragraph 21 onne Amended Caunlerclslm, D Dlsaded as (allows “A5 a mwll ul ma hand and dean and me arenan al me dmvlsmns dune r-rdoaie and Admwmhatmn Au less cnmmllled ny ma Plalnllflr ma nelendani aa ma benfllcllly dime decensecfs esiaie slmemd low due as a vault of bllflg denied as a aenendiary la me immovable and mm/able aaaala dune deceased‘: ealale’ 95 D claims |o have sullered luss as a beneliciary or me ealale al lhe Deceased ii 50. perhaps her claim rnrgm be framed on me aaars al a dream oi F‘s duty as the lmslee oi the Deceaseds eslale. But lhal is rial me pleaded case oi D VI me insrani suit 96 AI paragrapn 22 OHHS Amended Counlerclaim, D pleaded as fulluws ‘Fmlher. me neiendani iaaes dmlcdiny In ohlalmng Denali ac Admrmanrainn M Orlglrmlmq Summons No PAa31NCvCa6l?74)8I2022 due in ma IIIJOVI man (he Plalnlllhmenuonalry and wmrlgfully ralduad In agree ~ 97. De application lor Lellevs oi Adm lurallcn is at caurse me sumecl maner oldispule In the pending pmceedmgs [or Leners c1AdmlnlsIrallorl. The queanon olwhelher nlermonally and wmnglully reldaed id agree’ does not arise for delelmlnallorl in the instant suit 95. D lunher aodgm aggravaled and exemplary damages. in suhmlssiuns, D requested RM50,0DD lor aggravaled damages and rwisomc lor exemplary damages. on me (acts oi me presenr case, i consider agglavaled and exemplary damages to be unwarraniad as mere are no exceptional clrcumslances |o pusllly the same. Conclusion 99 For the reasons above, I nnd Lhal P has not pruven her case on a balance 0! pmbshllilies l merelore drsrnrssed l='s claim I alsu dismissed am czIwdsFmn.2EnHdmcnNg ‘5 “Nana s.n.i nuvlhnrwlll a. d... a may r... nflnlrullly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl aFluNa Wm! D's cmmlemlsvm as n was hkewnse nnl Dmven on a bs\ance of pmnahixmes sme ham pa as am not succeed m msirrespecnve claims, \ mdered them |u bear men own costs Daced 21 November 2023 £ Quay Chew Soon Judge High com 0! Mamya‘ Penang own Dmsion NCVC 1 Counsel: um an Leone and um Ee menu (Messrs Lrm 5 Lrml mum ma-mm Aug Khoon Chaang‘ Ham: Nabwla bum mm and cwng Gm vs. (Messrs on Aug 5 company) «m cm navsnaam sm c21wusFmn.zEnHnm::1:Nw " «mm. sm-1 nanhnrwm .. H... w my .. mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum W sw cuwqaPmmzEnHmc1:Nv «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 1 In me the Deceased bequeathed Huuse Md 7 la P sdtety and absotutety There is no restdusry clause tn tne wttt 3. As the appdmted executnx and trustee at the wtu, P epptied tor a grant t-A probate we an Ortgtna|Ing summons dated 6 s.2cta tntttetty, F speemed Heuse Me 7 only In tne hsl etassets tnat was med In connectmn with tne apptrdatidn tor a grant or propate 9 suhsequentty by way at at supptementary Amdevtt dated 13 6 2015. P added otner assets at the Deceased wtucn were not mertltoned tn the wttt. Namety tne Deceaseds undmded natt snare M tne Satd House and the we Vehictes, as pan at tne estate at tne Deosased. Thg and House (house no 6§ to The Deceased purcnased tne Sand House someltme tn 2003 through a housmg loan tmm Cmbsnk Bhd ‘me sad House was regts|ered tn the Deceaseds name as me sate dwner. A charge an the Sam House was created In tavpur ot Ctllbank and The sad Ctltbank housing tean taken by me Deeeased was paid an in zone The dnarge on tne Satd Hnusewas cunseqttenlly dtscharged In zone 11 P came to own an undtvtded new share at the Said House when tne Deceased gave tne same to ner tnrougn a need at Glfl dated 24 5.200. 12 In 2011. the Deceased and P dptamed a teen trcrn Puhllc Bank and Tne Satd Hduse was pm up as seeunty td Public Eank and Tne prior challenge by the Delendant agamsr me Will 13 D attempted te enattenge tne vettdtty at tne wttt tn edurt Vtde Peneng Hugh ceun cm: sutt Na. FA»22NCvC-20942/2021. D soupnt tar a declaralton tnat tne WiH dated 2 52017 IS mvahd And tnat sne ts |he ngnttut executnx and trustee dt tne Deoeaseds estate acoordtng la a WIN dated 9 12 2013 made by the Deceased W D contended tnat tne Deceased eoutd not have stgned on the Wm dated 2.6.2017 and tacked testamentary capactly.Am1 that there was an eartter wttt dated 9 12 2013 made by tne Deceased, bequealhtng all of ms assets to D, wntcn snoutd take precedence 15 On 23 3 2022‘ P med an spdltcatton Io slrtke out the storesatd eaten The grounds set out tn tne Mrtktrtg out scltort were tnese. P evened tnat IN c2Iwt:BFrnn.2EnHnIttC1tNv 3 “Nate s.n.r IIJVVDIVWW .. u... e mm r... pflmnuflly en. dnuanml VI mum we the Grant at Probate obtained by her is valid and subsisting And mat no application has ever been made to set aside the Grant at Probate P aiso evened thal D's action IS barred by res yudicata This is because lhe Court or Appeal has mied that tne wiii dated 2 a 2ot7 is valid in civii Appeai Nu P—D2(NCvC)(A)-475-D3/2020. 16 The next day on 29 3.2022‘ D tried a notice or discontinuance at her action, but with titrerty to file a1resh.t= objected to liberty tor D to file atresh and insisted on costs 17. on 5.4 2022. the atorememinned iegal aclmn by D was struck nut by the Penarig High Court The minutes on the cms (case Management System] retieets the icilowtng ‘Mahkamah » Pihaiepinati nadir urituk ndinh alas kns dart isu pemtaiiari selviula Kes fllbalalkan ttsrigan kus RM1i50fl no kznafla Detendan * The Ending gfleadings fol Letters or AdmmI§Iatmrl tzy the Deleriderit in D is presontty In the process ot obta ing Letters oi Administration to the estate at ttie Deceased n respect at the assets not mentioned or bequeathed to anyone in the witi on 95.2022, D filed an apptlcatlon to obtain Letters et Administration via Pertarig g|'i Court originating Summons Me FAr31NCvC-697-08/2022 19. In the said application, D listed the Deceaseds undivided hatt snare oi the said House as one oi the assets at the Deceeseds estate to be administered. For reasons much are not apparent, the Two vetiiotes were not included in the list of assets 20 D says that she appiied tor Letters oi Attmtnlstratlon because the other assets oi the estate at the Deceased had not been distributed D wants the Letters oi Admin sti-attori in order to deal with all the assets not mentioned in the wiit And distribute them intestate in aeoordanee with the law at distribution‘ presumabiy the Distribution Act 1955 2t F‘ intervened In the abovemertttoried proceedings for Letters at Administration Thereahel P mmrvtericsd the instant suit against D on ta.t.2u23 By ecrtserit. parties stayed the pmeeedirigs tor Letters ot Adm sti-aliarti pending the uutcume DI the instant sutt Issue tor detenninatiah rn o2rwan=ninzenn.n.or.n, “Nat: s.n.i mmhnrwiii be in... e vuny i... nrtgiruiily mihil dnuuviml VI .rionn pmui 22. The crux of the case can be dsuued to one prlncxpal Issue Nameh/. Whelhev the Wamllfl Is enlvlled to the Deceased‘: undivided hall share 0' the Sald House‘ [7 e Kern no 2 07 the ‘Issues In he Tned' dccumenl and revealed In «em no. 3 cnerevn 23. My answer we no. «or me «ouewmg reasons: An) me Deceased: undmded new share dc lhe Sam House was not hequeexhed In P under mewuu (D) P received an nndlmdad new share only In In Sam House undev me Deed ul em‘ and Ac) u was nednev weaned nor maven hy P that In: Deceased new rns undnnded new share ollhe Sand House on wsum P 24. Here we my explanamn. a The Deceaseds undwmed haw share In me Send House was no! m gglhgg :1 me Wawrmfl under me Will 25 The cperauive document here is me wm The Deceased uwns an undwided haw share onhe Sawd House He could have made Dmwsmn lar n under the wm. But nolmng ws menuoned m me Wm conoermng lhe Sam House. 23 In me wm, me Deceased stipulated Ihat House No. 7 x5 |c be gwen lo P am naming Is said about me dislnhulmn dune Saxd House. or (or lhal manen any unhe other assets of me Deceased 27 The relevant Dmvlsxcn ws dause 5 oi the wm which reads *5 lghre dense and aequeun my ennre shave .n 3 unn cl duuma storey bunaalowheannw aswssmenladdvessm 7, Ja\an Nma me. YamanAlma ms, 14000 sum Manaam, Pulau Fmang hem under Gavan No 159057 (pravwuusly known ai Hakmlhk Samumara No H sun) 54313 Lot Na 19521, Mukwm 15. Dlemh Sebeving Perl: Yengnh. useen Pmau Pvnahg limo Chye Swew Faon wmc Na 57099442-seat) smew and ahsclmelyf 2a The Deeeased ounher expressed that ms a|her heirs shomd have no dawn to House Na 7 As he had pmwded for them suflwcwemly m ms hlewne Here agam‘ nothing Is expressed m le\a|iun|u|I1e Sawd House. 29. clause 5 av the wm reads SIN c1IwuIFmn.2EnHnNC11Nv 5 «us. send! nmhnrwm .. u... e my .. mnuu mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-ms! 5 As in my mneI DSMSL I am my lave and lflawan In IneIn and I daclava that I have pnmded suI«:IeIIIIy IarIIIenI dunno my me IInIe and IneIsIuIe. Iney srIaH have no cIeInI vmalxoever In Ine above prommy under my ss|a|a‘ so The InIen II o! Ihe Deceased Io gwe House ND 7 |a F Ie dear EquaHy II Is clear IIIaI mere Ie nolhmg InaI was declared cnncermng Ine saId House in me wIII. 31 ms Is even more so gwen me aheenee ol e reslduary clause in Ina wIII. A IesIduaIy clause is a devise in a wIIl wIIIcII allows a Ieslalar In mepese oune IenIeInIng assevs under me esIaIe whnch ere noI specIIIcaIIy provmsd rm In Ine will 32 The I=ederaI Cam! In Dawd wee Eng Srew (admInIsI1sIoI Io the esrare o1LI'n Eang Tee, deceased) VLVN Lean seng & Arm! (as executors and rrusrees orme eaIaIa amm Eow Thoon, deceased) (2613) supp ML! 50 eI 53 had IIIIs Io say concemmg a resIduaIy cIause 1191 To OVBVCOWB any unfinuhed bus/Hess onesaueI property a IegeI melllod may 00 d.vIs.I1.a by me uaaga ovprovmons In In. mu c.II.d III. rasII1uaIy or rvsvdua clauae whereupon the romawwvg pmpmy ml] n. Imposed or Now In. nsvdunty 01541391510 be wumtd and given me necssaary mean/ng ormtuntrorv mu be Isl! In my Ingsnuw em nnlovor nIs soIIcIIoI Sum a nsldulry cllun en-I-rm Ilfldrvsus my mII.InIng pmperm arm an In. ems, Ines sxpanavs. and spemfic bequests end devrses haw [nan IIIIIy ssnslied ms ruxldulry clnuse easures Mal rm flmslmflif of Mu 1-nltofs pmplrw I; dindband In [In p-Ieen orplrsom Irclntnnds In bequest" 33. Here, lhere Is no pro smn In me wIII to me eIIecI IIIaI Ine Deceased has hequeemed III; un ded new share of Ihe saId House to F Nur Is Inere e reemuary clause me Will ms InusI mean IhaI Ine Deceaseds undwided IIaII snare In Ine saId House does run IzeIong Io P solely D) Tne I=IaInII« renewed an und vIded nan sngg gnly In me saId House under me Deed I21 GIII 34 AnoIIIeI sIgIIIIIcanI lac| Is IIIaI Ine Deceased onIy made a gm M an undIuIded new share In Ine said House In F’ Inmugn Ine Deed oIGIII aaIed 24 Ia.zuI7. I! II nad been me InIenIIen {or P |a own me sad House ahstllulely, Ine Deceased muld have easI|y gwan Ihe enIIIe saId House In Plhsn am ne dm rIoI dn so am ClIWI:BFmn.2EnHglIIC7INy 5 «we. SnI1|InuvIhnrwIHI>e UIQG e may I... nrW\ruU|Y unn. dnuumnl Vfl nFIuNfl WVM 35 In the Deed ot em. t| ts plath that the Deceased gtfled onty an ttntttvtaett hatt share tn the Said House to F And kept the other unomoed halt share at the Said House tor htmsett as stntttarty tn the WI rt ts plain that the neoeasett are not bequeath hts undivided hett share ot the sattt House to F upun hts death. As that name etherwtse have been spett out by the Deceased in the WIII c tt was not gleaded nor preven by the Ptatnttft that the Deeeagd hetd ht§ undivided hatt share tn the Sam House on trust tor the Ptatntttt 37. At paragraph 4 ot the statement otctatrn, F ctatnts that ‘all matters tn retatton to sale and pumhase, bank luant repayment ul toan, ntatntenanee and repatr of the Said House are handled sotety by her“ 33. At paragraph 7 at the statement at ctetm, P avers that 11 who has never cctntrtbttled hnanctatty pr through etton tawants the Satd House. does not have any nght agatnst the same and theretore hatt wmngty tnetuaed the sato House tn the Ltst ot Assets tn the applluatinn at Letters at Admtrltstratton". 39. At paragraph a at the statement at Ctalmt P asserts that she ‘as the registered owner and raspnnstbte party to the sets House, as wet: as the persun whu has been oonlrtbullng nnanctatty or ethetwtse to the the Satd House, ts entttted to the same“ 40. On that basts, paragraph 9 0' the Statement of Claim pleads that "the owrtershtp at the Séltd House petengs to F sulelf 41 It is not clear on what pasts P ts taytng alarm to the Deceasetfs undtvtded hatt share tn the satd House Atthough P pteadsfl that she has contrtbuled financially to the satd House. P tailed to plead the extstenee at any form at trust To wtt, that the Deceased hotos his undivided hatt share at the Satd House on trust I e resutttng or conslvucllve trust fur P 42 In the statement of Ctalmt F ttttt not prey tor a aeetarstton ot a resuttrng ur oonstruettve trust that the Deeeasett hotos hn. undivided halt share at the Satd House tn her tavour tt that ts P‘: ease, tt pught to be susotncatty pleaded and prpyed tor tn the statement or ctatm 4: F ts bound by her pleadings. (See the Federat Court case ot Samue/ Natk sang nng V Pupttt: Bank Bhd 12015) 5 cm 944 at sea) tt ts not open to me te make a findmg tn tavour at P on resutttng or constructtve 7 IN c2IWuBFrnn.2EnHnNC1tNv “Nair Smut navthnrwm s. u... e vslty r... nttmhnflly MIMI dnuavtml VI artuttfl vtmxt lmsl, wnen such was nol pleaded by P 1See|he ooun ol Appeal ease ol Herrrage Grand Vacalron Club and v Paclru: Fantasy vacalion Sun End (2016) 1 CLJ 679 at page 652) 44 As ll was never P's pleaded case lhal a lrusl ol lne Deceased‘: undwu-led hall snare ol lhe Sald House exlsled ln ner lavour, F has railed lp make our a clalm lorlne same 45 Moreover, F has nol pmven lhal any such lruslexisled. The punthase ol lne Sald House was made solely oy lne Deceased Hvnugh e neusrng loan lrprn cruoank and back in zoos The sale Clllbarlk loan was lully pals on by me Deceased in 2005 P made no lrnancral corllribu|iDn lo lhe purchase ol the Sabd House. 45. The Puplrc Bank loan laxen by both me Deoeaseo and P In 2017, in wnrch the Sand Huuse was pul up as collateral‘ opuld nor have grven P any enllllerrrenno the Deeeaseds undlvlded hall‘ snare ollhe Sand House Even rl P rnade payments on me monlnly rnslallrnenls ol the Fuollc Bank lean alter lne demlse or lhe Deceased. 47 P pmduosd payrnenl slips as evldence lnal she had made paynrenls towards me Publlc Bank loan However, |hass payments occurred aller the death pl me Deceased 4: Aller the passing ol lne Deceased, lne estate onhe Deceased and P are lolnlly lraole lor lne oulslanolng Puolrc Bank lean. P cannot lay clalm lo me Deceaseds lmdlvlded nall snare ol me Sald House slrrlply because she luck It upon nerselr lo oonunue payll1g|I'le rnonlnly lnslallrnenls, 42 sunrlarly, lhe upkeep pl me sard House by P would not enmle ner lo lhe Deceaeeos undwrded hall share rn lne Said House The upkeep pl a propeny by the owners allhe propeny somelnrng lnal is to oe expeded so l agree wrln D lhal a lplnl owner cannot clarrn another lolnl owners rnleresl in lne properly merely by mainlalmng the propeny. ll lhls ls the case, a jolrll Dwner oan sunply lose his reglslereo lnleresl ln lne properly lo anolner lolrll owner oy no more men me an pl lhal lolnl owner ln rnalnlerrung lhe propeny Such eannol oe lne pcsmorr ol lne law 51 For me reasons appue, P's claun lo lne Deceaseds unfllvlded nall share ol the Sand House ls Imsuslalnable l move on (D deal wlln D's ccurllenialm. ru czIwesFnm.2EnHpnlc'nNp «mu. s.n.l luvlhnrwlll r. u... u my r... nflglrullly urn. dnuavlml VI .nuuo we The Deterrdan 's couhtercla’ 52. To recapitulate, n tn her oourrtercierm against P suugm tor the tottowrhg retreta tar a dectarehen that the Grant ni Pmhale dated 10 7 ants omatned by P Ii tainted with «retro and deceit committed by P, and tr ill breach ot the Dmvtstans at the Pmbale and AdmthIs|ia|ton Act rose. to) a declaration that the Deceased 5 undrvtdod hart shit: at the Said House and the rwd Vahtulsi an m:| tmfludted as assets in the WM In be fltslrthuted kmdov the Will instead, than assels rbnh nan M the estate ul the oaeaaaad And arete be batntarrted |a the aenerrarartesotthe estate otthe oeeeaaed nantety o and her son. In aoourdartua with the Dtitnbuluzrt AL1 tees. tut an order that F and in. ratavant banks drsctesa (D D detarts al the reievanl bank auwurtts maintained .I| mire Bank am and Hnhg Leohg Eahk aha, and hat (I) damages lnrhaud and decattand breach ettna prourrronsotthe Pmhate and Administration I\c|1U59‘{HJiggVlvl|Ed damages and (iii) exemplary damage: 53 I will deat with each in mm a) whether the Grant ot Probate ghfiifled by the Ptaihtrtt is tainted with trend and deceit eommttted b the Palm! and re chad the rovtstons of the Probate and Aunt trattorr Act 1959 54 D sought tor a declaration that the Grant at Probate dated 10.7 2915 obtained by P is tatnted with hand and deoett wmmtlled by P. and Is in breach oi the prov ns oi the Pruha|e and Adrrtrhtstratrort Act 1959. However, D did not spectfy which pmvtsiun(s) or the Probate and Aflmtrttslrauon Act 1959 was suoposedty breached 55 I oonsrder this oounterctatm to be miseancetved tor the tottowthg reasons Frrstiy, the Grant or Pmba|e was oblairted by virtue at P having proved the will The Grant ul Probate and the vtntt goes hand in hand The Grant at Probate would not have oonre intu place it not tor the writ. 56. D had chatten ed the vattdtty oi the win in an earlier acltun Via Penang High Cuurl ct |Sui| No FA»22NCvC-209-12/2021. However, her action was struck out by the Penang High Court Further, in yet another suit Dewveen the pants‘: hevetn vtde Pertartg High court civil suit No PA- 9 am czIwt$Fmn.2EhHgh‘c7‘Ny “Nair s.n.t lurthnrwm a. tr... e vufiy r... nhgtrtuttly MIMI flnuartnrtt VI artuha pom! 24NCv<>B2~D1/2019, wmdlr went up an appeal Ihe com or Appeal had ruled Ihal lhe Will ls valrd 57. clearly. me valldlty omre wlll is a rrranermal has been finally declded and cannol he re-lmgaled The Order of the court or Appeal dated 14 7 2021 m Clvll Appeal No P-D2(NCvC)1AH754I3/2020 slales: -la; Waslsl Ang Husl Chang‘ 5: ma|l yang bsrlarlkh 2 Jun zmv ma lah muklamad dan Parayu‘ Chye SEW FDDH mo K/P fl7n%4'D25sM) memnakan blrlaflslarl yang sa» dan mullak Keoada Hznanah t.evsabu\.' 53 wdn regards lu me Granl M Fmbaler me pusllion dl a Is wnlusing Tn be clear, mere ls no relrel prayed ldr by n lo revoke me Gram 01 Pmbale. Nevenheless, ll seems lo me Ihal a necessary consequence 01 N19 Gram Ol F‘l'0ba|e belllg lalllled by (read and dscsll oommllled by P and In breach of (he pro»/Islons of me Probate and Admlnlslrallon AC1 1959, as alleged by D, >5 lhal ll must be revuked 59 D admmed as much an paragraph 12 cl lhe Amended Detenoe and Amended Cnumemlalm. Wham she averred Ihal “me Gram‘ ur‘ Probate was glverl lrl breach of me provislorls under me Pmnale and Admlnislratlon Ad 1959 and ls lharslors null and void". In pleadlng Ihal the Gram ol Pmbale VS ‘null and vold'. D ls easenually saymg lhal me Gram ol Prebale ougm ll) be vevaked. so. A revocallon M a gram a1 pmba|e ammmls to a ednlenuaus probate acuon under order 72 ol the Rules dl Cuun 2012. Order 72 rule 1(2) nl me Rules at Court 2012 demnes ‘probale action‘ as lollams ‘lrl lhuaa Rnlts, 'vml7aIe acuarr means an mm «or In; glam av nmbsle dune mu dr lelrers dl admmlsllallun dl lhu anala. dl a demsed person or rar me mouuerr M men a gram drvdr a decree drdrrdrmrrd ldror agzlrlsl ma valldlly 0! an alleged wlll‘ ml dmrrg an acllon which rs mn—corllerl|lous' 51 As lar as I can lell, me rnalanl sull ls nm a comerrlidus probate aclldn ms ls because me requlremenls penalnlrlg lo a conlerlllous pmbale acllon, as sel out m order 72 rule 2 ol me Rules ol com 2012. have ndl been cdrrrplied wllh e2. The wnl In me mslanl sull was rrul “endorsed wrm a elalemenl ollhe nalure nl me lnleresl cl the plamull and at me delendanl ln me estate ol me deceased lo men we acliorl velales“ (see order 72 rule 212) dl me Rules dl cdun 2012) m czIwqsFmn.2EnHgmcnNy “Nana Saul luvlhnrwlll r. d... a M, r... mruury mm: dnuavlml VI aFluNQ pmul

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023

PEMOHON URS ELLER RESPONDEN CHEONG KIAT WAH

This Court allowed the Plaintiff to avail to the right of reciprocity by granting the registration of the validly obtained Singapore judgments. See Marina Bay Sand Pte Ltd v Wong Kah Hin [2017] 1 LNS 680; [2017] MLJU 491. This Court was satisfied that all the processes and procedures were complied with. The Defendant must make good all sums owed of which jurisdiction on this side of the Johor Straits would not shield him from.

08/02/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=261a8444-d9cd-4198-96ad-2816ea83e3fe&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 BETWEEN URS ELLER (SINGAPORE PASSPORT No: X8097860) …. PLAINTIFF AND CHEONG KIAT WAH (NRIC NO: 780416-14-5669) .… DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Enforcement of Judgments from the High Court and the Appellate Division of the High Court – both from the Republic of Singapore [1] In this application, this Court came to see man's endless capacity for evasion of responsibility and liability. The Plaintiff, having had established in open court across the causeway clear rights to payment 08/02/2024 15:00:17 WA-24NCvC-4294-09/2023 Kand. 20 S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 due, found itself chasing the debtor (Defendant) on these shores to extract what has been decreed judicially as the Plaintiff’s. The Defendant who had yet satisfied his legal obligation, had employed what this Court opined as unsustainable objections to the Plaintiff’s application to register the judgments from the Republic of Singapore (Singapore). On 24.1.2024 after hearing arguments from counsels representing both parties, allowed the Plaintiff’s application to register the following judgments from Singapore as Judgments of the High Court of Malaya pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99) (REJA): 1. Judgment of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore – Case No. HC/C176/2019 where it was adjudged that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff: (a) judgment dated 10.11.2021 for RM3,032,233.25; (b) judgment dated 6.12.2021 for SGD97,000.00 which is equivalent to RM299,759.10; (c) judgment dated 22.2.2022 for SGD39,350.00 which is equivalent to RM122,264.39; (d) judgment dated 6.4.2022 for SGD4,000 which is equivalent to RM12,405.60; (e) judgment dated 4.5.2022 for SGD18,344.00 which is equivalent to RM57,880.82; S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2. Judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore Case No. AD/CA 126/2021: (a) judgment dated 26.4.2022 that affirmed the judgments in Case No. HC/S176/2019 above and for SGD10,000 which is equivalent to RM31,713.00. 3. Interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum for the sums above in the sum of RM350,208.33; 4. The Defendant is at liberty to apply to set aside this registration within 14 days of service upon him in Malaysia of such notice of such registration pursuant to Order 67 Rule 7 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC0 if the Defendant has grounds for so doing, and execution upon the said judgment will not issue until the expiration of that period or any extension of the period granted by this Court, or if an application be made to set aside the registration, until such application has been disposed of; 5. Costs of RM5,000 is awarded to the Plaintiff subject to allocator. [2] The Defendant has appealed against this Court’s decision. Here has yet to be a draft order filed. The said judgments above from Singapore have yet to be registered. The material background facts [3] The Defendant is a Malaysian citizen with his last known address at No 29 Jalan 4/149L Bandar Baru Sri Petaling, 57000 Kuala Lumpur. In 2021 and 2022 the Plaintiff obtained the said judgments from Singapore S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 against the Defendant. The judgments from the High Court of Singapore were validly obtained and the Defendant was ordered on 10.11.2021 to pay to the Plaintiff equitable compensation of RM3,032,233.25. Costs of SGD97,000 was ordered on 6.12.2021 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Additionally, on 22.2.2022 the Defendant was ordered to pay to the Plaintiff SGD39,350 as fees relating to the Plaintiff’s expert witness and miscellaneous expenses. There was a further order on 6.4.2022 for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff costs of SGD4,000. And on 4.5.2022 the Plaintiff was awarded disbursements in the amount of SGD18,344 which the Defendant was ordered to pay. This was never disputed by the Defendant. [4] In fact, the Defendant had appealed against those judgment sums to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore. His appeal was dismissed on 26.4.2022 whereby the orders of the High Court were all affirmed. The Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal in the sum of SGD10,000. The records show that the Defendant had to deposit SGD20,000 as security for costs of the said appeal. [5] The Plaintiff had initially sought to register the said judgments of the Singapore courts, but it was struck out on 7.8.2023 with liberty to file afresh. Hence this application. As at the hearing of the arguments of this application, the Defendant had yet to satisfy the judgment sums affirmed by the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore. The Plaintiff’s application [6] The law under s4(1) REJA allows the plaintiff to seek an application within six years after the date of the judgment – here they were all within S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 the required time limit. The judgements at the Singapore courts were granted on 10.11.2021, 6.12.2021, 22.2.2022, 6.4.2022 and 26.4.2022 and 4.5.2022. This application was filed by the Plaintiff on 25.9.2023. The judgment sums were not satisfied by the Defendant. [7] Singapore is listed as a reciprocating country in the First Schedule of REJA. The judgments were also from the court prescribed which is the High Court of Singapore. Order 67 Rule 2 RoC was complied with as this application was made via originating summons. The judgments from the Singapore courts exhibited were certified true copies – Order 67 Rule 3(1)(a) RoC was complied. As with Order 67 Rule 3(1)(b) Roc that required the name and last known place of abode of the judgment creditor (Defendant). The Plaintiff had stated the details required by Order 67 Rule 3(1)(c)(i)-(iv) RoC – that the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the judgments as they remained to be satisfied. The Plaintiff had stated that the Singapore judgments were not within any of the cases in which they may not be ordered to be registered under s4(2) REJA. It was also stated that the Singapore judgments could be enforced by way of execution in Singapore, and that if they were registered, they would not be liable to be set aside. The amount of interest was specified – RM350,208.33 that is mandated by Order 67 Rule 3(1)(d) RoC. For easy reference, the Plaintiff had exhibited the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 which provided the calculation of interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum. [8] As to the amount which the Singapore judgments sums represented in Malaysian Ringgit, they were stated pursuant to calculation at the prevailing exchange rate at the date of the respective Singapore judgments. Thus, the requirement under s4(3) REJA and Order 67 Rule S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 3(2) Roc were complied with. The Singapore Rules of Court 2014 were enclosed that showed how the Singapore judgments could be enforced by way of execution in Singapore. So were the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 of Singapore – all of which fulfilled Order 67 Rule 3(4) RoC. [9] As the Singapore judgments are valid debts outstanding owed by the Defendant that could be sued upon, the Plaintiff submitted that they ought to be recognised and registered to affirm the principle of international conformity and substantial reciprocity between the nations as statutorily provided under REJA. Reference was made to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mann Holdings Pte Ltd & Anor v Ung Yoke Hong [2019] 6 CLJ 475; [2019] 8 MLJ 186 where it expounded REJA at para 59: “The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 Is specific legislation enacted by Parliament to confer specific jurisdiction on the Courts to register Judgments given the superior Court of those reciprocating countries listed in the First Schedule to the Act. The whole basis of the Act starts with the concept or principle of comity and substantial reciprocity between nations.” The Defendant’s objection [10] The only objection the Defendant argued at length was the exchange rate used for the judgment sum of SGD18,344 awarded on 4.5.2022. The Plaintiff had produced the exchange rates provided by our Bank Negara Malaysia on its website. The exchange rates for 29.4.2022 and 5.5.2022 were published but nothing in between. For 29.4.2022 the S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 exchange rate was SGD1 to RM3.1510. For 5.5.2022 the exchange rate was SGD1 to RM3.1553. The Defendant insisted that the exchange rate used should have been the higher one on 5.5.2022 because it was the nearest date to the judgment of 4.5.2022. As such, the Defendant insisted on paying RM57,880.82 not the lower amount claimed by the Plaintiff of RM57,801.94. [11] This Court did not see that as a reason to defeat the Plaintiff’s application. After much argument, the Defendant confirmed that it took the position that it should be the higher exchange rate of 5.5.2022. This Court hence allowed that figure to be registered as the judgment sum of the High Court of Malaya pursuant to REJA. The Defendant thus for the judgment sum of SGD18,344 was required to pay the equivalent of RM57,880.82. [12] It must be stated here that this Court did not allow the admission of the Defendant’s further affidavit as pleadings were closed and submissions already filed. Moreover, the Defendant’s further affidavit sought to address his objection as to the exchange rate that ought to be applied, facts of which were already before this Court to properly determine. [13] The Defendant had also raised the matter that negotiations for settlement were conducted amongst the parties. It was argued on his behalf that the Defendant had the intention to settle the judgment sums. The Defendant had deposited a part payment of RM5,000.00 as a gesture of goodwill that was not accepted by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had explained that after the wait over a period of time since the judgments in 2021 and 2022, it required the full payment of the sums owed. As such S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 the Plaintiff had not credited the said RM5,000.00 payment although it was not yet returned to the Defendant. [14] This Court opined it was a trivial issue of which the Plaintiff was ordered to set off the said sum of RM5,000.00 when it collected the balance of the judgment sums from the Defendant. [15] The Defendant had raised objection on the accuracy of the calculation of interests on the judgment sums but his affidavit was devoid of this matter. As such, this Court took it that the Defendant had accepted and admitted the fact as they were unrebutted. This Court did not allow submissions on the same from the bar during the arguments (the Court of Appeal’s decision in See Kok Kol v Chong Kui Seng & Ors and Another Appeal [2010] 2 CLJ 481 and Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 AMR 622 were referred to. The Plaintiff had also cited Malayan Banking Bhd v Boo Hock Soon [2012] 1 LNS 971; [2013] 2 MLJ 843, Binary Force Sdn Bhd v Lembaga Pelabuhan Johor [2009] MLJU 296 and Loo Sze Kin v Cheong Choy Teik [1997] 4 MLJ 537. This Court’s decision [16] This Court allowed the Plaintiff to avail to the right of reciprocity by granting the registration of the validly obtained Singapore judgments. See Marina Bay Sand Pte Ltd v Wong Kah Hin [2017] 1 LNS 680; [2017] MLJU 491. This Court was satisfied that all the processes and procedures were complied with. The Defendant must make good all sums owed of S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 which jurisdiction on this side of the Johor Straits would not shield him from. DATED 7 FEBRUARY 2024 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Saresh a/l Mahendaren and John Rolan T/n Christopher & Lee Ong For the Defendant: Lee Yen Jia San & Co. S/N RIQaJs3ZmEGWrSgW6oPj/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-45A-26-05/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH WAN MOHAMAD FARIF BIN WAN AHMAD

"Sek. 12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234 - Pengakuan salah - sama ada faktor mitigasi mengatasi faktor kepentingan awam."

07/02/2024

YA Datuk Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=be1d6153-4fa3-472e-a3e6-a9b1c33accd3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DI DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO : DA-45A-26-05/2022 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN WAN MOHAMAD FARIF BIN WAN AHMAD (NO. K/P : 920322-03-5815) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Kes ini melibatkan satu pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh yang pada asalnya di bawah seksyen 39B(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Akta 234). Namun pada 4/12/2023, pihak Pendakwa Raya (PR) telah menawarkan Pertuduhan Pilihan di bawah seksyen 12(2)/39A(2) Akta 234. [2] Pertuduhan Pilihan ke atas Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: 07/02/2024 12:38:56 DA-45A-26-05/2022 Kand. 25 S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 “Bahawa kamu pada 2/12/2021 jam lebih kurang 6.15 petang, bertempat di tepi jalan Kampung Guchil Bayam Kota Bharu, di dalam negeri Kelantan dalam daerah Kota Bharu di dalam negeri Kelantan telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 85.96 gram, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama.” [3] Pertuduhan Pilihan telah dibacakan kepada Tertuduh dan Tertuduh telah mengaku memahami Pertuduhan Pilihan tersebut serta telah faham sebab serta akibat ke atas pengakuan salahnya. Mahkamah ini selanjutnya telah mensabitkan Tertuduh dan telah menjatuhi hukuman penjara selama 15 tahun dan 10 sebatan bermula dari tarikh tangkap. [4] Tertuduh tidak berpuashati ke atas hukuman tersebut dan kini merayu ke atas hukuman. Fakta Kes [5] Berdasarkan kepada Fakta Kes yang diakui oleh Tertuduh, pada 2/12/2021 sekitar jam 615 petang, berdasarkan satu maklumat pengedaran dadah, Insp Mohamad Roshidi bin Romli telah membuat serbuan di tepi jalan Kampung Guchil Bayam, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Semasa serbuan tersebut, Insp Mohamad Roshidi bin Romli telah melihat Tertuduh sedang berhenti di tepi S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 jalan dan menaiki sebuah motorsikal Honda EX-5 bewarna kelabu bernombor pendaftaran DBY 3980. [6] Tertuduh telah dihampiri oleh Insp Mohamad Roshidi bin Romli sambil memperkenalkan diri sebagai polis dan menunjukkan kad kuasa. Menyedari kehadiran pihak polis, Tertuduh telah cuba untuk melarikan diri sebelum berjaya ditangkap selepas pergelutan di antara Tertuduh dan pihak polis. [7] Selepas Tertuduh ditangkap, pihak polis telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas tertuduh dan mendapati Tertuduh menggalas sebuah beg bewarna hitam bertulisan “SUPREME” di belakangnya. Pemeriksaan ke atas beg tersebut menjumpai 3 bungkusan plastik cerah di mana setiap satu bungkusan tersebut mengandungi 1 bungkusan kertas kekuningan yang berpita pelekat. [8] Pemeriksaan lanjut ke atas ketiga-tiga bungkusan kertas kekuningan tersebut mendapati bahawa di dalam setiap bungkusan terdapat 10 peket plastik bewarna biru di mana setiap 5 peket plastik tersebut diikat dengan 2 gelang getah. Di dalam setiap plastik-plastik biru tersebut mengandungi 198 biji pil kemerahan dan 2 biji pil kehijauan. Kesemua pil-pil tersebut berjumlah sebanyak 6000 biji pil. [9] Pil-pil yang ditemui serta dirampas dari Tertuduh telah dianalisis oleh Puan Rozita binti Zakaria iaitu Ahli Kimia, Jabatan kimia Malaysia di Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Ianya disahkan sebagai dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 85.96 gram. S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Hujahan pihak-pihak [10] Peguam Tertuduh di dalam hujahan mitigasinya telah menekankan bahawa ini adalah merupakan satu pengakuan salah Tertuduh sebaik ditawarkan satu Pertuduhan Pilihan. Peguam turut menegaskan bahawa ini adalah merupakan kesalahan kali pertama Tertuduh dan Mahkamah ini sewajarnya memberikan pertimbangan ke atas perkara ini. Bagi peguam, Tertuduh bukanlah merupakan seorang penjenayah tegar dan wajar diberi peringanan hukuman. [11] Peguam Tertuduh turut mengemukakan beberapa kes duluan yang meilbatkan dadah yang sama bagi menunjukkan kecenderungan hukuman yang diberikan oleh mahkamah- mahkamah sebelum ini. Perhatian Mahkamah telah dibawa kepada kes-kes berikut: No Nama kes Berat dadah Hukuman 1. Thurraipandy a/l Jivarash lwn PR [2021] 1 LNS 952 40.73 gram Methamphetamine 11 tahun penjara dan 10 sebatan 2. Ng Terk Chai dan Pang Boon Mei lwn PR [2021] 1 LNS 215 42.70 gram Methamphetamine 10 tahun penjara dan 10 sebatan S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 3. PP v Eddi bin Kassim and other [2020] 1 LNS 329 40.75 gram Methamphetamine 10 tahun penjara dan 10 sebatan 4. PR lwn Saifulzainizam Mat Nasir [2021] 1 LNS 1074 103.62 gram Methamphetamine 12 tahun penjara dan 10 sebatan [12] Puan TPR sebaliknya menegaskan bahawa faktor kepentingan awam sewajarnya mengatasi faktor mitigasi Tertuduh walaupun ia satu pengakuan salah. Pendirian Puan TPR adalah berdasarkan kepada Fakta Kes di mana dadah-dadah tersebut dijumpai di dalam bentuk pil yang keseluruhannya berjumlah sebanyak 2000 biji pil. Selain itu, Fakta Kes yang diakui Tertuduh juga menunjukkan reaksi Tertuduh yang cuba melarikan diri. [13] Di samping itu, Puan TPR turut membawa perhatian Mahkamah ini ke atas kes-kes yang dirujuk oleh peguam Tertuduh yang dengan secara jelas menunjukkan bahawa kecenderungan hukuman bagi dadah jenis yang sama bagi berat di antara 40 hingga 103.62 gram adalah 10 hingga 12 tahun penjara. Analisis dan dapatan Mahkamah [14] Faktor terpenting di dalam menjatuhkan hukuman adalah pastinya faktor kepentingan awam. Akta 234 adalah digubal dengan S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 meletakkan hukuman yang tinggi bagi kesalahan seperti yang dipertuduhkan ke atas Tertuduh adalah bertujuan untuk menangani masalah dadah yang semakin meruncing di dalam negara kita. [15] Perkara ini telah acap kali diulas oleh mahkamah-mahkamah duluan. Memadai bagi Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v. Public Prosecutor [2004] 1 LNS 252; [2004] 4 MLJ 249 di mana keseriusan kes-kes melibatkan jenayah dadah telah diulas seperti berikut: "... The Government and the legislature have taken very serious views in the abuse of usage of dangerous drugs. Drug addictions are rampant and the Government as well as the legislature have tried to curb these addictions especially amongst youths but met with little success. Death sentences and heavy penalties have been introduced but we find drug addicts everywhere. The addiction to drugs have led to other offences such as thefts, burglary and snatch thefts. Some of these offences lead to serious consequences. The seriousness of the offences on drugs have been made known since the seventies. Eminent judges have expressed this in so many cases." [16] Perkara yang sama turut dipertegaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes PR lwn Saifulzainizam Mat Nasir [2021] 1 LNS 1074 seperti berikut: S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 “[16] We note that over the past decades the superior Courts have time and again emphasised the importance of passing deterrent sentences for drug offenders in view of the public interest element and the need to protect society from these offenders. We take judicial notice of the prevalence of this category of offences until today without any signs of abatement. [17] As far back as 1976, His Lordship Hashim Yeop A. Sani, J (as he then was) in PP v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102, in a landmark judgment, after tracing the series of legislative amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1952 enhancing the penalties prescribed therein, remarked that: "It is common sense to say that behind these legislative exercises was the government's realisation albeit gradual, of the problem of drug abuse in this country, the degenerating effect of the misuse of dangerous drugs and the attendant dangers it has posed to society itself. The amendments passed by Parliament therefore reflect the public policy. It must be presumed that behind the public policy is the consideration of public interest. The change in the attitude of the legislature itself during the last three years reflects the seriousness of the problem. In my view the Courts will not be performing their functions honestly if the seriousness of the situation is not reflected in the sentence imposed or if the sentence appears to defeat the S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 object of the statute. This is not saying that the Courts in the treatment of drug offences should at all times be severe. Each case has to be determined on its own merits. But in every case the Courts must be realistic and rational." [See also Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh AIR [2004] SC 827] [18] Considering the social impact of drug related offences, which are indisputably heinous in nature, as stressed in the Union of India case (supra), the Courts should not adopt a liberal attitude or take too sympathetic a view and to impose meagre penalties that would be counter- productive in the long run and against societal interest ultimately.” [17] Berdasarkan panduan yang diberikan oleh kedua-dua keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang perlu dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah perlulah menggambarkan keseriusan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh. Apatah lagi jika dilihat dari Fakta Kes yang dipersetujui oleh Tertuduh, semasa ditangkap, dadah tersebut adalah di dalam 10 paket plastik bewarna biru yang setiap 5 paket plastik diikat dengan dua gelang getah. Di dalam setiap paket plastik biru tersebut mengandungi 198 biji pil kemerahan dan 2 biji pil kehijauan yang menjadikannya sebanyak 2000 biji (200 biji x 10 paket). [18] Selain itu, Mahkamah turut mempertimbangkan berat dadah di dalam kes ini yang mencecah 85.96 gram Methamphetamine. Manakala berat minimum untuk dadah jenis ini di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta 234 ialah 30 gm sahaja. Oleh itu, kuantiti dadah, yang S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 hampir 3 kali ganda minimum, harus dianggap besar yang sepatutnya menarik hukuman yang lebih tinggi. [19] Di dalam menimbang faktor kepentingan awam ini, Mahkamah akur bahawa kepentingan peribadi Tertuduh perlu diimbangi sebelum Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman. Di dalam hujahan peringanan hukuman, peguam telah menegaskan 2 faktor penting yang perlu diberi pertimbangan iaitu ini adalah kesalahan pertama Tertuduh dan faktor pengakuan salah Tertuduh. Mahkamah sedar bahawa Tertuduh wajar diberi peluang untuk kembali ke masyarakat untuk hidup secara normal dan baik. [20] Namun salah satu prinsip utama di dalam menjatuhkan hukuman di dalam kes jenayah, hukuman mestilah bersifat punitif dan juga reformatif. Ini disentuh di dalam kes Karamjit Singh v. State Delhi (Delhi Admin), AIR [2000] SC 3467 yang menyatakan; "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of, committing the offence is made to realize his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society, weighing the one against the other imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law. We have come to the conclusion that some consideration should be shown to the appellant in the matter." [21] Di dalam masa yang sama, apabila Mahkamah menimbang faktor peribadi Tertuduh, hukuman yang dijatuhkan mestilah juga mencerminkan keperluan untuk melayani kepentingan awam yang berhadapan dengan kesalahan berat dan berleluasa seperti memiliki kuantiti dadah yang banyak sepertimana di dalam kes ini. [22] Ini sepertimana yang ditegaskan di dalam kes PP v. Ooi Teng Chian [2005] 4 CLJ 557; [2006] 1 MLJ 213 seperti berikut; S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 “It is well established that sentencing in drug offences must reflect the public interest to be served as it is an on-going national problem. The weight of the drugs involved is another factor to be considered. In this case the amount of dangerous drugs involved is very substantial. In such circumstances neither the guilty plea of the accused nor the fact that he is a first offender can be considered too favourably in favour of the accused. Thus, we were of the view that the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge was inadequate.” Kesimpulan [23] Setelah mengambil kira kesemua faktor-faktor dan prinsip undang- undang yang sedia ada, Mahkamah ini berpendapat hukuman 15 tahun penjara bermula dari tarikh tangkapan serta 10 sebatan rotan yang dijatuhkan ke atas Tertuduh adalah wajar dan adil. Bertarikh : 6hb Februari, 2024 (DATUK MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE BIN MOHD ABBAS) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Pihak-Pihak: Bagi Pihak Pendakwa Raya : Naizatul Zamrina binti Karizaman Tetuan K.L. Chee & Co. Peguambela & Peguamcara Suite D1-02-07 No. 1, Solaris Dutamas Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Perayu : Aida Fatimah binti Abd Jabar Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah Kompleks Kota Darul Naim 15050 Kota Bharu Kelantan Tarikh Bicara : 5hb. November, 2023 Tarikh Keputusan : 4hb. Disember, 2023 S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Undang-Undang Yang Dirujuk: ➢ Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (Akta 234) Kes-Kes Yang Dirujuk: ➢ Tia Ah Leng v. Public Prosecutor [2004] 1 LNS 252; [2004] 4 MLJ 249 ➢ Karamjit Singh v. State Delhi (Delhi Admin), AIR [2000] SC 3467 ➢ PP v. Ooi Teng Chian [2005] 4 CLJ 557; [2006] 1 MLJ 213 S/N U2EdvqNPLkej5qmxwzrM0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-A72-24-07/2023

PLAINTIF Ee Yuin Su DEFENDAN 1. ) China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Penduduk-penduduk Di Dalam Premis

[1] This is an Application (Enclosure 13) filed by the First Defendant (D1) in order to strike out the Second Defendant’s (D2) Counterclaim made against D1 pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). [2] No Affidavit In Reply and Written Submission filed by D2. [3] Will D1’s Application be allowed?

07/02/2024

Puan Shyahirah Binti Abdul Salim

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61e72f72-de09-44f4-922a-45be72f2811c&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ (STRIKING OUT OF COUNTERCLAIM) (CASE A72.24.07.2023) 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA SAMAN NO.: PA-A72-24-07/2023 ANTARA EE YUIN SU (No. K/P: 760611-07-5151) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1075831-X) 2. PENDUDUK-PENDUDUK DI DALAM PREMIS No. 9 Lorong Delima 2 11700 Pulau Pinang ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (Dalam Tuntutan Asal) SARAVANAN NAIDU A/L TANIMELE (No. K/P: 740210-02-6051) sebagai PENDUDUK-PENDUDUK DI DALAM PREMIS No. 9 Lorong Delima 2 11700 Pulau Pinang ...PLAINTIF DAN CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1075831-X) ...DEFENDAN 07/02/2024 12:14:27 PA-A72-24-07/2023 Kand. 19 S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT (ENCLOSURE 13 – STRIKING OUT OF COUNTERCLAIM) PRECLUSION [1] This is an Application (Enclosure 13) filed by the First Defendant (D1) in order to strike out the Second Defendant’s (D2) Counterclaim made against D1 pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). [2] Will D1’s Application be allowed? BRIEF BACKGROUNDS FACTS [3] Plaintiff (P) filed a Writ action (i.e: this suit) on 28.7.2023 against D1 and D2. [4] On 16.8.2023, D1 filed Memorandum of Appearance. [5] On 21.8.2023, D2 filed Memorandum of Appearance. [6] On 26.9.2023, D1 filed Defence. [7] On 26.9.2023, D2 filed Defence and Counterclaim (against D1). [8] On 9.10.2023, P filed Reply to D1’s Defence. [9] On 10.11.2023, D1 filed Reply to D2’s Counterclaim. S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [10] On 10.11.2023, D1 filed a Notice of Application (Enclosure 13) supported by an Affidavit In Support in order to strike out D2’s Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b) and (d) of the ROC. [11] First Case Management date on 16.11.2023 fixed for this Court to give necessary directions. [12] On 4.12.2023, this Court gave directions via e-Review and fixed Hearing / Decision date for Enclosure 13 on 16.1.2024. This Court also directed parties to file their respective Submissions on or before 15.1.2024. [13] On 15.1.2024, D1 filed their Written Submission together with their Bundle of Authorities. [14] On 16.1.2024, D1 informed this Court that Enclosure 13 was fixed for Hearing / Decision and no Affidavits and Written Submission filed by D2 till date. [15] D2’s solicitor informed this Court that they were not able to file in any Affidavit and Submission as his client was ill and orally prayed for one- week extension of time to file Affidavit In Reply to D1’s Affidavit In Support. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ROC AND COURT’S DIRECTION [16] Before this Court proceeds to determine whether the Counterclaim filed by D2 should or not be struck out, this Court will need to observe whether filing of all relevant Cause Papers and Submissions are compiled by parties as prescribed in the ROC or as directed by this Court. S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [17] Firstly, parties will need to comply with Order 32 Rule 13 (2) with regard to service or use of Affidavit. Secondly, parties will need to comply with directions given by this Court with regard to filing of Written Submissions. [18] Order 32 Rule 13 (2) provides as follows— Order 32 Applications and Proceedings in Chambers 13. Service or use of affidavits (O. 32 R. 13) (2) Save as otherwise provided in these Rules, or unless otherwise directed by the Court— (a) an affidavit intended to be used in support of an application shall be filed and served on the other party within fourteen days from the date of filing of the application; (b) a party intending to reply to an affidavit intended to be used in support of an application shall file his affidavit and serve it on the other party within fourteen days from the date the sealed application and the affidavit in support of that application were served on him whichever is later; (c) a party intending to reply to an affidavit served on him shall file his affidavit and serve it on the other party within fourteen days from the date the affidavit he intends to reply was served on him; and (d) if an affidavit or an exhibit is deposed or affirmed by a deponent out of Malaysia, then the time fixed by this rule for a party to file and serve a reply to an affidavit shall be twenty-one days. [19] In this case, as stated by D1 (not denied by D2) via e-Review on 16.1.2024 that parties were to file their respective Affidavits and Written Submission as follows— S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (1) D2 to file Affidavit In Reply to D1’s Affidavit In Support on 18.12.2023; (2) D1 to file Affidavit In Reply to D2’s Affidavit In Reply on 2.1.2024; and (3) Parties to file Written Submission on 15.1.2024. [20] It is observed by this Court that the above laid down timeline is not complied with by D2. This is said because D2 failed to file Affidavit In Reply on 18.12.2023 and D2 also did not file Written Submission on 15.1.2024. [21] In the case of Pemunya Kapal Mv Brihope & Ors v Emmanuel E Okwuosa & Ors [1997] 1 MLJ 453, the Court of Appeal rigidly applied the provisions of Order 32, rule 13 (2)(b) at page 470 of the report stated that— "Order 32 rule 13 (2) of the RHC was specifically enacted to eradicate the rampant abuse of process by malevolent, indolent or unpaid practitioners who had devised a fall-safe method of causing unwarranted delays by filing affidavits at the last minute. The rule is mandatory. Of course, the court always has a discretionary power to extend time (see the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 item 8 of the Schedule and Order 3 rule 5 of the RHC 1980). But very powerful reasons must be advanced and the application for an extension should preferably be filed before time expired..” [22] In the case of Punca Klasik Sdn. Bhd. v Seok Kim Leow [1996] 4 CLJ 339 it was enunciated that— S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “…time honoured principle that the rules of Court and the associated rules of practice, devised by the Rules Committee and developed by the Courts over the years to promote the expeditious despatch of litigation must be rigidly observed. The prescribed time limits are not targets to be aimed at or expressions of pious hope but rather requirements set which should be met rigidly by the parties thereto. This time honoured principle is reflected in a series of rules giving the Court a discretion to dismiss on failure to comply with a time limit..” [23] In the case of Perbadanan Nasional lnsurans Sdn Bhd (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Union Insurance Malaysia Sdn Bhd) v Pua Lai Ong [1996] 3 AMR 2869; [1996] 3 CLJ 321 stated that— “Order 32 r 13(2)(b) makes it mandatory for such an affidavit in reply to be filed and served within the 14 days from the time the affidavit that it seeks to reply is received. The word ‘must’ as opposed to ‘may’ is used in the rule, and we interpret that to mean as implying a peremptory mandate as opposed to a mere direction or discretion as the word "may” implies. We equate the meaning of the word "must” as that given to the word "shall” and for that reason the choice of the word "must” in the rule does not create the existence of any discretion or empowers the Court to exercise such a discretion. To state otherwise would defeat the very purpose Order 32 r 13(2) was intended i.e. to prevent any last minute affidavit being filed so as to protract the hearing of any proceedings in Chambers. For that reason, we cannot support the finding reached by Malayan Banking Berhad v Lim Tee Yong & 3 Ors, supra on the existence of a discretion. We hasten to add that under such circumstances the defendant may apply for an abridgement of the period required to file the affidavit in reply pursuant to Order 3 r 5(1) of the RHC.” [24] Based on the above cited case laws, it is observed that the prescribed and directed time limit should be honoured and not be abused. S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 In this case, D2 clearly failed to honour the time limit as stated in Order 32 Rule 13 (2) and the directions given by this Court as laid down in paragraph [19]. [25] D2 also failed to file in any Application seeking for extension of time before or after time expired. D2 merely prayed for one-week extension to file Affidavit In Reply on 16.1.2024 which was the date fixed by this Court for Hearing / Decision of Enclosure 13. [26] Further, D2’s solicitor mentioned that he was not able to comply with the directions as his client was ill but there were no documents such as a medical certificate produced in order to prove to this Court that D2 was ill for the past one month (i.e.: from 18.12.2023 to 15.1.2024). FAILURE TO CONTRADICT TREATED AS AN ADMISSION [27] It also well established that where a case is to be decided on a contest of affidavits, any failure to contradict or challenge the positive assertions upon a material issue by one party is usually treated as an admission by that party. [28] In this regard, relevant guidance can be gleaned from the case of Ng Hee Thong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [2000] 2 MLJ 29 where it was propunded that— “Now, it is a well settled principle governing the evaluation of affidavit evidence that where one party makes a positive assertion upon a material issue, the failure of his opponent to contradict it is usually treated as an admission by him of the fact so asserted: Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Bhd [1986] 1 MLJ 382; Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v O'Brien [1988] 3 MLJ 332 …” [29] In this case, it is observed that D1 in their Affidavit In Support made a few assertions upon an issue by stating that the Counterclaim by D2 against D1— (1) Discloses no cause of action; (2) Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (3) An abuse of the process of the Court; (4) No basis in terms of fact and law for D2 to file this Counterclaim; and (5) D2 has no rights whatsoever to file this Counterclaim with regard to Premis No. 287E. [30] Anchored on the above principles, this Court is of the view that D2 have failed to controvert or challenge the facts averred in D1’s Affidavit In Support. Accordingly, D2 must be taken to have admitted all the assertions made by D1. CONCLUSION [31] For the reasons stated above, this Court hereby allowed D1’s application with cost of RM1,000.00 to be paid by D2 to D1. Dated: 7 February 2024 S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 SHYAHIRAH BINTI ABDUL SALIM Magistrate Penang Magistrate’s Court Counsel/Solicitors For the First Defendant: Ng Wen Qing [Messrs. Lim, Choo & Partners] For the Second Defendant: Amareson K. Velu [Messrs. Amareson & Meera] Legislation referred to: 1. Order 32 Rule 13 (2) of the Rules Of Court 2012. Cases referred to: 1. Pemunya Kapal Mv Brihope & Ors v Emmanuel E Okwuosa & Ors [1997] 1 MLJ 453. 2. Punca Klasik Sdn. Bhd. v Seok Kim Leow [1996] 4 CLJ 339. S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 3. Perbadanan Nasional lnsurans Sdn Bhd (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Union Insurance Malaysia Sdn Bhd) v Pua Lai Ong [1996] 3 AMR 2869; [1996] 3 CLJ 321. 4. Ng Hee Thong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [2000] 2 MLJ 29. S/N ci/nYQne9ESSKkWcvKBHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-23NCvC-7-03/2019

PLAINTIF SOH HOO HONG DEFENDAN 1. ) THOR BENG KEAT 2. ) THOR CHOON LIE 3. ) THOR SU KIT 4. ) OOI THEAN CHIN

In this case, as a final observation, at the time this agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and/or SD. The First Defendant and SD2 are bankrupt and prevented from entering into any agreement or business without any sanction from the Insolvency Department in accordance with Section 38 of the Insolvency Act 1967 [Act 360]. Since the First Defendant is a bankrupt at that time, the action against the First Defendant was withdrawn. When the trial started, the Court was informed that the First Defendant (SD2) was discharged and released from bankruptcy status in 2020. No information was stated on the bankruptcy status of the First Defendant.

07/02/2024

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=325740e8-63ac-42bf-a7b2-c4717715c9e7&Inline=true

07/02/2024 16:44:51 PA-23NCvC-7-03/2019 Kand. 178 S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 6EBXMqxjv0KnssRxdxXJ5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—23Ncvc—7—u3/2019 l<and. 178 2‘/02,20“ ,g All 2; DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI GEORGETOWN DALAM FULAU FINANG. MAI.AV$lA GUAMAN NO.: PA-zrmcvc-7-as/zaw ANTARA son 1400 HUNG (no. K/P: 531122-1n-5333) ..‘FLAlNT1F DAN 1. YHOR EENG KEA1 (No. KIP: s1nu1-07.5551) 2. THOR CHOON LIE (Nu. K/P: atom:-07511:) 3‘ man su KIT (No. KIP: SW30!-01-5561) 4. col TNEAN CHIN (No. KIP: 729523.01-5331) .. DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN sw szaxmnmnknukxaxusn ’ mm Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm GROUNDS OFJUDGIIENY Introduction. [11 me ws we at me cases involving me name :71 pemee danhng m afiflculmrfl mvesimenl As a result of Illa faflure the Appefiam demandcd me return ei me uweexea money ham me Defendlnls Aker e mu hcanng was held‘ «me cam has dsc ded m amuse me Pnemmre chum on 31 01 2024 [21 The we-mm has appealed agamst me declswan and we Ccurl naw gwes luVI reasons as IO why I! did so The pamfi ave IeVe«ed to as they were m me High Court on p_nmn [3] Dunng thefuv ma! meiallowing cause papers have been revenedm by the pames as lined below‘ 0) Bundle 0! Pleading: (Bundle A), (H) Common Bundle av Documems uaunure B)‘ an) Plmmwe Addmanal Bund\e of Dccuments|Bum1le E1)‘ av) Ssoand and nuns Derendnntr Addmonal Bundle of Documents (Bundle c)‘ sw aEm<Mt1xwnKnssw.mxx_I5n ’ we Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm wa nfluNG pm nsqonallons wtth me Flallmfl The Phlrmfl atso dud nmdeny tnm SD2 was the person he had dean wnh lurlhe mveslmenl [15] Based on thus evtdenoe, the Court was sattsnea that tnere was an and agreement between tne twee of them and (ms Iacl was also suppanea by sD2's statement that ne had met wrm the Plalnml as man as the oral agreement was agveed upon suz also recewea the uwestmant money (mm the Plamtm pa: VI VS a me law «net '3 vahd oral agreement" VS enforceable, see RI MMIIIJI my V. Llm Tan I Som Sdll End [1 B35] CLJ (Rip) 256 mond Pelk sun End a Anon, Dr. Twoodin [19:11 1 ms 136; mm 4 tau :7; aprlvinln uawn-ny v. Amlrlvulhy v Nuduon L Anor [Wm] 8 CL] 705. my In relation to the Issue (my, v/heme! there was a mlslepresemxnan from me Defe«danls'evu1enw, tne Plalnnll mmselt «mm the begmnmg, was miormed that this was an mvesunenl VI agllnmlurfl clmlvalmll The Plamlfl himself nu admmed that he has done resaavcn «or 6 months related to the Investment In this emu. plantaltonflann Have Is the Plalnmfs statement or evtdence. nu Mm, anmher quamun mat was put In you was that ynu raven on rgresenmtans :11 Tommy and then smuequenuy you atse sand‘ y=s‘ M vetted an ggtemnmlnnnx at am Yummy mg 19 ngg gm yg . En Vallgrch «,9 Igmuunelmll mm cmynu ux|-xphlnlnmncuurlwhn mu 1 Tmv n an aEw<MnxwnKnss>uaxx_I5n 11 we saw ...n.mn be used m mm .. mtmuuy mm. dun-mm VI] muNG pm sm nEw<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn mm. smm ...n.mn .. med m may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm IuJ can you euvlmn lo we Ccum sow ox, my my Maud mlmdmed m. m Tummy‘ ...s ‘urn nmkmg at my reunemun 65 um um an x (naught. ma gr: I gs same raaeamh n max me m mumhi befbral make n decxsmn Am Tommy look me In so mnrvy mm: nu me give me a very gluisy name «)4 me business n M: ms 2| mm me Tndlyll Vs mzo game 50‘ mm mm mm ul nu--use now can you go wmgw Enher he mm mmge we“. or ulnar ne dndn‘| nu Ila movwy lorihe llml mm. mm. cmly two uvllwaa MyVnam1‘wmch Wu also warned by me ollnenr 0-MW n . nnu.un..na rvuw luiay >4. ».;.....1 an Izelwlsmu an a larmer cmli «mm and he‘: . nnusanane (may Sn m.e.e am I go wmng7 x ‘usl chute me wvung men, pany tn mvu1wm1 n say I‘m rim that dumb I‘m n vmvem -mam So I am some re h 50 lhe mm .5 m n n Ammg «m .u wev Soumanl Ami pz] Here n rs cleav that no misleplasenlalion nrfraud has comrred The Plaintifl have hasllken ms wn nsk wn cne Investment In this case, «mere Is a rmsreprasemannn regarmng Inns matter (subpcn to prove)‘ the parly that should be sued are the Fm Defendant and/ur snz and should not mvolve me Second to mm Defendants ms is nmner rammed by the P\ammfs own Porioe Report wmon was made against me Fm Defendant and does nm Involve me Second to Fourlh Defendants In me police repon, the Plalnmf states that al! me bank amounts were pruwded by me FIrs1 netenaam to mm. [:3] Rmhev man Ie\ymu solely on the rum Defandarvfs and sun representation‘ ma Pmncm am we own mvasngalmn and established ms :2 awn cnnfidence ii is evident iron. riie Pieiniiirs semis that iie wrisidered ail reievarii iniormaliori before making me investment rnis deniansirsiee that In SDVIB nlwna may have said il he has behaved like an entrepreneur and businessman In Abdul siiarii Bin Abdfllllll v Eon aaiiir amiud arid HHB Holdings miird Flfly)[2010]MLJU1979)7IeldlhiI ‘ the Piairmfl Inn diIv|IyId condud quite indanlvidlnl L71 Ilvy repieseiiisimii iiirin mid... Ind:-di bfiillg iri. 'rsuonlb\u i. fly slmoesififl raieiriesiiisiii assumed in me Feflenl ceiins aeeimi in Kheng CVVWSE Lian V Wong Tak Thong ' [34] Evidence snws enai, even in me event that SD2 makes is hiss e4aieinem,iheinves1iganon conducted averitia course oi six nimins and the actions iaken by the Plainmi during inai iiirie demonstrate inai iiiii investing decisions were dellbefala Ind seimeterniined {:5} The primary duty M inis cairn in the absence :4 a wniien eoiiiiav. as in [his insianoe, is In aseenain wrieciiei irie evidence piesemed ii. adequate in daincnsiiaie inai ins pames have reachad a legally binding agveemenl and Ira no longer merely negdiiaiing The exisienoe at a iegaiiy ninding miiiiaci re esseriiiauy a nianei at can isee Han srilng Company[1ll9] 1 MLJ190) pa: Tne Vaulhat snz did rim pieeeni his wri accaunlduelo hankmplcy dunng the rrinsaninn WIS also within me knavlfledge 07 the Plalnifl In M, Khls aclmn was also Idmmed by snz niiiieaii Ihat : Third—parIy account «he Sewnd to man D91endsn(s‘aI:oouriIs)wIs used because of iris stains as n nsnkrupi Tnis mi iii enough (0 umve that during ine sin KE&V»4fl1l'4flKnssR.iidxX_l5rn '3 -we s.ii.i In-vihnrwm r. in... M mm ms nflflinnflly MIME flnulfllnl VIZ nFiuNG WM! Imnsacllon Ina I>IaInIm was awarn of an Inese circumsunoes and In Im In «ms case, Ina Plaintiff dud naI make an immedille Invenmenl am Insceaa wed in Indevsndenlly research Ina pmspeds and aenama of we Investment The Irwestmenl acmn has been made afler all IhIs has been done and (he I=IaInII« has been satisfied How can II now be s1aIed that Ihere nas been hand and InaI Ina Second and Fourth DeIanaanIa have also been Involved in Ina mIsIapresanIatIon and decal [:7] F0! Inc (I) Issue, mus Coun found baud an me ewdsnce In the Courl, mere Is a smmg reason for we com Ia cunclufle that mere Ia an aIaI agreernem belwaen suz and me I=IaImII1 [33] In Abdul Gllani aIn Abdulllh v Eon Bunk Borhld Ind HHS Huldinus (mm Purlyl {zo1rI1MI..Iu1s7s, new I In RIIMI-n zanuau bunk Onnnmch my Archer Dlmelu MIUIIMA ca Ind omen. 213 In. $mvIPon man Conn qnmlrvg spanu amen Tumev a Narkfley. an Awmahh Muuprasamamw Iamamanna 40- Ed‘ may on amIaI InaIIaamanI sen Ihal Ina human M pmvmg InaIapIaaanIamn would nvl have men dremarged nnwas anm manna represemee had In last ‘med am, on mnmhlrlg Inner man Ina mnuagvswnlztmn, na own mu m judnmanl nu g.n.I.I lmuvnodqc wuuunaan, Ian. M I». vmlurm socnnnl enauInax m kmdadp am. truth‘ {:9} In neIaIIon in me Issue oHraudI more Is avso no evldenue that the Second Defenaam In me Faunn Defendant Is Invoweu In fraud or In dec ng Ina PIaInIm In me pause Iepan II Ia deallhanne ooInpIaInI waa agaInsI Ine Fllsl De(evIdaM only In Ims sa, based on me has, me I>IaInII« nae summed la gem Invesrmem prams amounmng Io an aEw<Mt1x1vnKnss>uaxx_I5n N we a.n.I In-vIhnrwH\ be Is... a mm ms nrW\rInH|:I mm: dun-mm wa mane wrm RMZDDDCI an and also «me were is sum firming am, and mere ws alsa ewdenoe me: me land rents! has been pavd/made lnr me purpose or crulh farmmg Ins ueermax, there It. no (rand on this mveslmenl and it \s more 01 a 1055 M me F\a|nl|N'smves1menI Imus exxsts, me Defendants cannot be blamed because «ms Is an mveslmem nsk and m eaumon. Ihe Plaintiff mmsen has done vesearch and confirmed that :1 rs a pmmeme Investment because oflhe potential use of ch In the dumesilc and Vcrelgn markets pm] I: .s semea Vawlhal new mus! belully woven and cannot be merely pvesumed In Ln Kim Lu-ng v Ln sum. Vee[19lI'] a ML: 19:. Kc Vahrull 4 [es ms lordship men was], held that “u e m elanenbuy pmex. er peaamgs me: Iraudulem mnflucl must be ueemry afleged am As d\smI:|\y pmvud and n e um alluwwle In Valve ma tn be Nlrvafl «em me has‘ [411 Re¢emng to me Issue nu), this Caun finds men mere was no ermr by me Second to Fourth nerenuams to conclude mm the Pvamlflf had not been nuskzd by «us investrnam The can me: me P\amoff has mnmhuled me mvestmenl funds mdlcates ms smoemy m «unamg that project. even though he was aware from the slarIma1SD2 and/ur me Fvrsl Defendant make: me necessary legal aumarily m handla «me investment Aner snz grveslhe Plamnff access cu me Thwd—perly amnums, me Wammf Is so\e\y resprmsxble lo! managing Ihem wwmoul seeking advlcelvom anyone e\se (ll) wnemor mo PI-[mm plld mo num ol RMun,uno.oa to ma lmllvldunl bunk Account: ulltu Dofuldlms Ind sw aaummnxmmmsm ‘5 we Snr1n\nnuhnrw\HI>e used m mm me mmuny MW: dun-mm VI] nfluNG wrm (iv) wimnor me Plaimifl paid tflc sum al RMsan.oaa.na upon misupruorvhlinns mud: by the DofendaIlb7 [42] Fol issues in) and (W) the noun wlll dlscusslrlem stance Tne main argument al me Plaintiff is that in me arai agreernem [or me Fiainiin in invest the sum of RMEEQDOD 00 In one emu: larrn, me Defendants made laiee reprxenlauans that they are me mmers andlor may are lrwulved In me emu. larrn/piani business that IS pmniabie may imam to make Ihe Plalnml a panner andior owner cllhe Chllll favm/planl. [431 sucn misrepresentations were made with ina imentmn cl‘ inaueing lhe Plllntm‘ tn give me sum 0! Rmswuoo no as Investment for me cniiii farm/planl business but using :1 var ulnar purposes By relying on me raise revresentallons and orai agreemenis nus caused me Piainiilno Incura large sum wllhcumecervvla anything in velum Tne Defendants havelalled In adduce any pruol and/or evidence lo show man we memes were used lcrme chill: rerrn/piani business [44] On the other hand, the Delendanls claimed that the Plalnlilh monies were used «or expenses lur the mill larrn/piaru business and as sucn, ine Plalnml oannm be allowed Io new change his mind -nu demand 101 the monies that he has lnrvesled [451 In unis can it re clear that me money has been named over in SD2, Despite the enoouranemem Ill any) lrom the Defendants who allegedly influenced me Pin-ntiri, the Plninm also did rlal prove any supporllnn SIN i1Ew<MlwvnKnssluaxx_l5rn 16 ‘Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm .. nflfllruflly mm. dun-mm wa arlum Wml evidence [hat the Second Defendant la the Fourth Deflendanl had encouraged the Plalmrfi to enter mm the Ora‘ agleemenl In fact. SD2 Iwnseif admllled Ihal he had veoewed me money and all mane-s mated to me oral agreement were between me Fkavnnfl, me First netenuenn and/or SDZ TM! Court was unable la conclude that the Fmlntiff had been misled or mnuenuea by the Second nevenaem to me Fuurm Defendant. Nonennewess, me Cum iouna me: me evidence presented by both me Piamnff and soz cleany demonslraled that they nau pursued «ms case nunuy It me money .5 pan: (or mvesnmenns and Is not Invsted appmpnenery. snz, and not me Secnnd Deienaenx to rourm DeVendam, shamd unduumedly take full reeponemuny [u] n was also stated by SD2 that every month the Plamnn came to meet mm m reques1 a s1a(emenl/ reoewpl onhe expendrturelhal had been used (mm theamnunt that had been gwen lo snz, There \s no suggesnon that me Plamnff dams mm mner Devenuencs SD2's mure ua pmvnte any evidence 01 me use at me money Invested by me Halnllfi, n any, should be claimed mun s92 -rone because ne apenly admitted 1! and mere Is no evudenoe Involving nmer Delermams This can be men (mm me loH:wvIng exmanahon -on So was ad: a. Mahkamah xenepu tax .1. bagi MrSm7 mm M: yang nyu Id: hum sllwlln mg. nu. senep buhn du ad: ambwl. mengenaw gen menpenar panelnmnn flan sewaan on name Mr mu bog: mu dnkumen keoadn Plamm‘ kenada Mv San. men Mv TM! beiselulu aengan say: bahawa (ak 26: new a-xnmneagecnem unluk mluuk menu -1. xenrnas syn aEw<MtvwnKnssbu¢xx_l5rn 17 -nee e.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms ennnnn mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG Wm EENG max nan, say: Milt ad: Seqak nun. flu ad: mane, setup man aw ada new ma mu iernua sans Y-ng .n. nnnu. na Mp bulnn My: . . hug: aem Phunm Tam I-ya Iak am: my. HIE: nnfivul Iiau uhrun [47] Smoe me document or vewwm only oontawns aueganens igamst SD2, u Is no Vanger rehavvanl to find out wna created wt or whether any money was purponealy misused. much the Plammv Is unaMe In oonnrm nus s as a resun v1 SD2‘s assenion In me statement 01 evidence man the Plamllfl reserved me reoexptx Annaugn snz confirmed that me Puainm saw him on I monlhly basis, the F'\amufl did not alfirm a! stale that he went [have In OMIIH receipts fmm SD2 or must Dedendanls pa} Vn reuamn an me amounl ul RMsao,ooo 00. me Pm-nnu mmseu -n ma mm capacny admmea that he memxn sun and am hi: own researen N Is clear that the Pia-mm did we me money In snz aner ne rwnsew. is sausfsed ll me Plaimm said that us was mfluenmd to meet. it was me own «sun In lacz, ne and carry nul a research related to emu. planmmnlfann before making me mveslmem All plannmg and discussions are between 5:): and me P\aInM Statements quoted aunng me mssexaminalxnn against SD2 are relevant to mghhghl these pom, 1 e » my: New‘ Iuvmar uuenhan mu mu n .4. that Yummy ‘mm mm. am ma arpressad mlennnn In mvasl .n the arm: n Savvy‘ m In you was me onewno swrususd and man my ma ne ‘in! yes we quemn mm was Dlfl In you was mu you expressed me mvennon to men m me am. am. and man you sam‘ nu. he cmvmcea me Ynur nnsmer was. mnmv an nEkv<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn it ‘Nuns sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. nnnmun mm: m.n.n wa mum v-mm was on one ma wtmrund you to unveil m lhe chi: «am Can you ylease e.m\am Mm do you mean hymn son: wen, u Wsl, Vwlnflkaen an mvexlmu .. mymng, hm Mounts nu wcvmly‘ we gamereu, and he kbsp! mkmg about ms cnm him sn he sum tr: a good -nyenmem Sn Hollvwed mm in see 59 mm mm men gue me me mmbevs and men u an my study so Iltuok swx mnnlhs beam 1 adualw mmmn mvsefl So vnwn man an: munlhl. we hav: mm flu ggmhlm and n. ma than run an mv views am rlwlmenlmn I:-lulu‘ (v) Whether the Dulondlnu wm unjullly enriched by reoelflng me sum av Ru|soa,onn.on «mm the Flflnfllf? my In nus case, ma Second Ia Fmmh Defendant: an nal deny that «no amount of money rm been mnsianed ma Iheir aowunts What I: expmnaa vs (hit an the money hm: been msued by mo Plawmm‘ 15 under suza pencrul comm, men we ma ncwunl ws nu Dmnannu ieoeunl‘ but wvmdrzwala are made by 5:12 Ir-rough an ATM card that ha: been grvan Io s02 by me Idual account holder The Flalmflfs argument that this smemam Is not Iuppcned by the evldanoa and should not be accepted Nevermeleu, ms wun determmu mm In ma men! of a dispute, R Is no longer relaunc ymemer me «man. were oonlnbuted by zll onna Defendants to sun or whether soz wnnurew mam using an ATM card. The most vmparlant fad ws um SD2 look aux me money and used nu mmsen Thrs evidence was not omnanged and the caun accepted rt sm nEw<MnxM1KnssR.x¢xx_I5m ‘° mu. sum n-nhnrwm .. u... w my u. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm y.. muNG v-mm [so] It was confinned by me Second nemdsm mmssw during Exarmnafion-In-Chief man mames were pam hythe Plaummo ms amount when he leimed as follows -5 sn. Aelulun kw-an m.num.n y-nu mun: mu nm. .4. P nmeun manyawumn wane Dllahuvnn Doe damn mm. men J sq. dwuukhmln an up. uyl mm Pw-mm man menyilmlun mg kaplda man an menonm shun -aya mmaw mnar akruv um... Okmbev zme sag: memudalrzn bapa y: ntervgemirkzn wavlg pahbulan my dlzeman even Flamul‘ say: (em mmmeu kid ATM styl «gem; Diva ray: Hanya new: we yang mempunym use: was Wang pevnbuvan din Flmnlnf Sly: Max umvur Iangan flan udak mmnax mm .4... In wnnq pullhuvln VII! pl-flu umun mun mmerll" [51] In ems case. me Namlifl mmseu reansesmax SD2 vs a bankrum and cannot handle ms own financial matters. SD2 has alsa summed m noun man he \s bankrupt The «acts have been knawn and SD2 also revealed that all me aucounls max wfll be used are me accounts 01 me Sewnfl to Fourth Defendants (all moss bank accounts gwen by $112) Supporting SD2's c\aIm man may only gave pemussmn for me amount to be used wnthnnt renewing any nenems are me Second and Third Decenaams. This .s as a resun ul snz wumurawmg me enure amount For recerenoe, me «anew-ng notes are explaunea 'uM And samullu venuman we arrinqemeniyang Vain zdalah Dahawa semu: wing yang nun dluyuv mu amumn Men Flmvmf am maauk damn mu nkmm Delendnn Kerlul .1.» mg; mlu Tho! Chnon Lu dln YMV Sn Kn hmul7 sw nEw<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn 1“ «me smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm iv) Seoand and Third Ddendams‘ Further E-mate at Documents (Bundle ct) Coun Pmcud g [4] A tun lull was conducted our three aeya, /9 on as-2023‘ 7»sr2u2: ma ta-9.202: The Fllmw had czlled ans (1) Mines: and three (3) wvtnawas nan gave evidence can the Sacnnd mu Thvd Defendant: No Mines: for Ike Founn Detanaam [5] The following is a Vlst allhe wnnesves that has been called up Soh Hao Hang |Plamtifl) ~ Plamtwr ‘s witnass (H) Thor Eeng Hull (Father of Scams and mm De1endants)— Delendnnts‘ wtmasses (In) That Choon Ue (Second Defendant) - Second Defemianfs witness (iv) Thar Su Ktt (Third De1endanl)— Tmm Dedamianvfs wnnss P mm‘: Agumants [5] As In the arguments oi the Plilrlklfl and (he Dotendant, the court bneny ways but me Plamws cause afacman agamst the Dedandam ham wmch rs not contested by the path» syn azwtmmnknumaxusn 1 mm s.n.t ...m.mm be ts... m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm BENG Sahib nya atrsavy (amt say: mtart hirikmp suya Mak mempunyal ataun bunk dull say: km: rilasukirln tte uatatn mun illak say: mien tzk’! ea xata ax can seinlu din pull adn tmttmn Wang ' [52] Based on SD2's evidence and the Piatntitrs ewtt pottce report, it ts clear that the Plaintttrs intention ts to gel at the money paid through the Detendanta‘ account Ptatntttts can claim ccrnpensaticntrom SD2 and not tmm the Second In Fourth Detertdants AM the money has been acknwwteaged to have been teeuet am used by SD2 httnsettvnthotn any evidence tn court that mher Defendants have cenefrted whether the anti agreement is vatm or tnyaitd or agatrtst section as 01 the Insctvency Act t9a7 [Act 350], because the Ftrst Defendant and SD2 are bankrupt only becomes relevant between the Ptatntitt, the First Defendant artdltw SD2 and sees not tnvowe the other Deleridants [ea] tn retaucn to the Fourth Delehdanl‘ ti me money wee tntencec tor the cnttti tarnt/ptartt investment, $02 nee nutntttaa that he hat. tteea the Fourth Detenaanrtt money and II is a debt tetattett to the ilweslmenl The statement made by 502 that the Feuntt Delendanl ts a partner ts aiso nm luppoded by any nlhevevrdenoe, tn tea, tn the Ptatntttre own pcttce report there is uhsniulaly no reterence mud: to tne Foumt Detenaant [sq] In tact, there ts no evidence that the Second and Tntm Detenaants conspired with Fourth Detenaant tc aetraud the Platnttii and ti tt ts at personal debt between SD2 and the Fourth Defendant, a claim etttt Heads to be made against SD2 who actuatty benefits by using the Ptatnttitrs money to pay his debt what is important, based on the Ptatntttrs arm SiN KEw0t4flXlvflKhssR.ttaxX_l5rn 21 -we a.tt.t In-rtharwiii be ts... M yaw t.. nflflihaiily Minis m.t.t. vta aFit.ING Wmi ewdenoelhanhe money wslonhe purpose onhe omui plemenonnsnn and ms has a\so been acknowxeooed by an the Derenoams When SD2 had used the money Igamsnhe purpose Ilwas gwen by me Plalrmfl. mecause ol acnon co recover the money vs agamsl snz himself and nut against the Second Delermanl lathe Founh Devendanc [55] The Learned Cnunse\ tor me Plamm has reteneo to cases sucn as Amy: . u son Bhd y Rumaya Pmpenlu Sdn End [2011] m..m2u1. Vim Kong Sang a. nnnrv v n Wang Kn: [2014] 4 MLJ 41:; M Full; Sun! Sdn arm v Jnrnn cnpol (F1! Em) no [1997] 4 cu zoo and Zulpldll uammmo 50:: y Bank Peflznlan Malayan and mu) 1 Lus 1:5: The Learned Cuunse\ lav me Plamlm subrvuls that in admlsawon by me Detendams that file monies wave lransflavved (0 men Accounts and cannot be named al «ms stage [56] K cannul be denied that in those cases referred to‘ the Court has onncluded mm the aonneson in me preaomgs am me ewdence mnnut be dwspuled. However. in our case. an the nevenoancs have admI|1edma( me Plamaff has nansveneo a sum cl money to be given (0 502 am wnex .5 not acknowledged wslhalthey oenemrom me an on me contrary suz nas admmed max ne had used me money so. the wnlessmn and adrmssxon by 302 \s dearlhaflhe money nas been used by mm wnemer me money has peen useo wnlriry tu me intention oc me meunm Is between me Plamlifi First nevenosne and/or so and has no oonnectmn wnn me Secnnd to Fourth Defendants Tne Plalmvffs cause of aclmn Is to claim back me amount of money gwen In First Defendant but does no: uwalve a cause otaonon related to me use at muse somunls (Seennd Ia syn 5Ew<MtwvnKnssRxoxx_I5n 22 we sum ...n.. MU be used m mm o. nvwhufllli MW; dun-mm VI] nnum pm Fnurlh Doienoentst to defraud Ptetntitt As prevtoueiy stated, the Plairtoff knew tnet the accounts were “an inlavmedtary‘ due te tne status at tne SD2 who is still a bankrupt at lhal time (vi) whether the Plalnlifl is Intilledlo cllim fordlmugu as . result nl rnisreprennmion by an Dofendmu? [51] Based on SD2‘s ewoenee and mo Plainitfie own nollce roport, il re dear tnot tne Filtnttffzr intemton Is to get an the money paid through tne Defendants‘ account sut based on Ihe fact or tnrs case. Plairitifix can claim compensation tnarrt me First Detenoem and/av snz and not trorn tne Second to Fourth Deferidurtts Tn. Leernsa counsel tor tne PI: ntitr n-e refund to the case cl lbu Km Ductile iron Pipe Indiulry Sdn End a. Anorv Bunk Pumhlngintnn Mrllrlyllrl Bhd a. On [2013] ts cm :1 held’ “(at A rgmrgmmu wu rvtnde Ana || WII am at ttumeant rnilveyvelemabovt Mterelhe reltofltos ill egug In rnu npmsamntron nude on so Meror ztroa, nu timalmei were made as us when he miui|ru:.1ure wouidbe suppteu am wrtatwete the spectficanons unite tnfrastructmz and mm my were In be suvhhed The aileged contract was not certain or _..rrr.. rrrretrrg rm. cumin and tnerotore, win van our urtaerutlny. My .. v r r. rr r In It»: cwwmnznm. Pt rm unneeded in as am. ror . drdarawly older lgiinsl D7 on it. renraenlnnort Ind ordered in be oorvvenutzad or way of ieslttuwn ror wits incurmd In canstmmng any |flfld(BeIMl3s|l|K'.1IAlE as pmmsefl In “I Ivvveumalmn at a Lzuamum meruit basts as In beassessed" SIN nzmtmxrmknssmaxusn 23 «mu s.r.t n-rthnrwiii re used m mm r.. nflninuiily utthis dun-rtnrrt VII mum Wmi [55] However‘ man looking at me dsclslon oi lhis case, n does nol actually support me Flllntlffs case, but me Defendants‘ as 502 has vecerved Ine lull benefits and not the other Delendams Therefore‘ the panylnsl shuuld be sued IS snz mmsell Tne mlsreplesenlallan an any) was made bylne Flrsl nslenasnl and/or soz and run omevs memom. appropnate aclmn snnuld be taken agamsl me perpelralar (see ulugat Abdul Munir bin ul-gal Ahdullan Rafaie son v llohd Nnrl hinAbdnlI lulum a on [2022] MLJIJ 2112; my ln uvderlcl clalm ban the muney‘ Vorunlusl enrlchmenl, mlon musl belaken agalnsl 502 who nssaanmlea lhat ne has velzlved nenemslmm lne salons lnal nave liken Blane The pr-nciple at urlJ\lsI enncnmenl I5 sxplsmeu ln me case Annln Yoo v Sorlunlyuku (ma) 1 MLJ 4:, release to by the Learned Counsel lo: me Plalrlml Pm aq uslmoll hath cal bnlunlll us (so) In me reasons lor lunner Judgment, mus ceun wlll give mu calms reasons lelaled la 2 male prellmlnary palms valsed by me Learned Counsel far the FIE! In Fauml Delarldanls [0 Plalntlm pl ding: 131) The argument onne Second to Thlrd Delendanrs counsel s that me Plalnmfs pvaaalng IS related to (he claim aqalrlst me oonspviloj and SW 5Em<MtwvnKnssRxnxx_l5m In Nuns Sum ...ns.. WW be used M mm nu nllmruflly MW; dun-mm VI] mum mm not related lalne rssua lnnl money has been deposned ln me Dedendanls’ accounts [52] Loaklrlg at me pleadungs lne Conn agrees Ihat me clalm agalrlsl all me Delendanls were relaxed lo me wnsplracy and ma non clalm agalrlst lne Delendanls aooounls ln (ms case, me pames are sumem la oleadungs Onthls Issue, lne Courthaweverlound that all evlderloe relalnd la corlsplrilcy 15 relevant we be corlsldered and nut «or a cause or actlun mil IS rlal pleaded or unrelated [as] In lns case, mud on me Plaadinds, me cause ovaouon agalns1 ma Second to Fourlh Dalandenls VS based on me allegation that all ma nelandance nave made represenunans man has caused me Plalrltlfllo arller mla (hii lrweslmenl (reialed la the cause of anion IgaH'I51 the nelenoanla) [I4] ln me pleadlngs relened to‘ me cause nl anlon sgalrlsl Ill ma Delendams VI ems case IS me consplracy wnn suz In aelraud lne Plalrlml Based an we cause or almorl, it is clear that no cansplmcy has been pmverl because sm has oleany admmeo that all me inslrllctlans relaled to brlnglng -n money and also lnvesfmenl came «om hlm, hlmsefl Tne Plilrllfl also admllled man he assumed that (here was a conspiracy because ne thought it was a canny business and when soz decided was as a snokesperson lor an the Defendants Nalhlng related lolns nas been woven and VI I5 only me Plairlnffs ilssllmpllorl ll -s not enougn what the an l1Ew<MfiIr4flKnssR.xdx>u5rn 15 "None Sum! In-vlhnrwm be do... w mm a. nrwlruflly sun. dun-vlnnl Va .nune we Pratnm thtnks because the carISP|flCY must be proved that tnere was an apparent agreement mall the Defendants to deiriud the Platnm [us] As «at trte Founn Dedandanl, the Plalnltfl requests at tudgmem to be entereu due |o me lack of defence presented agams1 lhts dalm and tnete ts also no wmten statement/arat evtdence regarding trte aetertoe ol the Fourth Detenaertt [ca] Thu Faumt netena.-nt rte: not cause any wtlneues tn (his case. Thli does not imply that the PIIIMM nee pmuea NI cese, swan tmuqn ma Ptatmm versten ts ‘presumsd to be true' on tne bails that me Feunn Deteneant etected not lo adduoe evtdenee and to estahnstt it me Ptatnttw s. the coun mus1 sun consider has pmven, on the balance of plobibl Ihe Ptatrtms evidenoe and version tn wniuncltcn wtttt mhef ewdence [en The tegal burden ts Imposed on tne Platntm as prscnbed by the Evidence At: 1950. Undev sectton 101 at the Evidence Act 1950, the hurden at pnmtenrte case 15 nu ma Ptetnm lo pmve IL sectmn 101 of the Evtdenoe Act, wmert reads -seetten tot — puteett M pm ttt \Nn5e‘¢l desves my mun In gm mdgrnenlaitnzny tenet rlghlovflabtlm/.flepu\den|nn me exlslemerflfaux mttet. tte Iueflxt mm! pwve (Mt mm «em unit. :2; wven . puwn e bu-AM lo wove tn. uulnnua tn my me, tt n -ta mu tn. amen. M woof Im an am new SIN nEw<Mux1mKnssR.xdxX_l5m 25 we s.n.t n-vthnrwm be used e mm t.. nflmnnflly mt. dnunmnl VII nfluNG Wm! [sa] The muim to «ma principle has been explamed m ma case among Vik Trading v. Llxix Pllmztion Sdn and [HIT] A MLRA an mm s MLJ nu: [21:17] 3 cu 491 by Anfin zakana CJ m Ihefollowing wovds ‘n a sewed nan mm the human av pmof vaau lmoughw| ma man on me my who man man we «cu am u m at Ill: Evmznue Au msm When: a my on vmum ma hmdun ul pmuf has nu dmcnnvguu mm Burdens than me amanuax hurdtn xhmsto mu mar wally Hmnvvsr um. party on vmom Ihe mman av am has (ml: :4: aacnarqa A, line am puny naau nm an any avnanaa “ mu In vamtwnn in ma anagauan man a sum M monay was entered Into 1he Fmmh Delendanl’: aocoum, u was on snzu Inslrucmns |c ma Plamlifl There were no wnslruchons «om ma Fauna Dafenuanl so: haa arse admmed that he ha: um ma sud money (0 pay me aem Ia ma rounn Defendant n I! wmpletely clear that «ha affairs of ma Faurlh Duendanx and sum :1 n ya true that may have and ma P\aIrmWs money‘ man n anoula be clalmsd dllecfly vmm soz Tm Second and mm Defandams alsn aarnmad dunng the lnal that may am naz knew me Founh Delendanl and had naver met mm Thay also confrmad max me Fourm Decenuam was not invawaa m lhvs emu: «arm zmamaaa mlh SD2 There Is aka no amenoa thal the Founh Defiendant cunspved to wraua me Plamlflf nu] In Knnueguan Mnnlkam v Baula singn Klpa singh 5 Ann! mm CL: (rep) 506. hem man. an aEw<Mt1xwnKnssR.mxx_I5n 27 -ma am ...n.mm be used m mm n. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm ‘The run um I71: Defunaantx ma M1 New caflad to rebut lha mum can on not mean pudgmevu must be enmved n lavaurallhe Plamnfl me Queshovn ul nmm Iha balance oo Plubabmlses In me Halmfls Vavouvwomd only anse wheveme PM mm M: pmvud ha can “ m] In onu: Exp-n Whit: Sun and v nor ‘am Adams Anor [2021] 1 LNS 2350, the Federal own held that “ma omm A11AppII\ -ccepisd Ina pulmnn om: Vvw um um . dflendanl mm nnl m an my wldvnca‘ mu hum bewvn hound by inch emu» an me emem ‘ed by (he phllmf man be auumnd In In Inna Asyamc Kamaluan nmbemune Sun and V Kemnan Negeu Kehntan rzms] MLJU m, [24:15] zmx 142) Hmm an. vaa manna ddendanl led nozvmenoe av an any mess docs na|Absa\ve me wnmvmm auu...gmg u. mm." Ia arm: n. mm u. ‘M The . amen ndduaod in ma nl-mmlv muI| n. wWIc4uI|(o pmvlmeclmm (Mun-med Junul V Rnnmnn sun Alan lhr-mm &Aner[1Dm] 3 ML! 311200512 cu asw “ [12] rn Sulalman b|n Ngum dun Illn-lnln lvtn Annud nmmn hln Ahmad Fluzl (mom-kw: m M up. can nluhnlwnldlnyn umms F-uu bln Ahdullnn) um um um nyunn [24:22] uuu us‘ the Com av Appeal new: man ‘so sauagg. flak fig; mermum dakuaan [he wgmg gag bebzn mm K; gm behau unluk membawn buklvkelmangnn bug: menxnkrmg . a n x men emuknknn kahuna .n n < n H mm : gum; gig‘ gggm §;:;g‘ dakwlan Iersehul nak dwbmmkan‘ Ksevemmzml yang bsilaku dawn has my beuan kelerinqan (av-dermal burden) kekav luleflak m pmak yang membuu dnkwnnlslagaxx Lg; bnlun a. ma: Delendan umuk menasn dun mmemuxauan sw nEw<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn 2- mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm kexemnginllwuku urlmk memnguaw dikwun Iunwul ulgl ‘.m.nn.\ buggy mak manger; oleh wamw [51] 1521 mm. m...a.p-u euum u. -u‘ Iallm phdmgl dun kataemnglu Plmmfl Perumi mam Ilada om Iokonqan lam dvkemukakan YA Hahm hagammupun «asp msnanma kemengan rum we ml spa bemubunu semngan lersehumnn mgnumuknn banana new gmbuklun inflglzk dv alas eenu |'Je4endan—De1enun Km menannam YA mm Ielah lerkhvhl am . Mu mam men aurunakm umunpan bsrlumlngn um-sag Defer-dun rem. Mum: mm. dun bulnrvwn vglhnigg mam: wmma Dawn kndnn ream: Kim: mendnyu um mm «em mug an lerulah my. mirdwadnd kerana digatan tznebul benenlamgn am... kzluangan dukemukaknn " (ii) whnlhnr mo ludgm-nl against the Penn): Devend-nt would be amend automatically? [13] Before me mel named the Learned counser vorthe Plairmfl applied mat mdgmenl be entered against the Faunh Delendam mmam nemg allowed to parlicxpale m the cross-examnnenon althe wnnees beeeueeme Devendarvrs dslanoe had already been struck out by the mun [741 The court has the pvwev In do so and this drscvefian has been exmavned In the case 01 Ibunim Bin Mohamnd v Km: Folk Daanh Janmra-ham I-On [mic] SMLJ 15. held TV}: a mum mm; 51 m. ggg gg mg M ggeng. dmnl; mm». n r n y mer an : ‘ ‘ em nEw<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn 19 «me smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm ma Eshsr m Dnvery v E|num:k[139‘3] !QB1H51CA)I\ p m ms alme vllwlmlmeee Ivm iourues are curmlalrve and not aflemauve‘ am-nay be mvom by me Dams and ammaysn by m: cowl umuuamw, mm Elackbum m Mm-ovum amx . Pm\ey1|!a5} ta App Cu 210 Map 220 and 221and Bvawn u M wan: V Em BanunMmv11M£H1 Pa 52 ac a an M4 antiwar an buznd Inn “ms nu mm mm mum wow: .. mu ow Lam Eshe(MRm Dunysrme n m m In un u are flimve rum mandmnu and may come! a dtsclenonag ursdlnwrv mu wilzmevmsews amamwmmnmau m um m Am 0-" Zeus Slmnng w mm mm Keelev m [Na 3)[197a]cn 5ne.[19a9]: AH EN asv Hlmvlhlre Cmmly cmmnn Y Snmrmgh Nominee: m [1970] 2 Au ER 1u.ns7n11wu« M5) [75] In In eflon In assm the Court, the Lehman Counsel lor me Second -no mm Dececmma has oiled me case of any Lay Klong v sw- Ilo soommmun u. Anor um umum clvll [man] muu :52, which held mu "[3] W11: Cowl ma not record ludwnam m dataurl m dalame auaml Gunlpllhy is me mm. mm ugmnu Mm Anchmed dechnnmy orders Funrm m vnw cl 0 1nu7LI>nnd417{aJm um um cl cmm 2m I m awn Ennlowu so nx hutmq :1 (ha um: um: Sun Na 15 wrnre . mm u dedamnon was new sought agmns1 Gaanapalhy was set am. hr !na\ The aw-cam I tank was edzblnsnad ny Ihe Faderal cam m Amalan Yavat San and V mug. son an 1201117 CL.II21aslu4|ows [13] As ueaa-mun was me mam pvayu emu miwmianl n I: a mu av praclme mm helote such M121 Ls gumzd met: my he evmevnhl mm In an m nouns are vevy slow m grumnq dedammy plnyet wmm any evndanw Ind Imunmn Idvlnaed sm nEw<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn 30 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [1] The P\amnW X5 suing the Devendants for the payment at Rmaaomn any Much repvesems the vnvestn-ent the Naintifi made In a cmlh plant busmess /firm after the Defendants nnsted the Plamtifi [5] Due to the Fun! uetenctants bankruptcy, the Iawsunt agamst hnn has been wttnarawn WI Ims case Only the second, Tmrd‘ and Fourth Devendants are being sued by the Pletntnt as a result Over the ooutse or true suhnueenon, the Plamtrfl‘ wm eetabnsh thetottowmg, which wm gwe nse ta ms claun A (up It wls never dtidtased to the Planmtv that the Ftrst Dstenaent Is bankrupt narthattne Second and Thnd Devendants are only aeeeptmg payments on the Firsl Detendanrs behaw upon tounng the terms min the Detendantsy the Plainhfi was mvannea lhal they were all the proonetovs and/ov associates at the chum plant business; no The assemon meoe by the Second and mm Dafandsmz. that the funds wave ulthzed for bustness expenses relaned tn the amt plant is tense amt unsupponea. when the Prayntm asked the nevenaants tor ooeumentenon of male eestt, they on not pmvute him wtth any mvmoes, amnums, teoetpts, etc , (iii) The money pant to the Defertdarvts‘ aootzunls by the Plalnltfl has been admawledaed by the seoond and Third Detenttants syn aEw<MtwvnKnss>u¢x>u5n ‘ -we s.nn ...n.mn be ts... m mm the nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-nan! VI] .nune wrm [141 wn Gin Boon Kyee vYip Hang Sm&AImr [1977] 3 CL: 522 me ComIMAnven\ um mu :1 p 525 mm ma memagmem ul the xeemea mm: mmmwoner mm greet um. mung 1» mad um um: - ml in: are M m ordinary ;udgmen| m amun mu one cl d-dnnnlnry mm Al nfiuelved ay nm A When on n.. Duchrulorv Judgmlnl um: any at p 254 mm mu gm.-‘wry u vuluctnnl to ruin: fladnrnlnn u pun av . dnfnull judgmvnl m mo Internal 31 my mama Ind nrgumam Enfnre my own wants a doc\Im\ov\, u wunls In be sure. as m me me M unwniunrAxonJhI1hs appmpm in mm mat relwefi [9] Thlvefnra‘ Endowve so mu be delznnmed :1 me mnchmon of sun Na 75 “ V6] Note of proceedmgl and Order dnlsd 25 m2 2a2n wmaru ma cam (VA Dam‘ Amanaat Jc, as he men was) decvded :1 (allows, -cr mmg m Blauu mm: dccmm, Enchnurv 72 and Enclmure as um. um Ame la n. mm: Ind nmavm ow. Elvdunurv 72 And Enclnwre us In um: um “ [11] M191 exnmmmg me enllre case ix as clear mm the Flamml sun has n: prove ns use and mugmem will my be emema vrnen me mm: are lulry heard Thu Pllmflll alnll has the burden vi pvuuuanne reasons pr:v>cu:\y mm, and me dec\Iralrnn’s judgment cannm be anlarsa wnnoul mt huidmg u hearing on the menu The oaurl has gramed permisslbn for me Lnmed Counsel forth: Fnurth Deflendanl In uka part In the armre mll sm nEw<Mt1><M1Knss>uax>u5n an mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm V31 In Wun Mona Afninlum hln Wan Ahmad J. Ann! v ran saw Von; {suing u lawiul wldow and dlpalldam of Chin Wai Loy, ducuud) A on [mm 11 ML! I. the court held mm ‘In (N: vaglvd n n Ippoilll lo qumn item me one cl Ema! Hemunl sampmsa an: Answer v Cenlm Elnk 01 man (200312 sm 3310mm nlllnpeal — Smgapulaj at para no] men reads as [1D]ThI(liiMuflgc, mug new we mews aims Iulhuvs Amnson M .1. Hunlet J, m Lmgaluzn Evidence and Prooedum {em Ea, may ac 9 7:2, narea rm para 21 anus gmunds of1m1gmem)l91I| A deasmn I71 . fleflendam HM lg miduu rvndenue m ms dsrsnu 5 a gunman mat a gm ml m be Igmlx mm Wham n dainngn m k n n n In |mHbeIIv21Ih=wumsleY|w\m mu, mg nhlnws vevsmn cl me , my 5, W. .s M; 5 mg gnma lag mgm 3 g mgn: ma munmnl hmhl a4 an. gfimhlfs um 1 mn me llflwe :1 me deflendam in and E endeoce nu m cm! §5LgWwuu\d be man lo we d2fendam' Based on me case velzvred co, me burden or pmm sun rest: on the Plamnfl dasprte me absence avemenca rmm me Fourth Deiendant [791 In «ms case, as a final ousewsnan, n me time «ms agrssmsnx was entered V130 between me Plainml and me First Delendanl and/or SCI The F4rs( Defendant and suz are bankrupt and prevented lmm emenng into any agreemenl or business without any sannian (mm me Insolvency Depanmenc m acwrdlnoe with Semen aa oflhe Insolvency Az:I1S67[/Mt! 350}. Since the Fwst Defendant s a bankmpl :1 mm me, me aavon agams( me Fnsl nevenaanc was wnnurawn When me trial scansa, me Cnun was informed «us: the First Defendant (SDZ) was discharged and syn nEm<Mqx:mKnssR.mxx_l5n :2 was smm ...n.mn be used m mm .. nnnmuuy mm: mmn wa muNG pm released from bankrumcy status In 2020. No mrcrmamn was stated on the bankmmcy status of me Fm Defendant [nu] Tm; Conn took note M this miunuanun and will not much on whether me Plalrmfl can now vasums the case against me First Delendam and/or SD2 due In these declswons and me most recent facts Conclunlou my Before this court concludes «ms Judgment (he Conn expresses as gramuae to both Learned Counse\s for mair respecfive arguments m asslshrlg «ms court In amvlng (a this deaswn nu) Based on m ewdanoe Mme wnuones ma ma the arguments of me putting, on ma balnnoe av pmbnbnlmas‘ ms Conn hareby decide: mm [M Pmmm hit man In pnm ms case aglmst lhu Second «:2 Fuunh Devenuum sw nEkv<Mt1xM1Knss>u¢x>u5rn 33 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm ml the Prammrs claims are hereby dvsrmssed wrm a cost av RM10,D00 oma be paid (a me Second to me Faunh Detendms each and subjen to arlocaear AZIZAN MD SHAD Judiclal Co/mmissioner High Con ma: may. (3) Pulau Plnang Dam: 31.n1.2n2A ml: Can I (or n- Dmesh Nanuram ' Teluan Nindmog {/ 359. Tower 3‘ / uoA Eusmess pm, No 1‘ Jalan Pengamrmm U1I51A 40150 Shah Nam. Selangnr Darul Ehsan cnunul car In: Hm ma socom: Dmnunn Simon Mulah ya Kahmulhu Tainan Simon Mural: a Ca Feguamura flan Peguamhela Sui(e1B.3,TmgkaI16, Plaza MWE No a. Lebuh Favquhnv 10200 Georgelm-m Pulau Pmang sw aEm<Mnx:vnKnssR.mxx_l5u :4 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm counsel ionm Third D Chan AA me: Teman Fheg Che: «E Ung Peguamclra aan Peguambela ma] Jalan Tavay 10500 Fanang uglslau rm India 1 lnsuhtenny M11967 2 Evidence Ad ralerred to: 1 sum. Mnnunmy v. Lim Tun 3. Son: San am [1935] cu (Rep) 265 F.C. 2 Dllmond Puk sun arm I. Anor v. Dr. Tweedle [1951] 1 LNS 136, [$8211 MLJ 97 3 smpnganm Nlgnmnny v. Amauvllhy v Nndosnn J. Ann: (200115 CLJ 706 4. Abdul Ghnnl am Anauu-h v Eon Bnnk Bermd ma HHE Holdings (Third Party) [2010] MLJU 4979) 5 mn Shlng Company [1969] 1 ML.l19D F,[1§E9]1LNS an‘ [1969] |MLJ19D 5 Ln Klm Lulng V LOO Shllh VlO[|9BE]1 MLJ1§3[KC Vohrah J 7. wsca Sdn am v Rum . Prupenia: Sdn Bhd[1n17] uL.1u2247 a um Kong sum 5 nor [1 VII Wunn Kllli [2014] A MLJ as s VK Fuvm Socurlllu sun and v Jnman Clpal (5.: Eu!) Ltd [1997] 4 cu sun sw szaxv»wunxma.¢ms.. 35 mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvVn\ruH|y mm]; dun-mm VII mum Wm] fl 1n Zulpadli Muhammad so-1 v sank Peruuizn llalaylll and [2611] 1 LNS1853 11 Ilm ma Ductilu Iron Pipe lndullly Sdn BM 3. Ann! v Bank Pembangunan Malay a BM & On [2023]5 cm av 12 Mega Abdul Munir hin Moan Abaullan Rim: 5 on v Mohd Nasri bin Abdul Rahim A On [2022] MLJU 2712 1: Annie Vuo v Sonanoylkn 119531 1 MLJ 43 14 Hang wk Trlding v. Lmz Planmiun Sdn and [mm 4 MLRA 59.: 12017] 5 MLJ 393, [2017] 3 CL! 491 15 Kmuuga n Manlkam v aaula singn Kip: smgn a.Anur[19a2] CLJ (rep) 506 16 onua Expofl Whllu Sdn and v Norvanl Adams Anal [2021] 1 LNS 2350 17 Sulaiman bin Nglril fllll in him Alllllld Ikhwlll blll Ahmad Fauzl (memlakwa melalul bapa dun sahlbutvunkilnya, Ahmad Fauzl bln Ahdullah) flan salu lag! rayuan [2022] mm; 256 13 Ibrahim Bin Monamad v Knul Fons Damn Johor aaharu & 0rI[199G|5MLJ15 19 Ong Lay Klnug v Slvarujln slo aoomnmnm A Anor am unathnr clvll [2020] MLJU S52 20 wan Mona Mxainlum mu wan Ahmad a Anorv Tan saw Vang (sum an Iavnul widow and dapunaam 0! Chin wai Lay, duct ud)&0rs[2017] 11 MLJ1 sw szaxwmnxma..wus.. 35 mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm a. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm Ddnndln rgu xx [91 In response to the Pnaznmra cralm, the Second ane Tmm Defendants have taken the lulrowmg stance Ia) Tney aseen men on» cnawaman Thor Bang Hun! (SD2)vme valaaly manuned mrnaen tn ma mamnm ea me Fun Defendant in «ma case, ruueived «no funds uvaugn mam, (:2) The reason my Ims anangemem Is that Ihexr father vs bankrupt and laws me legal amhonty under bankruptcy‘/msolvency raws lo UPBVME 6 busvness mu Addmanany, ma Second anu mm Defendants assen that me Plainlnf cannm wlmdrlw his demand var ma money he unveecea aecauae wt was used to any can me coana anacmed wnn me chvllv pllnt business nu The saaona and mm Devendancs tanner assen Ihal unaenain factors such as markm wndmans. weather panama, and climate affect investmenl returns and that the pmmaanny onhe emu term cannot ae gualanvteed Tnereaore. m -s reasonaue to assume oenavn nsks when mvesmg in the chllli plant business by me Plalnufl: syn aEw<MtwvnKnssR.mxx_I5m 5 -nae am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used a mm was nrW\naU|:I mm: dun-mm Va anum wrm [I2] For the Fourth Defendant. there is no dsienca more the court because the Fourth Dsiendanrs Deisnca has been dismissed on 23 09 2020 Issues to he med [131 Out at ail the issues that ware mad at ihs Hugh Conn, lhera wars essennaliy lmir mam issues that were afldmsaad II the Full Tnni The outcome at mass M)( (6) issues wouid determine the ciiim ul hind These tour issuas ara — (I) wttstnsr me Plainlm and the Defendants entered mic an oral agreement var investment’ (u) Vilhelherlhe Piainm paid the sum of RMEBD,D00.00 to the mdmduai bank accounts at the Deiendantsv mi) vvhettter me Dsiendants made misrepresentations to the Plaintiin (iv) wrtsthsr ihe Platnltfl plld ma sum al Rmaaimoo on upon miuvapresenmiuns made by me Deisndantn M Vilhelhev the Defendants were uniustiy ennclted by receiving the sum of RMGBQDDO DD Iran the Flainlflf’ (vi) Whether the Plalrmfl is entitled in daim lot darnages as a result at misrspresematmn by me Deiendants7 [I4] Hawever, move that, in INS case there are two 121 pveliminary iusuas lhiil have been raised by the Pumas‘ which lie rallied in [he (I) sin aaummnxmmmsm 5 Nata s.n.i ...m.mm be used M mm .. mimuuy MIN: dun-mm VI] .mm mm Plamhffs pleadmgs and (mwnemev the judgment agamst the Fourth Delermant should be entered automancauy [15] This cum wm give reasons to me mt six mam lssues and wm only gwa reasons in: the 2 prelummary Issues at the end ov the reasons var Ims mdgmenl (i) Whumulhs Plaintivunu the Dedendanh ennered unto an oral Ignimom for investmem; ma (Ii) wneme: the Detenaants made misrepresentations to the Plalmm? [16] The Court VIIH oemmenl an Issuas (I) and (my snmunaneously because may ave many tamed [17] Dunng that perm me Plainmf met wnn the Devendams appruxvrrtatew once a month‘ and they showed mm around some onhe agriw|lura\ land Amammg to the Plamm Ihe Defendants made reprsenlamons as bebw - (at The Daflendanh own/lease a law agncunur! lands of approxumatexy 22 acres m Kedah and Penannt sw szm<mmnxn.m.¢ms.. 7 -um Sum ...m.. WW be ts... m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm (o) The De4endenre are mvalved in me ennui plam busmess and me busmess has been pmflabler (c) Due lo a Lack av funds. me nerenaarm were unly able in pwent cninr on new whim agricultural land, to) The De4enuame need an mveslavto expand Ihecmlln mam busrnees. (e) The Defendants guarantee that the mveslmenl wru onng prams and the Invested cepuex wxll he rammed wurun 3 years‘ (1) The Plarmmwru be made pan oMhe owner andlor panner onne rnvescmenx huslness [1 a1 Anenne Plamufl pen: (he sum 54 RM6BD‘0DD.00lo the nevenaams. one Hrnnurv requested lrom me Delendants a wrmen confirmation and suppoding aoeurnenrs «or me Investment ne made my In true can the Plammf admlllad met (here was no wnnen agreement befween them The Plamm and me Defendants cams In an era! agreement and me Flanrmll pmd Rmaaomu D0 to each Dclendanfs md dull bank account as an rnuemrern In the chill: plant bunness, based on the Defendants’ rapvusantauons Ind mstruL7lIons [N] In amer to confirm me terms onhe Investment and the peyrnems that the Plamirfi made to me Defendants Vor vrweslment purposes, the Plairmfl hook n upon mmseif to prepare e Chill: Farm lnvesment srn aaumxouxmnmmsn. I ‘Nata s.n.r In-nhnrwm re used m mm r.. nrW\nnH|Y mm: dun-mm VI] unum pm Agreement However, the First Defendant remsafl to svgn wt, despme tne Detendents' vefusm to prepare e wntten confirmation agreement [21] Addmm\aHy, In response to the mammre mquines ooneemmg the retums on me Irwesvnem, me F|rs1 Defendant oflered a vanely cl justxfnatxanst tnetudtng the fan tnet the chum had my yecenuy been harvested and that the Flamtm Wonk! reoewe VHS money (ram wldunng the lnllnwlng harvest [:2] Durmg 2 meehng between the FIrsID91end:n!andIhe Ptainrm, me First Defendant urafly acknowiedged met me money out tne Plairmfl nee pan: the Detenaame had net been utmzea is en -nvestment III the emu. ptant company The P m Ned e police repen es e result This us because the Plairmfl unveiled e stumficanl amount at money .n tne chtlll farm Mlhnul pettung inythmg In return, relymg on the De4ern1:nte' fewse repneeentetione and men sgrsements [231 Inerenare, me meuntm was lefll with no opuon but to serve the Defendants wnn ems wm of Summons and statement at Clalrvl -n ordevln omem me RMsec,ooo 00 Investment emaunt ee wen Is damages car we neoeptten, oral agreement breach, and lraud ocnsptlacy agamst the Flamml [241 For W5 vssue, the Defences at the second and Third Defendant: eve dlracfly dependent on mefuttnet me Phinlm has ndmitted during tne syn aEw<MtwvnKnss>uax>u5n 9 we sent ...n.mm be ts... m mm ms mm-y MW: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm mal man he has dean dirscfly with the First Dedendant ana/or snz where all rnaners nave been done belween me wee onnem [25] The second and Tlurd Defendants shouhi nol be subyed to any ueun because me cause ov adlon Is appmpnale agamsl me First Defendant. Any musrepresenoeuon In 1e\aImn to me agreement nv any \s between me Fvrsl Defendant. In Ims case, when me man was senmk out agamsl me Fvsl Deflendamy mere Is no more case against me First Devenoant men is sun pending In com on that basis‘ the second and Two nevenoems have called men lalhev, Tnov aeng Huac lo gwe evldenca as then mzness, namely. snz. [:51 W1: Plnlnliflhas confirmed me fact me: me era) agreement mo ens! bevween me Plarnufl, me First Devenoanc andlor suz As for me Founn Devenoanc, me Founn Decenoanc nas never met one seoono and Third Deienoenxs, lherelcre. there vs eosolunexy no wnsplricy between mern [27] There \s an oral agreement oemeen me F\aInM, rue: Deienoant eno/or SD2, ano ounng meme! (hue wsan aonussmn on the amaunm eno mean no Ionge« be dlspmsd eune argument stage one reounne ey-oenoe gwen under mean by me second De1:ndanl,Thvrd Detenoenx and snz. [:31 nunng mama! snz zmnmed man n was ‘Tommy Thai who had met and auscussed with me Pvmnm ne also summed that he wasme one who had mscussed with (he Pllmmf for the 'cn.In Hantatlon lnvestmenl’ He also did not In any way say Ihal me omer Detendams were nnvorved m syn aEkv<Mt1x1vnKnssR.mxx_I5n 1“ ‘Nata snn n-nhnrwm be used m mm s. nflmnnfllli mm: m.n.n VI] nnum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

RA-24NCvC-15-04/2023

PEMOHON Mohd Hassan Bin Mat Ariffin (Sebagai Pentadbir Kepada Si Mati Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri, No. Kp: 680825-09-5000) RESPONDEN 1. ) SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Negeri Perlis

Permohonan untuk satu perintah bahawa lelongan awam yang telah ditetapkan dibatalkan - Permohonan adalah susulan daripada Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar melalui Writ Saman yang telah memutuskan bahawa perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas hartanah tersebut adalah terbatal tidak sah dan tidak boleh kuatkuasakan - Defendan pertama tiada lokus untuk melelong hartanah tersebut yang telah dikembalikan pemilikannya kepada pemilik asal memandangkan perjanjian jual beli tersebut telah dibatalkan- Defendan pertama adalah sebuah bank yang telah memberikan kemudahan pembiayaan untuk proses jual beli tersebut dan merupakan pemegang gadaian hartanah tersebut - Akibat kegagalan pembeli menyelenggara kemudahan pembiayaan tersebut, suatu penghakiman terus dan suatu perintah jualan atas permintaan pemegang gadaian telah diperoleh dan lelongan awam terhadap hartanah tersebut ditetapkan pada 9/5/2023 di Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Perlis - Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa lelongan awam tersebut hendaklah dibatalkan lanjutan daripada penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar yang telah memutuskan bahawa perjanjian jual beli tersebut sebagai terbatal tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan - Oleh itu, gadaian yang telah dibuat kepada defendan pertama ke atas hartanah tersebut juga adalah tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan- Mahkamah juga berpendapat tindakan lelongan awam tersebut tidak wajar diteruskan kerana keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar berkenaan jual beli tersebut telah dirayu dan belum diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan.

07/02/2024

YA Dr Arik Sanusi Bin Yeop Johari

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0018316e-f329-4cab-b873-f5e1828231c4&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KANGAR DALAM NEGERI PERLIS, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: RA-24NCvC-15-04/2023 Dalam Perkara Hartanah di bawah Pegangan Hakmilik No. GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Penghakiman Bertarikh 22.02.2022 yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Perlis Melalui Writ Saman No. RA-22NCvC-1-02/2018; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Perisytiharan Jualan Melalui Perintah Jualan Atas Permintaan Pemegang Gadaian PTG.Ps (R) 1/80F 2554 (10); Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 417 dan 263 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965; Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 7 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 07/02/2024 13:18:34 RA-24NCvC-15-04/2023 Kand. 34 S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 MOHD HASSAN BIN MAT ARIFFIN (No. K/P: 670418-02-5479) (Sebagai Pentadbir kepada Si Mati Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri No. K/P: 680825-09-5000) ..... PLAINTIF DAN 1. SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 49572-H) 2. PENTADBIR TANAH PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN PERLIS ..... DEFENDAN- DEFENDAN S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN [1] Dalam tindakan ini, Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan Saman Pemula (Lampiran 1) dan Perakuan Segera (Lampiran 2) bertarikh 28/4/2023 terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua bagi mendapatkan perintah-perintah seperti yang berikut: (a) satu perintah bahawa lelongan awam ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik No. GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”) yang dipohon oleh Defendan Pertama selaku pemegang gadaian kepada Hartanah tersebut adalah dibatalkan susulan dari Penghakiman yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar bertarikh 22.2.2022 melalui Writ Saman No. RA-22NCvC-1-02/2018 yang memutuskan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9.4.2012 ke atas Hartanah tersebut adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (b) satu perintah bahawa Pentadbir Tanah dan/atau Pendaftar Hakmilik Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Perlis hendaklah membatalkan segala prosiding lelongan awam ke atas Hartanah tersebut dengan serta-merta; (c) satu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama dengan sendirinya dan/atau wakilnya dan/atau ejen-ejennya dan/atau pekerjanya adalah diestop daripada melaksanakan segala prosiding lelongan awam ke atas Hartanah tersebut; (d) kos dalam permohonan ini adalah kos dalam kausa; dan (e) selanjutnya relif atau perintah lain yang dianggap sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [2] Plaintif telah membuat permohonan tersebut berdasarkan alasan- alasan berikut: (a) Plaintif adalah suami dan wakil mutlak/penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (No. K/P: 680825-09- S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 5000) yang merupakan Pemilik asal ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik No. GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”); (b) suatu Perjanjian Jual Beli ke atas Hartanah tersebut telah dibuat antara Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Pemilik berdaftar/Penjual) dan D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd (Pembeli) bertarikh pada 9.4.2012; (c) melalui Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar bertarikh 22.2.2022, adalah dihakimkan dan diisytiharkan antara lain bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli ke atas Hartanah tersebut antara Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan (Pemilik berdaftar/Penjual) dan D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd (Pembeli) bertarikh pada 9.4.2012 adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (d) Plaintif juga telah dilantik sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri pada 3.1.2023 melalui Geran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir No. RA-31NCvC-15-10/2022 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (e) maka, D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd bukan lagi pemilik berdaftar terhadap Hartanah tersebut dan Hartanah tersebut perlu dikembalikan dan/atau dipindahmilik kepada pemilik asal, iaitu Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan dan seterusnya diturunmilik kepada Plaintif sebagai waris; dan (f) oleh itu Defendan Pertama sudah tiada locus untuk melelong Hartanah tersebut yang telah dikembalikan pemilikannya kepada pemilik asal, iaitu Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri dan seterusnya diturunmilik kepada Plaintif sebagai waris. [3] Setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti, menilai dan mempertimbangkan Saman Pemula Plaintif tersebut, afidavit-afidavit yang telah difailkan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan serta penghujahan dan nas-nas undang- undang yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, pada 25/8/2023, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan permohonan Plaintif tersebut dan memberikan perintah seperti yang berikut: S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (a) satu perintah bahawa lelongan awam ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik No. GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”) yang dipohon oleh Defendan Pertama selaku pemegang gadaian kepada Hartanah tersebut adalah dibatalkan susulan dari Penghakiman yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar bertarikh 22.2.2022 melalui Writ Saman No. RA-22NCvC-1-02/2018 yang memutuskan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9.4.2012 ke atas Hartanah tersebut adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (b) satu perintah bahawa Pentadbir Tanah dan/atau Pendaftar Hakmilik Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Perlis hendaklah membatalkan segala prosiding lelongan awam ke atas Hartanah tersebut dengan serta-merta; (c) satu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama dengan sendirinya dan/atau wakilnya dan/atau ejen-ejennya dan/atau pekerjanya S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 adalah diestop daripada melaksanakan segala prosiding lelongan awam ke atas Hartanah tersebut; (d) kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif; dan (e) tiada perintah mengenai kos terhadap Defendan Kedua. [4] Defendan Pertama yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut telah merayu terhadap keseluruhan keputusan itu. Notis Rayuan telah difailkan oleh Defendan Pertama pada 28/8/2023. FAKTA DAN LATAR BELAKANG KES [5] Dalam tindakan Saman Pemula ini, Plaintif adalah suami dan wakil mutlak/penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si Mati) yang merupakan Pemilik asal ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah bernombor pendaftaran Hakmilik No. GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”) (rujuk Ekshibit “MH-1” – Lampiran 3). S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [6] Plaintif telah dilantik sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si Mati) pada 3/1/2023 melalui Geran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir No. RA-31NCvC-15-10/2022 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar (rujuk Ekshibit “MH-2” – Lampiran 3). [7] Defendan Pertama adalah sebuah bank yang telah memberikan Kemudahan Pembiayaan Islamik Commodity Murabahah Term Financing- i (CMTF-i) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Kemudahan Pembiayaan CMTF-i tersebut”) berjumlah RM2,009,500.00 kepada sebuah syarikat bernama D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd. [8] Defendan Kedua adalah Pentadbir Tanah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Perlis. [9] Sebagai jaminan kepada Kemudahan Pembiayaan CMTF-i tersebut, D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd telah menggadai Hartanah tersebut kepada Defendan Pertama melalui Nombor Perserahan 3630/2012 pada 22/10/2012 (rujuk Ekshibit “ZO-1” – Lampiran 9) dan penjamin-penjamin bagi pembiayaan tersebut adalah Norazuna Binti Jusoh dan Mahtar Bin Mansor (suami Norazuna Binti Jusoh). S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [10] Akibat daripada kegagalan D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd dan penjamin- penjaminnya menyelenggara Kemudahan Pembiayaan CMTF-i tersebut, Defendan Pertama telah memperolehi Penghakiman Terus daripada Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 30/1/2023 melalui Writ Saman No. WA-22M-158-04/2022 untuk sejumlah RM2,396,914.71 setakat 20/4/2022. [11] Melalui suatu Perintah Jualan Atas Permintaan Pemegang Gadaian PTG.Ps (R) 1/80F 2554 (10), suatu lelongan awam terhadap Hartanah tersebut telah ditetapkan pada 9/5/2023 pada jam 11.00 pagi di Perkarangan Pejabat Tanah dan Galian, Negeri Perlis. [12] Berikutan daripada suatu Penghakiman bertarikh 22/2/2022 yang diperolehi oleh Plaintif bersama Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si Mati) melalui suatu perbicaraan penuh dalam tindakan Writ Saman No. RA- 22NCvC-1-02/2018 (rujuk Ekshibit “MH-4”), Plaintif telah memfailkan Saman Pemula tersebut supaya Perintah Jualan Atas Permintaan Pemegang Gadaian PTG.Ps (R) 1/80F 2554 (10) untuk lelongan awam tersebut dibatalkan. Antara alasan Plaintif adalah seperti yang berikut: S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (a) dalam tindakan Writ Saman No. RA-22NCvC-1-02/2018, Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar telah memutuskan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (b) oleh itu, D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd bukan lagi pemilik berdaftar Hartanah tersebut dan Hartanah tersebut perlu dikembalikan dan/atau dipindahmilik kepada pemilik asal, iaitu Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan dan seterusnya diturunmilik kepada Plaintif sebagai waris; dan (c) oleh itu, Defendan Pertama tiada locus untuk melelong Hartanah tersebut yang telah dikembalikan pemilikannya kepada pemilik asal, iaitu Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri dan seterusnya diturunmilik kepada Plaintif sebagai waris. ISU YANG BERBANGKIT [13] Isu yang berbangkit dalam tindakan ini ialah – S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) sama ada Plaintif mempunyai locus untuk memfailkan Saman Pemula tersebut; dan (b) sama ada terdapat merit dalam permohonan Saman Pemula Plaintif tersebut. ANALISIS, DAPATAN DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH INI Isu Pertama [14] Mengenai Isu Pertama, Plaintif telah memfailkan Saman Pemula tersebut atas kapasitinya sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si mati). Plaintif telah dilantik sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si mati) pada 3/1/2023 melalui Geran Surat Kuasa Mentadbir No. RA-31NCvC-15- 10/2022 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar. [15] Pada pendapat Mahkamah ini, sebagai Pentadbir yang sah kepada Harta Pusaka Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si mati), Plaintif mempunyai legal and beneficial interest ke atas Hartanah tersebut dan step S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 into the shoes of the deceased dalam menuntut hak Si mati dan/atau Plaintif ke atas Hartanah tersebut, iaitu sepertimana Si Mati berhak membuat tuntutan tersebut semasa hayatnya. Oleh itu, Plaintif mempunyai locus dari segi undang-undang untuk menyaman Defendan-Defendan melalui Saman Pemula tersebut. [16] Dapatan Mahkamah ini adalah selaras dengan seksyen 59 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 [Akta 97] yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “Rights of action of personal representative 59. Subject to any other written law, a personal representative has the same powers to sue in respect of all causes of action that survive the deceased, and may exercise the same power for the recovery of debts due to him at the time of his death as the deceased had when living.”. [Penekanan ditambah] [17] Selanjutnya, dapatan Mahkamah ini adalah selaras dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes He-Con Sdn Bhd v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 MLJ 662 yang disampaikan oleh Abang Iskandar FCJ seperti yang berikut: S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “[95] In the final analysis, we are left with the following scenario. The first defendant, having been rendered a bare trustee for the deceased, had no interest whatsoever in the said property. The fourth defendant had a registered interest in the charge that was defeasible, as it was obtained from the first defendant via a void instrument. The plaintiffs, being the administrators of the estate of the deceased, who was a beneficial owner of the said property are therefore the rightful owner, albeit an equitable one. As was observed by Lord Russel of Killowen in Oh Hiam & Ors v Tham Kong [1980] 2 MLJ 159, PC (‘Oh Hiam’s case’) that ‘the Torrens System is designed to provide simplicity and certitude in transfer of land which is amply achieved without depriving equity of the ability to exercise its jurisdiction in personam on grounds of conscience’. The applicability of rules of equity in our country, as stated by Justice Peh Swee Chin in Yeong Ah Chee’s case is founded upon the Civil Law Act 1956. This was accepted and reiterated by the apex court again in the Samuel Naik case, against which we could find no reason to offer a contrarian view.”. [Penekanan ditambah] [18] Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan Pertama bahawa Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus untuk memfailkan tindakan Saman Pemula tersebut. Isu Kedua [19] Mengenai Isu Kedua, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa permohonan Saman Pemula Plaintif tersebut adalah bermerit. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [20] Alasan Mahkamah ini adalah seperti di bawah. [21] Pertama, lanjutan daripada Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar pada 22/2/2022 dalam kes Writ Saman No. RA-22NCvC-1-02/2018 yang memutuskan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut sebagai terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan, maka pendaftaran pindahmilik Hartanah tersebut daripada nama Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri (Si Mati Penjual) kepada D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd (Pembeli) adalah tidak sah dan terbatal [atas alasan baki harga jual beli Hartanah tersebut tidak dijelaskan sepenuhnya oleh Pembeli kepada Penjual sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar tersebut]. Sesalinan Alasan Penghakiman tersebut dilampirkan di sini sebagai Lampiran A. [22] Kedua, kesan daripada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar tersebut juga mengakibatkan gadaian yang dibuat oleh D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd kepada Defendan Pertama ke atas Hartanah tersebut adalah tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [23] Ketiga, keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar tersebut telah dirayu oleh D Zunas Maju Sdn Bhd bersama Norazuna Binti Jusoh dan masih belum didengar dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan. Berikutan itu, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa tindakan lelongan awam tersebut tidak wajar diteruskan. KESIMPULAN [24] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan permohonan Saman Pemula Plaintif tersebut dengan kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 terhadap Defendan Pertama dan tiada kos dikenakan kepada Defendan Kedua. Bertarikh : 7 Februari 2024 (DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Kangar Negeri Perlis S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Peguam Cara Pihak-Pihak – Peguam Cara Plaintif: Encik Zaidi Bin Abdul Hamid Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara Tetuan Zaidi & Associates Advocates & Solicitors No. 446, 1st Floor Jalan Pusat Bandar Senawang 18 Pusat Bandar Senawang 70450 Seremban Peguam Cara Defendan Pertama: Dato’ Amelda Binti Md Din bersama Puan Sitti Salehah Binti Bura Era Tetuan Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara 37G, Medan Bukit Indah 2, 68000 Ampang Selangor Peguam Cara Defendan Kedua: Puan Ainul Wardah Binti Shahidan Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perlis Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perlis Aras 3, Blok B Kompleks Pentadbiran Kerajaan Negeri Perlis Persiaran Wawasan 01000 Kangar Perlis S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1 LAMPIRAN A DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KANGAR DALAM NEGERI PERLIS, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. KES: RA-22NCVC-1-02/2018 ANTARA 1. MOHD HASSAN BIN MAT ARIFFIN [NO. K/P: 670418-02-5479] 2. YONG HAFIZAH BINTI HASSAN BASRI [NO. K/P: 680825-09-5000] ...... PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. D ZUNAS MAJU SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 896430-P] 2. NORAZUNA BINTI JUSOH [NO. K/P: 720903-09-5000] ...... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN [1] Dalam kes ini, tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan seperti dalam Writ Saman Terpinda (Lampiran 11) dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda (Lampiran 12) Plaintif-Plaintif adalah seperti yang berikut: (a) satu Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (b) satu Pengisytiharan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 apabila gagal untuk menyempurnakan bayaran Baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut sebanyak RM652,700.00 kepada Plaintif Pertama, selaku wakil mutlak/penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil bagi pihak Plaintif Kedua (“Penjual”) dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan dalam Perjanjian tersebut; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (c) satu Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Plaintif Kedua berhak untuk melucut wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Pertama dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Kedua; (d) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar Gantirugi Am, Gantirugi Khas, Gantirugi bagi Kemungkiran Kontrak dan Gantirugi Teladan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif sebanyak RM2,000,000.00; (e) Defendan-Defendan membayar gantirugi kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif sebanyak RM1,000,000.00; (f) faedah di atas baki bayaran pada kadar 10% setahun dari tarikh penyempurnaan Perjanjian Jual Beli sehingga tarikh saman; (g) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah Penghakiman dari tarikh saman sehingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (h) kos tindakan ini berdasarkan kos peguam cara dan anak guam; dan (i) apa-apa relief lanjut dan/atau yang difikirkan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [2] Setelah suatu perbicaraan penuh diadakan, Mahkamah ini mendapati Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan- Defendan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan seperti yang berikut: (a) Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (b) Pengisytiharan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 apabila gagal untuk menyempurnakan bayaran Baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut sebanyak RM652,320.00 kepada Plaintif Pertama, S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 selaku wakil mutlak/penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil bagi pihak Plaintif Kedua (“Penjual”) dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan dalam Perjanjian tersebut; (c) Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Plaintif Kedua berhak untuk melucut wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Pertama dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Kedua; (d) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar faedah di atas baki bayaran pada kadar 10% setahun dari tarikh penyempurnaan Perjanjian Jual Beli sehingga tarikh saman; (e) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah Penghakiman dari tarikh saman sehingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; dan (f) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar kos kepada Plaintif- Plaintif sebanyak RM5,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [3] Defendan-Defendan tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini dan telah merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut. Alasan Mahkamah ini adalah seperti di bawah. FAKTA DAN LATAR BELAKANG KES [4] Plaintif Pertama adalah suami Plaintif Kedua dan wakil mutlak/ penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil Plaintif Kedua melalui Surat Kuasa Wakil No. 17/2007 bertarikh 11/1/2007 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “SKW tersebut”). [5] Plaintif Pertama juga adalah salah seorang Pemegang Saham dan Pengarah Syarikat Hasri (No. Syarikat: AS0014342-M) (selepas ini disebut sebagai “Syarikat Hasri”). [6] Plaintif Kedua adalah Pemilik Berdaftar ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis (selepas ini disebut sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”). [7] Plaintif Kedua juga adalah salah seorang Pemegang Saham dan Pengarah Syarikat Hasri dan merupakan pihak Penjual bagi Hartanah tersebut. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [8] Syarikat Hasri merupakan sebuah syarikat perkongsian yang didaftarkan dì bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 pada 24/3/1980 dan mempunyai alamat pendaftaran perniagaan di Caltex Servis Stesen, Bt 1, Jalan Kaki Bukit, 01000 Kangar, Perlis. [9] Defendan Pertama adalah sebuah syarikat yang didaftarkan di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar dan alamat perniagaan di No. 23 (Atas), Jalan Sena Indah, Taman Sena Indah, 01000 Kangar, Perlis. [10] Defendan Pertama juga merupakan pihak Pembeli bagi Hartanah tersebut. [11] Defendan Kedua adalah Pemegang Saham dan Pengarah Syarikat Defendan Pertama. [12] Pada 9/4/2012, Plaintif Kedua sebagai Penjual dan Defendan Pertama yang diwakili oleh Mahtar Bin Mansor dan Defendan Kedua sebagai Pembeli telah memasuki suatu Perjanjian Jual Beli bagi Hartanah tersebut (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut”) dengan harga balasan sebanyak RM1,700,000.00 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Harga Jual Beli tersebut”) (Rujuk muka surat 8 – 25 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 seperti dalam Lampiran 17). Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut telah disetemkan pada 9/4/2012. [13] Walaupun Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan tidak menafikan mengenai kewujudan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, namun kedua-dua pihak mempertikaikan mengenai fakta berikut: (a) apakah harga balasan sebenar bagi jual beli Hartanah tersebut; dan (b) sama ada terdapat suatu Perjanjian Tambahan kepada Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut bagi meminda Harga Jual Beli tersebut. [14] Semasa perbicaraan, pihak Plaintif-Plaintif telah memanggil dua orang saksi, iaitu Yong Hafizah Binti Hassan Basri, iaitu Plaintif Kedua (SP1) dan Mohd Hassan Bin Mat Ariffin, iaitu Plaintif Pertama (SP2), manakala pihak Defendan-Defendan pula telah memanggil tiga orang saksi, iaitu Norazuna Binti Jusoh, iaitu Defendan Kedua (SD1), Muzamir Bin Mokhtar, iaitu bekas peguam dan freelancer yang bekerja dengan SD3 (SD2) dan Zuhair Bin Ahmad Zakuan, iaitu seorang peguam (SD3). S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Versi Plaintif-Plaintif [15] Menurut Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif Kedua hanya memasuki satu perjanjian jual beli sahaja dengan Defendan Pertama bagi jual beli Hartanah tersebut, iaitu Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, Harga Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut yang dipersetujui oleh kedua- dua pihak ialah sebanyak RM1,700,000.00. [16] Menurut Plaintif-Plaintif juga, tiada apa-apa Perjanjian Tambahan dimasuki antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Pertama bagi meminda Harga Jual Beli tersebut daripada RM1,700,000.00 kepada RM1,400,000.00. [17] Oleh itu, Plaintif-Plaintif telah menafikan segala dakwaan Defendan- Defendan seperti dalam Pernyataan Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan- Defendan (Lampiran 14) mengenai kewujudan Perjanjian Tambahan tersebut. [18] Menurut Plaintif-Plaintif selanjutnya, Defendan-Defendan telah menjelaskan sebahagian daripada Harga Jual Beli tersebut dan masih berbaki sebanyak RM652,320.00. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan hanya ke atas baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Versi Defendan-Defendan [19] Menurut Defendan-Defendan, Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama telah bersetuju untuk memasuki suatu Perjanjian Tambahan bagi meminda Harga Jual Beli tersebut daripada RM1,700,000.00 kepada RM1,400,000.00 melalui satu ‘side letter’ tidak bertarikh dan tidak bersetem seperti di Ekshibit D.10 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Perjanjian Tambahan tersebut”). [20] Menurut Defendan-Defendan selanjutnya, Perjanjian Tambahan tersebut dibuat menurut Fasa 17 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Oleh itu, Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah dokumen yang sah dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama. [21] Menurut Defendan-Defendan seterusnya, memandangkan Defendan Pertama telahpun membuat bayaran sebanyak RM1,400,000.00 kepada Plaintif Kedua, termasuk penebusan semula (lepas gadai) dari pemegang gadaian, iaitu CIMB Bank Berhad, maka Defendan-Defendan tidak lagi mempunyai apa-apa hutang kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. [22] Oleh itu, Defendan-Defendan menghujahkan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan ini adalah tidak berasas dan tidak bermerit. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 ISU UNDANG-UNDANG YANG BERBANGKIT [23] Isu undang-undang yang berbangkit dalam tindakan ini adalah seperti yang berikut: (a) sama ada Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 yang dimasuki antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Pertama adalah suatu kontrak yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan (enforceable) dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan; (b) sama ada Plaintif-Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan atas imbangan kebarangkalian; (c) sama ada wujud suatu Perjanjian Tambahan (Ekshibit D.10) yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan (enforceable) dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama; dan (d) sama ada Defendan-Defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 DAPATAN DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH Isu Pertama [24] Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan dalam kes ini adalah berasaskan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Pihak-pihak dalam tindakan ini tidak menafikan mengenai kewujudan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dan bersetuju bahawa kedua-dua pihak adalah terikat dengan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Dalam perenggan 45 Hujahan Bertulis Plaintif-Plaintif dihujahkan bahawa – “45. Plaintif berhujah bahawa pihak-pihak telah menandatangani suatu Perjanjian Jual Beli dan adalah terikat dengan terma yang terkandung dalamnya. Namun, sekiranya ada pihak yang gagal menepati terma tersebut, Perjanjian/Kontrak tersebut boleh terbatal. …”. [25] Seterusnya, dalam perenggan 8 Hujahan Balas Plaintif-Plaintif dihujahkan bahawa – “8. Dalam kes sekarang dari awal tindakan ini hingga tamat perbicaraan penuh, saksi-saksi Plaintif secara konsisten S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 menyatakan bahawa dokumen mengikat pihak-pihak berkenaan transaksi jual beli tersebut hanyalah Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 09/04/2012 tersebut sahaja. …”. [26] Memandangkan kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan- Defendan tidak mempertikaikan bahawa Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama telah memasuki Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, maka adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah suatu kontrak yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan. Isu Kedua [27] Mengenai Isu Kedua, memandangkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif- Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, maka adalah menjadi kewajipan dan tanggungjawab kedua-dua pihak untuk mematuhi dan melaksanakan segala terma, syarat dan kewajipan kontrak di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. [28] Kegagalan mana-mana pihak berbuat demikian akan memberi hak kepada pihak yang satu lagi untuk melaksanakan haknya dan menuntut apa- apa remedi yang diperuntukkan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Berhubung dengan perkara ini, prinsip undang-undang berkaitan dengan beban pembuktian adalah jelas bahawa mana-mana orang yang berhasrat supaya mahkamah memberikan penghakiman tentang apa-apa hak atau tanggungan di sisi undang-undang, dengan bergantung kepada kewujudan fakta yang ditegaskan olehnya, mestilah membuktikan bahawa fakta itu wujud. Perkara ini telah diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950 [Akta 56] seperti yang berikut: “Burden of proof 101. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. [Penekanan ditambah] [30] Justeru, sebelum Mahkamah ini boleh membenarkan Deklarasi dan Pengisytiharan yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tindakan ini, adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab Plaintif-Plaintif untuk membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma dan syarat-syarat Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, iaitu sepertimana yang ditegaskan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan tersebut. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [31] Dalam tindakan ini, antara terma dan syarat yang telah dipersetujui oleh Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama bagi penjualan dan pembelian Hartanah tersebut di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah seperti yang berikut: (a) menurut Fasa 1 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, Harga Jual Beli tersebut adalah sebanyak RM1,700,000.00, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “FASA 1 PERJANJIAN MENJUAL DAN MEMBELI Sebagai balasan waad dan/atau akujanji Penjual dan Pembeli di dalam Perjanjian jual beli ini, Penjual dengan ini bersetuju menjual dan Pembeli bersetuju membeli Hartanah Tersebut bebas dari apa-apa bebanan dan/ atau syarat-syarat nyata dan/atau tersirat dan/atau sekatan-sekatan kepentingan selain dari bebanan dan/atau syarat-syarat nyata dan/atau tersirat dan/atau sekatan-sekatan kepentingan yang dikenakan di dalam Suratan Hakmilik Hartanah Tersebut, berserta milikan kosong dengan harga jual-beli sebanyak RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA TUJUH RATUS RIBU (RM1,700,000.00) sahaja (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “harga Jual Beli”) dan Harga Jual Beli ini hendaklah dibayar oleh Pembeli kepada Penjual dengan cara yang diperuntukkan di sini, tertakluk kepada terma-terma dan syarat-syarat yang terkandung kemudiannya di dalam Perjanjian ini. DENGAN SYARAT Perjanjian jual beli ini tertakluk kepada terma-terma dan syarat-syarat dan kegunaan Hartanah Tersebut secara nyata dan/atau tersirat dan/atau tidak, bebanan di atasnya ataupun apa- apa yang berhubung dengan Tanah Tersebut.”; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (b) menurut Fasa 2 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, cara pembayaran Harga Jual Beli tersebut ialah Defendan Pertama hendaklah membayar wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 kepada Plaintif Kedua pada masa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dilaksanakan dan ditandatangani dan membayar sepenuhnya baki Harga Jual Beli sebanyak RM1,650,000.00 kepada Plaintif Kedua dalam masa tiga (3) bulan dari tarikh Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut (“Tarikh Penyelesaian”). Sekiranya Defendan Kedua gagal menyelesaikan baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut dalam masa Tarikh Penyelesaian tersebut, Plaintif Kedua akan memberi masa lanjutan selama satu (1) bulan selepas tamatnya Tarikh Penyelesaian tersebut, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “FASA 2 CARA PEMBAYARAN 2.1 Harga Jual Beli hendaklah dibayar oleh Pembeli kepada Penjual pada masa dan mengikut cara yang ditetapkan:- a) Pada masa Perjanjian jual beli ini dilaksanakan dan ditandatangani, wang deposit sebanyak RINGGIT MALAYSIA LIMA PULUH RIBU (RM50,000.00) sahaja (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “Deposit Tersebut”) dibayar oleh Pembeli kepada Penjual (di mana penerimaannya disahkan dan/atau oleh Penjual) sebagai sebahagian pembayaran dari Harga Jual Beli Tanah Tersebut; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 b) Manakala baki Harga Jual Beli sebanyak RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA ENAM RATUS LIMA PULUH RIBU (RM1,650,000.00) sahaja (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “Baki Harga Jual Beli”) akan dibayar sepenuhnya kepada Penjual dalam masa TIGA (3) BULAN dari tarikh perjanjian ini (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “Tarikh Penyelesaian”) di mana Baki Harga Jual Beli akan dipegang oleh Peguam Tersebut sebagai Pemegang Pertaruhan (Stakeholder) sehingga perserahan untuk pendaftaran Memorandum Pindahmilik Borang 14A yang telah diadjudikasi dan disetemkan dan/atau dokumen-dokumen pindahmilik yang berkenaan dengan Hartanah Tersebut di pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan ke atas Pembeli, warisnya, penamanya dan/atau penerima serahhak yang sah mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan, tertakluk kepada Fasa 5 di sini. c) Sekiranya Pembeli gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai membuat pembayaran Baki Harga Jual Beli dalam masa Tarikh Penyelesaian seperti dinyatakan dalam Fasa 2.1 (b) di sini, Penjual akan seterusnya memberi masa lanjutan selama SATU (1) BULAN selepas tamatnya Tarikh Penyelesaian di atas (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “Tarikh Penyelesaian Lanjutan”) di mana Pembeli akan membayar Penjual Baki Harga Jual Beli dan/atau apa-apa baki yang tidak berbayar dari Harga Jual Beli bersamaan dengan faedah dikira dari hari ke hari dengan kadar Sepuluh Peratus (10%) setahun sehingga penyelesaian penuh Harga Jual Beli. DENGAN SYARAT jika kelambatan Pembeli untuk membayar Baki Harga Jual Beli disebabkan oleh kegagalan, keengganan dan/atau kecuaian Penjual melaksanakan waad, akujanji dan/atau tanggungjawabnya sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli ini, maka tiada apa-apa faedah akan dikenakan kepada Pembeli. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 d) Sekira Pembeli memperolehi pinjaman dari mana-mana badan atau institusi kewangan (kemudian dari ini dirujuk sebagai “Pembiaya”), maka Pembeli hendaklah dianggap mematuhi fasal b) dan c) di atas apabila pihak pembiaya memberi akujanji untuk menjelaskan baki harga belian dan jumlah pinjaman (jika ada) kepada Penjual dalam masa tarikh penjelasan.”; dan (c) menurut Fasa 6 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, sekiranya Defendan Pertama gagal membayar baki Harga Jual Beli dalam masa Tarikh Penyelesaian dan/atau Tarikh Penyelesaian Lanjutan kepada Plaintif Kedua atau melakukan apa-apa pelanggaran dan/atau kemungkiran terhadap terma-terma dan syarat-syarat yang terkandung dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, Plaintif Kedua berhak menguruskan atau melupuskan Hartanah tersebut mengikut apa-apa cara yang difikirkan patut seolah-olah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut telah tidak dibuat, melucutkan wang deposit tersebut sebagai gantirugi dan Defendan Pertama hendaklah dalam tempoh satu (1) bulan dari tarikh Notis membatalkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut diterima daripada Plaintif Kedua menyerah balik milikan kosong Hartanah Tersebut kepada Plaintif Kedua, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “FASA 6 INGKAR S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 KEINGKARAN PEMBELI 6.1 Sekiranya Pembeli:- a) gagal membayar Baki Harga Jual Beli dan/atau apa-apa baki Harga Jual Beli dalam masa Tarikh Penyelesaian dan/atau Tarikh Penyelesaian Lanjutan kepada Penjual; atau b) melakukan apa-apa pelanggaran dan/atau kemungkiran terhadap terma-terma dan syarat-syarat yang terkandung di dalam Perjanjian jual beli ini; atau c) enggan melaksanakan dan/atau mematuhi semua dan/atau mana-mana waad dan/atau akujanji Pembeli yang terkandung di dalam Perjanjian jual beli ini; atau d) sebelum pembayaran sepenuhnya akan Harga Jual Beli, Pembeli melakukan perbuatan kebankrapan dan/atau penggulungan syarikat dan/atau membuat apa-apa komposisi dan/atau perkiraan dengan pemiutang- pemiutangnya atau sebagai satu syarikat membuat penyelesaian secara paksa atau sukarela : atau gagal menyetuju-terima pinjaman yang diluluskan oleh Pembiaya Pembeli dan/atau ingkar mematuhi kehendak-kehendak yang perlu bagi membuat permohonan atau dihilangkan kelayakan yang menyebabkan pinjaman dari Pembiaya ditarik balik, maka Penjual tanpa menjejaskan hak dan remedi pihak yang satu lagi, boleh membatalkan penjualan Hartanah Tersebut dan dengan serta merta menamatkan Perjanjian jual beli ini dengan menyampaikan kepada Pembeli dan/atau Peguam Tersebut, notis secara bertulis tidak kurang dari Empat Belas (14) Hari melalui Surat Berdaftar A.R supaya menganggapkan Perjanjian jual beli ini sebagai ditolak oleh Pembeli dan sekiranya sedemikian halnya maka:- S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 i) Penjual adalah berhak menguruskan atau selainnya melupuskan Hartanah Tersebut mengikut apa-apa cara yang difikirkan patut oleh Penjual seolah-olah Perjanjian jual beli ini telah tidak dibuat; dan/atau ii) Wang Deposit Tersebut di bawah Fasa 2.1 (a) dalam Perjanjian jual beli ini yang merupakan sebahagian pembayaran dari Harga Jual Beli Hartanah Tersebut hendaklah dilucutkan kepada Penjual sebagai gantirugi; dan/atau iii) Apa-apa baki dari Baki Harga Jual Beli yang telah dibayar kepada Penjual hendaklah dipulangkan kepada Pembeli tanpa faedah; dan/atau iv) Pembeli hendaklah dalam tempoh SATU (1) BULAN dari tarikh Notis membatalkan Perjanjian ini diterimanya dari Penjual, menyerah balik milikan kosong Hartanah Tersebut kepada Penjual; dan/atau v) tiada satu pihak pun pada Perjanjian jual beli ini boleh membuat apa-apa tuntutan tambahan terhadap pihak yang satu lagi mengenai kos, gantirugi, pampasan atau selainnya kecuali apa-apa pelanggaran dan/atau kemungkiran terhadap terma-terma dan syarat-syarat dalam Perjanjian jual beli ini.”. [32] Berdasarkan segala keterangan lisan dan dokumentar yang dikemukakan dalam kes ini, khususnya Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati dan mendapati Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan fakta-fakta berikut atas imbangan kebarangkalian, iaitu – S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) Harga Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut yang dipersetujui oleh kedua- dua pihak di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah sebanyak RM1,700,000.00; (b) jumlah wang deposit yang dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pihak di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah sebanyak RM50,000.00 dan ia adalah sebahagian daripada Harga Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut; (c) wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 tersebut telah gagal dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Kedua pada masa dan mengikut cara yang ditetapkan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Oleh itu, sebahagian daripada Harga Jual Beli yang telah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Kedua adalah termasuk wang deposit tersebut; dan (d) Defendan Pertama hanya membayar sebahagian sahaja Harga Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintif-Plaintif, yang mana adalah termasuk wang deposit tersebut, dan baki Harga Jual Beli yang masih tertunggak adalah sebanyak RM652,320.00, iaitu seperti yang berikut: S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Jumlah Harga Jual Beli RM1,700,000.00 Bayaran Harga Tebusan (Redemption Sum) oleh Defendan Pertama kepada CIMB (bagi Hutang Syarikat HASRI). Bayaran oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Kedua melalui Cek RHB Bank Tetuan Haffiz Zuhair & Co, peguam cara Defendan- Defendan. RM905,300.00 RM42,380.00 RM100,000.00 Rujukan: Cek No. 02400 Bank Muamalat bertarikh 26 September 2012 serta pliding, pengakuan dan Hujahan Bertulis kedua- dua pihak. Rujukan: Cek No. 000073 RHB Bank bertarikh 12 November 2012 serta pengakuan Plaintif-Plaintif dan Hujahan Bertulis Plaintif-Plaintif. Rujukan: Cek No. 000074 RHB Bank bertarikh 12 November 2012 serta pengakuan Plaintif-Plaintif dan Hujahan Bertulis Plaintif-Plaintif. RM1,700,000.00 RM1,047,680.00 = RM652,320.00 S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [33] Memandangkan Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri dan tidak mematuhi terma-terma dan syarat-syarat Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut apabila gagal membayar baki Harga Jual Beli sebanyak RM652,320.00 dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli itu, maka sepertimana yang dipersetujui oleh pihak-pihak dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Plaintif- Plaintif berhak – (a) untuk membatalkan penjualan Hartanah tersebut kepada Defendan-Defendan; (b) untuk menamatkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut; (c) untuk memohon perintah Deklarasi dan Pengisytiharan terhadap Defendan-Defendan sepertimana dalam Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif tersebut; dan (d) untuk merampas wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 sebagai gantirugi menurut seksyen 75 Akta Kontrak 1950 [Akta 136] dan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 15 yang mana telah disampaikan oleh Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah and Sarawak) (pada ketika itu) seperti yang berikut: “(4) The parties were well aware that if the respondent defaulted in executing the SPA, the earnest deposit payments it had made would be forfeited as agreed liquidated damages. On each occasion when an extension of time was granted, the appellant repeatedly warned that failure to execute the SPA would result in forfeiture of the amounts paid as ‘agreed liquidated damages and not by way of penalty’. Both parties had the benefit of legal representation and the respondent made no objection to the imposition of the conditions by the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent’s conduct was strong evidence of its agreement that the additional payments of RM2m would form part of the earnest deposit guaranteeing its execution of the SPA and which would eventually be counted towards payment of the total earnest deposit of RM9m (see paras 79-81).”. (Lihat Central Malaysia Development Company Ltd v. Chin Pak Chin [1967] 1 MLRH 180; Johor Coastal Development Sdn Bhd v. Constrajaya Sdn Bhd [2009] 1 MLRA 654; Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Berhad [2015] 6 MLRA 746; Tenaga Nasional Berhad lwn. ZCM Resources Sdn Bhd [2018] 4 MLRH 145). S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Isu Ketiga [34] Mengenai Isu Ketiga, Defendan-Defendan mendakwa bahawa Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama telah bersetuju untuk memasuki suatu Perjanjian Tambahan menurut Fasa 17 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut bagi meminda Harga Jual Beli tersebut daripada RM1,700,000.00 kepada RM1,400,000.00, iaitu menerusi ‘side letter’ seperti di Ekshibit D.10. Ini dapat dilihat dalam perenggan 22 Hujahan Bertulis Peguam Defendan- Defendan seperti yang berikut: “22. Atas dasar itu, Defendan-Defendan berhujah bahawa Ekshibit D- 10 yang merujuk kepada Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9.4.2012 dan telah dirujuk dan dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan melalui saksi-saksi Defendan-Defendan (yang mempunyai ‘FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE’ terhadap tujuan dan kandungan setiap dokumen) hendaklah dianggap sebagai pindaan kepada syarat dan terma kepada transaksi jual beli hartanah dalam tindakan ini di mana harga sebenar yang dipersetujui adalah setakat RM1,400,000.00 sahaja dengan syarat-syarat dan terma-terma lain yang terkandung di dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dikekalkan.”. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [35] Sebagai rujukan, Fasa 17 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “FASA 17 PERJANJIAN TAMBAHAN 17. Segala pindaan, persetujuan dan/atau akujanji secara lisan oleh Penjual dan Pembeli selepas dari Perjanjian jual beli ini tidak boleh mengikat ke atas Penjual dan Pembeli dan akan hanya boleh mengikat jika Penjual dan Pembeli melaksanakan dan menandatangani Perjanjian Tambahan dan/atau notis dan/atau surat secara bertulis.”. [36] Oleh itu, Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan adalah terikat dengan Perjanjian Tambahan seperti di Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. Fakta ini adalah asas utama pembelaan Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan ini. [37] Kewujudan Ekshibit D.10 tersebut walau bagaimanapun telah dinafikan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. Menurut Plaintif-Plaintif, ‘side letter’ seperti di Ekshibit D.10 tersebut bukanlah suatu Perjanjian Tambahan sepertimana yang dimaksudkan di bawah Fasa 17 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Sebaliknya, ia adalah suatu dokumen palsu yang direka dan dibuat secara fraud dan penipuan oleh Defendan-Defendan. Bagi menjaga kepentingan Plaintif-Plaintif ke atas Hartanah tersebut, Plaintif Pertama telah membuat S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 dua laporan polis seperti di muka surat 36 dan 37 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B). Penafian Plaintif-Plaintif dibuat, inter alia, atas alasan berikut: (a) Plaintif Kedua tidak pernah mengetahui mengenai kewujudan dokumen Ekshibit D.10 tersebut sehinggalah ia dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan ini; (b) Plaintif Kedua tidak pernah memberikan persetujuan kepada Defendan Pertama untuk membuat Perjanjian Tambahan seperti di Ekshibit D.10 tersebut; (c) Plaintif Kedua tidak pernah menandatangani Ekshibit D.10 tersebut dan tandatangan Plaintif Kedua dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah palsu; (d) tiada tajuk “Perjanjian Tambahan” dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut bagi menunjukkan ia dibuat menurut Fasa 17 Perjanjian tersebut; (e) ‘side letter’ dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak mempunyai kepala surat (letterhead); S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 (f) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak bertarikh; dan (g) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak bersetem. [38] Memandangkan Plaintif Kedua tidak pernah bersetuju dan tidak pernah memasuki apa-apa Perjanjian Tambahan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dengan Defendan Pertama, sebagaimana yang didakwa oleh Defendan-Defendan, maka Plaintif-Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah tidak sah, tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan dan tidak mengikat Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan. [39] Dalam hal ini, memandangkan dakwaan mengenai kewujudan Ekshibit D.10 tersebut dibuat oleh Defendan-Defendan, maka berdasarkan undang- undang yang mantap, beban untuk membuktikan kesahihan dan kebenaran fakta tersebut adalah terletak pada Defendan-Defendan, iaitu sebagai orang yang berkehendakkan Mahkamah mempercayai tentang kewujudan fakta tersebut. Prinsip undang-undang ini telah diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 103 Akta Keterangan 1950 seperti yang berikut: “Burden of proof as to particular fact 103. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 ILLUSTRATIONS (a) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. (b) B wishes the court to believe that at the time in question he was elsewhere. He must prove it.”. [40] Walau bagaimanapun, setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti dan menilai secara teliti dan berhati-hati keseluruhan keterangan dan pembelaan Defendan-Defendan dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini mendapati Defendan- Defendan telah gagal membuktikan bahawa Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah dokumen yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan. [41] Sebaliknya, Mahkamah ini mendapati Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah suatu dokumen palsu yang direka oleh Defendan-Defendan dan telah dibuat secara fraud dan penipuan tanpa pengetahuan, persetujuan dan kerelaan Plaintif Kedua. Dapatan Mahkamah ini adalah berdasarkan alasan berikut: (a) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan pembuat (maker) dan/atau penyedia dokumen Ekshibit D.10 tersebut; (b) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak bertarikh; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 (c) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak bersetem; (d) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak mempunyai preamble dan tidak menyebut punca kuasa ia dibuat, secara spesifiknya Fasa 17 Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut; (e) format penyaksian di bahagian tandatangan pihak Penjual dan pihak Pembeli dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak sebagaimana format penyaksian dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, iaitu – (i) tiada penyaksian di bahagian tandatangan pihak Penjual dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut; dan (ii) tiada cop mohor syarikat di bahagian tandatangan pihak Pembeli dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut; (f) Ekshibit D.10 tersebut tidak disediakan dan/atau berada dalam pengetahuan peguam cara Defendan-Defendan, iaitu SD3, sedangkan SD3 mewakili Defendan-Defendan dalam transaksi Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. Oleh itu, kesahan dan ketulenan dokumen Ekshibit D.10 tersebut telah menimbulkan syak wasangka (suspicion) dan keraguan; S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 (g) tiada satu perkataan pun dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut yang menyatakan bahawa Plaintif Kedua bersetuju untuk meminda Harga Jual Beli tersebut daripada RM1,700,000.00 kepada RM1,400,000.00 sepertimana dakwaan Defendan-Defendan. Apa yang disebut dalam perenggan 1 Ekshibit D.10 tersebut ialah “... Penjual dengan ini bersetuju untuk meletakkan harga pembelian ke atas harta tersebut berjumlah RM1,700,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA TUJUH RATUS RIBU SAHAJA) daripada harga Perjanjian sebenar iaitu RM1,400,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA EMPAT RATUS RIBU SAHAJA).”, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “1. Lanjutan dari PERJANJIAN JUAL BELI bertarikh 9hb April, 2012 dan di atas permintaan dan penjelasan yang telah diberikan, maka Penjual dengan ini bersetuju untuk meletakkan harga pembelian ke atas harta tersebut berjumlah RM1,700,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA TUJUH RATUS RIBU SAHAJA) daripada harga Perjanjian sebenar iaitu RM1,400,000.00 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA SATU JUTA EMPAT RATUS RIBU SAHAJA).”; (h) dalam perenggan 1 Ekshibit D.10 tersebut ada dinyatakan frasa “... di atas permintaan dan penjelasan yang telah diberikan...”, namun butiran lengkap dan terperinci mengenai “permintaan dan penjelasan yang telah diberikan” tersebut dan apa yang S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 dimaksudkan dengan “permintaan dan penjelasan yang telah diberikan” tersebut tiada dinyatakan dan dijelaskan dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. Oleh itu, terma dalam perenggan 1 Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah kabur dan absurd; (i) walaupun Ekshibit D.10 tersebut melibatkan jumlah Harga Jual Beli yang besar dan substantial, iaitu sebanyak RM1,400,000.00, namun bentuk dan format Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah sangat ringkas dan sketchy serta tidak mengandungi butiran penting sesuatu perjanjian. Berhubung dengan perkara ini didapati Ekshibit D.10 tersebut hanya mengandungi tiga perenggan sahaja dan tiada maklumat mengenai pembuat dan/atau penyedia perjanjian tersebut, tarikh perjanjian itu dibuat serta penyaksian dan cop mohor syarikat masing-masing di bahagian tandatangan pihak Penjual dan pihak Pembeli dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. Oleh itu, kesahan dan ketulenan dokumen Ekshibit D.10 tersebut telah menimbulkan syak wasangka dan keraguan; dan (j) dalam kes ini, Plaintif Kedua telah menafikan kewujudan Ekshibit D.10 tersebut dan menegaskan bahawa tandatangan di bahagian pihak Penjual dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut bukan S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 tandatangannya dan adalah palsu. Oleh itu, beban adalah terletak kepada Defendan-Defendan untuk membuktikan dakwaannya bahawa tandatangan di bahagian pihak Penjual tersebut adalah tandatangan Plaintif Kedua. Walau bagaimanapun didapati Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan perkara tersebut. Selain tiada penyaksian di bahagian tandatangan pihak Penjual dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut, Defendan-Defendan juga telah gagal memanggil pakar tulisan untuk membuktikan ketulenan dan kesahan tandatangan Plaintif Kedua dalam Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. [42] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa Ekshibit D.10 tersebut bukanlah satu perjanjian tambahan yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak. Sebaliknya, ia adalah suatu dokumen palsu yang telah dibuat secara fraud dan penipuan oleh Defendan-Defendan. Isu Keempat [43] Mengenai Isu Keempat, berdasarkan keseluruhan keterangan lisan dan dokumentar dalam kes ini, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa pembelaan Defendan-Defendan adalah tidak bermerit, bersifat S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 pemikiran terkemudian dan merupakan rekaan Defendan-Defendan semata-mata. Alasan Mahkamah ini adalah seperti yang berikut: (a) seperti yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 34 hingga 42 di atas, Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan dakwaannya bahawa Ekshibit D.10 tersebut adalah satu perjanjian tambahan yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan; (b) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan pembuat dan/atau penyedia dokumen Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. Dalam hal ini, SD3 sebagai peguam cara Defendan-Defendan juga telah mengesahkan yang beliau bukan pembuat dan/atau penyedia Ekshibit D.10 tersebut; (c) Plaintif-Plaintif telah memplidkan bahawa Ekshibit D.10 tersebut telah dibuat secara fraud dan penipuan oleh Defendan- Defendan. Berdasarkan keterangan dalam kes ini dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti dalam perenggan 34 hingga 42 di atas, Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan isu fraud dan penipuan itu atas imbangan kebarangkalian (lihat Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 1); S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 (d) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah membayar wang deposit berjumlah RM50,000.00 kepada Plaintif Kedua. Tiada apa-apa dokumen atau resit dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan bagi menyokong dan membuktikan fakta tersebut. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini membangkitkan anggapan andaian bertentangan (presumption of adverse inference) di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap Defendan-Defendan kerana cuba menyembunyikan suatu fakta yang jika dikemukakan tidak akan memberi manfaat dan tidak berpihak kepada Defendan- Defendan; (e) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah membayar wang deposit dan sebahagian Harga Jual Beli tersebut yang berjumlah sebanyak RM350,000.00 kepada Plaintif Kedua. Tiada apa-apa dokumen atau resit dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan bagi menyokong dan membuktikan fakta tersebut. Dalam hal ini, SD3 sebagai stakeholder telah mengesahkan bahawa tiada wang deposit sebanyak RM350,000.00 diserahkan oleh Defendan- Defendan kepada Plaintif Kedua di pejabat SD3. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini membangkitkan anggapan andaian bertentangan S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap Defendan-Defendan kerana cuba menyembunyikan suatu fakta yang jika dikemukakan tidak akan memberi manfaat dan tidak berpihak kepada Defendan-Defendan; dan (f) Defendan-Defendan telah bergantung kepada – (i) Akuan Penerimaan oleh Plaintif Kedua bertarikh 9/4/2012 bagi penerimaan bayaran deposit dan sebahagian Harga Jual Beli tersebut yang berjumlah sebanyak RM350,000.00, iaitu seperti di muka surat 9 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian (C); (ii) Surat Persetujuan oleh Plaintif Kedua bertarikh 18/10/2012 untuk melanjutkan tempoh penyelesaian baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut, iaitu seperti di muka surat 10 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian (C); (iii) Akuan Persetujuan oleh Plaintif Kedua bertarikh 9/11/2012 untuk menerima baki Harga Jual Beli berjumlah RM144,700.00 sebagai penyelesaian muktamad Harga S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 Jual Beli tersebut, iaitu seperti di muka surat 11 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian (C); dan (iv) Akuan Penerimaan oleh Plaintif Kedua bertarikh 9/11/2012 bagi penerimaan keseluruhan baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut yang berjumlah sebanyak RM144,700.00 daripada Pembeli sebagai penyelesaian penuh Harga Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut, iaitu seperti di muka surat 12 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian (C), untuk membuktikan bahawa Plaintif Kedua mempunyai pengetahuan dan bersetuju dengan keempat-empat dokumen tersebut (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “dokumen-dokumen tersebut”). Walau bagaimanapun, Plaintif Kedua menyatakan yang beliau tiada pengetahuan mengenai dokumen-dokumen tersebut dan menafikan yang beliau telah menandatangani dokumen-dokumen tersebut. Oleh itu, beban adalah terletak kepada Defendan-Defendan untuk membuktikan fakta tersebut. Sungguhpun begitu, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada, Mahkamah ini mendapati – S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 (i) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal membuktikan pembuat dan/atau penyedia dokumen-dokumen tersebut. Walaupun dalam kes ini SD2 mengakui telah menyediakan dokumen-dokumen tersebut dengan disaksikan oleh SD3 dan SD2 juga telah menerangkan kandungan dokumen- dokumen tersebut kepada Plaintif Kedua, namun tiada apa-apa bukti, rekod dan/atau catatan dalam dokumen- dokumen tersebut yang menunjukkan bahawa SD2 adalah pembuat dan/atau penyedia dokumen-dokumen tersebut dan bahawa SD2 telah menerangkan kandungan dokumen-dokumen tersebut kepada Plaintif Kedua. Keterangan SD2 tersebut sangat meragukan dan mencurigakan kerana beliau hanyalah seorang freelancer dan bukannya seorang peguam yang layak dan kompeten untuk menyediakan dan menerangkan kandungan dokumen-dokumen tersebut kepada Plaintif Kedua. Oleh itu, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa SD2 bukanlah pembuat dan/atau penyedia dokumen-dokumen tersebut sepertimana dakwaan Defendan-Defendan; dan S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 (ii) Defendan-Defendan telah gagal memanggil pakar tulisan untuk membuktikan ketulenan dan kesahan tandatangan Plaintif Kedua dalam dokumen-dokumen tersebut. Memandangkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut berada dalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian (C), kegagalan Defendan-Defendan memanggil dan/atau membuktikan pembuat dan/atau penyedia dokumen-dokumen tersebut untuk membuktikan ketulenan (authenticity) dan kebolehterimaan (admissibility) dokumen-dokumen tersebut, maka dokumen-dokumen tersebut kekal ditandakan sebagai “ID” (identification purpose) dan bukan sebagai ekshibit. Oleh itu, dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan dan diambil kira sebagai pembelaan Defendan-Defendan (lihat Chong Kow v Kesavan Govindasamy [2009] 8 MLJ 41; TAC Contracts Sdn Bhd v. Bumimetro Construction Sdn Bhd [2016] MLRHU 56). [44] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa pembelaan Defendan-Defendan adalah tidak bermerit, bersifat pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan Defendan-Defendan semata-mata. S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 Isu sama ada Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap Defendan Kedua [45] Dalam kes ini, peguam cara Defendan Kedua yang terpelajar telah menghujahkan bahawa berdasarkan doktrin separate legal entity, Plaintif- Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk mengambil tindakan undang- undang terhadap Defendan Kedua yang merupakan salah seorang Pengarah Syarikat kepada Defendan Pertama. [46] Mahkamah ini walau bagaimanapun tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam cara Defendan Kedua yang terpelajar tersebut. Ini kerana, dalam kes ini, Plaintif-Plaintif telah memplidkan bahawa Defendan Kedua atas kapasiti peribadinya telah melakukan perbuatan fraud dan penipuan terhadap Plaintif-Plaintif apabila dengan sengaja mereka-reka dan memalsukan Ekshibit D.10 tersebut. [47] Memandangkan wujudnya isu fraud dan penipuan oleh Defendan Kedua dalam tindakan ini, yang mana dibuat atas kapasiti peribadinya, maka berdasarkan undang-undang yang mantap, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap Defendan Kedua atas kapasitinya sebagai Pengarah Syarikat S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 kepada Defendan Pertama (lihat Victor Cham & Anor v Loh Bee Tuan [2006] 5 MLJ 359). KESIMPULAN [48] Sebagai kesimpulan, berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini menjawab isu undang-undang yang berbangkit dalam tindakan ini seperti yang berikut: (a) Isu Pertama dijawab sebagai ya, iaitu Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 yang dimasuki antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Pertama adalah suatu kontrak yang sah, boleh dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif- Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan; (b) Isu Kedua dijawab sebagai ya, iaitu Plaintif-Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan atas imbangan kebarangkalian; (c) Isu Ketiga dijawab sebagai tidak, iaitu tidak wujud suatu Perjanjian Tambahan (Ekshibit D.10) yang sah, boleh S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 dikuatkuasakan dan mengikat kedua-dua pihak Plaintif Kedua dan Defendan Pertama; dan (d) Isu Keempat dijawab sebagai tidak, iaitu Defendan-Defendan tidak mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit. [49] Memandangkan Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya atas imbangan kebarangkalian dan Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut apabila gagal membayar baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut kepada Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut, maka berdasarkan keterangan- keterangan dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan seperti yang berikut: (a) Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan; (b) Pengisytiharan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 apabila S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 gagal untuk menyempurnakan bayaran Baki Harga Jual Beli tersebut sebanyak RM652,320.00 kepada Plaintif Pertama, selaku wakil mutlak/penerima Surat Kuasa Wakil bagi pihak Plaintif Kedua (“Penjual”) dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan dalam Perjanjian tersebut; (c) Deklarasi/Pengisytiharan bahawa Plaintif Kedua berhak untuk melucut wang deposit sebanyak RM50,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif Pertama dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 9/4/2012 ke atas 1/1 bahagian tanah Hakmilik yang berketerangan GM 1755, Lot 3472, Mukim Sena, Daerah Perlis, Negeri Perlis antara Plaintif Kedua dengan Defendan Kedua; (d) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar faedah di atas baki bayaran pada kadar 10% setahun dari tarikh penyempurnaan Perjanjian Jual Beli sehingga tarikh saman; (e) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah Penghakiman dari tarikh saman sehingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; dan S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 (f) Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar kos kepada Plaintif- Plaintif sebanyak RM5,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. [50] Mahkamah ini walau bagaimanapun telah tidak membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif bagi Gantirugi Am, Gantirugi Khas, Gantirugi bagi Kemungkiran Kontrak dan Gantirugi Teladan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif sebanyak RM2,000,000.00 dan gantirugi kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 kerana ia telah gagal dibuktikan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Bertarikh : 15 Disember 2023 - sgd - (DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Kangar Negeri Perlis S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 Peguam cara pihak-pihak – Peguam Cara Plaintif-Plaintif: Encik Zaidi bin Abdul Hamid Tetuan Zaidi & Associates Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara No. 446, Tingkat 1 Jalan Pusat Bandar Senawang 18 Pusat Bandar Senawang 70450, Seremban Negeri Sembilan Peguam Cara Defendan-Defendan: Encik Mohamad Zaidan bin Daud Tetuan Hafizul Munzeer & Zaidan Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara No.45-B, Jalan SG 3/19 Taman Sri Gombak 68100, Batu Caves Selangor Darul Ehsan S/N bjEYACnzq0y4c/XhgoIxxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BD-89-248-08/2023

PEMOHON K & K ENGINE LINK (M) SDN BHD RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Seksyen 80 (3) (& 4) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010Mahkamah ini mendapati kes ini bagaikan telah dibiarkan tanpa apa-apa arahan lanjut diambil sehinggalah tiada seorang pegawai pun hadir di Mahkamah pada tarikh pendengaran kes. Oleh itu,mahkamah menolak permohonan pihak pendakwaraya untuk lanjutan masa dan / atau penangguhan pendengaran kes.

07/02/2024

Tuan Chai Guan Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d0a9aa83-2e0d-41c6-844a-d4ddbe09f1b3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (2) SELAYANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. KES: BD-89-242-08/2023 ANTARA PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN, NEGERI SELANGOR ... PEMOHON DAN 1. K&K ENGINE LINK (M) SDN BHD [No. Syarikat.: 201901040671] 2. SMFL HIRE PURCHASE (M) SDN BHD [No. Syarikat.: 0715689U] … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN (didengar bersama) DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (2) SELAYANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. KES: BD-89-248-08/2023 07/02/2024 13:07:58 BD-89-248-08/2023 Kand. 13 S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 K&K ENGINE LINK (M) SDN BHD [No. Syarikat.: 201901040671] … PEMOHON DAN 1. JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN, NEGERI SELANGOR 2. PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi kes no. BD-89-242-08/2023 (“Kes 242”) adalah permohonan yang difailkan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan, Negeri Selangor (“Pengarah JPJ”) terhadap (1) K&K Engine Link (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“KEL”) dan (2) SMFL Hire Purchase (M) (“SMFL”) Sdn. Bhd. untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah lucuthak bagi kenderaan jenis Tipping Trailer bernombor pendaftaran AMD9388 / T/AA3028 (“Tipping Trailer tersebut”) yang telah disita di bawah seksyen 80(1) Akta Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 [Akta 715] (“APAD 2010”) kerana telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 57(1)(a) dan (b), (iv) APAD 2010. Permohonan di Kand. 1 adalah seperti berikut: S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [2] Manakala permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi kes no. BD-89-248-08/2023 (“Kes 248”) adalah permohonan yang difailkan oleh K&K Engine Link (M) Sdn. Bhd. terhadap (1) Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan, Negeri Selangor dan S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (2) Pendakwa Raya untuk suatu pelepasan semula Tipping Trailer tersebut selaras dengan peruntukkan seksyen 80(3) APAD 2010, seperti berikut: S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [3] Bagi Kes 242, dokumen sokongan dan diari siasatan bagi menyokong permohonan di Kand. 1 oleh Pengarah JPJ telah difailkan di Kand. 2, 3 dan 4, namun tiada apa-apa affidavit sokongan atau hujahan bertulis telah difailkan. [4] Bagi Kes 248, affidavit sokongan serta hujahan-hujahan bertulis KEL telah difailkan di Kand. 2, 3 dan 4. [5] Pendengaran permohonan berkenaan kedua-dua Kes 242 dan Kes 248 telah ditetapkan pada 12.1.2024 pada awalnya dan ditangguhkan ke selanjutnya ke 23.1.2024 atas sebab ketidakhadiran pihak pendakwaraya di Mahkamah pada 12.1.2024. Fakta Ringkas [6] Pada 30.8.2024, kedua-dua Kes 242 dan 248 telah dipanggil di hadapan Mahkamah Majistret Selayang (2) untuk sebutan kes dengan kehadiran pegawai pendakwaraya bagi pihak Pengarah JPJ dan peguam- peguam bagi pihak KEL dan SMFL. [7] Pada tarikh tersebut, pegawai pendakwaraya telah memohon penangguhan kes dan memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa terdapatnya (2) kes berkenaan permohonan lucuthak motorlori yang berkaitan dengan permohonan di Mahkamah ini telah dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dan masih menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam yang mana dijangkakan akan diberikan keputusan pada 29.9.2023. S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [8] Sehubungan itu, mengambil kira tiada apa-apa bantahan daripada pihak peguam, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan penangguhan pendengaran Kes 242 dan Kes 248 dan selanjutnya menetapkan tarikh pengurusan kes pada 12.10.2023 sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam bagi kes-kes berkaitan. [9] Seterusnya pada pengurusan kes 12.10.2023, pegawai pendakwaraya telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah ini bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam telah ditetapkan semula pada 20.10.2023. Oleh itu, pegawai pendakwaraya dan peguam-peguam telah memohon penangguhan ke suatu tarikh selepas 20.10.2023 dan dibenarkan Mahkamah. Pengurusan kes bagi Kes 242 dan Kes 248 ditetapkan seterusnya pada 8.11.2023. [10] Pada 8.11.2023, pegawai pendakwaraya telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah ini bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam telah memberikan keputusan yang memihak kepada Pengarah JPJ di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan permohonan lucuthak motorlori Hong Seng Trading Sdn Bhd, kes no. BA-41ORS-7-03/2023. [11] Lanjutan daripada itu, Mahkamah ini telah memberi arahan kepada pihak-pihak untuk memfailkan kertas kausa dan menetapkan tarikh pendengaran di Kand. 1 bagi kedua-dua Kes 242 dan Kes 248 seperti berikut: S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Kes 242– (a) 14 hari dari hari ini iaitu pada atau sebelum 22.11.2023 untuk Pengarah JPJ failkan apa-apa affidavit sokongan; (b) 14 hari dari 22.11.2024 iaitu pada atau sebelum 6.12.2023 untuk KEL & SMFL failkan apa-apa affidavit jawapan; (c) hujahan bertulis bagi pihak-pihak difailkan serentak pada atau sebelum 20.12.2023; (d) hujahan balas pihak-pihak difailkan serentak pada atau sebelum 3.1.2024; dan (e) pendengaran permohonan di Kand. 1 ditetapkan pada 12.1.2024, jam 9.00am. Kes 248– (a) 14 hari dari hari ini iaitu pada atau sebelum 22.11.2023 untuk KEL failkan apa-apa afidavit sokongan; (b) 14 hari dari 22.11.2023 iaitu pada atau sebelum 6.12.2023 untuk pihak responden failkan apa-apa afidavit jawapan; (c) hujahan bertulis bagi pihak-pihak difailkan serentak pada atau sebelum 20.12.2023; dan S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (d) hujahan balas pihak-pihak difailkan serentak pada atau sebelum 3.1.2024; dan (e) pendengaran permohonan di Kand. 1 ditetapkan pada 12.1.2024, jam 9.00am. [12] Pada 12.1.2024, Kes 242 dan Kes 248 telah ditetapkan untuk pendengaran permohonan masing-masing di Kand. 1. Apabila kes-kes tersebut dipanggil di Mahkamah ini, Peguam-peguam bagi pihak KEL & SMFL hadir manakala pegawai pendakwaraya bagi pihak Pengarah JPJ tidak hadir. [13] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah ini telah menangguhkan kes-kes tersebut dan mengarahkan jurubahasa Mahkamah ini untuk membuat panggilan telefon kepada pihak pegawai pendakwaraya JPJ sama ada pihaknya akan hadir di Mahkamah atau tidak pada hari tersebut. [14] Selepas itu, kes-kes tersebut telah dipanggil semula di Mahkamah ini pada hari yang sama dan peguam-peguam bagi KEL & SMFL telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa pihak pegawai pendakwaraya JPJ iaitu Mohammad Yusof Ahmad yang sepatutnya hadir di Mahkamah pada hari tersebut telah menghubungi pihak peguam melalui telefon dan memaklumkan supaya pihak peguam boleh memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah ini untuk memohon tarikh baru untuk pendengaran Kes 242 dan S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Kes 248 dalam masa 2 bulan kerana pegawai pendakwaraya yang incas iaitu Mr. Bernard Surendran a/l Victor (“Mr. Bernard”) sedang bercuti sakit. [15] Peguam bagi pihak KEL dan SMFL membantah dan memohon pendengaran diteruskan kerana pihak pendakwaraya tidak hadir di Mahkamah, tidak memfailkan apa-apa affidavit atau hujahan bertulis sebagaimana arahan Mahkamah bagi kedua-dua kes, tiada membuat permohonan lanjutan masa atau penangguhan dan tidak memaklumkan kepada pihak peguam langsung sehinggalah kes-kes dipanggil dan stand down serta jurubahasa membuat panggilan kepada pihak pendakwaraya barulah pihak pendakwaraya menghubungi pihak peguam untuk memohon penangguhan. [16] Pihak peguam bagai KEL dan SMFL juga memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah memandangkan tiada apa-apa kertas kausa difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaraya, maka tiada apa-apa pendirian diambil dalam Kes 242 dan Kes 248 oleh pihak pendakwaraya. [17] Dengan persetujuan pihak peguam untuk satu penangguhan singkat, Mahkamah menetapkan semula tarikh pendengaran di Kand. 1 bagi Kes 242 dan Kes 248 pada 23.1.2024, 2.30pm. [18] Pada 23.1.2024, semua pihak hadir untuk pendengaran kedua-dua kes. Hujahan Pegawai Pendakwaraya bagi Kes 242 dan 248 S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [19] Secara ringkasnya, the pihak pegawai pendakwaraya menghujahkan seperti berikut: (a) pegawai pendakwaraya Saharudin bin Haji Safirol (“Tuan Saharudin”) memaklumkan bahawa beliau baru sahaja menerima kertas siasatan hari ini dan pegawai pendakwaraya yang incas adalah pegawai pendakwaraya Mr. Bernard yang bercuti sakit, dan kemukakan sijil cuti sakit kepada Mahkamah; (b) cuti sakit Mr. Bernard daripada 18.1.2024 hingga ke 14.2.2024 kerana terjatuh di pejabat dan mengalami kecederaan pada buku lali beliau; (c) oleh itu, pegawai pendakwaraya Tuan Saharudin mohon satu tempoh penangguhan pendengaran bagi kedua-dua Kes 242 dan Kes 248 untuk semakan fail dan mematuhi segala arahan yang gagal disempurnakan oleh Mr. Bernard; (d) memandangkan jua ini adalah kes lucuthak motorlori di mana keputusan prosiding kes yang berkaitan masih lagi dalam pertimbangan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan; (e) khususnya keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang mana pengurusan kes telah ditetapkan pada 31.1.2024; dan S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (f) dan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam ditetapkan pada 23.2.2024 untuk pihak-pihak melengkapkan rekod-rekod rayuan. Hujahan Peguam KEL bagi Kes 248 [20] Secara ringkasnya, peguam bagi pihak KEL menghujahkan seperti berikut: (a) memohon Mahkamah ini menerima pakai hujahan bertulis pihak KEL dan afidavit yang difailkan serta diserahkan kepada pihak pendakwaraya dengan sempurna; (b) pihak pendakwaraya gagal memfailkan apa-apa affidavit atau hujahan bertulis sebagaimana arahan Mahkamah sejak dari 8.11.2023; (c) tiada apa-apa afidavit atau hujahan bertulis diserahkan kepada pihak KEL; (d) isu undang-undang yang dihujahkan dalam hujahan bertulis pihak KEL adalah tiada apa-apa kaitan dan berbeza dengan isu undang- undang yang berada dalam peringkat rayuan berkenaan kes-kes yang sedang dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dan Mahkamah Rayuan; S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (e) pihak pendakwaraya telah gagal mematuhi Kaedah 23 dan 24 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Rendah 1980 dan merujuk kepada kes Shaari Sahat & Ors V. Tsuritani (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Melaka) 2002 2 CLJ 53; (f) tiada apa-apa permohonan lanjutan masa ataupun penangguhan telah dimohon langsung atau dimaklumkan kepada pihak peguam sehinggalah tarikh pendengaran pada 23.1.2024; dan (g) Tipping Trailer tersebut telah ditahan sejak dari 31.5.2023 lagi, pihak syarikat KEL hilang hak penggunaan dan Tipping Trailer KEL yang ditahan begitu lama sudah tentu akan mengalami kerosakkan serta pihak syarikat masih lagi membayar ansuran bulanan kepada pihak SMFL. Hujahan Peguam KEL dan SMFL bagi Kes 242 [21] Peguam KEL dan SMFL menghujahkan bahawa permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi Kes 242 akan menjadi ‘redundant’ dan hendaklah ditolak memandangkan jika mana permohonan di Kes 248 dibenarkan Mahkamah ini. Keputusan Mahkamah bagi Kes 248 [22] Mahkamah ini telah mempertimbangkan semua dokumen dan kertas kausa yang telah difailkan serta mengambil kira semua hujahan pihak-pihak. S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [23] Kes ini telah didaftarkan pada 29.8.2023 dan pengurusan kes telah ditetapkan sejak dari 30.8.2023. Mahkamah juga telah memberi arahan untuk memfailkan apa-apa dokumen, kertas kausa yang berkaitan, apa-apa afidavit dan hujahan bertulis sejak dari 8.11.2023. [24] Pendengaran kes ini juga telah ditetapkan sejak dari 8.11.2023. Mahkamah juga telah memberikan penangguhan pendengaran pada 12.1.2024 kerana ketidakhadiran pihak pendakwaraya tanpa apa-apa alasan munasabah. [25] Pada 12.1.2024 ketidakhadiran pihak pendakwaraya itu tidak dimaklumkan kepada Mahkamah dan / atau pihak peguam sedangkan ia boleh dimaklumkan sejak dari awal lagi melalui apa-apa sekalipun. [26] Ketidakhadiran pihak pendakwaraya di Mahkamah pada tarikh pendengaran 12.1.2024 itu hanya diketahui Mahkamah setelah Mahkamah tangguhkan kes sebentar dan mengarahkan jurubahasa Mahkamah untuk menelefon pihak pendakwaraya bagi menanyakan kenapa pihak pendakwaraya tidak hadir di Mahkamah. Selepas itu, barulah Mahkamah dapat tahu bahawa pegawai pendakwaraya tidak dapat hadir. [27] Selanjutnya, apabilan kes dipanggil semula pada 12.1.2024, pihak peguam untuk memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa pihak pendakwaraya baru sahaja menelefon pihak peguam dan memaklumkan S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 supaya pihak peguam boleh menyebut bagi pihak pendakwaraya untuk memohon penangguhan selama 2 bulan bagi pendengaran kes. [28] Pihak peguam membantah permohonan penangguhan pihak pendakwaraya dan memohon untuk pendengaran diteruskan. Namun begitu, Mahkamah dengan persetujuan pihak peguam memberi penangguhan singkat, telah memberi peluang pada pihak pendakwaraya untuk memfailkan semua dokumen yang diarahkan serta memjawab kepada Mahkamah berkenaan isu ketidakhadiran pihak pendakwaraya. [29] Oleh itu, mahkamah telah menangguhkan kes pendengaran pada 12.1.2024 walaupun pegawai pendakwaraya tidak hadir di Mahkamah pada hari tersebut tanpa apa-apa alasan munasabah atau surat penangguhan. [30] Berkenaan sijil cuti sakit pegawai pendakwaraya Mr. Bernard yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah, selepas Mahkamah ini memerhati dan meneliti sijil cuti sakit tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati ia telah dikeluarkan pada 17.1.2024 untuk tempoh bermula dari 18.1.2024 hingga 12.2.2024. [31] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa sekiranya sijil cuti sakit tersebut dikeluarkan pada 17.1.2024, maka alasan pihak pendakwaraya tidak memfailkan afidavit dan hujahan sebagaimana arahan Mahkamah adalah tidak dapat diterima kerana pihak pendakwaraya sememangnya ada banyak masa dan peluang untuk mematuhi arahan Mahkamah sejak dari 8.11.2023 lagi. S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [32] Berhubung alasan pihak pendakwaraya yang dihujahkan pegawai pendakwaraya Tuan Saharudin bahawa pegawai pendakwaraya Mr. Bernard sebenarnya telah bercuti sakit sejak dari 3.11.2023 lagi juga tidak dapat diterima Mahkamah kerana tiada apa-apa sijil cuti sakit telah dikemukakan untuk pertimbangan Mahkamah dan perkara ini tidak pernah diketengahkan di depan Mahkamah ini sejak dari pengurusan kes bertarikh 8.11.2023. [33] Bukan sahaja begitu, pihak pendakwaraya juga tidak pernah membuat apa-apa permohonan lanjutan masa / penangguhan kes kepada Mahkamah sama ada melalui surat ataupun membuat permohonan secara lisan di Mahkamah sejak dari 8.11.2023 sehinggalah ke 23.1.2024. [34] Mahkamah berpendapat sekiranya benar pegawai pendakwaraya yang incas telah jatuh sakit atau cuti sakit sejak dari 3.11.2023, kes ini sepatutnya telah dirujuk kepada pihak pegawai atasan, pengarah dan sebagainya. Pengawai pendakwaraya yang lain hendaklah dilantik dan / atau ditugaskan untuk mengambil alih kes ini sejak dari bulan Nov 2023 lagi. [35] Malangnya, Mahkamah ini mendapati kes ini bagaikan telah dibiarkan tanpa apa-apa arahan lanjut diambil sehinggalah tiada seorang pegawai pun hadir di Mahkamah pada tarikh pendengaran kes pada 12.1.2043. Oleh itu, mahkamah menolak permohonan pihak pendakwaraya untuk lanjutan masa dan / atau penangguhan pendengaran kes. S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [36] Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan pihak KEL di Kand. 1 bagi perenggan 1 dan 4 sahaja. Keputusan Mahkamah bagi Kes 242 [37] Memandangkan Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi Kes 248, maka permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi Kes 242 telahpun menjadi ‘redundant’. [38] Selain itu, berkenaan permohonan di Kes 242 jua, Mahkamah mendapati– (a) tiada apa-apa afidavit dan / atau hujahan telah difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaraya sejak dari 8.11.2023; dan (b) pihak pendakwaraya tidak menyerahkan apa-apa dokumen lain, dokumen sokongan berkenaan permohonan di Kand. 1 kepada pihak peguam KEL dan SMFL selain daripada notis lucuthak sebagaimana dihujahkan pihak peguam, dan ia tidak dinafikan oleh pihak pendakwaraya; [39] Oleh itu, Mahkamah menolak permohonan di Kand. 1 bagi Kes 242. Bertarikh: 6.2.2024 S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 t.t (CHAI GUAN HOCK) Majistret Selayang (2) Selangor Peguam Pegawai Pendakwaraya: Tuan Saharudin bin Haji Safirol Peguam bagi KEL: Salim Bashir, MK Dass & Izzuddin Peguam bagi SMFL: Lee Tze Jiun S/N g6qp0A0uxkGEStTdvgnxsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12BM-1-06/2022

PERAYU AMBANK (M) BERHAD RESPONDEN HERMIE BIN MD. TAHIR

This Court had partially allowed the Appellant’s appeal and ordered a retrial of the Civil Action brought by the Appellant against the Respondent and that the retrial is to be heard by a different Sessions Court Judge. The main complaint of the Appellant before this Court was that the learned Sessions Judge erred when she dismissed the Appellant’s claim despite the Appellant having proven its case via an admission by the respondent. The Respondent argued that the learned trial judge was correct in dismissing the Appellant claims. Paragraph 11.03 of the Property Purchase Agreement dated 16/12/2014 provides specifically that any admission or acknowledgement by the Respondent to be conclusive evidence of indebtedness must be made in writing by the Respondent. This court discovered that the completed Purchase Contract was not before the learned trial judge and it was never raised during the course of the trial. It was therefore never considered by the trial judge. Due to this major oversight on the part of the trial judge, she could not have been able determine the legal nexus between the parties and consequently she was unable to determine the fundamental issue of locus standi of the Appellant raised by the Respondent. Thus, this court allowed only partial of the Appellants claim and ordered for a retrial of this matter.

07/02/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=eee07b51-6192-44f5-a5da-14f540381bac&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ HERMIE V AMBANK WA-12BM-1-06-2022 02.2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. WA-12BM-1-06/2022 BETWEEN AMBANK (M) BERHAD ...APPELLANT (COMPANY NO: 8515-D) AND HERMIE BIN MOHD TAHIR ...RESPONDENT (NRIC NO. :750609-01-6989) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This Court had partially allowed the Appellant’s appeal and ordered a retrial of the Civil Action brought by the Appellant against the Respondent and that the retrial is to be heard by a different Sessions Court Judge. 07/02/2024 10:55:03 WA-12BM-1-06/2022 Kand. 48 S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] The Respondent is aggrieved by that decision. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant’s/Plaintiff’s case before the learned Sessions Court Judge was a straight forward one – whether the Respondent/Defendant owed the Appellant the sum claimed. The Respondent did not deny he owed a certain sum but he argued he owed the sum to his employer Telekom Malaysia Berhad (“TM”) and not the Appellant. He questioned the locus standi of the Appellant bringing the case against him as his contract was concluded with TM and never the Appellant. The Appellant brought this appeal before this Court as the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s case solely on the ground that the Appellant failed to exhibit the Certificate of Indebtedness. [4] The Respondent was an employee at TM. As an employee, the Respondent is eligible for housing financing facility with terms as set under the TM Staff Housing Facility/Scheme (“TM Staff Housing Scheme”). The TM Staff Housing Scheme is devised according to Shariah Principle of Bai’ Bithaman Ajil. S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [5] For purposes of the TM Staff Housing Scheme, TM signed the “Servicer Agreement” dated 27/5/2009 with AmMortgage, Ambank and Pacific Trustees. Under that Agreement, TM appointed AmBank as its agent to perform functions with respect to the TM Staff Housing Scheme, and AmBank Mortgage appointed AmBank as the lawful agent of Purchasers. The Respondent falls under the definition of Purchaser. [6] Vide a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 12/5/2014 between the Respondent and Amerin Residence Sdn Bhd, the Respondent purchased an apartment at B-16-7, Tower B, Amerin Mall, Kajang (“the Apartment”). The brief details of the purchase are as follows: Price of Apartment : RM481,000.00 Fire Insurance : RM3,735.00 Mortgage Reducing Term Assurance (MRTA) : RM14,836.00 Total : RM499,571.00 [7] For purposes of the said purchase, the Respondent applied for the TM Staff Housing Scheme. TM issued a Letter of Offer to the Respondent dated 3/7/2014 where TM agreed to fully financed the total purchase price of the Apartment amounting to RM499,571.00, with an agreed Purchase S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Price pursuant to the Shariah Principle of Bai’ Bithaman Ajil at RM1,010,664.00. [8] The Respondent and TM then entered into the Property Purchase Agreement dated 16/12/2014 where the Respondent sold the Apartment to TM and TM purchased the Apartment with agreed purchase price of RM1,010,664.00. The monthly instalment is RM4,679.00, but after deducting the Muqassah (discount) which the Respondent was entitled pursuant to the TM Staff Housing Scheme, the Respondent’s monthly instalment is RM3,249.00 for the period of 216 months (18 years). Beneficial ownership and rights over the Apartment passed to TM by virtue of the said Property Purchase Agreement. [9] With that background, it was clear that there was no loan agreement signed by the Respondent with any financial institution. The only “loan agreement” signed by Respondent was the Property Purchase Agreement dated 16/12/2014. THE DECISION OF THE SESSIONS COURT JUDGE [10] The learned Sessions Court Judge ruled that the Appellant’s claim is for recovery of debt, which shall be proven by the Appellant that the S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Respondent failed to pay despite the demand to do so. The existence of the Respondent’s debt to the Appellant shall be proven through a Certificate of Indebtedness. This is provided in paragraph 11.03 of the Property Sale Agreement dated 16/12/2014, and Section 13.14 of the Deed of Assignment of the same date. [11] The Appellant failed to show the Certificate of Indebtedness and the Appellant’s witnesses, SP1 and SP2 both testified on the amount of RM476,456.51 owed by the Respondent to the Appellant but did not substantiate their testimony with any document. [12] The Appellant’s counsel argued that there was no necessity for the Appellant to prove the Respondent’s indebtedness as the Respondent himself had admitted his debts during his testimony when cross-examined by the Appellant’s counsel: “S: Adakah Encik mempertikaikan jumlah RM473,029.53 di mana-mana dalam dokumen di sini? J: Tidak. S: Okay setuju saya kata encik mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk membayar balik pembiayaan ini kepada Telekom. Setuju atau tidak? J: Setuju Puan Hakim.” S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [13] The learned trial judge then dismissed the Appellant’s case when she concluded that despite that testimony, the Appellant failed to bring in documentary evidence in the form of Certificate of Indebtedness to support the oral evidence. Without the certificate, the court cannot accept the correctness or otherwise of the amount stated in the Appellant’s claim. The trial judge decided that as the main claim of the Appellant was dismissed, there was no necessity for her to make any findings on the other issues raised by parties, including the main defence of the Respondent that the Appellant’s case must be dismissed in limine as the Appellant lacked locus standi to bring this action against the Respondent. FINDINGS [14] The main complaint of the Appellant before this Court was that the learned Sessions Judge erred when she dismissed the Appellant’s claim despite the Appellant having proven its case that the Respondent owed to it the sum claimed based on the Respondent’s unequivocal admission of debt in his evidence during the trial. [15] The Respondent argued that the learned trial judge was correct in dismissing the Appellant claims. Paragraph 11.03 of the Property Purchase Agreement dated 16/12/2014 provides specifically that any S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 admission or acknowledgement by the Respondent to be conclusive evidence of indebtedness must be made in writing by the Respondent. This provision is repeated in section 13.14 of the Deed of Assignment signed between TM and the Appellant on the same date. That proof is through the Certificate of Indebtedness which the Appellant had failed to furnish. The Respondent further argued that the Appellant failed to prove the actual amount he owed to the Appellant. The Respondent cited s. 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 that the burden is always on the Plaintiff to proof its case. [16] Relying on RHB Bank Bhd v Tan Swee Long Holdings [2008] 10 CLJ 519, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s mere denial of the amount he is indebted to the Appellant is insufficient. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s defence must collapse as he failed to plead the relevant facts to negate the existence of the debt or to show the claim is not maintainable. This was made worse by the Respondent’s admission of his indebtedness during the trial. [17] On the Appellant’s contention that the Respondent’s defence on his indebtedness must fail due to the Respondent’s failure to plead the relevant facts to negate the existence of the debt or to show the claim is not maintainable issue, this Court ruled that the Appellant was wrong. S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Respondent’s Defence at the court below stated clearly that the Respondent denies all claims of the Appellant as the Appellant has no locus standi to this claim as there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent. The Respondent further pleaded in his Defence that he has no knowledge of all the reliefs claimed by the Appellant in paragraph 9 of its Amended SOC. This pleading again pivoted on the crux of the Respondent’s defence that there was no privity of contract between him and the Appellant as the agreement he has on the purchase of the Apartment was only with TM. This Court ruled that such pleading tantamount to the Respondent sufficiently pleaded the relevant facts to negate the existence of the debt and having shown that the Appellant’s claim is not maintainable. [18] It is trite that an appeal is a re-hearing of the matter. As such this Court is entitle to view all relevant documents, including to call for documents which were not available at the proceedings at the court below which this Court requires to ensure those documents are necessary to enable this Court is seised with the complete documents that will result in the just and fair disposal of the appeal. [19] For this purpose, this Court had specifically asked for the Appellant to furnish the following documents: S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (i) the purported Letter of Demand (“LOD”) dated 4/9/2018 : the LOD was mentioned by the Appellant’s witness to have been issued by the Appellant on 4/9/2018 to the Respondent. The letter of demand is crucial to be viewed by the trial court and in this appeal as it is trite that a demand is necessary for the purpose of bringing home to the debtor that the creditor is demanding its money : Ng Chee Kok v Public Bank Bhd [2001] 2 CLJ 157, O'day v. Commercial Bank of Australia [1993] 50 CLR 200; (ii) the Master Sale and Purchase Agreement : this document formed part of the Servicer Agreement. This document is crucial to be examined by the trial court and in this appeal as it listed out the actual assets governed by the Servicer Agreement; and (iii) Schedule 4A of the Servicer Agreement : this Schedule 4A is crucial to be examined by the trial court and in this appeal as the Servicer Agreement mentions “Parkside Power Attorney” whose details are found in Schedule 4A to the Agreement. The Servicer Agreement before this Court is incomplete as it was without this Schedule 4A. Counsels confirmed that this Schedule 4A was also not provided to the trial judge. S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [20] Apart from the reasons I had intimated in the preceding paragraph, I had also requested for these documents to be furnished particularly when the 1st document was pleaded in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, and the 2nd and 3rd documents formed the main part of the Servicer Agreement. This instruction is in consonant with the powers of this Court under O. 24 r.12. [21] This Court is mindful of the legal proposition that the public policy of the law is that it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation - interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. See: Supreme Court in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawai Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 CLJ 783. But it is trite law that finality cannot undermine justice and fairness to all parties in the litigation. At a relatively high level of generality, in such a case an appellate court should have in mind two conflicting principles: the need for finality and minimising costs in litigation, on the one hand, and the even more important requirement of a fair trial, on the other : per Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance in Chen v. Ng [2017] UKPC 27, PC. [22] In the interest of justice of the parties concerned, and particularly when the documents I sought are not only relevant to the issue at trial, but were referred to in the pleadings and/or the documents before the Court, S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 certainly this Court cannot be faulted for making a finding that the learned trial judge had committed a grievous error for her failure in not calling for these missing documents and that she made her final determination of the matter before her without the benefit of considering the entirety of the documents goes into the core of the appeal. The trial judge made a finding without considering critical documents which could have enabled her to decide the matter before her justly. [23] This Court agrees with the learned trial judge that the Appellant’s failure to furnish the Certificate of Indebtedness was fatal. The Federal Court in Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor Federal Court, Putrajaya [2006] 3 CLJ 544 cited Raja Azlan Shah CJM (as His Highness then was) in Citibank N.A. v. Ooi Boon Leong & Ors [1980] 1 LNS 168; [1981] 1 MLJ 282 where he held: “We have often said in this court many a time that where the issues are clear and the matter of substance can be decided once and for all without going to trial there is no reason why the Assistant Registrar or the judge in chambers, or, for that matter, this court shall not deal with the whole matter under the R.S.C. Order 14 procedure. In the present case, the guarantee contains a clause which enables the bank by producing a certificate of indebtedness by its officer to dispense with legal proof of the actual indebtedness of the respondents.... It means that, for the purpose of fixing liability of the respondents, the company's indebtedness may be ascertained conclusively by a certificate.” S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 The Federal Court then continued: “The above dictum establishes firmly the conclusive nature and extent of a certificate of indebtedness. A certificate of indebtedness operates in the field of adjectival law. It excuses the plaintiff from adducing proof of debt. Such a certificate shifts the burden onto the defendant to disprove the amount claimed.” [24] In short, the Certificate of Indebtedness deals with both the issue of liability and quantum claimed by the Appellant. Once that is shown to the Court, the onus is shifted to the Respondent as the borrower to prove manifest error on the amount stated in the Certificate. The trial judge was correct that despite the Respondent having admitted his indebtedness to the Appellant in his evidence, that alone was insufficient and inconclusive to prove the Respondent’s indebtedness, in particular the amount owed. Despite admitting his indebtedness to the Appellant, the Respondent had vehemently questioned the amount he owed. This must be proven by the Appellant through the Certificate of Indebtedness. But the trial judge’s decision to dismiss the Appellant’s case on that fact alone was wrong. [25] I had asked about the LOD that was mentioned in para 7 of the Re- Amended SOC which was not referred to by the learned trial judge during the course of the trial. The response given to me was that the amount in the LOD is the same with the amount in the SOC. Having perused the S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 LOD at p. 219 of Rekod Rayuan Tambahan 3, I found that the amount in those two documents differs. I am aware it must be due to the accumulated interests etc as the amount in the LOD was as at 3/9/2018 (RM473,029.53) whereas the amount in the SOC is as at 2/10/2018 (RM476,456.51). But this LOD should have been referred to by the trial judge, even if it was not raised by the parties as it was clearly pleaded in the SOC but not provided before her. [26] What is most important for the trial judge to deal with at the beginning of her finding is to firstly resolve the issue of locus standi of the Appellant/Plaintiff before her. This was an issue that had been raised repeatedly by the Respondent/Defendant in his pleadings. Although she mentioned this issue in paragraph 7 of her Grounds of Judgment, but the trial judge decided to do so in a mere one-liner. She concluded that there was no necessity for her to address the issue because she concluded that the common issues to be tried as agreed by parties is whether the Respondent is liable to pay the amount claimed by the Appellant. At the end of her Grounds of Judgment, the learned trial judge concluded that as she found that the Appellant’s claim cannot be sustained – grounded solely on the non-availability of the Certificate of Indebtedness – there is no necessity for her to answer the issue on the Appellant’s locus raised in the defence or any other issues for that matter. This is fundamentally S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 flawed. The learned trial judge has erred when she decided to deal with the issue of liability without first dealing with the preliminary and vital issue on the Appellant’s locus. [27] She must be satisfied that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to make the claim against the Defendant. Once that threshold is passed, only then she can proceed to deal with the rest of the issues before her. If the answer to that first question is in the negative then the Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed in limine. She can only do so if she is appraised with the complete documents and evidence. [28] The Respondent never denied he took up a loan of about RM500,000.00 for the purchase of the Apartment. But the Respondent denies that he took up that loan or facility from the Appellant. He pleaded that the loan and contract was between him and TM and not with the Appellant. [29] The subject matter of the Master Sale and Purchase Agreement signed between AmMortgage One Bhd, TM and Pacific Trustees dated 27/5/2009 concerns mainly, among others, the selling of PORTFOLIOS by TM to AmMortgage One Bhd. PORTFOLIOS is defined in the S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Agreement as “Active and Non-Active Portfolios”. Active Portfolio is set out in Appendix 3, but when I flipped Appendix 3 there was nothing there. Non-Active Portfolio is defined as “all Assets in respect of which the corresponding Obligor is (defined – Defendant seemed to be included in the definition of Obligor) no longer an employee which Non-Active Portfolio will be set out in detail in the relevant Purchase Contract to be executed between the Purchaser (AmMortgage) and the Seller (TM) thereto.”. Purchase Contract is defined as shown in Appendix 2. And Appendix 1 to this Purchase Contract will detail out the outstanding portfolios that are the subject of this Purchase Contract. [30] The Servicer Agreement was part of the Rekod Rayuan. This was one of the documents that were signed pursuant to the Master Sale and Purchase Agreement. Vide this Servicer Agreement, the AmMortgage agreed to purchase Assets from TM. “Assets” is defined in this Agreement and tend to include the property purchased by the Respondent through the TM Staff Housing Scheme which the Respondent signed with TM. [31] At the same time, under this Servicer Agreement, TM agreed to appoint the Appellant to perform duties for the TM Staff Housing Scheme. This Agreement sets out in detail the obligations of AmMortgage and Ambank. But it appears that whilst this Agreement provides that the S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 property purchased by the Respondent is sold by TM to AmMortgage, this same Agreement provides that amongst the duties and obligations of the Appellant is as set out in Clauses 3.7, 4.2, 5.1 read together with the Schedule 2 of that Servicer Agreement. [32] I also discovered that the completed Purchase Contract was not before the learned trial judge and it was never raised during the course of the trial. It was therefore never considered by the trial judge. [33] I found that due to this major oversight on the part of the trial judge, she could not have been able to determine the legal nexus between the parties and consequently she was unable to determine the fundamental issue of locus standi of the Appellant raised by the Respondent. How does these provisions established the legal nexus between the Appellant and the Respondent was not addressed by the trial judge. [34] The failure and errors of the learned trial judge is so fundamental and grave that this Court had no choice but to order a retrial of the Suit before another HMS. S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 CONCLUSION [35] Based on the above considerations, the appeal is partially allowed, to the extent that this Court allows the prayers in the Memorandum of Appeal citing the errors of the HMS on the issues that I had stated above. But I do not allow the Appellant’s prayers to overturn the trial judge’s findings for the reasons I has stated earlier. [36] This Suit is ordered for retrial before a different Sessions Court Judge. Dated : 06 February 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 PARTIES: Solicitor for the Appellant : Vischaal Yogaratnam together with Nievanee Ravindran. Messrs. Vas & Co, No. 14-1, Tingkat 1, Jalan Remia 5/KS6, Bandar Botanik, 41200 Klang, Selangor. Ref : V/CIV/1370/22 Email : vaslawfirm@gmail.com Solicitors for the Respondent : Mohammed Nasser bin Yusof together with V. Mugunthan. Messrs. The Law Chambers of Fauzi & Nasser, No. 25-1, Jalan PUJ 3/5, Taman Puncak Jalil, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor. Ref : LACMOF/HERMIE/149/TM-AMB/1118.01 Email : lacmoflawyers@gmail.com S/N UXvg7pJh9USl2hT1QDgbrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

T-05(M)-399-09/2019

PERAYU MOHD HAFIZ BIN MOHAMAD RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Criminal Appeal – Section section 302 of the Penal Code – Appeal against sentence – Court’s discretion under the Abolition of Death Penalty Act [Act 846] – Whether there is a prospect for not imposing the death penalty and to what extent should we consider the accused rights of life – The circumstances of the present case did not warrant the imposition of the death penalty – Appeal is allowed.

07/02/2024

YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c8231ae2-e6d5-436a-8d2a-e5c3c7e73ad2&Inline=true

07/02/2024 12:20:16 T-05(M)-399-09/2019 Kand. 50 S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4hojyNXmakONKuXDxc60g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 'r—u5(M)~399—u9/2IJ19 Kand. SC 2: 1“ 1/ I/02/mu; , IN THE COURT or APPEAL IIIALAVSIA AT PUTRMAVA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINALAPPEALN 1-aim)-gr mm EEIWEEN Mona HAFIZ am MOHAMAD (NRIC N0: 810522-08-5313) APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTDR RESPONDEN (In the maltlr 0! High com-I of Malaya II K-ula Tmnggnnu In lhe Stat: of Tlnnqganu Darul lmun Crlmlnal Tr|.Il No - 455-as-0212017 Eutwnn Public Prusu:uIor And Mohd Manx bin Mohamad (NRIC No.: 870522-05-5613)} sw 47Iu‘yNXmakDNKuXDx:HDg ‘ Nat! SIN]! M... W!“ be used M wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII muna VWLII CORAM MADHARIAH BINTI SVED ISMAIL, JCA AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH. JCA AZIZUL AZMI BIN ADNAN, JCA GROUNDS 0F Jgpgygsm INTRODUCTION [1] Tms is an appeal by Mahd mm; b|r| Muhamnd (‘tho Appllllm" or “lho AA:I:used') against the decision oi me mgr. Cowl wmch my-u man the Appellant was guilty at me marge and conwcnea under sechon 302 of the Panel Cade and the Appalianl was sentenced we «em 12] Al me begmmng, ma Aupeflant Ned appean on oonvlclion and sentanoe \u this Court. Hawever, at the heanng on 12 102023‘ the Appellant wkhdrew the Emma‘ an mnvlchon We K113797079 struck am his Appel\sn(‘s appeal on conviction and upheld the canvimxnn by me mgr. Ccurl we then proceeded in hearme Appeflanfs appeal on ma ssnlenos. [31 Allsr readmg me wrmen submissmns filed, neanng bath pamss orally and perusmg lhe reoards of appeax. we unammously aucmed Ihe appeal on sentence. We applied our mscreuan pmvided under the Aholmon 01 Death Penalty Act [Act 5461 which wnferrsd an we com the msaenon to mess mine! the sentence 0' death or sentence at lmpflsonmenl 07 not Vess than 30 years and not more men 40 years, We imposed 35 years impnscnmem to me Appeuann with 12 strokes olwmppmg IN 4hu;yNXmakDNKuXDxmDg -we Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm vn .mNe puns! YHE PROSECUTION CASE [4] The charge agams\ the Appeilent reads as fuiiows ‘Bshawn kamu pm 15 Omaha! 2015. ;am Icbfh kursng 11 39 pm borllmpnl ur perk]! nadapan Ps[lb|IAgams Dam-sh Km; Yemngganu, Kumpleks Sari lman, cl! dalzm Damn Kunla Torurvgganu, m daiam Nsgen Twmnggarm Daml /man, man melakmun mun dsngan menyababkun kwmeltan remade» Mulvamad sum om Nusm (No K/F‘ sz1mso3—515a; din clan yang damtk/an knmu um melekukan sualu kssa/ahan yang bokh dmukum :1/bawah sekayen saz Knlwrv Kesaksas/-1' [51 The learned High Cnurl Judge ('HC.l“| had oumned the material incl; 0! pmsewuon cas ms grounds uljudgmenl wen we vsspecttully adapt them with modification whenever necasary The relevant (H515. as Iound by the learned HCJ. was that the Appeilani had killed the deceased who was the bmher of SW8. The Appeiiant was said II.) have special relationship with sms [61 On the 16.10.2016‘ lhe Appeuam tngether wilh SP15 and her lamlly members Including medeeeased and SP17 wenm the Religious Dffice etthe Kompleks Sari iman Kuaia Terengganu to check on the Appellant‘: mantel status The Reiigiaus omoe continued that the Appeliant was a married man smce 2010. [7] Al the parking I01. SP15 and SF17 Saw fmm 30 metres ihal the Appellant stabbed the deceased with a butcher kniie. The (ac: showed that the Appelianl went to the Re g us Offiea mm ms tnend. SP21 According to spzc, me Appeum brought a paper bag together with him when they left for the Religious mm. The paper bag was pieced at the loot at me lront passenger seat. sw 4n.,,,Nxm.mm<..xu..«u. 3 -we s.n.1...m.m111.. used m mm .. mxmuy mm. dun-mm VI] muNG pm [3] Sim only uesenie aware oi me krine when me Appeilant was about in use me kniie to stab ms deceased airer laklng it lrorn the paper bag. si=21 tried to stop ma Appeiianr but iaiied as me Appelieni was sirurigerinan ninr [9] After lhe kiliingi the Appeliarrr mei sine and mid nini ennui me iricideni. Appsiiannhen asked SP19 lo keep the krifle, on 18.10.2016, SP19 handed over the kniie to me police [to] sim raided me Appeiiani-s iiouse and seized me Appsiiainrs clnlhas, narneiyme snin and zrouseis worn an die day dime irieiderir The cioriies were senna rne Msieysisn criemisriy Deparlmenl rur analysis and ir was iaurid that there were biocd sfiains en Iha name which contained the daoeasatfs DNA. [11] The Appeiianr was ariesrad approximately 3 days ansr the incident wriicii was on 19.10.2015. [12] The iesuns of me suiopsy conducted by SP16 on me deceased disdossd mar me cause 0! deem was me scab wounds to me cnesx. SP16 iuund 5 slab wounds, 2 slash wounds and 6 incision wounds also an 1119 deceased his wuurids suirered are very severe, that is. me main biodd vessels of ine riean and respiratory tract were our [13] As me appeai on oanvicrian was wimdrawn, we win nan discuss the findings si me iearnsd HCJ ai ms and or proseculion case and at me end 0! «ha datsnee cases We will now direv:| dur grounds In ine issue on sentence in which we wrrirriure irorn uie senrense of deem penairy re me sernenoe L71 inipnsdninenr. SIN 4liu'yNXmakDNKnXDxmDg ‘ Nuns s.ii.i Illvihli M“ r. used m mm s. niiniruiily mi; dnunvinril wa nFiuNG Wflxi SENTENCE [14] me epoiinon oideein peneiiy is aiiii new in me Malaysian iieinispneie. Himeno, the issue on wnediei Ia mete ine senlance oi nanging io deem out or In serilanee ioi Imprisnnmenl siiii remain unsemed However. we cannoi iesiei ine enanges. Lord Denning LJ in e locus clessieus ease of Pei-xer v Packer [1953] 2 Au ER in siaied that '/i‘ we never do enyin/iig which nes not been done belae. we snail never gei anywhere. nie law will siend siili wniie me res! onne wand goes on, endinei will be tied fovbam' [15] An in en, in is ineduiy omie cuiinm have regard ipiiisiice in eorisidering wnei K5 ine appmprizta seruence In be passed, we do conslder en me necessaries we nave examined wnemer mere is a piospeei (or noi Imposing me deain peneny and to wnai exieni enouid we oonsidsrthe accused ngnis oi Me. We have considered ine zieriousnsss or me diienee pdniininied end eieniem oi imenlion wiin ieinei oi ouier extreme ieciiiis [16] We appreciate ine decision oi iiisiioe Vszeer Mam Mydln Mssra‘ JCA in ine case v1 A/dwonie o/iiw./iiwon cumin v Fiiiaii-c Pmslculor pm] MLJU ma when ne summed up on when iii impose the senienoe :71 death as ioiiews -n can be pieaneo lmm ine cases discussed in ine pieaadiiig peiudmpns me: me EIMSIICI 01 again has been imposed wnerethe Mulder: eoniinnied war! Exlnrllaly gauge, 7IemOu:,dlabI}V\l:a|,gNBiflIl\ei CIIDEL noneiidoiiseionireiend wnicn shocks ndi oniy meiiidiciei odiiseieim min EVIH ine ooiieciwe conscience alme soeieny As a broad diiideiiiie. ii is oiii VIEW, Ihal me daalh peniiny wdiiid D6 iiiniied in diieiing wim, amunw diners. niied and send: xiiieis, indse who lane and kw meii iioiiniii idi piiipiues at seiiiiei flllllficillon, dienieiniiei me nodies oi ineii vidrinis_ dendeioiie eninineis who usaflmanl\I,snd1lIusc we pian a iniimei end emiiie ii in e enld— Dloodsd manna!‘ 5 n 4hDlyNXmikDMKnXDx¢.€W Nab! s.n.i nnvihnrwm be iii... M mm ms nflfliruflly MIME dun-mm VII nF\uNG WM! [17] Therefore, aller mrlsldsrlrlg lne laels cl lne case bylhe prpseeuudn and me dalerree puflorward by me Appellanl. we were cllne pensldered vlewtllal lne olvcumsxarloes ol the present case dld nel warranl me rnlpcaruen dune dealll penally. [16] In one praeenl appeal even lnpugn me deceased sullered rnulllple alap wdunde lo me r.hes|. evlderloe lrerrr sl=2l slaled lnal lnera was a quarrel belween lne Appellant and lne deceased before lne Appellant lock lne knile and s1abbed lne deceased. Tnle negaled lne alenranl cl premedilaled murder allneugn lne Appellanl pmugm wrln nlrn a knne. pul llle knife was placed ln me car There was no evldence lnal lne Appellant ned used any «me In bung lne deceased near me can we pelleve, lllel lne Appellarrl was apcul we leave me place when one urrlpnurrale even! happened. CONCLUSION [1 9] In lne upsrldl, we allowed me appeal on senlence. The conulcllon pyllle Hlgn opun was amnned pal lne senlenoe of deem by hanglrlg was eel aelde ll was our unanimous decision that a senlence ol lrnpneonnrenl pl 35 years legellrerwillr l2 strokes or whipplrlg would be appmprlale. saw [AZMAN am ABDULLAH) Judge ccun of Appeal Malaysla l>uua,aya Dale af neelrlen ; l2 Octuber 2n2:l Ground: lseued : 7 February 2024 a sln 4IluliNXmakDNKnxDxflW -nee s.n.l ...nu.r wlll he used M mm ea nllnlrullly Mlhls dun-vlnrll vla nFluNG wnxl uqnl Ropvuonutlnn For the Appolllnl Maflan bin Md Zaln [Messrs Mohfl vusov Endul 5. Assoc] For nu Rnpondent > Aflqah mun Abdul Kanm @ Husawm [Ammsy Generafs Chambers] sw um.,Nxm.mm<..xu..«u. 7 -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-360-03/2023

PERAYU AZINAL SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN 1. ) JANNATH GANI 2. ) SHAHUL HAMEED 3. ) SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD

Non-appealable issues under the amended section 68(1) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964

07/02/2024

YA Datuk Azimah binti OmarKorumYA Datuk Seri Kamaludin Bin Md. SaidYA Datuk Supang LianYA Datuk Azimah binti Omar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8ef164f1-0145-4800-b2c9-1c2c59c08209&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-360-03/2023 ANTARA AZINAL SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT NO: 108923-D) ... PERAYU DAN 1. JANNATH GANI (INDIA PASPOT: G5948574) 2. SHAHUL HAMEED (INDIA PASPOT: Z1807843) 3. SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD @ AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 Antara 1. Jannath Gani (India Paspot: G5948574) 07/02/2024 12:14:29 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-360-03/2023 Kand. 32 S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. Shahul Hameed (India Paspot: Z1807843) 3. Shirin Binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (No. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... Plaintif-Plaintif Dan 1. Jamilah Binti Sheikh Daud (No. K/P: 460819-05-5198) 2. Dr Abdul Rahiman Bin Datuk A.S.Dawood (No. K/P: 531114-05-5257) (Di dalam kapasiti beliau sendiri dan sebagai pentadbir harta pesaka Patama @ Ammaji Bibi Binti Daud Sah melalui Geran Probet bertarikh 04.04.2014) 3. Mohamed Ibrahim Bin Datuk A.S.Dawood (No. K/P: 540827-05-5307) 4. Naseem Binti Mohamed Abdulla (No. K/P: 740211-05-5030) 5. PASLA Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 30886A) 6. Azinal Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 108923-D) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 7. Madah Pertama Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 340032-U) 8. Rashidah Binti Esa (No. K/P: 570222-01-6628) 9. Taslim Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 720419-10-5457) 10. Syahin Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 760603-10-5955) 11. Ikhwan Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman (No. K/P: 881202-05-5337) ... Defendan- Defendan) HEARD TOGETHER WITH DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-390-03/2023 ANTARA AZINAL SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT NO: 108923-D) ... PERAYU DAN 1. JANNATH GANI S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (INDIA PASPOT: G5948574) 2. SHAHUL HAMEED (INDIA PASPOT: Z1807843) 3. SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD @ AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 Antara 1. Jannath Gani (India Paspot: G5948574) 2. Shahul Hameed (India Paspot: Z1807843) 3. Shirin Binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (No. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... Plaintif-Plaintif Dan 1. Jamilah Binti Sheikh Daud (No. K/P: 460819-05-5198) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 2. Dr Abdul Rahiman Bin Datuk A.S.Dawood (No. K/P: 531114-05-5257) (Di dalam kapasiti beliau sendiri dan sebagai pentadbir harta pesaka Patama @ Ammaji Bibi Binti Daud Sah melalui Geran Probet bertarikh 04.04.2014) 3. Mohamed Ibrahim Bin Datuk A.S.Dawood (No. K/P: 540827-05-5307) 4. Naseem Binti Mohamed Abdulla (No. K/P: 740211-05-5030) 5. PASLA Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 30886A) 6. Azinal Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 108923-D) 7. Madah Pertama Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 340032-U) 8. Rashidah Binti Esa (No. K/P: 570222-01-6628) 9. Taslim Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 720419-10-5457) ... Defendan- Defendan) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 10. Syahin Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 760603-10-5955) 11. Ikhwan Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman (No. K/P: 881202-05-5337) HEARD TOGETHER WITH DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-451-03/2023 ANTARA 1. DR ABDUL RAHIMAN BIN DATUK A.S.DAWOOD (NO. K/P: 531114-05-5257) (DI DALAM KAPASITI BELIAU SENDIRI DAN SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PESAKA PATAMA @ AMMAJI BIBI BINTI DAUD SAH MELALUI GERAN PROBET BERTARIKH 04.04.2014) 2. PASLA HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 30886A) 3. MADAH PERTAMA SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 340032-U) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 4. RASHIDAH BINTI ESA (NO. K/P: 570222-01-6628) 5. TASLIM BIN JALAL AHMAD (NO. K/P: 720419-10-5457) 6. SYAHIN BIN JALAL AHMAD (NO. K/P: 760603-10-5955) 7. IKHWAN NASIR BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (NO. K/P: 881202-05-5337) ... PERAYU- PERAYU DAN 1. JANNATH GANI (INDIA PASPOT: G5948574) 2. SHAHUL HAMEED (NO. PASPOT INDIA: Z1807843) (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PESAKA P.A.S. SULTHAN BATCHA A.K.A SULTAN BATCHA S/O SHIEK DAWOOD @ SULTAN BATCHA BIN A.S DAWOOD @ SULTHAN BATCHA, SI MATI) 3. SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD @ AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PESAKA ABDULLAH BIN S. DAWOOD, SI MATI) (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 Antara 1. Jannath Gani (India Paspot: G5948574) 2. Shahul Hameed (India Paspot: Z1807843) 3. Shirin Binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (No. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... Plaintif-Plaintif Dan 1. Jamilah Binti Sheikh Daud (No. K/P: 460819-05-5198) 2. Dr Abdul Rahiman Bin Datuk A.S. Dawood (No. K/P: 531114-05-5257) (Di dalam kapasiti beliau sendiri dan sebagai pentadbir harta pesaka Patama S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 @ Ammaji Bibi Binti Daud Sah melalui Geran Probet bertarikh 04.04.2014) 3. Mohamed Ibrahim Bin Datuk A.S. Dawood (No. K/P: 540827-05-5307) 4. Naseem Binti Mohamed Abdulla (No. K/P: 740211-05-5030) 5. PASLA Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 30886A) 6. Azinal Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 108923-D) 7. Madah Pertama Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 340032-U) 8. Rashidah Binti Esa (No. K/P: 570222-01-6628) 9. Taslim Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 720419-10-5457) 10. Syahin Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 760603-10-5955) 11. Ikhwan Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman (No. K/P: 881202-05-5337) ... Defendan- Defendan) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 HEARD TOGETHER WITH DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-484-03/2023 ANTARA 1. JAMILAH BINTI SHEIKH DAUD (NO. K/P: 460819-05-5198) 2. MOHAMED IBRAHIM BIN DATUK A.S.DAWOOD (NO. K/P: 540827-05-5307)y 3. NASEEM BINTI MOHAMED ABDULLA (NO. K/P: 740211-05-5030) ... PERAYU- PERAYU DAN 1. JANNATH GANI (INDIA PASPOT: G5948574) 2. SHAHUL HAMEED (NO. PASPOT INDIA: Z1807843) (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PESAKA P.A.S. SULTHAN BATCHA A.K.A SULTAN BATCHA S/O SHIEK DAWOOD @ SULTAN BATCHA BIN A.S S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 DAWOOD @ SULTHAN BATCHA, SI MATI) 3. SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD @ AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550730-05-5406) (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PESAKA ABDULLAH BIN S.DAWOOD, SI MATI) ... RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No.: WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 Antara 1. Jannath Gani (India Paspot: G5948574) 2. Shahul Hameed (India Paspot: Z1807843) 3. Shirin Binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (No. K/P: 550730-05-5406) ... Plaintif-Plaintif Dan S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1. Jamilah Binti Sheikh Daud (No. K/P: 460819-05-5198) 2. Dr Abdul Rahiman Bin Datuk A.S.Dawood (No. K/P: 531114-05-5257) (Di dalam kapasiti beliau sendiri dan sebagai pentadbir harta pesaka Patama @ Ammaji Bibi Binti Daud Sah melalui Geran Probet bertarikh 04.04.2014) 3. Mohamed Ibrahim Bin Datuk A.S. Dawood (No. K/P: 540827-05-5307) 4. Naseem Binti Mohamed Abdulla (No. K/P: 740211-05-5030) 5. PASLA Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 30886A) 6. Azinal Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 108923-D) 7. Madah Pertama Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 340032-U) 8. Rashidah Binti Esa (No. K/P: 570222-01-6628) 9. Taslim Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 720419-10-5457) ... Defendan- Defendan) S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 10. Syahin Bin Jalal Ahmad (No. K/P: 760603-10-5955) 11. Ikhwan Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman (No. K/P: 881202-05-5337) CORAM KAMALUDDIN BIN SAID, JCA SUPANG LIAN, JCA AZIMAH BINTI OMAR, JCA GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION [1] The immediate Appeal before us concerns a simple matter but nonetheless, its determination here shall shed crucial light and certainty as to the Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in view of the recent amendment of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 (“CJA 1964”) vide the insertion of the new limbs to section 68(1) of the CJA 1964 namely; Sections 68(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the CJA 1964. [2] For context, there are four (4) separate appeals filed before us by the parties who were dissatisfied with the decisions rendered by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 23.2.2023 in civil action WA-22NCvC- 629-11/2017. The four appeals were namely: (i) W-02(IM)-360-03/2023 (“Appeal 360”) was an appeal filed by the Appellant (“Azinal Sdn Bhd”), who was the 6th Defendant in the High Court, against the decision of the learned High S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Court Judge dated 23.2.2023 in dismissing its Application in Enclosure 210 to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim (“Enclosure 210”); (ii) W-02(IM)-390-03/2023 (“Appeal 390”) was an appeal filed by Azinal Sdn Bhd against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23.2.2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs’ (Jannath Gani (P1), Shahul Hameed (P2), Shirin binti Mobarak Ahmad @ Ahmad (P3)) Application in Enclosure 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim; (iii) W-02(IM)-451-03/2023 (“Appeal 451”) was an appeal filed by the 2nd, 5th, 7th and 11th Defendants (Dr Abdul Rahman bin Datuk A.S Dawood (D2), Pasla Holdings Sdn Bhd (D5), Madah Pertama Sdn Bhd (D7) and Ikhwan Nasir bin Abdul Rahman (D11)) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23.02.2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs’ Application in Enclosure 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim; and (iv) W-02(IM)-484-03/2023 (“Appeal 484”) was an appeal filed by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants (Jamilah binti Sheikh Daud (D1), Mohamed Ibrahim bin Datuk A.S Dawood (D3), Naseem binti Mohamed Abdulla (D4)) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 23.2.2023 for allowing the Plaintiffs’ application in Enclosure 206 to amend their Writ and Statement of Claim. [3] However, at the commencement of the hearing of these four appeals, Dato’ M Pathmanathan, the counsel for the Appellant in Appeal 360 (Azinal Sdn Bhd) had requested that the Appellant be permitted to S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 take Appeal 360 on its own and independently from the other three appeals. This, he requested on the ground that Appeal 360 was the only appeal filed against the Learned Judge’s decision to dismiss Azinal Sdn Bhd’s Application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim. Meanwhile, all the other three appeals were Appeals filed against the Learned Judge’s decision to allow the Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) application to amend their Statement of Claim. [4] Additionally, Dato’ Pathmanathan had informed us that the Respondents had raised a preliminary objection in their written submission in respect of the Appellant’s Appeal 360 on the premise that Appeal 360 was an incompetent Appeal and should be struck out in limine. [5] Mr Austen Pereira (the counsel for the Respondents) had admitted that the Respondent had indeed raised a preliminary objection that Appeal 360 was an incompetent Appeal in view of the recent inclusion of section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964 which now deems the decision of the High Court (in dismissing a striking out application) to be a non-appealable decision of the High Court. [6] Mr Austen Pereira further enlightened us on the underlying facts leading to the incompetency of the Appellant’s Appeal 360. The Appellant had filed its striking out Application in Enclosure 210 on 26.7.2022 and the parties had exchanged their respective Affidavits between July 2022 to September 2022. Written submissions in respect of the Striking Out Application were filed by the parties on 7.2.2023. Thereafter, the learned High Court Judge had dismissed the application on 23.02.2023. Enclosure 210 was filed by the Appellant one (1) day AFTER the bill for amendment as to the S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 amendments to section 68(1) CJA 1964 were passed on 25.7.2022. The Learned Judge rendered his Judgment on 7.2.2023 which was well AFTER the amendment came into force on 1.10.2022). The counsel pointed out that the new amended section 68(1)(f) of CJA 1964 clearly restrains any appeals on dismissal of striking out applications. [7] Mr Austen Pereira contended that Appeal 360 should be struck out in limine. Mr Austen Pereira argued that the amendments were in parallel with the judicial principle that when an order does not finally dispose of rights of the parties, they are not significantly affected because they still would have their day in court. The Respondents relied on the Federal Court decision in Zaidi bin Kanapiah v ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan and Other cases [2021] 5 CLJ 581 which inter alia held: "To interpret a law based on a provision that no longer reflected the position of the law and was no longer in existence by virtue of an amendment was misconceived and defied both legal logic and the canons of construction and interpretation. To do so would create a fallacious precedent that would inevitably lead to unprecedented consequences." [8] In challenging the preliminary objection (and in an attempt to bring Appeal 360 outside the ambit of the recent amendments), Dato’ Pathmanathan had presented his arguments which can be summarized as follows: a. The amended section 68(1) of the CJA via Act 1661 was a legislative amendment. The law is trite that a legislative amendment shall as a general rule, operate prospectively. If the S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 legislator intended that the legislative amendment to have a retrospective operation, such retrospective effect must be stated in clear and unambiguous terms or language. In support of this contention, the Appellant’s counsel relied on the decisions of the Privy Council and the Federal Court namely; Zainal Bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1979] 2 MLJ 276 (PC); MGG Pillai v. Sri Dato' Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2002] 2 MLJ 673 (FC); Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd y Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 29 (CA); Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v Pwc Corporation Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 193 (FC); b. The Appellant’s Appeal vide Appeal 360 was an appeal against the decision of the High Court for dismissing the Appellant’s Application to Strike Out the Respondents’ claim. The Appellant’s Right to Appeal to the Court of Appeal was a vested right or an accrued right prescribed by a statute (which has constitutional underpinnings vide Article 121 (1B) of the Federal Constitution). The CJA 1964 via its section 67 had created such right and had vested the Court of Appeal with the necessary jurisdiction to exercise its power in hearing and determining appeals arising from the decision or order from the High Court; c. The legal principle established by a plethora of authorities dictates that the right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere procedural right. Since the right of appeal is a substantive right, the right of appeal vested in the Appellant will remain intact until the Amendment Act (Act 1661) (“Amendment Act / amendments / Act 1661”) took effect on 1.10.2022. In the absence of explicit words of the Amending statute that the amendment should operate retrospectively, Act 1661 must S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 operate prospectively. Considering this prospective operation of Act 1661, the amendment should not retrospectively disturb the Appellant’s substantive right to appeal (which was allegedly vested upon the Appellant since 2017 (the time the action was first filed)). In other words, Act 1661 shall only apply against a suit or an action filed at the time or after Act 1661 had come into force; d. The right of appeal was vested on the Appellant at the time of the suit being filed or commenced. This right is still in existence when the decision dismissing the striking out application was meted by the High Court. Act 1661 cannot apply here when the right of appeal was already vested in the Appellant since the commencement of the suit. This removal of the right of appeal cannot extend to suits or applications which were already filed before the Amending Statute came into force. OUR ANALYSIS (PURPOSIVE APPROACH PREFERRED OVER LITERAL APPROACH OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION) [9] Arising from the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents, the question is whether the Appellant’s Appeal 360 is a competent Appeal before us in view of the amendments of section 68(1) CJA 1964 in particular section 68(1)(f) of the CJA 1964. If the Appellant’s Appeal 360 is indeed an incompetent appeal by reason of the legal impediment following the amendment to section 68(1) of the CJA 1964, then Appeal 360 must be struck out in limine. [10] Now, it must be observed that pursuant to Act 1661 (which came into force on 01.10.2022 vide the Federal Government Gazette dated S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 19.09.2022), section 68 of the CJA 1964 was amended with the insertion of paragraphs (e) to (g) which read as follows: "Section 68 Non-appealable matters (1) No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases: (a) when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim (exclusive of interest) is less than two hundred and fifty thousand Ringgit, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal: (b) where the judgment or order is made by consent of parties; (c) where the judgment or order relates to costs only, which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal; (d) where, by any written law for the time being in force, the judgment or order of the High Court is expressly declared to be final; (e) where a High Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment; (f) where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and (g) where a High Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default." S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [11] To determine the competency of the Appellant’s Appeal 360, it is apposite for us to first appreciate the historical context and background of CJA 1964 in respect of the ‘right to appeal’. It must be observed that prior to the establishment of the Court of Appeal on 24.6.1994, all appeals in civil matters from the High Court shall lay before the then Supreme Court. When section 67 of the CJA 1964 was amended by a blanket amendment by Act 886 (which came into force on 24 June 1994) the words “Supreme Court” were replaced by the words “Court of Appeal”. Act 886 had amended section 67 conferring the Court of Appeal the jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any Judgment or Order of any High Court in any civil matter instead of the Supreme Court. On 25.6.1994, the Federal Constitution was amended for the establishment of the Court of Appeal vide Act A855. [12] By the operation of section 67 of the CJA 1964, any Decision or Order of the High Court is appealable to the Court of Appeal. Thus, the provision thereby conferred the right of appeal to any litigant who is dissatisfied with any Decision or Order rendered by the High Court (and thus clothed the Court of Appeal with its Appellate Jurisdiction). [13] Regarding the right of appeal conferred to litigants by virtue of section 67 of the CJA 1964, we have no reservations against the Appellant’s contention that the right of appeal under section 67 of the CJA 1964 is a statutory right established by legislation and is a substantive right and not merely a procedural right. [14] We also have no qualms with the Appellant’s contention that any legislative amendment to remove a substantive right could only apply prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is so expressed in clear S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 terms within the amendment. This legal proposition had been clearly upheld in all the cases cited by the Appellant’s counsel: (a) Zainal Bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1979] 2 MLJ 276 (PC): On issue of retrospectivity "Lord Evershed M.R. in Hutchinson v Jauncey [1951] 1 KB 575 at p 579 where he doubted "whether the principle ought to be expressed in quite such precise language as Jessel M.R. used in In re Joseph Suche & Co Ltd (1875) 1 Ch D 48." In that case Lord Jessel had said: "It is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any rights of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them.” (b) MGG Pillai v. Sri Dato' Vincent In the Tan Tan Chee Yloun 120021 2 MLJ 673 (FC): "In the Courts of Judicature Act (Amendment) Act 1998, the legislature did not expressly state that the amendment is retrospective or even by necessary intendment. It is my view therefore that the amendment removing the consent of the parties is not retrospective as it affects the substantive right of the applicant and it is not a matter of procedure.” S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (c) Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd y Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 299 (FC): "[61] It is therefore clear that courts will be slow in concluding that a statute would have retrospective effect if such construction will consequently impact vested rights, contracts, transactions or impose new duties and obligations in relation to past transactions for to do so would be contrary to the presumption that a statute should not be given a construction that would impair existing rights as regards person or property unless the language in which it is couched requires such a construction. The basis of this presumption in this area of the law is no more than simple fairness, and justice which ought to be the basis of every general rule. It should be observed that this is another dimension or a broader presumption in the approach in determining whether legislation has retrospective application. It will be remembered that Lord Scott in Wilson v First Country in para 153 succinctly stated that there is a common law presumption that a statute is not intended to have retrospective effect. This presumption is part of a broader presumption that Parliament does not intend a statute to have an unfair or unjust effect.” (d) Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v Pwc Corporation Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 193 (FC): “(2) In the absence of express words, a statute, notwithstanding whether it is procedural or substantive, could not be applied retrospectively to impair a substantive right. This settled legal position accords well with and further amplifies those statutory provisions of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 ('IA'). The S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 CIPAA, in itself, does not contain any provision stating that it has retrospective application. Parliament clearly did not exercise its Legislative power, pursuant to art. 66(5) of the Federal Constitution and ss. 2(3), 19(1) and 43(a) of the IA to enact the CIPAA with retrospective effect." (see also: Sim Seoh Beng & Anor. v Koperasi Tunas Muda Sungai Ara Berhad [1995] 1 CLJ 491) [15] Be that as it may, we must also be mindful that notwithstanding the civil Appellate jurisdiction conferred to the Court of Appeal vide section 67 of the CJA 1964, the same statute had also provided a sieving mechanism to limit (or qualify) the civil Appellate jurisdiction conferred to the Court of Appeal. In this instance, one must not lose sight of the pertinent effect of section 68 of the CJA 1964. Section 68 of the CJA 1964 had explicitly set out the list of non-appealable matters that cannot be brought by way of appeal before the Court of Appeal. [16] It must be noted that prior to the enforcement of Act 1661, matters which are non-appealable to the Court of Appeal were spelt out under section 68(1)(a) to (d) of the CJA 1964. Section 68(1) of the CJA 1964 has clearly prescribed that (in so far as right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is concerned) the right of appeal against any decision or order of the High Court created by section 67 of the CJA 1964 is NOT A BLANKET RIGHT OF APPEAL. Section 68 of the CJA 1964 clearly prescribed that this conferred right of appeal must be read conjunctively or in tandem with the restrictions imposed by section 68 of the CJA 1964. S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [17] Essentially, the right of appeal conferred via section 67 of the CJA 1964 shall be subject to the restrictions or qualifications stipulated under section 68 of the CJA 1964. [18] In our view, it was never the intention of the legislator to vest an absolute Right of Appeal to every Decision or Order made by the High Court to the Court of Appeal (despite such right being a substantive right). The legislator has intended for the section 67 right of appeal to have its own set of limitations, restrictions or qualification. This intention of the legislator was clearly reflected by having section 68 embedded within the CJA 1964. The operative words of section 68(1) clearly reads: “No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases: ….” [19] Having said that, we are mindful that prior to Act 1661, the list of non- appealable matters under section 68(1) of the CJA 1964 does not include a decision of the High Court dismissing a Striking Out application by the High Court (to be a non-appealable matter). However, the recent amendment of the CJA vide Act 1661 had explicitly spelt out the addition of three more matters which are non- appealable to the Court of Appeal, namely: “Section 68(1)(e): where a High Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;” Section 68(1) (f): where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and Section 68(1 (g): where a High Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default." S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [20] To our minds, by virtue of section 68 of the CJA 1964, it is fallacious to say that the conferment of the right of appeal under section 67 (despite being a substantive right) was not without its own set of qualifications. The legislator had legislated curtailments or qualifications as to matters decided by the High Court that are competent to be brought before the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it is our considered view that as at 1.10.2022, section 68(1)(f) was put into force for the very purpose of curtailing the torrent of interlocutory appeals that have inundated the Court of Appeal (well before the parties at the High Court ever had their day in Court at trial). [21] Now, apart from the debate on the nature of the right of appeal (whether substantive or procedural) the parties failed to consider the manner and method that statutes ought to be read or interpreted. Indeed, a literal interpretation of a statute is only BUT ONE method out of numerous other valid methods of statutory interpretation. [22] One of the celebrated methods of statutory interpretation would be the PURPOSIVE APPROACH to statutory interpretation. This purposive approach becomes exceedingly necessary and relevant, when the literal reading of the act (notwithstanding principal or amendment act) would lead to an undesirable meaning or effect that flouts the legislative intent of parliament or the provision. [23] This preference for the purposive approach of statutory interpretation has been upheld by the Federal Court in DYTM TENGKU IDRIS SHAH IBNI SULTAN SALAHUDDIN ABDUL AZIZ SHAH v DIKIM HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR [2002] 2 MLJ 11: “The purposive approach has been adopted by our courts following the English cases. Chang Min Tat FJ, speaking for the S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Federal Court in United Hokkien Cemetries, Penang v Majlis Bandaran, Pulau Pinang [1979] 2 MLJ 121 in considering whether the columbarium should be exempted from assessment just like the cemetery grounds and the crematorium, stated at p 123: The question of the determination of the exact nature and extent of a taxing act is rather different from that of the nature and extent of exemptory provisions. Then, in my view, it is a matter for the purposive approach to replace the literal. As was said by Lord Diplock in Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850 at p 899, the LITERAL METHOD of construction is now completely OUT OF DATE and has been replaced by a 'purposive approach'. It ought to be noted that this purposive approach is not a modem fashion. Since the 17th century, it has been the task of the judiciary to interpret an Act 'according to the intent of them that made it': Coke 4 Inst 330. On the same page, His Lordship proceeded to quote a passage in Northman v Barnet Council [1978] 1 WLR 221 where Lord Denning MR said at p 228: In all cases now in the interpretation of statutes, we adopt such a construction as will 'promote the general legislature purpose' underlying the provision. It is no longer necessary for judges to wring their hands and say: 'There is nothing we can do about it.' Whenever the strict interpretation of a statute gives rise to an absurd and unjust situation, the judges can and should use their good sense to remedy it — S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 by reading words in, if necessary — so as to do what Parliament would have done, had they had the situation in mind. This purposive approach has now been given statutory recognition by our Parliament enacting s 17A in the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) ('the Acts') which reads: In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (WHETHER THAT PURPOSE OR OBJECT IS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE ACT OR NOT) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Recently, the Federal Court in a majority judgment in Lam Kong Co Ltd v Thong Guan Co Ptd Ltd [2000] 4 MLJ 1, Mohamed Dzaiddin FCJ (now CJ Malaya) took the purpose or object of the legislature as provided by s 17A of the Acts for the construction of s 68(1)(a) of the CJA on the 'filter' principle. [24] To our minds, the Appellant’s interpretation of the Amendment Act (leading to the prospective effect of the amendment) would grossly undermine, defeat, and flout the very purposes and objectives that the amendment was seeking to achieve. Those main purposes and objectives being: a. To curtail the abuse of interlocutory appeals as a tactic to unnecessarily protract litigation, exhaust counter-parties, and to unnecessarily delay or withhold the case from being properly tried before the High Court; S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 b. To promote speedy and expeditious determination of suits at trial (without being protracted by unnecessary interlocutory appeals); and c. To gradually alleviate the backlog in the Court of Appeal and to avoid the undesirable situation of the Court of Appeal being further overladen and inundated with further filings of interlocutory appeals after the cut-off date of 1.10.2022. [25] The above purposes and objectives were clearly reflected within the Minister’s speech as recorded in the Parliament’s Hansard on 25.7.2022: “Ucapan Yang Amat Arif, Ketua Hakim Negara, semasa Majlis Pembukaan Tahun Perundangan 2020, telah pun menyatakan, dengan izin, “The Judiciary has to constantly introduce measures to meet the constantly evolving problems arising in terms of the workload of the Judiciary. A perennial problem is the increasing case load. THE EVER INCREASING INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS AFFECT THE COURT OF APPEAL THE MOST. In fact, the Court of Appeal has become so inundated with interlocutory appeals, which currently stand at around 1,200 appeals that the Judiciary needed to co-opt special Court of Appeal panels comprising Federal Court judges to reduce the heavy workload in the Court of Appeal.” … Kaedah perubahan substantif yang dicadangkan ialah dengan mengehadkan rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah ke Mahkamah Tinggi dan dari Mahkamah Tinggi ke Mahkamah Rayuan S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 dengan mengehadkan rayuan dalam kes-kes permohonan interlokutori yang tidak memprejudiskan hak pihak-pihak. … Kesan kepada pindaan ini akan memperlihatkan, hanya kes yang mempunyai merit sahaja yang akan didengarkan di Mahkamah Rayuan, dan menjadikan pentadbiran kehakiman lebih efektif dan masa serta kos pihak-pihak yang terlibat kini dapat dijimatkan tanpa menjejaskan keadilan dan hak mana-mana pihak.” [26] In fact, the Minister’s speech had already addressed the supposed ‘prejudice’ against the Appellant’s ‘Right of Appeal’ (argued by the Appellant) by clearly demarcating and distinguishing the broad Right of Appeal to Appeal against a decision upon merits by the High Court, and the specific right to an interlocutory Appeal. The Minister explained that the removal of a right to an interlocutory Appeal DOES NOT prejudice or vitiate a litigant’s Broad Right of Appeal. The Minister further explained that such removal shall not affect the litigant’s right to be heard at full trial and the litigant would still attain the right to Appeal against that decision after full trial: “Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Kaedah-kaedah antara lainnya, pada tahun 2019 dan tahun 2020 bersetuju supaya Akta 91 ini dipinda bagi memperuntukkan mengenai had untuk merayu bagi kes-kes interlokutori sivil seperti yang dinyatakan di atas dan cadangan itu tidaklah akan melupuskan hak pihak-pihak yang merayu dan didengar. Hal ini kerana pihak masih lagi mempunyai ruang untuk menghujahkan kes dalam perbicaraan penuh dan mahkamah akan memberikan penghakiman bagi S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 berdasarkan merit sesuatu kes dengan asas ataupun fundamentals iaitu akses kepada keadilan masih kekal dan tidak terjejas. [27] It is fairly obvious to us that the very purpose and objective of the amendment could only be achieved if no further non-appealable matters (under the amendment) are to be filed for interlocutory appeal post the cut-off date of 1.10.2022. A purposive reading of the amendments, in our view, leads to the one conclusion that the Legislator intended that the amendments should have a retrospective effect. Hence, Appeal 360 (which was filed after the cut-off date) was indubitably incompetent and must be struck out in limine. [28] Further, we say that the purposive approach to interpret the Amendment Act would also be in line with the trite principle that summary or interlocutory determination of actions should be employed sparingly and in clear and obvious cases only. [29] For completeness, we will address the Appellant’s contention that the retrospective application of the Amendment Act would unjustly deprive the Appellant of its substantive ‘right to appeal’ against the High Court’s jurisdiction as the Appellant would be deprived of its rights to fully ventilate its dissatisfaction before the case is finally disposed of at the High Court. [30] The Appellant has relied on Malaysian and Indian case law to advance this right of appeal (said to have been vested at the commencement of a suit) argument, but we find this to be sorely misplaced. This is simply because all the case laws relied on by the Appellant dealt with the right to appeal as against decisions meted out after full trial (in which the substantive rights, and merits of the S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 cases had already been fully ventilated, exhausted, and determined by the Court.) Thus, none of the appeals in those cases cited would have been caught within the exceptions listed in section 68(1) of the CJA 1964. Nor would it be applicable mutatis mutandis to Appeal 360 as the parties have yet to have their respective day in court to ventilate their cases vide a full trial. Hence, it cannot be said that the Appellant in Appeal 360 would be prejudiced in the same way as had occurred in the cases cited, as the Appellant’s right to appeal and right to be heard at trial remains intact. [31] A grave injustice, in our view, would ensue when there is unjust deprivation of the right to appeal against a decision of the High Court after full trial. But such injustice cannot be implied upon the Amendment Act’s restriction against an appeal against a decision by the High Court to dismiss a Striking Out Application: Malaysian authorities: (a) Lim Phin Khian v Kho Su Ming [1996] 1 MLJ 1; It must be noted that the appeal filed by the Appellant in Lim Phin Khian was against the decision of the High Court after a full trial was concluded (where parties had ventilated their case at full length). The Court in Lim Phin Khia did not deal with the right to file an interlocutory Appeal (where parties have yet to ventilate their cases at trial). (b) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor [2005] 4 CLJ 885 (CA). S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 This case had neither factual nor legal relevance whatsoever to the appeals before us. The alluding to the ‘Right of Appeal’ was merely an obiter mentioned in passing. The Court of Appeal there, was dealing with the question whether a Judicial Review Application to the High Court was the correct procedure as opposed to an appeal to the Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Pulau Pinang under its vested Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 23(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976. At no point in time did this case deal with the ‘Right to Appeal’ as against any decision of the High Court. (c) Lee Chow Meng v PP [1978] 2 MLJ 36 In Lee Chow Meng, the parties’ substantive rights and merits had been heard and concluded. The Appellant had been convicted and sentenced by the President of the Sessions Court. Yet again, the Appeal in Lee Chow Meng referred to an Appeal against a decision meted out after full trial, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. The decision in Lee Chow Meng cannot simply apply mutatis mutandis to the interlocutory appeal before us. Indian Authorities: (a) ECGC Limited v Mokul Shriram Epc Jv (2022). ECGC Limited has no factual or legal relevance to the appeal before us as the appeal there concerned the right of appeal against the decision of an inferior tribunal to a superior tribunal. S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 (b) Garikapati Veeraya v N. Subbiah Choudhry & Ors AIR 19 SC 540 In similar fashion of irrelevance, the appeal in Garikapati also dealt with the decision of the TRIAL COURT in which the parties’ respective cases had already been ventilated at full length at trial (which was certainly NOT the case in Appeal 360 before us) [32] We must emphasise that all the above cases relied upon by the Appellant by and large dealt with appeals following the decisions of the courts after the parties had been given their day in Court in a full trial to ventilate their claims and their defences. [33] Thus, if the Appellants in those cases were deprived of their right to appeal after they have had their one and only opportunity to have their day in Court (at trial), such a deprivation would certainly deny their real substantive Right of Appeal in the fullest sense. The same cannot be said to an interlocutory Appeal (where the parties are yet to have their respective day in Court). [34] It is obvious that a striking out application under Order 18 rule 19 of the ROC 2012 is an interlocutory application which seeks to dispose clear and obvious cases vide summary procedures and by way of affidavit evidence. Failing a Striking Out Application does not at all impede on a party’s right to be heard at trial via a full-blown trial where viva voce evidence will be presented. S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 SAVINGS (THE APPELLANT’S CONTENTION STILL FAILS EVEN WITH PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS) [35] Even assuming that we are wrong in the retrospective operation of the amendments, a literal and prospective application of the same amendments would still veer in favour of the Respondent’s preliminary objection. This can be explained in the following manner: a. The broad right to Appeal is certainly a substantive right. It is a right that is vested upon the parties at the commencement of any given suit; b. But the broad right to Appeal (although substantive) is also not meant to be an absolute or blanket right. It is qualified and curtailed by the statutory operation of section 68 of the same vesting Act (CJA 1964); c. Distinction must be drawn between a broad right to Appeal in an action (“Broad right to Appeal”), and an interlocutory right to Appeal against an interlocutory Application; d. Any substantive amendment to deprive any party’s Broad right to Appeal indeed would affect a party’s rights to be heard and to defend against an action, as they are deprived of ventilating against the High Court’s decision AFTER they already exhausted their day in Court. On the contrary, a substantive amendment that would remove a party’s specific right to an interlocutory Appeal against the dismissal of a Striking Out Application would not curtail a party’s right to be heard or defend against an action as that party would still have their day in Court for trial; S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 e. The language of the Amendment to restrict the right to Appeal against a decision (in an interlocutory Striking Out Application) was specifically and literally referring to the SPECIFIC TIME “where a High Court DISMISSED any application to strike out any writ or pleading”; f. Therefore, the prospective Application of the amendments shall be examined and applied against the DATE OF THE DECISION and NOT against the date of the commencement of the suit; g. Thus, even a prospective application of the amendment would literally mean to affect all decision dismissing a striking out Application meted out AFTER the amendment came into force; and h. Therefore, since the Learned Judge had only dismissed the Appellant’s striking out Application AFTER the amendment came into force, the amendment would have already been in force to restrain or curtail any Appeals to be filed against this interlocutory decision. [36] In view of the above deliberations, we hereby ALLOW the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents and thus, Appeal 360 is struck out. [37] We will now proceed to hear the other three appeals. S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Dated 2nd February 2024 SGD -------------------- (AZIMAH BINTI OMAR) JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL For the Appellant (Appeal 360) - Messrs. R. Sivagnanam & Associates 1. Dato’ M. Pathmanathan 2. Rutheran Sivagnanam 3. Shirin Pathmanathan 4. Fatin Muzfirah For the Respondents - Messrs. Zulaikha Aini 1. Austen Pereira 2. Zulaikha Aini Binti Mohamed Khair Johari S/N 8WTxjkUBAEiyyRwsWcCCCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-27-04/2021

PLAINTIF PORTLAND ARENA SDN BHD DEFENDAN OPENAPPS SDN. BHD.

The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for Infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark, Tort of passing off and Copyright infringement where this court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff designed and built a Transportable Expandable Cabin as requested by the Defendant which is called MODULARCRAFT Mobile System (“MMS”). The Defendant had used a mark “MODULARCRAFT” in its business brochure published in its website, which is almost identical or which is so nearly resemble the MODULARCRAFT trademark as likely to deceive or cause confusion within the trade and amongst the public. The Plaintiff had successfully proven misrepresentation by the Defendant in the Defendant’s Infringing Sign which causes damage to the goodwill of the Plaintiff's business through the conscious actions of the Defendant in publishing the Plaintiff’s TEC/MMS complete with the MODULARCRAFT Trademark which created an unlawful association with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s product and marks by the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is allowed.

07/02/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9be8eaf4-4d37-4a5d-81bd-36234374222b&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ PORTLAND WA-22IP-27-04-2021 01.2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-22IP-27-04/2021 BETWEEN PORTLAND ARENA SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 469750-A) ...PLAINTIFF AND OPENAPPS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 548151-W) ...DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for – 1.1 Infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark; 1.2 Tort of passing off; and 1.3 Copyright infringement. 07/02/2024 10:06:03 WA-22IP-27-04/2021 Kand. 121 S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] I had allowed all the Plaintiff’s claims. Consequent to that finding, I ordered for- (a) a permanent injunction to prohibit the Defendant- (i) from continuing to infringe the Plaintiff’s trademark; (ii) from ding any acts tantamount to passing off the Plaintiff’s product and trademark; (b) the destruction of any products or materials in any form in the Defendant’s possession that are infringing the discontinuing pro, to prohibit and Plaintiff’s trademark; (c) delivery up of the infringing items; and (d) damages to be determined at a separate assessment proceeding. [3] The Defendant now appeals against that decision. FACTS [4] The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark “MODULARCRAFT”, the details of which are as follows: S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (i) Trademark No. 2015050598 in Class 37 for a period of 10 years commencing 21/1/2015 – 21/1/2025; (ii) Trademark No. 2015058823 in Class 35 for a period of 10 years commencing 9/6/2015 – 9/6/2025; and (iii) Trademark No. 2015058826 in Class 42 for a period of 10 years commencing 9/6/2015 – 9/6/2025. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “MODULARCRAFT Trademark”) [5] Classes 1 - 34 cover trademark used for goods, while Classes 35 - 45 deal with trademark used in respect of services. Class 35 includes services that covers advertising, business management, business administration and office functions. Class 37 includes mainly services rendered by contractors in the construction or making of permanent building. Class 42 covers scientific and technological services and research, industrial research, industrial design, design and development of computer hardware and software. PLAINTIFF’S CASE [6] The Plaintiff’s case in brief are as follows: S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 6.1 Sometime in early February of 2018 the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to design and build a cabin called “Transportable Expandable Cabin” (“TEC”), which is referred to by the Defendant as “Tactical Expandable Cabin”, to enable the Defendant to bid in a tender offered by the Ministry of Defence (“MINDEF”). 6.2 Following that, the Plaintiff designed and built a TEC as requested by the Defendant which is called MODULARCRAFT Mobile System (“MMS”). 6.3 The TEC/MMS consists mainly of 2 parts: (i) The Plaintiff’s part : building the structure, including the supply of furniture, air-conditioning system, power generator, power supply, lifting mechanism, mechanical and electricity; and (ii) The Defendant’s part : completing the structure with ICT support, including radio and integrators, computer system, network system, software, telephone, audio system, wireless access point, WIFI, GPS and laptops. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 6.4 Portland Energy Sdn Bhd (“PESB”), the Plaintiff’s subsidiary, and the Defendant entered into a Product Development Non- Disclosure Agreement (“PDNDA”) dated 23.12.2020. The PDNDA allows the Defendant access to confidential information on the MMS. 6.5 The Defendant had breached the PDNPA, by using a mark “MODULARCRAFT” in its business brochure published in its website, which is almost identical or which is so nearly resemble the MODULARCRAFT trademark as likely to deceive or cause confusion within the trade and amongst the public (“Defendant’s Infringing Sign”). 6.6 The Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s Infringing Sign in the course of the Defendant’s trade without the Plaintiff’s consent and permission tantamount to an infringement of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark. The Defendant had also committed a tort of passing off and had also infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright. 6.7 The MODULARCRAFT Trademark which was registered in the Three Classes as detailed out earlier is as shown in Annexure A to S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. The image of the said MODULARCRAFT Trademark is as below: 6.8 The Defendant’s Infringing Sign as appeared in the Defendant’s brochure is as shown in Annexure B to the Statement of Claim. The part of that brochure where the alleged Defendant’s Infringing Sign appears is as shown and marked in the red arrow below: S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 6.9 The Plaintiff contended that the mark as shown in red arrow in the picture above which appears in a business brochure published in the Defendant’s website contained the MODULARCRAFT Trademark completely and in its entirety and there are no additional features or elements in the said Defendant’s Infringing Mark to distinguish it from the MODULARCRAFT Trademark. 6.10 The Plaintiff contends that it is a G7-accredited company by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia. G7 contractor is the highest grade in CIDB grading. A company with a G7 grading has no limit for tendering capacity, and usually has the highest chance to be awarded mega projects. 6.11 Since 2010, the Plaintiff began to venture into Modular Construction. Subsequently, the Plaintiff embarked into the Industrial Building System (“IBS”) by using shipping containers. The Plaintiff marketed its product as MODULARCRAFT. The Plaintiff is also accredited by CIDB as IBS manufacturer for construction using shipping containers. The Plaintiff’s products are also published in the CIDB journals and the Plaintiff has produced the certificate issued by CIDB confirming that the Plaintiff is a certified IBS-status company. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 6.12 The Plaintiff has been the exclusive distributor of MODULARCRAFT products in Malaysia since approximately January 2015. The name MODULARCRAFT is distinctive of the products distributed by the Plaintiff which include mobile system for military use, working studio unit, private retreat house, emergency house, lecturer office and student arcade. According to the Plaintiff, Polis DiRaja Malaysia, Petronas Station, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Perpustakaan Perbadanan Awam Selangor and Kolej Poly-Tech Mara are some of the few notable local clients of the Plaintiff. 6.13 The Plaintiff’s products are also exported to Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia. 6.14 Throughout the material time, the public and those within the trade has associated MODULARCRAFT with the products distributed by the Plaintiff. 6.15 The Plaintiff contended that by virtue of the above facts, it has acquired a goodwill in the name MODULARCRAFT. [7] Based on the above facts, the Plaintiff claimed for the Defendant’s infringement of its MODULARCRAFT Trademark and passing off. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [8] With respect to its claim for breach of copyright, the Plaintiff claimed that it is the owner of the photographs containing the word MODULARCRAFT on its website. The said photographs were extracted from the Plaintiff’s catalogue and reproduced in a material form of a brochure and published on the Defendant’s website. The Defendant has thus infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by the aforesaid reproduction without the Plaintiff’s consent and license. DEFENDANT’S CASE [9] The Defendant’s case is briefly as follows: 9.1 In 2018 the Ministry of Defence launched the “Program Pembangunan Network Centric Operations Angkatan Tentera Malaysia” (“NCO Programme”). 9.2 As part of the NCO Programme, MINDEF held a public tender exercise for the purchase of a Tactical Expandable Cabin (“TEC”) for military use. 9.3 The TEC is intended to be use as a military command and control centre. Around February 2018 the Defendant offered the Plaintiff S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 to join the Defendant in the tender process. With that collaboration, the Plaintiff was enabled to market its capability as the first local TEC supplier to a major client within the government. 9.4 The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the ideas to the design and construction of the TEC by furnishing the Plaintiff with the relevant pictures and illustrations. 9.5 The TEC/MMS constructed by the Plaintiff was nothing novel insofar as MINDEF is concerned, as MINDEF had been using TECs, with different specifications, manufactured by a company called Zeppelin in Germany. 9.6 As such, the main point promoted through the Plaintiff-Defendant collaboration for the tender process was the locally produced TEC. 9.7 The Defendant participated in the said tender as the Plaintiff’s agent and successfully secured the project on 1.10.2020. 9.8 In December 2020 the Defendant and MINDEF representatives visited the Plaintiff’s premise in Simpang Renggam, Johor. The main purpose of the visit was to determine the progress of the S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Plaintiff’s works on the TEC construction. During this visit, the Defendant found the Plaintiff’s work progress was unsatisfactory as there were many deficiencies pertaining to the generator, wrong positioning of the TEC batteries, air-conditioning, Plaintiff’s response time, and its commitment in the completion date. 9.9 Following that, the Defendant issued numerous requests for the Defendant to address the problem and increase the TEC’s quality, which were of little or to no avail. [10] The Defendant does not deny that it had portrayed the TEC with “MODULARCRAFT” mark on its website. However, the Defendant contended that this was done with the Plaintiff’s full knowledge and consent. [11] In any event, the Defendant had brought down the said portrayal in the Defendant’s website prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of its current action against the Defendant. This is so as the Defendant decided to disassociate itself with the Plaintiff following the Plaintiff’s dismal works on the TEC. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [12] The Defendant had never used the MODULARCRAFT Trademark in its business, including in any of its business promotion to MINDEF, except during the said tender process to which were done with the prior consent and full knowledge of the Plaintiff. [13] MINDEF had decided to abort its intended purchase of the TEC from anyone, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant. [14] The Plaintiff’s filing of this action against the Defendant is mala fide. This is evident through the Plaintiff’s act of threatening the Defendant with this action and subsequently it had informed the Defendant that the action will be withdrawn if the Defendant purchase the TEC/MMS. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED [15] This Court needed to determine whether – (i) the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff’s MODULARCRAFT Trademark by publishing the Defendant’s Infringing Sign which so nearly resembles the MODULARCRAFT Trademark on the Defendant’s website; S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (ii) the Defendant has passed off its product bearing the MODULARCRAFT mark as the Plaintiff’s product; (iii) the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by reproducing the Plaintiff’s photographs of the Plaintiff’s products containing the word MODULARCRAFT on the Defendant’s website; (iv) the Plaintiff’s mark, MODULARCRAFT, was used by the Defendant with consent; (v) the Defendant had timely removed the publication relating to MODULARCRAFT on its website due to the alleged poor performance of the Plaintiff in producing the TEC/MMS prior to the Plaintiff’s action; (vi) the Plaintiff filed this Suit with an ulterior motive and an abuse of the Court’s process; and (vii) the Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the purported tort of passing off and copyright infringement. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 FINDINGS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT [16] The Plaintiff’s claim for trademark infringement is two-fold. The first is that the Defendant is alleged to have sold and continue to sell its product using the MODULARCRAFT Trademark, specifically the MMS to MINDEF. The second part is that the Defendant’s product which was printed in a brochure published on its website used marks which are so nearly resemble the MODULARCRAFT Trademark. [17] The Plaintiff’s witnesses gave evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claims in this manner: (a) PW1, the managing director of the Plaintiff, gave evidence on the background of MODULARCRAFT, the development of the TEC/MMS. PW1 also testified on the Defendant’s allegations of the Plaintiff’s unsatisfactory performance, poor turnaround time and the removal of publication relating to MODULARCRAFT from the Defendant’s website. (b) PW2 is the technical director of PESB. He was the person who lead the Plaintiff’s TEC project team in developing the MMS. He S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 gave evidence on the technical aspects of the MMS and the site visit conducted on 23.12.2020. PW2 also explained on the materials required for the construction of one unit of MMS. (c) PW3 is an architect at the Plaintiff’s company. He was in charge of the design department for the MMS development project. He gave evidence in relation to issue of the Plaintiff’s consent alleged by the Defendant and corroborated PW2’s testimony on the site visit conducted on 23.12.2020. (d) PW4, the financial controller of the Plaintiff, gave evidence on the financial aspects relating to the construction of one unit of the MMS. He also confirmed that 1 unit of the MMS was constructed for the purpose of participating in the Ministry of Defence’s Tender. [18] The Defendant’s defence was clear and succinct – that firstly the usage of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark was with the Plaintiff’s consent. DW1 in his testimony confirmed that the Defendant copied and extracted the identical image of the Plaintiff’s MMS from the Plaintiff’s catalogue and published the same on the Defendant’s website with minimal cropping done by cropping the picture of an army appearing next S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 to the cabin as found in the original brochure of the Plaintiff as this is deemed sensitive to the military. [19] DW2 admitted in his evidence that the said brochures as that found in the Defendant’s website was also provided by him to the other 4 or 5 tenderers of the MINDEF project. He said he had informed PW1 about that. [20] Relying on those testimonies, the Defendant concluded that the dissemination of the Defendant’s brochures to MINDEF officials and some other 3rd party who are tenderers of the same project depicting the Plaintiff’s MMS with minimal cropping but with the MODULARCRAFT mark intact was not an act of trademark infringement as it was done with full and express consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff. [21] The Defendant argued that as defence of consent is afforded to the Defendant under s. 55(3)(c) of the TMA 2019, and that the main ingredient of trademark infringement under s. 54 TMA on the absence of consent was failed to be proven by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for infringement of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark must be dismissed and there can be no finding of trademark infringement against the Defendant. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [22] Secondly, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff failed to fulfill the second statutory requirement under s. 54 of TMA 2019 as explained by the Federal Court in Low Chi Yong (t/a Reynox Fertichem Industries) v Low Chi Hong & Anor [2018] 1 MLJ 175 that: “...the respondent was using the offending trademark in relation to goods or services within the scope of the registration...”. [23] The Defendant argued that the scope of protection of the Plaintiff’s MODULARCRAFT Trademark registration is limited to the specifications as stated in the said Trademark registration. (See also Tramontina S/A Cutelaria v Giant Ace Sdn Bhd [2022] 7 MLJ 573). The Defendant argued that as the three MODULARCRAFT Trademark registrations were confined to the provision of services by the Plaintiff in Classes 35, 37 and 42, the protection could not cover the business of the Defendant which deals with the provision of ICT services which does not fall under any of these Classes. Apart from that, the Defendant argued that the protection of the three MODULARCRAFT Trademark are confined only to the provision of services related to the 3 Classes and not the provision of goods. [24] I dismissed the Defendant’s arguments on both issues. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [25] Section 54 of the TMA 2019 provides: “(1) A person infringes a registered trademark if he uses a sign which is identical with the trademark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered, in the course of trade, without the consent of the registered proprietor. (2) A person infringes a registered trademark if, without the consent of the proprietor of the trademark, he uses in the course of trade a sign- (a) that is identical with the trademark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trademark is registered; or (b) that is similar to the trademark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trademark is registered, resulting in the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.” [26] In Low Chi Yong, the Federal Court held: “[27] Generally, the burden of proof in a trade mark infringement case lies with the plaintiff (in this case the appellant). He has to establish by a preponderance of evidence that he owns a valid registered trade mark (there can be no infringement if the appellant owns an invalid trade mark), and the defendant (in this appeal the respondents) has used the plaintiff's trade mark in the course of trade without consent. That unlawful usage of the trade mark owned by the plaintiff (appellant) has caused deception or confusion among the prospective customers (Boh Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Gui Nee Chuan & Ors [1975] 1 LNS 4; [1975] 2 MLJ 213).” S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [27] In the present case, it is undisputed that the Defendant had published in a brochure in its website its product depicting a mark which so closely resembles the Plaintiff’s mark. DW1 agreed to this fact in his testimony: “Peguam Defendan: …Tapi sebelum itu, bersetujukah pihak Defendan telah menggunakan gambar modularcraft Plaintif dalam website pihak Defendan. Setuju? Hamid : Ya. Peguam Defendan: Ya, apakah tujuan untuk membuat demikian? Hamid : Untuk mempromosikan produk Plaintif. Peguam Defendan: Promosi kepada siapa? Hamid : Kepada bakal pembeli.” [28] In fact, the Defendant’s witness went on to testify that no amendment was made to the Plaintiff’s mark for the said publication on the Defendant’s website. The Defendant’s director, DW1, had admitted that the Plaintiff’s mark is contained completely and in its entirety in the Defendant’s Infringing Sign. The Defendant’s witness further confirmed that there were no additional features of elements in the Defendant’s Infringing Sign to distinguish it from the Plaintiff’s mark. This is so because the product that was advertised are in actual fact the Plaintiff’s product, again a fact which was admitted by DW1. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [29] This Court agrees with the Plaintiff’s counsel that although the Defendant contended that the publication was made to advertise the Plaintiff’s product, there was no evidence adduced by the Defendant that such depiction clearly intended to advertise the Plaintiff’s product. No reference or credit was given to the Plaintiff in any manner. On the contrary, I found that the Defendant had removed the phrase “by Portland Arena” and only the phrase “MODULARCRAFT” was retained in the said website publication. [30] This Court further agrees with the Plaintiff that the Defendant is not denying the fact that the said website publication failed to acknowledge the Plaintiff as being the owner of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark. [31] The Plaintiff’s counsel was correct in his analysis of DW1’s evidence that the Defendant may have omitted to give proper instruction to the Defendant’s web designer or that it was the Defendant’s web designer whom had omitted to provide the Plaintiff with an acknowledgment of ownership of the said MODULARCRAFT Trademark, is not a defence of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark infringement. The web designer is the agent of the Defendant. To make matters worse for the Defendant it chose not to call the web designer to confirm DW1’s testimony that the web S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 designer was the one who had removed the Plaintiff’s name on his own accord. [32] The Defendant categorically admitted that it had used the MODULARCRAFT Trademark and depicting it in its brochure published in its website. The Plaintiff argued that there was never such consent given by the Plaintiff, express or implied. The Plaintiff’s express consent was never shown to this Court. The Plaintiff’s consent could have been implied if the publication mentioned the Plaintiff’s name, obscured or otherwise. There was none. The Defendant’s contention that that omission was due to its website designer’s fault must be rejected by this Court as no evidence was shown by the Defendant to substantiate such claim. [33] This Court ruled that the brochure in question was not merely depicting the MODULARCRAFT Trademark on say, a chair, marketed by the Defendant in the impugned brochure that was published in its website. On the contrary, having analysed the evidence before this Court, it is safe to conclude that the Defendant published the impugned brochure in its website without any mention of the Plaintiff for the public to get the impression that the TEC/MMS as shown in that brochure is in actual fact the Defendant’s product. Not only the Defendant passed off the said S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 product - which the Defendant itself admitted as the Plaintiff’s product – as its own, the Defendant’s deliberate act of using a mark on that TEC/MMS in the course of its trade which is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the MODULARCRAFT Trademark had deceived or cause confusion or the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. [34] I now deal briefly on the Defendant’s argument that as Low Chi Yong and Tramontina S/A Cutelaria has affirmed that the scope of protection of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark registration is limited to the specifications as stated in the said Trademark registration, the protection could not cover the business of the Defendant which deals with the provision of ICT services. This is so because the three MODULARCRAFT Trademark registrations were confined to the provision of services by the Plaintiff in Classes 35, 37 and 42. [35] The Defendant had clearly misconstrued the principle laid down by the Federal Court in Low Chi Yong. If the Defendant’s argument is upheld by this Court, by extension and analogy anyone can produce a car and name it Coca Cola, because the Coca Cola trademark is registered in a class (Class 30, 32) that is different with a car (Class 12). Similarly, anyone can produce television sets and name it Hermes, because Hermes trademark in Class 25 is not in the same Class with television S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (Class 9). This list can go on. This is surely not the position in law: See McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd v McDonald’s Corporation [2009] 3 CLJ 540. [36] The current legal position as to what constitute a trademark infringement is as set out by the Federal Court in Low Chi Yong. In essence, trademark infringement is an unauthorized use of a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trademark. A trademark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trademark if it so nearly resembles the other trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade. Thus, for the Plaintiff to succeed in its trademark infringement claim under s. 38 of the TMA 1976, it must establish that- (i) its ownership of a valid trademark; (ii) the trademark was used in the course of trade without consent; and (iii) the unlawful usage of the trademark owned by the Plaintiff had caused deception/confusion to the public who are among the prospective customers of the product on which the impugned trademark was applied. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 See also: RG Brilliant Rubber Goods (M) Sdn Bhd v. Leong Choon Loy trading as Hillway Bata Ltd v. Sim Ah Ba & Ors [2006] 3 CLJ 393, Consitex SA v. TCL Marketing Sdn Bhd [2008] 8 CLJ 444, , Illinois Tool Works, Inc v. Pendaftar Cap Dagangan, Malaysia [2010] 3 CLJ 837, Yong Sze Fun & Anor (t/a Perindustrian Makanan & Minuman Layang-Layang) v. Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1307; [2012] 1 MLJ 585; Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 329. [37] It is trite that in determining the existence or otherwise of the “likelihood of confusion on the part of the public”, it is one of perception and not science: Wagamama Ltd v. City Centre Restaurants Plc [1995] FSR 713, A Clouet & Co Pte Ltd & Anor v. Maya Toba Sdn Bhd [1996] 1 CLJ 239, Ho Tack Sien & Ors v. Rotta Research Laboratorium SpA & Anor [2015] 4 CLJ 20. To make such determination, this Court would therefore assess the entire evidence available before it and make up its own mind objectively and not solely relying on the evidence of any one single testimony of any witnesses, market survey or market research: Electrolux Ltd c Electrix Ltd [1954] 71 RPC, Sarika Connoisseur (supra), Warmal Wil Heavy Duty Pumps Sdn Bhd v. Pump Matrix Engineeing Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 88; [2018] 10 MLJ 99. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [38] Section 54 must be read together with s. 9(1) of the TMA 2019 which provides: “(1) In determining whether the use of a trademark is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, the Registrar or the Court may take into account all factors relevant in the circumstances, including whether the use is likely to be associated with an earlier trademark.” [39] The Plaintiff’s ownership of the MODULARCRAFT Trademark is undisputed. I had concluded that the Defendant had committed an unauthorized use of the MODULARCRAFT sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the Plaintiff’s MODULARCRAFT Trademark. The Defendant’s Infringing Sign is deceptively similar to the MOLARCRAFT Trademark as it so nearly resembles the said Trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade. [40] With those determination, it is my finding that the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff’s MODULARCRAFT Trademark. PASSING OFF [41] It is trite that the law of passing off is a tort which essentially consists of some sort of invasion of the Plaintiff's goodwill. “Goodwill” is an S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 attractive force which brings in custom: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Muller & Co's Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217. Goodwill is attached to a business and not to a mark or get-up: AG Spalding Brothers v. AW Gamage, Ltd [1914- 1915] AII ER Rep 147. Thus, goodwill, unlike reputation, does not exist on its own but must be attached to a busines: CDL Hotels International Ltd v. Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 550. [42] In Star Industrial Co Ltd (trading as New Star Industrial Co) v. Yap Kwee Kor [1976] FSR 256, the House of Lords held: “A passing-off action is a remedy for the invasion of a right of property not in the mark, name or get-up improperly used, but in the business or goodwill likely to be injured by the misrepresentation made by passing-off one person's goods as the goods of another. Goodwill, as the subject of proprietary rights, is incapable of subsisting by itself. It has no independent existence apart from the business to which it is attached. It is sufficient that he misrepresents his goods in such a way that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the misrepresentation that the plaintiff's business or goodwill will be damaged.” [43] The case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc. [1990] 1 WLR 491 laid down the so-called trinity of criteria to be satisfied for the S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 tort of passing off to be made out namely the existence of goodwill, requirements of misrepresentation and damage or loss caused. The trinity criteria are briefly explained as follows: (a) the plaintiff has goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which the plaintiff supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the get-up, brand name, trade description or features of labelling or packaging, all of which is distinctive of the plaintiff's goods or services; (b) the defendant has misrepresented to the public which leads or is likely to lead the public to believe that the defendant's goods or services are the goods or services of the plaintiff; and (c) the plaintiff must prove that he suffers, or in a quia timet action, he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the defendant's misrepresentation. [44] The principles enunciated in the authorities had been followed with affirmation by our Courts: See Yong Sze Fun & Anor (t/a Perindustrian Makanan & Minuman Layang-Layang) v Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1307; [2012] 1 MLJ 585, [2011] CLJU S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 1307, Boh Plantations Sdn Bhd v Gui Nee Chuan & Ors [1975] CLJU 4. Goodwill [45] To determine whether the Plaintiff had acquired goodwill in their trade/business, this Court applied the principles a set out in the authorities cited in the preceding paragraphs and followed the guidelines as laid down by the Court of Appeal in Yong Sze Fun & Anor (t/a Perindustrian Makanan & Minuman Layang-Layang) v. Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1307; [2012] 1 MLJ 585: (a) that goodwill is the benefit added to the business through extensive trading operations which attracts custom; (b) that trademark or get up is the badge and indicia that signifies, indicates and identifies the goodwill and the business; (c) that goodwill is created through and by means of trading activities; and (d) that the more extensive the trading activities are, which must necessarily include sales and promotion, the more value that would be attached to the goodwill. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [46] There is no requirement for a trade mark to be renowned before the user may be said to have acquired business goodwill : Sky World Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v. SkyWorld Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 48; [2020] 3 MLJ 294. [47] I accept the Plaintiff’s contention that when it started its business in 2010, the Plaintiff ventured into modular construction. Subsequently, the Plaintiff embarked into the IBS using shipping containers and designed it as what is subsequently known as MODULARCRAFT since 2015. The Plaintiff was accredited by the CIDB as an IBS manufacturer for construction using shipping containers. The Plaintiff’s products are also published in the CIDB journals and the Plaintiff has produced the certificate issued by CIDB confirming that the Plaintiff is a certified IBS- status company. The MODULARCRAFT mark is distinctive of the products distributed by the Plaintiff which include mobile system for military use, working studio unit, private retreat house, emergency house, lecturer office and student arcade. Some of its clients were PDRM, Petronas Fuel Station, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Perpustakaan Perbadanan Awam Selangor and Kolej Poly-Tech Mara. The Plaintiff’s products are also exported to Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [48] This Court accepts that the Plaintiff had demonstrated that it had acquired the goodwill to its business and products through extensive trading operations which attracts custom, and the MODULARCRAFT Trademark clearly signifies, indicates and identifies the goodwill and the business of the Plaintiff. The certification, endorsements and approvals in favour of the products issued by the Plaintiff had resulted in the extensive trading activities of the Plaintiff's products, which include sales and promotion, and added more value to the goodwill. Misrepresentation [49] In determining whether there was misrepresentation by the Defendants, I turned on to the decision of the Supreme Court in Seet Chuan Seng & Anor v. Tee Yih Jia Foods Manufacturing Pte Ltd [1994] 3 CLJ 7; [1994] 2 MLJ 770, where Gunn Chit Tuan (CJ (Malaya) as he then was), held: “In order to create a valid cause of action for passing off, there must be a misrepresentation made by a trader in the course of trade to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him, which was calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader and which caused actual damage to a business or goodwill by whom the action is brought.... the logo and get-up had become distinctive of the respondent's products and the use by the appellants was likely to deceive or cause deception to a potential buyer or customer..." S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [50] I rule that the Plaintiff had successfully proven misrepresentation by the Defendant in the Defendant’s Infringing Sign which causes damage to the goodwill of the Plaintiff's business through the conscious actions of the Defendant in publishing the Plaintiff’s TEC/MMS complete with the MODULARCRAFT Trademark which created an unlawful association with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s product and marks by the Defendant. The admitted action by the Defendant in removing the Plaintiff’s name from the published image accentuated the Defendant’s intent to misrepresent the product depicted in the Defendant’s publication as its own. The Plaintiff had thereby suffered damage as a result of the Defendants’ misrepresentation. [51] Based on the above findings, I allow the Plaintiff's claim for the tort of passing off. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [52] The Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement as in paragraph 20A of the Amended Statement of Claim relates to some of the images contained in the Defendant’s product catalogue as shown in Annexure B to its Statement of Claim. Similar to its claim for trademark infringement, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had infringed its copyright over S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 some of the images contained in that catalogue which had been published in the Defendant’s website accessible to all and sundry. [53] The Plaintiff specifically referred to page 6 of the said Defendant’s catalogue which contained a photograph of a TEC/MMS with the MODULARCRAFT mark, as shown below: S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [54] The alleged infringing act is the Defendant's extraction of those photographs from the Plaintiff's catalogue and reproduced it into a material form in the Defendant’s website without the Plaintiff’s consent. [55] It is an undisputed fact that the photographs published in the Defendant’s website are the Plaintiff’s, which were published lock, stock and barrel with only one deletion – the Plaintiff’s name. These photographs were extracted from the Plaintiff’s catalogue and reproduced in a material form on the Defendant’s website. [56] For the Plaintiff to succeed in its claim against the Defendant for copyright infringement, the Plaintiff shall satisfy this Court through its evidence that its work is eligible for copyright protection. That copyrightable work shall fall under any of those works enumerated in s. 7 of the Copyright Act 1987 (“CA”). [57] Section 3 of the CA provides that photograph is included in the meaning of “artistic work” which is one of the works copyrightable under s.7. But for the photographs in question to be eligible for copyright protection, those photographs must further fulfill the requirements of s. 7(3) of the CA where the Plaintiff shall prove that – S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 (a) sufficient work has been expended to make the work original in character; and (b) the work has been written down, recorded or otherwise reduced to material form. [58] That both parties do not dispute that the Defendant had extracted those photographs from the Plaintiff's catalogue and reproduced them into a material form in the Defendant’s website sans the word “Portland Arena” had been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. [59] The Defendant contended that the publication of the infringing photographs had been taken down by the Defendant before the commencement of the present suit by the Plaintiff. This was done on 26.4.2021, 2 days before the Plaintiff filed this Suit on 28.4.2021 as the Defendant no longer wished to associate itself with the TEC/MMS built by the Plaintiff due to the its poor performance. The Defendant also produced a screenshot of the Defendant’s website, attempting to prove its statement. As such, the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim is a non- starter. [60] Although the Defendant claimed that it had brought down the infringing publication before the commencement of the Suit, the S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 screenshot showed by the Defendant is dated 27.8.2021, some 4 months after the date of the Suit. This Court accepted the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant failed to provide any evidence to support its claim that it had removed the publication before the commencement of this Suit. The Defendant contended that its webmaster could provide evidence that the removal was made on 26.4.2021 but this claim remained unproven as the Defendant chose not to call the said webmaster to give evidence. [61] Reading together ss. 3, 7 and 13 of the CA, the Plaintiff’s products depicted in photographic form and reduced into a catalogue are eligible to be protected and controlled by copyright, provided the conditions as set out in Siti Khadijah Apparel Sdn Bhd v Ariani Textiles Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 695 are fulfilled. Once copyright is granted, the Plaintiff is provided the right to control the reproduction of those photographs. [62] Having appraised the facts and evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff owned the copyright of the said photographs. It follows therefore that the Plaintiff’s photographs enjoy copyright protection and the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by reproducing a three-dimensional work of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 [63] Based on the above considerations, this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claims for trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement with costs. Dated : 29 January 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 PARTIES: Solicitors for the Plaintiff: Mr. Colin Andre Pereira together with Ms. Edwina Ti Yong Cheng (Pupil in Chamber) Messrs. Goh Wong Pereira 8 Chancery, No. 8 Jalan Tualang Taman Bukit Bandaraya, Bangsar 59100 Kuala Lumpur Email : gwp@gohwongpereira.com Ref. : 2024 8613 Solicitors for Defendant: Mr. Kenny Lam Kian Yip Messrs. Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership Level 16, Menara 1 Dutamas No. 1 Jalan Dutamas 1, Solaris Dutamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur Email : enquiry@rdslawpartners.com Ref. : RDS/DPN/KLKY/2021/0438 S/N 9OromzdNXUqBvTYjQ3QiKw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-17-02/2020

PLAINTIF Veefat Industries (M) Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN 1. ) Go Boon Keng 2. ) Shinsu Forklift Parts Sdn BhdPIHAK KETIGACHEN CHONG ENG

This Grounds of Judgment shall address both the Main Action and the Counterclaim. The Plaintiff’s cause of action was its charge against the Defendants for their wrongful use and unlawful act of stealing of the Plaintiff’s business information for the Defendant’s business benefits. The Plaintiff alleged Defendant had full access to the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information and had learnt from PW1 and the Plaintiff all aspects pertaining to the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information particularly PW1’s creation of the unique stock codes. The Defendants’ counterclaim is that the Plaintiff had falsely accused the Defendants of copying and stealing the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information thus the Defendant’s sued for Defamation. This court decided that, the stock codes or the stock list search methods does not fall within the scope of a graphic work pursuant to Section 3. Section 7(2A) provides that copyright protection shall not extend to any idea, procedure, method of operation or mathematical concept. Thus, on these grounds alone the Plaintiff claim is dismissed with cost. Having considered the impugned statements in their entirety, the court found that the impugned statements contained falsity. But that alone is not enough. For the Defendants to succeed in their claims for defamation, they must show proof that such false allegations by the Plaintiff and PW1 had caused adverse implications on the Defendants’ reputation. Thus, The Defendant’s counterclaim is also dismissed with cost.

07/02/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d94e9715-fc07-4c1d-8af9-84b63530e7d8&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ VEEFAT WA-22IP-17-02-2020 02.2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-22IP-17-02/2020 BETWEEN VEEFAT INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD ...PLAINTIFF (COMPANY NO : 274700-V) AND 1. GO BOON KENG (I/C NO. : 681030-01-5139) 2. SHINSU FORKLIFT PART SDN BHD (COMPANY NO : 1180617-V) ...DEFENDANTS (IN THE MAIN ACTION) AND BETWEEN 1. GO BOON KENG ...PLAINTIFFS (I/C NO. : 681030-01-5139) 2. SHINSU FORKLIFT PART SDN BHD (COMPANY NO : 1180617-V) AND 1. VEEFAT INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER (COMPANY NO : 274700-V) 2. CHEN CHONG ENG ...DEFENDANTS (I/C NO. : 630107-01-6413) (IN THE COUNTERCLAIM) 07/02/2024 10:17:03 WA-22IP-17-02/2020 Kand. 113 S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The first appeal is by the Plaintiff in the Main Action against the entire decision of this Court in dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with costs. The second appeal is by the Defendants in the Main Action against the decision of this Court in dismissing their counterclaim with costs. [2] As the trial of both the Main Suit and the Counterclaim were held at the same time and the decisions for both actions were delivered at the same time, only this single Grounds of Judgment is prepared which shall address both the Main Action and the Counterclaim. PRELIMINARY ISSUE [3] The Plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in its Statement of Claim was its charge against the Defendants for their wrongful use and unlawful act of stealing of the Plaintiff’s business information for the Defendant’s business benefits. I had asked counsels to explain before the full trial started whether such form of claim, if there was such a cause of action to begin with, relates to an intellectual property. If the answer is in the S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 negative, how and why was this Suit landed at the Intellectual Property Court? [4] As the Plaintiff’s counsel at that time had just been retained, the Defendants’ counsel offered his explanation. The Plaintiff’s claim was originally registered at the NCVC Court. The Defendant argued before the learned Judge at the NCVC Court that as the crux of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendants were alleged to have wrongfully used the Plaintiff’s business information which the Plaintiff claimed is protected by copyright law, it falls within the intellectual property claim. Based on that, the Defendant applied for the Suit to be transferred to the IP Court. That application was allowed. THE TRIAL [5] PW1, the owner of the Plaintiff, testified that he and his company had been dealing with the import and export of forklift spare parts since 1983. With close to 40 years of experience in the forklift industry, PW1 used his experience and information gathered throughout those years to create a database system using a unique system of stock codes containing an extensive data which include information on- S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (a) spare parts for various types and brands of forklifts; (b) specification of every spare part; (c) price of each spare part; (d) list of suppliers of the spare parts; and (e) list of the Plaintiff’s customers, which collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information”. [6] The Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information had provided the Plaintiff’s company, its clients and customers tremendous ease to search for any requested forklift spare part. [7] PW1 demonstrated to the Court the search capability of the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information and explained how he created the spare parts stock codes using unique code identifiable by a “front 3-alphabets”, as shown in Exhibits P1-P11. PW1 showed exhibits P17-P20 to demonstrate that other forklift spare parts suppliers do not use the “front first 3-alphabets” coding system as that adopted by him. [8] PW1 further testified that the 1st Defendant (D1) had previously worked at the Plaintiff’s company for about 16 years from April 2000 – April 2016. The Plaintiff alleged that throughout that period, the Defendant S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 had full access to the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information and had learnt from PW1 and the Plaintiff all aspects pertaining to the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information particularly PW1’s creation of the unique stock codes. D1 then stole, copied the stock codes and created his own stock codes and unlawfully used the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information to divert the Plaintiff’s customers to purchase forklift spare parts from the Defendants at a lower price. [9] PW1 claimed that this happened while D1 was still in the employment of the Plaintiff, where the Plaintiff discovered that D1 set up the 2nd Defendant company (“D2”) and sometime in April 2016 D1 copied, took and stole the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information and used the information therein for the business of D2, without the consent and license of the Plaintiff. [10] Relying on Mohd Syamsul bin Yusof & Ors v Elias bin Idris [2019] 4 MLJ 788 and Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock [2009] 3 MLJ 529, the Plaintiff claimed that such acts constitute copyright infringement. [11] The Defendants’ counterclaim is that the Plaintiff and its director and owner (named as the 2nd Defendant in the counterclaim) had falsely S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 accused the Defendants of copying and stealing the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff and its director and owner had defamed the Defendants by its publication in the Plaintiff’s Facebook page. [12] D1 who was called as DW3 testified that D2 conducted its business that is admittedly similar with the Plaintiff, provision of forklift spare parts. However, D1 vehemently denied any form of stealing or copying of the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information particularly the spare parts stock codes developed by the Plaintiff. [13] D1 gave evidence that he had created his own stock codes of the spare parts referencing on existing product codes which are readily and freely available in the market. He showed catalogues consisting figure index with OEM numbering as in exhibits IDD58A and IDD58B as his reference materials in creating his own stock codes. He testified that these catalogues were provided to him by the Defendants’ suppliers. I had referred to these exhibits and having scrutinised these documents, I agree with the counsel for the Defendants’ submission that these documents do not fall within the hearsay rule under s. 60 of the Evidence Act and that applying the principle laid down in Allied Bank (M) Bhd v Yau Jiok Hua [1998] 6 MLJ 1, Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Chong On Foh S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Medical Hall & Liquor Dealers [1997] 4 MLJ 532, the exception under s. 73A(2) of the Evidence Act applies to these documents. [14] I also subscribe to the Defendants’ counsel’s submission that the catalogues in exhibits IDD58A and IDD58B are admissible as an exhibit as DW3 had satisfied this Court that he had received them and had taken possession of them, applying Johor Foods Sdn Bhd v Azmy bin Sanusi [2010] MLJU 477 which held: “As for ID 8, in my opinion the document was admissible. I say so for the following reasons. Firstly, the plaintiff produced the document through PW2 who undisputedly was the person that received it. .... The fact that a file with enclosures has been tendered in evidence does not mean that the enclosures are proved. The file is marked as an exhibit only to show that it has been taken possession (see Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris v PP (1978) 1 MLJ 240). The enclosures in it must be separately proved in the normal way in order for them to have any evidentiary value. In the present case, PW2 received ID 8 and as such, ID 8 was admissible as an exhibit to show that PW2 had received it and taken possession of it.”. [15] I made the same ruling in accepting as evidence the printouts of D2’s supplier’s website (exhibit IDD 44), printout of Shoppe’s website (exhibit IDD48), printout of eBay’s website (exhibit IDD49), and Printout of Auto Supply website IDD50. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 PRELIMINARY ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION What is the Plaintiff’s cause of action? [16] The Plaintiff pleaded in its Statement of Claim that- “5. Sebelum atau pada bulan April 2016, Defendan Pertama tanpa apa-apa kebenaran dari Plaintif telah menyalin Maklumat Proprietary (Proprietary Information) Plaintif termasuk Senarai Pelanggan (Customer List), Senarai Pembekal (Supplier List), Maklumat Stok Alat Ganti Fork Lift (Fork Lift Spare Part Stock Information) dan lain-lain maklumat perniagaan Plaintif yang sulit.” “7. Dari bulan April 2016 sehingga sekarang, Defendan-Defendan telah menggunakan Maklumat Proprietari Plaintif tersebut untuk aktiviti perniagaan mereka tanpa kebenaran dari Plaintif.” [17] At the end of the trial, I had asked counsels to submit and explain the following questions: “As the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim revolves mainly on the allegation that the Defendants had stolen and wrongfully used S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information, what is the Plaintiff’s cause of action against the Defendants?” [18] The Plaintiff’s counsel explained that in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff had pleaded all material facts on the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information and the facts demonstrating the Defendants acts of wrongfully copying and using the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information without the Plaintiff’s consent. Such acts constitute copyright infringement. [19] The Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that even if the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information in its entirety is not copyrightable, the stock codes created by the Plaintiff’s owner is copyrightable. Defendants had stolen the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information which comprise mainly the said stock codes. [20] The Defendants’ counsel argued that the pleadings in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim mentions nothing on copyright and copyright infringement and that the Plaintiff’s counsels never touched on section 13 of the Copyright Act 1987. Thus, the Defendants were left in a surprise. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [21] The Plaintiff went to great length through their witnesses’ testimonies to explain about the confidentiality of the stock codes and the information relating to the stock codes and the stock codes search capabilities. [22] It is trite law that the cause of action shall be pleaded and parties are bound by their pleadings. This rule of “parties are bound by their pleadings” had been explained so succinctly by the Federal Court in Boustead Trading Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 283. Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) sitting at the Federal Court referred to O.18 rr. 7(1) and 8(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (in pari materia with O.18 rr. 7(1) and 8(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 except “must” is replaced with “shall” in the 2012 Rules) and held the following on the rule of pleadings: (i) If a case is on estoppel, the material facts on estoppel shall be pleaded. Even if the word “estoppel” is not mentioned, it will not be fatal. What is important is the opposite party is not surprised. The principle on estoppel and material facts leading to estoppel, for instance, if pleaded, are sufficient and fulfil the rule on pleadings. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (ii) Even if the material facts is not pleaded, but there is occasioned no surprise to his opponent, a Court may, in the interests of justice, permit the point to be taken. (iii) Thirdly, where there is no pleaded case of estoppel, but there is let in, without any objection, a body of evidence to support the plea, and argument is directed upon the point, it is the bounden duty of a Court to consider the evidence and the submissions and come to a decision on the issue. It is no answer, in such circumstances, to say that the point was not pleaded. [23] The Federal Court in Boustead went on to hold: “It is to be emphasised that the categories of cases in which a Court may permit an unpleaded point to be argued are not closed and that the three classes of case are but mere illustrations of a much wider principle. It is this. A Court may permit a litigant to argue that his opponent is estopped from raising a particular contention if it is in the interests of justice to do so. It is really a matter within the discretion of the particular Judge who, when deciding where the justice of the case lies, must have due regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any injury or prejudice that may be caused by the affected party being taken by surprise. If a Court comes to the conclusion that no injustice will be occasioned by permitting a party to raise estoppel as an issue, then, it may be justified in departing from the salutary rule that imposes upon a Judge the duty to strictly decide a case upon and S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 only upon the issues raised in the pleadings and not upon an unpleaded case. Nevertheless, Courts must ensure that the occasions upon which such departure may be permitted are rare. For otherwise the rule which declares that a party is bound by its pleadings will be rendered meaningless.” [24] That decision was referred to with affirmation by the Federal Court in Yogananthy AS Thambaiya v Harta Pusaka Idris Osman [2020] 6 CLJ 51 [25] Relying on Boustead and Yogananthy, and having perused the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, it is my finding that- (i) the Plaintiff’s 1st claim against the Defendants is for the Defendants wrongful use of the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s 2nd claim is on copyright infringement. Were the Defendants taken by surprise when the Plaintiff argued that its claim is premised on copyright infringement despite the Plaintiff’s failure to plead material facts on the Plaintiff’s copyright ownership and copyright infringement over the stock codes and the stock codes search capabilities? S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [26] There was no mention on copyright infringement in the Plaintiff’s replies to the Defendants’ pleadings, nor in the subsequent correspondences between the parties following this Court’s order for discovery on 13.10.2020. However, as it was the Defendants that had applied for this matter to be heard by the IP Court, despite them recognising and arguing that the main claim of the Plaintiff against them is on the alleged unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information, the Defendants had acknowledged that the said claims are related to intellectual property. I conclude that the Defendant therefore cannot cloak under the shield of surprise that the intellectual property infringement, in this instance copyright, is brought up by the Plaintiff. There is therefore no element of surprise to the Defendant when the issue of copyright infringement was raised by the Plaintiff. There was no injustice caused to the Defendants in any manner. Did the Defendants allowed the evidence on copyright infringement to be brought in by the Plaintiff without objection during trial? [27] As I had ruled that there was no element of surprise that had caused any form of injustice to the Defendants when the Plaintiff argued on copyright infringement although its pleadings substantially revolves around allegation of the Defendants misusing the Plaintiff’s Proprietary S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Information, I made a consequential ruling that this issue is irrelevant. Further, in the interest of justice to both parties, this Court should proceed to decide the Plaintiff’s claim on copyright infringement, instead of dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim in limine. [28] The evidence of PW1 during the trial had sufficiently illustrated how he created the stock codes and stock list search methods for the forklift parts throughout his 38 years in the industry. These stock codes and search methods formed part of the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information. FINDINGS 1st Issue To Be Determined: Is the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information proprietary in nature and is it confidential information? [29] I refer to the decision of Ramly Ali J (as he then was) in Alfa Laval (M) Sdn Bhd v Ng Ah Hai & Ors [2009] 7 CLJ 1 where His Lordship held: “[62] Paragraph 10.1 of the statement of claim (supported by para 15.1of the supporting affidavit of Lim Kee San) merely alleges that the 1st defendant wrongfully provided confidential information related to the CAS program to the2nd and 3rd defendants for their use in their business. There is an important distinction that must be drawn between confidential information related to or about the CAS program and S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 confidential information embedded in or contained in the CAS program. It is confidential information of the latter category that is protected. Information alleged to be confidential must be specific in the sense that it is clear and identifiable as confidential. (see Amway Corporation v. Euruway International Ltd [1974] RPC 82 at pp. 86-87). ... [66] The court accepts that confidential information is protected by law. The definition of confidential information is never exhaustive. It may be generally described as any confidential information that provides a commercial business advantage. Necessary, it must include inventions, ideas, trade secrets in the form useful formula, plan, pattern, technical processes and methods in written or machine readable form as when embedded in software programs not generally known or ready ascertainable by the public. ... [69] The 2nd and 3rd defendants are at best third party recipients of the alleged CAS confidential information. As third party recipients, they are in law not under any duty of confidentiality unless they know of or are wilfully blind to the confidentiality. (see Valeo Vision S.A. v. Flexible Lamps Ltd [1995] RPC 205 and Thomas v. Pearce [2000] FSR 718). The plaintiff's supporting affidavit are completely lacking in this respect. [30] It is my finding that the information governing the stock codes and the stock list search capabilities are the Plaintiff’s proprietary. But for this information and proprietary to be recognised in law as confidential and S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 carry with it the legal obligation on the recipients, the criteria mentioned in Alfa Laval as cited above shall be fulfilled. The criteria are as follows: (i) There is an important distinction that must be drawn between confidential information related to or about the stock codes and confidential information embedded in or contained in the stock codes. It is confidential information of the latter category that is protected. (ii) Information alleged to be confidential must be specific in the sense that it is clear and identifiable as confidential. (iii) It may be generally described as any confidential information that provides a commercial business advantage. It must include inventions, ideas, trade secrets in the form useful formula, plan, pattern, technical processes and methods in written or machine readable form as when embedded in software programs not generally known or ready ascertainable by the public. (iv) The Defendants are at best third party recipients of the alleged confidential information. As third party recipients, S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 they are in law not under any duty of confidentiality unless they know of or are wilfully blind to the confidentiality. [31] I find the Plaintiff to have failed to fulfill such requisite conditions. The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove that it had fulfilled particularly the second, third and fourth criteria as set out above. [32] The answer to the 2nd part of the 1st Issue is therefore in the negative. 2nd Issue To Be Determined: If the answers to the 1st Issue are in the affirmative, were those information provided to D1 during the course of his employment at the Plaintiff’s company importing the intent that D1 shall protect the confidentiality of those information? [33] As I had ruled that the Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information are not confidential, consequently there is no legal obligation for the Defendants to protect them, even if D1 had received those information during the course of his employment with the Plaintiff. 3rd Issue To Be Determined: If the answer to the 2nd Issue is in the affirmative, had the Defendants been using the Plaintiff’s Proprietary S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Information wrongfully and had caused damage to the Plaintiff in any manner? [34] As I had answered the questions above in the negative, I rule that consequently the answer to this 3rd question is also in the negative. Copyright Infringement [33] The Plaintiff claimed copyright infringement of its Proprietary Information. The first legal criteria that the Plaintiff shall fulfill is that the [34] The Plaintiff can claim its stock codes and stock list search methods are eligible to be protected and controlled by copyright if it can prove that they are artistic works within the meaning of ss. 3 and 7 of the Copyright Act 1987 (“CA”). The Plaintiff must also fulfill the conditions as set out in Siti Khadijah Apparel Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 695. Once copyright is granted, the Plaintiff is provided the right to control the reproduction of its stock codes and stocklist search methods. (See also Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (No 2) [2009] 8 CLJ 130, and “Copyright Law in Malaysia” by Dr Khaw Lake Tee [1994]. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [35] To paraphrase Dr Khaw Lake Tee, for purposes of direct infringement, the Plaintiff must establish the following 3 elements- (a) there is sufficient objective similarity between the original work or a substantial part thereof, and the infringing copy; (b) there is a causal connection between the original work and the infringing copy, that is, the infringing copy must have been copied from the original work, whether directly or indirectly; and (c) what has been infringed must constitute a substantial part of the original work. (See also: Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Anor v. YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1072; Skyworld Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Skyworld Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 48; DNC Asiatic Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha & Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 799; Siti Khadijah Apparel Sdn Bhd v. Ariani Textiles Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd) [36] I do not find the stock codes or the stock list search methods to be a graphic work, which pursuant to s. 3, must fall within the category of works such as painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 etching, lithograph, woodcut or such similar works. The stock codes or the stock list search methods certainly do not fall within the meaning of “work of architecture” either. [37] I further refer to s. 7(2A) which provides that copyright protection shall not extend to any idea, procedure, method of operation or mathematical concept. [38] On that basis alone, I conclude that the Plaintiff’s contention that its stock codes or the stock list search methods are copyrightable fails in limine. Having come to this conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement is dismissed with costs. DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM Defamation [39] The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff had published the three (3) statements/words as set out in the succeeding paragraphs which are defamatory to the Defendants. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 1st Defamatory Statement [40] The Plaintiff published in its Facebook page “Veefat Industries - M Sdn. Bhd” dengan alamat URL https://www.facebook.com/Veefat- Industries-M-Sdn-Bhd-1551776565077966/ where the Plaintiff uploaded 21 photographs with defamatory statement in the Chinese language, with translation of the statement in Bahasa Malaysia as below: 昨晚是我遇到生平一次最倒霉事，就是见到那隻連畜牲都不如的家， 偷取我公司全部电脑資料还胆大包天原封不改写資料内容印在其發貲 單 上，东窗事发，众所周知，还若无其事的帶整家人到我家附近逛 夜市。此賊真的脸皮厚到子弹都打不进！！！ *不懂礼義廉耻更不明 白自己所做 的一切己经嚴重抹黑了自己袓宗，家人和亲戚的良好名 声。* *做人不求 流芳百世，但不能遗臭万年！*” (“Pencuri Veefat - Malam tadi adalah perkara paling malang yang saya hadapi dalam hidup saya, iaitu, saya ternampak pencuri dalam keluarga yang lebih teruk daripada binatang. Dia mencuri semua data komputer syarikat saya dan masih mempunyai keberanian untuk mencetak kandungan data tersebut tanpa apa-apa pindaan langsung dalam invoisnya. Selepas dia terdedah dan tindakannya diketahui oleh semua orang, dia masih bersahaja membawa seluruh keluarganya ke pasar malam berhampiran saya seolah-olah tiada S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 apa-apa yang berlaku. Muka pencuri ini adalah begitu tebal sehingga dia tidak boleh ditembak dengan peluru!!!* [Dia] tidak faham apa-apa mengenai nilai-nilai etika dan integriti dan apa yang dilakukan oleh diri sendirinya telah memalukan nenek moyangnya, mencemarkan reputasi keluarga dan kerabatnya. * * Sebagai manusia, seseorang mungkin tidak moga mempunyai kemahsyuran beratus-ratus tahun yang datang, tetapi tidak harus bernama busuk beribu-ribu tahun kemudian! * ") 2nd Defamatory Statement [41] The Plaintiff published in the same Facebook page “Veefat Industries-M Sdn. Bhd” dengan alamat URL https://www.facebook. com/Veefat-Industries-M-Sdn-Bhd-1551776565077966/ as a second caption placed below the same group of 21 photographs the following defamatory statement in the Chinese language, with translation of the statement in Bahasa Malaysia: “不要脸的賊, 自己揄東西去和别人公用，一人犯罪負責法律責任一百 巴 仙，自己的股份却只有 30%！值得嗎?。” (“Pencuri yang tidak malu, mengambil perkara-perkara dengan diri sendirinya untuk berkongsi dengan orang lain. Seseorang yang melakukan jenayah akan menanggung seratus peratus liabiliti S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 sendiri, tetapi dia hanya memegang 30% saham sahaja! Adakah ini berbaloi?”) 3rd Defamatory Statement [42] The photo album uploaded by the Plaintiff in its same Facebook page carried four (4) other photographs accompanied by a memo dated 19.9.2016 sent by the Plaintiff and signed by PW1 addressed to D1 which carried the following defamatory statement in the Chinese language, with translation of the statement in Bahasa Malaysia: Mr. Go Boon Keng Tarikh: 19-9-16 No. K/P: 681030-01-5139 現在我有足夠的證據證明你偷本公司的全部电脑資料,我想约你出來 談 談， 請你給我一個答复。這是宗非常嚴重的商业偷窃案， 不能再 拖下去， 后果自負。 Veefat Ind. (M) S/B Jason Chen Chong Eng - ditandatangani- (“Mr. Go Boon Keng Tarikh: 19-9-16 No. K/P: 681030-01-5139 Saya kini mempunyai bukti yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan bahawa anda telah mencuri semua data komputer syarikat kami. Saya ingin bertemu dengan anda untuk membincangkan perkara ini. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Sila berikan saya jawapan. Ini adalah kes kecurian komersial yang sangat serius, jangan tunda lagi, jika tidak, anda perlu menanggung akibatnya. Veefat Ind. (M) S/B Jason Chen Chong Eng -ditandatangani-) [43] Both Counsels are in agreement on the trite elements governing defamation as set out in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] CLJ 729, where the Federal Court cited with approval Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin’s decision in Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 CLJ 152; [1989] 1 MLJ 315, that the burden of proof lies on the person bringing such action, in this case the Defendant, to show: (i) the words are defamatory; (ii) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (iii) the words were published. [44] That the alleged three defamatory statements were published is not in dispute. The Federal Court in Raub Australian, referring to the Privy Council decision in Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Limited [1944] AC 116, said that it is an essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words complained of should be published of the S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 person allegedly defamed. In this instance the impugned defamatory words should be published of the Defendants. [45] The 1st and 2nd impugned defamatory statements does not contain the Defendants’ name. The 3rd statement contained the name of D1, the owner of D2. The Defendants contended that even though the Defendants’ name was not mentioned in the 1st and 2nd impugned statements, it cannot be disputed that the alleged defamatory statement was about the Defendants as those words and statements were published below the photographs containing D1 and his family, albeit their faces having been redacted. As for the 3rd statement, D1’s name is clearly mentioned in the memo. [46] The Federal Court in Raub Australian had set out that the defamatory words in question must be published of and concerning the claimant. The words must be capable of referring to him or of identifying him. Based on this principle, I am in agreement with the Defendants that despite the fact that the Defendants’ names were not mentioned in the 1st and 2nd impugned statements, it cannot be disputed that the alleged defamatory statements were referring to or was identifying the Defendants. The 2nd and 3rd elements as set out in Raub Australian has thus been fulfilled. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [47] In a defamation action, the most difficult part to prove is the 1st element - that the words complained of are defamatory. This is where the Federal Court in Raub Australian held: [38] The test involved in determining whether or not the words complained of are defamatory is a two-stage process. Firstly, it must be considered what meaning the words would convey to an ordinary person; and secondly, it must be considered whether under the circumstances in which the words were published, a reasonable man would be likely to understand that in a defamatory way (see: Wong Yoke Kong & Ors v. Azmi M Anshar & Ors [2003] 6 CLJ 559). [48] It would simply mean that the test is not to look at any particular or any group of words or sentence in the impugned statement, but to view the impugned statement in its entirety. [49] In Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd v Nurul Izzah Anwar & Saifuddin Nasution [2018] 1 LNS 171, the Court of Appeal held: “... the guiding principle involved must necessarily be the one as stated in the work by Gatley on Libel & Slander [supra] namely that the impugned statements must be viewed not in isolation, but rather in the context of the totality of the whole statement of which the impugned statement was but a part thereof. S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 The quintessence of defamation is the spreading, by way of publication of falsehoods, laced as it were, with malice, for good measure. A plaintiff in a defamation suit is aggrieved because the falsity of the allegation has caused adverse implications on his reputation such that damages must flow from the defendant on successful proof by the plaintiff of the alleged defamation. The burden lies with the plaintiff to establish by evidence that there was malice that had actuated the defendant's defamatory statement.” [50] When this Court viewed the impugned statement in the context of the totality of the whole statement of which the impugned statement was, I could not find the statement was spreading, by way of its publication, of falsehoods, laced as it were, with malice, for good measure, such that the falsity of the allegation, if any, has caused adverse implications on the Defendants’ reputation such that damages must flow from the Plaintiff on successful proof by the Defendants of the alleged defamation. [51] Having considered the impugned statements in their entirety, I found that the impugned statements contained falsity. But that alone is not enough. For the Defendants to succeed in their claims for defamation, they must show proof that such false allegations by the Plaintiff and PW1 had caused adverse implications on the Defendants’ reputation. The Defendant must bring in evidence to proof that ordinary person would S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 understand those statements in that light. There was no such evidence before this Court. I found the Defendants failed to prove this 1st element. [52] The Defendants’ defamation claim against the Plaintiff was therefore dismissed with costs. Dated : 02 February 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 PARTIES: Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Patricia Chan Messrs. Lee Ros & Ling No. CT-07-12, Corporate Tower Subang Square Jalan 15/4G, Subang Jaya, Selangor. Ref : PV/VI/GBK/1214/20/L1-9 Email : Solicitors for the Defendants: Maggie Khon Chen Peng together with Yong Hooi Chie, Chong Xin Tian and Tan Xiao Hui Messrs. CP Khon & Associates, No. 1-10, Silk Residence, Jalan Sutera Lebuhraya Silk 43200 Cheras, Selangor. Ref : 20200005/KCP/nas Email : info-cpkhon@cpkhon.com S/N FZdO2Qf8HUyKYS2NTDn2A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AC-83-40-01/2024

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH IRFAN SHAHPUTRA

pengakuan bersalah, hukuman yang setimpal, seksyen 6(1) akta imigresen, faktor pemberatan, faktor mitigasi,

06/02/2024

Puan Ashvinii a/p Thinakaran

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4ae9a291-350a-4221-bdbe-ebbad2987331&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET TELUK INTAN DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN [KES TANGKAP: AC-83-40-01/2024] PENDAKWARAYA Lwn. IRFAN SHAHPUTRA (TIADA NO. PASSPORT) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN ASHVINII THINAKARAN MJ: PENGENALAN 1. Di dalam kes ini, orang kena tuduh (OKT) telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan seperti berikut: BAHAWA KAMU PADA 28/12/2023 JAM LEBIH KURANG 10.30 PAGI DI KEBUN SAWIT TEPI JALAN PASIR KAMPUNG SUNGAI TIANG BAROH, 36200 SELEKOH, PERAK, DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI DALAM NEGERI PERAK SEBAGAI SEORANG YANG BUKAN MERUPAKAN WARGANEGARA MALAYSIA DIDAPATI TELAH MEMASUKI MALAYSIA TANPA PAS YANG SAH. OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN KAMU TELAH MELANGGAR PERUNTUKKAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 6(1)(C) AKTA IMIGIRESEN 1959/63 DAN DENGAN ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DIBAWAH SEKSYEN 6(3) AKTA YANG SAMA. 2. Sanksi telah dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan dan ditandakan sebagai Lampiran A. 3. OKT telah dituduh di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen pada 8 Januari 2024 dan OKT telah mengaku bersalah ke atas pertuduhan setelah dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahamkan pertuduhan dan setelah dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahamkan akibat pengakuan di mana 06/02/2024 11:32:21 AC-83-40-01/2024 Kand. 10 S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal hukuman di bawah s. 6(1)(c) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 dan boleh dihukum dibawah s. 6(3) Akta yang sama di mana boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM10,000 atau penjara tidak lebih lima tahun atau kedua-duanya dan boleh juga dikenakan sebat tidak lebih enam kali. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen seterusya telah menetapkan tarikh 17.1.2024 untuk Fakta kes dan Jatuh hukum depan Majistret. 4. Pada 17.1.2024, pertuduhan dan hukuman dibacakan semula seperti di atas dan OKT mengakui faham akibat pengakuan dan masih mengekalkan pengakuan salahnya. 5. Di dalam rayuannya, OKT telah memohon hukuman penjara yang paling ringan dan minima dengan alasan berumur 24 tahun, bujang dan mempunyai tanggungan ibu bapa di kampung. 6. Setelah mendengar, meneliti dan menimbangkan fakta kes dan rayuan dari OKT, mahkamah telah jatuhkan hukuman ke atas OKT penjara 4 bulan dari tarikh ditangkap (28.12.2023) dengan 1 sebatan. 7. OKT tidak berpuas hati dengan sabitan dan hukuman yang dikenakan tersebut dan pada 26.1.2024 telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi atas sabitan dan hukuman tersebut. FAKTA KES 8. Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan fakta kes yang mana telah ditandakan sebagai P1. P1 ini telah dibaca dan diterangkan kepada OKT dan OKT telah mengakuinya benar. 9. Fakta kes menyatakan OKT telah ditangkap semasa satu pemeriksaan dijalankan ke atas OKT di kebun sawit tepi Jalan Pasir Kampung Sungai Tiang Baroh, 36200 Selekoh, Perak. Setelah pemeriksaan dibuat, didapati OKT gagal mengemukakan sebarang dokumen pengenalan diri dan dokumen perjalanan yang sah untuk berada di Malaysia. Laporan Polis telah ditandakan sebagai P2. 10. Setelah semakan Biometrik Rekod Pergerakan keluar/masuk dibuat dengan Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia didapati OKT tiada dalam pangkalan rekod Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia. Semakan Jabatan Imigresen ditandakan sebagai P3(para 28). S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG DAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN 11. OKT dalam kes ini telah dituduh atas pertuduhan di bawah s. 6(1)(c) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 di mana jika sabit kesalahan boleh dihukum di bawah s. 6(3) Akta yang sama di mana boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM10,000 atau penjara tidak lebih lima tahun atau kedua-duanya dan boleh juga dikenakan sebat tidak lebih enam kali. Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT, mahkamah diberikan budi bicara yang luas bagi menentukan hukuman pemenjaraan yang setimpal ke atas kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh pesalah-pesalah. Namun begitu, dalam melaksanakan budi bicara tersebut, mahkamah haruslah bertindak secara "judiciously" dalam menentukan hukuman yang sepatutnya dikenakan berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang relevan. 12. Ashworth dalam "Judicial Independence and Sentencing Reform in The Future of Sentencing" [1982] Cambridge University Institute of Criminology pada ms. 50, telah berkata: The purpose of discretion is certainly to allow the sentence to select the sentence which he believes to be the most appropriate in the individual case, considering both the facts of the case and any reports on the offender's character. The purpose of discretion is surely not to enable individual judges and magistrate to pursue purely personal sentencing preferences. 13. Selanjutnya, sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan hendaklah berpaksi kepada proposi undang-undang umum bahawa sesuatu hukuman itu hendaklah setimpal ("proportionate") dengan keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan dan tahap kebertanggungjawaban pesalah atau pesalah-pesalah. Lantaran itu, demi mencapai "kesetimpalan hukuman", mahkamah hendaklah memberikan pertimbangan yang saksama kepada faktor-faktor pemberatan ("aggravating factor") dan faktor-faktor peringanan ("mitigating factor"). (Lihat kes PP lwn. Abdul Halim Ishak & Satu Lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559). S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PENGAKUAN BERSALAH OKT 14. Mahkamah ini telah melihat dengan jelas bahawa OKT faham akan pertuduhan dan hukuman yang dibacakan dan OKT "telah membuat pengakuan bersalah dalam keadaan sedar, tanpa apa-apa syarat (understand the nature and consequences of his guilty plea)". Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah ini berpuashati setelah memastikan OKT faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan salah tersebut sebagaimana dikehendaki di bawah peruntukan seksyen 173(b) KTJ dan seterusnya mensabitkan dan menjatuhkan hukuman sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. 15. Di dalam kes Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1989] 1 LNS 182; [1989] 2 MLJ 143, Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan seperti berikut: "... A plea of guilty must be valid and unequivocal, and in order to determine the validity of a plea of guilty, the safeguards which must be followed might be stated as follows: (i) The court must ensure that it is the accused himself who wishes to plead guilty. Thus in R v. Tan Thian Chai & Anor [1932] MLJ 74, Whitley J held that an accused person should plead guilty or claim to be tried by his own mouth and not through his counsel. (ii) The court must ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea. (iii) The court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him." 16. Berdasarkan keputusan Mahkamah Agung di atas, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa OKT sendiri yang telah membuat pengakuan bersalah, lebih-lebih lagi kerana OKT tidak diwakili oleh Peguambela, dan dengan itu tidak timbul isu pengakuan salah dibuat melalui Peguambela. Mahkamah ini juga mendapati, OKT faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya dan OKT telah membuat pengakuan salah tanpa bersyarat. 17. Di samping itu juga, berdasarkan kes Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah turut memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "...But, where an accused person is not represented by counsel at the trial then perhaps an appellate court should peruse the record of the trial carefully to satisfy itself that there is no irregularity giving rise to miscarriage of justice. Being unrepresented he would not have the benefit of legal advice. It is thus proper for an appellate court in such a situation to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure or apparent harshness of treatment resulting in injury or undue hardship to such an accused. For example, if an accused pleaded guilty to a charge which creates no offence known to law and further the facts also disclose no offence, clearly such a conviction could not be allowed to stand. Surely, such a plea of guilty to what is not an offence is no plea at all." [penekanan ditambah] 18. Berdasarkan keputusan kes di atas, Mahkamah ini ingin menekankan telahpun mengambil langkah berhati-hati bagi memastikan OKT faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya. 19. Mengambil kira bahawa pengakuan salah tertuduh dibuat mengikut peruntukan seksyen 173 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan adalah teratur mengikut peruntukan undang- undang sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam kes Pham Van Thoung & Yang Lain lwn. PP (supra), Seah Ah Chiew v. PP [2006] 8 CLJ 585, Lee Weng Tuck & Anor v. PP [1989] 2 CLJ 120 dan Mohammad Hassan v. Public Prosecutor [1997] 1 CLJ SUPP 485, Mahkamah menerima pengakuan salah tertuduh bagi kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan terhadapnya. 20. Setelah berpuashati bahawa tertuduh memahami sebab akibat pengakuan salahnya dan setelah diakui oleh tertuduh akan fakta kes dan semua ekshibit yang dikemukakan, tertuduh disabitkan dengan kesalahan. FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG DIPERTIMBANGKAN 21. Faktor Pemberatan a) keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan; S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal b) rekod jenayah pesalah, iaitu sama ada kesalahan yang dilakukan itu ialah kesalahan pertama atau berulang; c) berleluasanya kes-kes berkaitan di sesuatu kawasan; d) polisi hukuman yang diterjemahkan oleh Parlimen dalam undang-undang yang berkaitan; dan e) kepentingan awam. 22. Faktor-Faktor Peringanan a) sama ada pesalah telah mengaku salah apabila peluang terawal telah diberikan kepadanya; b) sama ada pesalah adalah merupakan pesalah pertama; c) sama ada pesalah telah memberi kerjasama kepada pihak penguatkuasaan; dan d) terdapat sebab-sebab istimewa yang mewajarkan hukuman diringankan, seperti tiada kehilangan harta-benda, tiada sesiapa yang mengalami kecederaan, pesalah telah mengambil langkah-langkah membaik pulih kerugian yang dialami mangsa dan sebagainya. 23. Tidak wujudnya suatu "hard and fast rule" apa yang dianggap sebagai suatu "hukuman yang setimpal" atau sebaliknya. la bergantung ke atas fakta dan keadaan kes masing-masing. Apabila undang-undang tidak menetapkan penalti kepada sesuatu kesalahan tertentu, kebiasaannya perbezaaan hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah akan berlaku kerana fakta dan keadaan memerlukan pertimbangan yang berbeza (lihat PP v. Shahrul Azuwan Adanan & Anor [2013] 2 CLJ 686). 24. Di dalam kes Abdul Karim v. Regina [1954] 1 LNS 3 yang mana mahkamah melalui Brown Ag CJ mengatakan trend untuk menetapkan sesuatu hukuman standard mengikut "jenis kesalahan" perlu dielakkan oleh mahkamah. Hukuman perlulah berdasarkan kepada fakta yang ada di hadapan mahkamah dan bukan mengikut trend hukuman di bawah "jenis kesalahan". Berikut adalah apa yang dikatakan oleh beliau: In the matter of punishment, the "type of offence" is the concern of the Legislature, which has provided the maximum punishment which can be inflicted for a serious offence of that type. The particular offence and the particular offender, are the concern of the court, whose business it is to decide what punishment is merited upon the facts S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal of the individual case within the limits which the legislature has provided. Any tendency to standardise punishment for any type of offence is to be deplored because it means that the individual offender is being punished not upon the facts of his particular case but because he has committed an offence of that type. 25. Pendek kata, sesuatu hukuman yang baik seharusnya mempunyai kesan pencegahan bukan sahaja kepada pesalah dari mengulangi kesalahan yang sama tetapi juga kepada orang lain dari mengikuti jejak langkahnya. Pendekatan yang betul adalah untuk mendapatkan perseimbangan, sebaik mungkin yang boleh, di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan pesalah. Lord Goddard LCJ dalam kes Rex v. Gronkowski yang dirujuk di dalam kes PP lwn. Abdul Halim Ishak & Satu Lagi [2013] 9 CLJ 559 telah memberikan satu nasihat seperti berikut: The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often, nowadays, thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice mean only the interests of the prisoners. 26. Sewaktu menjatuhkan hukuman, mahkamah mestilah menimbangkan semua hal keadaan dan bukan faktor-faktor peribadi pesalah yang tidak ada kaitan dengan kesalahan seperti kesusahan kepada pesalah dan keluarga jika dia dipenjarakan. Perkara-perkara ini, harus difikirkannya sebelum melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Namun begitu, atas sebab-sebab munasabah, adalah perlu juga untuk "temper justice with mercy" dan keseimbangan dicapai antara rasa simpati kepada pesalah dan kesakitan dan kedukaan yang didatanginya kepada mangsa atau kecelakaan yang berlaku kepada masyarakat. 27. Mahkamah ini telah mengambil kira prinsip menjatuhkan hukuman dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai dalam kes ini. Bermula dengan kes Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and Anor. v. PP [1947] CLJU 73; [1947] MLJ 130, Willan CJ menyatakan: "In our view no sentence can be assessed by a simple mathematical formula. Many factors must be taken into account according to the circumstances of each individual case. In that respect we would draw attention to the matters which should be taken into S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal account in fixing punishments as set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edition) volume 9, para 365: 'The Court, in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, will take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation which he has received, if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his age and character.'" 28. Di dalam kes Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP [1987] CLJ Rep 918; [1988] 1 MLJ 167, Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan yang berikut: "In assessing the length of custodial sentence, the court must look at the overall picture in perspective by considering, firstly, the gravity of the type of offence committed; secondly, the facts in the commission of the offence; thirdly, the presence or absence of mitigating factors, and, fourthly, the sentences that have been imposed in the past for similar offences to determine the trend of sentencing policy, if any. The fact that a sentence of imprisonment is imposed as a deterrence does not justify the sentencer in passing a sentence of greater length than what the facts of the offence warrant. The gravity of the type of offence involved must be considered in the light of the particular facts of the offence. As stated by James L.J. in R v. Ladd & Tristam [1975] Cr LR 50; Thomas Encyclopaedia of Current Sentencing Practice p 1058: "We have to look at the overall picture of what is the right sentence for the total involvement, the total degree of criminality involved, and we have to keep the sentences in perspective with the sentences that have been passed on other occasions for offences involving criminal activity of this kind, though of course varying in their gravity. Clearly a deterrent element has to be involved, but because the offences are very serious, it does not necessarily follow that on the particular facts very long sentences are justified." 29. Seterusnya Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP v. Kamaruzaman bin Mahmud & Anor [2006] 4 CLJ 792; [2007] 1 MLJ 750 di mana mahkamah memutuskan: S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "[68] Ordinarily a plea of guilty has been treated as a mitigating factor since it saves judicial time in conducting a lengthy trial but it also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses (see Melvani v. Public Prosecutor [1971] 1 LNS 78; [1971] 1 MLJ 137, Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] CLJU 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134, Loh Hock Seng & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1979] 1 LNS 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13, Public Prosecutor v. Leo Say & 2 Ors [1985] 2 CLJ 155, Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. Public Prosecutor [1987] CLJ Rep 918; [1988] 1 MLJ 167, Public Prosecutor v. Ravindran a/l N Rethinam & 5 Ors [1992] 4 CLJ 2043, Tan Lay Chen v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 4 CLJ 492; [2001] 1 MLJ 135). The court has recognized that a plea of guilty is ordinarily a consideration to be taken into account in mitigation of punishment but it must be made clear that it is not the law that a sentencing judge must exercise a discretion to provide a non-custodial sentence in every case of plea of guilty as each case is dealt with on its own individual merits and should not be assumed mechanically that it will be spared the custodial sentence. A plea advanced on counsel's advise late in the day because a conviction is almost inevitable, will be given less weight than one advanced from arrest or committal, on the first day he is charged in court to save witnesses from the trauma of a trial or to reduce court delays. (see R Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122,) Laurentiu [1992] 63 A Crim R 402)." 30. Di dalam kes PP v. Ali bin Ahmad [2020] 1 CLJ 548; [2019] 11 MLJ 485, mahkamah telah memutuskan: "[16] In Tan Lay Chen v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 4 CLJ 492, [2001] 1 MLJ 135; Augustine Paul J (as His Lordship then was) made the following observation: The phrase 'pass sentence according to law' in the subsection means that the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles (see Re Chang Cheng Hoe & Ors [1966] 1 LNS 155; [1966] 2 MLJ 252; Public Prosecutor v. Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315; Philip Lau Chee Heng v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 144; [1988] 3 MLJ 107). The assessment of a sentence in accordance with judicial principles clearly contemplates, inter alia, a consideration of the mitigating circumstances in favour of the person to be sentenced. It is generally accepted that an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty (see Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 1 LNS 158; [1975] 2 MLJ 134; Public S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Prosecutor v. Sulaiman bin Ahmad [1993] 1 MLJ 74; Public Prosecutor v. Ravindran & Ors [1992] CLJU 47; [1993] 1 MLJ 45).However, this is not a strict rule as the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to grant any discount in an appropriate case (see Zaidon bin Shariff v. Public Prosecutor [1996] 4 CLJ 441; [1996] MLJU 159; Lee Say & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 CLJ 155). The severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating affect of a guilty plea (see Loh Hock Seng v. Public Prosecutor [1979] CLJU 48; [1980] 2 MLJ 13, Public Prosecutor v. Oo Leng Swee & Ors [1981] CLJU 205; [1981] 1 MLJ 247). Where public interest demands a deterrent sentence in the circumstances of a particular case, then the effect of a guilty plea must also give way (see Sim Gek Yong v. Public Prosecutor [1995] 1 SLR 537; R v. Costen [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 182). Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused to a lesser punishment (see Public Prosecutor v. Govindnan a/l Chinden Nair [1998] 2 CLJ 370; [1998] 2 MLJ 181).... The grounds of judgment must therefore show why the guilty plea cannot, on the facts of the case, be considered as a mitigating factor. Failure to do so will lead to the criticism, as in this case, that the plea has not been taken into account in imposing sentence. In this case the learned sessions court judge had not explained why he had disregarded the guilty plea, and, by the same process of reasoning, the clean record of the accused. This is a misdirection in law." [Penekanan ditambah] 31. Terkini, Mahkamah mengambil kira prinsip penghukuman dalam kes Letitia Bosman v. Public Prosecutor & other appeals (No 1) [2020] 8 CLJ 147; [2020] 5 MLJ 277 yang menyatakan: "[125] In passing sentence, the court takes into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors in order to ensure that the sentence is in accordance with the law. Passing a sentence according to law means the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the sentence period stipulated but also assessed and passed according to established judicial principles (see Jafa bin Daud at p 316 of the judgment of Mohamed Azmi J)." S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal KESERIUSAN KESALAHAN 32. Berbalik kepada kes di hadapan mahkamah ini, adalah tidak dipertikaikan bahawa kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT merupakan satu kesalahan yang serius. Perbuatan memasuki negara berdaulat seperti Malaysia tanpa apa-apa dokumen perjalanan yang sah akan menyebabkan negara kita sentiasa terancam dalam bahaya. Ini adalah kerana pendatang tanpa izin (PATI) seperti OKT ini ibarat "manusia halimunan" yang tidak boleh dijejaki oleh pihak berkuasa apabila berlakunya sesuatu yang buruk ke atas negara mahupun rakyat jelata. Dari sudut itu sahaja kita dapati kesalahan yang dilakukan OKT ini adalah satu kesalahan yang serius dan wajar diberikan hukuman yang adil untuk memperingatkan "would be offenders" di luar sana. 33. Perlu juga dinyatakan di sini, kesalahan bawah s. 6(1)(c) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 ini telah menjadi sangat berleluasa (“rampant”). Di mana-mana mahkamah seluruh Malaysia kita dapati seksyen ini "menjuarai" statistik bulanan iaitu antara kesalahan yang paling banyak didaftarkan. Ini menunjukkan betapa seriusnya "wabak" ini melanda negara. Ini belum lagi dikira berapa banyak wang rakyat dibelanjakan untuk membanteras jenayah ini. 34. Seperkara lagi perlu dicakna ialah mengenai hukuman berkenaan kesalahan ini. Seksyen 6(3) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 ini di mana memperuntukkan boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM10,000 atau penjara tidak lebih lima tahun atau kedua-duanya dan boleh juga dikenakan sebat tidak lebih enam kali. Jelas sekali seksyen ini memperuntukkan hukuman sebat tidak lebih enam kali di mana dapat difahamkan di sini Kerajaan Malaysia mengambil serius perlakuan jenayah ini. Bahasa mudahnya, apabila terdapatnya peruntukan hukuman sebat di dalam sesuatu seksyen tersebut, semestinya ia adalah terkait dengan kesalahan serius. 35. Adalah menjadi perkara yang sia-sia sahaja sekiranya mahkamah yang dianggap sebagai benteng terakhir untuk menegakkan keadilan memberikan hukuman yang ringan dan tidak wajar untuk kes sebegini. Oleh yang demikian itu, mahkamah mendapati hukuman empat bulan penjara dan 1 sebat yang telah dijatuhkan ke atas OKT adalah munasabah dan setimpal. Mahkamah percaya dengan hukuman sedemikian, ia telah memberi amaran bukan sahaja kepada OKT tetapi juga kepada masyarakat umum bahawa kesalahan ini adalah satu kesalahan yang serius. Tugas mahkamah di peringkat ini sudah semestinya untuk mengenakan satu S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal hukuman yang berat, sekurang-kurangnya dapat menyedarkan "would be offenders" di luar sana agar meninggalkan terus jenayah ini. 36. Pada pendapat mahkamah, kesalahan seperti ini perlulah diberikan satu hukuman yang berat seperti hukuman pemenjaraan. Ini adalah kerana kes sebegini semakin berleluasa malah yang lebih diambil kira ia melibatkan keselamatan negara seperti mana dinyatakan di awalan tadi. Bayangkan sekiranya jenayah ini tidak diberikan hukuman yang berat, sudah tentu jenayah ini akan menjadi berleluasa dan kesannya masyarakat akan hidup dalam ketakutan sepanjang masa. Dan sememangnya ini yang sedang berlaku di mana kita sebagai rakyat Malaysia berasa tidak selamat sekiranya memasuki sesuatu kawasan yang kita ketahui banyaknya warga asing di tempat tersebut. 37. Pendek kata, sesuatu hukuman yang baik seharusnya mempunyai kesan pencegahan bukan sahaja kepada pesalah dari mengulangi kesalahan yang sama tetapi juga kepada orang lain dari mengikuti jejak langkahnya. Pendekatan yang betul adalah untuk mendapatkan perseimbangan, sebaik mungkin yang boleh, di antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan pesalah. Mahkamah ini telah membuat pendekatan imbangan (“balancing exercise”) untuk memastikan hukuman yang diberikan adalah bersesuaian dengan mengambil-kira faktor-faktor sekeliling supaya memadai dan seimbang. 38. Justeru hukuman yang mahkamah ini beri adalah wajar dan memadai. Mahkamah juga ingin merujuk kepada kes PP lwn. Mohammad Ridwan Mohd Fauzi [2015] 1 LNS 838 yang menjulangi kata-kata Hilbery J di dalam kes R v. Kenneth John Ball: "the public interest is indeed served and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living". KESIMPULAN 39. Hukuman empat bulan penjara yang dijatuhkan ke atas OKT adalah difikirkan wajar, memadai dan seimbang sebagai pengajaran dan dengan harapan agar OKT insaf dan tidak lagi mengulangi kesalahan yang sama dan secara tidak langsung memberi satu amaran kepada yang lain agar tidak ada lagi perbuatan jenayah seperti ini. Diharapkan apabila OKT diusir keluar dan kembali ke negaranya nanti, OKT dapat menyampaikan mesej bahawa mahkamah di S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Malaysia ini mengambil serius kesalahan sebegini agar rakan-rakan OKT yang lain tidak mengulangi perkara yang sama dan mematuhi undang-undang yang telah ditetapkan untuk memasuki secara sah ke Malaysia. 40. Hukuman yang dikenakan setelah mengambil kira secara keseluruhan faktor-faktor mitigasi dan pemberat dan sudah pastinya kepentingan awam adalah menjadi faktor utama untuk dipelihara memandangkan masyarakat umum telah meletakkan mahkamah sebagai benteng terakhir kepada segala punca kepercayaan, amanah dan ketelusan, sekiranya hukuman ringan dijatuhkan ke atas OKT untuk kes sebegini, kepada siapa lagi yang masyarakat ingin harapkan? 41. Sesungguhnya adalah tidak dapat dinafikan peranan mahkamah adalah untuk memelihara kepentingan awam agar sesuatu kesalahan itu dianggap serius dan dengan harapan apabila sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan itu akan menyedarkan yang lain agar menghindari dari kesalahan tersebut. Hal ini telah termaktub di dalam kes R v. Ball [1951] 35 Cr App R 164 yang menyatakan: In deciding the appropriate sentence, a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has the right and the duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe. 42. Secara konklusinya, hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan ke atas OKT sememangnya adalah wajar dan adil kerana dengan mengambil kira fakta kes seperti di dalam kes ini, hukuman yang S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal berat seharusnya dijatuhkan kepada pesalah seperti OKT. Ia memberi gambaran kesalahan ini dianggap serius oleh mahkamah. ………..tt……… ASHVINII THINAKARAN MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET TELUK INTAN 6.2.2024 S/N kaLpSgo1IUK9vuu60phzMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-239-04/2022

PEMOHON SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC RESPONDEN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Revenue Law — Petroleum Income Tax Act 1967 (“PITA”) — s 2(3) — Production Sharing Contract (PSC”) — Two separate and distinct PSCs — Whether the Old PSC is one continuing partnership of the New PSC within the meaning of s 2(3) of PITA — Whether taxpayer was a party to the New PSC Statutory Interpretation — Construction of tax legislation — Strict interpretation — A taxing statute must be read strictly is one that is to be applied against revenue and not in its favour

06/02/2024

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ebf5b4f3-8074-4188-9768-270eed20090b&Inline=true

06/02/2024 09:36:03 WA-25-239-04/2022 Kand. 74 S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 87T163SAiEGXaCcO7SAJCw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—25—239—0d/2022 Kand. 74 uh/nzmnu uezlb-01 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KIJALA LuuPuR (BANAGIAN KuAsA-KuAsA KHAS) FERMONOflAN SEMAKAN KEMAKIMAM N WA—25-239-01/2022 Da\zm ue-ma Kepmusan Respamen yang lerknndung ax dawn mm Rawondan kepadz Pemohon benankh <9: 2022 yang d\u\ak\umk3n mm Raspunden kepada Pummm melahn mal ehzklmmk banankh 2a 12022 Dan Dzlam perkav: Penembagaan Persekumzn, xnususm Parknrn-Farkara a, :3 run as Dan Da\am nelkava Akta Felmlsum (Cukm Psndapnun) 1951 (Akin 543) Ism1nuk.d\ mam mg m Sekiyerrseksyen 2.33 nan 4:: dan Jaauax Keane Dan Damn perkam Aluvan 53 Kaedalrksedah Mihksnuh 20:2 .1... Famnggln v Janna! kepatia ma Mahkamah Kehabuman 196» mu an ANTARA SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC MPEMOHON DAN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI ...RESPONDEN JQQQMENY sw a7n5:&sA4E:»ucua7sA1cw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm The (actual background [11 The applicant, Shell oil and Gas (Malaysia) LLC, is in the trusinass at searching. winning and obhlrllng natural gas and oondensates. [2] The applicant was one at the innit venture partners and parties to the PETRONAS Cangall sdri ehd t-pass") and Nippon oil Exploration (Sarawak) LLC ("NIppof|“) — In respect of Blodt SK3 Fruducllon Sharlllg contract dated 11.7 1939 (“Old SK8 PSC"). [3] under the old SKB Psc, the applicant was the operator tar a hired period of 15 years, which pornmenced trom the date of the firsl domrnerclal pmduclton. It has axplved en 5 6.2019 As an operalnr, llie applrcantweit responsible lorfillng tax returns and martaglng the tax matters at the old SKB Psc. Atter the expiry at the old SKS Psc, the area was relinquished to PETRDNAS PETRONAS then appointed FCSE as the new operator let the new ska PSC (‘New SK8 Ps<:'t. [A] ll is not in dlspttle that the applimni and Nippon are not parties in the Nawska PS0 The New ska wsc was signed py PETRONAS, PCSB dan Eat: Malaysia Venture sdn Bhd (‘E&P Malaysia“), and it look etlect trprn 9 e 2010. [5] However, desplle the (ad that the Old SK8 Psc had eltptred on 5 6 2019 and the Applicant is rml a party to the New SKB PSC, the respondent (‘the Revenue’) had treated the New SK8 Psc as a “canttnulng partnership" of the old ska Psc under 5 2(3) or the Petroleum income Tax Ac\1967("FlTA'). it provides as tdlldwe: where a pmlrlarihlu ts succeeded by nmlhnl at any time during the vetted pl Ill p-trpieurn agreement and at least one M the enamel pariresid llmugvalmarll who was ri numbers! the siicoeeded Damvelxlllv is a rnernper ol the aiiamorng partnership. bath pztrlnsrihtps shall be lleited tor the piirppeee pl this Ad as one ppniirming palvlsrshlp since the Revenue treated the New SK8 PSC as a 'can|mLtlng parlrletsltlp“, it had disallowed the applicants claini tor Balancing Allowenaes under Paragraph 17 or the Second schedule to PITA nn arn a7Yt5:tsArEGxacw7sA1cw Fr‘ were s.rt.i r..np.rwiii pe tnea M mm the prtplrullly etihi. dpp.n.rri VII nFlt.ING pnriai the capi|al experldllure that the applicant had incurred on assets related to the Old SKB Psc. [61 At all niateriat times. the app nt-s pus on is that there was no continuing partnersnip on thetacis as lnere was no overlap petween the Old SKE PSC. whlch Vlad already exatred on 5.5.2019, and the New SK8 PSC, which only took effect from 9.62019 As alluded to earlier, POSS is me new operator of the New SK8 psc m since the applicant was nn longer involved in the New SKB Psc, the applicant pmposed In the Revenue to create two tax relerence nurnpeis - one is tor the Old ska Psc, and the other is ter the New SKB PSC olwnictr Pcsa woulo be responsible tor the tiling pitex returns ano managing trie tax matters since it l$ now tne new operator. la] The prupcsal niaue py the applicant was not acceptable to the Revenue By 3 letter dated 28.11 2019, the Revenue. Whlle acknowledging Iha| PCSE was now the new operator M the New SKB Psc, insisteo tnat PSCE would I12 responsible tor nling the lax return 10! the New SKB FSC lav Year 1.11 Assessment 2020. tn the clrcumslaneesi the Rsvenue was 01 the vtevw that there was nu need to have two lax ralerenpes — one eaai for tne olo site P50 and New SK8 PSC. [9] In response to the Revenue‘s position, the applicant highlighted that there was no oaminuing partnerstnp in the t>arl|exl at s 2(3) ol PITA. The applicant teasseded lnet there was ne overlap between me ole 3K3 PS0 and the New SKB Psc and that they stroulo be treated as two separate agreements. In a letter to the Revenue dated 29 4.2020‘ |he applicant stated interalle as follows (where “SOGM“ levers to the applicant): Plan by intannao. subsequent to Dmt flhlry M the st<p t=sc, seem aria Nippon would stlli be aminino varwului due to es: rostatanrant As min scam and Nippon are no lonoertepal pannus lnine new sxp PSCNgracmnvl|, Pcss astna opeiatarolihettew SK3 PSC II not pnvy to the |rllt:rrrla1IoN oaia ol tne SOGM nun Nippon tmfltzr lna uld sxp P5!) in this iaoaro we are unable to snare sum tnlurmat.nrl/ oaia arising ham any use verslsltmerll lpr pttvposes ullaxfillng with FCSB ttenee, st-all ano seem wuuld not an able to report unis revenue to tax A SIN B7YI6:tSAtEGX:cl~JJ7SA1Cw .\.» «wit. s.n.i I-vlhnrwlll be LAIQ4 m mm i... nflglrlnllly MIMI dun-vlnrlt w. aFlt.ING Wflxl mdel PITA where Pcsa ll msnagu-g lhl lax admlnlslmllurl ol ma sax Psc as per ynur lellel aslsa 22w s-olemzm 2019 Legally. mm snall and seem would only us aola lu reporl such momma undav lna ald SKB vsc lnnoml lax reqlshzlmrl wlme Shell ams Ovefallzv sou ma aubmlller M lnu lax lelum [10] However, the Revenue was unpenumea oy llle applloanrs sxplanallon ll malnlalncd lls oaslllon max ma New SK8 PSC ls a oonlirlulny oannershlp (or me purpose :21 s zls) o1 FHA [11] On 3o.1u.2o2u,l=E1RoNAs filed me e-CPP Farm lpr SKB FSC [or VA 2019 The applucanl. lhrough PETRON/as. also filed a noliue cl appeal by way or Form 0 dated 27.l1 2020 to appeal agalnsl me Deemed Assassmenl lor VA 2019. [121 suoseouenl w lnal, ma appllcanl. mruugh an email dalea 31 10 2021 and a separate uaual dalzd 29.10.2021. had filed an :- CPP Form lcrVA 2020 under proleslno lhe Revenue. The appllcanl also med a nplloe ol appeal in Form 0 for VA 2020 lo ms Speaal comnusslanels pl Petroleum lnmmz Tax (‘SCPIT“) pursuant lo a J3(1)afPlTA. [13] By way av anomer lunar aalaa 30.11.2020, lne apollcanl Mole In (he Revenue slallrlg Ihéll the Ippllcanl was unable to submit lls lrllllfll lax esllmale of lax payable ll e. Form CF25l]) and levislcln of ssllmale nl lax payable (I e. Form CP251) 55 pan of PSC SK8 lrom VA 2021 onwards due lo the ralusal by PCS8 as the new uperflwl lo lnclude ms Applicant ln Form cl=25l) ana Form CP251 submlsslnrl In the Revenue. The appllcanl made zrlcnher appeal lor lhe Revenue lo eonslder the need lo have MO lax relarences. The letter lnler alla slales as (allows. Oonmalmn lnal Pcsa lS new gagunm seem lmm me Faun crrzso and CF25! submlsslnn lo ln. IRE. we woula llxe Vol ma In reonnsidevlllu earller paslllon and -ssua a rww lax relevance number lmna nswSK8 95:: [14] Hnwevev, me Revenue. through lls letter daled 19 1 2022, lrllonrled lhe lppllcarll lhal lb! e-CFP Form for VA 2020 vmlch WIS filed under nmlesl and Farm :2 for VA 202:: would nol be accepted and processed because the appllcanl was no longer partners ol the chargeable person llhe New PSC SK8). whlcn ll: PETRONAS, In VA 4 sm a7n5:lsAaEGx:cw7sucw .\.» mu. s.n.1 nuvlhnrwlll s. u... M mm .. nflglnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII mum vmul 2020 and e-CFP Fem For VA 2u2o had aheedy been filed by PCSB as me new uperzuor (“the unpugned deasxon”) [15] I\ \s nol In dlsnule |ha| an 17 11 2022, \he Revenue had (awarded Form 0 for VA 2020 In SCPIT upon insis1ence by me apphcanl. [16] Aggneved by me impugned decision, the anphcanl mmmenced «ms appneauen for judiuel review mrer aha «or me fallowmg orders (a) an order our eemaran to quash Ihe umnugned deeusuen m repeating me Applicanfs Tax Return for veers a! Assessment for VA 2020, (D) an order lor Cemoren to quash me wmpugned decisron m the re]ac|ing me appHcanl's Farm 0 [or VA 2020 dated 26‘H.202I,and (e) e declnranon man we wnpugned declslon ocmamed m the Revenue‘: letter dated 19.01.2022 15 Invalid. [17] Leave |o commence W5 ,ua.e.aI rewew appmauon was grsmed by «me Court on 29 6.2022 [131 The applicafion cor judlc-al review is supported by me affvdavil or Kmsumawali him! Mohd ANS In End 3 (“N573”) Puan Kalsumawau .5 the Cuunuy Tax Manager rm Maxayna, Indonesia, Vlelnam and Japan [19] Farm: have exmanged amdavns. Much will be telenad In as need enses. rm] The mam Issue In Ihus appucauon tor jumcxa\ review us Muelher me Old sxs PSC We a oonlmuing pannersnip ome New SK8 Pscwilmn the meamng of s 2(3) of WA. [21] To begin with‘ me O\d SKB PS0 has already expired on a 62019 It was not renewed. On the contrary‘ me New SK5 PSC was executed by FETRONAS‘ PCSE and EAP Mamysua Thsapplimm has no role m me New SKB PSO. l| is nul even a pany However‘ we Revenue‘: 5 em a7nmsA.EGx:cu.:7sucw .\.» “Nana em mmhnrwm be u... m mm .. mmny MIMI dnuumrrl VII muue v-ms! unaerslanuing ols 2(3) nf PITA lS|?I31|he New SK8 PSC ls ‘one eonlrnuing partnership" vnln me Old one [22] ll should be recalled lhal lnal me requiremenls VI 5 2(3) or PITA are as follows: (a) The partnefshlp ls suwesdad by enelner el any lime durlrlu me penod unne pelroleurn agreement re) Al leesl one ol lhe orlglnal perlies lo lnel agreement who was a member ol the suooeeeed parlnelsmp is e memberolllle suoceeoing parlllsvship, and (:2) Beth parfrlelships shall be lreeled lor me purposes ol‘ PITA as one cnrllinuing pannerenlp. For one, 5 2(3) only makes reference lo one egreemenl. ll does not say 'agleemenls' Eu! we have belcre us ls not only two agreements bullwo mutually exclusllle agreements. One explled nrl 55.2019 and me elner leek errea from 9 .2019 There was no Weflflpblng sllher. [23] I am fully cogmsarll el 5 413) ullne lnlerprelaoon ms ma and l967. which eleles mar words and exeresslone lll lne singular lrlclude me plural‘ and words and expresslons ln lne plural include me slnguler However, lo my rnlnd, s 2(3) 01 PlTA VS sul generis ln Ihal l| relers re -e pannersnlp ls succeeded ey anolner ln lne onnlext of 5 ml ll cennol be ‘two parlnsrships" since only one parlnershlp can be sueeeedee uy enolner ll ls lnerelore my oansldared mew lnel lhe worn “agreemem In s 243; ol PITA eennol be read in lsalallorl wllh rne pnrase “a parrnersnlp ls eueeeeaee by anolner“ [24] I belleve Ihal there is e respeclaole eulnonly on me pmpusiliorl that I nave alluded la. The Federal Court I|'l Kesultanan Pallarlg v serneek Really Sdn Bhd H995] 2 MLJ 2 MLJ 51: FC, lnreugn Mohd Azml FCJ. observed one carlnul lnlerprel a Oeflfilfl ward In lsolelien wllhcul regare to me conlexl end clrcumslanoes In whlch lne word ls used. The learned Judge runner nelo rnel lo Ium a bllrld eye me me nbvinus repugnency and lnoenslelency exislirlg by lne epplleauen ellne general definillon lolne spsclficand speclal Act or Eneclmenr under eonsmerellon would be wholly unlusllnea and wrong ln law sm emr.asn.eex.ceevsucy. .\.» “None s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll e. u... m mm .. nflglnnllly ml. dnuuvlnnl VII .nuuc enel [25] My resoecllul ylew I5 lnal Paniamenl intended lhsllers 2(3) oll=lTA in he applioaole, mere an only be one agreemenl ll lne lnlenlmn or Farllameru were lor ins partnerships in be lrealea as one continuing pennersnip eespwe (he muluslly exclusive agreerrlsnls. ix wnuld have slated so ln s ml. It would have used ‘agleemem or egreenrenls: ln any event. lne Old SKI! PSC nee already expired. ll was nut renewed. [251 aelore rne, llie learned Senior Revenue counsel submmed olnerwlse ln nerwn-len suhmlsslorl. lne learnea SRC lnlirnated lo the Court that lne Revenue had been rnlerrned by PETRONAS mal lne ska PS a uunllrlulrlg pannersnlp agreemenl and mere is no lerminalion oi lhe SKB PSC4 but ll is being wnllrlued with s new panner [27] Urllonunalalyr nothing In one amdaylls In reply cl lne Revenue alluded |o llns assenmn It is llierelore vmal n is - a mere slalernenl lrern me Bar A elalernenl lrorn me Bar ls nalevidsnoer see us Kok Keong v reng Carlrairllr is services Sdn BM [2004] l MLJ 373 CA. [23] Heweyerr even ll we assume lor one rnomenl lhal PETRDNAS made me sla1ement as claimed by me Revenue, ofwmich no finding is made nere. siren assemen does nol carry any legal welgm and does nol bind lliis Conn. [291 The learned sac lurmer suhrnrllea lnal slrloe SK8 PSC ls a “oonlmulng pennersnrpr me appllcanl is not eligible to claim oalanolng allowance and that para 40 oi llre Second seneaele of PITA ls lnappllcable as no dispusal ol essels oceurrea [so] wnn lespeclr [find difflcuhy in azxeplmg lne argumenl that s 2(3) ls spplrceele and man me New sxs l=sc is a nonunulng pennersn-p wrln me old skin PSC They are no: As submllled by lesrnee counsel for me appllmnl, lo whim I respectfully agree, that lne ole SKE PSC IS 3 fixed-Iarm contract and has expired on the date sllpulaled in the canlract There is no evidence hedarelhls Cuurl lhE| lnere was a supplementary agreement by Ina same psrlles lo extend me period oi lne Old SK8 PSC srn a7n5:lsArEGx:cw7sA1cw .\.» «we. Smnl In-vlhnrwlll rs. med m mm r... nflglnnllly ml. dun-mm VII .rluNG Wflxl [31] In my oansiaaied view, the WINUI oinissiuii made by Paiiianieni in referring to ‘agreemen|s“ has in be rapecied by me Conn. The Court olAppea| in w-n Kmimini bum Wilrl Mahmood v mnnu nlri Mo»-mm in Am): [zoom 1 ML! 164 CA reminded us as lu\kwvs' mi Domenlian vuiinsi V5 Ihm ms deficiency in ma Ad‘ Nany. csniiiii be pmmea by me mun piiiiicuisny when Ihe language I! main and niiipi. and me sssiiiiieii guru carviul be men in II‘! coin and Ihal me wimui miiissian inaae by lha isgiuniuiii Inn is be FEIDEl:1lfl by [he mm on me ieuisiaiuie iiniimiiy oiniiiing to iiicaipoiain sninsiniiig D! an aiiaiogaus in». in n subsequenl sminii. or even ii there is n casus nmlssus in a same in: language m min is wieiwise DIEM niia ilfllmbiguouii Inn 001171 is ml miiipaani lo supniy me emission «mm me fillila at iiimpi-«awn r:y:n.iaay ni irl|D1It‘JIlDf\i mmelning imiai n Winks in be A 9-new! pnnsinie ouiisiiee and siiiiiiy. VSHIHDG has been viiosd upon csr V PBVSVH rooisana Plants. Lard HOW-ZII1 as waiimi v we Johnson v MONIDH flfld mmiainii Slriglv V Smvmri [32] PVTA is a wax Isgisiaiioii. II 15 weiisenied mai me Cmms have ielusiad in adupl a eansiiu inn oi a «axing Aci mat would implne iiabiiiiy when daubis SXVSL see National Land Finamn Co— oporltlvu Saclcty Ltd v mmcrar Goriunl of Inland Remmo [1994] 1 ML! 99 so [:31 The pmposilion is ieiceiaiea by me coiin oi Appeal In Exxon chumlc-I (m Sam and v Klflll P-ngmri Dlllm Mogul [mus] 1 MLJ 42a Fci where in was heid man me principle man a piouisian in a taxing slaluie mus| be read siiicuy is one man is Io be applied againsi revenue and no: in ii: favour Finding [34] since 5 213) iii PITA 18 nm appiicanie, the impugned de on is iainiea wiui Anismimc ermr and, ineievoie, is ainenanie to iiiaiciai mien on in» Mareslid gmund alone. x SIN B7YI63SAnEGX:CdJ7SAlCw “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be u... M may i... nflflinnflly MVMI flnulvilnl n. nFiuNG Wm! [35] I Inerefors make Ina |oHuwmg orders: (a) an order Io: oemuran II: quash Ina Impugned decision In reIa::lIng me Apphcanrs Tax Ralum «or ‘(A 2020. In) an order Iur cenIorarI Id quash the Impugned decIsInn In me rejecting the apD|Icant‘s Form 0 for VA 2020 daled 26112021: and (vi a declaration met me Irupugned declsmn conI.aIned In me Revvenue's Iener dated 191.2022 Is Invalid. I am also makmg oonsequermal orders reIalIrIg In players (a) mud (I) The remaining arlematwe prayers are dlsaflcwed [35] There shall be no order as In wsxs. [37] Smee my dacIsIun Is anchored on me In|erprelaIIon of 5 may at PITA, I do mt find II necessary |a address the remarnrng Issues mised by the Revenue Tarikh: a Fubruari 2024 L4 (WAN AHMAD FARID am WAN SALLEH) Hak Mankarnan Tinggi Kuala Lurnpur. sm avnbttsnazsxzcwvsucw Fr “um. Snr1nInuvIhnrwHII>e med M mm he mIrr.II-y mm. dnuumnl vu nFIuNG p-um Pmak-pmak: aagx Puhak Femohun : Anand RI}. Fmng Pui cm. Cheong Wen we Teman Sheam Delamore & co B391 Pihak Respandaw Ashrina mm Ramzan AM sac Suranl mu Che ismad no Lembaga Hasn Da\am Negen (mom 1 0 sm avvlbztsmzsxzcwvsucw .\.» mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

SUIT NO. WA-22C-94-09/2020

PLAINTIF Devan Narayanan Raman [Messrs Devan & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)] DEFENDAN Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe, Roger Leong Chun Lim and Atiqah Yasmin Sedek (Messrs Zain Megat & Murad (Kuala Lumpur)

Enclosure 1. This case before the Court concerned a dispute on an “open tender invitation” (“Tender”) on 6.3.2013 in a national newspaper concerning a construction contract for a project described as Proposed design built of government offices including an office tower, podium, car park and other works for package 1, F3 and 4 Package 2, 3 and 4 in parcel F Presint 1 at the administrative center of the Federal Government Malaysia, Putrajaya (“Project”) that was advertised by Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”) to which Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”) had participated.

06/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

AB-45B-1-07/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH AHMAD TARMIZI BIN HARUN

Criminal procedure - Charge of murder under s. 302 of the Penal Code - Accused did not challenge prosecution evidence - Defence of unsoundness of mind raised by the Accused - Psychiatrist called as a witness during prosecution case - Report of Psychiatrist certified Accused suffering from Schizophrenia and incapable of understanding or knowing the nature of the act alleged as constituting the offence or that it was wrong or contrary to law - Whether defence should have been called - Acquitted and discharged by reason of unsoundness of mind and ordered to be kept in safe custody - S. 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code

06/02/2024

YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=60672367-646b-49cb-bd3e-57c272414bf9&Inline=true

06/02/2024 13:11:21 AB-45B-1-07/2021 Kand. 120 S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZyNnYGtky0m9PlfCckFLQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m 15 m 15 Kand. 120 amnzu 14-,-2; DA;AM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI TAIPING DALAM NEGEBI Pegg DARUL RIDZWAM PERBICARAAN JENAVAH N0: AB-455-1-D7/2021 AB—l5E—1—07/2021 FENDAKWA RAVA v AHMAD TARMIZI am HARUN mo. K.P.: soneoaaa-s1a3] GROUNDS or JQDGMENI INTRODUCTION [1] The Public Proseculur has med a Nance of Apnea! an a12.2o2a agamsl «hrs Court's decrsrdrr on 30.11 2023 that had addmued and drscharged by reason amnsountiness a! mind, Ahmad Tarmrzr Em Hanm, (“the Amused”) from an enema unders.3D2 dune Penal Coda The cdun furlhzr ordered mm |D be kepl in save custody in Hospi|a\ aanagra, um Krrrra, Perak Damn Ridzwan as provided lor under s.:s4sM u oflhe Criminal Pronedure Code (CFC) This Grounds oi Judgment ooncarns my reasons (or ordennq the same upon me Accused. [2] The charge agamsl me Accused was as «and ‘Bahawa knmu p-ldl1U Nuvemburzflzfir dw anlam [am a on pagr wrmgga ‘am 4.09 peuflgw benempal m hamman mmah Na 59. Kamvung Mung‘ Mukxm Karrmar 33320 cm, dr daram Daerah Hum Perekr m dsram Negen Pemk Daml xadzm dengan m.n.r=r. mambunuh Harm hm Eah:lI(Nn KP sanm, D2—5'/2|] flan German rd mu lebh melakukan mud kzsakuhnn yang buleh dmukum dr bamh iaksyen 3u2 Kznun Kaseksaan 1 IN ZyNnvGIkyDmvPwccxFLD ‘Nata sum IHIVVDIY WW be used M mm are nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum wrm to 15 FACTS OF TNE use [3] on ic.t1.2t12u at around 4 on em, L/Cpl shahrot Aniin Eln zaitan while on duty at the Ealal l=olis Kg Lalang, Gerlk, Perak nantl Rldzwan reeeived a telephone call hunt a Malay woman who gave inlonnation about herneohew who ran amuk and had hit a man's head with a brick The poltoernen immediately requested lor ambulance assislanoe lrorn Klinik Kesiheten Fling! Gerik to go in the scene or the crime which was at house No 59 in Kg Plsltg, Mukini Kerunai, Gerlk and he also lodged a police report as per Kg Lalang Repon 22t/2n. The lnveshgallorl omoer, us? Azmart Blrl vazid oi the Ibu Feiabat Daerah Polis Gsrlk arrived at the soene with the polloe photographer at aaout 4.45 pin. The victim was idehutied by his larnity as l-talirn sin sahari (IC No. 5§0319—D2—5721). D$PAzman saw that the location oi the body was outside the house. near a toilet and a concrete block with olood stains was found next to the deceased. He also lound sorne foulprlllts (bloodied prints or ten-leg loetetens) in the house after he went in no eondum investigations. [4] PPP Moharnad Haznrl thsen Bin thrahini who was the Assistant Medical oihoer at the said olinio responded to the requssl and headed to Kg. Flang. upon arrival at the premises or the said house, PPF Mohamed l-lazrin sawthe oloodied hodyota nian lying motionless with his face down on the ground beside the house The vietirns head was oovered with a small towel. Upon checking «or signs ol Wet he lound that the victim was already dead and there were serious lruuties on the deoeaseds head with a lot at otood surrounding the wounds He recorded the time or death at 4 A7pm. The remains at the deceased was sent to the Hospital Raja Farmalsurl aainun, lpah, tor a oost-niorteni white at the scene, DSP Azman was lnlonned by lnsp Nawawl sin Hallas or ll=l:t Gerik that the Accused‘ who was the deceased's nephew and suspecled to be involved 2 sin ZyNrtVl3IkyDmVPl!CckFLD -use s.r.i n-vlhnrwm as used M mm he nflmhallly siiri. dnunvlnlil wa aFlt.ING Wflxl .A; 1h: lcculed CIVI be mm/lcmfl an we puma lame 9»/menus n mud: have reached a standard umdr. Vs cavahln oi suwomnfi e ddrmmn be)/and reasonable ddum. Hnweval xx must be observed man Mcannutm anhal stage. he nmpeny damned aa a use mat has bean Drama nayund raanunabls daum 5 Pmov nayond -aaumama daum mwxm Iwu aspen: Wmh one \s cm lags! burden on we Plulecutmn In Pmve us can beyond reasmabb dI)Llb| the mar am. avd-mlal human em. amusadtn uaaae masnnnme doulfl aemmeae burdens dam Dllly be imly dhumrued nu Ins and M ma Mama cuss men Iha davamaa ma closed its case. memaore a min can be sum me have hssn proved m aeyuud reasonable duubmnlyalma candnskanMmemaIIIDunaeon5\dsra|\on ecauma ewdenoeadauoed nsvrowdad rm. 1EZA(l)M|hs CnmmzIFIoc5dum Code ma Wmfld nownafly be me wsman vmsrv ma auwsed ha: gmn evidence Hdwavav, when ma aucuud Ivmams mam lhvs wm be no mmmym rsqvlluala ma . am: amend dammma whslhtrmsm e a Is Ieasnnntfle dnubt . ma adaenda at any name: amdenue lar such a cenamammm ma vvima lncie evidenas Vmkth was cepama M suwdmnu a dammed ueyam haasnname ddum wHl ounsfl|u|e Maui nsynnd raaiunabls doum. ‘. m [23] In ma vase of FF v Mohd Radxi Ahu Eaknr 12:20:51 1 cm 457, the Federal Cuufl he\d mac. 'l15lForme gumanoa :11 ma own mdw, we iummarlis as cdudws ma mp: ma mum as am bymax mum at me: daze aim: pmaewua-vs cam mm. Hall at ma pmaaamdm-a use, sumecl Ihe evidence led by (he pmsscmmn In 15 II: memy «a 1 maximum auavuaaen Cmeflmly scruunise ll-we aembfllly er aanh ahhe Dv\:secul\on‘sw1Inesses Takz mud zccounlaH Iessnname wa:anoeame« may be drawn lrom mac evldemze n ma avudenae admma an M0 or more mtevenoai. HIM draw and Inlaranoe that us man favouralfla in ma accused, u) ask yo-man ma L1\I5mun:nHuI\ upon me iuzuand «d mm ma daiancn and In he slams ca umam sI\an1amV pravavad in coma mm 0710!: emdenre now baby: ma nma answ1rIn|hllquI:1(imIis‘V',|hen . rmmn hue me has uaan made out and Ihe defence shmm be named. Inna answer .5 “us men, a Mme fame Case has no! heen made out and ma accused shamd be acqumadr as [241 Cnmmg back to me Ingledlenfi onne charge lhat must be proved by me pmeaeuudn under e.au2 at me Penal Code, may are ea lduwaz i «he deceased was Halnm Bin semen; me cause at death was due nu ma injunes suflsred; that deem was annbuled In Ihe ens 0| ma A1:cused.and n aw ZyNnvGIkynmvPwcmFLn ) «ma sum n-nhnrwm be used a mm ms anmmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm the acts was dune by me Assussd wmu incsnuon to cause bu miss to the deceased‘ and me budnly inpmes mlended in he infliclad wars suff M in the nrd ary murss ov nature to cause deam (5 30D(c) at me Pensw code) [25] It is «me that murder Is cmpable hcmxcide wwlh me imermon, or knowisdgs which me act us likely, to cause desm whereas not an cmpabls s is murder Under ss.2ss and son at lhe Penal Code culpable s" and “murdsf are defined as loflows: hum m cuupams hormude m Wlmevercausex deal): by dnmg ... nc| mm me Vnienliun Mcausmg dssm, or will: |he Vmermnn sq ssusw; sum bodily mlury as Vs ukew to cause deans, or wlm the kmwnsdge man he vs llksiy by such ad In clusl dssm, commit: cu. s«...se A71 culpibls hnmhzlda 15 Murder San Exnsvl m we uses hereirmller exbeoled‘ cuinable hmmcide u murder. (at .r Ihe an! by wmch me death s caused s dune W\|11(He\l1leMhn nl ssusms death: 20 my a n I: dun. WW’! ma inmmnn of mushy such badfly my as the wander knows «s be nxery In cause lhe Heath onhe person to vmnm me harm s ssusea, to; n u vidunswllh ms mtermon u! ssusms buddy wuurym any perm, and 01: budfly Injury mended Ln be Micmd Vs mum 1.. ma mwlln-Ivy sauea av mm In cause dssm, or 25 my n ma Darvon oummnlmu ms an knvws mm u 1: so Imrmnsnfly dangvuus |hn|\|mu:1\n .II\ pmbnbmly muss denm, ar such many Vnjmy s. Vs Hkmy to cause dssm, and commks sud: aclwnmul any excuse Vnnncumnu the mm causma desm. uvsuch mm as afuluald an [26] n is noted mm the firsl Iwo hmbs av s.z99 mentioned mvenlion sud me mud limb Is about knvwlsdge The same ansngsmem can be seen m s.auo wnerem me laurlh um: (d) talks about knowiedge. Imenuan or 2 SN ZyNnvGIkynmvPwca.FLn ’ _ «me am nnnhnrwm be used w my .. saws mm: dun-mm VII mum W ID 20 1; an krmmadgs larrn the mens ree ei me offence. Tne second end lhrid hmhs of s 300 do not require that the intention Is to cause death, The law also (men between euipeme hornrerde emouming to murder which rs pun name unders :02 dune Penal cdde end culpable nemreide not amounling to murder which is punsihable under s. 304(3) er older to determine makes a dependrng on me degree olII1ein(en| n. Therefure, ri me menrei eiemeni is present in me eiienoe charged. the Cuurl wnuld Vook ier evrdenoe oi inlanlinn or knowledge in lhe case before it [27] The iriai proceeded I would say quite smoothly, without the de4ence chauengrng must dune evidence addueed by ihe prosecution wrinesses. This IS oeoeuse ihe deienee relied an me deienee cf meanuy In regard in «he offence charged There was no doum ma: the deceased was Halim Bln aenan, ihe: me cause oi death was due In ms imunee sunered, panioulaI'1y“B\unHrauma of the new and «he: re was admmed the deem wee aurinuied to (he an oi ihe Aodused, Ahhuugh ihe defense did ndi cnauenge |he preseeuuan evrdenee on ihe issue or idenmy oi the perpeiraier oi ihe enme, ihe coun emu oonducied a maximum evahza n dnhe evidence more in [25] From ihe narrairve dune pmsauulion case, it appeared that inere was no direcl evrdeneeoreyemness 10 the Incident between the Aocused and me deceased prior la is deaih Tnereidre. the pmsecmion nad ie rely on cimumsiantia! evidence to prove ns case against the Accused. in the ease oi PP v. Magcndrln Mohnn (20051 3 cu 592. name vusor J had dehberalad upon the issue at cimumsianiial evidence as follows - in has uiwnys been emphmsed mer wheiever dreumsrenuai evidence is reired an bylhe pmaeeitllan in hmldlnq up lis case against an accused person. my such Diem ei evidence musi rend dniy In ans direeuen, inei rs do say. suddesier rend supvon is an rnrerenoe eiaum. isee Mumendy end Arrow FF n ZyNnvI3Ikynrni7Pivca.FLG " Mme s.n.r iunhnrwm be used m vafli .. nflmnnflly minis dun-nun: w. .nune wrui um] i MLJ nu). In Kamls v PP [1 9141 1 ms 59‘ n 9751 1 MLJ 45,1» avwiiam was wlIv1<:|ed on a wavga ow mumur and wai smlancld ta: «um The eviduI:sagn\n|1 mm wue sun.-iy ciicumsumiai and an Ill app-iii la iii. Fedarll Own, hi! mnvicflon was nlflrmad Thu Iaamad Mal iimga has in his 5 summing up In iiisimy mm Ihal «or E mun In velyan eimumsimiai evidence. in mseime when cnnslflemfl musi pm my in me gum BI Ina aocusad, n mus| mi be capama 0! any other imsrpmanun oi any umar maan\rIu' The Federal Court in wnmannq ma summing uv ny ma mai M199 saia mat in was impussmi. In say man man wax . misumm of1usl1ue.B\a:ks1ona s cnminai 10 FrIcn:a1M1l|pp mm as salad thalnflawilvg an urcuml1an|\a\ Ivhhnua ciiuimmmmi evidence I! in ya miiimm wim direct evldanoa nimci evidence is evidence M mm in issue. In Ina case at iesumniai eviaanoe, it Is avinam abou|lzi:1s mime amnion ma vmness uaims 15 to nave wwiai xnuwieaua. iovaxampiu, ‘\ sawlhn anwssd mike me vv:1Im ciicumnamiai avidlnua 15 BVIUGIICB av relevant vaa is hclx mm. mg» mg Ixmanca DY nun Ixislsnca M (an: In Vague may be iniimea Far mmnia, me mum: mm is iiiieiy In almnh mare waigm la 3 vunely M \MMdua\ Hams at nlrcumslamlal an/ldenne. all M Mulch m land In the same onllflushn man in aim emeime to Ina mnh-ary coming lmm Mlnassas laddrw in mminuny me Fednval com, In cnanu Klm $miq v. P? [I968] 1 MLJ :5 stated: 15 - The onus an (M pmmmiun what: the evidence It at a cimunuannai nalurs V: a my heavy en: mi Ihal aviduwe mus|poInlIrruu1Ib\y In me unmzluuml nflha gm?! aims acwsod n mm mm gap: I?! i, Ihen II is nnl sanflclem ID Furmer aaiinaraiinn on me me M u-aim with umumsianimi aviaenm. Ins owns minis wumry has aiways been Qulded nyme me last: iurmuiaiua by me inaiau sun-we Cam in Charudmal z. Anor v. Stats u! Ruauhan may [moi so in mm Sarkafla J said 35 ii is weH mum mi whan . case IBSKS anmiy on cimiimmmiai svidsnbei such evldenos must seiisiy (men (3515. Firfilyi Ina dmumslancss mm mm an {Marianne av cum I! swam in be drawn mus| as Doaenfly and nrmly esianiisnea Sacomly. Ihose umurvisvzncss mania be at a daflnile mid-nq unamniiiy noimms mam: ins gum in AD the aowsod l11|ru\y.Ih5 wcumnsiim \sken wmu\a11vl‘Yi shuuld «mm . maxi. .0 mmplsla um than i. In lamps «mm oi. mllclusflvl mai wiihin an mnmn vmbnhilw the cm. wasmmmmed byme swim ind no fill! aise. that is In say we chcumslanuss Shfluld be inoami. oi sm ZyNnVGIkyDmVPWCmFLG “ “Nair Sunni ruvihnrwm be HIGH M may i... nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII muNG WM! 5 15 10 as exnlanallnri on any masanahle nyuolriesis save lnal oi me accused‘: gum. lsee also. snaniair v. slals oi Marlaraimra AIK haul so 1157) [29] The Courl had scrulinised lne evidence or lne presecunei. wilneesee and lrie circuririslanllal evidence that poinled towards me Accused as me cerpelreldr oi llie crime were as loIIows' vii. Vlil. on io.li.2u2o at am) am.SP14 and sl=l5 were cnallirig al SW4‘: neusie wnen suddenly lhe Accused came home weanng only his underclolhes and appeared lo be wei; lrie Accused told 5PM and sl=i5 trial he had kllled lne deceased. SP8 was iniorrned by SP15 aboul wnal sne neard ironi lne Accused: laler a woman claiming to be me Accuseds aunt called me pcllce elalion el 4.00 pm and relayed inlcrrnalion about an incidenl el lne Accused running amok and inluriing another man in Kg Flang, Gsrlk; SP1 ucen raueivlng llie lnionnatlon, requeeled «or an ainculance lo ce sent to scene onhe crlmsr SP12 armed al the scene lc invesfigala llie crime and was informed by SF10 aboul lne anal oflhe Accused; SP6 arrived at me scene arid upon checking me viral ' ns of the deceased. ne lourid none and pronounced his death: SPIO queslicned the Accused and he was shown some clelries and elner items which he selzed lrdm a nearby house, believed lo be connecled in me crime: a oleodsvained ooncrele block, arneng olner ilerns, was recovered lrorii lne scene cl me crime near me cedy mine 15 SN ZyNriVGlkyDmvPWCmFLG Nuns s.n.i n-vlhnrwm as used M yaw has nflnlnnflly siini. dun-mm wa nFluNG WM! to m 15 deceased and n was beireved to be the weapon used to hit the deceased’: head. a posbmonem was conducted the next day and the cause at death was lound to be ‘Eltm| trauma aflhe head"; and XI. iurehsic and DNA analysis was mnducled hy the chemistry Department where it was found that unly a rew nams seized were cdrnirmed to have the amt dntre daaeased an thern. namety, the htocdsterned concrete Mack and some trarrs on it. a vmlle and blue striped shirt (beheved to be the deceased's) and a wltlle Cnln Bnhy-G watch holonglng to my Accusad. [30] From the ahdve, although the pmseclmon stated that there was direct evidence in the idrm at the wmessiun mthe Accused in his aunt and mother, the cdurr lound that the Mn women did VIDI witness the Accused hitting and killing the deceased. Nevetheiess, the court luund that the pieces of evidence abcvernenticned dc point to the Accused as the perpetetar or the crime The prosecution wanled |n show [hat it was me Accused who murdered the deceased because his white Casm Baby- 6 watuh wasluund nearby the sdenedt the drrma. SP8 had aied eentrrmed that she had given the Accused a these, the Calm was satisned an a rnaxrnrum euattratian ml the evidence that the W51 3 ingredients ct the crtence had been proved by the prosecution at the Pfrlms iacre stage. wristwatch as a gt Based on an [31] Nauettnsiasa, aitar the Accused was charged In the High cam an 13.4: 2021, an drder was made ta aerrd him tdr ohservalton at Heaprtat Eahagia uiu t<rnta on 23.10.2021 as pmvlded tor under s. 342 oflhe cpc Hewas examined by spa and the Acaussd wasdiagnnsed to be suttenhg sw ZyNnvI3IkyDrnvPwcatFLG “ ‘Nuns s.n.r n-vihnrwm re used M mm the nflmnhflly MIME dun-mm VI] .nurtc wrui «mm “Snhixnphrnnla and had a pmhl-m Subalance Dependence", Acourdmg 4.: SP5, at me «me 111 the offense, me Accused was m an unfil menus‘ some and mu not know the Dunsequences and nature or his acuon as wen as dud not know that me amen was wrong and 5 against me law. The psycmamsc cenined m his repon dated 1712,2021 mat the Accused was m to mea and m aelena mmsew. [32] Excerpts [rum lhe Notes 0| Evidence at spas xesumuny are veproduced have in. ease av vefevence an -o. Durmg ma assessment, haw was IN: scented au>.=......=~ A My anessm-m ruwhs ...= vmducm .. me «am .7: the Fursmic Psyualn: Rzwn and um av December 2921 From my ....u........ .... .a.:...¢.: was -nnnma m luv: . sennu: ...e..m disorder ,5 called s=...mm.... He was also Iounu u. be dependent .... emu: .s 1.. “suhsuncn Depindnnce" ...a win aha fauna ..~. have a .....:m: cnndllvon known as N-vamls c. m. .s In: dwagnasls Fmm ms relrospecllva assuimam Mme mama! 5.... an ...= hm: mum. w...;.. u have dixcnbsd on page 2 and 3 .1... repnfl pm m-15 .. .2. nnuh 1n-15 dzcvihes u... ...=..... sin}! nf 0.. accused .. {he a.... at me Mlence. From my auessmenm u Vound um be was Imssly very Dsvehotln .5 evldenzed by Scnlwphnnla pa hollc symptoms 1.. c... lam: of audllovy Ilalluclnallonx -..a a. Ilnn. 1oq-tn-mm. ms . symvtam-s am. ..... a............s ..... ... WI: 15 nwunr (M ...u.....c. of m. drug .....>.....pn...... Now, a... m.....m.... of . ...a..... ......m aa....u.. Sclliznphrin mum.» with .... angels of the dull menu-mvheumine caused his nsyehouc sylvlmems to Have or become ...o.. serious man wlul smug have been. Allhonih at the lime of the oflence when n 3.. issnssnd ..u... very much lal-rwh-n us was unite .... r.. was am. In .mu mm ....a ulna: m.«u....m.. Ixlowhat Ilappanud m»... u.... Nvmflom .m........a .m......... nlh .......p.c.... ......... mg. .. ..... Jccnunllhn ..v... .,...p...... ofpuychmic . wu oi .... am. .. u... ... wu maptble M umiersmndlnn the .5 nnlum ...u wmnnlulness oihls actions. Yllsl have stated on page s under me hudlnfl Keslmvulari us. was... Is my am..:o.. on M: unsunndnusoimlud as assnnd acwrvlllglosactlon u an...» cm. The ma! pan av my assassmsm was on m. mm. m Plead and sum max wn... .. W25 s... admmad .9 m. .........=:, mg lcsusad sum N ZyNr.v43IkynmvPuccxFm " 3 Nab! s..... ....... WW be .5... .. mm .. .......u.. mm; dun-mm VII .;....«a pm... m 15 as had very severe psychnln: aymplam I vested run. wIIn anlwsychahc memcamn snu nIs symptom look amuu mnnm Io subsms name, Ims Iswhy I have vequssm 1 [Ina\IdIMa)urI¢ar$s¢1mrI :M2(A)o! cI=c Ansr Ms sympmm had result and ns was wsu II was Gaiermmod Ina: ms was m In mean an sIana InaI IuaI mw ynu sand he 3 In In mead snu stand mun snu before you Iusx szmd he nus gal menI.aI dnso/Ger ssnuapnssnva 50‘ mass 2 amarsm Iltlnfis anouuns accused 2dIl1evanHlI\l79s, 2 dfllamvulaga rnswuu saIu a| maI pamcunar Mame cammmsd ns was under msmaI maize uname |o Imdarsland but nuw yuuIusI saId ns wasmm phad zmd siand InaI Can yuu msaas sxpiam «Ins» II I umlmand Ins quaslmn, ssnimprnan s n seflous manna: dimmer. Du: ol Ins mm psycheus dlwldeli Inynno can run mm, Schlmvhrenla Ls InaInIy saueuonua by svmnloms known as In.IIusInaIIen anu dnluslon. Now. In! hllluclnlllon II wmn In- person rInauuIu-1 a narusuIar Ilnludublnl M Imulul lhll Ia nu| wvu nI. Foruxlmplu, II-Illlcinl on can occur In an of Mu§xtn:u wmch in alum. nu ring, «am. much Ind amau. nn. common hnllucinnliun or . nmnmonuu Ixvuienced uy nulnm with Schlmvhm Ire uuunory II-IIusInuIIons. wmsn means nurlnfl smnscnnnu wmn Ia not mm In In aannaa usullly can mundlnenr sIur:»snara MIMI auu ghllb. rnu halluclnlllolu can In my uIsIn-unnu Io nu Plnnn up. nclng H. In auumun In hillncilulionx may cmnmnnly anus nxpuinnct uaIuuIon. 1na d-In - n I. a u. wanna -s Hun anu man In oflnr wan, am an Inna. Isam. ms vnnlcular nu ma aumnd up-n-nu a Blrllcullr we omsIusIon Imown as doluslon M cunlrnl. A p-rson exvervenclnn a deluslw sI sonuun In I an Iv mu lcllon an controllld ny Inmoonl or vnnwlhllln Ilu. In an: an In. -Icmnld -xnmancsd dllu nn Ivf sunImI whlmln na b-Huvnd Ind can am ms 03! mnvurnnm and by Ixllnllnn III: nunnnn mu commllm by a nn. In a pnhenl exnenenmvg snsasInu suunury ha\|m:\nsIIons or vomalbaemervmh s uenuuun such as usIusIan oH'.an(m\ In lms case‘ these symmoms were severe emuwh Io Impau ms cognmva Iuncuana sa us Is he Innapame ov understanding Ins nalum awn-aI nswas some waswvong ovlhal wnaI ms was dmng was agaIns| Ins Iaw a( Ins Inn. 0! ma olfanue man Is hvw Scmzuphmmzn is s mums: d\seruermge1hsr wvm Ni symploms Impnclzd upnll Ina mgnII1ve(urIc1Ion ax ms Inns wnan Ins unanss hnvflnned Sdulnnhlemn s a hlebng msnIsI msorder. wnnm means arm: you have SOIIIZEDNSIIIHI you wm mrmnue Io have senIzopIusnIu unuI ynu the MA Ihe symmom uv Suhizovhvenm Inan means ms symptoms ofdlsordarcan us healed and Ins symmams are :1: sm ZyNnv13IkynmvPIIccxFm Nuns s.n.I I-nhnv M“ as used m mm s. nflmnuflly mm; dun-mm VI] .mm mm 10 15 1D 35 an 2'5? vealed by am: anmzsyclvoflc memcauon Onco an p-nan ram mndlcatlun or Iualod mun rnaaneanan, nun nu symmarn. an away or ruohud. am flilmdu um puslll. Ha arm has Schiznnhrema hm now ne has na rnara Iymplnms Just Hke n ynu have hynenaumn nynananaranraa cnndman wnara a verse» Maud pressure rs man when year blood oreeaara Vs nun, ma ayrnurarn M nyuanensron can be neaaaerre. mamneaa. mamna M vrenn and so on I! ynu heal me mgn bland nvssure or rr you «rear nypanenwn wmr medlcahon men are symplums mu go away Suryou sun have rrypananaran because dkmder re ILMONS araaraar am narw bscausl yau an mbdng msdinilmn, yaw blood Wusuve r. aarnrauaa ana mna you aa ml expeflenoe any sympmm: me xx urnrrar In Schrznplvanhs. onaa a narsan rs araanaeea m have sanmnrea. he WIH eanunna la nara sennzopnrenra an rrra ma Emil he lakes medncahuna man rra wm not expennnae me symmnmi semzonnrenra 50‘ ms ra wnal was acnlsved aflar aPPH2xIma\ely cl 1 monlh m In: haipvhl. became ws (ruled mm Mm am-psycmtlc msdlcahon ml SYW‘Ph:ms msnhlod Whan rm Jympiamx resolved his wgmhvu «man araa nannanzaa la n aanan extant ll nannanzes Thlvllmu. mm I run Ixnllhnd In resume to his montal am. in ma me enne auenee wls me unre when hli Schlnophnnl: was rm amen, ne ma not an medlcnllon and n. was oxvtrlnnclnv cm vary Ir/on symmom- av hlllncllllllons -nu auuunnn. am aner nanny «run-a mm, are symplnms lalcivad, rn. mgnilwe function rrrrpnwaa and marefmn auha nrna man the ranan was sranea on lhe m :71 Dmember 24:21 na was found ra be vlx In areas and slam ma: aeeme ne na nanaar exnananeaa psvmmre symmorna and rrra n:nEni1\veluncImrv had Vmvroved. Whalvi the Sweet: and melmidolvgy unae rn your auaaarnenr: Hhmk r answamd nn. Debra nu ravfimmn r Juslsummanze n ma firs! pan us me dslarvmnatmn ara mama! cflsnmerwhelher he nee a mental araaraararnar In a persnn who aaae um have a rnernar dlsordarn ra umy nn aaaaemre ma: lhe Issue ar unaaunanesa or mind does nu! ansa in a nelson wm does not have a mama! mwrdnr. mlms 1255, M M: a rnernar msorvav. because rra has a rnemar anam (hsmlure me lune an unsoundrvusi :71 mlnd ra pumnem sa, ma ucnnd am of -n. as tum-M rww win an nlrnl ma... unrumunlafmtnul am. It 1»: urn. MIIII Mkncn which .. going am In urn. Io amnnuna .n..n. am. nmm Iimt which is nnllku mmlni vsynhlzrtrlc mar awnar I need an answer. me ntmsnlcfivn -nnnuu um. ls men mu lonllslc ralvlhlnlvm cxammu nu Iccuud oer Iluns Ind -ymmom av rn-nun unaanm mm m Iceland Ixplnnneud :1 tho um al an mane. Thlx In 19 srn zmnvauryamaarrcama Nuns a.n.r In-nhnrwm be used m mm a. annmrr-y mm: dun-mm wa nnurm Wm m 15 an dun: by rucoliiflucflnn nu mental sub: In mm o! Iymvlmnx um-mm .5 well a nu n-navior ur III: conduct at um um. M -9.. Mhncn Bun you an: nut m... So, how dc ynu Imam/’ v. ubvmus\yI‘mnnuhem auhenme whevnhe owancs haDnened,Tha| .. vmy rm \ a .5 . lnrensrc psycmamc to pemmn ratvuspsmwva assassmem av menial sllge. umuu general psycllmrlslwho pcrform cumnl m-Mal state an Ilmnl. I'm wlcillly tnlrmi In ltd: In: M mtrosptctlvc asunnnm at mumxl um. Bind on my assessment aimougn n was nut prauam .uI me me the enema nappmu, ny vmua no rlvyhzunmg and expemxz, rm answer: no vwe an opwwn ...a expefl upminn .3 m me meme! state or an unsounaness ul m. rmnd am»: accused agamsl |"naud\hlel an e><|>sn Dsycmamc owmun. wma. can anry be dnaflsngsd by amtharexpen, nw Yes, by all mean: haw in mm be done .ms|rmw ywu memlnn abounhe use onneurug msanampmumme Haw um «ms am lnfluenae nu Charade! and mm m; mamnl sun: M mmd7 The drug mdmamprvelzmme wsalyps nmammam Msflmulaled lhehvam Many pews taku Ims drug fur ns weasumhls effects In same peowe ‘Mm lak: (ms drug e-nsmxlyame whn am dependent and take :1 m a we ameunl they can experience dlslressmg svlecm as ovposefl m lha measurable ewea. msuessmg al1sds,wN:h muans mm I11: mlnxltalmg emu ml the drugs. muxmaung ervaa. or me drug hke melhamnhmamma an impair: person‘: mgm». fumman. In an. em hlnun Du ancuud IIM-dy mu 1 mm mnnul dlsovflar Szhlmuhn . on. which ». wn nlnmy axpuhnclng fllslnnlng usycllnllc lympmms. wmn . person comwunds mm Mkcls, nu. . drug mmhnmpheumine, (he psychotln symptom lnvarlahly will gu worse heuuse n I: lit: cnmruwndlng arm of; mnnlnl dlsomuv Ind a mug. mu «bu compounding ulkcl mun III: mnnm luncllnvw In I» win mm sum»: 0! implcud. Cwnul AI;1ua\Vy‘ I Ihmk he has mveved me whme area hm x mm I mm to ask mm regarding the Itpoll One reporl u pug: 2‘ item (e) lspovan pemba|an dnupada Husuhsl Ymvmg benmikh 23 November zn21. N50. :1 page 2, mm m rakad Devubaran lerdahulu aw Hnsmlal sanagna Mu Klma sw zyNnvI3IkynmvPwca.FLn 1“ um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm nu m In lhe rnenlenl, had been arreslee al about 4 43 pm al a nearby house No. 55A, Kg Pleng, Garlk. The Accused was brought lo aalal Polls Kg Lalang, men to Kllnlk Kaslhalan Lenggang lor Cavld-19 soreenlng and laler remanded lar lrwssfigalmns rnle me dsalh at lhe deceased. A number 0! nerns were selzed lmm lhe aims scene lor rnvesugaliens as well as larensre analysis [5] The posl-nrorl/srn mas conducled by Dr Tan Lii Jye a12.30 pm on ll.ll.2u2u aller lne body ol lhe deceased was ldenlmed by hls son, Zulmlml Am Em Hallm. The cause al dealh was stated as “Blunt lraurnn of me new Eedlly samples were also Isken lrem lhe Accused and me remalns more daeaaaae for DNA analysis The Aesuseu was charges on 17 11 2020 al lhe Gerik MaglsIra|e‘s caun for murclerlng lhe ueoeaseu. He was charged in the High caun an 1a.a.2n21 and men sanl fur abservahon an Husplial Bahagia ulu Klnla an 26 10 my as pmvidad lar under s. 342 0! the CPC He was examined by cansulranl Farenslc Psychralnsl, Dr. Ian Lloyd Anlhany The Accused was dlagncsed \u be sullenng lmm 'Sl:hlznphnn|n Ind Md n pmbllm with srrbsunee Dependence". Al lhe lune ol lhe anenoe, lhe Aeeusea was VI an unm rnenlal slala arm and nor knew me consequences and nalure oi ms aellon as well as are run knuw lhal lhe ar.1lun was wrung and agalnsl lhe law. The psyehral-risl ceflified in hls reperl ealerl 1112,2021 mar me Aeeusaa was hr la plea and la defend himssll ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION as THE COURT [5] The preseeuhen rslled an circumslarlllal evidence Ia prove re Case Ihat H19 Accused. with Intent, had mumslfid the deceased. The CNX 0! the delerlcs case was man lhe Accused was Insane at the malarlal (lms. 2 am ZyNnv13IkynrnvPlvcarFLn -use s.n.l n-vlhnrwm as used m mm has nflnlnhllly sun. dun-mm wa .nuue wnxl 15 35 Conn Terdahulu means wharfi A May 1 axmam, ukod wuzman tardahulu m miy velar ma page 2 “mm s.,am. my.kn psmam, Hem was In nwusud Enuik Ahmnd |'Imu1.i ma 1 plevlnus Idmuumnto Hoanlnl Bnhnam um mm. on zsm of Aumm mm mm 14-» December zaoo.1ms :. wM:1l'm mdenlnarou M: vlevlous medical nwrdslnthe Iwsnllal because of ms nmxaus admlulon to an hosmal almost 12 was am. so. u. was alnldy dam cflwnuud Io haul Schkuphnn . . mum in M1 nu, He ilvvady had . mm disnrdarvmam um shit: man that was m m. mndwul mmrd nun: hnspwxl Ralemng «.7 me man (g; which a mmscal report form Hogans! mm. am 22» Nnvemhev 2021 This Is medics! repon man omamed «mm me Hospital Tawnw because the accused was admmed m Ina I4asuna\ Tavpmv zvwoxlmalew 1 week below ms ovum. hapvsnad wmcu mus on In aw ul Novambsr zuzn mm», bscausu he was adrmlled m In: awn: mpmg a! man time u had omamod . mam: repel! hum lmn Vmspnal court so. he was dlaanosed wnh Scmzophrema Delove and ms mu havma cm: Scmzophrama when aims um ms swam re-nan was mm. bylha nndnr A Sn‘ mm is In) drflsrem because In n ma Schlmvhrema u we lung Mnesl u hnwenslhen in zoos and he sh has it nnw Conn He Is -an an mldlcallm M rwn Hut‘: Ihu flung rum... nu val nut an m..1.m.-m. for many ynn ‘hunt a. m. u... nm 5. why in ma nymmoms. M nlnpssd um am when me offence hnvnene-1 He hm mnulve nelnpae. Rellme mum svfllmnvns at scmznpnmm com: um. um um: 1| elm: hank my sevanly an that um. a: mo expevlellcsd : very uverl max 5:! Schlnormnnla back nu ma mm. n. was fin! mmm-a to In: mum mm. Cmuuel gammy) Yam Am, dalam Vapanan mt jugs my dmymakan bahawa OKUIAQA aria xenima ruwavan a. Hosnnsl em [Jada : Nnvemher zozu dan ma ma Ielah durum danpaaa Huipnal Gank ks Hcspnm Tawpma n sw ZyNnv13Ikynmm=wccxm2 um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Conn That vsbon was mede1 yearaner ma relsmnoe n Is Mm mm ma same .. A wnan napver-an was. may N uxplam, ma aaaau wanna! m mmnva ms 5 aamaa Viva‘ II Haspnzfl Genk A1 um (me when his km1me< muaaa mu he had mapaaa mm was exmmmg nhnnnnrfl behavior he malt mm mm Haivnzfl Sank Haapnax Genk Ihen Vmmedmlely mflened mm In me Hasvim mam because Hasnhm Talvmw V5 a relenal hashing! In the Hasaha\ (Sank In cmm Then na look me $\\mu\am «a cure ma mm W man Var ma awn p\easure’7 Usually anyane who takes drugs usuaHy lake u [or pleasure eWe:.1.Tha| Vs my may like u Whelhev memamphelamme. cannahls. hermrn whzlevermayho IIIE1/(akaNbecauselhsy\|ksmala9\9ocdelVnL1i nut mm conunuuusmaxa n ortbfiflaka mm. by: mum m... Mul Hwy are and m liking, that um cans: mam In gn mm sure an amaxman u m maywsl rmmnalylzlkidrug every day. may are usunfly dependent an it man mama may naaa mat mg in Vundmn. ws mam suhswme aapemam and ml muaxscauea. Lot at peoma who take mugs ave aapemem on u am sun tan (uncmn But we saws-we who may D5 uapanaamanumg ammamakea ma sxtla lzka mmnaaasxyana thin 15 he bwomv vmmca|ed mm. you blcum ‘mu "calm! blc-us: lhl uma mmampnuamma I: mam, nimulnnl dmg. n ifimulmed ma llniu. What I: Mi-and in Schlmphlenln is me senses. Yhe nmlmly h luclnnllnmlhn vlsunl nauuamanm. sumoflml w. vakn . mm mm muhamvhllamlnn In a Plrson who auaaay has In Scnllnpnnnla and who Is -xacnmunu Ink: Fsvcllonic syvnmams. this nmnampn-umma can Imunn ...yay.m:a lymmnmx in Schlzuphnnil. In lam: CIII m mmhnmnheum M themnlves can emu mynuoua tvvnvhwnn lndnpcndumofschixanhnn sa, you can a I: luv: ploplu uklng drug use humming psynhollc Is 35 nsull of schlmvhnnl am In ms ns vw nan 2 aanamona. om, a mcnlal dlsardnr canslnfl Diychnllc iymmomi and n. new use a drum wman can an» can:-G vflchwc iymvlums. man In vmyl um mam. wmwnndlllu mm ollhuu 2 Ihlngi to Conn am 1|‘: dflficuflm snylhat ha mended lorcenam mnmme, Isn‘l’V A Yas,d91\nIle\y rm naaauss m (ms case his symuuam was so severe at max «ma man he mum rw| avpvaclala what he was doing and we 21 am ZyNnv13IkynmvPwccxFm ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm a. .mm mm 15 15 an wmnamlness or ms swan. But man doss not mm m an tau: av sommpmsma may do mt mm man may are dmng Semi cars: ya! m Denim cues av smmpmenss msmsr Schlzuplvemn mpsxsr vma1sverI| Vs m some Muses they know man may are dnmg Conn In this case yeu found |hz| he was nor» He mum kmw? A Yes‘ m this case nu because ms uugnmva luncnnns warn savevaly wmpamsd :1 a larsult av mm scmmpnms as wen as me mnsummnn so msmamphvmmlne Cmul am In could nmmnsr nus and nlmsv Ves. usuuuy mu :1 you an v-ychmlc. you can nmunbqr mum- mumory is many iflucud hyl plfllcullvdmg or Schimphrenl: for mu mlluv. Ulu-Illy CIII nun Ihlng. lhmnnn he us ms m ussan ms nu nxunl but u I: nlll Ihnl. Eulwhnl ynu man I: me abnormal hnhnvmv um yw hm nous wlmuul nally unmsnmnng why ynu [Emnhasis added] [33] u was suhmmed byths pmsscuuon Challhe Cour! was not bound by me upimun ml |he agar: and ms: me rule of me expert was mere\y to assist me cuun m arriv g at its finding on the gum a! me Accused In Wong $4450 cum v PF [1 sac] 1 LNS 13:, the Federa\ caun held ‘‘\n we Evmence Act. 1950, onlmon uf sxpsni are under csnam comm": zdrmsslbve m swdsnce. wm ave experts as explalnad m leulmn 45 nfme Am Sacnon as pruvmesma|laclsnulL11havw\se yswwamm Idevantflflleyluppan or ave mounswslanl mm ms sssnnns av man. When such ornnmns are Msvant nwz was cafled as an sxusn wllneas Om system suunswussnss dues rm| genemfly spasms, mu ms delerwnaunn oi mspms In exusfls. some uueslmns ave hen In Ihe mbuslgbod sense smury Dlhersave reserved hyma ssmemssnsx wisdom olaludie srmnu akzns. In 1713 comma atsmcndannfi mspmsa Ques1>uns,amsmma Vorm sv sxpsn Dhlmonr ave m avpr-wnma cases pvaoss before was orjudgss am, extant on pumly scrennlic isms, expen amuse us in us usad by the cnurl Var ms vurwu su....1.ng lslher lhin wmpe\I\ng1h:(urmu|a\inn mm ummnleiudgmenxs m the ullxmake snsxys. sw ZyNnv13IkynmvPwca.FLn 1‘ Nata s.n.‘...us.Mm.,.s;....nmys.sass.“-ysm.ss..u.m...nuNs W V501: t.libunalaHai:i,vnm1hari1 he a iudge or jury, men is readied In weigh an me evidence and deiainnne the vmbabilmes ¥|cAnrimlmns1eHNs Iask In ine exnenwiiness. me ccuit niust Dome in IE own ulzinrori rnereinre tne nature er WW2: eyidence niusr ee axamlried in ins iinrii or rne above pnnciplss ws 5 see ncwrisre in ms records m suggest mat me man Judas ried incansciiy or imnropsrty Gvifuiilfl ms evidence 94 W12 '. [34] I wiii discuss iaier trie expen epinidn given by SP9. Eul nww i win refer to the case cited by the learned DPP, Abdul Axiiini Mohammad V. In PP [2023] 1 LNS 935, where trie cuun oi Appeal stated: ‘[26] me new on admission and coniessidn are saitied. Reieience is rnade to sectien 17 dime Evlderica Act W50tnal Provides as iciicws -tr. Admliiion and ocnissusn defined in An adrn-ssicn is a sraisinent can or dosurnemz-y. mien sugsssts 15 any tntarenae as |u any isei in issue ar reieysni ran, and vmich‘: mide sy any or me neisens and under ine ciicuniaienesa nereinarier Mefllmhedi m A mrmsian is an adnnssidn made at any iiine by a Dersori accused cl an oilamei staring or sugnashng iris Infarunca mat he wmmmad tnat In an-nee. [29] in sun and in lhe eenrexrerine sresenteaae. tne apneiianra admission id nis ntendimiieedue SP15 tnai rie wiicd ins deceased, in our iudanient. is 25 reiayent evidence. It niusi be mentioned I00 triai SP1! was not a person in auiriomy in uiancn us iris awellam We find nu av-dsncs ottnat, we aim find inst triers is nc endence u! any induuemem, lhrezn er nmrniae nr any nppressiun igninn tne accusefl, sppeiiani ii a evident inerereie inai ine admlsslnn was saiunianiy niade. ii sears nienrieninn inai at iiiar saint er llmei an we snpeiiant was rim euen anesiad. ms, ine slalzmerils were eiearty a iuii adrnissidn eiuuiutsee Ho Sek Kong y. PP E01116 cu 522) r [35] Tris vrusec ii placed niucri ernpriasis on tne ccniessicn made by the Accused to SF1A and SP15 to link riini witri me murder at the as deceased. This court wili not amine on this last mat the statement was indeed ullered by the Accused at the material time and trier it amuuriled to e confession that was adrnissiizie because it was made way beiore his arrest by SP10 in tea, SP1D iesrified trier the Accused gave iniormauan which ied to the discovery or some eidtiies met he was wearing wrien trie sin ZyNriVGIkyDmvPi9CmFLG " ) "Nuns s.n.i n-rihnrwm is used M mm s. nrwiriaflly MIN: dun-vinrrl w. aFiuNG WM! In In 15 Accused “...beIgadim dengan Pak Teh“ Primla ine discovery, SP1Dwas lnlewlewlng the Accused at the Ba olis Kg Lalarlg when the Accused admilled mail he was involved in «he case. sPlo proceeded in read me cannon under s27 04 the Evidence Am 1950 lo lhe Accused and men SP10 ludged me pdliee repdn markad as P47 In accordance with me requirernenis of the law. since Counsel idr lhe Accused did not cbiecl in this iniorrrieuon being adrniued as evldenoe, ll was unnecessary in carlduck a «rial-wiihin~s-insl in deiannine the adniissibilily of me inicnnaiion and conlession P47 was inerevore aoniiiied into evidence as pan oi me pmsecuiion case. [as] Al one aspeci cl ine prosecullorl case. the coun has «he circrinislannal evidence and ddnilessidn of the Accused, which the oicsecuiion sub ed mnslslsd M evidence inat pclnled dnly lo the gull! oi the Accused aul in ancrner aspect of the prosecution case, the coun was presenied by evidence iidrn spa abuul ihe Acmseds s|aIe of mind at the material nrne This coun noied that ii is irlle law lhai die circunislanrial evidence must not be capable orany cinerinleroreialidn ul any cinar meaning in order Io salely pronounce Ihal a prime lacie case has neen eeiablished ageinsi me Accused and calling lor his delence [37] The lniresligallon oiilcer, SP12. gave evidence inel II was never brought to his ailenlicn inal the Accused simeied imin any menial corldillon at me cinie of the clvence. The implication di his evidence, ii accepted by the coun, would lend to show that me deience of insanity was an airerlnougm in lighl onhe circunislsnbal evidence and wnlaslon lo SP14 and sl=i5. Moreover, ll was subrrliilsd me discovery of the Aecuseds walch P35 with me deeaaseds blood poirlled only lo him being me perpelraier of me crime and mac he inlended to kill me deceased sin zyunyciiyiiniipiicanc 2’ -use Smnln-vlhnrwlllbeusedmvafltDnenflfllnalllyullhlsdun-vlnnlvunFluNG WM! [as] Nevennewess, me Courl could not mm away nem me evidence that was led by me prosecution ilseW perlammg In the Accused’: mental Condmon because If H is accepted by me Caurl, il would take away the gredlenl ofmens res vrom mat equation. Vn me case of sunny: Jnlorln v PP [2015] 5 cu 393 the noun ham: “[9! me my em. uwesuimaus vs lo mvesugme me facts and m wflacl en me emence The punoe as Vrwesuuatnvi are Duhhc vmcers. Tlmr conoem must be m Investigate Ihs tad: mom «a: Dr lavouv‘ so mu en wmnouusm mav D5 muuam cu ‘um: A tnmpl-hd |lIvIlIlgnllmI I: um um includu invu an an of mu rhhncn um tmugnd Iron 0: nvulllgnion... Such .mungmn my mmm. Ihn gaps or wl kmm. and amine subslunu no bu new mum Iht defences whnn mm. 1705 Is lmpoflanl as Iuninrn mm ucnarq-s emu nem4euen,me.e me no gm orwukllnkn mm Prnucullon am In nu wly an luccnsful Prnucullnn.‘ [Emphasxs added] [391 m Ihe case of Francis omnukwu Nwankwa V w [2n22] M|.Ju ma me Cnun av Apnea! held: -[an we avnlemaleme me vflnclplemaflhe onus Ison me F-Pm exchme me Wss\b\IW av access by men us the mace of mwuvery. [San Abdmlah Zawawl bm Yuwfl v pp [1 ans: 2 MLJ 11 Be that .5 :1 may, n .e we ‘aw me« me duw on me FF n my m produce m Own an wnnaues neceesarv my 012 nniulmng uhhl nammva aeeeee lhal, me P: has me discrelmn as In wmch wvmess m cal! Vn me landmark case em Chuee um V pp (199512 Mm ‘334 zagammnn Jr, rm speemnq vonne Fc mmamed: ‘On we aim! ha“ u Vs dear law ma| me umsewnon must have m ooufl an wnnesses «mm wnnm eaanememe nave bean «em, Du| may have a dlscrshun whamnrto can mm 01 ml (Sea T-h Les Tong V W [1955] MLJ 194; than u:.em.e.., hawuvlv, mun an Ixuclud having rlglrd in Int Inmnu cl Jueua, which Includu hung my In ill: lccusld [p|r Lard mm: «:4 m 2 v on .[ms1 CIAIIER1Cl||p122;[1Bl§],2WI.R10251191015), mam." witnesses esienull lolhe unfoldlnyofllu nlrr-Ilvc on which me nreucnllon cnso ls nu-a. wmvunm or-em N ZyNnv13IkynmvPuccxFm *5 we Sum In-nhnv M“ be used e mm we nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm wa muNG wrm In 3D rli-lr nsllmrmy ls cor M analnsl mu vmsncnllon lo-r Lem noelrio in ms cnyloii Prwy Cnundl can 01 S: vlralnn v R um] 3All ER: arim. Ipnllod IIIR vNIAglnl [1 11] nil an :62; mm I wm m~ {Emphasis added] [40] So we have llie euidenoe ol llie Aowsed‘s molher and aunl who roldlne courulial rlieyiourid ilnardlo bsllevslhatlhe Aoeuaed eonlessad to killing his unde AI lnauiina, lie was wearing only his underclolhes and he appeared lo be wel The oraseodlion submltlzd lnai ine Aocussed possessed lha necessary irrlenlion lo rnurder lhe deceased since lie had ooniessed. and also he oalhed anarwards in gel rid ol all evidence of llie blood on his body. [41] laul the Cuun was also presenlad wirn lha evidence of his sister‘ SP8 ma! aboul 2 weeks belore the inoidenl, me Auwsed was resuess, would oiren gal inw a rage wwards his lamily members and he behaved aoriormally Then SF'9's evidence was oansislenlwilli her evidence when na confirmed lhal he had inlerviewed lrielamily members ollhe Accused upon chscklng wiln llie Taipirig Hoapilal records, SP9 lound (hal llie Auwssd had been adiniiled on 4.11.2020 due lo liia abnormal behaviour am is was unly for a day From me reeords of llia hospllal Eahagla in Ulu Kinla, il was fulmd lhal he had been admiiled mere lor a period of about :4 rrionllis in 2009 obviously llieri the Accused tied a history W menual condilion which SP1: did rial invesugale. This pan ol his evidence was iourid lo be wariling as his lrwfillgallorl was incomplele in this regard [42] Looking al lhe exienl oi llis iriiunss aualained by llie deceased and ins ‘lnlnodhallfl one would lnink lhal he had lna riaeaasary rrieris rea lo uummlt llie onme ol murder. laul me couri also considered lhe silerii evidence lrorn me phoiagraphs taken ailhe soene onhe crime and inside SIN ZyNnVl3lkyDmVPl!CmFLG 1’ 'NnI2 s.i.i In-vlhnrvim i. used m mm he nflfllnnflly MIME flnunvllnl r.. aFluNG WM! in 10 25 the deceased‘: house because these evidence told another story, which in my view, the poiiee had missed. The tatat iriiuries |o the head were sumsrerit in the ordinary course ot nature to cause his death, hence the prosecutinn relied on the third Hmh at the offence in s 300 of the Penai cede There was he dispule an this tact and death was immediate. [43] i-tewever, the evidehee D1 spa was serhpeiringiy in iaveur at the Accused, despile the tact that a iire had been iest. spa teund that the Accused suttered horn schizophrenia Histestlmony isthat sehizephrenia is s iitetong iithees and a person never recovers tram it The ennditioh has to he managed with medication The Accused was not on rnedicatien (or many years. According to she‘ that was why he had the symptoms and relapsed when the offence happened. she luund that he had a massive relapse and it was very severe as weir as the Inotdenl in may The Conn accepted sin-s testimony that “unlike general plychlzlrill who per-vorrn currenl mental state assessment. I'm specialty Iralrwd In this and at rerrosp-ctive assatssmanl or rnentar state. aased on my nuumlnt although I was not present at (ha in. the muse luppnrtod. by vlmu 0! my training and expertise. I-in euniiried to give an oplrrlon Ind -xpm opinion as re the mental state or an nnsoundnoas of Ihe mind or the accused [44] she hrrthei turd the cevrtthatthe Accused experienced detusion 01 eohtroi wherein he hetieved and tent that his tmdy movement and by extension his zcliuns were continued by a “jin . in a patient experiencing distressing auditory haiiveihations or voicss tsgether with a delusion such as delusion at Comm‘. in this case lhfie symptoms were severe enuugh td irnpeir his oognilive tunetians so thathewas incapshie ufuriderslisnding the nature or what he was doing was wrung or that what he was doing SIN ZyNnVl3lkyDmVFi9CckFLD 1‘ -use s.ii.i llnnflhlv M“ be used is mm Die niimriaflly MW; dun-rinril vra .rit.iic WM! III 19 was agalnsl the law al lne lime ollne ollence That ls haw scnizopnrenla as a menlal disorder logelner wiln lts syrnplorns lmpacled upon ms cogrlluve luncllons at lne lime when lne oflerlce happened and ll was compounded by me rnetharnpnelalnlne lnal ha consumed [451 ms exlzen wllness alsu ssulalneu lnal wnen a person who already nad scnlzols-hrs melnampnelsrnlne lne psychulic symptoms VI saaizonnrenla. Bul ln lnls case, me Accused had 2 wndlnons one a menlal disorder causlng psychollc symploms and In lne olner, a drug which can also cause psy::ho|lC symplcms. He ssld lnalme compourldlrlg elves: of lnese 2 lhlngs were lnal a psrsorl became Inloxlcaled because allne lngnly sllmulallng drug memarnpnelanune. ll sllmulalea lne senses and wnal was affeclad ln Schizaphrenia were me senses. and whu was sxpsnendng psychoflolike symptoms, could worsen [46] And lastly lo a quesllnn from me Courl, SP9 sxplalnea lhal lne patient, usually even it ne was psyencnc, cculd rememherur recall lnlngs. He lold the Court met me pallenl would recall the aunsnnal bshaviorlhal he had done wllnoul leally underslanmng wny na did ll I refer ls s A5 al lhe Evidence AcI195D and llluslralicn (b) wnicn s1aIe' Onlnlons nfexpelu 45, H)Whe« the calm has to form an OPYNDH won a DOM mlolsiwrl law or ul wanes N an, all as e ldenmy nr gamllrvansss an halvdwmlrlg or we lmplastlunl the anlnians upon mat palm sl Dersans speuslu skllled l.. mu Voleigrl law, scleme or en M l.. aues1lorls as to ldenllly nr nerlulrleness er nanuwnnna ornnsn lmnrasslurls, are Ivlavarlt Incl: (2) Such Darwin: ale called expel‘: luusmnlows la) la; Yha quasllen .swnemerA, anne ume nldollvg a Ceflaln ac\_wns‘ by leesan olummundllss snnm mauanle cl krluwm me nature clms ac1 urlnal ms was doing wnal wzs ellnar wrung sr unmraly In hw ms uplnlmls al N ZyNnvGIkynml7l=l«:mFLa 19 Nuns s.n.l n-vlhnrwm as used m mm s. uflnlnallly sun. dun-mm wa muse mu iii ID expel‘: LADOH ine dilesilen vnieiner symaloms exhllmsd by A commonly snowdnsoilndnessmmind, and wnsinarriicn unsedndnmblmind irsdsiiy nindais pariens lnpihahle er knowing ine nalure eiine ads M-ilcri inev flu or or knawlflg dial vniai may do is eriner wiene er mnirary a: law, are ielevani. [47] The couri is mindliil e1 ils diny lu evaliiale all me evidenee and make iis own linding abbiil iris gum oi me Amused and mat il cannot ii-erisier iliis iask ie lne experi wflnfis. This is where 5.45 brine Evidence Acl 1950 is a leol lor ma com in assessing the lacls belore ii uenaining in me Accusetfs menial condilion. Upnn evelualion el ins expen's opinion, the court loiind thal SP9's evidenee eesieied the cairn ie undersiand irie siale el mind of lne Accused at cna irieierlal lime. Tne coiiri round dial he did nei possess lne neoassary mens rea to answer a charge oi murder alineugn lie was me perbeiralnr el lrie crime‘ by virtue of lhe fact lrial bis cagnilive lunciieiis liad been Schlxaphrenia Therelore. me Accused did noi ilndersiand ine naline bi paired by nls acflons aulie lime oi lne ailadk on me deceased or met his edlron was againel lne law. The lack (hat ria was able lo iell 5PM and SP15 that he killed me deceased snowed lnal be recalled llie incident vmieri lie iold SP1D ' Jzergsduh dengeri Psk Tan’ mil I lednd lnal he did not appreeiaie wnai he did was legally wmng. [451 nie Accused bears ine evidenbary burden ei proei tn pmve his dalenee oi unscundness of mind whereas are legal burden is on ins breseediien lo prove ils case beyond reasonable doubi. ll all A ingredienis cf Hie ollenee has been proved by Iris prosecullon, ilie Cmlrl snail call for iris defence The deienee eeeepied me evidenee led by me prosecullori because lhey beinled id me feel trial he coinmilled lhe eclus reds oi llie crime bul SP9's expert op en ieriilied me deleiice ease line: he did n01 have the mens ma In murder me deueasad. So, when the Calm daubted sin ZyNnVGlkyDmVFl9CmFLG ’° -we a.n.i nnrlhnrwlll be flied M mm he dflmnallly aim. dun-vlnril wa nFluNG Wflxl zn THE PROSECUTION eggs m The mal oornrnenced before me on 10 I 2023 and the prosecution called 15 wmnesses to prove is case. The order or me Droseculiun wimessas at me mal was as Iouowsz SP1 — RF/165894 UCp\ Shahrm Amin Em zauan SP2 — Sgt (R) Tanai A/L Suhramamam SP3 — Dr. Tan Lii Jye SP4 — RF/141658 Sgt Azuva Emu Harmd SP5 — RF/189547 Sgl Chek Habubah Einti Chek vwn SP6 — PPP Mohamad Haznn Vhsan Bin Ibvahlm vu. SP7 — <3/19727 Insp Anbarssu A/L Gum vnil. SP6 — Nur A’(\kah emu Hamn xx. SP9 — Dr Ian Llnyd A/L Anllmny x. s|=1o — G/19239 vnap Nawawr Em Hanas xi 5:211 — Asfanna emu Jamal Momdesn xu 5:212 — ($113378 05:2 Azman am Vazid xiu. SP13 — Zu\hI\mI AM Em Halim xw. sP14 — wan Man Binli wan cnak xv. SP15 — Maznah Birm’ Ahmad [3] The mam (acls onne aaae are as sex out above As the prosecnmcn relied on cnrcumslanual evmenoa to prove Ms case‘ in rs necessary lo examine what ornar (acts and ' ence were amused by he pmsecunan apan lrum the abuvemenllaned fads. [9] sPI. SP4, SP5, sPe, sP7. sP1o, SP11 and SP12 an gave fuvmal swdence 0! Ihelr m\% in me case. SP4. SP5 and SP6 were among the firsl mrae rssponders ax Ihe crime scene. sPI lodged ma firs! intarnranon repnrl Kg. La\ang 221/20 (P3). sP7 was pan ouhe Forenarc Invesrigsnon . syn ZyNnv13IkynmvPwca.Fm -ma s.nn ...n.mn be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: m.n.n VI] anum wrm Ihil the mens rea element 01 Hie charge had been moved by me piosscution. there was nothing much to do but to rind the Accused rml giitity Dy reason or unsoiindnss at mind. 5 [49] SP9 was railed ta iastiiy in urdar rial ta wasla time beflause a persun with scniznpniania iaqiiiitaii medical tiaainiani iniineuiaiety and not In languish in prison for n Iongerlime white wailing lorlhe mat to end He at-iiiid have been sailed to testify on behaii oi the ueiance Wlhe Ccurl efdered the Accused In enter his deience But SP9‘s evidence wouid BE in the same no matter which side at the Ear called him as a witness. Eventtiaiiyi the Court WI capable iii exercising WII pmiiai tn mntmi his physical acts, and which this vms tuiinii |u b2 Iadflngi R V Byme man] 2 as we have to declds whether the Accused was [50] II is pertinent at this point to ieieito some geneiai defences in the Penai Code as fulluwsi Ac! :4 a button at unlmlfl mind 1:: AA Nnlhlng i; an mhme wnia. VS dun! by a plum Min‘ .t tn. tnn. at dump it in vealmi ivfulinuimdneu oi mhdi is Inmvdbie A71 knwllrlfi tna nalule A71 in: net, orlhal ha is coma mi IE uilherwlang Ovotmblrym iaw 25 inionaiion nm - aavanao as in am .; nitmm in mi: amen Ind in ucmzn E6, inlantamm xlinii mi aansitiiii. . defame In my nnininai mllve. (2) imnxlcalhn man as . dflamx in any anininai dlllgll ii I7] mason ihamfl in. 30 izevsnnnnmaiiaitnaiiinaisittia Ifiuvwuissimi mmniained am: nalknawmal such tin ar amhsian wax wmnfl in aid nin knnw Mint Vt: w-5 dlliflg .na_ (:7 in. SD11 of mlaxilialmn wus Dali!!! Mlhlml MI izuvinm by in. milicloul Of nbsiigeni nm in anuinai wanna w 35 (I71 the nensan mw wallvy istsonoiiniamiian insane, lamvnvlriiyorolhovwse. II in. limlhlikmh :51 DYOMISSWMV Eflad aiatnina. tn imnximlimi Minn utzhlishnd w SIN zitinvaitiiiniipitcamn ) “Nat! s.n.i in-vihnrwfli be flied M mm i.. tniiniity MIME dun-mm n. nFit.ING Wmi 15 an as (I)Wh-m ma um. und:1subleclmn5512’) rs rsunrrrrrm rm. m . cnsemung undsr hvnwwh 1:7 Medea! mo aoousafl Person shafl ha aoqumdr and rrr a can «arm umrnaragraumzal. ma pvuvmunsoiluclmnfid nnluscndn. uclmm mm :44: of ma crrmmr Fvueodum cm [Act 52:} mu Ipp\y L2) mromrm mu 5. ram mln awuum lot mo purport Mdelarmmng mm» was new. charged nan lmmad any Imanhan. snamru; av m».m.. m lhu nbsanca I7! wmcn he wnuld um an gulhy unmoflsnuv rap Farm: pmvvsomrrnnama prvwdmg soc!-on -mramarran- man u. «mm In mchman sma pvnflucnd In numnhc: urdmfis [51] s.1u5 of me Evraerrce Act 1950 pruvides man the burden oi proof less an me person who rarsss the dehnoe cl Insamly: John Nyumhol v PP [H01] 2 cu saw rdemng to Juralml am Hussein v PP mm] 2 cu as: It rs not open in the mm or prosecution to raise PP man] 1 LNS 9. If n rs clear haul the z:mss—examinaI\un of the pmseouriorr wrmesses that the defence cl unsuunness ul mmd will he rsrsed, and r: is ascertained that ha evidence will be uaued Io Pjmblish his . Baharom v aerence, me prosecurion may. before closing us vase, caH evraerrca w negauve rnsarrrcy (see R v. Abrnrravlmr (191217 G App R 145). \n R v. Rice[WG3|1 as 357 Winn .1 saw an p. 350 ‘There /5 a geneml principle alpracfice, although no me of/s w, Isqmnng ma: all svn:1snI/a/ matter mar [he Cmwn intshds to rely upan as pmbaln/9 ofms gm/f ollhs defendant . slvculdbe armucsa before ms close aflhs prosscurrans case rm be men as/arlab/e " [521 I now mm to me case or PP v Mon Ho Hang A Anor [2013] 3 cu m where the charge was having the common In|enI‘\on oi rashly causmg Ihe dsalh ole male (‘the v|c1mI'),an oflence under 5 304m read rogemsr wwlh 5. SA uflhs Penal Code. The incrdenl tank menus at their house when the vIc1mI aflegetfly med to rub the hrs! accused: wife who was also |he second accused's mD|IVer They lehed an the defence o1se!f—defence.TI1e 31 sh ZyNnv13IkynmvPwca.Fm -um smm ...m.mrrr .. used m mm r.. mtmmuly mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG Wm! 1» I5 zn Maglsuala found lnal (I) s. 100 or me PC lor prluaia delenoe was applicable Ior pom lne accused pSY!0hS;(li)(|1BV aclions were appmprlale under me sald provlsion to slap me vlcllm lmm lunharacwlg aggresslvely to nun mhsrs belare the amval anne police; me pmeeculmn iailea to prove me elemenl or wmmun inlenllpn, and iv) since lne pmsecullon iailao lo wave a prime racie case, me accused parsnns were aequiuaa and discharged. one oflhe issues mlsed bylhe pmssculion was whether ll was mrrect la dismiss me appeal without requiring me aelenoe to be callac nrsl pelora noln accused persons’ prilmls celence enuld be considered. -new (dllmlulng appeal) (1)TI>s lmpfinsm Iltmenl cl me cc: cl ceing rash was no! pmuen lay me pmsscullon Nol only am me vlnlim auempl lo rub the wins: accused‘: Wife. us had also lnfllcled lnlury In her cum me allemplea robbery. ms sanpusly ocmpounaea inc lmmlrlem darlgnvorl Inn MI mine wiie/mcinercl win accused persons‘ Hallo msrl|lnn lhslvuwrl llvu V7 in. zflsmpnn Iuscus hlr lzl . . (3) (cu Damylulu dnhncl was seeomea to me sec-ma puscns ln (hr encumsnnees mnls cm. Is puma-a unaa s. 95 ohm PC.Scc1.1un ml) of line PI: aiwws than me mum person: nan nol lnmcml morn mm min nsc-mry on ma vlcllm. rm my-um. nun ululdy voun-1 am both (hr accnud muons cm. dlfnmilnfi lillnlallvu . alnn an victim’: mien. sm wn pcrhclly nnmlnd to find ml. an ill: nd of am pnmeuncn-. cut by I n np Io| vldtncn M Ihc wlnnsm :1 mm lllle. mm ms nc neeess y mm var um eslllnc oibofll Du Iccnild nelson; by ulllllfi var defencl man pnvatn flchncn could bu mud. {Dims u, 5n L 62)‘ [Emphasls added] [531 ln me above case, we learned High Cuun Judge held man even ll me caain oi me Vlchm ensued because oi lne acrcn or aclions oi both accused‘ they waula s1l'|l be nel llama as me uicmn had lnlllmaa injury lo Lhe hand a1 me ms: accused‘s wife anc seconds accused‘: mmher. The mun slated lumler 33 N ZyNnv13IkynmvPllccxFu2 Nuns s.n.i In-vlhnrwm be used m mm s. pflnlnpllly sun. dun-mm VI] muue pm 10 m an [54] "[54; The Conn no Appszl n ma case am Sanp Amhcng V up [2015] 1 ms 153, runs} 3 ML) 515 refined In me man Isaak Gum’: Penal Law nf mm. M an edn) and me man case cl Genrge v Slam ac Kern‘:-1 nasal cn LJ see all me pmw inn mu nne liglfl M pvivale delence does nm need In he sueemcauy weaned by an amused A person taklnu Ihu lilo: of unm- ddcnn Is also nut mzulnu In call nvlanncc on nu me mm M can ulabllsll «nan nlu by rvlnmlcn In cvrcumstancu Inns vim: frum cm Droncutiun cvlflulcn nun. rn. qulsliu Inch . em wnulli ne . quullnn ofuvlsllnulhnlml unucloflhn pmnculinn evidence mu not . quulllun al mo mound :1‘ ch: - q Any |:nM:n.lII1 no he noted mm mm mm :1! Mann In lhls em dlsunlud mm [In submlsslan than «n. mum: men]-mm hndlndlcltcdm-In u um: humun mum ancus mm M mm In an somlnoc am an. inclflnnl nut M was actinu m all- amne Tlul means (ht pronosmnn as nlnhllghlnd In an Indian book -nu can |lw I; acolplud by an. Cnun aupnun " [Emphasis added] It is noted that s.a4 is a comp\e\e detenee under me lzw es wt luHy exculpa|es the accused. In John NyumboI’s Cass (supra), it was held that '(mne«e Is a dknrmunn neuween me man av lava! msamfy and mm M msdical Insarmy Mm every Yam 0! Vnssnily exempts a pavson nmn crvnlnal uammy only legal Insanfly undar s. 34 vi ma Fem: Codepmwdli mat exempt-on (Para 13) [12] The spam; no msamly addrvuod hy 5 54 I: onilhal mlpaws «ne mgninv: 4.e.nneee:a peuun II: nalure and exlemmust be mm ash makelhe nflendev wmzpnme ulkmwmg me namre al ms n:1,orIhmwhm >121: dmng .5 wmng nr I:nnl(fll‘1 In |aw. The criminnflly at an an! mun mus be delemuned by mus (est ‘:1 as dlsllnamshed non Ins medical |es4 (Para «av mwnen ms dsisnca u! msanfly Is ram‘ :1 is Incurnhum on we own no consldmfwu menm, wt (U‘MIl1her(h5 aocusod pmen has auennsneu men enne «me 0! wmmlllmglhn an n. was avunwum nnna, u :9 (n) V./ne1her his unwundnau of mud was at . dtgmi zu m mnka Mm Incnnahlfi av knnwmg the nnlure L71 Ms nci as helm wmng nr aqnmsl nne law. In su dmng Ina mun may also cnnslderme c\vwmsIanoss wnscn cums enmne 1>r\me.[DamsU 5 20> (at The max men at war: opinion was that me apnanam was not vi unwund mind at me mne he wmmmod me onenee. mam. me sad sxperfs «emnony shunned manna apvellanl wit capauu cl klwwmg me nalum :71 ns 51:1 u bsmfl In n ZyNnv13IkynmvPuca.Fm Mme s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nflmnnflly mm: m.n.n wa .nuNG wrm s 15 15 an igalnil iha law In shun, lhe aaoellamwae not insane. Likewise, me apnellanrs an in lflswsmg all rhe skull aller sevellrlfl lha deceased-s head showed a deem olguill and an eflonln avoid aeleclion (Dans is d zoi‘ [551 Therefore, where lhe delence ol unsoundness or mind has been raised a calm rnusi consider lhe lollowing rnallers. (l) wheiher lhe accused person has successlully eslablished. as a prellminary issue, lhal al ihe iinie ol aarnniiiling ihe eel he was el dnsdund mind, and (H) if he was or Lmsclund mind‘ whelher he has pmvan |haI his dnsoundness or mind was or a degree to make him lncapalale al krlowlng the nalure olhis an as being wrong or agains1(Ile\aw.The cbdn should also oonsrder lhe circurnslances which mine aher rhe crime which is a malarial consideration in deciding whether the appellani had sailshed the lesi unders. e4. [56] This Court lound lhal ihe answer to ihe 2 qdeslione above were in lhe alhrrnallve lroni lhe lelalrlly cf the evidence led by me proseculion. To reilerale, lha Accused had proved he was drluheound mind allhe rnaienal lime and lhel his unsoundness or mind was ol a degree lhal rriade hlni incapable of knowing ihe nature if his act as being wrong or agalnsl lhe law. ll niusi be borne in mind lhal lha reodisire slandaidldegree 01 prool la an a balance ol probebililies as in a civil case ‘in Invcklrlg this delenoe and lhe onus is noia heavy one. In lhe case al PP v. Mohamed Moor bin Jaman [1919] 2 MLJ us, lhe court held ‘ll is well seirlae ine burden is plaaed an an accused peaan In prove anything he burden I! only a slsghl one and inls burden can be discharged by lhe evidence cla Mlneues larlhe vlnsecullorl as well as wriiiesses lorlhe delenc . 35 N zrhnveiwnmwiicarid rise s.n.i n-vlhnrwm be used m mm are anrir.ii-r siiiis dun-vlnril Va nFluNG wnxl iii 15 [57] corriparind the laois and findings in John Nyumbei's case (supra) and ihe preseni case, it is evideni lhei ihe defense cl unscundness 01 niind (legal) has been successlully raised here because the exper\'s npinmn suppdned ihe delence case ihei lhe Accused was suflenng lreni schizoohenia which idially inipared his cognilive iunciicns such ihai he was imzpabla cl knowing ihe nature of his act, ar ihai whal he is dalng is wrong or coniraryio law Murenvsr, upon perusal ol ihe evidence led, n was esiabiished Ihat ihe Accused did nci iry to cover his crinie such as disuasind ihe body when he could have easily done so since ii was already ouieide ihe house. He did noi aiiernpi lo wash away or wipe the blaadled leelprinle seen lrorn ihe hilehen righi up lo ihe lounge oi ihe house and nellher did he hide his bmken waich which was siained wiih ihe deoeaseds mood And why would he come in SPI4 arid si=i5 wearing only his underdoihes7 [551 Therefore, me vrusecuiion had pmved al lhe puma /acls slage lhai lhe Accused eornrnined ihe crime and caused the deaih onhe deceased on 10.112020 However, ii was noi aple io prove ihe msrls rea or die onrne againsi ihe Accused. The oogenl, expen opinion of spa ian independeni wiiness) and evidence oi spa were consisieni wiih each diher and more was no reason lor ihe coun io disregard lheir evidence as ihey were all eeinpeieniwiinesses Mme prcseeulion. [59] The ceurl also round lhai liie Accused had consumed rnelhanipheiemine prlorla lhe commission ollhe cllence. which may also have impaired his oogrllllve lunciiens as slaied by SP9 where he said die Accused suflarad lreni 2 oondilidns; one, a menial disorder causing psychmic syiripidiris and lhe oiher, a drug which can also cause psychelic eyrnplorris lriioxicacion under s 8512) may also be raised but the cpun :6 sin zrnnyeiwiinireiicdric Wain s.n.i ruvlhnrwm be used m mm as nflnlhaflly ciiii. dun-mm via nFluNG WM! 15 30 (mind that the legal insanity defence was already proved nn a balance of protaaoilities Them was evidenos that the Amused had been siirwenng lrdrn sdtiizopnenia since zone and he was not on medication and treated Ilke he was supposed to it he had oeen placed under tne medical care ol the relevant hospital or department He was also siitustancedependant and this habit complicated things tunher I am ol the view that his larnilv members would nol be sole to care tor the Accused at home due to the seriousness or Schizuphrenla. ggncl.usloN [so] Premiseu upon the above oonsideiotions. the court lound the Accused not guilty ol the charge under s.3o2 ol the Penal code. The Accused was sequined and discharged by reason ol unsoundness cl mind and he was incapatiie ol knowing the nature 0! the act alleged as oonstiluting the ollence or that it was wrong orecntrarv to law. The gravity at the alfencs oommltted by the Aocueeti would have led him to be sentenced to the penalty provided tor under s 302 ol the Penal code, out fur his unsoundness cl rnind. Therefore, the min ordered the Accused to be committed to Hospital aanagia in uiu Kinta, Perak to be kepl in sale custody as provided tor under; 343 or the cps, during the pleasure or His Maieslv the Ruler of Pemk Danil ' order accordingly. D ed a Folmiary zozn %m._L, NOOR RUWENA BINTI MD. NURDIN Judicial commissioner High court of Malaya, Tal 37 SN ZyNnVl3lkyDmVPWCckFLD ‘Nola s.n.i In-vlhnrwm be ta... M vaiw s. nflnlnnflly sun. dun-mm v.. nFluNG wnxl For me Publl: Proseunor: arr Sally Cluy Mal Llng 5 Fejabzl Yimbalan Fendakwa Ray: Noguri Punk, Tniping For nu Mouse 10 Mr. Runjlx Slngh Sandhu AIL Shingzra Singh Mum. Ranjil ugh Sandhu 5. Eu. Ipoh 3: 5w ZyNnv43IkynmvPwccxm2 -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm 15 learn that had cullecled ellldencs lrern lne prernloee ol the house His team hao oollected a hleooslaineo partly broken oonorele block measurlrlg t1 cm x to em (P25), olood swabs (P27, P31. P37, P39), a pan ol sllppera (P29), e szrlpeo shlrt wtth olocostarns (P33) and 2 pieces ol RMID noles and a piece ol RM1 note telloeether marked as Ptlml lound on the ground oulslde lne nouse rlearthe location olthe bcldy They ed a wmle caslo Baby-G walcn wlth bloodsmins (P35) and the band or the walah had broken. ll was lound on me klloherr lloor ol the house. He (aimed that the learn Iuund oloodled loolprlrrle ol lhe lelt loot rnoasunhg 24 cm on the flour leadlng lrorn the kitchen towards lhe lounge ol lhe house. also s [10] sl:-to arrested the Accused and also recuveved lrorn a neaghooorrrrg house some exmolls. namely, clothes worn by the Accused durlng the in dentwmch had eoerr washed thereafter oy the |aIIer(P53 and P55) as well as a hunch o1 moloroyole keys (F57), a small blue wedding docngifl oao (P59) and a helmet (P50) SPID had lodged poltoe reports Kg Lalahg 222/2o tlus), Kg Lalahg 224l2o (P47) and Kg. Lalarlg 225/20 (P46) in respect of the Aocuseds arrest, lnlonnalron on and recovery ol lhe said tlerns as well as Grlk Report 2921/20 lo carrecl lhe date on l=4a [marked as P49). [11] SP11 recelved 27 exhiblls and samples on 16.11 2020 and oonducted the DNA analyele on (he sxhlolts and samples collected by the pollce she had reoorded merh under the chemrslry Departrnenl number 20-FR-P-D7229 and kep\ them tn lhe |ahola|ory‘s looked relrldgeralor separately lrorn other case exhlblts The results o1 her analysls ol the name ebovernentlorned were recorded ln the report marked as P62. There was no cross-exarhlrrallon on her evidence. slN ZyNrM3Ikynml7Plvca.FLq 5 -we Sum! n-vlhnrwm re used m may he nflmhnflly MIN: dun-vlnrrl wa nrluNG wrul 15 15 [12] SP12 whn eondueled the investigation into the murder at the deceased told the court that the Aoeusetrs urlne specimen taken on to 11 zazz was sent lor arlalysls to the Jabatan Palnlctgi Hespltal Kuala Lurnpur and analysed by the science omoer, Asllnda Elnll Tatudin cln 24.t1.2o2o. It was lound to oonlain Mamumphnlamlnar The rep-an was marked P98 through SP12. He also stated that he was never lnlorrned almut the Aocussds mental health oondliion during the investigation at the case. Analysis of the tteceaseds blood sample done by Chelnls| Kharratul Munirarr Emu ldarmawl showed that ll tttd noteohlaln any alcohol or drugs. The Iapurt was marked as P99. [13] SP3 tesitrred that the lnruria on the verlex and back oltrre head had a pattern ol‘arlgu|aIed laoeratlon' meaning an angle llke “L-shape‘ in his aplrllorl. W5 type or lnluries were caused by a blunt ooteot with the angle on any surlaee oi the object. He said they were possibly lzused by anythlng which come with a rectangular shape such as wooden plank or brick he laid the Court that in photograph P514: and 44) I e. photos ol the eenorete black, the measurement st the obtain taken with a mlerwes shown. The ublect had the pattern ol edges, angled (triangular) end llat sunaoe and the length etthe ubjecl was eansrstenl with the measurement oi the head wounds as descnbed lll tus post—rnonern report (P14). me anguleled laceration on the vertex of the head measured 5 x 2 cm. The report and peat-rnonern photographs (P911-114] showed rnultlole injunes en the head and my of the deoeased. There were also deiensive wounds on me ierearrns of the deoeased and a site mark on the leit iureann. [14] The blunt mlurlss on the head with rntrasranlal henrerrnage was latal in nature. panioul-any iron. the wounds as descllbed tn paragraphs 1341 — 5 SN ZyNnvI3Ikyl1rnvPltca.FLG -use Smut n-rlhnrwm as used m mm s. nflmnnllly sun. dun-mm Va .nuuo Wml 15 13.8, 13.15 and 13.15 . He also stated that the injuries were inoorisistent willi pattern due to self-inlllcisd lruury or tall There was no sighltimnt natural disease lourid in the ocdy of the deceased that could have caused or contributed to his death at that particular time. crossetaniinatiori oi the pathologist ms pos1porIed upon the Accused counsels request Towards the end cl the tnat, counsel inlonned the court that he did not wish to cross-examine SP3 as the ‘Dost-monem did not have anything to do with his delence“. [15] The Accuseds sister, SPB. was called to testlry in oourt. Her evidence was that the deceased was divorced lrcni her aunt, wan Noriahl, and he lived near her mother's house in Kg, Flange On that vatetul day, while at her house in Gerik, SP8 received a WhatsAPD message ltorn her aunt, SP15, whom she called Mak Andak The Accused had admitted to SPI5 and her mother that ‘ dla den ounuh Pak Teh”, she immediately called SP15 to get oontinnation eoout the news Thereatter. SP5 called her siolings to alert them aoout what had happened it was aoout 11.40 am then. They had a dissussiori at her siblings house about 5 minutes away lrcrn her own house. Then SP8 called sharrnia, the deceasetre daugmer—in—|aw, to ask her to call the deceased on his telephone she also told her that the Accused had coniessed that he killed the deceased. A tew minutes later, shannila called her to inlcrni that the deceased did not pld( up her call. sharrnila called her siste ‘ law. Nor Nainiah. to return to oeceaseds house to check up on him. Afler some time waning, spa called sharrnila who told her that 'eoeh deh tek ads‘. SP5 lned to caeiiy sharniila and at the same time apnlngissd tor what had happened. SP8 and her siolirigs the returned to her mothers house arid by that time. the Accused had been taken away by the police 7 sin ZyNriVl3IkyDmvPl9CatFLG -use s.n.i n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm s. oflnlnallly MVMS dun-vlnril vta aFluNG WM! 15 1:. [is] spa also told the cotin, to a cuesiien by the DPP, that abnul 2 weeks oetore the incident. the Amused would otten get into a rage as she had seen his condition when she returned to her rncthers house He would be restless, always going in and out oi the house and being angry bul she did net know what caused it. According to SP8. the Accused had not behaved Ilke that in the peat and he did not have any problem with the deceased. The last time she saw him was 2 days priorto the incidentend he appeared ahnomial, and at times he would not eat or drink it 7] The witness turther told the court that a law days hetore the incident. she had given the Accused a gilt which was a white wnsl watch SP8 could not remember the brand but she could identify P15 when it was shawri ts her. She had given him P35 to enable him to look at the time to go tar prayers at the mosque and he always wore the vmlch. cross- examin an cl this witness was also pcvslporied upon eounsers request. ceirnsel requested to hear the evidence at the psychiatrist ilrst betere he could decide whether it was neeessary te crcseexaniine spa and sl=:l Referring to page 95 cf the notes at evldenoe, oeunsel told the court that upon looking at the D5)/'$hIaIrls|'s report. it mentioned that the doctor had interviewed the iamily members M the Accused in preparation art the report. Theretare, counsel was oi the view that it would be befler it the psychiatrist was called to lesllfy hrst and letl it to court The that was adieurned to 20 5.2023 to enatile the psychiatrist to be called firs! tieioie crcssexarninathan of SP8 was to be done. SP9 eerne to testiiy helore the Courl en the appointed date l-lis evidence will be elaborated later in this Grounds oi Judgment [ta] on 410.2023, 5%: and sl>t5 were called to testiiy on what she saw an the day cf the incident. sPi4 told the court at around 900 am SIN ZyNrivt3tl<ynrnl7Pltca.FLn R we Sunni nnvlhnrwlll as used w my me nflnlhnllly MIME u...i.i. wa mews we in In 1; white she was chatting with her sister-in-iew, SP15, the Accused came back wet and just wearing a singlet and a blue boxer shorts. He said he killed Pak Ten and then went into the halhroam ta hams. Upon hearing that, she said her reamiun was “Jam (ak psrcaya den dla Eskap mac-am rtrr‘. SP15's testimony was simiiar to SP14‘5 she tee said it was ditheutt to beiieve what he seid SPM told him to get into the house as she iett it was iriapizrepriete for him to be seen wearing just the underciothes end he was ateo wet she then eonteeted spa to ten her about what had happened. There was no cross-examtnatlon on these 2 witnesses [19] Ai-ter the Aeeueede counsel toid the ceurt that he would not he erossexarnining spa. the preseeution closed its ease and ehered e witnesses to the deienee ceunsei mienned the oourithat he not need any ot them. Parties were instructed to Dtépave their written submissions a| the and ot the prosecution case. on 20 10 2023, the coun heard the n to an it 2023 orei submissions and adjourned the de EVALUATION AND FINDINGS or THE COURT [201 The burden oi proof on the prosecution is Ia prove the charge beyond a ieasenabie doubt Therfifmfit at the end of the proeeeutipn stage. the Court has to conduct a maximum evaiuatipn DI the e adduced by the pmsecution In determine whether the ingredients of the enee charge have been made out ageirist the Amused [21] The procedure etter eenctueion oi the ease tor the prosecution is eentairied in man of the ct:-c which provides iii When the case rerrne pmseeurien is wncludzd. the Cmm sneii cnnstfler wtiethertne Dmsacuttori has made but a Drima red. can abs-rm the accused sin ZyNriVl3lkyDmvPWCmFLG ‘ -we s.n.i In-vihnrwm es used m my me nflninnflly MIME dun-rinril w. nFit.ING WM! 1Z)|llIia Court flmslhal ma pvvssculiori has not made and a WINE lure use aslainslihs auwued. Ihe Cum snail mmm an nrdsr alaeqnmai 13) II the Conn finds trial a puma faols mass has been made om zualrisl lfia accussd uri (Via Mame changed In: Cuull ihali call upon Die accused In emar 5 all me dalancu (13) Fur Vi: nulmse olmiis Sfllfliflfli a Mme facts case is made out a§airiis1 ms accusad mars ine prusacimun nes adduced cradlbia evidence pnwi-u each ingreniein in bi: Mfume umich i’ umehimzfl ar unexrai-lined would waneni 3 unnviclinn In [22] Thevefove, in arriving at E dscisiorl at the and oi pmsscmiori case. the coun has to consider whether the prosecution has adduced credible evidence DIOVWQ each ingredient DI the offence which if ullrsbullad ur unexniained would warrant a wnuiciion. This cuuri IS mindlui oi the 15 guidance of me superinr ocuii on me meaning of prime «acne in Bllacliandlln V pp (ms: 1 AMR 311, Augusiine i=nui FCJ succinctly staled‘ “A prime lam me eeneiiiai is suiiieieni ierine accused In answer, ena me aviderioe adduced musl be sncn mac ii can eniy he summunlad DY In evidarine in mhuflal. iiie inme oi iriai eviaenoe iriuei, ii iinrenunnd, be euiiieieiiiin induces siam uineiieimeiine lad: axlhay mind are esiaied in ine merge. in araerin make: mine in. mun nnnn. aiine dale mine Wulecmiuns case, uridurlaks - Posmve evllunhun ai me ereaiuimy nnii uiisniim at an we nviuenee adduced lo aeienriine mieiiner aii ine menis of in. offence have been esiabikhefl. ii in emenee is urirabimsdi anu ine acwsed i-eniain siiem. vie rnuei be eonvimea niereiaie, ma iasi in he anbilafl ai Ihe ena oi me Dmssculiurfs case is whsllier ineie is smficiem iwiaenue in wnui-:1 ine accuued in ne Chan“: is remain siilril. mien ii enemies in me affimiailva mean: (h.I| n pmvla so we case nu bean made out 1 e requires a consideration oi ine exislelics at any vsnsoriabiu duukfl In in. pmsEcu|inn‘! cise‘ whlch ii ii exiill, caririm mu In me iinuing aiguiii er a prime hue case having been made an sin ZyNriVGlkyDmVPiiCmFLG ) “Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwiii be used m mm u. aniin.ii-y MIME dun-vinril n. nFiuNG Wflxi

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

SUIT NO. WA-22C-94-09/2020

PLAINTIF Devan Narayanan Raman [Messrs Devan & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)] DEFENDAN Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe, Roger Leong Chun Lim and Atiqah Yasmin Sedek (Messrs Zain Megat & Murad (Kuala Lumpur)

Enclosure 1. This case before the Court concerned a dispute on an “open tender invitation” (“Tender”) on 6.3.2013 in a national newspaper concerning a construction contract for a project described as Proposed design built of government offices including an office tower, podium, car park and other works for package 1, F3 and 4 Package 2, 3 and 4 in parcel F Presint 1 at the administrative center of the Federal Government Malaysia, Putrajaya (“Project”) that was advertised by Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”) to which Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”) had participated.

06/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

22NCVC-484-10/2014

PLAINTIF 1. ) Norrisah Binti Abu Bakar 2. ) MANSOR BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) ZAHARAH BINTI ABDULLAH @ WOON SEE MOI 4. ) ZALIHA BINTI ABU BAKAR 5. ) HAMIDAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 6. ) NORIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 7. ) ROGIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 8. ) SANI BIN ABU BAKAR 9. ) NORHASINAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 10. ) AZIZ SHAH BIN ABU BAKAR11. ) AMIR SHAH BIN ABU BAKAR DEFENDAN 1. ) Thunder Heights Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) F.K. Capital Berhad 3. ) TAI FOOK HOY 4. ) MSB Holdings Sdn Bhd 5. ) Foong Chen Ban 6. ) Fong Chee Kang 7. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

(i) sama ada ujudnya suatu transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang-undang di antara Pihak Plaintif dengan Pihak Defendan yang mengakibatkan seluruh transaksi tersebut batal dan tidak sah dari segi undang-undang.(ii) sama ada PJB yang ditandatangani pada 15.7.2008 antara Pentadbir-Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati dengan Defendan 1 merupakan suatu PJB yang tulen atau sama ada PJB tersebut sebenarnya suatu alat yang digunakan untuk menyamarkan dan memudahkan suatu transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang-undang.(iii) sama ada hakmilik dalam nama Defendan 1 atas Hartanah Berkenaan adalah boleh disangkal dan boleh diketepikan menurut Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965.(iv) sama ada Defendan 2 dan Defendan 3 harus membayar balik segala wang yang telah diterima oleh mereka di bawah transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang-undang.(v) sama ada Perjanjian Sewa antara Tetuan Amara & Ho dengan Defendan 1 merupakan perjanjian sewa yang tulen.(vi) sama ada hakmilik dalam nama Defendan 6 atas Hartanah Berkenaan adalah boleh disangkal dan boleh diketepikan menurut Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965.(vii) sama ada gadaian atas nama tersebut yang didaftarkan dalam nama Defendan 7 melalui Gadaian Perserahan No. 41192/2018 pada 7.5.2018 adalah tidak boleh disangkal (indefeasible) di bawah Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965.(viii) sama ada PJB yang ditandatangani pada 15.7.2008 adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan dalam undang-undang menurut Akta Kontrak 1950.

06/02/2024

YA Dato' Roslan Bin Abu Bakar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3cd11267-ec57-4f93-8ca6-6cb2db9004b1&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - BA-22NCVC-484-10-2014 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22NCVC-484-10/2014 ANTARA 1) NORRISAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 2) MANSOR BIN ABU BAKAR 3) ZAHARAH BINTI ABDULLAH @ WOON SEE MOI 4) ZALIHA BINTI ABU BAKAR 5) HAMIDAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 6) NORIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 7) ROGIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 8) SANI BIN ABU BAKAR 9) NORHASINAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 10) AZIZ SHAH BIN ABU BAKAR 11) AMIR SHAH BIN ABU BAKAR (semua Plaintif sebagai benefisiari kepada Harta Pusaka Abu Bakar bin Habib Khan, Si Mati dan juga untuk Plaintif Kedua dan Ketiga sebagai Pentadbir Si Mati) … PLAINTIF DAN 1) THUNDER HEIGHTS SDN BHD 2) F.K. CAPITAL BERHAD 3) TAI FOOK HOY 4) FONG CHENG BAN 5) FONG CHEE KANG 6) MSB HOLDINGS SDN BHD 7) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD … DEFENDAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Pihak Plaintif dalam writ saman ini menuntut antara lainnya (berdasarkan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Semula) untuk suatu deklarasi supaya Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 15.7.2008 yang dimasuki antara Pentadbir Pesaka Abu Bakar bin Habib Khan (Si Mati) dengan Defendan 1 (selepas ini dipanggil “PJB”) terhadap sebidang hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Geran No. 18602, Lot No. 4087, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor (selepas ini 06/02/2024 10:25:47 22NCVC-484-10/2014 Kand. 306 S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 dipanggil “Hartanah Berkenaan”) disifatkan sebagai tidak sah dan terbatal. [2] Plaintif 1-11 adalah waris-waris dan benefisiari kepada harta pesaka Abu Bakar bin Habib Khan (selepas ini dipanggil “Si Mati”) dan beralamat di Lot 3203, Kampong Paya Jaras Hulu, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor. Plaintif 3 dan Plaintif 4 adalah Pentadbir Pesaka Harta Berkenaan. [3] Defendan 1 adalah sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965. [4] Defendan 2 pula adalah sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 dan menjalankan perniagaan pemberi wang berlesen. [5] Defendan 3 adalah pekerja Defendan 2 dan merupakan pemegang saham Defendan 1 serta bekas Pengarah Defendan 1 dan beralamat di Suite 11.03 & 11.05, 11th Floor, Campbell Complex, 98, Jalan Dang Wangi, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. [6] Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5 adalah Pengarah kepada Defendan 1. Defendan 6 dan Defendan 7 juga adalah syarikat-syarikat yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965. Fakta [7] Si Mati pada asalnya adalah pemilik berdaftar Hartanah Berkenaan. Sebelum meninggal dunia, Si Mati telah memberikan power of attorney kepada seorang yang bernama Azemin bin Zakaria bagi mengujudkan suatu pajakan Hartanah Berkenaan kepada Petronas Dagangan Berhad (selepas ini dipanggil “PDB”) untuk tempoh selama 30 tahun. [8] Selepas kematian Si Mati, telah berlaku pertelingkahan berhubung dengan Hartanah Berkenaan antara Pihak Plaintif dengan PDB. Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati kemudiannya memfailkan writ saman di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam vide MTI-22-1187-2007. Kes berkenaan telah dapat diselesaikan melalui perjanjian penyelesaian bertarikh 4.3.2008 dan Hartanah Berkenaan dilepaskan dari pajakan. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [9] Pihak Plaintif selepas itu berhasrat untuk memajakan semula Hartanah Berkenaan dengan syarikat-syarikat pengendali stesyen minyak lain. Bagi tujuan ini kategori penggunaan Hartanah Berkenaan perlu diubah dari kegunaan pertanian kepada kegunaan komersil. Penukaran ini memerlukan banyak perbelanjaan. [10] Pihak Plaintif menghujahkan mereka telah mendapatkan bantuan dari seorang bernama Chua Jeam Datt (selepas ini dipanggil “Chua”) untuk mendapatkan pinjaman sebanyak RM1,000,000 dari Defendan 2 bagi urusan penukaran kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan. Namun urusan itu telah tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Pihak Plaintif mendakwa telah berlakunya frod dalam transaksi berkenaan. [11] Defendan 1, 3, 4 dan 5 pula menghujahkan Hartanah Berkenaan telah dijual melalui PJB dan Defendan 1 telah membayar penuh harga beliannya. Oleh itu Defendan 1 telah didaftarkan sebagai pemilik Hartanah Berkenaan dan kemudiannya menjual pula kepada Defendan 6 pada 1.12.2016 melalui suatu Option Agreement. Selepas itu Defendan 6 mencagarkan Hartanah Berkenaan kepada Defendan 7. Isu [12] Isu-isu yang perlu dibicarakan (berdasarkan kepada “Isu-isu Untuk Di Bicarakan Terpinda” di Lampiran 233) adalah: (i) sama ada ujudnya suatu transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang-undang di antara Pihak Plaintif dengan Pihak Defendan yang mengakibatkan seluruh transaksi tersebut batal dan tidak sah dari segi undang- undang. (ii) sama ada PJB yang ditandatangani pada 15.7.2008 antara Pentadbir-Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati dengan Defendan 1 merupakan suatu PJB yang tulen atau sama ada PJB tersebut sebenarnya suatu alat yang digunakan untuk menyamarkan dan memudahkan suatu transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang-undang. (iii) sama ada hakmilik dalam nama Defendan 1 atas Hartanah Berkenaan adalah boleh disangkal dan boleh diketepikan menurut Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. (iv) sama ada Defendan 2 dan Defendan 3 harus membayar balik segala wang yang telah diterima oleh mereka di bawah S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 transaksi pemberian pinjaman wang yang menyalahi undang- undang. (v) sama ada Perjanjian Sewa antara Tetuan Amara & Ho dengan Defendan 1 merupakan perjanjian sewa yang tulen. (vi) sama ada hakmilik dalam nama Defendan 6 atas Hartanah Berkenaan adalah boleh disangkal dan boleh diketepikan menurut Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. (vii) sama ada gadaian atas nama tersebut yang didaftarkan dalam nama Defendan 7 melalui Gadaian Perserahan No. 41192/2018 pada 7.5.2018 adalah tidak boleh disangkal (indefeasible) di bawah Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. (viii) sama ada PJB yang ditandatangani pada 15.7.2008 adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan dalam undang-undang menurut Akta Kontrak 1950. Kes Plaintif [13] Setelah pertikaian dengan PDB selesai, Pihak Plaintif telah cuba menjual Hartanah Berkenaan kepada sebuah syarikat yang bernama Strategic City Sdn Bhd tetapi tidak berhasil. Peguam Vasanta a/l Amarasekera (selepas ini dipanggil “Vasanta”) dari Tetuan Amara & Ho (selepas ini dipanggil “A&H”) telah mencadangkan supaya dipertimbangkan semula untuk memajakan Hartanah Berkenaan kepada syarikat minyak bagi dijadikan stesyen minyak dan telah dipersetujui oleh Pihak Plaintif. [14] Sehubungan itu perlu dahulu dibuat penukaran (conversion) kategori kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan dari pertanian kepada komersil dan ini juga telah dipersetujui oleh Pihak Plaintif. Memandangkan kos proses menukar kategori tanah adalah tinggi, Vasanta menghubungi Chua bagi membantu mendapatkan pinjaman sebanyak RM1,000,000 dari Defendan 2. [15] Defendan 2 bersetuju memberikan pinjaman tersebut dan antara syarat-syarat pinjaman adalah: a) faedah bulanan sebanyak RM100,000. b) Hartanah Berkenaan akan dijadikan sekuriti pinjaman dan akan dikuatkuasakan melalui perjanjian jual beli. c) jika berlaku keingkaran bayaran bulanan, Hartanah Berkenaan tidak boleh dipindah milik tanpa memberikan peluang kepada Pihak Plaintif untuk membayar tunggakan. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 d) pindah milik juga mesti berdasarkan kepada harga pasaran. e) Tetuan A&H akan menguruskan pembahagian wang pinjaman dan memastikan bayaran faedah dibuat setiap bulan. [16] PJB yang disediakan oleh peguam Defendan 1 (Tetuan Onn & Partners) telah dimasuki antara Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati (Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3) dengan Defendan 1 pada 15.7.2008. Lanjutan dari PJB itu, A&H pula memasuki suatu Perjanjian Sewaan (selepas ini dipanggil “PS”) dengan Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati bertujuan untuk membayar faedah bulanan. [17] A&H kemudiannya menerima dari Tetuan Onn & Partners (selepas ini dipanggil “O&P”) sebanyak RM1,000,000 iaitu bayaran pertama sebanyak RM200,000 yang diagihkan kepada Defendan 2, Defendan 3 dan A&H. Bayaran kedua sebanyak RM800,000 diserahkan kepada A&H bagi urusan pembayaran faedah pinjaman sehingga memperolehi pemajak yang berminat. [18] Pada bulan Februari 2009, A&H mendapati Hartanah Berkenaan telah dipindah milik kepada Defendan 1 tanpa pengetahuan Pihak Plaintif. Vasanta menyatakan dalam keterangannya bahawa ini adalah suatu “elaborate scheme to mask and disguise the illegal money lending transaction”. PJB dan PS yang ditandatangani adalah suatu perjanjian “sham” dan bukannya tulen. [19] Ini dapat dikesan meneliti secara berhati-hati fakta berkaitan dan kandungan kedua-dua perjanjian itu sendiri iaitu “unusual features” dan perlakuan pihak-pihak. Pihak Plaintif mengemukakan kes berikut sebagi menyokong hujahan mereka iaitu kes Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 MLJ 333 CA dan kes Pannir Selvam a/l Sinnaiyah & Anor v Tan Chia Foo & Ors [2021] 7 MLJ 384. [20] Dihujahkan terdapat banyak unusual features dalam PJB dan PS yang menjadikan ianya bukanlah suatu perjanjian yang tulen. Sehubungan itu PJB dan PS telah dijadikan alat kepada Moneylenders Act bagi menutupi suatu illegal money lending transaction. Dengan itu pindah milik Hartanah Berkenaan dari Pihak Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 adalah tidak sah dan terbatal di bawah Seksyen 24, Akta Kontrak 1950. Lanjutan dari itu Defendan 1 juga tidak mempunyai keupayaan untuk memindah milik kepada Defendan 6. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Kes Defendan 1, Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5 [21] Semasa perbicaraan sedang berjalan pada 7.12.2017, Defendan 4 dalam keterangannya memberitahu mahkamah bahawa Hartanah Berkenaan telah dijual dan dipindah milikan kepada Defendan 6 berdasarkan Option Agreement bertarikh 18.12.2013 dengan harga RM4,400,000. Defendan 1 dan Defendan 4 telah didapati mengingkari perjalanan keadilan dalam contempt proceeding dan telah didenda. [22] Rayuan Defendan 1 dan Defendan 4 terhadap keputusan tersebut dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan. Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan Defendan 1 mempunyai hak untuk menjual hartanya sendiri (Hartanah Berkenaan) kerana tiada sebarang injunksi yang menghalangnya. Oleh itu dihujahkan Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan tiada frod dalam penjualan kedua Hartanah Berkenaan kepada Defendan 6. Isu yang ditimbulkan Mahkamah Rayuan adalah sama ada transaksi berkenaan adalah suatu perjanjian jual beli atau suatu transaksi pinjaman wang. Isu tersebut adalah salah satu isu terpinda dalam perbicaraan ini. [23] Berdasarkan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu, dihujahkan tiada unsur frod seperti yang didakwa Pihak Plaintif dalam pliding mereka. Laporan polis ada dibuat oleh Pihak Plaintif tetapi tiada kertas siasatan dibuka dan tiada saksi dipanggil untuk memberikan percakapan walau pun 15 tahun telah berlalu. [24] Dihujahkan PJB telah dimuktamadkan pada tahun 2008 dan Pihak Plaintif telah pun menerima hasil jualan Hartanah Berkenaan sebanyak RM1,000,000. Oleh yang demikian Pihak Plaintif tidak mempunyai kausa lagi untuk meneruskan tuntutan. Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 sebagai Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati telah memfailkan tuntutan terhadap Vasanta dan A&H di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam vide 24-1005-2010 dan telah mendapat penghakiman terhadap kedua-dua yang dituntut pada 19.7.2010 (Lampiran 59). [25] Dalam perbicaraan pula, Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 tidak dipanggil memberikan keterangan walau pun mereka adalah pihak yang menandatangani PJB dengan Defendan 1. Mereka sahaja yang dapat memberikan keterangan sama ada PJB itu adalah tulen atau tidak. Sebaliknya hanya Plaintif 10 (SP1) yang memberikan keterangan bagi pihak Plaintif. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [26] Keterangan jelas menunjukkan Pihak Plaintif memohon mendapat arahan dari mahkamah untuk menjual Hartanah Berkenaan pada 13.10.2008. Perintah penjualan telah diberikan dan hasil jualan dibahagikan sesama waris. Wang pembelian sebanyak RM1,000,000 telah diberikan oleh Defendan 1 melalui peguamnya (O&P) kepada peguam Plaintif iaitu A&H. [27] Apa yang berlaku setelah hasil pembelian diserahkan kepada peguam Pihak Plaintif adalah urusan mereka sendiri dan tidak melibatkan Defendan 1 lagi. Disebabkan Pihak Plaintif tidak mendapat wang dari Vasanta/A&H, mereka mengatakan transaksi dengan Defendan 1 adalah suatu pinjaman wang dan PJB serta PS adalah sham. Namun tiada apa-apa dokumen pinjaman wang dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan. SP1 sendiri dalam keterangannya mengatakan segala urusan dipersetujui oleh semua Plaintif untuk diserahkan kepada Vasanta yang merupakan peguam mereka dalam kes dengan PDB. [28] Dihujahkan frod dan pecah amanah adalah bermula dari pembayaran hasil jualan Hartanah Berkenaan berpunca dari peguam Plaintif iaitu Vasanta yang tidak mematuhi Solicitor’s Account Rules yang disediakan oleh Majlis Peguam Malaysia dan juga oleh Chua. Chua tidak dapat dipanggil memberikan keterangan kerana tidak dapat dikesan setakat ini. [29] Atas sebab itulah dihujahkan Pihak Plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan terhadap Vasanta dan A&H vide 24-1005-2010 dan telah mendapat penghakiman terhadap kedua-dua yang dituntut pada 19.7.2010 (Lampiran 59). Kini Pihak Plaintif adalah di estopped oleh doktrin res judicata dalam membuat tuntutan terhadap Defendan- Defendan kerana telah pun diputuskan secara muktamad oleh mahkamah dan tiada rayuan dibuat. Kes Defendan 2 [30] Defendan 2 menghujahkan dia dilantik oleh Defendan 1 bertujuan mengawasi permohonan pertukaran kategori kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan iaitu dari pertanian kepada komersil. Dengan itu atas arahan Defendan 1, Defendan 2 telah memindahkan sejumlah RM623,000 kepada A&H bagi tujuan tersebut. Namun Vasanta dalam keterangannya mengatakan dia tiada pengetahuan sama ada wang berkenaan dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan kerana ianya dikendalikan oleh seorang kerani. Vasanta S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 mengatakan telah membuat laporan polis tetapi tidak dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan. [31] Selanjutnya Defendan 2 menghujahkan dia tidak pernah pada bila- bila masa bertemu dengan Pihak Plaintif. Tidak pernah ada penawaran dan penerimaan untuk pinjaman. Juga tiada keterangan wang dibayar kepada Pihak Plaintif atau sebaliknya. Sehubungan itu membuktikan Defendan 2 tidak mempunyai nexus dengan Pihak Plaintif. Kes Defendan 3 [32] Defendan 3 pada masa material adalah pekerja Defendan 2 dan pemegang saham Defendan 1 serta Pengarah Defendan 1. Defendan 3 menghujahkan pernah dihubungi oleh Chua bagi mendapatkan pinjaman untuk firma guaman. Permohonan ini telah ditolak oleh Defendan 3. Kemudian sekali lagi Chua menghubungi Defendan 3 bagi mendapatkan pinjaman untuk Pihak Plaintif dengan mencagarkan Hartanah Berkenaan tetapi ditolak kerana tiada bukti kemampuan Pihak Plaintif untuk membayar balik. [33] Seterusnya Chua menawarkan untuk menjual Hartanah Berkenaan dengan harga RM4,400,000 kerana mempunyai potensi untuk dijadikan tapak stesyen minyak setelah ditukar kategori kegunaan tanah dari pertanian kepada komersil. Chua juga menawarkan komisyen jika Defendan 3 berjaya mendapatkan pembeli. [34] Defendan 3 menghubungi Defendan 4 berhubung dengan tawaran jualan tersebut dan dipersetujui oleh Defendan 4. Seterusnya Defendan 4 menubuhkan Defendan 1 sebagai alat bagi tujuan tersebut. Pihak Plaintif kemudiannya memohon perintah mahkamah untuk penjualan tersebut (kes Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam no. 24- 1085-2008). PS dimasuki oleh A&H yang akan membayar sewa bulanan sebanyak RM100,000 kepada Defendan 1 yang kini pemilik berdaftar yang baharu. Selepas itu A&H mengutip pula dari Defendan 1 sebanyak RM631,000 bagi tujuan penukaran kategori Hartanah Berkenaan yang mana wang itu lesap begitu sahaja. [35] Defendan 3 selanjutnya menghujahkan tiada dokumen pinjaman wang dikemukakan di mahkamah dan tiada keterangan mengaitkannya dengan transaksi tersebut. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Kes Defendan 6 [36] Defendan 6 adalah pemilik berdaftar terkini Hartanah Berkenaan. Sepanjang masa material, Pengarah Defendan 6 (Dato Liew Chee Ming – SD8) hanya berunding dengan Pengarah Defendan 1 sahaja (Fong Cheng Ban) dalam urusan pembelian berkenaan. [37] Memandangkan terdapatnya beberapa kaveat ke atas Hartanah Berkenaan, Defendan 6 memasuki Option Agreement bertarikh 18.12.2013 dengan Defendan 1 dan membayar deposit pembelian. Pembelian akan tertakluk kepada pengeluaran kaveat-kaveat berkenaan dari Hartanah Berkenaan dan penukaran kategori kegunaan tanah. Pada tarikh yang sama Defendan 6 juga memasuki PS dengan Defendan 1 di mana Hartanah Berkenaan akan digunakan sebagai gudang/kawasan stor. Bagi menjaga kepentingannya, Defendan 6 memasukan kaveat persendirian pada 19.3.2013. [38] Setelah kaveat-kaveat berkenaan berjaya dikeluarkan atau luput masa, Defendan 6 memasuki perjanjian jual beli Hartanah Berkenaan pada 4.10.2016 dengan harga RM4,400,000 walau pun kategori tanah belum ditukar kerana kos yang tinggi. Baki harga pembelian dibayar pada bulan Oktober/November 2016 dan didaftarkan atas nama Defendan 6 pada 1.12.2016. Selanjutnya pada 7.5.2017, Hartanah Berkenaan dicagarkan kepada Defendan 7 sebagai sekuriti kemudahan kewangan. [39] Defendan 6 menghujahkan hakmiliknya terhadap Hartanah Berkenaan tidak dapat disangkal di bawah Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara. Dihujahkan berdasarkan kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam rayuan terhadap prosiding komital, Defendan 1 mempunyai hak untuk memindah milik hartanah berkenaan kepada Defendan 6 kerana tiada injunksi difailkan oleh Pihak Plaintif. [40] Oleh itu Defendan 6 adalah pembeli terkemudian Hartanah Berkenaan secara bona fide dengan balasan tertentu dan tidak ujud frod seperti yang didakwa oleh Pihak Plaintif. Kes Defendan 7 [41] Defendan 7 dituntut oleh Pihak Plaintif sebagai pihak norminal sahaja kerana mengeluarkan cek pembiayaan pembelian Hartanah S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Berkenaan. Tiada keterangan dikemukakan terhadap penglibatan frod seperti tuntutan Pihak Plaintif. [42] Hubungan Defendan 7 hanyalah dengan Defendan 6 sebagai pelanggan bank dalam urusan pembelian Hartanah Berkenaan. Defendan 7 telah mendapat nasihat dan urusan dibuat melalui peguam yang dilantik. Defendan 7 juga tidak dimaklumi oleh mana- mana pihak berhubung dengan dakwaan dan tuntutan oleh Pihak Plaintif. Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [43] Si Mati yang merupakan pemilik berdaftar asal telah memajakkan (lease) Hartanah Berkenaan (melalui Surat Kuasa Wakil kepada Azemin bin Zakaria) kepada PDB untuk suatu tempoh 30 tahun bermula 1.7.1984. Si Mati meninggal dunia pada 21.12.1988 dan Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 dilantik sebagai Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati melalui perintah Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes No.31-390/1990. [44] Nama-nama mereka tidak dapat dimasukkan dalam geran hakmilik kerana berada dalam simpanan PDB. Pertikaian ini telah membawa Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 memfailkan writ saman terhadap PDB melalui peguam mereka iaitu A&H vide kes MT1-22-1187-2007. Kes ini telah diselesaikan melalui perjanjian penyelesaian dan Hartanah Berkenaan diserah balik kepada Pihak Plaintif. Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 didaftarkan sebagai Pentadbir Pesaka pada 19.3.2008. [45] Kes berkenaan telah menyebabkan Pihak Plaintif mengeluarkan belanja yang besar dan tidak mampu lagi untuk menanggung kos untuk permohonan menukar kategori kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan dari pertanian kepada komersil. Berdasarkan kronologi dalam hujahan Pihak Plaintif, mereka cuba pula untuk menjual Hartanah Berkenaan kepada sebuah syarikat yang dikenali sebagai Strategic City Sdn Bhd. dan diuruskan oleh peguam yang sama iaitu A&H. Namun penjualan tersebut telah gagal dilaksanakan pada 17.6.2008. [46] Selepas kegagalan pajakan dengan PDB dan kegagalan menjualkan kepada Strategic City Sdn Bhd, terdapat dua versi lanjut berhubung dengan urusniaga terhadap Hartanah Berkenaan. [47] Versi pertama adalah dari Pihak Plaintif bahawa suatu pinjaman telah dibuat dari Defendan 2 bagi mendapatkan wang untuk S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 permohonan menukar kategori kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan dan pinjaman ini adalah melalui suatu samaran bahawa ianya dibeli oleh Defendan 1 (PJB bertarikh 15.7.2008 ditandatangani oleh Defendan 1 dengan Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3) dan melalui PS antara Defendan 1 dengan A&H. [48] Manakala versi kedua pula (kes Pihak Defendan) adalah bahawa terdapat suatu PJB bertarikh 15.7.2008 dimana Pihak Plaintif menjualkan Hartanah Berkenaan kepada Defendan 1 dengan harga RM1,000,000. [49] Kedua-dua versi ini juga menjadi salah satu isu untuk dibicarakan dalam kes ini. Isu ini juga telah ditanyakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan semasa mendengar rayuan terhadap prosiding komital Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5. Saya mendapati Mahkamah Rayuan tidak membuat keputusan kepada isu tersebut dan mengarahkannya dibicarakan (perintah Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 14.7.2021 di Lampiran 253). [50] Dalam menentukan sama ada urusan ke atas Hartanah Berkenaan suatu perjanjian jual beli atau suatu transaksi pinjaman wang, keterangan mesti dilihat dari tempoh bermulanya pertikaian antara pihak-pihak. Hartanah Berkenaan telah dipajak kepada PDB oleh Si Mati melalui Surat Kuasa Wakil kepada seorang lain bermula 1.7.1984 untuk tempoh 30 tahun. Belum pun sampai tempoh 30 tahun tersebut, Si Mati meninggal dunia pada 21.12.1988 (lebih kurang 4 tahun setelah pajakan bermula). [51] Mulai saat itu telah berlaku pertikaian dan masalah antara Pihak Plaintif dengan PDB berhubung untuk memasukkan nama Pentadbir Pesaka dalam geran hakmilik asal yang dipegang oleh PDB walau pun Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 telah mendapat perintah dilantik sebagi Pentadbir Pesaka pada tahun 1990. [52] Pertikaian ini telah menyebabkan Pihak Plaintif memfailkan writ saman terhadap PDB pada 2007. Pihak Plaintif telah melantik A&H sebagai peguam mereka dalam kes berkenaan. Pertikaian ini telah dapat diselesaikan melalui perjanjian penyelesaian dan nama Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 didaftarkan sebagai Pentadbir Pesaka pada 19.3.2008. Dalam masa yang sama pajakan juga ditamatkan dan Hartanah Berkenaan dipulangkan kepada Pihak Plaintif. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [53] Keterangan dari Pihak Plaintif juga mengakui mereka telah mengeluarkan belanja yang besar dalam kes tuntutan terhadap PDB. Disebabkan perbelanjaan yang besar itu pihak Plaintif tidak lagi mempunyai sumber kewangan untuk memohon penukaran kategori kegunaan Hartanah Berkenaan dari pertanian kepada komersial bagi diberi pajakan kepada syarikat petroleum. Saya mendapati inilah kali pertama isu menukar kategori kegunaan tanah ditimbulkan. Itu pun setelah Pihak Plaintif mengalami pelbagai kesukaran, masa dan kos sebelum ini. Juga tiada keterangan dikemukakan di mahkamah semasa perbicaraan, apa yang berlaku semasa PDB memegang pajakan Hartanah Berkenaan selama 23 tahun. Tiada penjelasan juga diberikan mengapa Hartanah Berkenaan boleh dipajakkan kepada PDB tanpa menukar kategori kegunaan tanah. [54] Saya percaya dan berpendapat secara munasabah, disebabkan kesusahan yang timbul selama 23 tahun dan belanja yang besar dikeluarkan dalam pertikaian dengan PDB, telah menyebabkan Pihak Plaintif ingin melupuskan sahaja Hartanah Berkenaan segera secara penjualan. Urusan untuk menjual kepada Strategic City Sdn Bhd telah gagal. Urusan penjualan ini dikendalikan juga oleh peguam mereka A&H. [55] Berdasarkan kepada fakta-fakta ini, saya percaya Pihak Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk menjualkan Hartanah Berkenaan sekali lagi iaitu sekarang kepada Defendan 1 yang sanggup membeli dengan harga RM1,000,000 setelah diuruskan oleh Chua. [56] Dengan persetujuan tersebut Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 sebagai Pentadbir Pesaka Hartanah Berkenaan telah memohon arahan dari Mahkamah Tinggi untuk penjualan kepada Defendan 1 dan hasil jualan dibahagikan antara benefisiari-benefisiari. Dengan perintah tersebut, Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 telah memasuki PJB bertarikh 11.7.2008 di mana Hartanah Berkenaan dijual kepada Defendan 1 dengan harga RM1,000,000. Selanjutnya Defendan 1 melalui peguamnya iaitu O&P telah membuat keseluruhan bayaran berkenaan kepada peguam Pihak Plaintif iaitu A&H. [57] Saya berpendapat setelah A&H (Vasanta adalah peguam dan Chua adalah kerani firma) menerima bayaran penuh tersebut, baharulah timbul isu bahawa wang tersebut adalah untuk kegunaan permohonan penukaran kategori kegunaan tanah, untuk membayar faedah bulanan pinjaman kepada Defendan 2 dan untuk membayar S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 komisyen. Sepatutnya hasil jualan tersebut adalah untuk diagihkan kepada benefisiari-benefisiari setelah kos-kos lain dibayar selaras dengan perintah mahkamah. Defendan 1, Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5 memberikan keterangan bahawa PJB berkenaan adalah tulen dan bukannya untuk mengaburi suatu transaksi pinjaman dengan Defendan 2. [58] Pihak Plaintif pula hanya memanggil Plaintif 10 sahaja dipanggil sebagai saksi (SP1) sedangkan Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 yang menandatangani PJB tidak dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan. Mereka hadir semasa menandatangani PJB dan saya pasti mereka adalah saksi-saksi penting yang boleh memberikan penjelasan atau keterangan yang sebenar iaitu ini adalah PJB tulen atau suatu samaran untuk pinjaman wang. Mereka juga adalah Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati yang sudah semestinya akan menjaga kepentingan benefisiari-benefisiari lain. Namun kegagalan memanggil mereka ini tidak akan menimbulkan adverse inference di bawah Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 kerana jika pun mereka dipanggil, keterangan mereka akan sama sahaja dengan keterangan SP10 yang mewakili kesemua Plaintif dalam memberikan keterangan di mahkamah. [59] Berdasarkan kepada fakta tersebut jugalah saya berpendapat Pihak Plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan terhadap Defendan 1 (writ saman dibatalkan oleh mahkamah pada 1.4.2011 di muka surat 245 – 246, Lampiran 59), Vasanta dan A&H pada 19.7.2010 vide MTSA 22- 1005-2010 bagi mendapatkan wang hasil jualan hartanah berkenaan. Penghakiman telah dimasukkan terhadap kedua-dua Vasanta dan A&H dalam tuntutan tersebut. Saya berpendapat ini merupakan suatu bukti bahawa sememangnya ujud PJB bertarikh 15.7.2008 dan bukannya suatu transaksi pinjaman. [60] Pernyataan tuntutan dan relif yang difailkan Pihak Plaintif dalam kes tersebut adalah jelas berhubung dengan PJB berkenaan (muka surat 163-172 di lampiran 59). Ini jelas seperti di perenggan 7 pernyataan tuntutan yang memplidkan: “Klausa 2.2 PJB tersebut pula memperuntukan bahawa bayaran baki harga belian sebanyak RM800,000 mestilah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga sebagai peguamcara dan pemegang pertaruhan Plaintif-Plaintif apabila salinan asal hakmilik Hartanah tersebut, memorandum pindahmilik serta PDS 15 dan salinan sah perintah mahkamah (perintah kebenaran S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 menjual Hartanah tersebut) telah diserahkan kepada peguamcara Defendan Pertama. Perkara-perkara tersebut telah dilakukan tetapi tidak diketahui bila dan dipercayai bahawa baki harga belian tersebut telah pun diserahkan kepada Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga sebagai peguamcara dan pemegang pertaruhan Plaintif-Plaintif tetapi sehingga kini tidak diserahkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif.” [61] Keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan telah menunjukkan kepada satu sahaja kesimpulan iaitu terdapatnya suatu PJB tulen di mana Hartanah Berkenaan dijual kepada Defendan 1 dengan harga RM1,000,000 dan didaftarkan atas nama Defendan 1. Bayaran penuh juga telah dibuat kepada peguam Pihak Plaintif iaitu A&H. [62] Bagi kes yang dibicarakan ini, saya tidak dapat menerima keterangan SP1 dan Vasanta bahawa terdapat pinjaman dari Defendan 2 kepada Pihak Plaintif bertujuan untuk digunakan bagi permohonan menukar kategori kegunaan tanah. Tiada dokumen dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan ujudnya pinjaman tersebut. Dengan jumlah pinjaman tersebut yang besar, bayaran faedah bulanan, yang tinggi berlaku masalah undang-undang dengan PDB sebelum ini, saya berpendapat adalah tidak munasabah bahawa tidak terdapat langsung dokumen-dokumen berkaitan dengannya disediakan. [63] Jika benar ianya suatu pinjaman, kesemua pihak tentu sedar terutamanya Pihak Plaintif, bahawa jika berlaku lagi pertikaian dalam transaksi yang melibatkan Hartanah Berkenaan (seperti pertikaian dengan PDB), dokumen-dokumen amat diperlukan sebagai bukti. Vasanta juga sebagai peguam A&H hanya meletakkan tindakan ini kepada Chua yang sememangnya tidak boleh dikesan. Vasanta juga gagal mengawal akaun firma apabila dalam keterangannya menyatakan dia tidak tahu pun wang yang diberikan oleh Defendan 1 untuk menukar kategori kegunaan tanah sebanyak RM631,000 di mana dimasukkan. [64] Meneliti kepada PJB antara Plaintif 2 dan Plaintif 3 dengan Defendan 1 dan menggunakan judicial notice berhubung dengan amalan conveyancing, saya mendapati tiada terdapat unusual features seperti apa yang dihujahkan oleh Pihak Plaintif. Harga jualan sebanyak RM1,000,000 pada tahun 2008 jika dibandingkan dengan penilaian Pejabat Tanah sebanyak RM1,380,000, pada pendapat saya tidak boleh dikatakan rendah dari harga pasaran. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Selain dari bergantung kepada prinsip “a willing buyer and a willing seller”, ia juga bergantung latar belakang atau sejarah Hartanah Berkenaan sendiri, pertikaian Pihak Plaintif dengan PDB, kos menukar kategori kegunaan tanah yang tinggi, kesukaran mendapat pembeli, tujuan penilaian oleh Pejabat Tanah, kuota stesyen syarikat minyak telah habis di kawasan tersebut (e.g. Mobil/Exxon dalam kes ini) dan pelbagai lagi faktor yang mempengaruhi nilainya. [65] Lain-lain faktor yang ditimbulkan Pihak Plaintif seperti geran hakmilik asal diserahkan sebelum bayaran diterima, pembayaran deposit pada pihak lain dan bukan pada penjual, siapa yang membayar cukai setem dan beberapa faktor lain lagi, pada pendapat saya setelah berpandukan kepada prinsip kes Pannir Selvam a/l Sinnaiyah & Anor v Tan Chia Foo & Ors [supra] dan kes Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [supra], bukanlah suatu unusual features kerana ianya bergantung kepada latarbelakang tanah itu sendiri seperti yang saya ulaskan di atas. [66] Mengenai isu res judicata, saya merujuk kepada kes-kes mantap seperti: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189: “Thus, there are in fact two kinds of estoppel per rem judicatum. The first type relates to cause of action estoppel and the second, to issue estoppel, which is a development from the first type. The cause of action estoppel arises when rights or liabilities involving a particular right to take a particular action in court for a particular remedy are determined in a final judgment and such right of action, i.e., the cause of action, merges into the said final judgment; in layman's language, the cause of action has turned into the said final judgment. The said cause of action may not be relitigated between the same parties because it is res judicata. On the other hand, the issue estoppel literally means simply an issue which a party is estopped from raising in a subsequent proceeding. However, the issue estoppel, in a nutshell, from a consideration of case law, means in law a lot more, i.e., that neither of the same parties or their privies in a subsequent proceeding is entitled to challenge the correctness of the decision of a previous final judgment in which they, or their privies, were parties.” S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Lee Sem Yoong v Leong Yoong [1967] 2 MLJ 86: “i. There was a former suit between the same parties for the same matter; ii. The suit is upon the same cause of action; and iii. The matter directly and substantially in issue has been head and finally decided by the Court which heard it.” [67] Meneliti kepada writ saman/pernyataan tuntutan kes ini dengan writ saman/pernyataan kes MTSA 22-1005-2010, saya bersetuju dengan hujahan Pihak Plaintif bahawa terdapat perbezaan dalam tuntutan iaitu kes yang dibicarakan ini adalah kepada untuk membatalkan PJB kerana digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk mengaburi suatu pinjaman kewangan haram, manakala untuk kes pada tahun 2010 pula ianya melibatkan konspirasi untuk menipu oleh Defendan 1, Vasantan dan A&H. Sehubungan itu saya memutuskan doktrin res judicata adalah tidak terpakai dalam kes ini. [68] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan saya bahawa ujudnya PJB bertarikh 15.7.2008 antara Defendan 1 dengan Pentadbir Pesaka Si Mati dan bayaran penuh telah dibuat kepada peguam Pihak Plaintif, maka PJB berkenaan adalah sah dan berkuatkuasa. Oleh yang demikian pemilikan Hartanah Berkenaan telah berpindah milik dari Pihak Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 tanpa sekatan dari kaveat atau pun injunksi. Dengan mendapatkan hakmilik tersebut, Defendan 1 telah secara sah menjual dan memindah milik kepada Defendan 6. Selanjutnya cagaran Hartanah Berkenaan kepada Defendan 7 juga adalah sah dan berkuatkuasa. [69] Peranan Defendan 2 pula adalah kepada mengeluarkan pembiayaan kepada Defendan 1 bagi memperolehi Hartanah Berkenaan. Manakala Defendan 3, Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5 pula adalah sebagai Pengarah atau pekerja sama ada kepada Defendan 1 atau Defendan 2 dalam memastikan transaksi PJB tersebut terlaksana. Keputusan [70] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan-penemuan tersebut dan atas imbangan kebarangkalian, saya mendapati Pihak Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutan mereka terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Oleh yang demikian tuntutan Pihak Plaintif ditolak. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [71] Pihak Plaintif (secara berkongsi) diperintahkan membayar kos kepada Pihak Defendan seperti berikut: (i) Defendan 1, Defendan 3, Defendan 4 dan Defendan 5 Kos sebanyak RM60,000 (ii) Defendan 2 Kos sebanyak RM20,000 (iii) Defendan 6 Kos sebanyak RM20,000 (iv) Defendan 7 Kos sebanyak RM20,000 [72] Kesemua kos ini akan tertakluk kepada 4% alokatur. Bertarikh: 08 Disember 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Plaintif: Tetuan Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva, D3-1-8 Solaris Dutamas, No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. Bagi pihak Defendan 1,3&6: Tetuan Cedric Miranda & Co, No. 34A, Jalan 52/18, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Bagi pihak Defendan 2&5: Tetuan Law Practice of K.A. Ramu, 15-1-A Jalan MH3, Taman Muzaffar Heights, 75450 Ayer Keroh, Melaka. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Bagi pihak Defendan 4: Tetuan Leong & Leong, 2F & 3F Wisma Centrepoint Utama, No. 24, Jalan Bharu (Off Jalan Kampar), Pinji Centrepoint, 31650 Ipoh, Perak. Bagi pihak Defendan 7: Tetuan Shook Lin & Bok, 20th Floor, Ambank Group Building, 55 Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur. S/N ZxLRPFfsk0Mpmyy25AEsQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22NCvC-515-10/2018

PLAINTIF WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN LEE KOK CHEONG

Claim for breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty against the Plaintiff’s employee-failure to disclose interest in two competing companies-sold Plaintiff’s goods at a discounted price-claim for the damages based on the difference between the sale price and price sold to the Defendant’s companies-allegation of using knowledge whilst in the employment of Plaintiff to procure a contract Plaintiff was also interested in-contract awarded only after the Defendant left the employment of the Plaintiff-whether the Defendant can be made liable.

06/02/2024

YA Puan Alice Loke Yee Ching

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=044981e1-5013-41bd-be29-3fade65a407f&Inline=true

WSA Precision Sdn Bhd v Lee Kok Cheong 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. GUAMAN : BA-22NCVC-515-10/2018 ANTARA WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 553109-U) …PLAINTIF DAN LEE KOK CHEONG (NO. K/P: 8001221-14-5093) …DEFENDAN (DIGABUNGKAN DAN DIBICARAKAN BERSAMA) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. GUAMAN : BA-22NCVC-172-04/2019 ANTARA WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 553109-U) …PLAINTIF DAN LEE KOK CHEONG (NO. K/P: 8001221-14-5093) …DEFENDAN 06/02/2024 12:40:28 BA-22NCvC-515-10/2018 Kand. 170 S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The two suits brought by the Plaintiff arises from the Defendant’s alleged breach of his fiduciary duties as an employee of the former. In Suit BA-22NCVC-172-04/2019 (“Suit 172”), the Defendant was alleged to have established two competing companies which had businesses similar to that of the Plaintiff. He then caused the Plaintiff’s goods to be sold to his companies at a discounted price without the knowledge or approval of the Plaintiff. [2] As for Suit BA-22NCVC-515-10/2018 (“Suit 515”), the Defendant is alleged to have used his knowledge obtained whilst in the employment of the Plaintiff, to secure Perodua’s contract for one of his companies to supply clutch kits to Perodua. Perodua was one of the Plaintiff’s existing customers. The Defendant was fully aware that the Plaintiff was interested to secure Perodua’s contract. [3] The Plaintiff in both suits seeks to recover losses occasioned to it as a result of the Defendant’s breach as well as aggravated and exemplary damages against the Defendant consequent upon his conduct. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Background facts Suit 172 [4] The Plaintiff, WSA Precision Sdn. Bhd., was established to carry out the business of supplying and marketing auto spare parts in Malaysia. The Plaintiff is one of the companies in the WSA Group of Companies (“WSA Group”). [5] The Defendant first commenced employment with a related company sometime in 2003 as a sales executive. In 2006, he was appointed the Marketing and Distribution Manager of the Plaintiff, and responsible for the Replacement Equipment Market (“REM”) Department in the Plaintiff, where he was tasked with marketing the spare parts sold by the department. He held the said post until his resignation on 31.3.2017. [6] As an employee of the Plaintiff under the WSA Group, the Defendant was required to abide by the Plaintiff’s policy to observe confidentiality and to avoid being a position of conflict. [7] The Plaintiff was one of the authorized distributors of vehicle parts manufactured by Valeo Pyeong Hwa International Co. Ltd. (“Valeo”), based in Korea. One Auto Korea Co. Ltd (“One Auto Korea”) was Valeo’s authorized exporting agent in Korea. Orders for the supply of vehicle parts will be placed by the Plaintiff with One Auto Korea. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] Towards the end of 2014, the fall of the MYR exchange rate resulted in higher import costs of spare parts. This impacted the Plaintiff’s financial position. At the same time, the WSA Group as a whole was also experiencing cash flow problems. [9] The Managing Director and Chairman of WSA Group (PW5), became concerned about the existing REM stock and gave instructions to stop new orders from its suppliers unless the orders were approved by him, pending the clearance of existing stock. The Defendant was also urged to intensify the collection of debts from its customers to alleviate the cash flow situation. To expedite the sale of its existing stock, the staff of the REM Department were authorized to give a discount of up to 30% for the sale of its existing stock. [10] It was also around this time that the Defendant and his team received indication that the REM Department would be closed. The Defendant then perceived that he did not have any future in the employment of the Plaintiff. [11] To safeguard his interest, on 16.4.2015 he incorporated Keister Autohaus Sdn Bhd (“Keister”) and was appointed one of its directors. He was also one of the two shareholders. The business of Keister was stated as inter alia, importing all kinds of vehicle parts. It was clearly a competing company. [12] On 13.9.2016 another company, Oak World Venture Sdn Bhd (“Oak World”) was also incorporated with the same business and registered address as Keister. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [13] Between the years 2015 and 2016, the Defendant was discovered to have sold REM products of the Plaintiff to Keister. In 2017, he sold the Plaintiff’s products to Oak World. Some of the products were found to have been sold at a discount which was clearly above 30% of its selling price. [14] The discovery was made by the accounts manager of the Plaintiff (PW3) sometime towards the end of 2016. She then requested the Defendant to state his proposed sale price of the REM products for the approval of PW5. The approval was not given. [15] PW5 then instructed PW3 to prepare a Customer Sales Analysis Report for the products sold to Keister and Oak World for the period from 2015 to 2017. Her report tendered in evidence, was a computation of the difference in the total sales between the price of items sold to Keister and Oak World and the actual selling price of the items. The details in her report was based on invoices issued and which was maintained in the records of the Plaintiff. [16] Based on the Customer Sales Analysis Report, she computed the difference amounting to RM 656,760.68 which comprised of :- (a) RM 137,421.93 being sales to Keister for the period ending 31.12.2015; (b) RM 446,790.68 being sales to Keister for the period ending 31.12.2016; and S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (c) RM 72,548.07 being sales to Oak World for the period ending 31.12.2017. [17] The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s acts constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff. He ought to but failed to inform the Plaintiff of his vested interest in Keister and Oak World. He was conflicted when he sold the Plaintiff’s goods to these companies at a price which was lower than the selling price mandated by the top management, thereby profiting from his acts. [18] The Plaintiff seeks to be compensated for the amount of RM 656,760.68 as damages in Suit 172. The Plaintiff also seeks for exemplary damages to be awarded against the Defendant. Suit 515 [19] Perodua had been a customer of the Plaintiff and the WSA Group since 1999 for its Original Equipment Market (“OEM”) products. The Plaintiff had plans to expand its business dealings with Perodua by supplying clutch kits to Perodua. Clutch kits are categorized as REM products. In October 2015, a meeting was held to explore the options between the relevant parties. [20] In 2017, PW1 the Vice-President of the WSA Group (Corporate Services), received information of the sale of REM products to Keister and Oak World. In conducting his investigation into the alleged wrongful activities of the Defendant, he looked up the Facebook of the Defendant. It was then that he saw Perodua’s S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 letter dated 9.5.2017 stating that Keister had been appointed the supplier of clutch kits for Perodua. He also saw a certificate stating that Keister had been appointed the exclusive distributor of REM products of Valeo Pyeong Hwa International Co (“Valeo”) with effect from 13.5.2016. [21] The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was privy to information on Perodua. He knew the price offered by the Plaintiff to Perodua to supply its REM products. He then used this information to secure the contract with Perodua for the benefit of Keister, thus depriving the Plaintiff of an opportunity to supply REM products to Perodua. [22] The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant had abused his position in the Plaintiff by using the information gained from his employment to secure the exclusive distributorship from Valeo. [23] The Plaintiff seeks to be awarded aggravated and exemplary damages amounting to RM 1,250,000.00 for the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. The Defendant’s defence [24] The Defendant’s defence in respect of both suits is essentially this. He admitted that Keister and Oak World was incorporated whilst he was still an employee of the Plaintiff. He also did not deny these companies had business similar to that of the Plaintiff. [25] In view of the impending cessation of the Plaintiff’s business, particularly the REM department, he decided to set up both the S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 companies. He contends that the Plaintiff had knowledge of his involvement in these two companies through one Mr. Chin Ya Yen, who was his superior officer at the material time. PW3 the accounts manager, was also in the know. [26] He was pressured to clear the remaining stock as REM staff had resigned. There were other attendant problems as no staff were available to deliver the stocks sold. Customers had to collect their own goods purchased. Keister was the only customer willing to purchase the stock in bulk and make its own arrangement for collection. [27] In any event, the price of REM goods sold to Keister and Oak World was within the discount allowed by the management of the Plaintiff. [28] As for the appointment of Keister as the exclusive distributor for Valeo, the allegation is denied. The Defendant contends that Keister was never appointed the exclusive distributor, but was merely one of its distributors. In addition, the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty cannot arise as the distributorship appointment took effect after the Plaintiff had ceased to place orders with One Auto Korea, Valeo’s agent. [29] The Defendant also denies abusing his position by securing from Perodua for Keister, the contract to supply products. The appointment of Keister by Perodua was after he had resigned from the Plaintiff. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Defendant’s counterclaim in Suit 172 [30] On 27.12.2016, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he would cease his employment with the Plaintiff with effect from 1.1.2017 after taking all leave due to him. However, at the request of the Plaintiff’s management, he agreed to serve until 31.3.2017. [31] The Defendant had 82 days of accumulated leave at the time of his resignation. Although his salary was paid until 31.3.2017, the Plaintiff did not pay him for his unutilized leave. He was also not reimbursed various other claims which he made to the Plaintiff. In the counter claim filed against the Plaintiff, he seeks to be paid the amounts due to him as assessed by this court. Analysis and decision of this court [32] It is trite law that the Plaintiff bears the onus of proving his case, and the Defendant his counterclaim, and the existence of those facts which would establish their respective case. (See: sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, 1950 and Letchumanan Chettiar Alagapan (as executor to SL Alamelooo Achi (Deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn. Bhd.) [2017] 5 CLJ 418). [33] The issues to be resolved are quite confined. They are principally factual issues which turn on the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective case. The Plaintiff is to prove the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendant, and if it succeeds, the damages to be ordered by this court. In relation to S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 the Defendant’s counterclaim, this court is to determine whether the Defendant has adduced sufficient evidence for the counterclaim to succeed. Principles on breach of fiduciary duty [34] The fiduciary duty owed by an employee towards his employer encompasses duty of care, loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence and disclosure. The law was succinctly stated in the Court of Appeal case of Wong Kar Juat & Anor v S7 Auto Parts (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 527, the facts of which bear some similarities with the instant case. The Court held, [15] Quite clearly, the respondent in this action is making a proprietary claim to the proceeds of sales of the respondent’s assets and for the value of the 746 missing used engines as well as for damages consequent upon the appellants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duty and trust. The respondent is also claiming for the recovery of money based on money had and received by the appellants, and damages in compensation for the tort of conversion brought about by the appellants’ alleged unlawful interference with the respondent’s rights of property. [16] We wish to express our understanding of the law. We apprehend that as regards a breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty in the context of an employee and employer relationship, where the employee’s contract involves receipt of the employer’s property, notwithstanding whether the property consists of tangible assets or confidential information, a fiduciary obligation exists (see Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd Third Party) [2001] 1 AC 268). This obligation would in our view concern with the employee’s duty to look after the employer’s interest, the duty of fidelity towards the principal and S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the duty to act in good faith, not to make a profit out of the trust, not to place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict and not to act for his own benefit or for the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. Who is a fiduciary in law is defined by Millett LJ in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at p 11 as follows: A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which gives rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. [35] The Defendant’s involvement in Keister and Oak World which were competing companies, ipso facto gives rise to a duty to disclose his interest. [36] The Defendant claims that Mr. Chin Ya Yen, his superior, was aware as he had in various whatsapp conversation mentioned it. Unfortunately, the Defendant could have, but did not secure the attendance of Mr. Chin as a witness to support the Defendant’s claim on this issue. His absence as a witness is telling. Although the Defendant informed PW3, she was only the accounts manager of the Plaintiff. The duty to disclose must be to a person in authority. [37] Against the assertion of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was informed, there is the evidence of the Managing Director of PW5, who unequivocally denied being informed by the Defendant. PW5 was in direct communication with the Defendant with regard to the operation of the REM Department. The telephone messages bear S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 testimony to this fact. He is clearly the appropriate person to whom disclosure is to be made by the Defendant as to his vested interest in Keister and Oak World. [38] I am of the view that the Defendant’s claim that PW5 was in the know, is but an assumption on his part. There is no independent evidence before me that Defendant had expressly informed PW5. To my mind, the evidence on disclosure requires more than merely perceiving that the employer had knowledge of his activities. [39] Having weighed the evidence of both parties on the issue of disclosure, I find that it is more probable than not that the Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, I find that the Defendant had breached his fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiff. [40] I have also considered the reasons proffered by the Defendant on the setting up of Keister and Oak World. Nonetheless I am of the view that the Plaintiff’s impending plan to cease operations of the REM Department does not absolve the Defendant from his breach in setting up a competing company. He ought to have left the company before getting involved in a competing company. If at all, it merely mitigates the gravity of his breach. [41] The Defendant does not deny that he sold the REM products to Keister and Oak World at a discounted price. He stated in his evidence that he sold the REM products to Keister between the years 2015 to 2016 and to Oak World, in 2017. However, he S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 contends that the items were sold at discounts expressly instructed and authorised by PW5. [42] This calls for a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, particularly PW5’s email to the Defendant on the discount instruction. The email can be found at Agreed Bundle of Documents (B13) at page 268. PW5 in his email dated 1.7.2015 instructed, KC Try to dispose off at 30% from selling price and lets see the result. For cash on delivery perhaps you could offer an additional 5% off. [43] After the Defendant’s act of selling the REM products to Keister and Oak World came to light, PW3 was instructed to prepare a Customer Sales Analysis Report for the years ending 2015, 2016 and 2017 for sales to these 2 companies. [44] The relevant pages are reproduced below:- S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [45] The last column which shows ‘% Margin’ indicates the difference in percentage between the selling price of the product and the price sold to Keister/Oak World. [46] I have scrutinized the details of the sales report prepared by PW3 and my findings are as follows. For the year 2015, the average ‘% margin’ was 15.73%, which was well within the permitted discount of 30%. However, this was not the case for the subsequent years. In 2016, the average ‘% margin’ was 103.04%, well above what was allowed by the Plaintiff. It was the same for 2017, where the average ‘% margin’ was 124.57%. [47] The figures therefore confirm the allegation by the Plaintiff that the Defendant profited from the sales of its REM products to his companies. In the same breath, the figures demolish the S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Defendant’s case that the discounts were within the approved limits. The Plaintiff’s case for damages in Suit 172 is therefore proven. [48] I now come to the computation of the damages sought, which would be the amount of loss occasioned to the Plaintiff. For this purpose, I have considered PW5’s instruction in his email of 1.7.2015 which allowed a discount of up to 30%. For this reason, as the average discount margin in 2015 was only 15.73%, and therefore less than 30%, I do not consider the Plaintiff to have suffered any loss from the sales to Keister in 2015. [49] Only the computation for the years 2016 and 2017 is to be considered. For the year ending 2016, if a discount of 30% had been given for the total selling price of RM 878,314.60, the Plaintiff should receive RM 614,820.22 from its sales to Keister. However, the products were sold for only RM 431,523.92. There is therefore a shortfall of RM 183,296.30. Applying the same method of computation for the sales to Oak World in 2017, there is a shortfall of RM 33,311.64. The total loss to the Plaintiff is RM 216,607.94, which is the damages to be paid by the Defendant. [50] Although PW5 allowed a further discount of 5% for goods bought on cash on delivery terms, there is no evidence adduced that Keister and Oak World purchased the Plaintiff’s goods on these terms. [51] As for the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages in Suit 172, I do not find any evidence to persuade me that it ought to be S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 ordered. I am of the view that the damages computed above suffices as compensation. [52] I now come to my findings on the claim in Suit 515. The Plaintiff was never the existing supplier for REM goods to Perodua. It was merely interested to be its supplier. However, nothing resulted from the interest. Perodua did not appoint the Plaintiff as its supplier. To claim that the Defendant stole the Plaintiff’s customer based on the knowledge he had, is an allegation that is totally baseless. In the absence of other evidence, the Plaintiff’s allegation on this issue is speculative. The loss of a business opportunity may not necessarily result from Defendant’s actions. In any event, Keister was appointed by Perodua only in May 2017, after the Defendant had left the employment of the Plaintiff. [53] As for the appointment of Kiester as a distributor for Valeo’s products the Defendant stated he was approached by the representative of One Auto Korea to be the local distributor only after the Plaintiff had ceased to place orders in the three months preceding. This was confirmed by DW2, the President of One Auto Korea. He stated that, “Yes, the Plaintiff is no longer an authorized distributor of Valeo’s products since 2015. According to the terms and conditions of such authorized distributorship, if the Plaintiff fails to place any orders of Valeo parts with us for a continuous period of 3 months, the authorized distributorship would cease by itself. From my recollection, in December 2014, the managing S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 director of the Plaintiff, Datuk Wan Muhammed informed me that they are putting on hold orders. In any event, after having ceased further orders from One Auto Korea, in May 2015, Datuk Wan Muhammed who was in contact with me, informed me his decision to dispose of the Plaintiff’s Replacement Equipment Market Department (REM) to a company known as APM Automotive, thus seeking One Auto Korea and Valeo’s agreement to such disposal. While I am made to understand that the sale of the REM Department did not go through then, there were no further orders placed by the Plaintiff with One Auto Korea. Thus, since then the Plaintiff ceased to be Valeo’s authorized distributor.” [54] I do not find any reason to doubt the truth of Dw2’s testimony. In view of this, I find the Defendant to have sufficiently rebutted any allegation of wrongdoing on his part. There is no question of breach of fiduciary duty when the Plaintiff has ceased to be in the business of being a distributor. The Defendant cannot be faulted for being subsequently appointed a distributor by One Auto Korea. [55] The claim in Suit 515 is therefore not proven and must fail. [56] I now come to the counterclaim of the Defendant. The Defendant’s claim is for unpaid unutilized leave of 82 days and unpaid claims. A claim of such nature could have been substantiated by contemporaneous document. However, all that was referred to by the Defendant was an undated note presumably to PW5, stating “..based on his tender notice, we will contra off his annual leave S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 against his notice i.e. which means he will be paid for the remaining unutilized annual leave.” [57] To my mind, this suggests the Defendant has been paid his unutilized leave. [58] The Defendant candidly admitted in his evidence that he did not keep copies of his claim documents. Although the documents were applied for in a discovery action, the Defendant did not appear to have taken the matter further. [59] I therefore do not find the Defendant to have sufficiently discharged his burden of proving his counterclaim. Conclusion [60] In the result, premised on my findings above, I make the following orders:- (i) the Plaintiff’s claim in Suit 172 is allowed. Judgment is given for the amount of RM 216,607.94 together with interest at the rate of 5% from today until realization; (ii) the Defendant’s counterclaim in Suit 172 is dismissed; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s claim in Suit 515 is dismissed. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [61] In view of outcome of the suits brought by the Plaintiff, I consider that it would be fair for parties to bear their own costs and I so order. Dated: 31st January 2024 -sgd- ....………………..….... Alice Loke Yee Ching Judge High Court in Malaya at Shah Alam Counsel for the Plaintiff : Mr. Alister Dave Henry Messrs. Kadir, Khoo & Aminah Counsel for Defendant : Mr. Choi Kian You Messrs K.Y. Choi S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-45B-2-03/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH ZHU JIA HONG

Criminal trial-accused was tried for murder under Section 302 of Penal Code-crime scene was the accused's room-deceased was the supervisor-accused got into a heated arguments with the deceased- was seen with a knife in his hand-none of the witnesses had seen the accused stab the deceased with the knife- defence of grave and sudden provocation and self-defence- prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case- accused acquitted and discharged.

06/02/2024

YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f0bbc588-4852-4784-a393-6f27fe139eb1&Inline=true

06/02/2024 15:47:51 JA-45B-2-03/2020 Kand. 121 S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N iMW78FJIhEejk28n/hOesQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 121 Cb/D2/2014 15:4:-5; IN ‘HIE HIGH count or MALAVA IN JOHOR BAHRU JA—a5Ia—2—o3/2020 Kand. IN THE sTA1E or JONOR DAIIUL TAKZIM CRIMINAL TRIAL No. : M453-2-asrzozo BETWEEN PUBLIC PRDSECUTOR AND znu JIA NOD46 GROUNDS OFJUDGEIAEN1 Inlmducllun (11 The accused was med Ior Ihe murder of Zhao Changxmng (me deceased), arm the charge read as Ioucws: [2] ‘fiihzwa knmu pm. sums um um» Imrlna 11 an mlllm benampnl III asrnma pskarfz am CI-ouz am ca um: SI|e Omen Fawn cm, Tanjlmg Kunnng, m dalam daerah Iskandar Fulnn dl daIam Negevi Jam! Iehh rnambunuh zmo CHANGXIANG Nu Pmpon Eswuum dan dengan nu mm mm IMIlkukarI sualu kaulahan yang mum dmukum aunmn uksym so: Kamm I<...xu.n' Sevenlean I17) wmnesaas were carled by Ihe pmseouuon to prove (he marge The pvosecunan sssermally ralrsd on me Iesllrmny M five (5) witnesses who were workers who |IV% In (he dormllory. IN IMw7aF.IIhEeIkZBnmDuu 1 mail a|woinn.mIII be flied M mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .num wrm [3] Tne crime scene was me accused’: mum wilh lour (4) others. SP1: Lu Xue Guang, SP2: cnen vu. SP3 znang Guanlun, SP4: Znu Qlksi and SP5: Lyu Al whom were all lnends ofme accused. The deceased was me accused's supemsor Anne end 0! ins prosecution case, l found mat the prcsecuuon had felled Io eslablisn a prime Iacis case agains1 lne accused. and he was aedulxled and discnarged. [41 The pmseculisn has now appealed lo lne calm in Apneal, and below an: my reasons lei lne decisinri. The Prosecution case [5] zliae cnnngxiang. lne deceased, was a cninesa nallcnal wnc lucruilsd canslnrcllon lebourers «min cnina to work al lne cenelmcllan sile in Fdresl cny nie accused and nis live (5) elner inends (sP1sl=5l were wdrxers under iris supervision ollhe deceased. [s] on a.7.2u19. al 930 [.).m, SPI and spa were in men room [at are workers lioslel) reslmg when me deceased came and lay awn on one cl me bunk beds The room was occupied by min SP1 and SP3 togemer wnh 1our(4)vmers, SP2. SP4, sws and me accused m The amused was out lei supper with sl=2 and SP5 and relurned back lc lne mom as spam 11.00 p in The lasrirnenies or sm lo SP5 ievealed that me accused spoke Io lne deceased For ten (10) minutes abom nis unpaid salary mil lneri gal inln a healed argument, and the accused was seen with s knne in his hand belore ne «ed lne scene. Tne deceased was lnen seen lying on me floor rlexl In me bed, ocvemd In bluod. [8] None oi lne wilnesses laslined peaillirely Ihul lney had seen lne accused slab lne deceased wiin me knile Hmlemr, lne nmsecuhon relied on lrie eircunielanlial evidence llisl lne accused was seen noldlng lne in lMW7EFJlhEe|kZEnmDuD 2 -sea-emmsnwiii be used M mm he nflmnnllly MIN: dun-mm VI] nFluNG WM! [34] sPto, sin Nazarudin hln Abu Baker, was instnicted to arrest the accused at the anny guard post, Tanturlg Kupang and elsc confirmed that the accused was lntttted on his hand and leg. The accused inlonned sPto at the earliest moment cl arrest that he was stabbed by the deceased and acted in set!-delerice to preserve his Me. It was submitted that s 6 vf the Evidence Act, in admitting res gesrae statements, counsel for the accused requested for that Dafllwlflr statement ol the accused (that he was stabbed by the deceased) to laeawepted la establish the truth atthat fact. [35] Atter considering the authorities cued. I find that the accused statement wus sbentanecus, with no possibility ct concoction av dlslnrliurl His utterance wna a distinc we reaction |o the event, thus giving no real ouporlumvy tor reasoned ietlectiens (rater to R v Andnws mm 1 All ER 511, Leong Hang Khle V PP mac) 2 ML! 2:» and cnrieuie v 11.. sramtm 1356 cal us) [36] It was also submmed that the accused lmeranoa was relevant according to s. a urine Evidence Acl(see Explanation 2 lllustralton lo (5)) [37] I agree that the accused statement to SPIO is relevant tcthe extent that it was made in relation to the «acts ran away Upon surrendering. he immediately responded to SP1D's question withcut any piocl cl hesitation or possible Illlle tor iabncation when he told SP10 that the deceased stabbed him firsti and he acted in seltdeience ssue. A crime Omwfldi and he [38] The investigation cmcer. SFI7, ASP Ahmad bin tlassan. oonfimted that the eocueed did nct have with him the kniie when he went back to the hostel (with SP2 and SP5)‘ and the sheath at the knite was lound train the deceased lert-hend. it was submitted that the inesistible inlerence is that the accused did nul anned hirnseil with a knile to ecnlront the deceased at the particular time, and I nnd such interence acceptable in Mw7EFJlhEelkZEramDuD H were» own he used ta yaw has otwlnallly MVMS dun-vlnhl via aFlt.lNG Wml [39] sl=11lurllieries1nied lhal he received blood and urine samples from SP11, which were seril ler I laxiedlegy lesl. The ehemiel, syed Muaale bin syed Azman. analysed lhe urine sample and leund ii uomalnsd "prs:temrls" This is reflected in his repomwliicri is lelldered as P18. [40] My predicanieni seeds here. whal i: plutemne? syed Musma pin syed Azmarl wns noi called In explain inie. The epunsel pioduced e Vfiklpedla dahnlllen pl preslemrie insiead (maze) ll was a riiedicalian used In edneei seine dehydioeplendmsierune [DHEA) denciencies. Regaidless oi he mennlng, me epunsei relerred ld ils see effects lei iiiy aiieriiidn “Praslsrune is a sleroid hormone. High doses may cause aggiegiveiiess irmabilrly, muzzle sleeping and growth ufbodyol facial hair in women.’ [41 1 on |!IISlSsIAe,SP11‘Ihe pemdlogiel, was asked euesliens regarding his medical opinion. He ixmfirrned ihal prusrerdne is e sleroid bill was unaware uf its side effeus. He also eonliirned lhal lhe deceased was heavier and bigger in size eempared lo the aewsed. There were 23 incisions or injuries. bill only one wmmd was laial iriai ltie one that penelraced the chesl resulled in massive bleeding at lrie riearl. In re- examination, SP11 agreed iiialine injury on lrie ches1 could be caused by lhe deceased lalling on the assailant. ll was also iiubriiined lhal lhe injury was accidental and SP11 did nm deny lhe posslbllflyi [42] Al ihle poinl, I nrid en explarlatlun by lne cheiriisi Syed Musiala pin Syad Azman k) in necessary and essenlul. thus relevant. Would it be pcsslblelhal ihe pieseiioe olpnaslamrlu lrl ine deceased uiine norllllbulad lo rilnggies verlass or caused uneoniidlled hehavlaurdunng me heeled argumanl wilh (ht accused and whether ll wall {ha deceased who flrsl Irllllalod lb! aIlad< on [he accused? This avidanca has a diracl bearing on «he weigiii el ihe evidence and me eoniinueiien el ine sequsnw el lacu ‘ SlN lMW7EFJlhEelkZEramDuD 12 -m-saiiwunmrwiii be used M yaw ms nflnlhnllly sun. dun-vlnril n. nFluNG Wml presented laytrioproseoution OIherWIsei|hBappItca' t1fs114(g)oflhe Evidence Acl would be relevant, that sum evidence would be unfavourable to me prosecution « it were produced [43] Be tnet es it may, on me basis at tna above eyiuence and keeping in View the pnnciplo oleoceolanoe oi einsunutantiet evlaenoa in a cninlnal case. I am snllsnsd twist the surrounding circumstances oi trus case do not wrlcluslvaiy lo the gui||oHJ1e eoousao as tnerewes e possiollllytnat tna deccasod was trio one wno aggresstvely participated in tne llgnt bclwesn trleni and a y inleienna can be madalhallharn is a possibility trial tne eceusos aclad in saw-delsnoe. Tris pmsiecullon teileo In negate Ina existence ollna side ertect olprsslerons in me daosasad and mat ms in no my contributed to lggrassinn |amards the aowsed [44] As mentioned earlier, a person's intention is a (act that cannot be established Bydilfim svlaenoe it can only be interred by inlerenoe of train the surmunulng olmimslances I am oonvinoeo, by loolting at these surmunding interences. mat lhe accused lsottea intention in inllimiiig tire iniuries mat caused Such bodily iiiiury, resulting in ins deam 471 me deceased The possibility oi tne deceased being Ihe aggressor and lne accused acting in sell-astenoe was liltaly to be aooepled, and tunnel. due to me test tnat it was not explained by a wmpelerll witneas to negate sum posslbllfly, I find tnsse otrcumsunoaa sumdenliy lnaioaxeo a gap in lna prusecuhon nsrretiyes in eslaolisning a prime Iucie case. especially on lne intention at me accused to cause ine bodily iniury. Decision [45] Tneretnie, anor careml eveiueiion ol the prosecution case Is my finding that the plvsecullon nan tailed to wave a prima fame case against the accused to wenant this mum in call upon the aocused to enter his deience It is e well—esvaolisried principle that this ooutt retains the ‘ SIN lMw7EFJlhEe|kZErsmDuD I! -i4l.i2s- hnrwm be used is yaw i.. nflnlnnflly MIME flnunfllnl y.. nFiuNG WM! obllgaliun to evaluate all the evldenua at the dose outta prosecmlona case before oencluding lnal ll was aumctent |o warrant a convlclion belore callmg tor a defense {as} Referring lolherase olflllglndlin Mohan vPP[2011] 1 cu ans. ttte Federal Court relleraled the pnnotple dl maxlmum avaluallun v1 evidence and IS elten quoted as below: ‘rm evrdemx has to be satmmsed prwwir End nalpomlnaafly mrlovyor supevfuaatly /I ma Iva/ualloll or the ewdenee 1234111: In doubts nu ma pmaeclmoll case, men a puma bad case Itasnolbesn made out The derenee eugnlmmemueammtymueuardamyeumauum- [47] As much as I would Ilka tn hear what the defense has tn say, the burden of wool at the pnme more level does not pemlll wrloslly about the (acts tne accused wtll tell, hul wtuetner all me prosewllnn wllnesses have suffiolenlly unlolded men narmtwe to pmve tne elements of me chance. [48] Thevelure. the accused are aooerdtngly aedultted and disdtarged Daled 5" February 2024 (noon uaur ml nun um) Judicial Com tsaloner High coun a Malaya Johor aanru lN lMw7EFJlhEelkZEnmDuD 1' -arm»-a.»/tat harwlll be used a van; .. nflglnallly mt. dun-mm VI] aFlt.lNG Wml Counsel -- For me Fmssculmnz Yuan Mohamnd Nasrudm hm Mohnmsd Pqabal Fenasihal Undanu-Undang Nsgen Jamar ms 2, Bangunan Data‘ JaaVar Muhammad Kata lskandav, Ismaar Pulen Jahor. For me Accused — Datin Freda Sabapalhy Teluan Freda Ssbapalny 5 Co Unll us-n2, Ground Floor Munau TJB‘ No. 9 Jalan syed Muhd Mum 50000, Jnhor Bahm Jonor srNMw7aF.nnEe1kzanmousu 15 -ma ummm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII .nuNG pm knife afler an argument mm the deceased Ind that he ran «om me scene, anhougn he later lumed nirnsen in to ma aulhonnes m From me Iasflmany cnne pamcncgm, Dr Zubau hm Abdul Razak. sm 1‘ n appeared that me cause or daam was cdnsauenn wun mat of 'a slab wound lo we ones!" along mm 23 0||Ver Injury marks as descnbed In ms mporl, P17. The slab in me chesl penevaxed me nean, which caused massive bleedmg man dnecuy led la me deam av lhe deceased Elements oflhe offence of murder [10] Ravamng to me case of sum: Ahldln bln Madlnn v. Public Prosecutor [inn] 4 cu 215 01 the Court or Appeah the mgredxeme/evemanns (or me wants A)! murder are is venous. 1. Thallhau Changxwang ws dead. 2 The deam was caused as a resun of nnuries sustained by mm. 3 Tha| me wuunes dune deceased were caused urltle resun dune act dune accused mm the muenuon d1 causmg me mjuries. 4. Thai m mmcung me injuries, me accused either: (3) caused |hem wilh me mention of causmg death; or (D) mused mem with me mnanuon olcausmg such buduly injunes as me accused knew ta be likely to cause me death: or |c) caused men with me mlenlmn 01 causing acdny injunes and such new mlunes were sulficwant .n me ordinary oourse of nature ac cause deem. [111 Rename and emphasxs were praced on s.3(]u (c)oHhe Pena! Code (PC) by me prusecutian The Feuerar Ooun in Zulkiplo Mohamad v. PP (20227 1 cu :1: on s 300(5) sxases as Inflows‘ '|2s] ma snamsma man me pmlmunm need. on prove m omit lo ulnhulh a case unnlr cl 4:» M 5 300 m we Indan Penal cm wncn mnulpnml wvm IN Mw7EF.HhEe1kZEnmDuiD 3 -unvasamnaarwm as used m van; me mmny sums dun-mm wa muuc wrm u. (C) av a 300 at our venax Coda‘ war: spell am by mm. Emu J m \/Ina su-gn and they are as «mum up -1 mm be rslabdlshed mu! 1 hadiiy wniury u wanna my me Mime ulilw Vnjury mm be mm, mm n mm be pmved man lheve was an umemon to mllicl man panmna: bomly Imury, mm n In say, mac n was mu auldenul at nnlnbmtor-II. or man some amar kind ulmjury wal unleaded. am my :1 ms: be grand mm In mury Mme rypa flesmhed‘ made up mm- mvee ehamems :3 out acme, as aummam m use aaam \n the mmnary uouu ul nature.‘ -Emphasxs added [12] Thus. n ws me mat lhs prosaculian has In pmva mac ma aecuaaa ary cause of nature Io cause daalh. Thu Imanlkm |a muse death is no! an ingmdxem kw be pmwed under 5 30D(c| (see VIIIC Slngh v Stun nfPurq/lb AIR (1ns5)4u5 (so) am Yum KAI Yau v PF mm MLJ m rrc» clmumsunuul wldonca [13] The waw an acwpmnce nl uroumsoamial evidence is Irile. In lhe case of Law Kian Boon 5 Anal v Public Prusoculor (201014 MLJ 425 at pages 463 and 489 the Federal Cuurl observed as (allows: ‘[57] wnn round in ma qnasmn ol pm, manunn cum be mm L)! ma [udnzal dlcmon m won: Prancular V Wang wm Hung A ArvL1[199.’i] 1 sm an mm. .10 name, Imev aha n II um I... am vllun nu pwuclnlnn nllu wholly on civ=umIum1ale'vIdnnn:e,IhI nunmum of wow mull bi man man mm auamma. mmamoomman Drvucxmztobehnmeun mm when Ippruacmng urcunslamw zvheuce n sci out In mm 1/ Pubhc Pmsacurnr [197fll7]MU2D6ulp207(wMre mug c4 queled mm appmm ma man ‘udgds N Mw7EF.HhEs1kZEn/housu 4 nnlmamnmmwm be used m mm In: nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm a. mum pm nnnnnng up m we nny Ind his qunmihnn M me words or we Cllml .n Bsinnverv a. Slqntuiv Pevlage [1s75—s1u: 1 App Ca: 213 are my wl dlxhnu Mm cncnmuanua: evident: we hlvu Tn wnlldwv me warm mm W: m an awen in nu umled lovw even me wcurvnlinns pm wwnm Van may have a my cvngm so hsf.7\sIha|l1y usen nwlllda llllle In emudalv a dark wmer am on me onher hand you may haw: nurmav cc mys‘ each cl Ihem .mmwn‘ m an umwergmg and bmugm to may upon me same pawl, and man nnnaa, pmdudng . may ev wlvummalum wmch wHl clan! Iwuy me dmnau Mum you In lndeavnufingiu mnpax In mhar mm, chcumflamlil emanae censnua :11 ms um man you look II All use auncnnuung clrcumlunul. you llnu anen n -nu ovum-mama. unllanzvld mi dvnu «rm. - a uuaenam p--en, yuu «nu ywr juagnun rs camp: as In an. conclunlnn. n ma r.'|n.-umnnnliil -vidvnev such as man than ofmnunndnd. it don um uumnnax hsl, nu leans gap. mun my 521 no use an all‘ -Emphasis added [14] Based on me evmence adduced. cm:umsl£nua\ evmance cast and laid down, m Inns case, can be drawn (mm the ronowmg lacs. 1. True accused was lasl seen with me deceased. aryumg ucncemmg an unpam salary. and lhe accused requested a ucket back to cmna 2. Both the deceased and the accused lcugm 3 The accused was seen holding a knife bercre he ran away from me man: 4. The umev mavks av iruunes kuund were consiscem wmh me use M a sharp abject smular to me knife seen with ma accused before he fled 5. The deceased died at the scans N\MW7EF.HhEs1kZEnmDIiD s M-gmwmnan be used m mm ms .mmn.u-y mm: dun-mm wa afluNG Wm Prim: Facio can [15] N (he conclusion at the pmSiacuIlon's case. |hE prosecullun must eslabhsha pnmalacla case in wnim credible evidence must be prasamed {or aaen eiemem nl ine menus that. ii unrebnmed or unexplained, wawd warrantaoanvIc|Inn,sees.1B0(4)o1!.he cnnnnai Fmceduve Code (cps). [16] II was aisa a duo, on me id determine, sumecl to maximum evaluation is ask myseii wnamer I am prepared in wrwicl ma accused on me Imalily oi the evidence contained in ine pmsaauucn case .1 I were in decide to call upon the accused In enter his defence and the amused eiacied to remain silent. In Loo Kaw cm: 5 Anal V W (zoos) 1 cu 134. it me answer ia man quesuon is negalwe. no prima fame easa wnuld have been niada cm. and me aucused would be entitled to an aequmai. [I7] undoumadiy znac Changxiang was round dead ax me scene‘ and ms body was idanlmad by his bmlhar Tne rcuowrng penineni issue would be whether me accused mas proved In hnva me lnIBn|\0n In Inllicl sum bodily iruury on me deceased suincieni lo nun daalh In iis ordinary cause [In] Intention is a (am that cannot be proved by dlrenl evidence but can be invened lrom me accused's aclion and me surruundlng circumsiances (see Dlto‘MokhIiI Hashim v PP mu) 2 cu 1a (FC)) [19] A! we iunciura, me counsel icnne accused subnmed me cossiciiuy el ine deceased being me aggressor as na wn natlnanhly ccnnnned by SP1‘ swz. spa and me pllhologlsli sum being a physicaHy blggsr cum person mun Iha accused. II was suggesled K0 (ha proaecuuon wiineeaas that me deceased iriggered Ind aianed ine anack an we accused‘ and me knife we Hy In me hands oi ine deceased in iMw7EF.HhEe|kZEnmDuD 6 -m»g.wmu.nuiii be used a mm ms anw-y sun. dun-mm wa mune WM! [20] AI Ihe aussexamlnilion by counsel, SP1 conceded Khal bum the accused and me deceased were iniiially discussing ine payrneni of overdue salary eiriiaply. and II was suggealed and agreed by SP1 man are accused was oasaiue, docile and nancenircniaiicnal However, aner lhe acmsed cnnslslerlfly begged the deceased, he was pushed away by the deceased alier lne accused oersisled in reguesling nis uckei to reiurn Io criiris cui was denied by me daacased nuns pol'nl, lhey siarled ngnlirig. my SP2 saw iriein wresfle and puncli escn olner. and me accused riinisell sustained a severe iniury cn nis irilgn caused by lne knile II was supnnlled inal me accused was bleeding prclusely lrarri lne alleged knile snack However. SP2 was unable lo oonfiml who slaned lne fight. [22] SPCHes1med on the cnaraaeroi the deceased. being noldempered and nut caring var his employees (wnrkevs under his Supervision), unlike the accused, who was described as easygoing, rielpful and never quarrelled Wllh anyone. [23] Hence, me Iocwad pul nis delence 0! gm»: and sudden orovoeelioii Ind aelldelence [24] No doubl, il ries been held by me come lnal ilwduld be incumbenl to call lor me accused Ia enler ms deience before an absolute delence can he considered. It is also sellted law that me burden cl prorfl resls on ma person who raises trie deienoe. [25] in me naseof PF VSIMIIIIII Bl 12111512 cu 2:1. lne Icoussd was charged in «lie l-lign ccun wiln murder. sne was accused of pouring nol dil over me deceased, wnlcn led to ner desln. sne claimed Irial la the charge Ind was sequined and released ni lne conclusion of me proaeeulieri case wilrieul ner delence being called The learned irial iudge in iMw7aF.ilhEeikZEnmDuD 7 -ilsis-em Wlihnrwlll as used a mm has nflmnaflly eiini. dnnnvlnril via aFluNG wnxl fnund met no prirne fem evrdertoe could be eslaolisned against her as she was oi unsound mind all lnelinie dune crime. [26] Not sallsfted wl|h tne decision, me prosecution appealed to me coun oi Appeal, wnren was suoceeslul, wnereupon lne eemsed was ordered lo delend nersell peiore tne same Judge. Aner a planar nearing, lne Illal judge egeln sequined lne accused and dlschlrged her on the same grounds met she was oi unsound mind at the time or me uflarlee. Pursuant to searon 346(1) or me crinunel Procedure code, lne Judge ordered tnal tne eeeused be detained II Tampcl Hospital, Jnhor Bahm‘ tor trealnrenl [27] on appeal by lne orosecuaon, lne courl v1Appeal, H’! the judgment M Abdul Rannren Sebll JCA llnent, set aside lne eoousllel and sentenced ner to death. However. on appeal, lne Federal ceurlunenlnmuslyellomed me appellants (the accused) appeal and reinstated tne l-lign cuun ludgmenls However. lhe apex oourl did nol pmvlde a written judgment pa] It is also settled lawtnet lne purden olpruoi rests on the person who raises tne deierrce, he ll nf insenily lsee Jurelrrrl bin Nuttoin v. PF[1Wa’] 1 cu 1I3)ur diner absolule delemes everletrle. However, lnese deienoes need to be eslablishad at (he earliest possible moment, that ls. at the prosecution's siege, to avoid allegaliuns dlailerlnougnl. [29] Tnua, I am of me opimon lha| the delenoe oi provocation or sell- deienee lneugn mus| oe oroven by me accused; reier to s. 3 and s 105 oi lne Evidence Act. but the delenoe are allowed to reler lo errcurrrslaneee lrensolrlng irorn lne prdseeuudn evrdenpe rlsell es ne is not required k) can evidanna on his slds. ‘ SIN imwvamlnzerkzanmuesu - «ms-smmsmri be used m mm ms oflnlnnllly sun. don-rlnrrl v.. eFluNG vwul [so] In ma case at PP v Maa H. Kong mu) 2 cu 562, me learned Judge dvscussed under me subheading Mus! The Dsls/ms aa Ce/Isd Firs! Belem Pm/ale Defence Be Adducsd, and u was held as helm-v’ -[u] Funhav n we mm the fin-imp 54 luck at ma Lolmui mgmma u narralnd annual‘ ma In alrudy man man bum Imnsd wlri usfandmg mnmulval luamu ma acnon aim: mm an m. p-«may Ifllittudlofind mm I! nu am of up mm-naans can by listening no ma Ividulcc an wimnm at am mg-. mm in no mm-i-y cor rm to ran nu ma calling of ham anmud wlmcsus (lncludhlg both ancmod] by nalllnn vommm ram: plwntn «mm could bu rulud [53] Nersce‘ Ims mun be\seves|he1s x: no need m tall fol dnflerme alter me prueumorri case below: private defence .. ounaldevnd, ma aavam could sun be utabushud dmng ma pmmuum-s can through an duct: udducod cm. III wmluul ullud n ma imphasvs added [311 Jusuee Abu Bakanlaws, J further refiamsd lo a com olApneaI can MAI s-np Ambong v. PP [2015] cL.Il/ 153 and slated: [I4]1he Conn m Appual m m. can MAISMV1: Amoong V PP paw] mu 15.'v,[2md]1 ms 153, (20151 3 MLJ 515 nhrnd nu me man book saw: Pena! Lnw of nmmm odn) and mu man one omeaya V Sula af KevaIa[1960] Cn u see an IM vlwusmon that me mm cl unvmzs aavamaa dun nu| need tn be sneufnmly viewed by an w1:uwd.A person taking me me. or pv-van delenoe Is also not mqmred In can ewaenee on ms ma, rm no un ulnhlhhlhnt pm Mrvhuncnwclmnmnunus tnmplvlng cmmuu mmuuan avmnu nu". ma quaanan m aumacaaa wmuh mu quaaum av nlemlnnq ma mm eflsd ov Ihe pvulwuhon evudanm mu ml . amnm. cl me unused dlswarumu any Duvdun u 5 lo be mm Ilmnha Cmm o1Anps|) m ms case mugreau mm lhc whmlwon mm me Vezmed man nudge had mdwcaled mere Vs exua burden on me iwuud that M mas tn |e\I someune my ma mam am he was am; an sefltelencz Thu mains ma pmpuslflon N\MW7EF.HhEs1kZEnmDIiD a unfissawomnarwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm .5 mgmgmad nu ma Iruman man and ma law us lcumod by tho Court or Appeal [es] aha, u has long cm ulubflwod Inn - defined can bu mm Ivan um. pruwcIIl|un‘s case m Inc we av mm Chlnl V pp 112571 cuu an [1967] r ms 2o7,[ws71 2 ML! «so, Azmn cu said Mun s burdsmi phnod on In nmuaod human to cum lnyvulvn cy mun- or uummvn law‘ the burden ll nnly - sHghl an: andlhil buvdun can In dhcmmod hy widonce M wnmssas rer me pmaauuonas man at whnesscs for me devsm -Emnhasns added [321 Wnlhoul d\gr2ssIng Mam me general pnnnlples enumeranad by the higher Duurls on the requirement at a defense In be cafled before the acmsed could prove his delehoe. in the plesenl use, Ihe Vocus WBS not an the accused havmg sucnasslmly presumed his de4er-ce (at the stage V101: proseamon cass)hu1whsIherthe plusecuuan had succeeded In prusenllng sumsianl crsdnbb evrdanca In esnac:-an a puma Iacm case in was harrauvas. [33] It is undwspuled that the accused was last seen wilh the deceased. It was &:\so notdusputad‘ and corvfirmed by the pmsewhcn mmesses, that they had lnugm. However. no one could confirm who started the light, whn lock the kmle firsl and lhal the accused slahbed me deceased in the chest, The vac: thal me deceased was Iymg on the liner covered in bland and mat |ha accused was rloldmg the bloodstalned khna in his hand led mm to run away. though he later turned himself over at a guard post In army personnel, sP12. Muhammad Harif bin Muhammad at dawn or 7.7.2019 SPI2 mnhrmed that me accused was Iruurad, ured and Vookw in when he hrs: saw mm. W Mw7aF.HhEe1kZErumouu 1-2 -ms-aawmywh be used m mm has mm-y mm. dun-mrrl VI] .nuNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-64FOP-31-11/2021

PENUNTUT1. ) NG PHUI YUN 2. ) CHAN XIN YI 3. ) GIAN KAR MUN 4. ) EE THIAM HUAT 5. ) CHANG CHIN HOW RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Permohonan dibawah seksyen 32(3) Akta 340 terhadap harta-harta yang disita . Penuntut telah gagal mengemukakan satu keterangan yang kredible dan mencukupi untuk membuktikan Penuntut telah memperolehi harta tersebut secara sah dan berhak kepada harta tersebut

06/02/2024

Dato' Che Wan Zaidi Bin Che Wan Ibrahim

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3856914e-abf0-45ef-84f9-9cf9996f1b27&Inline=true

Page | 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI PAHANG JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM GUAMAN JENAYAH NO.: JA-64FOP-31-11/2021 ANTARA CHANG CHIN HOW ...PENUNTUT (NO KP: 920108-01-5661) DAN PENDAKWARAYA ...RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] Ini adalah rayuan yang difailkan oleh Pihak Penuntut terhadap sebahagian daripada keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah pada 14.03.2023 yang telah memerintahkan bahawa harta E9 iaitu wang simpanan di dalam akaun semasa Ambank (No. Akaun :881041667169) berjumlah RM100,000.00 (E9) dilucuthakkan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. Pihak Pemohon telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh 28.03.2023 yang merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut. 06/02/2024 15:34:45 JA-64FOP-31-11/2021 Kand. 65 S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 2 LATAR BELAKANG KES [2] Pada 3.8.2021, pihak polis telah membuat tangkapan ke atas iaitu Chang Ching How (Penuntut 5) bersama 2 lelaki yang lain iaitu Chia Jing Heo dan Ee Thiam Huat (Penuntut 4) dibawah seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234]. Penuntut ke 4 dan ke 5 seterusnya telah dituduh dibawah di Mahkamah Tinggi di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234. [3] Selanjutnya, harta-harta berikut atas nama Penuntut telah disita menurut seksyen 25 dan seksyen 28 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakkan Harta) 1988 [Akta 340]. Harta-harta siataan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: 1- Harta E2 - wang tunai berjumlah RM3,910.00; 2- Harta E3 - seutas rantai loket berbentuk segiempat warna keemasan 3- Harta E9 – wang simpanan di dalam akaun semasa Ambank (No. Akaun :881041667169) berjumlah RM100,000.00. 4- Harta E10 - wang simpanan di dalam akaun CIMB (No. Akaun :7043620887) berjumlah RM100,000.00. [4] Penuntut telah menerima notis sitaan ke atas harta tersebut yang bertarikh pada 12.8.2021, 5.8.2021 dan 3.8.2021 dan telah dikemukakan dan bertanda eksibit R7 (1-5). Penuntut seterusnya telah menghantar suatu tuntutan bertulis pada 18.10.2021 kepada Bahagian Perlucuthakan Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, IPK Johor. S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 3 [5] Seterusnya, tuntutan tersebut telah dirujuk ke Mahkamah ini dibawah seksyen 32(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 [Akta 340] dan di akhir perbicaraan, Mahkamah telah memerintahkan agar kesemua harta E2, E3 dan E10 dipulangkan kepada penuntut, manakala harta E9 dilucuthakan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. UNDANG-UNDANG BERKAITAN [6] Mahkamah telah meneliti peruntukkan undang-undang yang ada berkaitan rujukan harta yang disita di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakkan Harta) 1988 [Akta 340]. Seksyen 32 (1) dan (2) Akta 340 telah menetapkan prosidur bahawa apabila sesuatu harta telah disita dibawah Akta 340, Penuntut mempunyai hak untuk membuat tuntutan secara bertulis bagi harta-harta sitaan tersebut dalam masa 3 bulan daripada tempoh sitaan. Apabila menerima tuntutan tersebut, Pendakwa Raya hendaklah merujuk tuntutan tersebut ke Mahkamah Sesyen dalam masa 14 hari selepas habis tempoh 3 bulan untuk dijalankan suatu pemeriksaan ke atas tuntutan tersebut. Seterusnya, Mahkamah hendaklah meneruskan pemeriksaan tuntutan tersebut mengikut prosidur yang telah ditetapkan di bawah seksyen 32(3) Akta 340 seperti berikut: “(3) Mahkamah Sesyen yang kepadanya suatu tuntutan dirujuk di bawah subseksyen (2) hendaklah mengeluarkan suatu saman mengkehendaki orang yang menuntut bahawa dia berhak ke atas hart aitu menurut undang- undang, dan orang yang daripadanya harta itu disita, jika dia dan tempat dia berada diketahui, hadir di hadapan mahkamah itu, dan apabila mereka hadir, S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 4 atau jika mereka ingkar hadir setelah penyampaian sempurna saman itu dibuktikan, Mahkamah Sesyen itu hendaklah terus memeriksa perkara itu dan jika berpuas hati bahawa tiada kesalahan di bawah Akta ini atau di bawah Akta dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah dilakukan berkenaan dengan harta yang dituntut itu dan bahawa harta itu bukannya harta yang menyalahi undang-undang, hendaklah memerintahkan supaya harta itu dilepaskan kepada orang yang menuntutnya itu setelah dibuktikan bahawa dia berhak ke atasnya menurut undang-undang, dan hendaklah, dalam apa-apa hal lain, memerintahkan supaya harta itu dilucuthakan.” DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [7] Dalam membuat dapatan berkenaan tuntutan Penuntut, Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd dan Satu Lagi lwn Pendakwa Raya [2022] MLJU 275, YA Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah menyatakan bahawa: “[33] Berasaskan kepada peruntukan subseksyen 32(3) Akta 340, terdapat 2 keadaan selepas prosiding pemeriksaan di hadapan Hakim Sesyen iaitu sama ada Harta Sitaan tersebut dilepaskan kepada penuntut-penuntut iaitu Perayu Pertama dan Perayu Kedua atau dilucuhakkan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah seksyen 33 Akta 340. [34] Terdapat 3 elemen penentuan sama ada sesuatu harta sitaan itu hendaklah diserahkan kepada penuntut atau dilucuthakkan kepada Kerajaan iaitu: S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 5 (a) sama ada Mahkamah berpuas hati atau tidak bahawa tiada kesalahan di bawah Akta 340 atau Akta 234 telah dilakukan berkenaan dengan harta yang dituntut itu; (b) sama ada Mahkamah berpuas hati atau tidak bahawa harta yang dituntut itu adalah harta yang menyalahi undang-undang (illegal property); dan (c) sama ada penuntut Berjaya membuktikan bahawa beliau berhak di sisi undang-udang (lawfully entitled) terhadap harta tersebut.” [8] Mahkamah juga mendapati tahap pembuktian yang terpakai ke atas Penuntut untuk membuktikan tuntutannya kepada Mahkamah ialah dengan mengemukakan atas imbangan kebarangkalian suatu keterangan kredibel yang mencukupi bahawa harta tersebut telah diperolehi secara sah dan bahawa Penuntut adalah berhak secara sah ke atas harta sitaan tersebut. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes PP v. Lim Kim Hoei & Anor [2014] 4 CLJ 816 yang telah memutuskan bahawa: “[38] Bearing in mind that since s. 32(3) are not forfeiture proceedings under the Act, the question of the property claimed being presumed to be an illegal property under s.35, unless it is proved to the contrary by the respondents, does not arise at all. The only burden of the respondents is to adduce sufficient credible evidence that the properties were acquired by them through lawful means and that they were lawfully entitled to such properties.” S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 6 [9] Maka diperingkat ini, berdasarkan garis panduan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah mempertimbangkan tuntutan Penuntut bagi harta E9 yang dikemukakan seperti berikut: ISU PERTAMA: SAMA ADA TERDAPAT KESALAHAN DI BAWAH AKTA 340 ATAU AKTA 234 DILAKUKAN BERKENAAN DENGAN HARTA YANG DITUNTUT [10] Bagi isu pertama, berdasarkan pemeriksaan yang dijalankan, Mahkamah hendaklah menentukan bahawa sama ada Mahkamah telah berpuas hati atau tidak bahawa tiada kesalahan di bawah Akta 340 dan Akta 234 telah dilakukan berkenaan dengan harta yang dituntut tersebut. Dalam menimbangkan keterangan yang ada, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Jason Chan Huan & Ors v. PP [2015] 2 CLJ 605, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[76] As to the requirements to satisfy the examining court regarding the elements that there was no offence under the FOP Act or the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 having been committed in respect of the said property that is being claimed and that such property is not illegal property, such evidence must come from the investigating officer as he is the person in possession of the required information and knowledge about those issues.” [11] Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan SR1 iaitu ASP Muhammad Shahrul Nizam bin Ahmad Rosly yang merupakan pegawai penyiasat dalam kes ini. SR1 telah memberi keterangan dan mengesahkan bahawa Penuntut S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 7 bersama 2 yang lain telah ditangkap berkaitan dengan kes pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234. Penuntut juga telah dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234 dan kes masih berjalan sehingga keputusan kes ini dibuat. [12] Selain daripada keterangan SR1 tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati tiada mana-mana keterangan lain yang menunjukkan bahawa harta E9 tersebut telah dikaitkan dengan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta 340 atau Akta 234. Oleh itu, pada hemah Mahkamah, keterangan SR1 yang hanya mengesahkan bahawa Penuntut telah ditangkap dan dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234 bukanlah suatu pembuktian kukuh bahawa terdapatnya kesalahan di bawah Akta 234 telah dilakukan berkaitan harta tersebut. Malahan, kes Penuntut pada masa ini masih berjalan di Mahkamah Tinggi dan Penuntut juga belum dibuktikan bersalah atas pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas Penuntut. Oleh itu, pada takat ini, Mahkamah berpuashati dan memutuskan bahawa bagi isu ini tiada mana-mana kesalahan telah dilakukan dan dibuktikan di bawah Akta 340 atau Akta 234 berkaitan harta E9 yang dituntut oleh Penuntut dalam kes ini. ISU KEDUA: SAMA ADA HARTA YANG DISITA TERSEBUT MERUPAKAN HARTA YANG MENYALAHI UNDANG-UNDANG (ILLEGAL PROPERTY). [13] Bagi isu kedua, berdasarkan pemeriksaan yang dijalankan, Mahkamah hendaklah menentukan bahawa sama ada Mahkamah telah berpuas hati atau tidak bahawa harta yang disita E9 merupakan harta yang menyalahi S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 8 undang-undang (illegal property). Dalam menentukan perkara tersebut, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd dan satu lagi lwn Pendakwa Raya [2022] MLJU 275, YA Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah menyatakan bahawa: “[46] Tafsiran ‘harta yang menyalahi undang-undang’ (illegal property) di bawah seksyen 2 Akta 340 adalah seperti berikut: ..means any property, whether within or outside Malaysia- (a) which is wholly or partly derived or obtained from or by means or any prohibited activity carried out by any person after the commencement of this Act; (b) which is the income, earnings or assets wholly or partly derived or obtained from or by means of any property referred to in paragraph (a); (c) which is wholly or partly derived or obtained from or by means of any property referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); (d) which is wholly or partly traceable or attributable to any property referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c), or to any income, earnings or assets of any such property; (e) which, after the commencement of this Act, is or was used to assist or facilitate any prohibited activity; (f) which is the subject matter of an offence under section 3, 4 or subsection 24(7) or if any Scheduled offence commited after the commencement of this Act;or S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 9 (g) which, due to any cirmcumstance such as, but not limited to, its nature, value, location or place of discovery, or the time, manner or place of its acquisition, or the person from whom it was acquired, or its proximity to other property referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, can be reasonably believed to be property falling within the scope of any of the foregoing paragraphs.” [14] Mahkamah juga telah meneliti tafsiran perkataan “prohibited activity” yang telah dinyatakan di dalam peruntukkan di atas. Seksyen 2 Akta 340 telah memberikan tafsiran “prohibited activity” seperti berikut: ..means any act, activity, or conduct taking place in whole or in part within or outside Malaysia which- (a) constitutes an offence under section 3 or 4 of this Act, or under any foreign law correcsponding thereto or which constitutes a Scheduled offence;or (b) although not constituting such offence, is of such nature or occurs in such circumstances that it could be reasonably believed therefrom that it would have ultimately resulted in or led to the commission of sucah an offence. [15] Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa berdasarkan tafsiran kedua-dua perkataan “illegal activity” dan “prohibited activity” di atas, adalah dapat disimpulkan bahawa maksud harta yang menyalahi undang-udang tersebut adalah harta-harta yang berkaitan dengan kegiatan atau perbuatan yang S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 10 merupakan suatu kesalahan atau membawa kepada perlakuan sesuatu kesalahan terjadual. Kesalahan Terjadual (Scheduled offence) di bawah seksyen 2 pula telah ditafsirkan sebagai suatu kesalahan yang diyatakan atau diperihalkan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta 340. [16] Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan SR1 dan mendapati bahawa SR1 hanya mengesahkan bahawa Penuntut bersama 2 yang lain telah ditangkap dan dituduh berkaitan dengan kes pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234. Namun, berkaitan dengan harta E9, Mahkamah mendapati tiada mana-mana keterangan lain yang menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya kesalahan terjadual yang telah dilakukan berkenaan harta sitaan tersebut. Fakta menunjukkan bahawa harta ini bukannya menjadi subject matter barang kes yang dijumpai bersama-sama tangkapan kes seksyen 39B Akta 234 tetapi ianya telah dijumpai dan disita oleh pegawai sitaan selepas siasatan dan tangkapan dijalankan ke atas Penuntut. [17] Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa pihak Responden juga tidak membawa apa-apa prosiding bagi pelucuthakkan harta E9 di bawah seksyen 8 Akta 340 dan perkara ini telah menunjukkan bahawa harta E9 tersebut bukanlah harta-harta yang menyalahi undang-undang. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes PP v. Lim Kim Hoei & Anor [2014] 4 CLJ 816 yang telah memutuskan bahawa: “[3] The fact that the Public Prosecutor did not take forfeiture proceedings under s.8 of the Act but instead, allowed the police to refer the respondents’ claim to the Sessions Court showed that the Public Prosecutor had no S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 11 reasonable grounds to believe that the seized properties were illegal properties. Further, it had been established by the respondents through their own evidence that on a balance of probabilities that (i) the seized properties were acquired through lawful means by the respondents, and (ii) no offence under the Act had been committed in respect of any of the seized properties” [18] Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. PP [2009] 8 CLJ 463 yang telah memutuskan bahawa: “[32] In other words, once a claim is referred to the Sessions Court by the PP under s.32 of the Act, the court is entitled to assume and presume that (1) no offence under the Act or under the DDA has been committed in respect of the property and (2) that such property is not illegal property. Consequently, the only burden on the part of the claimant is to prove by adducing admissible evidence, that he is lawfully entitled to the property.” [19] Oleh itu, pada hemah Mahkamah, pada takat ini, Responden telah gagal membuktikan elemen ini dan Mahkamah berpuashati dan memutuskan bahawa bagi isu ini harta E9 tersebut bukanlah suatu harta yang menyalahi undang-undang seperti yang ditafsirkan di bawah seksyen 2 Akta 340. S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 12 ISU KETIGA: SAMA ADA PENUNTUT BERJAYA MEMBUKTIKAN BAHAWA PENUNTUT BERHAK KE ATAS HARTA YANG DISITA TERSEBUT [20] Bagi isu ketiga, Mahkamah perlu membuat penilaian peruntukkan seksyen 32(3) Akta 340 dan juga keterangan SR1 dan juga keterangan SP5 dan SP6. Pada hemah Mahkamah, terdapat 2 cabang (limb) bagi pertimbangan Mahkamah dalam memutuskan prosiding tuntutan ke atas harta yang disita dan dituntut. Pertamanya ialah kepuasan hati Mahkamah bahawa tiada kesalahan telah dilakukan berkenaan harta yang dituntut tersebut dan juga bahawa harta yang dituntut tersebut bukanlah harta yang menyalahi undang-undang. Keduanya ialah pembuktian oleh penuntut bahawa beliau adalah berhak di sisi undang-undang ke atas harta yang dituntut tersebut. Mahkamah juga mendapati berdasarkan peruntukkan yang sama, hanya di cabang (limb) kedua sahaja, undang-undang telah mengkehendaki pembuktian oleh penuntut itu bahawa beliau berhak di sisi undang-udang terhadap harta tuntutan tersebut. [21] SR1 iaitu pegawai penyiasat telah memberi keterangan melalui penyata saksi yang ditanda sebagai PSSR1. R1 telah memaklumkan bahawa Penuntut telah ditangkap di bawah seksyen 39B Akta 234 dan lanjutan daripada itu, beberapa harta penuntut telah disita dan harta-harta tersebut adalah seperti harta E2, E3, E9 dan E10. SR1 telah menjalankan siasatan ke atas harta-harta tersebut dan secara khususnya bagi harta E9, dan mendapati bahawa Penuntut telah memaklumkan kepada beliau bahawa wang di dalam akaun tersebut adalah merupakan wang hasil S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 13 simpanannya yang dibuka pada tahun 2021 di Ambank cawangan Taman Daya. Penuntut juga telah memasukkan wang sebanyak RM100,000 yang merupakan hasil wang gaji yang diterima oleh Penuntut. Hasil siasatan daripada penjelasan Penuntut berkenaan harta E9, SR1 telah mendapati bahawa Penuntut tidak mempunyai sebarang pekerjaan tetap dan tiada sebarang maklumat serta dokumen menunjukkan perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh Penuntut. Penuntut juga tidak mengemukakan sebarang bukti semasa siasatan dibuat untuk menunjukkan wang tersebut adalah hasil daripada pekerjaan yang dilakukan. SR1 juga memaklumkan bahawa Penuntut telah dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi dibawah seksyen 39B Akta 234 dan kes masih berjalan sehingga Keputusan kes ini dibuat. Hasil si [22] SP5 iaitu Penuntut telah memberi keterangan melalui penyata saksi yang ditanda sebagai PSSP5. SP5 telah memaklumkan bahawa sebelum ini beliau bekerja sebagai mekanik dan pengurus di Jun Cheng Tyre & Battery Services dengan gaji pokok RM6,000 sebulan dan juga menerima elaun dan komisyen. Penuntut telah mengemukakan pengesahan penerimaan Borang LHDN bagi taksiran 2019 yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit P21 dan juga penyata KWSP tahun 2020 yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit P22. Penuntut seterusnya menjelaskan bahawa harta E9 yang merupakan wang di dalam akaun sebanyak RM100,000.00 adalah wang yang dipinjam dari seorang kawan baik bernama Tan Kien Giap (SP6) yang telah kenal lebih kurang 10 tahun. SP5 memaklumkan bahawa wang tersebut diletakkan sebagai simpanan di dalam bank bagi menyokong permohonan penuntut untuk membuat pinjaman perumahan. SP5 telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau telah pergi ke Raub untuk berjumpa dengan SP6 dan telah mengambil wang S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 14 tersebut secara tunai. Wang tersebut kemudiannya dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Public Bank. Namun apabila permohonan pinjaman SP5 ditolak, SP5 telah memindahkan wang tersebut ke akaun semasa Ambank seperti harta E9 dalam tuntutan ini. [23] Untuk menyokong keterangan Penuntut, SP6 telah hadir ke Mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan melalui penyata saksi yang dtanda sebagai PSSP6. SP6 telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau adaalah seorang peniaga durian dan menetap di Raub, Pahang. SP6 telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau telah mengenali Penuntut lebih kurang 10 tahun. SP6 juga telah memaklumkan bahawa pada sekitar tahun 2020, Penuntut telah memberitahu bahawa beliau memerlukan wang untuk membuat pinjaman dari Ambank bagi tujuan membeli rumah. Ambank pada ketika itu perlukan wang sebanyak RM100,000.00 terlebih dahulu bagi membolehkan permohonan pinajaman Penuntut diluluskan. Sebagai seorang kawan baik, SP6 telah bersetuju untuk meminjamkan dahulu dan memaklumkan bahawa Penuntut telah datang ke Raub untuk berjumpanya dan SP6 telah memberikan wang RM100,000.00 tersebut secara tunai kepada Penuntut. SP6 juga memaklumkan bahawa beliau kemudiannya mengetahui pinjaman perumahan Penuntut tersebut telah diluluskan oleh pihak Bank. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, SP6 telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau telah mengusahakan kebun durian selama 6 tahun dan mempunyai 80 ekar lebih kebun durian. Hasil pendapatan SP6 dari kebun durian tersebut adalah antara RM1 juta hingga RM2 juta setahun. Walaubagaimanapun, SP6 mengakui bahawa beliau tidak mempunyai dokumen untuk membuktikan pendapatan tersebut. S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 15 [24] Dalam memberi pertimbangan kepada keterangan yang ada, Mahkamah sekali lagi merujuk kepada kes PP v. Lim Kim Hoei & Anor [2014] 4 CLJ 816 yang telah menetapkan bahawa tugasan tunggal penuntut dalam membuat tuntutan ke atas harta yang disita ialah untuk mengemukakan keterangan kukuh (credible) yang mencukupi bagi membuktikan bahawa harta tersebut telah diperolehi secara sah dan beliau berhak disisi undang-undang terhadap harta yang dituntut tersebut. Berdasarkan prinsip yang sama, Mahkamah akan membuat penilaian kepada keterangan yang ada yang telah dikemukakan oleh SR1, SP5 dan juga SP6. [25] Berdasarkan keterangan yang ada Mahkamah mendapati bahawa atas imbangan kebarangkalian, keterangan Pengadu mengenai sumber kepada harta E9 tersebut adalah tidak konsisten, diragui serta tidak dapat meyakinkan Mahkamah berkenaan bagaimana harta tersebut telah diperolehi oleh Penuntut. Pada awal siasatan, berdasarkan keterangan SR1, Pengadu telah memberi penjelasan bahawa harta E9 tersebut adalah hasil wang simpanannya dan dari gaji hasil pekerjaannya. Kemudian, semasa pemeriksaan dijalankan di Mahkamah terbuka pula, Penuntut telah memaklumkan bahawa sumber harta E9 adalah daripada pinjaman seorang kawan baik iaitu SP6. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa walaupun Penuntut telah memanggil SP6 untuk menyokong keterangannya, keterangan SP6 adalah suatu keterangan yang tidak kukuh, diragui dan tidak disokong oleh mana -mana keterangan yang lain. SP6 telah memaklumkan bahawa beliau mempunyai ladang durian seluas 80 ekar lebih dan pendapatan tahunan antara RM1 juta hingga RM2 juta. Namun apabila ditanya, SP6 gagal untuk S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 16 mengemukakan sebarang bukti untuk menunjukkan kewujudan ladang durian dan pendapatan tersebut. Adalah tidak mungkin untuk suatu perusahaan perniagaan sebesar itu, tidak mempunyai sebarang dokumen untuk direkodkan. Mahkamah akhirnya mendapati keterangan Penuntut dan SP6 adalah tidak konsisten denga apa yang dijelaskan kepada pegawai penyiasat semasa siasatan pertama dijalankan. Keterangan mereka juga adalah tidak kukuh (credible) apabila SP6 telah gagal untuk menunjukkan sebarang bukti mengenai kebun durian dan pendapatannya untuk meyakinkan Mahkamah bahawa versi Penuntut adalah benar dan SP6 adalah berkemampuan untuk memberi pinjaman kepada Penuntut. Dalam hal ini, Penuntut telah gagal mengemukakan suatu keterangan kukuh dan kredible yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan Penuntut telah memperolehi harta E9 secara sah dan berhak ke atas harta tersebut disisi undang-udang. [26] Oleh itu, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang telah dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah telah memerintahkan supaya harta E9 yang merupakan wang di dalam akaun Ambank (No. Akaun: 881041667169) berjumlah RM100,000.00 dilucuthakan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. 1 Februari 2024 chewanzaidi [DATO’ CHE WAN ZAIDI BIN CHE WAN IBRAHIM] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah 4 Johor Bharu S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page | 17 Pihak Responden: TPR Mohamad Zulfadhli bin Tuah dan Nurul Syafiqah binti Shaari Pihak Penuntut: Encik Muhammad Abd. Kadir dari Tetuan Muhammad Abd. Kadir & Co S/N TpFWOPCr70WEZz5mW8bJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-23NCvC-30-06/2023

PLAINTIF Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Bin Fateh Din DEFENDAN Dato' Daljit Singh a/l Gurdev SinghPIHAK TERKILANHEDGELAND REALTY SDN BHD

This Court opined that with the fall of the Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim, he would not be prejudiced at trial. His pleaded defences are justification and qualified privilege. Those are worlds apart from the tort of conspiracy and the breach of duty care on which he had based his Amended Counterclaim. With confidence, this Court stated that the Defendant would still receive a fair trial – the hearing dates have been fixed.

06/02/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7171a5ee-4fca-4db6-8eb4-1facc01d1397&Inline=true

06/02/2024 09:50:15 WA-23NCvC-30-06/2023 Kand. 82 S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7qVxccpPtk2OtBswB0Tlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—23m:vc—3o—n6/2023 Kand. E2 an/oz/2024 nezsn-13 IN THE men COURT "4 MALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR nu ma FEDERAL rznrznorzv, umuwsux ClV|L as: NO- Wk-ZJNCVC-3|)-0512023 BETWEEN nm 55:: MONAMAD SALIM am FATEH um PLAlMT|FF mm’ DALJIT smen A/L sunnsv smcn DEFENDANT (IN ms ORIGINAL cum) BETWEEN mm mun SINGH A/L GURDEV smsu PLAINYIFF AND 1. VAN SRI MOHAMAD SALIM am FAIEH mu 2. HEDGELAND REALTY sun arm [COMPANY No:l1614sI-D} DEFENDANTS sw 7qvmcnPxhzmaswarmw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (IN THE coumERcLAIM) enuuuns Of JUDGMENT m Where (mm Is our lodesur and favnass uur cnmpass. (be case bafnm rm; com mauve: rr ta delerrmna ma dlspula conurnlng Ina repurarran Ma nmmmem figure, me Flamml He slands aggrieved before mi: Coun. ms repmanorr allegedly (imnshefl by me Delendanrs words made lo a senior Iawysv and m the edI\av—m<hie1 :2! a news vnnal The marnrin exam to be a urcnrnr cl amarnanrun, an ancusauen as potent as rr rs pemous on the a|har side or the cuuflmom, me uerenaarrr, var vrurrr cmrrnm, maintains mat ms words wete mken our Mcunlext He mnrenas mar he was merely axprusmu his damp Ienie orarsagpuvnrmenr and In: iaalmg at bah; cheated when are Plamlm. aceovdmg lo ma Delendanl. cam la honour that agraemenl The Dsfendam had filed a counrsrcxarrn agamsllhe maimrmmerr references remain I1 «ms Grounds ouudgmeun and a company cafled Hedgsland Rulty sun Ehd (Hedqelandj. The Dmenflanl clalmad ma marnrm euhnr acung by nrmm andlov rn concert with Hedgeland had depnved mm 0! ms stake In me Karyaneka land aoqmsmcn amaunleu ro RM|7.6B0,000 Much ne vs oounneraarrnrng agarna: lhem Wimvatad and axammary damages were mm prayed for sm 7nvxm:DFlhzmaswaonw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mn.u-r mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max haw ll has arose Thls Conn cnuld m| find any causallan pleaded —mere was a ban sfatlamlnl man MRCE was la pay me Ddlandarn 2v/. nal me Flalntlfl nor Hedgelanfl Agaln la! lhls, mere were no avemlenls or plaaalngs that slale me Flalrllrff and Hsdgelalltfs lrlvolvemenl in me la-mlnellcm emla Karyzrleka lam acqulsmon [12] me aeeelon In slrlke out pleadings was always urle lnal |hls Cuufl make upon their duse scnmny as llilgarlts ougnl nol la be oeprlvea me oppcmmlly lo move llle ease (hay pieadad. Tnls cm was guldsd bylhe calm al Appears am-mallan W Kuln Pall sang @ Alan mm. V Robnrl Duran 5 on Ind other lppills [2013] 2 ML.) 174 la lne legals pnnclpie lhel the Drlman/Vuncliml allne pleading ls to plead a reasonable muse 0| aellen lnal musl cnrltaln all rnalenal rams lnal fulfil me slemenls cf ma allegaa Iagal Hublllly al mesa sued The Derfendanrs Amended caunlemlann lnal barely menhoned me Breach ol duly or care by Heagelana could be regarded as embarrassmenl and plelllulalal Io Hadgaland ln lanns alaevenalnq lne ralner lack Medusa of idion (131 The laelanaanrs lsfelence |o me Federal calms declslcln mi ran W24" Huang A Dr: v Malaysia Ammes arm 4: arm: Appuls l2ola1 9 cu -:25 was cansudend Howuvav, ln this case. were I5 nal a single lrlalale lssua ln ms Amended counlarclalm |o make ll suslalnabla As am 7n\lxa¢DFlh1DlBswB0Tlw “Nair Smnl luvlhnrwlll a. UIQG a may he nflnlnullly am. flnuavlml VI nFl|.INQ vtmxl sudl, Ims count was bound by Ihe appropriate lags! unncipax enunciiled m Enndu Eur/«or sun Em A on v Unilod Muluyan Bcnkinw corpom/on Bhd [max 3 MLJ as. The oavsnuanrs Amended CmmIzrc\a4rn was zmurdmgly struck oul There was no order as to costs [14] Yhis cum npmad (ha! wulh (he [AH m (ha Davanaanrs Amlndod Ouunlznflatm, he wnuld not be premuxcea an me: His pweaaea delences are msuncauan and quahfied pmmege Tlmse are worms apan mm the ion vfcnnspivacy and me bveach ommy care on wmcn ha has based ms Amended ccumemaim wnn wnaaenoe. mus Court suxea me: me De1endan|wmAld sum recewe a law max — me heanng Giles have been fixed DATED A FEERUARY 2024 aw)” R02 MAWAR ROZNN JUD\C|AL COMMVSSWONER HIGH COHRT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMFUR 11 m vqvxucpnhzmaswaanw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Dlvfneslv Bhaskaran‘ Serena Ayzudm and Wong Jra ./mg reman Sheam Delamara 5 Ca Mrumala a/p Fusudoray and Haqmder afl Saudagar T/Iv Am Delay 4 Assoaalss Ccunssl lot the Agglreved Party’ Aanm a/p s Jeyaramn anwayasn a/p Rawchanlmran rm Aanm 5 Assaaalss Counsel for the P/ainlrfl . Counsil R» we Delsndant .; sm 7qvmcDPn-zmaswaonw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [2] ms court, upnn me scrunny enne pleadings and may naanno me submlsuuns M he parties. had allowed an ipplicluons by my Hamnfl and Hedgeuma (Em: no and Em: «A rssoec|ws\y) to Mnke out me Defendanfs cmntevdaim ms Cuurl fuund max as per me applunmns Imdev Older 13 Rule 19(1)1a) Rules of com 2012 (R09) ms was a puin and obvious case mam me cause av mm m on Delandanfs Doun|erc\a|m was plamly and ubvluusw unsuszamame costs cal RM3,D00 was ordered to be pine oonhwma by me Dslendanl nu Counlarclalm {3} The Defendanl sxaxea «haw he was spproachea by me P\a\n(\H m 2045 to asssc and vaamace in ma aequmtim cf the land omuoied by Knrynmka an Ja\an Oanlly‘ Kuam Lumpur Akaryanaka map. The caveman: daimed Ihal ma Plenum rapresamed that he had mscmcnuns (mm the men Prune Mm>sterYABhg Dam Sen Muhd Na;-n Tun max (0 abqulru me Karyaneka Land so devemp a new umuo Haadquanars u was In be undanakan by Mlllynin Resourcas Corpcrahon aemad (MRCB}w1ucI1 me Plamml was me Deputy Chairman at that maxenax «me The De(endanlp\ssdedIha1 he was pmmlsad 2% uflhs zcqusI|u7n prise vwacvmaunn Iha aoqulsmnn M Ina Karyuneka Land — n was weadud max um wenaam had lamlllaled the meellngs mm um Sen Nam Am (me a m vqvxucpnhzmaswaanw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! men Mumsxer M Tounsm) and Uflwer affidars a1 yams mmmnes Amommg lo me norenam me approval was gwen an :3 1a 2011 and (he Karyanaka land was acqum 21 RM925.con.onu where lhe P\a|m|fi had ban a sum mi nM4a,ooo,uoa as paymem (0 me De1md=nLTne Fla-mm had apboimed me oetanuam as adviser «a una 01 MRCE's sunmznas un1Z.§ 2017 as Dumal naymem The Deiandanl clmmed mm afler me 13*" senemx Elecuons on 9.5 2015 me Fllmlm women to be sssoctalsd wxlh meme" Puma Mimsner and Daun Sn Rusmah Mansnrso lha Plzmmi suggesnea mm he should try to wnvmna me Mlmslry of Finance In sum ma Karyanekn wane aeqmuuon In Much me nevmaann pru|es|ed k). m November zone. the sand seq-usinon waslermmalsd. The Defendant as-msa he had an Interest m cm sam acqulsmon and mat Hadgnland whamar by men 01 m cnnoen war. was Plannm had aclsd m ameam nu ma duly Dinars lhay had In the uavamam uwas alleged that may had depnved me Deiendanl cl ms slake m me acqusmon The sum omM«7,eaa,ooc was said lo be me balance ofme aoquismun Dries owed In me Defendanl by me Wamlwfl and Heagaxand Ian M oonsplug [4] Thus coun uarchud lhu Counterdaim var e\ememJ of cm larl of cansplracy n lacked a pleading M an agtnemenl belwnen Ihe FLaInliN ma sm 7qvmcDFlh1maswaonw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Hedgeland me some at Appem -n Cubic 5:-comic Sun and {In Llquldlflon) v we Corporal: L Buslnus Advisory Sdn BM 5 Anorhlr Appear lame! 2 cu an had amrmed me uiamenu at me ion 91 conspvacy that were lafled m be weaned .n ma Cuunlerclalm m ram, n was not weadau wnamar Ihe Plairvhfl ma aemauy convmoed me Mimilry cn Fmance In lermlnata/aburl Ina Karyamka um acqmsman. Hedga\and‘s rule m we wnspvacy was no! pweaaea. There was an absence at a svauemem an mew mam m Iluure the Dsiundznh in fact nmmna was Dleaded as to Ihelv Intent and ahpecllve The Defhndunl had ram m plead Ina ants umed out bylhe ma.nx.«.na Hadgalanfl puvsulnl In men ounsplracy and mention H15 Cwnlemam was salenl as to how me: we resulleo m has and damage [5] me Delendlnfs usm» mm the snmnnmers/mcnors/panama»; of Hedge\and were Donnscled and/or related to ma Plamufl is only a have s1alement n ma m| tantamount «u s consp-racy by me Ha-nun and Haauerann There was no aareemem m conlmm auainxl the Defendant max wls meaded. rm mum Hedgelana and (ms Conn were van lo guess what km 0! agreement me ueoenuam nan meem, meme: wt was lormal er Iniurluak or a wmbmalion nvemms by mam an Nu mermun :2! man. what‘ me, how or my Ihe ngmmem la cansmrv In news ma Defendant av ws pmpanad stake m me Karyaneka wane uqumsmon was 5 sm Ynvxwwluuxaswaonw «mm. Snr1I\nauhnrw\HI>e U... a mm he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum am made The pleadmg man that me Plamlm aded “either by Iwnsslf arm/or m mm!!! mm Nsxtgaland and/or mm permn: unknown 1 mos! omamly Insufflcxenl to sale a cause 0! aumn unau me tort ol oonspu-say [6] ms coun aslrees wim mu aunmvssaons by me Iaamca mums! for mu Flaunhmhat nluding m nun, negated ma axmam of any zglsemanl to wnspvu as n he ma acted aume men he mu not conspue win any on-er pany On me other hand‘ me uemaam mu.s| specificauy mean me menmy av me Persons unkncwn All the oansplmmvs mm requwred k: be nxmeu and pleadad !n ma Dafandanfs Amended Coun|erc\aum lhmr mums and mvuwement m lhe alleged wnswacy was nussmg, not pleaded m 1713 Defendant had also am no um (ha! lha mum and Hedgeland had mlended to mjura mm The ewemem mat me agreement was made «or me purpose M Iruunng me Defeneanl needed «a he pleaded The Owmarcllim was hmher barter: Mme aetails/pamwxan cf the am unaanaxan by Ina Plamml and Hedgelind m carrying out man purported onnspuacy [31 Aparl «mm ma nbssrvalmn arm .n wns pmaoa by m. Dcfondan| (ha! u was MRCE and nnllha Puamuumm purpnnedwagreed to pay 2-/. olme sm Ynvxwwluuxaswannw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! acquisiuun prime mme Defendant‘ n was slinad than me mminscim Mme acqmmun was made ans: a n-w govemmlnt wu eulablvshad pursulru m he general mectuors m 201: There am no mm mm mama m nmeaa the case agamsl the Pialnufl and me Hedgeland m me Coun|evc\a<m‘ nl me the ueranaanrs an-gsnnn man may had cmspvrud auams! mm 701 me larmlnauan M |ha Karyanaka Wand acqmsmnn in flepvwe him nuns Durpuned 2-2. paymem promised [9] The plasma lhal s|a|ud ‘Ms actions omeags:an4_ snhor sclmg by use/for m concert mm Ina P/alum, were /7! mmgam ollha may of cars m we Defendant as staksholdsl m we acqmsrt/an"was eonfusmg. It was not clear as k) who had owed Ihe Devendam lhal anegsa duly mare A wnemar If was me Plsmmv cl Htdnlland Them was no zflzbcranon on ms arlunherllms Inst would have exmamed how um: duly. wan all. amse and mereaner breached ms cam was rammded bylhe De(endan| that he had filed an appllcancn \o amend ms De{eM:e and Counlerdavm (Em: as) which had ya! to be new. To ums, u is observed cm the Delandanl had mm ms Dalence ma Amended Counlerc1aAm(Enc an an 4 a 2023 a day after wl had med us nmal Defence and Caunierclaxm. Yms appncamn by the Ptau-M (Em: my was med un1B s.2u23, me same day he med m ms Reply 10 ms Dalenca and neramso la the Defondunfs Amundec Counlerclanm. On 20 s 2023 (ms cum fixed me heaving lur Em: In Two sm Yqvxwwluuxaswaanw «mm. smuw nmhnrwm s. U... w mm s. mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! flays later. on 22 s 2023 Hedgeaand med us awlvcanon to amke out me Defandirns Cmmlamlalm (En: :4) n was fired m In heard |oge|hIrwIlh and m, Then dna rnanm mar, on 20.9.2023 ma Detandanu mad .n ms apphcaflon to amend ms Defence and Amended ooumamuaun, Much was are same day as ms filing «or Vmerrngalcmes agamsl Hedqeland on 13 m 202: He¢geLand raapdndad lo ma Defendznfs \ma:mga|cnas on 20.10.2023 ma P\a\nMl mad lnlerrogamnes to lhe Plalntlfl. Subnusswons by all pames were filed rdr me Defendanfs adpnaanon |D amand rns Amended Dehnca and Caunterdaim as well as Em: m and :4 sun on 5.11 202: mil necdna mu haannu anna argumanu loVEnc1D and w. me Delendanl mmdraw ms appncamdn to amend ms oerenae and Amended Caumevdaim The reach given was man na wvulfl be making a new apancanon rna cdun avowed the mndrawar and awardad cast: to ma Plamm and H-dga4and Then on 14 11.2023 nna new applmalmn by me Delendanl was med (EN: 49;. in axaruslng «annass. |hIs cddn damdad not |o regard ENE 49 in Its assessmerfl M ma apphcshons (0 sinks out by ma Plamllfl and Hadgsland (EM: 111 and Em «A; The circumstances m wmcn Em: 49 waa mad cm not wanann n m be naard Delura ENC m and En!) 14 whem ma papers were aveauy In order an «ma Courfs denbamnon Thus. as odund by me decismn ofme cdun d1 Aapea1 .n Hlrlpan Pumrli sdn and v Snbnh For-it Indusmu sdn Bhd rzm 11 2 MLJ I92. urns Gaunt’: mnsmamflon var Em:1D and Eric (4 mad: undav srn 7a\lxa¢DFlh1DlBswBaTVw «ma. sanaw nanhnrwm a. d... a may he nrW\n|U|y mum: flnuamnl vn mum v-max Ordev 15 we V9(1)1a)RoC was based on me pleadmgs befure u — ma Dsvanaanns menus and Amenaea Counlemlalm (Eur: an, (be Plam|m‘s scauamem on elm (Em: 2), me P\aIn|\N'5 Reply |u me nevenuams Amended Defence and Cmmlerdaim (Em: 9), Heagelanas Defence to me De1endanf‘s Coumerdaim (EN: 11;. HI: Dafsndanfs Reply In magulanas Dttenou m ms Defendant‘: Cmmtamll (Enc 23; am me nerenaam. Reply la me Puammrs Delenoe «a me Delendanrs Caunlerdawm mm was sflowsd by me court (Enc as) ms Cuurl had alsa dxirenarded imsnogames as hey we not verm pan ofEnc10 me Piamufl mu hlghllghlad Ihal mam ms yet an apphcatinn by me Dedendanl to lemme me mamw In answer (hem Luke-mas‘ mus com had nerlhar regarded me Imenugaxunes penaimng m Hsdgeland as they am not form pan M Em: <4. [10] Pleadmgs prtmde me bluepnnl fat the adwmcauon process. The Amended Oounlenialm was reqma xa meticulously asunsans mm ms elements we pamwan Mme cause svamum Form: lorl nl mnsplmcy, ma neasnaams meadmgs wan Vaaklnq In the ax|ent that may um nn| dnsclosa a Ieasuname cause 0! aclmn u .5 we mat a defechve msadmg cannot he cured by any amendment The lad: wn me aulhonues men by lha osvsnaann ~ Munlnndy Subuyuv I Dr: v Chnimrln and Board M-nmrs. Knpirnsl Mum. M./u EM! [1997] 1 cu «1 7 and Mnlmphx 9 m vqvxucpnhzmaswaanw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Holdinvx Sdn Bhd v Commeme lrmmational Marzhanl Einlrers and [2013] 5 cu :44: war: dlslmgurshad . me Defendant‘; Amenaea Cnunlamlzlm wise‘! lacked pemeuneneeuen ollne euemems ol me cause 04 aclwon‘ n01 de1aHs of facts lo me elements needed was um Seri Hixhlmmuddin Tun Hussrin V cm sun Anwal uuanrm [2011] < ms 1189) me cem mncluded um um Demuenrs Amended Courmvcmm was msumc-en: m law no euevam a vaasonable cause 0! eeum. cl Ins Inn ol conspvacy agams1 me P\amIM and Hedgelana. As m was plainly and onwously unsuslaxnabm me Detenaenre Amended Ceurmrdaml fur me (an orconspiuecy meme: me mama and Hadgaland was struck om Bruch at 3 am at can my In me argumanls. me n nndml mama to a branch omwmecx Smoe n was not pleaoed. we Cowl revusea lo cmemer suzmueeions based on a breach ofoonhacl The Dsfmdanl afler en rrms| be bound by me am Neadmgs (see Amer Canrncl Sdn am v xhem Consul! Sdn am-It AnoI|2D23] 1 LNs126a) As to me meson of Ins aulymcara‘ me Dmenaenn meeaea m me Amended Counlemlmm ma| ‘the aclmns er Hedgeland. etmer acting by rlselfur m conoen mm me Plarntvfl, were m divwnrd ol e duty of can: lo me Defendant as e slakeho(L19rm me ucqumlronf Hus meeumge ware sxlenlasln vmallhe duly alcam was and m em 7qvxacDFn-zmaswaanw «we. em lunhnrwm e. med e may e. mm-y em. dnuamnl VI eF\uNa Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

SUIT NO. WA-22C-94-09/2020

PLAINTIF Devan Narayanan Raman [Messrs Devan & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)] DEFENDAN Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe, Roger Leong Chun Lim and Atiqah Yasmin Sedek (Messrs Zain Megat & Murad (Kuala Lumpur)

Enclosure 1. This case before the Court concerned a dispute on an “open tender invitation” (“Tender”) on 6.3.2013 in a national newspaper concerning a construction contract for a project described as Proposed design built of government offices including an office tower, podium, car park and other works for package 1, F3 and 4 Package 2, 3 and 4 in parcel F Presint 1 at the administrative center of the Federal Government Malaysia, Putrajaya (“Project”) that was advertised by Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”) to which Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”) had participated.

06/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=aae04af9-8fd3-4f42-90d3-18be858b3302&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Perembun v Putrajaya Holdings. Decision After Trial - publish 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) SUIT NO. WA-22C-94-09/2020 BETWEEN PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD (Company No: 219148-A) …PLAINTIFF AND PUTRAJAYA HOLDINGS SDN BHD (Company No: 364152-K) …DEFENDANT JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) Introduction [1] This case before the Court concerned a dispute on an “open tender invitation” (“Tender”) on 6.3.2013 in a national newspaper concerning a construction contract for a project described as Proposed design built of government offices including an office tower, podium, car park and other works for package 1, F3 and 4 Package 2, 3 and 4 in parcel F Presint 1 at the administrative center of the Federal Government Malaysia, Putrajaya (“Project”) that was advertised by Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”) to which Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”) had participated. 2 [2] It was alleged in the Statement of Claim, amongst others that: 2.1 the Plaintiff’s Bid was disregarded for non-compliance of mandatory criteria which was never disclosed to the Plaintiff; 2.2 the Tender was called by the Defendant which was alleged to be a Government Linked Company (“GLC”) formed for the development of Putrajaya and as such this was a public project which could only be awarded by “Open Tender”; 2.3 the rejection of the Plaintiff’s bid was done on a concealed criteria; 2.4 to disregard the Plaintiff’s bid is unfair and an actionable cause of action in an open tender and using the concealed criteria; 2.5 as a party in an open tender they had a legitimate/reasonable expectation that their bid will be considered because they had complied with all the criteria which was disclosed. [3] It is also contended by the Plaintiff that upon seeing the advertisement and being registered with Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia (“CIDB”) as a Grade 7 Contractor, the Plaintiff was interested to bid for the tender as it was a “tender Terbuka”. [4] The Plaintiff therefore claims against the Defendant as follows: (1) Damages of RM180,000,000.00; (2) Alternatively costs of RM1,421,422.35 which was expended by the Plaintiff; (3) General damages; 3 (4) Exemplary damages; (5) Interest on total judgement sum at the rate of 8% per annum from 17.02.2020 until full settlement; (6) Costs; and (7) Any relief which is deemed suitable by this Honourable Court. [5] The Defendant states in its Statement of Defence that: (a) The Plaintiff’s claim is barred by laches of more than 60 months and the Plaintiff is estopped from making a claim against the Defendant herein; (b) The Plaintiff is not entitled to claim as there exist no implied contract/collateral contract or grounds for any reasonable expectation. In any event, the Defendant had fairly considered the Plaintiff’s tender bid; (c) The award of the Project to Sunway is not a sham as Sunway has fulfilled the overall requirements of the tender and has offered the lowest bid among all contractors who fulfilled the Defendant’s requirements; (d) The Plaintiff’s bid was not selected by the Defendant due to the Plaintiff’s failure to fulfil the Financial Capability Criteria; (e) The Defendant is not entitled to claim for any loss of profit and had in fact agreed to bear all costs and/or expenses incurred for the preparation and submission of the tender documents when tendering for the Project. [6] It is further contended by the Defendant that only tenders from Malaysian contractors who fulfil the following criteria will be qualified for assessment and evaluation: - 4 (a) Registered with Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB) under Grade 7; (b) Possesses the relevant experience and proven track record of having successfully completed construction works for Airport Terminal or High-Rise Building (minimum ten (10) storey) under Office Building or Mixed-Used Commercial Development or Hotel or Hospital; (c) Possesses the relevant experience and proven track record of having successfully completed construction works with Contract Value of not less than RM 100 million in a single contract within the last 8 years for Airport Terminal, Office Building, Mixed-Used Commercial Development, Hotel or Hospital; and (d) Joint Venture / Consortiums are not allowed. [7] It is also alleged by the Defendant that the Plaintiff had 7.1 attended a project briefing held on 12.03.2013. Pursuant to the project briefing, a document known as the “Project Briefing to Invitation to Bid” (“Tender Briefing Document”) was issued to the Plaintiff and all contractors / tenderers, who attended the tender briefing; 7.2 written to Defendant and stated their interest to carry out the Project. The Plaintiff thereafter purchased the tender documents and was invited to attend a site visit together with the other interested contractors/tenderers vide the Defendant’s letter dated 02.04.2013; 5 7.3 based on the Tender Briefing Documents, the Plaintiff, together with other contractors / tenderers were required to submit three separate envelopes containing supporting documents to the Defendant; 7.4 these 3 envelopes contain the bidder’s details/proposals for 3 separate evaluations, i.e. assessment and evaluation for the Mandatory Requirement Criteria, Technical and Financial Capability Criteria and Commercial Evaluation Exercise Analysis and Court’s Findings [8] This Court has perused the document entitled “PROJECT BRIEFING INVITATION TO BID” which detailed the terms for the Tender, and in particular the following clauses therein which the Plaintiff has urged this Court to consider being: On the 6.3.2013, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a letter confirming they will be attending the Project Briefing which was held 12.3.2013 a. Clause 7 – 7.0 QUALIFICATION CRITERIA Only Malaysia Registered Contractors who fulfil the following requirements will be considered:  Must be registered with Construction Industry Development Board (“CIDB”) under Grade G7.  Must posses the relevant experience and proven track record of having successfully completed construction works for Airport terminal or High-Rise Building (minimum 10 6 storeys) under Office Building or Mixed-Used Commercial Development or Hotel or Hospital.  Mus possess the relevant experience and proven track record of having successfully completed construction works with Contract Value of not less than RM100 million in a Single Contract within the last 8 years of Airport Terminal or Office Building or Mixed-Used Commercial Development or Hotel or Hospital.  Joint Venture/Consortiums are NOT allowed. b. Clause 8 8.0 TENDER EVALUATION EXERCISE The evaluation exercise shall be carried out in three (3) stages: A STAGE 1 – MANDATORY REQUIREMENT CRITERIA The MANDATORY criteria are to ensure that Tenderer are serious in their bid submission both able and willing to provide the necessary back-up to prove their financial and organizational standing. NON-COMPLIANCE to any of the mandatory requirement after (1) clarification sought, shall result in the Tendered to be disqualified from further evaluation. Tenderers shall be given tow (2) working days in respond to any clarifications raised. The checklist of mandatory requirements is shown in Appendix 5. B STAGE 2 – TECHNICAL & FINANCIAL CAPABILITY CRITERIA 7 Stage 2(a) The technical capability criteria are to assess Tenderers’ competency in the areas of Planning Method Construction, Quality Control, Previous Experience and manpower, material & machinery resources. Stage 2(b) The financial capability assessment is based on the Tenderer’s available funds/facilities to support the project. Assessment on the financial capability of each option is based on the financial data provided. The checklist of Financial Capability Criteria is shown in Appendix 7. C STAGE 3 – COMMERCIAL EVALUATION EXERCISE Commercial Proposal of technically capable Tenderers only will be opened and evaluated. Submission of commercial proposal shall include all forms appendices, attachments and references as per Volume 5 of the ITB. The Commercial Proposal shall be evaluated on their completeness. In the event there is any discrepancy between the original and copies thereof, then the prices and particulars as indicated in the original tender shall prevail. c. Clause 9 9.2 Tender participation The Tenderers are, required to purchase tender documents for all Packages (packages 1, 2, 3 and 4) and to participate in 8 bidding of all four (4) packages. Tenderers who fail to comply with this requirement, will result in automatic disqualification. 9.2 Documentation Fee A non-refundable Documentation Fee of Ringgit Malaysia: Twenty Thousand (RM20,000.00) per set of 4 packages in the form of Banker’s Draft is required for the purchase of the tender documents in favour of Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd [9] It is undisputed that the technical and commercial proposals are submitted in 3 separate sealed envelopes all at one time on the tender closing date, with the 3rd document containing the supporting documents and details for the Commercial Purposes (3rd Sealed Envelope). [10] It is also been testified by Zaidatul Ahmad Zubel (“DW-2”), the Co Chairman of the Defendant’s Technical and Commercial Evaluation team, that the tender evaluation exercise was to be carried out in 3 stages, with stage 1 being the mandatory requirement criteria which checklist was to be found in Appendix 5 of the Tender Briefing Document, and stage 2 was to be on the Technical and Financial Capability Criteria and finally stage 3 which was the Commercial Evaluation Exercise. The Tender Briefing Document at article 8 thereto also made it clear that the 3rd Sealed Envelope will only be opened for those who are considered capable tenderers and passes the first 2 stages. [11] DW2 also testified in detail on the procedure for the tender bid evaluation process and exercise which was carried out and testified that the Finance team in the same had “..carried out the assessment 9 based on the Plaintiff’s 3 years audited accounts and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff did not meet the financial ratio required by the Defendant and had therefore failed the Financial Capability Assessment” and that “..When the Plaintiff fails the Financial Capability Assessment, it would also mean that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the Technical Requirement”. [12] Accordingly based on the above, the facts before me show that the Defendant did not open the 3rd Sealed Envelope to evaluate the commercial proposals of the Plaintiff. Was there a concealed Criteria in the Tender Bid [13] Based on the aforesaid clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the “PROJECT BRIEFING INVITATION TO BID”, the Plaintiff submits that: (i) there was no requirement / criteria / benchmark stated in the “Project Briefing on Invitation to Bid”, as well as to what was the current ratio, debt equity ratio, facilities or average turnover and that the Defendant had never informed the bidders of any requirement to meet these items; (ii) the Project Briefing on Invitation to bid document clearly stated the requirements and qualifications of parties that was eligible to bid and that based on this only parties that could comply with the requirements would proceed to the next stage of paying for and obtaining the invitation to bid; (iii) the Plaintiff had complied with all the requirements of the invitation to bid and submitted a bid in the required format to 10 the Defendant which was accepted by the Defendant on the 9.7.2013; (iv) based on the pleaded Defence, the Plaintiff’s bid was never opened or evaluated because the Plaintiff failed the criteria for the Financial Capability; (v) there was a hidden criteria/benchmark in passing the Financial Capability Assessment imposed by the Defendant in this case that was never informed to any of the tenderers; (vi) to secure a bank guarantee and letter of support of credit facilities from a licensed bank shows the Plaintiff had the financial means to do the Project [14] I have firstly observed and do find that the Plaintiff had submitted the following documents in fulfilling the Mandatory Requirement Criteria: (a) A “Tender Bond Bank Guarantee” from Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad (“BPMB”) dated 03.07.2013 for the sum of RM1,000,000.00, valid for the period of 240 days starting from 09/07/2013, as seen at page 251 of Bundle B; (b) An undertaking by BPMB dated 03.07.2013 to provide a Bank Guarantee for Performance Bond for the sum of RM25,000,000.00 as shown in page 252 of Bundle B; (c) Four “Letters of Support” all dated 26.06.2013 respectively from BPMB to the Defendant where BPMB has approved credit facilities for all 4 packages amounting to RM56,000,000.00 for the purpose of the tender as found in pages 156 to 159 of Bundle B 11 [15] This Court has next noted that, PW-3, Taherah-Zahra binti Shorbaini, had in her witness statement at Q&A 5, admitted to having possession of the Tender Briefing Document since the tender briefing and had taken note of the briefing details at the Tender Briefing, which included a question and answer session, as well as being given the project briefing documents, which can be found at pages 214 to 241 of the Common Bundle of Documents i.e Bundle B. [16] Under cross examination, PW 2 had also admitted to having knowledge of the process of the tender evaluation ever since the tender briefing stage. [17] I also find that according to the evidence of the Defendant’s letter of 30.5.2013, found at page 167 of Bundle B, that it appears in the course of the tender exercise, there were more than nine tender clarifications issued to all tenderers who expressed interest to participate in the Project. In this respect, I have also seen a sample of the said clarification dated 12.4.2024, which can be seen at page 193 of Bundle B, and find that various bidders had made certain queries and /or seek clarifications on numerous issues and that the Defendant would then respond vide the said tender clarifications to each of the said queries and/or clarifications. [18] It is also in evidence that thereafter following the evaluation of the tender proposals, the Defendant issued a letter to the Plaintiff on 14.03.2014, informing the Plaintiff that their bid was unsuccessful as evidenced by the Defendant’s letter at page 146 of Bundle B, and that consequently Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd (“Sunway”) was awarded with the contract for all 4 packages of the Project by the 12 Defendant’s subsidiary, Putrajaya Bina Sdn Bhd with a contract sum of RM1,609,600,000.00, pursuant to a Letter of Award dated 11.09.2015 as shown in Bundle B page 253. [19] In this respect, I have especially evaluated the evidence before me with regards the alleged hidden criteria/benchmark in passing the Financial Capability Assessment which the Plaintiff claims was imposed by the Defendant and which was never informed to any of the tenderers. To this the Plaintiff referred to the evidence of DW1 where she had testified that “...The benchmark of financial capability assessment is the Defendant’s strategy, not to be exposed to the tenderer”. [20] Under the document entitled “Project Briefing Invitation to Bid”, the Financial Capability Criteria Checklist appears in Appendix 7 and refers to various items as follows: - Item Description A NET WORTH / CONTRACT SUM B CURRENT RATIO (Current Assets / Current Liabilities) C DEBT EQUITY RATIO (Total Liability / Net Worth) D FACILITIES (Fund Available) CONTRACT SUM E AVERAGE TURNOVER / CONTRACT SUM [21] At trial, DW3, Yap Siew Leng, had in her Witness Statement, testified that the Plaintiff did not meet the Defendant’s required “Net 13 worth/Contract Sum” ratio of 10%, the Defendant’s required annual turnover criteria where she said the turnover must be equivalent to or more than 40% of the Estimated Contract Sum and finally Defendant’s required “Credit Facilities/Contract Sum” ratio of 15%.”. The Plaintiff submits that this ratio of 10%, 40% and 15% as stated by DW3 was never disclosed to the Plaintiff and never stated in the documents that was furnished to the Plaintiff. [22] From all of the above, it can be seen that much ado was made by the Plaintiff on the above issues including but not limited to the point that the Defendant did not disclose any details or requirements with regards the Financial Capability Criteria Assessment. After assessing the evidence, I find, from the facts before this Court, that the benchmark of the Financial Capability Criteria Assessment was not disclosed to the Plaintiff but was also not disclosed to all the other tenderers as well. [23] Thus, the alleged hidden criteria/benchmark in passing the Financial Capability Assessment which the Plaintiff claims was imposed by the Defendant and which was also never informed to any of the tenderers, shows in my view that the Defendant had not acted arbitrarily, irrationally or that it was discriminatory in any sense. [24] It is also in evidence that the Plaintiff did not avail themselves of the opportunity to seek the clarifications as aforementioned where PW-3 had admitted during her cross examination that the Plaintiff has never sought clarifications from the Defendant regarding how the Financial Capability Criteria Assessment would be carried out. 14 [25] Consequently, I further hold from a consideration of the above documents and the evidence referred to by the aforesaid witnesses at trial, that the rejection of the Plaintiff’s bid was not done on a concealed criteria, as I find that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity at the Tender Briefing, from the project Briefing Document and from the respective tender clarifications, more than ample time and opportunity to seek any clarifications that maybe required. [26] In concluding this issue, it is my judgment that the Defendant had acted fairly towards all the tenderers including the Plaintiff. Thus, there was no issue of unfairness or biasness on the part of the Defendant and I hold that the Plaintiff should not now be able to allege that the Defendant had not informed the bidders of any requirement to meet in respect of these items after failing to avail themselves of the opportunity to seek any clarifications they may so deem fit on the Financial Capability Criteria Assessment. [27] In any event, I will now consider the rest of the issues raised by the Plaintiff. Whether the Plaintiff’s Claim Is Barred by Laches [28] At paragraph 25 of the Statement of Claim it is clearly averred that the Plaintiff was aware of the award to Sunway on or before 11.09.2015 and from the chronology of facts before me, it is clear that the Plaintiff had only initiated this Suit on 28.09.2020, which is approximately 5 years and 17 days from the date that Sunway was awarded with the contract. 15 [29] From the evidence at trial, during the cross examination of PW1, the said Plaintiff’s witness had acknowledged that there was a delay on their part in filing this suit but no explanation was however proffered by them as to this delay. [30] I agree with the Defendant’s counsel that the Plaintiff had failed to offer nor make any justification for the said delay in filing this Suit. To this end, pursuant to section 32 of Limitation Act 1953, the said Act empowers this Court to refuse relief in the event of acquiescence, laches or otherwise. Section 32 provides as follows: - [31] In the Court of Appeal case of Saad Marwi v Chan Hwan Hua & Anor [2001] 3 CLJ 98, the late Gopal Sri Ram CJA (later FCJ) had delivered the judgment in the said case which held “In the first place, there is s. 32 of the Limitation Act 1953. It provides as follows: Nothing in this Act shall affect any equitable jurisdiction to refuse relief on the ground of acquiescence, laches or otherwise. It is important to notice that the section speaks of "any equitable jurisdiction to refuse relief" without specifying the kind of relief that may be refused. It must therefore follow that the section permits laches to be used as a defence to the common law relief of damages. 16 Secondly, in Habib Bank Ltd v. Habib Bank AG Zurich [1981] 2 All ER 650, 666, Oliver LJ (as he then was) dealt with a contrary argument in a passage that merits recall: To this counsel for the plaintiffs retorts that that applies only where you are considering the doctrine of laches or acquiescence in relation to the assertion of equitable rights and not where you are considering the enforcement by equitable means of legal rights; and we were regaled with authorities on both sides for the purpose of establishing whether a plaintiff in a passing-off action is protecting a legal right or an equitable right. I have to confess that I detect in myself, despite the erudition displayed by both counsels, a strong predilection for the view that such distinctions are both archaic and arcane and that in the year 1980 they have but little significance for anyone but a legal historian. For myself, I believe that the law as it has developed over the past twenty years has now evolved a far broader approach to the problem than that suggested by counsel for the plaintiff and one which is in no way dependent on the historical accident of whether any particular right was first recognised by the common law or was invented by the Court of Chancery. Counsel for the respondents submits that laches is not, as a matter of pleading, available as a general defence to the appellant. According to him, the appellant's pleaded case has restricted the defence to the remedy of specific performance. Accordingly, it is not now open to the appellant to use it to defeat the award of damages made by the trial judge. With respect, I am unable to agree with this argument. When the defence is read as a whole, and when it is read in the light of the appellant's written submissions in the court below, it is plain that what the appellant was really saying was that the respondents' claim should be dismissed because of laches. …” 17 [32] After considering the case as a whole, it is my judgment that the defence of laches is applicable in this instance, as apart from the delay in initiating this Suit of more than 5 years, the Defendant would suffer prejudice as it was unable to retrieve documents and witnesses relating to the Project as a number of years has passed since the award to Sunway. To this one of the Defendant’s witness, had testified that that Defendant had “suffered detriment and was prejudiced in its Defence” as the Defendant “... faced great difficulties in locating all the tender documentation from all the contractor / tenderers”. [33] I quote and adopt Tan Keng Yong & Anor v Tan Hwa Ling & Ors [2022] 3 CLJ 274 where the Court of Appeal had stated “….it is unjust to consider the plaintiffs' claim for a remedy where they have by their own conduct might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver or an estoppel. … …… .. Memories fade inexorably with time and important witnesses have passed on. It could be difficult to trace important documentary evidence that existed at that point of time. …” WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND/OR IMPLIED CONTRACT AND/OR COLLATERAL CONTRACT COMMITTED BY THE DEFENANT IN CONSIDEREING THE PLANTIFF’S BID 18 [34] This Court will now consider whether there was any reasonable expectation and/or implied or collateral contract by the Defendant’s conduct in considering the Plaintiff’s bid as contended by the Plaintiff. [35] From the facts before this Court, I find that the Defendant had adopted the process, as contained and specified in the Tender Briefing Document and the Invitation to Bid in that the Defendant had carried out the tender evaluation exercise in evaluating the stages for the Mandatory Requirement Criteria, i.e stage 1 and the Technical & Financial Capability Criteria i.e Stages 2 (a) and (b). [36] I have also observed that at paragraph 5.3 of the Invitation to Bid, it is expressly provided that “PJH reserved the right in its own interest to accept or reject any part of the Tender, to waive any formalities, to award the contract based on the base bid or alternative(s) and to award the contract to other than the Tenderer who submits the lowest bid”. [37] From the above document, I hold that there was no unfair treatment towards the Plaintiff as I agree with the Defendant’s submissions that it was clearly made known to all tenderers, including the Plaintiff, that the Defendant was not obliged to award to the lowest bidder. [38] It is clear from the pleadings that the rejection of the Plaintiff’s tender bid was based on the Defendant defence as follows: 19 [39] It is also in evidence from the trial, that the Plaintiff’s commercial proposals were never opened or evaluated because the Plaintiff had failed to fulfill the criteria for the Financial Capability as stated by DW2, the Co Chairman of the Defendant’s Technical and Commercial Evaluation team. [40] The Plaintiff had however submitted that the fact that they were able to secure a bank guarantee and letter of support from a licensed bank showed that the Plaintiff had the financial means to do the Project. With respect, I do not agree with this proposition as the requirements for the Plaintiff’s Financial Capability is as mentioned by DW3 in her Witness Statement, which is for the Defendant’s required “Net worth / Contract Sum”, annual turnover criteria must be equivalent to or more than 40% of the Estimated Contract Sum and the Defendant’s required “Credit Facilities / Contract Sum” ratio of 15%” which were allegedly not fulfilled by the Plaintiff. 20 Law [41] I now come to the law on tenders. In Cheng Keng Hong v Government of The Federation of Malaya [1966] 2 MLJ 33, Raja Azlan Shah J (as he then was) had held: “The law with regard to acceptance of a tender is perfectly clear. The unconditional acceptance of a tender by the employer binds both parties, and a contract is thereby formed, the terms of which are ascertainable from the invitation to tender, the tender, the acceptance, and any other relevant documents: see 3 Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed.) at page 423.” [42] Later in the case of Chin Ah Keow @ Chin Lai Sitt v Anggun Pintas Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 1 LNS 92, Ramly Haji Ali J (as His Lordship then was) had reaffirmed Cheng Keng Hong (supra) when His Lordship referred to the latter case and held: “The law on tender in Malaysia is similar to that of English law vis- a-vis the invitation for tender is basically inviting offerors and unless and until the offer is accepted, there is no concluded contract between the offeror and the offeree.” [43] From the above cases it can be gleamed that the law in our jurisdiction is that an invitation to tender for the Project given to the Plaintiff is at most an invite to the Plaintiff to make an offer and no concluded contract is formed unless the invitation to tender is 21 unconditionally accepted in which event only then will it bind both the offeror and the offeree. [44] Chin Ah Keow @ Chin Lai Sitt (supra) is also of relevance and of guidance in the case before me as the Learned Judge there had also inter alia in that case held that: - “The 2nd and 3rd Defendants' acceptance of the 4th Defendant's offer was in accordance with the provisions of section 6.10 and 6.11 of the Information Memorandum. The right of the liquidators in this case in accepting the 4th Defendant's offer is further provided in Section 2 and 3 of the Information Memorandum ie, they reserve the right to negotiate with one or more prospective tenderer at any time and the right not to select any tender and are under no obligations to select a tender or to provide an explanation for their decision. … In the present case, the Plaintiff's offer has not been accepted by the 1st Defendant. It is within the knowledge of the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant has accepted the highest bidder at the close of the tender, thereby the Plaintiffs tender had been rejected or not accepted. Clearly, there is no contract ever existed between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff, in his submission-in- reply, admitted that "there is no legally binding contract between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff because another tender was accepted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants". However, the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff still has a contractual right i.e, that his tender which has conferred with the requirements of the Information Memorandum would be fairly considered together with other 22 conferring tenders. The Plaintiff argued that this proposition is clearly seen in the case of Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd. v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] All ER 25 where it was held by the English Court of Appeal that: - "In certain circumstances an invitation to tender could give rise to binding contractual obligations on the part of the invitor to consider tenders which conform with the conditions of tender... it was implied that if an invitee submitting a conforming tender before the dateline he would be entitled as a matter of contractual right to have his tender opened and considered along with other tenders that were considered...". The Court is of the view that the decision in that case (Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club) does not in any way help the Plaintiff in the present application. The "contractual right" mentioned in that decision refers to "contractual right to have his tender opened and considered along with other tenders". In the present case, there is no indication that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants has not opened up and not considered the Plaintiff's tender. The only evidence in relation to the Plaintiff's tender here is that the Plaintiff's tender at a price of RM8 million was the 6th highest and was not accepted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. There is no contractual right to the effect that the Plaintiff's tender must be accepted by the 1st Defendant. The Information memorandum clearly stipulates that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are not obliged to accept the highest tender or even any tender at all. The contractual right mentioned in that case (Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club) also states that the tender must "conform with the conditions of tender". In the present case, the 2nd and 3rd Defendant are at liberty to reject (or not to accept) the Plaintiff's tender on the ground that it failed to comply with one of the requirements ie, the tender was not signed by the Plaintiff.” 23 [45] In my judgement the evidence before this Court has on a balance of probabilities shown 45.1 the Plaintiff’s tender bid was fairly considered together with other conferring tenderers; 45.2 the document entitled “Project Briefing Invitation to Bid” clearly stipulates that the Defendants is not obliged to accept the highest tender or even any tender at all; 45.3 the Defendant is at liberty to reject (or not to accept) the Plaintiff's tender on the ground that it failed to comply with one of the requirements. [46] Thus, based on the facts before me, I do hold that the process adopted was well within the Plaintiff’s knowledge and contemplation as well as being reasonably expected by all tenderers. The question of an implied or collateral contract by the Defendant’s conduct in considering the Plaintiff’s bid as contended by the Plaintiff therefore is dismissed. [47] I therefore hold that the Defendant has the right not to select any tender bid including that of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant is under no legal obligations to select a tender or to provide an explanation for their decision. Legitimate Expectation 24 [48] As mentioned earlier, the Plaintiff had also claimed that in an open tender they had a legitimate/reasonable expectation that their bid will be considered because they had complied with all the criteria which was disclosed and that the bid would be fair as it was an open tender issued by the public sector. [49] This Court is of the view that for such reasonable expectation to be imposed on the Defendant, such expectation has to be considered inter alia in light of whether the Defendant had fairly evaluated the Plaintiff’s bid in accordance with the process adopted for the evaluation of all tender bids for the Project. As I have held that the process for the evaluation of the tender bids, including that of the Plaintiff, was done properly and fairly, it is my judgment that it cannot be said that a legitimate/reasonable expectation has arisen in this matter before me. [50] Chin Ah Keow @ Chin Lai Sitt (supra) is again illustrative of the issue of legitimate expectation in such a situation, and of which I humbly adopt, where the Learned Judge had held: “What is legitimate expectation is a question of fact. In this respect the Court is in full agreement with the ruling made in the case of Food Corporation of India v. M/S Kambhenu Cattle Food Industries [1993] AIR SC 1601 In that case, the Supreme Court of India considered the legitimate expectation of a tenderer as follows: - "Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate is a question of fact in each case. Whether the question arises it is to be determined not according to the claimant perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important consideration 25 may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision or public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non- arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny". "Thus, even though the highest Tenderer(s) can claim no right to have his Tender accepted here being a power while inviting Tenderer(s) to reject all the Tenderer(s) yet the power to reject all the Tenderer(s) cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must depend for its validity on the existence of cogent reasons for such action. The object of inviting Tenderer(s) for disposal of a commodity is to procure the highest price while giving equal opportunity to all intending bidders to compete. Procuring the highest price for the commodity is undoubtedly in public interest since the amount so collected goes to the public fund. Accordingly, inadequacy of the price offered in the highest tender would be a cogent ground for negotiating with the Tenderer(s) giving them equal opportunity to review their bids with a view to obtain the highest available price. A procedure wherein resort is had to negotiations with the Tenderer(s) for obtaining a significantly higher bid during the period when the offers in the Tender(s) remain open for acceptance and rejection of Tender(s) only in the event of a significant higher bid being obtained during negotiations would ordinarily satisfy this requirement. This procedure involves giving due weight to the legitimate expectation of the highest bidder to have his Tender accepted unless outbid by a higher offer within the time the offers remain open would be reasonable exercise of power for public good". The legitimate expectation as claimed by the Plaintiff in the present case must be considered in the light of other considerations such as the terms and conditions of the tender as contained in the advertisement and the Information Memorandum; the duty and 26 obligation of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as liquidators in obtaining the highest return for the assets of the company in liquidation; the interest of creditors of the 1st Defendant; that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with certain condition of the tender by not signing the relevant letter submitting his tender.” [51] It is therefore clear whether the expectation of the Plaintiff is reasonable or legitimate is a question of fact in each case. This is to be determined not according to the Plaintiff’s perception but in the larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the Plaintiff. [52] Thus, in coming to my decision I must also consider this case in the light of other considerations such as the terms and conditions of the tender. [53] I have, with respect, considered the cases relied on by the Plaintiff which amongst others were Ahmad Zaini bin Japar v TL Offshore Sdn Bhd [2002] 7 MLJ 604, Blackpool and Flyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Brought Council [1990] 3 AER 25, Southside Construction (London) Ltd v 734133 Ontario ltd [2005], Tarmac Canada Inc v Hamilton-Wentworth (regional Municipality) [1999], and Direct Underground Inc v Pickering (City) [2000]. [54] After reading the aforesaid cases, and for the reasons I have mentioned in my grounds, I find that the integrity of the tender process in the case before me was not compromised as the whole tender 27 process carried out by the Defendant was in my view fair and properly done. [55] As for the respective aforesaid Canadian cases referred to by learned counsel for the Plaintiff, I am not bound by the same and hold that the duty of good faith expounded in those cases do not in my view fit within our laws on tenders which is based on the English law. [56] To conclude, from my evaluation of the evidence before me, in particular the terms of the Tender Briefing Document which I have referred to in my judgment herein and the testimonies of the witnesses before this Court, and after weighing the principles mentioned in Chin Ah Keow @ Chin Lai Sitt (supra) and Food Corporation of India v. M/S Kambhenu Cattle Food Industries [1993] AIR SC 1601 referred to in the former case and the other cases referred to by the Plaintiff, I hold that based on the facts as presented to me, the Plaintiff has failed to prove to the satisfaction of this Court that a legitimate/reasonable expectation exists that the Plaintiff’s bid will be considered because they had complied with all the criteria which was disclosed. I will go on in so far as to hold that the Plaintiff’s bid was in fact duly considered but that they had failed the Financial Capability Criteria Assessment which eventually led to the Plaintiff’s bid being rejected at the Commercial Evaluation stage. [57] Accordingly I further hold that Plaintiff was also unable to prove on a balance of probabilities that the tender bid was unfair and thus the argument of a legitimate/reasonable expectation vis a vis that the open tender issued by the public sector was conducted unfairly is untenable. 28 THE AWARD OF THE TENDER TO SUNWAY [58] The Plaintiff had also raised in its Statement of Claim that the award of the tender to Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd was a sham but had not submitted on this point at the conclusion of the trial although its witness PW 3 had alluded to the said issue. [59] As the Plaintiff had not addressed this issue in its submissions, this Court will deem that it no longer wishes to pursue this head of claim. [60] Be that as it may, it was alleged in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim that the Plaintiff was purportedly informed by the employees of the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s bid was unsuccessful and that the Defendant was not proceeding with the Project but was later informed that the Project was awarded to Sunway and that the officers of the Defendant involved in the appointment process will get benefits / prizes from Sunway. [61] I however find that at the trial that these allegations were never substantiated by the Plaintiff and no evidence was produced in Court to corroborate the said contentions or to identify who the said officers or employees that had informed the Plaintiff were. [62] I therefore hold that an adverse inference should be drawn against the Plaintiff for failing to call the alleged employee(s) of the Defendant as a witness to testify on these alleged issues of the Plaintiff’s bid being unsuccessful and that the Project was not proceeding as well as to the award to Sunway as being a sham. 29 [63] Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 clearly provides: - The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. ILLUSTRATIONS The court may presume: - (g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; [64] In CGU Insurance Bhd v Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 MLJ 1; [2006] MLJU 64; [2006] 2 AMR 641; [2006] 2 CLJ 409, the Court of Appeal had elucidated the concept of adverse inference as follows: - “[103] When gathered together and considered as a whole, the circumstances set out above establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire was the result of an act of arson. There is no doubt in our minds that this is a case where the warehouse was intentionally set fire to by DW10 and DW37 acting on the instructions of Balasingam and that this was not a case of spontaneous combustion as alleged by the respondent. There is also no doubt in our minds that on the evidence considered as a whole it was Balasingam who planned the fire and its execution and that it was 30 his intention to cause the respondent to make a false and fraudulent claim against the appellant. Here is a man who is repeatedly mentioned by more than one witness relating the part he played. The respondent's failure to call him although he was present in court (as may be seen from the notes of evidence) in the circumstances of this case warrants the drawing of an adverse inference under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. It has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Seth Maganmal v Darbarilal AIR 1928 PC 39 that an adverse inference may be legitimately drawn against a party who fails — to call as his witness the principal person involved in the transaction, who was in a position to give a first-hand account of the matters in controversy and throw light on them, and who could have refuted on oath the allegations of the other side …” [65] To surmise on this point, I hold that such allegations are therefore unproven and completely baseless. Conclusion and Decision [66] In the circumstances, I hold that the Plaintiff’s claim has not been proven and as such must be dismissed with costs. [67] Costs of RM85,000 awarded to the Defendant after hearing both counsels submit on the issue of costs. Dated: 29th day of January 2024 31 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Devan Narayanan Raman [Messrs Devan & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe, Roger Leong Chun Lim and Atiqah Yasmin Sedek (Messrs Zain Megat & Murad (Kuala Lumpur)]

Tika 2.6.0

AB-12BNCvC-4-03/2021

PERAYU Kunasegaran a/l Vadevelloo RESPONDEN Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Am Berhad

Civil Procedure - Schedule 9 of Financial Services Act 2013 Principle of Uberrimae Fidei whether applicable - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim for insurance pay out by 4 licensed insurers - Exclusion Clauses - Non-disclosure of material fact - Plaintiff did not declare existence of other policies at time of renewal of policies - Deceased did not possess valid licence to drive - Commission of unlawful act under RTA 1987 - Whether insurers entitled to repudiate liability - Appeals dismissed

06/02/2024

YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ecccc197-7f3e-4c53-92d2-7b8409a7ffc1&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TAIPING DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZWAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO: AB-12BNCVC-2-03/2021 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLO [NO. K/P: 680329085479] …PERAYU DAN THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 91603-K] …RESPONDEN Yang didengar bersama-sama dengan: RAYUAN SIVIL NO: AB-12BNCVC-3-03/2021 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PERAYU DAN BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD [COMPANY NO.: 62605-U] …RESPONDEN RAYUAN SIVIL NO: AB-12BNCVC-4-03/2021] ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PERAYU 06/02/2024 16:35:29 AB-12BNCvC-4-03/2021 Kand. 79 S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DAN SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 1246486-D] …RESPONDEN RAYUAN SIVIL NO: AB-12BNCVC-5-03/2021 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PERAYU DAN ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 735426-V] …RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TAIPING DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZWAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AB-A52NCC-7-05/2019 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLO [NO. K/P: 680329085479] …PLAINTIF DAN THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 91603-K] …DEFENDAN Yang digabung dan didengar serentak dengan: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AB-A52NCC-12-08/2019 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PLAINTIF DAN BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD [COMPANY NO.: 62605-U] …DEFENDAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AB-A52NCC-13-08/2019 ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PLAINTIF DAN ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 735426-V] …DEFENDAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AB-A52NCC-14-08/2019] ANTARA KUNASEGARAN A/L VADEVELLOO …PLAINTIF DAN SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 1246486-D] …DEFENDAN S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Originally there were 4 appeals which were heard together by this Court. On 22.9.2023 this Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in Taiping delivered on 26.2.2021 that had dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondents with costs. Dissatisfied with this Court’s decision, the Appellant then filed 2 Notices of Appeals on 13.10.2023 in respect of Appeal Nos. AB-12BNCVC-2-03/2021 and AB-12BNCVC-3- 03/2021 against THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD and BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD, respectively. It has now come to my attention that the Plaintiff has been granted leave by the Court of Appeal on 10.1.2024 to file Notices of Appeal in respect of the other two cases against the other 2 insurers, namely AB-12BNCVC-4-03/2021 and AB- 12BNCVC-5-03/2021 against SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD and ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD, respectively. [2] For convenience, I have prepared this Grounds of Judgment to encompass Appeals No. 2 and 3 then as they involved the same Plaintiff (Kunasegaran A/L Vadevello) but different insurance companies, in respect of the same subject-matter, which was one Raja A/L Krishnan (deceased) who was the Plaintiff’s employee. I will refer to the parties as the “Plaintiff” and “Defendant 1” (Pacific Insurance Berhad) and “Defendant 2” (Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad) since the trials were heard together by the Sessions Court. The Plaintiff took 4 separate actions against the four Defendants abovementioned. I will refer to SYARIKAT TAKAFUL AM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD and ALLIANZ S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD as “Defendant 3” and “Defendant 4”, respectively. The Court has now updated the first page of the Grounds of Judgment dated 24.1.2024 only in respect of the status of the 4 appeals now that leave to appeal has been granted for Appeals No. 4 and 5 and also the date of this Grounds of Judgment and renumbering of paragraph 23. Other than that, the contents of the Grounds of Judgment dated 24.1.2024 and this one are the same. [3] The crux of the Plaintiff’s claim was the failure of the 4 insurers to pay him the agreed policy amounts due to the death of the deceased. THE APPEAL [4] Before delving into the issues at hand, it is noted that these suits were registered under commercial disputes by the Plaintiff and not as road accident claim. The evidence adduced in respect of the accident which occurred on 14.12.2018 were the precursor to the claim for compensation totalling RM990,000.00 which the Plaintiff claimed he was entitled, pursuant to the death of his employee. The Defendants refused to make payment under the respective policies, namely on 2 grounds i.e. that the deceased was riding a motorcycle without a valid licence at the time of the accident, and failure of the Plaintiff to declare that he had obtained policies with other insurers during the same period. [5] The Plaintiff had taken out 3 Group Personal Accident policies under the deceased’s name with Pacific Insurance, Berjaya Sompo and Allianz General. Then he took out 1 Group Personal Accident policy i.e. Syarikat Takaful insurance in respect of his 4 employees, including the deceased. Copies of the identity cards of the three (3) other employees were as per exhibit P19(A-C) and their names were as follows: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 i. Babelan A/L Kunasegaran; ii. Mathialegen A/L Nyanasgar; and iii. Nyanasgar A/L Vadevello. [6] Based on the names and address in the 3 identity cards above, it appeared that they were all related to the Plaintiff, unlike the deceased. It was the Plaintiff’s contention that Raja A/L Krishnan (the deceased) was offered employment via letter dated 9.5.2017 with a salary of RM4,500.00 as a General Worker (page 410 of the Record of Appeal, Part C). [7] Details of the renewed insurance policies taken out by the Plaintiff were as follows: No. Policy No. And Name Issuer and premium paid Date of Renewal Validity Period Amount Insured (RM) 1. CPN-PO174058-A4 (Pacific Super Protector) pages 426-479 RRBC Pacific Insurance (RM786.98) 22.10.2018 11.10.2018 – 10.10.2019 300,000.00 2. 18DTP/PQCE000042 (Ultima V3-Plan 5) pages 480-512 RRBC Berjaya Sompo (RM790.16) 5.10.2018 12.10.2018 – 11.10.2019 300,000.00 3. PGP-P0052438-30- AGT-17 (Polisi Kemalangan Diri Takaful Berkelompok) pages 561-599 RRBC Syarikat Takaful Am (RM1,865.00) 18.12.2017 29.12.2017 – 28.12.2018 150,000.00 4. No. 17PTP0000254-01 (Allianz Shield Plan 04) pages 513-560 RRBC Allianz General (RM540.00) 15.10.2018 11.10.2018 – 10.10.2019 240,000.00 Total 990,000.00 [8] A total of 7 witnesses testified for the Plaintiff and 6 witnesses testified for the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s witnesses were the Investigation Officer (SP1) and 2 other police personnel (SP3 and SP4), the medical officer and personnel (SP2 and SP5) as well as the owner of S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the motorcycle (SP6) and the Plaintiff (SP7). Meanwhile the witnesses who had testified for the Defendants were SD1 and SD2 (Defendant 1), SD3 (Defendant 2), SD4 and SD 5 (Defendant 4) and SD6 (Defendant 3). [9] Prior to the hearing of the appeal on 8.8.2023, the Court heard an application made by the Plaintiff in Encl. 18 (Defendant 1) and Encl. 14 (Defendant 2), Encl. 14 (Defendant 3) and Encl. 20 (Defendant 4) in the respective appeal numbers for extension of time to file the Draft Index of the Records of Appeal in accordance with O. 55 r.4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) after the Defendants raised preliminary objections on the Plaintiff’s failure to serve the same in accordance with the rules. The Plaintiff’s explanation for the delay was because of the extensive written grounds of judgment of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) and the Draft Index were inadvertently left out from the Records of Appeal and there was no prejudice to the Defendants. The Defendants argued that the prejudice they suffered was they were unable to comment on the inclusion or exclusion of documents in the records of appeal. [10] However, the Court noted that the Defendants did not deny when the Plaintiff stated they only included relevant documents from the lower court. The Court had considered the period of delay, the reason, chances of appeal succeeding if time was allowed and the prejudice caused to the opponent, and whether this could be compensated by costs. The Court also considered and applied O.1A of the ROC. The application was allowed and ordered the Plaintiff to pay costs to the Defendants. FACTS OF THE CASE [11] The Plaintiff was a businessman who owned 2 registered businesses, namely as sole proprietor of Kunasegaran a/l Vadivelloo (“the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 business”) and a partner for 11 years in Pesona Sdn Bhd with his wife Law Hooi Poh (“the company”). The business of the Plaintiff was to supply construction materials, retail goods, trader of oil palm fruits, fruits, furniture, poultry, agricultural products and metal scraps. He employed the deceased as a lorry driver to transport oil palm fruits from the surrounding areas of Selama and Pondok Tanjung in May 2017 with a monthly salary of RM4,500.00 (refer to pages 410-414 of the RR Part C). It appeared from the salary slips exhibited that the employer and employee was not contributing to EPF and SOCSO. The Plaintiff testified that he took out the insurance cover for the deceased as an incentive for his worker. [12] In 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the policies of insurance (as set out above). About 1.5 - 2 months after the policies were renewed in 2018, the deceased met with an accident on 14.12.2018 at approximately 1.03 pm at KM 27 Jalan Taiping – Selama after a motorcycle bearing registration No. AFU 1730 on which he was riding alone was believed to have skidded and crashed. There were no eye-witnesses to the accident and the circumstantial evidence pointed to the fact that the deceased lost control of the motorcycle, was flung off and fell on the road. As he was not wearing a helmet at that time, the deceased sustained severe injuries to his head. He was warded at the Hospital Taiping wherein he passed away on 15.12.2018 at 6.38 pm due to “Severe traumatic brain injury” (refer to Exhibits P3, P4, P9 and P10). According to SP2, the injury was due to a hard fall from motor vehicle accident. [13] Although during the trial, counsel for Defendant 3 disputed the cause of the accident, nevertheless, the Investigation Officer (SP1) was firm in his findings that the accident occurred due to the deceased’s own S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 carelessness. This was due to the fact that from a JPJ search in 2019 (page 415 of RR Part C) showed that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence but had only obtained a Class B learner driver’s licence (L-licence) on 3.8.2001 which expired on 25.5.2003 and was never renewed thereafter, despite the Plaintiff claiming that the deceased was employed as a lorry driver. [14] The main issue of the disputes was the Defendants’ refusal to make out the compensation payments for the death of the deceased under the 4 policies although the Plaintiff had paid the required premiums (refer to the schedule above) and death occurred during the validity period of all the policies. The Defendants contended that they could not honour the respective agreement because the deceased was riding the motorcycle without a valid licence at the material time, which came within Exclusion No. 12 under the terms of the policy for Defendant 1, Exclusion No. 2 for Defendant 2, Exception 2(b) for Defendant 3 and Exclusion No. 13 for Defendant 4. Moreover, the Plaintiff failed to declare in the Proposal Forms during the renewal that he had obtained policies from other insurers, namely Defendant 2 and Defendant 3. ISSUES IN THE APPEAL [15] The grounds of complaint against the decision of the SCJ in the Memorandum of Appeal (refer to Encl. 5 and/or 45 pages 14-34) and Additional Memorandum of Appeal (refer to Encl. 13 and/or 52, pages 6- 43) were extensive and many of them repetitive. The Memorandum of Appeal contained 60 grounds and the Additional Memorandum of Appeal contained 85 grounds. The Defendants raised objections that the Plaintiff had filed an Additional Memorandum of Appeal without leave of the Court whereas it should have been filed as Amended Memorandum of Appeal. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 It was not an amended Memorandum of Appeal but the contents were additional grounds after the grounds of judgment of the SCJ was obtained. The Court did not make a ruling on this and proceeded to hear the appeal. The records of appeal were re-filed after the application for extension of time to file the Draft Index was granted. The issues in the appeal as summarised were as follows: (i) whether the insurance policy fell within the ambit of a consumer insurance contract or non-consumer insurance contract; (ii) if the Court finds that it is a consumer insurance contract, whether there has been compliance by the parties with the whole prosess or procedure under Paragraph 5, Part II Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 758]; (iii) whether the Plaintiff received any notice in writing in respect of the pre-contractual duty to disclose prior to entering into the contract of insurance; (iv) can the Defendants be allowed to rely on a new ground which was never raised in the repudiation letter rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim; (v) has it been proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased died by accidental means; (vi) does the basis clause apply if the court finds that the contract of insurance is a consumer insurance contract; (vii) can the Defendants repudiate liability by relying on the Exclusion Clauses; and (viii) should section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 be invoked against the Defendants for failing to call as a witness their authorised agent(s) who filled up the proposal form on behalf of the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Plaintiff who could not speak and understand the English Language. [16] It is trite that an appellate court would be slow to disturb the decision of the trial court unless the Court was convinced that there have been substantial misdirection of facts and law in the trial court which merited appellate intervention. Therefore, the appellant must convince the appellate court that the decision appealed from was wrong. The rationale for this is that the trier of fact would have had the benefit and advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the opportunity to assess their demeanour: Rasidin Bin Partojo v Frederick Kiai [1976] 2 MLJ 214. The trial judge would have had first-hand opportunity to evaluate and appraise the evidence of the witnesses who testify before him. [17] The appellate court then examines the trial court's process of evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of the relevant laws in arriving at its decision and compares them against the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. At the end of the day, similar to the trial court, the duty of the appellate court in a civil appeal is to determine whether the appellant has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. The legal burden of proof lay on the Plaintiff to prove his case that the Defendants have repudiated the respective contract of insurance without any legal basis. [18] The Court noted that the SCJ prepared 4 grounds of judgments but the contents were almost similar. In coming up with the decision on the appeals, the Court has used the grounds of judgment for Berjaya Sompo (Defendant 2) as reference for all the appeals since the SCJ has ruled the trials to be heard together but the issues for the 4 claims be dealt with separately. As stated earlier, the Plaintiff filed 2 notices of appeals to the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Court of Appeal against Defendant 1 which had taken the view that the contract was a consumer insurance contract and Defendant 2 that purportedly argued it was a non-consumer insurance contract. [19] The Plaintiff’s evidence can be summarised as follows: i. That the Defendants’ agents by the name of Fong Kok Wai (Defendants 1 and 3), Yew Kai Chong (Defendant 2), and Abdul Saidi Bin Badri (Defendant 2) attended to him the first time when the Plaintiff wanted to purchase insurance for his employees; ii. That the insurance agents had filled up the proposal forms whereby they would ask him questions and he supplied the answers; iii. That he had fulfilled his obligations to disclose when the proposal forms were being prepared by the said insurance agents; iv. That they had never asked him whether the proposed insured had a valid driving licence and road tax; v. That had they asked him those questions, he would have gone to see the employee to get his confirmation and then he would reverted to the respective agents with the answer(s); vi. That they also never asked him those questions upon renewal of all the policies; vii. All the said agents filled up the forms for him when he attempted to make the claims after the death of the deceased; viii. That all the policies had never been cancelled despite them rejecting his applications; ix. That the Defendants had never stated the reason why his applications were rejected; and S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 x. That the agents of the Defendants had never asked him to make a disclosure as required under s.129, Part 2(4)(4) of the Financial Services Act 2013. [20] In summary, paragraph 19 of the grounds of judgment contained the SCJ’s finding that the Plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands because he did not disclose in the proposal forms that he did not know about or was ignorant of the Important Notice. He blamed the insurance agents who had filled out the proposal forms for him, namely Fong Kok Wai, Yew Kai Chong and Abdul Saidi Bin Bakri. However, the facts showed that it was the Plaintiff who signed the proposal forms and therefore the SCJ held that the Plaintiff owed the duty to disclose as required under the law. It was noted that this was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim but instead in his Reply to Defence the Plaintiff brought up the issue that he was not asked about those questions in the proposal forms. The Defendants pleaded that the duty to disclose existed separately from any duty to fill out the forms. [21] In paragraph 20, the SCJ found that despite claiming that he was not familiar with the terms of the contract (ignorance), the SCJ found that he was a smart businessman who was maths-savvy (celik matematik) as he was the one who would gather the facts and figures for the proposal forms. He paid for all the premiums which the payout would add up to almost RM1,000,000.00. The deceased died about 2 months after the policies were renewed but no one saw how the accident happened. SP1 concluded from his investigations that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and did not have a valid driving licence, road tax (expired in February 2011) and the motorcycle was not insurance-covered (refer to the summary of SP1’s evidence in page 21). SP1 concluded that the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 deceased was incapable of handling the motorcycle and it was his own negligence that caused the accident. The deceased obtained an L-licence in the beginning but that was all. SP6, the owner of the motorcycle refused to cooperate with the police during the investigation stage. In paragraph 37, the SCJ found that clearly the deceased had breached the law. It was without doubt too that SP6 at the material time had breached the law when he allowed the deceased to use that motorcycle regardless of the fact that he stated in evidence the said motorcycle was not meant to be used on the road. [22] Needless to say, as the trier of fact, the SCJ had the benefit of directly observing and assessing the demeanour of each witness who testified before her. This Court noted that the SCJ in the grounds of judgment had noted her observations in respect of the Plaintiff’s evidence at the trial. For ease of reference, I refer to the following paragraphs which are pertinent to her conclusion that the Plaintiff “was not as illiterate or ignorant such as he claimed to be”: “[61] Semasa perbicaraan, Plaintif juga menyatakan bahawa beliau juga menjalankan perniagaan memungut dan membeli 'besi buruk' yang hanya dibantu oleh Raja a/l Krishnan iaitu melakukan kutipan besi buruk di sekitar Daerah Larut Matang dan Selama dan Daerah Kerian, Perak. Mahkamah berpendapat walaupun Plaintif tidak berpelajaran tinggi tetapi beliau tidak terhalang untuk berniaga dan menguasai pelbagai bahasa termasuklah bahasa Cina atau Inggeris untuk berkomunikasi dengan isteri, pemilik ladang berbangsa Cina, ejen insurans dan rakan perniagaan di sekitar Daerah Larut Matang dan Selama dan Daerah Kerian. … [63] Berdasarkan soalan dan jawapan dalam PSP7, dirumuskan bahawa SP7 sebagai majikan memainkan peranan yang penting dalam memperoleh fakta dan angka untuk untuk menginsuranskan Raja a/l Krishnan di bawah polisi dengan 4 syarikat penanggung insurans, iaitu Pacific Insurance, Berjaya S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Sompo Insurance, Allianz General Insurance dan Takaful Malaysia. Naratif kes Plaintif dalam Penyata Saksi (yang ditandakan sebagai PSP7, Encl.74 dalam Saman AB-A52NCC-7-05/2019, mengandungi 164 soalan dan jawapan yang dibuat oleh Plaintif sendiri serta jawapan diaku benar oleh Plaintif) telah mengemukakan dokumen dalam Ikatan C dan D Encl.44 dan 45 dalam Saman AB-A52NCC-7-05/20191 bagi menyokong tuntutan terhadap 4 syarikat penanggung insurans, iaitu Pacific Insurance, Berjaya Sompo Insurance, Allianz General Insurance dan Takaful Malaysia. [64] SP7 telah menggunakan khidmat jurubahasa semasa memberi keterangan kerana mendakwa dia tidak fasih berbahasa Malaysia atau Inggeris. Mahkamah meragui perkara ini kerana SP7 telah menulis surat Tawaran Pekerjaan (ekshibit P20) dengan penggunaan bahasa dan penyusunan ayat yang baik dan jawapan kepada 164 soalan dalam Penyata Saksi dibuat dalam Bahasa Malaysia itu diaku benar dibuat olehnya sendiri? … [70] Plaintif yang mengisytiharkan dalam borang cadangan untuk polisi 'Pacific Super Protector' bahawa maklumat peribadinya dalam Borang Cadangan bertarikh 11/10/2017 adalah benar (merujuk di muka surat 33 Ikatan D dalam Encl, 45) dan Plaintif bersetuju bahawa cadangan itu dijadikan dasar kontrak di antara pihak-pihak ('klausa asas'). Merujuk kepada soalan 1(d), hanya mengisytiharkan polisi yang dipohon kepada Allianz General Insurance. [71] Pacific Insurance ('defendan') menginsuranskan Raja a/l Krishnan (‘si mati’) dalam jumlah RM300,000 terhadap kematian akibat kemalangan. Plaintif telah memperbaharu polisi asal CPNPOI 74058-A4 yang luput pada 11/10/2018, maka tempoh sah laku dilanjutkan bagi tempoh dari 11/10/2018 hingga 10/10/2019. Bagaimanapun, tiada borang cadangan baru ditanda tangan oleh Plaintif. Plaintif, semasa membaharukan polisi, tidak mengisytiharkan polisi diisu oleh Takaful Malaysia yang sah laku hingga 29/12/2018 atau polisi Berjaya Sompo Insurance yang bertarikh 05/10/2018 semasa melanjutkan tempoh sah laku polisi CPN-POI 74058-A4. [72] Apabila polisi insurans bernombor CPN-POI 74058-A4 yang luput pada 11/10/2018 diperbaharu untuk tempoh tetap dengan persetujuan bersama, borang cadangan asal polisi insurans bernombor CPN-POI 74058-A4 itu digabungkan dengan polisi bertarikh 22/10/2018 yang diperbaharui itu dan berterusan membentuk asas kontrak. Begitu juga dalam kes ini, terma mengenai pembaharuan dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa pembaharuan tarikh kuat kuasa tersebut adalah ‘tertakluk kepada semua terma, syarat dan pengindorsan dalam polisi asal’ [di muka surat 43 Ikatan D], ia termasuklah S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 deklarasi dalam borang cadangan asal yang membentuk asas kontrak iłu. Itu juga membentuk sebahagian daripada polisi yang diperbaharui [rujuk di muka surat 51 Ikatan D]. … [74] Plaintif yang mengisytiharkan dalam borang cadangan untuk polisi 'Group Allianz Shield' bahawa maklumat peribadinya dalam Borang Cadangan bertarikh 11/10/2017 adalah benar [merujuk di muka surat 120 Ikatan D dalam Encl. 45] dan Plaintif bersetuju bahawa cadangan itu dijadikan dasar kontrak di antara pihak-pihak ('klausa asas'). Merujuk kepada soalan 1(d), hanya mengisytiharkan polisi Pacific Super Protector CPN-POI 74058-A4 [merujuk di muka surat 119 Ikatan D dalam Encl. 45] sedangkan polisi Takaful Group Personal Accident' [merujuk ekshibit D43] masih sah laku sehingga 29/12/2018. [75] Allianz General Insurance ('defendan') menginsuranskan Raja a/l Krishnan ('si mati') dalam jumlah RM240,000 terhadap kematian akibat kemalangan. Plaintif telah memperbaharu polisi asal 'Allianz Shield Plan 04' bernombor 17PTP0000254-01 yang luput pada 11/10/2018, maka tempoh sah laku dilanjutkan bagi tempoh dari 11/10/2018 hingga 10/10/2019. Bagaimanapun, tiada borang cadangan baru ditandatangan oleh Plaintif. Plaintif tidak mengisytiharkan polisi diisu oleh Takaful Malaysia yang sah laku hingga 29/12/2018 atau polisi Berjaya Sompo Insurance yang bertarikh 05/10/2018 semasa melanjutkan tempoh sah laku polisi 'Allianz Shield Plan 04' bernombor 17PTP0000254-01. … [77] Berjaya Sompo Insurance ('defendan') menginsuranskan Raja a/l Krishnan ('si mati') dalam jumlah RM300,000 terhadap kematian akibat kemalangan, bagi tempoh dari 12/10/2018 hingga 11/10/2019. Bagaimanapun, Plaintif tidak mengisytiharkan polisi diisu oleh Takaful Malaysia yang sah Iaku hingga 29/12/2018 atau polisi Allianz General Insurance dan Pacific Insurance yang sah hingga 10/10/2019 semasa ejen Yew Kai Chong mengisikan Borang Cadangan Yang Ditanda tangan oleh Plaintif bagi Polisi Kemalangan Diri Ultima \/3. [78] Peguam Defendan bagi kes AB-A52NCC-12-08/2019 memohon supaya Plaintif disoal balas mengenai status kewangan dengan merujuk kepada dokumen Cukai Pendapatan (Borang B) bagi tahun Taksiran 2017 dan 2018 perniagaan Kunasegaran a/l Vadevello. Maka pemeriksaan balas ditangguh S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 kepada 24/09/2020 bagi membolehkan Plaintif membawa dokumen e/B 2017 — 2018 bagi pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Defendan-defendan. [79] Pada 24/09/2020, pemeriksaan balas disambung dengar dengan penandaan e/Be Tahun 2017 (Ekshibit P51) dan e/B Tahun 2018 (Ekshibit P52). Semasa diperiksa balas oleh peguam Defendan yang mewakili Berjaya Sompo Insurance, SP7 juga dicabar atas kegagalan SP7 untuk mendedahkan fakta berkenaan perlindungan takaful khususnya merujuk pekerja bernama Raja a/l Krishnan semasa SP7 mengisi Borang Cadangan memperbaharu polisi insurans yang diisu oleh Pacific Insurance dan Allianz General Insurance. SP7 didapati gagal mendedahkan fakta bahawa SP telah memperoleh polisi insurans yang diisu oleh Pacific Insurance dan Allianz General Insurance semasa dia meminta ejen Yevv Kai Chong mengisikan Borang Cadangan untuk memperoleh Polisi Kemalangan Diri Ultima V3 [ekshibit P32] dari Berjaya Sompo Insurance. [80] Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Defendan yang mewakili Alianz General Insurance, SP7 hanya merujuk ekshibit PI 9 (A) - (C) mengenai pekerja bernama Kabelan a/l Kunasegaran [Encl. 45, Ikatan D di muka surat 25] yang diakui ialah anak SP7 yang mula bekerja sejak 5 tahun lalu dan dibayar RM3,000.00 sebulan. Mathialegen a/l Nyanasegar [Encl. 45, Ikatan D di muka surat 26] pula ialah anak saudara SP7 yang mula bekerja sejak 4 tahun lalu dan dibayar RM2,800.00 sebulan. Nyanasegar a/l Vadivelloo [Encl. 45, Ikatan D di muka surat 27] ialah adik SP7 yang mula bekerja sejak 7 tahun lalu dan dibayar RM4,500.00 sebulan. [81] Terdapat seorang lagi pekerja bernama 'Devanthiran' yang tidak disebut di bawah Sijil Kemalangan Diri Takaful Berkelompok bertarikh 04.01 2017. SP7 dirujuk kepada senarai pekerja yang dinamakan di bawah Sijil Kemalangan Diri Takaful Berkelompok bertarikh 04.01.2017 yang sah Iaku bagi tempoh 29/12/2016-28/12/2017, termasuk Devanthiran yang didakwa menggantikan Raja a/l Krishnan. Pada tahun 2016, senarai pekerja dalam Sijil Kemalangan Diri Takaful Berkelompok adalah termasuk Raja a/l Krishnan tetapi dokumen Surat Tawaran Kerja bertarikh 10/05/2017 (ekshibit P201 menunjukkan Raja mula kerja sejak 10/05/2017 dengan SP7 sebagai pemandu lori dalam kawasan ladang sawit. [82] Menurut SP7, Raja melakukan pelbagai kerja am di ladang bagi memunggah kelapa sawit dan lazimnya kerja mengutip buah kelapa sawit bermula jam 10-10.30 pagi dan dia mengambil masa 2-3 jam untuk memungut buah kelapa sawit bergantung kepada luas kawasan ladang sawit, dan ladang Ah Ling adalah berkeluasan lebih kurang 18 ekar sahaja. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Lazimnya Raja selesai memungut buah sawit di ladang berkeluasan 60 ekar ialah dalam masa 4 - 5 jam. [83] Menurut SP7, gaji sebulan dibayar kepada Raja ialah RM4,500.00. Bukti penyata bayaran gaji (dalam ekshibit P21 yang disediakan kerani bernama Nadiana) tidak ada tandatangan Raja kerana Raja buta huruf. Peruntukan mengenai cuti rehat yang diperuntukkan juga tidak dinyatakan atas slip gaji. Gaji Raja dibayar penuh tanpa tolakan bayaran SOCSO. Raja tidak ada masalah kewangan atau membuat apa-apa pinjaman dengan Plaintif. Raja dilindungi polisi insurans pekerja yang diperoleh Plaintif sebagai majikan sepanjang Raja bekerja untuk perniagaan 'Kunasegaran a/l Vadevello' yang berdaftar sejak 2014 serta milikan tunggal SP7. [84] SP7 mengenali Govindasamy a/l Sinnian (pemilik motorsikal AFU1730) sejak 10 tahun dan mengenali majikan Govindasamy, Ah Ling yang berbangsa Cina. Luas ladang Ah Ling ialah 18 ekar. Raja a/l Krishnan dihantar 3 kali sebulan untuk mengutip buah sawit di ladang Ah Ling. SP7 yang akan menghantar Raja dengan lori untuk mengangkut buah sawit. Selepas Raja dan lori dihantar ke ladang Ah Ling, SP7 balik ke pejabat dengan meminta bantuan kawan atau pekerja di Ladang Ah Ling untuk menghantarnya pulang ke pejabat di Batu Kurau. Pada 14/12/2018, Raja dihantar ke ladang Ah Ling untuk mengutip buah sawit. [85] Menurut SP7, Raja yang bekerja sebagai pemungut besi buruk, baru dikenali sejak setahun lalu. Raja a/l Krishnan hanya ada ibu dan seorang abang manakala bapanya telah meninggal dunia. SP7 tidak ada nombor telefon ibu atau abang Raja. Kumaran a/l Muniandy ialah abang sepupu Raja a/l Krishnan. SP7 menafikan dia telah menghubungi Kumaran untuk menyuruhnya membuat laporan polis mengenai nahas yang menimpa Raja. Ahli keluarga Raja a/l Krishnan bukan 'nominee' si mati bagi polisi yang diperoleh untuk menginsuranskan Raja atas kematian akibat kemalangan dan mereka berkemungkinan tidak ada pengetahuan tentang polisi insurans yang diperoleh Plaintif bagi perlindungan dari kecederaan diri atau kematian akibat kemalangan atas nama simati. [86] Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Berjaya Sompo, SP7 mengatakan dia tidak ada pengetahuan bahawa motorsikal AFU1730 tidak dilindungi insurans dan cukai jalan motorsikal telah luput. Malah SP7 tidak ada pengetahuan sama ada si mati mempunyai lesen menunggang atau memandu kenderaan yang sah atau tidak. [87] Plaintif (SP7) menafikan dakwaan dalam soal balas oleh peguam Defendan-defendan bahawa terdapat perlanggaran prinsip uberimae fidei atau S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 niat suci hati dan meletakkan beban ke atas 3 ejen penanggung insurans yang membantunya mengisikan Borang Cadangan atau dia tidak dijelaskan oleh 3 ejen penanggung insurans iaitu Fong Kok Wai, Yew Kai Chong dan Abdul Saidi bin Bakri tentang keperluan untuk isytiharkan semua polisi yang menginsuranskan Raja a/l Krishnan. [88] Di peringkat pemeriksaan semula oleh peguamnya, SP7 mengatakan bahawa dia tidak pernah ditanyakan oleh ejen atau diberikan notis mengenai keperluan si mati untuk mempunyai lesen menunggang motorsikal atau memandu kenderaan yang sah jika polisi perlindungan insurans hendak dibeli atas penama Raja a/l Krishnan atau berkenaan batasan aktiviti memandu atau menunggang motorsikal dalam polisi-polisi sedia ada atas nama Raja a/l Krishnan. [23] I have highlighted the paragraphs above from the grounds of judgment as these were important points to note for the Court in deciding whether the Defendants were justified in not honouring the claims submitted by the Plaintiff not long after the deceased died. A perusal of her summary of the Plaintiff’s evidence in paragraphs 76 and 77 showed that the SCJ found he did not declare that he had obtained coverage from Defendant 2 and Defendant 4. He had declared with Defendant 3, or rather, the agent Fong Kok Wai made the declaration, only when he applied for renewal of the coverage from Defendant 1 (refer to paragraphs 81-82) and he admitted that the deceased’s family may not know about the policies. [24] Then, the SCJ made her finding on the issue of the deceased not in possession of a valid full licence in paragraphs 206-207. This is where s.26 of the RTA comes in, namely, the requirement to have valid licence. The SCJ agreed with the Defendants’ submissions (refer to paragraphs 212, 213, 215). In paragraph 220 she found the insurers were not liable for repudiation of the insurance contract. The burden of proof was on the Plaintiff to prove his case that the accident was not caused by S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 other things in order to qualify for the pay out but this he failed to do (refer to paragraphs 226 -231. The SCJ concluded in paragraph 232 that the deceased died due to a motor vehicle accident (MVA) but the exclusion clause(s) applied (refer to paragraphs 234 – 237). The SCJ stated in paragraph 249 that the Plaintiff was bound by his pleadings and this issue of consumer contract/life insurance was not pleaded; he was therefore barred from raising it at the submissions stage. [25] Finally, the SCJ arrived at the following conclusions: “[252] Setelah meneliti keterangan-keterangan lisan saksi-saksi plaintif dan defendan serta keterangan dari dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan dan setelah membaca hujahan bertulis peguam plaintif dan peguam defendan serta hujahan balas yang difailkan dan setelah mendengar hujahan lisan pihak- pihak, keputusan saya dalam kes ini adalah seperti berikut: (i) Berdasarkan isu awalan ini sahaja, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa peruntukan Jadual ke-10 Akta 758 yang dibaca secara harmoni dengan terma Polisi Insurans Kemalangan Diri Peribadi Ultima V3 - Plan 05 [ekshibit P31 di muka surat 98 Ikatan D] bahawa pembayaran wang polisi apabila berlaku kematian orang yang diinsurankan adalah dibuat kepada wakil peribadi Orang Yang Diinsurankan (Raja a/l Krishnan). Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa oleh sebab Plaintif, tidak mempunyai hubungan kekeluargaan dengan simati, bukan waris kadim dan bukan nominee yang dinamakan dalam Borang Penamaan (ekshibit P32, rujuk muka surat 86 Ikatan D) adalah tidak tergolong sebagai wakil peribadi dan diputuskan Plaintif tidak ada locus dan tidak layak dibayar atas tuntutan pampasan di bawah polisi insurans Kemalangan Diri Peribadi Ultima Plan 05 [ekshibit P31 yang bernombor 18DTP/PQCE000042]. (ii) terdapat ketidakdedahan fakta penting oleh Plaintif atau ketaknyataan yang material kepada soalan 6 dalam Borang Cadangan [rujuk muka surat 86 Ikatan D, encl. 45) yang mewajarkan penolakan liabiliti (dipli dalam perenggan 6 Pembelaan dalam encl. 5 dan Pembelaan Terpinda dalam encl. 21); (iii) penolakan liabiliti secara dasarnya adalah bergantung kepada Polisi yang diisu oleh Defendan di bawah terma pengecualian 2 (d) dan (e) mengenai ketakpatuhan Orang Yang Diinsuranskan (Raja a/l Krishnan) untuk memenuhi terma-terma, syarat-syarat dan pengendorsan Polisi ini setakat mana ia berhubung kait dengan apa sahaja yang perlu dilakukan atau dipatuhi oleh orang yang diinsuranskan iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan; S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (iv) faktor berlakunya kecederaan parah semasa ditimpa malang akibat kecuaian sendiri oleh orang yang diinsuranskan iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan yang tidak memakai topi keledar semasa menunggang motorsikal, dan perlakuan yang menyalahi kepentingan dan polisi awam/undang-undang sedia ada, iaitu menunggang motorsikal yang tidak dilindungi insurans dan tiada cukai jalan; dan (v) Mahkamah, dalam keadaan kes ini, dengan mempertimbangkan maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur” Mahkamah tidak menyetujui kemungkiran undang- undang oleh orang yang diinsuranskan iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan yang ternyata telah melakukan beberapa perbuatan yang menyalahi peraturan dan undang- undang jalan raya sedia ada. EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT [26] While I agreed with the decision of the SCJ in not allowing the Plaintiff’s claim, there were some errors made in her grounds of judgment. These errors, in my view, do not require appellate intervention because having considered the submissions and case laws cited by the parties, I am of the view that the SCJ’s decision can be upheld by this Court as there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. There must have been insufficient judicial appreciation of the relevant evidence which had occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice: Mackt Logostics (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Malaysian Airline System Berhad [2014] 5 CLJ 851. An appellate court has a duty to intervene where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion: Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v Periasamy [1995] 3 MLJ 395. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [27] From the numerous grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal and Additional Memorandum of Appeal, I agree with the Plaintiff to narrow down the issues to be decided by this Court as follows: (i) has it been proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased died by accidental means; (ii) whether the insurance policy fell within the ambit of a consumer insurance contract or non-consumer insurance contract; (iii) does the basis clause apply if the court finds that the contract of insurance is a consumer insurance contract; (iv) if the Court finds that it is a consumer insurance contract, whether there has been compliance by the parties with the whole prosess or procedure under Paragraph 5, Part II Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 758] including the duty of disclosure; (v) whether the Plaintiff received any notice in writing in respect of the pre-contractual duty to disclose prior to entering into the contract of insurance; (vi) can the Defendants be allowed to rely on a new ground which was never raised in the repudiation letter rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim; and (vii) should section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 be invoked against the Defendants for failure to call their authorised agent(s) who filled up the proposal form on behalf of the Plaintiff as a witness. (i) Has it been proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased died by accidental means S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [28] I do not wish to spend a lot of time on this issue because the evidence from SP2 were very clear that the deceased died of “Severe traumatic brain injury” due to hard fall during motor vehicle accident. This finding was supported by the investigation of SP1 which concluded that the deceased was not wearing any helmet at the material time, based on SP5’s evidence who was among the first to arrive at the scene and did not find any helmet nearby the body. The SCJ found that the fatal injuries were due to hard fall sustained during an accident as explained by SP1 and SP2 and there was no reason not to accept the investigation officer’s evidence. There was also no evidence that the deceased was attacked by known or unknown persons. The Plaintiff has proved this issue on a balance of probabilities despite the questions in cross-examination by the Defendants’ respective counsels. (ii) Whether the insurance policy fell within the ambit of a consumer insurance contract or non-consumer insurance contract [29] The SCJ in her grounds of judgment at paragraph 187 (Defendant 1’s suit) stated the issue of “consumer insurance contract” and “non- consumer insurance contract” was without merit as it was not pleaded by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, this was a misdirection on the part of the SCJ as the court eventually still has a duty to determine the issue. The regime for insurance in Malaysia is comprehensively provided in s. 129(1) of Act 758 which sets out the pre-contractual duty of disclosure and representations for contracts of insurance in Part 2, and the remedies for misrepresentations relating to contracts of insurance in Part 3. For ease of reference, the relevant provisions of the law (Schedule 9) are reproduced as follows: “Interpretation 2. In this Schedule— “consumer” means the individual who enters into, varies or renews a consumer insurance contract, or proposes to do so with a licensed insurer; S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 “consumer insurance contract” means a contract of insurance entered into, varied or renewed by an individual wholly for purposes unrelated to the individual’s trade, business or profession. ... PART 2 Pre-contractual disclosure and representation Pre-contractual duty of disclosure for insurance contracts other than consumer insurance contracts 4. (1) Before a contract of insurance other than a consumer insurance contract is entered into, varied or renewed, a proposer shall disclose to the licensed insurer a matter that— (a) he knows to be relevant to the decision of the insurer on whether to accept the risk or not and the rates and terms to be applied; or (b) a reasonable person in the circumstances could be expected to know to be relevant. (2) The duty of disclosure shall not require the disclosure of a matter that— (a) diminishes the risk to the licensed insurer; (b) is of common knowledge; (c) the licensed insurer knows or in the ordinary course of his business ought to know; or (d) in respect of which the licensed insurer has waived any requirement for disclosure. (3) Where a proposer fails to answer or gives an incomplete or irrelevant answer to a question contained in the proposal form or asked by the licensed insurer and the matter was not pursued further by the insurer, compliance with the proposer’s duty of disclosure in respect of the matter shall be deemed to have been waived by the insurer. (4) A licensed insurer shall, before a contract of insurance is entered into, varied or renewed, clearly inform a proposer in writing of the proposer’s pre-contractual duty of disclosure under this paragraph, and that this duty of disclosure shall continue until the time the contract is entered into, varied or renewed. Pre-contractual duty of disclosure for consumer insurance contracts 5. (1) Before a consumer insurance contract is entered into or varied, a licensed insurer may request a proposer who is a consumer to answer any specific questions that are relevant to the decision of the insurer whether to accept the risk or not and the rates and terms to be applied. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 (2) It is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the licensed insurer when answering any questions under subparagraph (1). (3) Before a consumer insurance contract is renewed, a licensed insurer may either— (a) request a consumer to answer one or more specific questions in accordance with subparagraph (1); or (b) give the consumer a copy of any matter previously disclosed by the consumer in relation to the contract and request the consumer to confirm or amend any change to that matter. (4) It is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the licensed insurer when answering any questions under subsubparagraph (3)(a), or confirming or amending any matter under subsubparagraph (3)(b). (5) If the licensed insurer does not make a request in accordance with subparagraph (1) or (3) as the case may be, compliance with the consumer’s duty of disclosure in respect of those subparagraphs, shall be deemed to have been waived by the insurer. (6) Where the consumer fails to answer or gives an incomplete or irrelevant answer to any request by the licensed insurer under subparagraph (1) or subsubparagraph (3)(a), or fails to confirm or amend any matter under subsubparagraph (3)(b), or does so incompletely or provides irrelevant information, as the case may be, and the answer or matter was not pursued further by the insurer, compliance with the consumer’s duty of disclosure in respect of the answer or matter shall be deemed to have been waived by the insurer. (7) A licensed insurer shall, before a consumer insurance contract is entered into, varied or renewed, clearly inform the consumer in writing of the consumer’s pre- contractual duty of disclosure under this paragraph, and that this duty of disclosure shall continue until the time the contract is entered into, varied or renewed. (8) Subject to subparagraphs (1) and (3), a consumer shall take reasonable care to disclose to the licensed insurer any matter, other than that in relation to subparagraph (1) or (3), that he knows to be relevant to the decision of the insurer on whether to accept the risk or not and the rates and terms to be applied. (9) Nothing in this Schedule shall affect the duty of utmost good faith to be exercised by a consumer and licensed insurer in their dealings with each other, including the making and paying of a claim, after a contract of insurance has been entered into, varied or renewed. [30] In relation to a non-consumer insurance contract, a proposer shall disclose to the licensed insurer a matter that (a) he knows to be relevant to the decision of the insurer on whether to accept the risk or not and the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 rates and terms to be applied, or (b) a reasonable person in the circumstances could be expected to know to be relevant. Whereas in the case of a consumer insurance contract, it is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the licensed insurer when answering any questions. The policy speech of the then Deputy Finance Minister I, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Hussin, when introducing the Financial Services Bill provided the reason why Parliament had enacted the Bill which created such distinct classes as aforesaid: “Keenam, rang undang-undang ini akan menyediakan rangka kerja yang kukuh bagi perlindungan pengguna kewangan. Ini dicapai melalui: (i) …; (ii) …; (iii)...; (iv) memperuntukkan tanggungjawab penanggung insurans untuk memberi panduan kepada pengguna mengenai penzahiran yang diperlukan semasa peringkat pra kontrak dalam hal salah nyata atau misrepresentation yang dibuat oleh pengguna. Rang undang-undang ini memperuntukkan remedi bagi penanggung insurans yang lebih saksama bergantung sama ada salah nyata oleh pengguna tersebut dibuat secara sengaja atau melulu, cuai, atau tidak sengaja. Pada masa sekarang, kontrak insurans boleh dielak, avoidable secara langsung oleh penanggung insurans tidak kira sama ada salah nyata oleh seseorang pengguna tersebut dibuat secara sengaja atau melulu, cuai atau pun tidak sengaja.”. ((Dewan Rakyat Hansard) [DR 27.11.2012] at 1810) [31] The SCJ in paragraph 197 (Defendant 2’s grounds of judgment) stated that the policy was a consumer contract and this was in relation to the claim by the Plaintiff against Defendant 2 which allegedly had submitted it was a non-consumer contract. Upon perusal of Defendant 2’s submission, I found that this was misconceived by the Plaintiff as Defendant 2 contended it was clearly a consumer insurance contract. The S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Defendants submitted on the importance of disclosure and the court had analysed this issue in paragraphs 184 onwards. Specifically, I refer to the following paragraphs of the SCJ’s analysis for ease of reference: “[197] Polisi Kemalangan Diri Ultima V3-Plan 05 ini adalah suatu polisi Kontrak Insurans Pengguna (Consumer Insurance Contract, di muka surat 85 Ikatan D) dan satu notis penting (“Important Notice”) telah diberikan kepada Plaintif yang berniat memohon insurans yang memperuntukkan dalam Borang Cadangan (ekshibit P32 (m/s 1 1 encl 9, dan ekshibit P32 di muka surat 85 Ikatan D), bahawa: “Kontrak Insurans Pengguna Menurut Perenggan 5 Jadual di bawah Akta Perkhidmatan Kewangan 2013, sekiranya anda memohon Insurans ini sepenuhnya bagi tujuan yang tidak berkaitan dengan perdagangan, perniagaan atau profesion anda, anda mempunyai kewajipan mengambil penjagaan munasabah supaya tidak membuat salah nyataan semasa menjawab soalansoalan di dalam Borang Cadangan dan/atau semua soalan-soalan yang dikehendaki oleh Syarikat dengan penuh dan tepat dan mendedahkan apa-apa perkara lain yang anda ketahui berkaitan dengan keputusan kami dalam menerima risiko dan dalam menentukan kadar dan terma yang hendak dipakai, jika sebaliknya ini boleh menyebabkan kontrak terbatal, penolakan atau pengurangan tuntutan, penukaran terma atau penamatan kontrak. Anda juga mempunyai kewajipan memaklumkan kepada kami dengan segera sekiranya pada bila-bila masa, selepas kontrak insurans dibuat, diubah atau diperbaharui dengan pihak kami, sebarang maklumat yang diberikan adalah tidak tepat atau telah berubah.” [32] In regard to the Defendant 2’s policy, that policy covered work- related accidents; this can be gathered from the evidence of SD3 and the absence of an exclusion clause of work-related accidents in the policy (Exclusion Clause No.7 only excludes subordinates not the life insured). This could attract the definition of consumer insurance policy having regard to the intention of the Plaintiff (where he alleged the policies served as an incentive to his employees) and the evidence of SD3 itself. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [33] It is noted that paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 is only applicable to consumer insurance contract and renders any basis clause in a consumer insurance contract of no effect. It reads: “Any representation made before a consumer insurance contract was entered into, varied or renewed shall not be converted into a warranty by means of any provision of the consumer insurance contract or of any terms of the variation or of any other contract, whether by declaring the representation to form the basis of the contract or otherwise.” [34] In the analysis of the evidence before me, as the policies do not cover work-related accidents, the policies were unrelated to the individual’s trade, business or profession, and therefore, they come within the ambit of the definition of a consumer insurance contract. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s assertion, as well as the evidence of SD1, the construction of the policies prevailed as it was in accordance with the intention of Schedule 9. [35] It was evident from grounds of judgment of the SCJ she had concluded that the policies were consumer insurance contracts. But the SCJ also stated in paragraph 200 that the Proposal Form did form the basis clause of the contract with the insurer as follows: “[200] Dalam kes ini, Plaintif telah mengesahkan bahawa semua maklumat yang dinyatakan dalam Borang Cadangan itu (yang dibuat tanpa pendedahan tentang polisi pelbagai jenis dengan penanggung insurans Iain) merupakan maklumat penuh, lengkap dan benar dan merupakan asas bagi pembentukan kontrak insuran dengan Defendan. Ternyata, Borang Cadangan yang membentuk kontrak insurans ditandatangan oleh Plaintif sendiri [merujuk di muka surat 87 Ikatan D dalam Encl. 45] yang memperaku dan memberi perisytiharan bahawa semua butiran (yang diisikan ejen bagi pihaknya) adalah benar. Yew Kai Chong (ejen insurans Berjaya Sompo Insurance) hanya diminta untuk mengisi Borang Cadangan. Sehubungan itu, Plaintif adalah terikat dengan perisytiharan dan bersetuju bahawa Cadangan itu dijadikan dasar kontrak di antara pihak-pihak (“klausa asas”) [ekshibit P31, merujuk di muka surat 88 Ikatan D dalam Encl. 45].” S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 (iii) Does the basis clause apply if the court finds that the contract of insurance is a consumer insurance contract [36] The SCJ discussed the merits of the basis clause in analysing the evidence as can be seen above. Does this mean that automatically her grounds of judgment is totally wrong by virtue of paragraph 10 of Schedule 9? I think not. [37] In the case of Chong Lai Keng v. Prudential Assurance Malaysia Bhd [2024] 1 CLJ 293, the facts were similar on the issue of the insured person had not disclosed to the proposed insurers the existence of a few other policies. The learned Judicial Commissioner Jamhirah Binti Ali stated: “[48] As previously elucidated, para. 5 of Schedule 9 of the FSA which pertains to the pre-contractual duty of disclosure for consumer insurance contracts, imposed a statutory duty on the consumer to exercise reasonable care in avoiding any misrepresentation to the insurer. This duty was especially significant when responding to specific questions posed by the insurer, which were essential in the insurer’s determination of whether to accept the risk and in establishing the applicable rates and terms. The principle of uberrimae fidei remained applicable to the parties involved in an insurance contract. In accordance with this principle, the consumer was held to a standard of care defined as that of a ‘reasonable consumer’. Consequently, based on the underpinning of uberrimae fidei, the life assured, as the consumer, bore the duty of utmost good faith, necessitating full disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge. In Leong Kum Whay v. QBE Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 1 CLJ 1; [2006] 1 MLJ 710, the Court of Appeal held as follows: [15] It is settled beyond dispute that a contract of insurance is one that imposes a mutual duty on the parties to it to act uberrimae fides towards each other. On the part of the insured, he or she must make full disclosure of all material facts. It is not for him or her to decide in his or her own mind what is material. The duty is on the insured to make full disclosure of material facts within his knowledge. (emphasis added) S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [49] After careful examination of the evidence, the submitted documents, and the relevant law, I concluded that the existence of the three AIA policies constituted a “material fact”. This finding stemmed from the evidence that their disclosure would have had a negative impact on the defendant’s underwriting decision. If the defendant had been aware of the three AIA policies, they would not have issued the policies in question. Further, based on the factual circumstances and the sequence of events in this case, I concluded that the life assured had deliberately concealed or suppressed and had fraudulently misrepresented the existence of the three AIA policies.”. [Emphasis added] [38] The Court refers to the provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 9 which provides the following: “Duty to take reasonable care 6. (1) In determining whether a consumer has taken reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation under subparagraph 5(2) or (4), the relevant circumstances may be taken into account including— (a) the consumer insurance contract in question and the manner in which the contract was sold to the consumer; (b) any relevant explanatory material or publicity produced or authorized by the licensed insurer; and (c) how clear and specific, the licensed insurer’s questions were. (2) Subject to subparagraph (3), the standard of care required of the consumer under subparagraphs 5(2) and (4) shall be what a reasonable consumer in the circumstances would have known. ...”. [39] Although the third issue is to be answered in the negative, based on the construction of Paragraph 6 of Schedule 9 as well as Division 2 which will be analysed later I am of the view that the court still has a duty to evaluate the evidence and make a finding whether there has been misrepresentation at the point of submission of the Proposal Form. (iv) If the Court finds that it is a consumer insurance contract, whether there has been compliance by the parties with the whole prosess or S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 procedure under Paragraph 5, Part II Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 758] including the duty of disclosure [40] It was the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendants had waived the Plaintiff’s duty of disclosure as the insurers did not make a request in accordance with subparagraph (1) or (3) of Paragraphs 5(5) and/or 5(6). Moreover, Paragraph 5(7) requires a licensed insurer, before a consumer insurance contract is entered into, varied or renewed, to clearly inform the Plaintiff in writing of the consumer’s pre-contractual duty of disclosure and that this duty of disclosure shall continue until the time the contract is entered into, varied or renewed. [41] I will deal with the fourth and fifth issues together; the fifth issue was whether the Plaintiff received any notice in writing in respect of the pre- contractual duty to disclose prior to entering into the contract of insurance. “[211]... Notis juga diberikan kepada Plaintif bahawa “Jika Plaintif tidak memberikan maklumat ini dengan sepenuhnya dan sejujurnya, polisi insurans mungkin tidak sah atau Polisi mungkin tidak melindungi orang yang diinsurankan/pekerja dengan sepenuhnya”. Tiada sebab untuk mahkamah ini menyimpang daripada kedudukan undang-undang am mengenai kewajipan pendedahan fakta yang material di pihak Plaintif. [212] Saya juga bersetuju dengan hujah peguam defendan bahawa hujah- hujah peguam Plaintif adalah tidak bermerit dan tidak selari dengan Pemakaian perenggan 5 Jadual Kesembilan Akta 758 [rujukan kepada kes: Balamoney Asoriah v. MMIP Services Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 CLJ 476] mengenai kewajipan untuk mengambil langkah yang munasabah untuk tidak salah nyata dalam menjawab soalan yang terdapat dalam Borang Cadangan (atau semasa permohonan insurans ini) dan perlu menjawab soalan-soalan dengan penuh dan tepat. Kegagalan dalam mengambil langkah munasabah dalam menjawab soalan- soalan boleh mengakibatkan pembatalan kontrak insurans, keengganan atau pengurangan gantirugi, perubahan terma atau penamatan kontrak insurans selaras dengan remedi di Jadual 9 Akta Perkhidmatan Kewangan 2013 [Akta 758]. Plaintif juga dikehendaki mendedahkan perkara-perkara lain yang dia tahu akan S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 mempengaruhi keputusan Defendan dalam menerima risiko dan menentukan kadar dan terma yang akan dikenakan. … [215] Pada setiap masa yang material, Plaintif mendakwa dia tidak diperjelaskan tentang kandungan dalam borang dan tidak ditanyakan tentang lain- lain polisi yang dia ada miliki sewaktu ejen mengisikan Borang Cadangan bagi polisi insurans Kemalangan Diri Peribadi Ultima V3 - Plan 05 (merujuk penyata saksi dalam encl. 74 yang hanya difailkan pada 13/05/2020 dan Plaintif memberi keterangannya pada 18/09/2020). Dalam kes ini, Plaintif mengelakkan diri dari bertanggungan untuk menzahirkan pegangan polisi insurans yang dipegangnya dengan mendakwa dia menurunkan tanda tangan atas borang sebelum ejen Yew Kai Chong mengisikan butiran dan dia tidak fasih membaca dalam Bahasa Malaysia atau Bahasa Inggeris dan khidmat ejen insurans digunakan bagi mengisi borang. Pada setiap yang material, Plaintif mendakwa dia tidak diperjelaskan tentang kandungan dalam borang dan tidak ditanyakan tentang lain-lain polisi yang dia ada miliki sewaktu ejen mengisikan Borang Cadangan bagi polisi insurans Kemalangan Diri Peribadi Ultima — Plan 05. Tidak ada keterangan menyokong dipanggil dari pihak ejen Yew Kai Chong mengenai dakwaan Plaintif yang dibuatnya…”. [42] The SCJ did apply Balamoney’s Case (supra) which has been affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Amgeneral Insurance Bhd v. Sa' Amran Atan & Ors And Other Appeals [2022] 8 CLJ 175. With respect, I am of the view that the Federal Court case above did not directly apply to the present case because there the issue again was in respect of avoiding liability under s.96(3) of the RTA and it concerned third party insurance. One of the issues was whether the insurer could avoid liability when the vehicle that was involved in an accident had been sold/transferred to another party. The issue in that Federal Court case can be compared with the facts in Balamoney’s Case (supra). [43] The SCJ found that the Plaintiff claimed that the notice was never explained to him but also found that he had willfully ignored the notice. Pursuant to the paragraphs above, since the Plaintiff had acknowledged that the notice was explained to him and regardless of his intention of what kind of policy he actually wanted to purchase, this Court found that the S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 Defendants had sufficiently discharged their burden under Schedule 9 to explain to the proposer of his duty of disclosure in writing. The SCJ found further that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose that he had 2 other insurance policies other than with Defendant 3 which was stated in the proposal form. In the case of Defendant 2 he had omitted to fill in the question. I have no reason to disturb her finding that there was non- disclosure of the existence of the other 2 policies on the part of the Plaintiff. The question is, does this amount to a breach in his duty of disclosure? I refer to the case on uberrima fide as stated in Leong Kum Whay v. QBE Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 1 CLJ 1; [2006] 1 MLJ 710 where Gopal Sri Ram JCA propounded: “[15] It is settled beyond dispute that a contract of insurance is one that imposes mutual duty on the parties to it to act uberrimae fides towards each other... On the part of the insured, he or she must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts. It is not for him or her to decide in his or her own mind what is material... The duty is on the insured to make full disclosure of material facts within his knowledge. ... [19] So much for the insured's duty. For completeness I would add that there is a corresponding duty on the part of an insurer to act with utmost good faith towards its insured. In Maschke Estate v. Gleeson (1986) 54 OR (2d) 753 at p 756, Montgomery J put the duty in this way: A contract of insurance is one of uberrimae fides, the utmost of good faith. This is not a situation where an insurer is indemnifying its assured and paying a third party. This is a case where the insurer is being asked to pay its own insured. The duty to act promptly and in good faith arises the day the insurer receives the claim. To find otherwise is to fail to understand the realities of the market place.”. [Emphasis added] [44] The principle of uberrimae fidei has been entrenched in Paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 as well, with some modification where a consumer no S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 longer needed to voluntarily disclose information to the insurer but only to give information that was requested upon him, with reasonable care, to the insurer. The Plaintiff alleged that he had omitted to fill all of the policy because the insurer’s agent did not explain the question to him which led him to not completely filling them as he was not conversant in English. Later he said he was unsure whether the agent explained the questions in the Proposal Form. His counsel had contended that the Plaintiff did not breach the uberrima fide duty because, by virtue of paragraph 5(6), an incomplete information that was not further pursued by the insurer was deemed waived, as pointed out earlier. [45] I refer to the relevant paragraphs in the SCJ’s grounds of judgment for effect: [198] Merujuk kepada Borang Cadangan [ekshibit P32) bagi memperoleh polisi insurans Kemalangan Diri Peribadi Ultima — Plan 05 yang hendak diisu oleh Defendan, soalan 6 [ekshibit P32, merujuk muka surat 86 Ikatan D] menanya kepada Plaintif tentang permohonan serupa atau pembaharuan polisi kemalangan diri atas nama Orang Yang Diinsurankan, Raja a/l Krishnan: “Have you or any person to be insured ever had an application for life or Personal Accident Insurance accepted with Sum Insured reduced or the renewal premium increased?” dan dijawab oleh ejen “No”. [199] Jawapan kepada soalan 6 ternyata tidak benar atau tidak tepat kerana dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif dalam Ikatan D (dalam encl. 45 difailkan dalam Saman AB-A52NCC-7-05/2019 berikutan perintah gabung dengar bertarikh 17/09/2019 dan 16/10/2019) yang melibatkan 4 penanggung insurans, ternyata bahawa polisi perlindungan takaful ada dalam pegangan Plaintif sejak Disember 2016 tetapi pemerolehan polisi perlindungan Kemalangan Diri Takaful Berkelompok bertarikh 04/01/2017 yang juga melindungi penama Raja a/l Krishnan ini tidak pernah dimaklumkan kepada Defendan dan pemerolehan 2 lagi polisi insurans kemalangan diri atas nama Raja a/l Krishnan juga gagal didedahkan oleh Plaintif. … S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [201] Peguam Defendan berhujah bahawa beban pendedahan penuh dan tepat oleh Plaintif adalah dari permulaan kontrak insuran dimasuki dan beban itu akan berterusan sehingga tempoh kuatkuasa perlindungan insuran luput. la adalah undang-undang matan bahawa kewajipan pihak yang diinsuranskan untuk mendedahkan maklumat material kepada penginsurans merupakan kewajipan yang wujud secara berasingan daripada apa-apa borang cadangan [Kes: Tan Mooi Sim & Anor v United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd & Anor [2011] 8 MLJ 556 dan American International Assurance Co, Ltd v Nadarajan a/l Subramaniam [2013] 5 MLJ 195]. [202] Di bawah tajuk “Kewajipan Pendedahan”; (di muka surat 88/(BM) muka surat 98 Ikatan D) dalam Polisi Kemalangan Diri Ultima V3-Plan 05 (ekshibit P31 di muka surat 98 Ikatan D], diperuntukkan bahawa: “Apabila Orang yang Diinsuranskan telah memohon insurans ini sepenuhnya bagi tujuan yang tidak berkaitan dengan perdagangan, perniagaan atau profesion Orang yang Diinsuranskan, Orang yang Diinsuranskan mempunyai kewajipan mengambil penjagaan munasabah supaya tidak membuat salah nyataan semasa menjawab soalan-soalan di dalam Borang Cadangan (atau semasa membuat permohonan Insurans ini). Orang yang Diinsurans perlu menjawab soalan dengan penuh dan tepat. Kegagalan dalam mengambil langkah yang munasabah dalam menjawab soalan-soalan boleh mengakibatkan pembatalan kontrak Insurans, keengganan atau pengurangan ganti rugi, perubahan terma atau penamatan kontrak Orang yang Diinsurans selaras dengan remedi di Jadual 9 Akta Perkhidmatan Kewangan 2013. Orang yang Diinsurans juga dikehendaki mendedahkan apa-apa perkara lain yang Orang yang Diinsurans tahu akan mempengaruhi keputusan Syarikat dalam menerima risiko dan dalam menentukan kadar dan terma yang dikenakan. Orang yang Diinsurans juga mempunyai kewajipan untuk memberitahu Syarikat dengan serta merta jika pada bila-bila masa selepas kontrak insurans Orang yang Diinsurans ditanda tangani, diubah atau diperbaharu dengan Syarikat, apa-apa maklumat yang diberikan dalam Borang Cadangan (atau semasa membuat permohonan Insurans ini) tidak tepat atau telah berubah.” [203] Berdasarkan terma polisi di atas, Plaintif juga mempunyai kewajipan untuk memberitahu Defendan dengan serta-merta jika pada bila-bila masa selepas kontrak insurans ditandatangani, diubah atau diperbaharui dengan Defendan, apa-apa maklumat yang diberikan di dalam Borang Cadangan (atau semasa permohonan insurans ini) tidak tepat atau telah berubah. Kewajipan S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 untuk mendedahkan fakta material, dan kewajipan tersebut tidak dilepaskan semata-mata atas akuan fakta bahawa pihak yang satu lagi telah gagal menanya mengenai fakta material yang tidak didedahkan, tetapi fakta pemerolehan polisi-polisi yang lain adalah, pada setiap masa yang material dalam pengetahuan pihak Plaintif, bukan ejen yang mempunyai pengetahuan tersebut. Dalam mempertimbangkan hujah mengenai fakta yang dipli dalam Pembelaan berkaitan Borang Cadangan, tidak pernah berbangkit isu sama ada Borang Cadangan diisikan oleh ejen bagi pihak Plaintif. [204] Merujuk kes Tan Jing Jeong v Allianz Life Assurance Malaysia [2012] 7 MLJ 179; [2011] 4 CLJ 710 mengenai kewajipan berterusan di pihak-pihak di bawah kontrak insurans, bahawa — “Sebaik sahaja kewajipan positif diberikan kepada sesuatu pihak oleh undang-undang untuk bercakap benar, termasuk untuk mendedahkan fakta material, kewajipan tersebut tidak dilepaskan semata-mata atas akuan fakta bahawa pihak yang satu lagi telah gagal menanya mengenai fakta material yang tidak didedahkan, tetapi fakta yang dalam pengetahuan pihak yang mempunyai pengetahuan tersebut.”. … [218] … Berdasarkan jawapan yang diberi kepada soalan dalam penyata saksi SP7 (encl. 74 dalam Saman AB-A52NCC-7-05/2019) dan semasa pemeriksaan balas pada 23/09/2020 oleh peguam Defendan, dihujahkan bahawa jawapan kepada isu yang membangkitkan kewajipan pendedahan pemerolehan polisi-polisi (dipli dalam perenggan 3 dan 6 encl.7) adalah satu pemikiran terkemudian untuk membangkitkan pembelaan pada tahap ini. Namun apabila Plaintif memberi keterangan pada 18/09/2020 dan 23/09/2020 mengenai dokumen polisi yang hendak dijadikan asas tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-defendan, syarikat penanggung insurans terlibat, atau semasa disoal balas mengenai butir lanjut nama pekerja yang disenarai dalam polisi Takaful, siapa pekerjanya yang diberikan manfaat di bawah polisi-polisi yang diambilnya dengan Takaful Malaysia dan jumlah perlindungan takaful bagi empat pekerjanya (yang ada kaitan tali persaudaraan dengannya) selain Raja a/l Krishnan, dirumuskan bahawa Plaintif adalah seorang peniaga yang sangat cerdik, yang celik angka/ matematik kerana dalam setiap polisi yang dibeli olehnya sebagai majikan, dia yang memainkan peranan yang penting dalam memperolehi fakta dan angka untuk dimasukkan dalam polisi; pihak Plaintif juga yang membayar premium bagi orang yang diinsuranskan bagi kesemua polisi atas penama yang sama iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan (si mati). Sekiranya terjadi kematian kemalangan menimpa pekerjanya Raja a/l Krishnan, jumlah pampasan yang akan dipungutnya akan mencecah RM1j. Semasa disoal balas peguam, Plaintif mengatakan insurans S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 yang diperoleh itu mungkin tidak diketahui oleh ahli keluarga Raja a/l Krishnan. Oleh itu, fakta material mengenai polisi-polisi yang dipegang Plaintif sememangnya dalam pengetahuannya pada setiap masa yang material, bukan ejen insurans. Malah adalah satu perkara yang mustahil dan/atau subjektif untuk ejen mengetahui apakah yang perlu didedahkan pada masa mengisikan Borang Cadangan bagi pihak Plaintif. [219] Plaintif hadir ke mahkamah tidak secara suci hati kerana Plaintif tidak benar-benar menjelaskan bagaimana beliau boleh memperoleh polisi-polisi insurans yang dipegangnya. Plaintif lazim memberi jawapan menyatakan bahawa dia tidak tahu (atau sengaja mengabaikan “Notis Penting” yang tertulis dalam dokumen kesemua polisi yang diperoleh) tentang kewajipan mengambil penjagaan munasabah supaya tidak membuat salah nyataan mengenai risiko yang berkaitan perlindungan yang hendak diberi atas seorang pekerja sahaja iaitu, Raja a/l Krishnan. Plaintif mengelakkan kewajipannya membuat pendedahan atau kewajipan memberi maklumat tepat tentang pemerolehan polisi-polisi dengan meletakkan beban ke atas 3 ejen insurans yang didakwa gagal menerangkan “Notis Penting” dalam dokumen polisi dan/atau kandungan Notis tidak dalam pengetahuannya disebabkan ejen insurans yang membantunya memperoleh polisj-polisi insurans dalam milikannya itu gagal menanyakan soalan-soalan material kepadanya, terutamanya berkaitan pemegangan lessen memandu yang sah oleh Raja a/l Krishnan. Semasa disoal balas peguam-peguam yang mewakili Defendan-defendan pada 18/09/2020 dan 23/09/2020, Plaintif mengatakan kandungan polisi yang diperolehnya terutamanya mengenai terma Pengecualian itu tidak pernah dijelaskan oleh ejen insurans kepadanya.”. [46] The Plaintiff contended that the SCJ misdirected herself when she applied Tan Mooi Sim’s Case (supra) which was decided before Act 758 was enacted by Parliament. Nevertheless, Act 758 did not abolish the duty to disclose by the consumers but rather, it had codified the duty and made it an offence under s.129(2) of Act 758 if a person contravened the duty of disclosure under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 9. The SCJ had made her findings of fact that the Plaintiff has not abided by the uberrimae fidei duty and that his version was an afterthought. But Paragraph 5.6 provided if the disclosure was not pursued further by the insurer, it was deemed waived. The burden to prove the matter lies on the Defendants. In Balamoney’s Case (supra), the Court of Appeal stated: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 “[49] Under sub-subparas. 5(3)(a) and (b), the respondent may do either of two things when there is an application to renew the insurance policy. The respondent may request Selvamani or whoever was renewing the insurance policy to answer one or more specific questions in accordance with sub-para. (1). The questions asked being specific questions that are relevant to the respondent's decision whether or not to accept the risk, and the rates and terms to be imposed. Alternatively, the respondent may give Selvamani or whoever was renewing the insurance policy, a copy of any matter previously disclosed by Selvamani in relation to the contract and request Selvamani or whoever was renewing the insurance policy, to confirm or amend any change to the matter. [50] Where the respondent makes either of these requests, Selvamani or whoever was renewing the insurance policy, has a duty under sub-para. 5(4) "to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the licensed insurer when answering any questions under sub-subpara. (3)(a), or confirming or amending any matter under sub-subpara. (3)(b)''. [47] From the facts of the case and findings of the SCJ, I found that the Defendants have discharged this burden of proof. Counsel for Defendant 2 referred to the decision in Tan Siew Wei v Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia) Berhad [2021] 1 LNS 770, Liberty Insurance Bhd v Marrison Sidai & Anor [2019] 8 CLJ 380, Etiqa General Takaful Berhad v Personal Representative of Fatimah Adam (Deceased) & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 385 and Ulaganathan Muthiah v Prudential Assurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 435 in support of its case on the issue of pre-contractual disclosure and I agreed with the rationale of the learned Justices of the High Courts in the abovementioned cases. [48] In my broad grounds earlier, I had distinguished Balamoney’s Case (supra). I now give my reasons for doing so. I am of the view that the facts of that case warranted the Court of Appeal to intervene and grant the remedy that should have been granted to the appellant, unlike the present case. The facts were as follows: “On 28 October 2016, Jayandran Mathan ('Jayandran'), a minor, was riding pillion on a motorcycle which was involved in a collision with a motor van driven S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 by the first defendant and owned by the deceased ('Selvamani'). Jayandran's mother ('the appellant') decided to sue on her son's behalf. As required under s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (‘Road Transport Act’), she served a notice on the insurer ('the respondent') prior to the filing of the suit ('the civil suit'). It was, however, discovered that Selvamani had passed away on 20 April 2016, well before the accident. It was also discovered that the insurance policy that Selvamani had taken with the insurers ('the policy') had expired on 4 May 2016, after his demise. The policy was nevertheless renewed in Selvamani's name from 10 May 2016 to 9 May 2017. The respondent filed an originating summons before the High Court seeking declaratory orders to the effect that it was not the insurer of the said motor van at the time of the accident; and that the insurance policy was null and void by reason of a fundamental breach of the principle of uberrimae fidei or duty of utmost good faith, the breach of which entitled the respondent to void the insurance contract. The High Court, in granting the respondent's application, held that when the material fact that Selvamani had already passed away was not disclosed to the insurer at the time the insurance policy was renewed by whoever had done the renewal, there was a breach of the principle of utmost good faith which entitled the insurer to void the renewed policy. Hence, the appellant appealed against the decision of the High Court. Held (allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court): (1) The declaratory orders sought by the respondent concerned the status and validity of the insurance contract made not between the parties, but between the respondent and Selvamani, who was not a party in the appeal. Given the nature of the issue, its determination by way of an exchange of affidavits and with the critical parties not before the court was not appropriate. The respondent's allegations of misrepresentation by Selvamani or by whoever had renewed the insurance policy without evidence of the circumstances as to how or when the insurance policy was actually renewed were necessarily questions of mixed fact and law; and the issue certainly involved Selvamani as well as the driver of the motor van. Further, no reasons were proffered as to their absence or lack of participation in the proceedings before the High Court. The appellant, who was not a party to the insurance policy, was not in the position to answer or even deal with the issue(s) posed by the respondent. The circumstances and conditions surrounding the renewal were clearly beyond the capacity and remit of the appellant to address, let alone answer. Hence, such applications ought not to be dealt with in the manner done, especially where the relevant and necessary parties were not before the court. (paras 21-23) … (4) The respondent had not discharged its burden of proof under s.129 read together with Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act so as to be entitled to S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 the discretionary remedies. It never posed any questions to Selvamani or whoever was renewing the policy. This court did not see how just the fact that Selvamani was deceased ipso facto invalidated the renewed policy. This was incorrect. The whole process or procedure under Schedule 9 must be complied with and answered. There was no evidence at all of the respondent doing any of the matters that were mentioned in Schedule 9, especially sub- para. 5(3) nor of the judge addressing these critical matters. Under such conditions, it was not open to the respondent to approach the court and complain that there was misrepresentation. The failure of the trial judge to apply s.129 and Schedule 9 was sufficient reason for this court to intervene and set aside the decision of the trial judge granting the declaration sought under s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (paras 48, 52 & 53) (5) Devoid of any compliance of the mandatory requirements emplaced under s. 129 and Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act, the respondent was not at all entitled to the orders granted by the High Court. It would be in direct contravention of s. 129 and Schedule 9 of the Financial Services Act were this court to condone such breaches. It would bring untold injustice and prejudice to innocent third parties such as the appellant in this appeal, the parties who were the intended recipients of the benefits behind ss. 90 and 96 of the Road Transport Act 1987 and s. 129 of the Financial Services Act. There was no basis for the exercise of discretion in granting the declarations sought by the respondent. In fact, it would be unjust for the court to grant such orders. (paras 60 & 63). [Emphasis added] [49] The highlighted parts are the distinguishing features of that case with the present case. The SCJ in this case had heard all the evidence in a full trial and parties had been given the opportunity to fully ventilate their issues before the judge, unlike in Balamoney’s Case (supra) which was by way of exchange of affidavits (presumably by way of an Originating Summons application). In regard to the last point above, clearly there had been injustice to the victim’s family where a declaration under s.96(3) of the RTA was granted and liability avoided in respect of a third-party insurance such as in that case. I would just add further that in Balamoney’s Case (supra), the Court of Appeal did mention that misrepresentation is fact sensitive: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 “[45] As can be seen from sub-para. 7(4), much will depend on knowledge on the part of Selvamani or whoever renewed the insurance policy at the material time. Whether misrepresentation exists is therefore very much fact sensitive, confirming our earlier opinion on the unsuitability of how the whole application was conducted by the High Court. The burden is on the respondent to prove the existence of misrepresentation; that it would not have entered into or renewed the insurance policy had it been aware of the true facts; and we have no information as to when the policy was actually submitted for renewal and the circumstances of the renewal.”. [Emphasis added] [50] In the present case, having gone through the notes of evidence in the records of appeal I found that the SCJ had not made any error in her assessment of the facts and evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and her observations in regard to the surrounding circumstances of the manner in which the policies were renewed. It was the Plaintiff’s contention that he took out the policies as an incentive to his employees but I found that the “bulk” of the policies amount payable.e. RM840,000.00 was made under the name of the deceased alone (3 of the policies, except Takaful). He also admitted that the deceased’s family members did not know about the policies taken in the name of the deceased and he did not know them personally (the family members). It appeared that the only beneficiary of the Group Policy was the Plaintiff. [51] The Plaintiff contended that the absence of a valid licence/road tax/insurance were trivial matters. He also contended that the deceased’s cooupation was a lorry driver and therefore, the absence of a valid motorcycle licence/road tax/insurance was irrelevant to his death. I agree with the Defendants’ submissions that these were not trivial matters as it would in effect have a bearing on the decision of the insurers to take on the risk of providing coverage for the deceased who was not in possession S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 of a valid licence. The absence of of a valid licence was specifically spelt out in their respective exclusion clauses. This also constituted an “unlawful act” under the policies thereby triggering the exclusion clause therein: Allianz General Insurance Malaysia v KL Chan & Associates [2017] 8 CLJ 517 (COA). [52] I am mindful of SD3’s evidence that the insured person need not possess a valid licence at the point of time when the Proposal Form was submitted as he could obtain one later. What was important for the insurers would be at the time when a claim was submitted (for instance due to death of the insured person), whether there was any breach of the law i.e. he had been riding without a valid licence. SP6’s evidence admitted the motorcycle was without a valid insurance and road tax. Therefore, SP6 had breached the provisions of s. 26(1), s.15(1) and s.90(1) of the RTA. [53] The Plaintiff contradicted himself when he stated that the deceased was employed as a lorry driver but the evidence was that he would drive “the lorry driver” to work in the oil palm plantation. Obviously, the Court can conclude that the Plaintiff had to do so as he was fully aware of the fact that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence. He condoned this situation and it was clearly against the provision of s.26(1) of the RTA 1987. On a balance of probability, I found the Plaintiff’s evidence, that if he had known the deceased did not possess a valid licence he would have asked the deceased (then) to obtain one, was inherently improbable. The Plaintiff drove the deceased to work probably almost everyday (3 times weekly), it was highly improbable that he did not know or have the opportunity to ask the latter about it. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 [54] A person employed as a lorry driver must possess a valid and full licence to drive and operate such a “potentially dangerous” vehicle. A motorcycle rider too must have a valid licence to ride, even if it was just an L-licence. That is a requirement of the law and it is proof of one’s capability and qualification to operate a vehicle be it a motorcycle, car, lorry, bus or whatever. The Courts should not condone the illegal behaviour of riding a motorcycle or driving a motor vehicle without a valid licence, insurance and road tax. The RTA is in place to ensure the safety of all road users. Full-stop. On this ground alone, I found that the Defendants were entitled to rely on this exclusion clause (riding/driving without a licence) to repudiate their respective liabilities: Lee Boon Siong v Great Eastern Life Assurance Malaysia Berhad [2020] MLJU 1376. [55] Therefore, separately from the duty of disclosure in respect of the deceased’s non-possession of a valid licence, I found that the Plaintiff was not forthcoming about the reason why he wanted to purchase the policies under the name of the deceased who did not possess a valid licence when the Plaintiff claimed that he (the deceased) was employed as a lorry driver: Ulaganathan Muthiah’s Case (supra). This will be discussed further later in this Grounds of Judgment. [56] I have answered issues (iv) and (v) in my analysis above. The Plaintiff as early as at the time when the Proposal Form had been filled up had not complied with the procedures under Paragraph 5, Schedule 9 to take care when making the representation whereas the Defendants had complied with the provisions of the law. (v) Can the Defendants be allowed to rely on a new ground which was never raised in the repudiation letter rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 [57] The new ground was the attempt by the Defendants to avoild liability by relying on SP1’s (and to a certain extent SP5) evidence that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. The repudiation letters all stated that the insurers would not make the payment despite the Plaintiff’s claims because the deceased was found to be riding a motorcycle without a valid licence. This sixth issue was a non-issue as the Court found the exclusion clauses for each of the 4 insurers pertaining to riding a motorcycle without a valid licence was sufficient to enable the insurers to repudiate liability. [58] I refer to Paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 9 which is applicable here and it provides: Misrepresentation in respect of insurance contracts 7. (1) Part 3 of this Schedule— (a) in Division 1, makes provision for a misrepresentation made in relation to a contract of life insurance, whether or not a consumer insurance contract, which has been effected for a period of more than two years; and (b) in Division 2, sets out the remedies available to a licensed insurer for a misrepresentation made in respect of— (i) a consumer insurance contract of life insurance which has been effected for a period of two years or less; and (ii) a consumer insurance contract of general insurance. (2) The remedies set out in Division 2 shall be available to a licensed insurer for a misrepresentation made by a consumer before a consumer insurance contract referred to in subsubparagraph (1)(b) was entered into, varied or renewed if— (a) the consumer has made a misrepresentation in breach of his duty under subparagraph 5(2) or (4); and (b) the licensed insurer shows that had it known the true facts, it would not have entered into the contract, or agreed to the variation or renewal, or would only have done so on different terms. (3) For the purposes of this Schedule, a misrepresentation for which a licensed insurer has a remedy in Division 2 against a consumer may be classified as— (a) deliberate or reckless; (b) careless; or (c) innocent. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 (4) A misrepresentation is deliberate or reckless if the consumer knew that— (a) it was untrue or misleading, or did not care whether or not it was untrue or misleading; and (b) the matter to which the misrepresentation related was relevant to the licensed insurer, or did not care whether or not it was relevant to the insurer. (5) A misrepresentation made dishonestly is to be regarded as having being made deliberately or recklessly. (6) A misrepresentation is careless or innocent, as the case may be, if it is not deliberate or reckless. (7) It is for the licensed insurer to show that a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless on a balance of probability. (8) Unless the contrary is shown, it is to be presumed that the consumer knew that a matter about which the licensed insurer asked a clear and specific question was relevant to the insurer. … Division 2 Remedies for misrepresentation Application of Division 14. This Division sets out the remedies available to a licensed insurer for a misrepresentation by a consumer made in respect of— (a) a consumer insurance contract of life insurance which has been effected for a period of two years or less; and (b) a consumer insurance contract of general insurance. Remedies for deliberate or reckless misrepresentation 15. If a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, a licensed insurer may avoid the consumer insurance contract and refuse all claims. [59] From the above there are 3 degrees of “culpability” in respect of misrepresentation by a consumer, namely deliberate or reckless, careless or innocent. In paragraph 7(5), a misrepresentation made dishonestly is to be regarded as having being made deliberately or recklessly. I had concluded earlier from the evidence, that the Plaintiff was fully aware of S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 the fact that the deceased did not possess a valid licence and which was why he drove the deceased to work in the plantation. This wilful act of the Plaintiff smacks of dishonest misrepresentation! [60] Section 26(1) of the RTA provides: “26. (1) Kecuali sebagaimana diperuntukkan selainnya dalam Akta ini, tiada seorang pun boleh memandu sesuatu kenderaan motor daripada apa-apa kelas atau perihalan, di sesuatu jalan melainkan jika dia adalah pemegang sesuatu lesen memandu yang membenarkannya memandu sesuatu kenderaan motor daripada kelas atau perihalan itu, dan tiada seorang pun boleh mengambil kerja atau membenarkan seseorang lain memandu sesuatu kenderaan motor di jalan melainkan jika orang yang diambil kerja atau dibenarkan memandu itu adalah pemegang sesuatu lesen memandu sedemikian.”. [61] The evidence of SP6, the Plaintiff’s own witness also confirmed that the Plaintiff would send the deceased to work when the fact was that the deceased was employed to work as a lorry driver. In my view, this is the most material of all facts in this case when the Plaintiff did not disclose that the deceased only possessed an expired L-licence. [62] The law has not abolished the duty to disclose on the part of the consumer and that in this case and this Court opines that we should not miss the forest for the trees. We must not lose focus of the fact that it was the Plaintiff who wanted to take out the policies of insurance from the insurers to cover his employee(s) allegedly as an incentive to the deceased. Was he acting honestly when he purchased the policies? He had been employing the deceased since 10.5.2017 as a lorry driver despite knowing the deceased did not have a licence, drove him to work in the plantation 3 times weekly and then in October 2017, S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 purchased the policies from Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to cover him alone. Meanwhile, the Takaful policy was purchased in late 2016. [63] The SCJ further noted the submission of the Defendant 2 in the grounds of judgment: “[149] Berdasarkan jawapan SP7 kepada soalan-soalan semasa pemeriksaan balas yang bermula pada 18/09/2020, SP7 mengaku sebenarnya bahawa selain polisi kemalangan diri yang diambil untuk pekerja, dia juga memperoleh polisi kemalangan diri untuk diri sendiri dan memiliki insurans bagi kenderaan bermotor yang dimiliki iaitu 2 buah motorvan Hilux, 4 buah lori (muatan 1 dan 3 tan) dan mesin jengkaut meratakan tanah. SP7 juga memiliki lesen memandu kenderaan bermotor yang sah dan lesen menunggang motorsikal. SP7 tidak perlu dijelaskan tentang keperluan mematuhi peruntukan Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan dirumuskan sebagai seorang yang celik undang-undang jalanraya serta didedahkan dengan keperluan memiliki perlindungan insurans! Malah, Plaintif adalah seorang peniaga yang sangat cerdik yang celik angka/ matematik kerana dalam setiap polisi yang dibeli olehnya sebagai majikan, dia yang memainkan peranan yang penting dalam memperolehi fakta dan angka untuk dimasukkan dalam polisi; pihak Plaintif juga yang membayar premium bagi orang yang diinsuranskan bagi kesemua polisi atas penama yang sama iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan (si mati). Sekiranya terjadi kematian kemalangan menimpa pekerjanya Raja a/l Krishnan, jumlah pampasan yang akan dipungutnya akan mencecah RM1j. [150] Rumusan dibuat oleh peguam Defendan berkait motif SP7 (yang sepatutnya dipertanggungkan membuat pendedahan maklumat) semasa pemerolehan polisi insurans atas nama Raja a/l Krishnan adalah berdasarkan kedudukan kewangan SP7 yang kurang kukuh dan jumlah pampasan yang bakal diperoleh SP7 sekiranya terjadi kematian kemalangan menimpa Raja a/l Krishnan. Oleh itu, motif pengambilan 4 polisi Kemalangan Diri atas nama Raja a/l Krishnan itu bukanlah untuk perlindungan risiko kecederaan atau kematian kemalangan si mati tetapi ada niat mendapat pampasan yang hampir RM1j... Plaintif telahpun berpengalaman memperoleh pelbagai insurans termasuklah pemerolehan polisi perlindungan insurans kemalangan diri untuk perlindungan Takaful bagi dirinya sendiri sejak 2016, selain memperoleh insurans perlindungan kenderaan bermotor seperti jentera jengkaut, 4 buah Iori muatan 1 dan 3 tan, juga kenderaan pacuan 4 roda iaitu 2 buah Hilux!”. [64] In Ulaganathan Muthiah’s Case (supra), the learned High Court Judge held that: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 “Clearly, the deceased knew that his answers to the questions in the proposal form were untrue or misleading. He did not care whether or not they were untrue or misleading and had acted in breach of his duty of uberrimae fidei. His answers were relevant to the defendant for its assessment of the risks and whether to accept the risks … if the defendant had known of the non-disclosed information or deliberate and/or reckless misrepresentation, which clearly increased the defendant’s insurance risk, the defendant would either not have entered into the insurance policy or it would have done so on different terms.”. [65] The court in that case concluded that pursuant to paragraphs 7(1)(b), 7(2), 7(4), 7(8) and (15) of Schedule 9, the defendant was entitled to avoid the policy and to refuse all claims under the policy by reason of the deceased’s breach of his duty of uberrimae fidei and to reject the plaintiff’s claim. I need not go any further then to conclude that Paragraph 15 is applicable in these cases and it enables the insurers to avoid the consumer insurance contract and refuse all claims. If Paragraph 5 is to be upheld at all times in favour on the consumers, why does Act 758 also provide for remedies for insurers when misrepresentation is proved? (vi) Should section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 be invoked against the Defendants for failure to call as a witness their authorised agent(s) who filled up the proposal form on behalf of the Plaintiff [66] It was submitted for the Plaintiff that s.114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should have been invoked by the SCJ against the Defendants for their failure to call the 3 agents as witnesses in the trial. However, I found that as the Plaintiff himself had subpoenaed them and then dismissed them without calling them to testify on his behalf, the presumption of adverse inference in s.114(g) cannot be applied in his favour. [67] In the often-cited case of Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492, the Supreme court held: S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 "Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be drawn from withholding not just any document, but material document by a party in his possession, or for non-production of not just any witness but an important and material witness to the case." [68] The Plaintiff contended, inter alia, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the Defendants because it was for the Defendants to prove that they have complied with the provisions of Schedule 9. The failure of the agents to explain to him his duty of disclosure and/or the failure of the agent to properly explain the question in the proposal form amounted to a breach of the insurer’s duty under Act 758. The Defendant 1’s counsel submitted (paragraphs 10-10.4 of Encl.68), that the Plaintiff did not raise this presumption in the trial. In order to invoke the presumption, there must be withholding or suppression of evidence, which the Defendants did not commit as the Plaintiff had subpoenaed the agents and later dismissed them. Since it was the decision of the Plaintiff to not put them in the witness stand, thus the Court must not punish the Defendants for the Plaintiff’s decision aforesaid. [69] I refer to paragraphs 250-251 of the grounds of judgment below: “[250] Hujah tentang isu yang dibangkitkan mengenai pemakaian seksyen 114 perlu dipertimbangkan dengan merujuk kepada persetujuan peguam Plaintif pada 15/01/2020 untuk tidak meneruskan panggilan sepina berkaitan Borang Cadangan yang diisikan oleh ejen bagi pihak Plaintif. Dengan berbuat demikian, Plaintif diestop untuk tidak menimbulkan isu pemakaian seksyen 114 terhadap Defendan, sebaliknya Plaintif sendiri yang terhalang membangkitkan apa-apa isu tentang pemanggilan ejen insurans untuk memberi keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah setelah bersetuju mengetepikan hak Plaintif untuk mendapatkan keterangan ejen-ejen insurans yang memberi khidmat mereka untuk mengisikan Borang Cadangan untuk memperoleh polisipolisi insurans bagi pihak Plaintif. [251] Ternyata, Borang Cadangan yang membentuk kontrak insurans ditandatangan oleh Plaintif sendiri. Justeru, 3 saksi yang disepina oleh Plaintif itu tidak diperlukan memberi keterangan mengenai apa-apa butiran yang telah dinyatakan dalam Borang Cadangan kerana kewajipan membuat pendedahan S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 fakta material termasuklah mengenai pemerolehan Polisi adalah kewajipan di pihak Plaintif, bukanlah ejen Plaintif yang menurunkan tandatangannya atas semua Borang Cadangan dan semua butiran diaku benar oleh Plaintif, bukan ejen yang mengisi Borang. Ketiga- tiga mereka dilepaskan dan dikecualikan kehadiran memberi keterangan bagi pihak Plaintif dalam kes di sini. [70] The SCJ found that the Defendants had discharged their duties under Act 758 since the Plaintiff had signed the acknowledgement clause, that the Plaintiff admitted the agent Fong Kok Wai did ask him questions in the Proposal Form and the agent filled it. As such, adverse inference need not be invoked against any of the parties in these circumstances. [71] To end this issue, I would also briefly allude at this stage to the point raised by the Plaintiff that being members of LIAM, it was incumbent upon the insurers to make background checks with each other upon receving the Plaintiff’s proposal forms through their respective agents. Specifically, I refer to paragraphs 107 – 108 of the SCJ’s grounds of judgment: “[107] Dicabar semasa pemeriksaan balas mengenai butiran dalam Borang Cadangan Yang Ditanda tangan oleh Plaintif bagi Polisi Kemalangan Diri Ultima V3 / Berjaya Sompo Insurance [ekshibit P32, Encl. 45, Ikatan D di muka surat 85- 87] dengan pengataan bahawa Defendan boleh menyemak status polisi sedia ada dan status lesen memandu yang dimiliki si mati, SD3 tidak bersetuju bahawa pada masa itu terdapat keperluan atau tanggungan ke atas Defendan untuk membuat apa-apa carian atau semakan status pemerolehan polisi-polisi insurans yang sedia ada milik Plaintif. [108] SD3 menekankan bahawa Plaintif yang bertanggungan untuk mematuhi “prinsip uberimae fidei atau niat suci hati” dan mendedahkan fakta pemerolehan polisi-polisi insurans yang sedia ada miliknya di bulan Oktober 2018, semasa Plaintif memperbaharu polisi-polisi insurans atau semasa Plaintif mengisi borang cadangan bagi mendapatkan polisi insurans baru yang melibatkan orang yang dinsurankan yang sama iaitu Raja a/l Krishnan.”. S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 LOCUS STANDI [72] Since I have made my decision that the representation was made dishonestly in 2017, I do not consider it necessary to address at length the issue of locus standi that was discussed by the SCJ upon submission of Defendant 2’s counsel. She has ruled that the Plaintiff did not have locus standi to bring the claim as he was not a nominee of the deceased. If the policies were taken out without dishonest misrepresentation on the part of the Plaintiff, I would agree with the Defendant 2’s submission that the family of the deceased stood as the rightful beneficiaries of the policies and the Plaintiff, as the employer, would be the right person to commence the claims on behalf of the deceased’s family members. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 10 may be applicable here (refer to paragraphs 22-30 of Defendant 2’s written submissions). EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR [73] Lastly, I will briefly touch on the issue of ex turpi non causa oritur that was raised by the Defendants in this appeal. Defendant’s counsel submitted at para 8 - 8.5 that the maxim applied since the deceased was riding without a safety helmet and also without a valid license. Counsel submitted that the Court should not lend its aid to a man whose cause of action was founded upon an illegal act. The Plaintiff submitted that the maxim applied to minor or trivial offences e.g. traffic violations. Counsel for the Plaintiff tried to trivialise the issue by stating the violations were punishable with fines and that the present case was on all fours with the recent Court of Appeal case of Ahmad Zulfendi Anuar v Mohd Shahril Abdul Rahman [2022] 9 CLJ 307 where the plaintiff did not hold a valid S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 licence to ride a motorcycle which also had not road tax and no policy of insurance against third party risks. The Court of Appeal went on to hold: “While violation of traffic laws must only be dealt with under the specific laws creating the relevant offences, such as in the Road Transport Act 1987 (“RTA”), the RTA does not contain any provision which restrict, let alone prohibit, the rights of any road user from making personal injury claims by reason of the claimant breaching the RTA, including in respect of the requirement for holding the requisite licence, road tax and insurance.”. [74] In Tay Lye Seng & Anor v. Nazori Teh & Anor [1998] 3 CLJ 466 the Court of Appeal held (per Siti Norma Yaakob JCA): “[1] While public policy would defeat any claim based on illegality, a balance has to be drawn based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. [2] The maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio has limited application in tort. The role of the maxim lies mainly and most exclusively in actions based on contract. [3] The fact that the first respondent had no valid work permit per se, could not affect his claim for loss of earnings in Singapore. This was because the first respondent was working legally in Singapore initially. He had a valid work permit issued by the Singapore authorities but unfortunately that expired four months before the accident. The obligation to renew the work permit laid squarely with the first respondent’s employers and since there was no evidence that the had done so the first respondent had therefore not been culpably responsible for the predicament that he later found himself to be in. In these circumstances, the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio lacked moral justification and was not applicable in this appeal.”. [Emphasis added] [75] The Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) in her very lengthy grounds of judgment summarised the evidence and findings of SP1 in paragraphs 33-38 on the deceased’s liability. It was submitted that here the illegal act was of the deceased not the Plaintiff. Moreover, it was SP6 who owed the duty as the owner of the motorcycle to make sure it had a valid insurance cover and road tax at all time of and it the deceased must have a valid licence when riding the motorcycle; the Plaintiff cannot be faulted since S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 the breaches of the RTA were by SP6 and the deceased. This argument does not hold water in my view. At the risk of repeating myself, I reiterate the fact that it was the Plaintiff in the first instance who had not made a true representation of the deceased’s status of not having a valid licence when he purchased the policies. The above case can be distinguished on the facts as here, the claims were founded on illegal act of the Plaintiff in making a dishonest representation to the insurers. [76] I have considered the submissions and case laws cited by the Plaintiff but I am unable to agree with his position. He has misconstrued the law in regard to the duty to take care to disclose material facts to the insurers. The facts of the case showed that the Plaintiff’s claims were untenable wherein the insurers can repudiate the contract in accordance with Paragraph 15 of Schedule 9. CONCLUSION [77] The Plaintiff had failed to prove his claims on a balance of probabilities and therefore, the SCJ dismissed the claims. It was unnecessary for me to disturb the decisions of the SCJ. Premised on the above considerations, I dismissed the 4 appeals with costs. Appeals dismissed with costs. Dated 6 February 2024 Sgd. NOOR RUWENA BINTI MD NURDIN Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya, Taiping S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54 For the Appellant: Ms. Shuroma Guha Thakurta Messrs Manjit & Co., Bukit Mertajam For the Respondents: For The Pacific Insurance Berhad Mr. Ananth Shanmugam Messrs. Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong, Kuala Lumpur For Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad Ms. Vinoshini Saminathan Messrs. Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon, Kuala Lumpur For Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Am Berhad Mr. Razlan Hadri Zulkifli & Ms. Aina Shobri Messrs. Gan Ho & Razlan Hadri (Penang) For Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Berhad Mr. S. Suresh Messrs. Kanaga, Suresh & Co., Shah Alam S/N l8HM7D5/U0yS0nuECaf/wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-41(Ors)-4-11/2022

PERAYU Maya Binti Ahmad Fuad RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned magistrate - dismissing the appellant’s application to nullify the entire criminal proceeding against her and to be discharged and acquitted.

06/02/2024

YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cd9b9b03-c40e-4b42-8840-55dd5fb1ac4c&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: WA-41(ORS)-4-11/2022 MAYA BINTI AHMAD FUAD (NO.K/P: 820720-71-5156) …PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA …RESPONDEN JUDGMENT [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned magistrate dismissing the appellant’s application to nullify the entire criminal proceeding against her and to be discharged and acquitted. Background Facts [2] On 30.1.2019, the appellant was charged for an offence of making false statement on oath under section 181 of the Penal Code before the Magistrate Court (Case No: WA-83-715-01/2019). The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The appellant was represented by the law firm The Law Office of Parmjit Singh throughout the trial at the prosecution stage. [3] The trial began on 18.11.2019 before the learned Magistrate, Tuan Saravanan a/l Meyappan (hereinafter referred to as “M1”). [4] On 30.11.2020, during cross-examination of prosecution’s witness PW7, the defence applied for PW7 to be impeached and that cross- 06/02/2024 12:47:46 WA-41(Ors)-4-11/2022 Kand. 42 S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 examination of the same to be continued only after a ruling is made by the learned M1 relating to the impeachment application/proceeding. Learned counsel for the appellant further seek to reserve his right to cross-examine another prosecution’s witness, PW5 until the same ruling is made. The learned M1 then directed learned counsel for the appellant to file a formal application. [5] Thereafter, the learned M1 was transferred to the Ministry of Entrepreneur and Cooperatives Development (“MECD”) effective 4.1.2021. At this point of time, six (6) prosecution witnesses had testified whilst cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses, PW7 and PW5, were still pending. In addition, 35 exhibits have been produced before the court. [6] Vide letter dated 14.1.2021, Counsel for the complainant then wrote to the Chief Registrar seeking for the learned M1 to continue hearing the case and the letter was copied to the appellant’s solicitor and the prosecution. [7] Learned M1 returned to continue hearing the impeachment application on 12.4.2021. On 22.9.2021 learned M1 further heard the application for the statement of PW7 under section 112 Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). Both applications were rejected by the learned M1 and he had instructed for cross-examination of PW5 and PW7 to be continued. On 10.11.2021, examinations of both PW5 and PW7 were completed and the case for the prosecution was closed. [8] On 21.1.2022, the appellant was ordered to enter her defence. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [9] On 18.4.2022, Messrs. Jagjit Singh & Co wrote to the court informing that they have taken over the conduct of the appellant’s case from The Law Office of Parmjit Singh. [10] On 9.6.2022, Messrs. Jagjit Singh & Co wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts Malaya, Tuan Azhanis Teh asking for confirmation whether the learned M1 is still having the power as a Magistrate and is still gazetted as the same. [11] On 13.6.2022, Tuan Azhanis Teh replied and informed Messrs. Jagjit Singh that the trial will proceed before a new Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as “M2”) who will be taking over the learned M1. [12] Before the learned M2, learned counsel for the appellant then applied for the trial to be postponed on the ground that an application would be filed for the appellant to be acquitted and discharged on the ground inter alia that the learned M1 has ceased jurisdiction when he continued to hear the case after his transfer as Federal Counsel at the MECD. Formal application was filed on 12.7.2022 [13] On 28.12.2022, the learned M2 set aside the application and hence, the appeal was filed herein. Findings of the learned M2 [14] The pertinent parts of the learned M2’s findings are reproduced: “28. Di dalam kes ini, Tuan Majistret terdahulu telah ditukarkan ke KUSKOP sebagai Peguam Persekutuan. Mahkamah ini telah menggunakan kes-kes di atas sebagai panduan dan dengan mengaplikasikan kes tersebut di dalam situasi kes ini, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa tiada S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 halangan untuk Tuan Majistret terdahulu sambung mendengar kes rayuan Perayu selepas bertukar sebagai Peguam Persekutuan kerana beliau masih belum cease to exercise jurisdiction dan tindakan yang diambil masih di dalam kapasitinya sebagai seorang majistret. Seperti yang dikatakan di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Kulasingam (supra)”…all these officers belong to the same parent service….” Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini berpandangan tindakan Tuan Saravanan tidak terjumlah atas suatu tindakan yang tidak teratur atau salah di sisi undang-undang. 29…. 30…. 31. Merujuk perenggan 13 Alasan ini di atas, Tuan Azhanis Teh bin Azman Teh, Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah Malaya telah memaklumkan bahawa kes sambung bicara Perayu akan diteruskan dan didengar di hadapan Majistret pengganti. Dengan menggunakan kes Yap You Jee v Public Prosecutor and other appeals (supra) sebagai panduan, Mahkamah ini berpandangan tidak wujud kegagalan pematuhan pada seksyen 261 KTJ dan tiada keperluan untuk satu perintah perbicaraan semula diberikan memandangkan arahan pendengaran kes Perayu yang diberikan adalah bersifat pentadbiran dan tidak memprejudis Perayu. 32. Justeru, selepas mempertimbangkan segala factor yang dinyatakan termasuklah hujahan dari kedua-dua belah pihak, serta mengaplikasikan dan menggunakan kes-kes yang telah diputuskan sebagai panduan, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Tuan Saravanan masih S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 mempunyai bidang kuasa sebagai Majistret meskipun telah bertukar sebagai Peguam Persekutuan bermula 4 Januari 2021 dan tindakannya untuk terus mendengar kes jenayah Perayu adalah tidak salah di sisi undang-undang, tidak terjumlah pada satu perbicaraan silap (mistrial) dan prosiding perbicaraan penuh yang telah berlangsung adalah sah. Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa permohonan yang diusulkan oleh pihak Perayu adalah tidak bermerit dan permohonan tersebut ditolak. 33. Setelah meneliti segala pertimbangan termasuk kepentingan awam serta kepentingan peribadi Perayu, mahkamah dengan ini memerintahkan Perayu dipanggil untuk membela diri” Summary of the Appellant’s Contentions [15] Summarily, it is the appellant’s contention that: i. The learned M1 has ceased jurisdiction as a Magistrate effective 4.1.2021 upon his transfer to the MECD and he can no longer hear the appellant’s case as he could not be performing two different functions simultaneously; ii. The prosecution has failed to show proof that the learned M1 continued to hear the part-heard trial on the instruction of the Rt. Hon. Chief Judge of Malaya; iii. The learned M1 having continued to hear the part-heard case after his transfer has erred and/or tantamount to an irregularity in law more so when he did not disclose openly about his transfer during the continued proceedings and before the case was taken over by the learned M2 under s. 261 CPC; S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 iv. As there is an incurable irregularities in the proceeding, the ruling made directing the appellant to enter her defence and the entire proceeding at the prosecution stage are null and void as well as a mistrial and as such the appellant ought to be acquitted and discharged from the charge preferred against her; v. That the order of discharge and acquittal is valid in law as the learned M1 has ceased jurisdiction as a Magistrate effective from 4.1.2021 which is analogous to a Deputy Public Prosecutor (“DPP”) who has not been accorded with a fiat to prosecute under the law resulting to a criminal proceeding to be null and void and a mistrial. Evaluation and Findings [16] The application before the learned M2 falls under the parameters of section 261 CPC involving a change of magistrate during the hearing of a criminal trial. The application was for an order that the criminal proceeding (i.e. the prosecution stage of the trial) is null and void on the ground that the learned M1 who heard the case at the prosecution stage of the trial has ceased jurisdiction in the trial since he has been transferred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“AGC”) and posted as Federal Counsel at the MECD. [17] S. 261 CPC provides: “261 Change of Magistrate during hearing Whenever any Magistrate after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in a trial ceases to exercise jurisdiction in it and is succeeded by another Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself, or he may re- summon the witnesses and recommence the inquiry or trial; Provided as follows: (a) In any trial the accused may, when the second Magistrate commences his proceedings, demand that the witnesses or any of them be re-summoned and re-heard; (b) the High Court may, whether there be an appeal or not, set aside any conviction had on evidence not wholly recorded by the Magistrate before whom the conviction was had, if that Court is of opinion that the accused has been materially prejudiced thereby, and may order a new trial.” [18] It must be observed that the matter before this court is by way of an appeal against the ruling made by the learned M2. It is observed further that learned counsel for the appellant had agreed that in hearing the appellant’s application, the learned M2 would be making a ruling and not a decision. This can be seen from the notes of proceedings in Volume 2 page 3, paragraph 1 where the learned counsel stated: “Setelah ruling untuk permohonan ini diterima, barulah kes perbicaraan boleh diteruskan. Permohonan ini akan ada ruling dan bukan lagi satu keputusan. Oleh itu pohon penangguhan diberikan.” [19] The prosecution as the respondent herein raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the matter herein is not appealable as there is no judgment, sentence or order pronounced by the learned M2 within S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 the meaning of s 307 (i) CPC. In other words, it is the prosecution’s submission that in dismissing the application by the appellant herein, the ruling made by the learned M2 does not have the element of finality and therefore cannot be appealed against. [20] S. 307 (i) CPC provides: “Procedure for appeal 307. (1) Except in any case to which section 304 applies and subject to sections 305 and 306 any person who is dissatisfied with any judgment, sentence or order pronounced by any Magistrate’s Court in a criminal case or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to the High Court against that judgment, sentence or order in respect of any error in law or in fact or on the ground of the alleged excessive severity or of the alleged inadequacy of any sentence by lodging, within fourteen days from the time of the judgment, sentence or order being passed or made, with the clerk of the Magistrate’s Court a notice of appeal in triplicate addressed to the High Court and by paying at the same time the prescribed appeal fee.” [21] A decision is final once it is taken to its conclusion, which ultimately results in: (a) A conviction of the accused; (b) An acquittal of the accused; (c) A sentence which entails a form of a punishment such as imprisonment for life or fine; (d) An order which finally dispose of the rights of parties S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [22] The above is what judgment, sentence or order pronounced means in criminal matters. [23] It is apposite to note that no appeal from the subordinate court lies to a superior court unless there is a statutory provision allowing such a right to appeal. In other words there is no general right of appeal. [24] Appellate jurisdiction is solely a creation of statute. It only extends as far as the words of the statute require. To that extent the decision made by a court of original jurisdiction is final and appealable only if it is provided for by statute (see Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 321). The court cannot invent a right of appeal where none is given and the courts will not usurp an appellate jurisdiction where none is created (per Tun Ariffin Zakaria CJ (as he then was) in Koperasi Jimat Cermat dan Pinjaman Keretapi Bhd (Now known as Koperasi Keretapi Bhd) v Kumar a/l Gurusamy [2011] 2 MLJ 433) [25] In Gobinath Sinnaya v PP & Other Appeals [2023] 1 CLJ 174, the Court of Appeal in analysing and deciding on the preliminary objection raised by the Public Prosecutor therein on the ground that the decision of the High Court Judge on the issue of bail is not appealable stated the followings: “[7] To begin with, as the Court of Appeal is a creation of statute, its jurisdiction derives from the statutory provisions, including the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal is incompetent unless the statute provides legislative authority that gives the right to appeal. This principle of law has been explained in a plethora of cases including the case of Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 321; [1999] 1 CLJ 537 where NH Chan JCA said this: … As said by Lord Goddard CJ in R v West Kent Quarter Sessions Appeal Committee [1951] 2 All ER 728 at p 730: It is most elementary that no appeal from a court lies to any other court unless there is a statutory provision which gives a right to appeal. The decision of every court is final if it has jurisdiction, unless an appeal is given by statute. See also Attorney-General v Sillem [1864] 10 HLC 704 where the House of Lords held that the creation of a right of appeal is an act which requires legislative authority: see by Lord Westbury LC at 719. There is no right of appeal at law from a decision of a court to any other court unless there is a statutory provision that gives a right to appeal. The creation of a right of appeal is an act that requires legislative authority. The right to appeal from one court to another must be conferred by some statute, otherwise, the decision of every court of law is final. (Emphasis added.)” [Emphasis added] [26] The words judgment, sentence or order appearing in s 307 CPC must be read together with s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”) The word used is ‘decision’. It means judgment, sentence or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of the trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. Again in Gobinath Sinnaya v PP & Other Appeals (supra), the Court of Appeal further elaborated as follows: S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 “[9] The word ‘decision’ has been defined under s 3 of the CJA as follows: ‘decision’ means judgment, sentence, or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties; (Emphasis added.) [10] The definition of ‘decision’ under s 3 is plain and unambiguous that it excludes any ruling which does not finally dispose of the rights of parties. This as opposed to the earlier definition of ‘decision’ before the amendment by amendment Act A1031 of 1998 that came into force on 31 July 1998 which is as follows: ‘decision’ means any judgment, sentence, or order. [11] Hence, after the said amendment, a decision that is appealable under s 50 of CJA is only those that have finally disposed of the rights of parties, not any interlocutory judgment or order where the final rights of parties are yet to be disposed of although the judgment, ruling or order is conclusive or final to the subordinate matter. This has been succinctly explained in the Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case at pp 320–321 (MLJ); p 549 (CLJ) in the following manner: This new definition of ‘decision’, as in the amendment, does not include a judgment or order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties on the matters in dispute. In other words, what has been excluded from the meaning of the word ‘decision’ is the type of judgments and orders which is termed ‘interlocutory’ by Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn) Vol 26, para 506, at p 240, which reads: S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 506. Interlocutory judgments and orders. An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed ‘interlocutory’. An interlocutory order, even though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Shortly stated, what the amendment means is that a judgment or order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but is made pendente lite, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, is not a ‘decision’ within the meaning of that word in the current version of s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act, and therefore is not appealable. It makes no difference that such a judgment or order is final, that is to say conclusive, as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. (Emphasis added.)” [Emphasis added] [27] In the case of Saad bin Abbas & Anor v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 129, the court has to ascertain whether the ‘decision’ of the High Court in ordering the appellants to enter their defence was a ruling that had effect of finally disposing of their rights. The court then held: “(1) If at the end of the prosecution case, the court finds that there is a prima facie case against the accused, the court has no other option but to call upon the accused to S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 enter on his defence. The accused will then be under an obligation to submit to the order of the judge by making his defence in any way in accordance with the provisions of the law. There is no room for the accused to avoid the issue of presenting his case; he must comply….. (2) The decision of the High Court in ordering the applicants to enter their defence was a ruling that did not have the effect of finally disposing of their rights. At the stage of making the order, it had no finality in its intent. This would only happen after a decision had been made at the close of the defence. Only then will there be a decision to ‘affect the event of the appeal’, Au King Chor & Ors v PP [1985] 1 MLJ 216 distinguished.” [Emphasis added] [28] Here is where the appellant is seeking for the entire proceeding at the prosecution stage to be nullified on the ground that the learned M1 who had ordered the appellant to enter her defence has ceased jurisdiction. [29] This Court agrees with the prosecution/respondent that the decision by the learned M2 in dismissing the appellant’s application herein is not appealable as it does not come within the ambit of the statutory provision specifically s. 307 CPC. Since the defence stage has yet to be exhausted, the decision made by the learned M2 is a procedural ruling and not a judgment, decision or order within the meaning of s. 307 CPC and s. 3 CJA. In other words, the decision of the learned M2 was a ruling that did not have the effect of finally disposing of the appellant’s rights. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [30] In Maleb bin Su v PP and Cheah Yoke Thong v PP [1984] 1 MLJ 311, for instance, the question of right to appeal under s.307(i) CPC was elucidated by Hashim Yeop A Sani FJ (as he then was). In that case the appeals were against the dismissal of the application to disqualify the President of the Sessions Court and Magistrate. The application was that the President and Magistrate should disqualify himself from proceeding with the case on the grounds that he belonged to a service in which the Attorney-General is said to be the head of the service. Since the Attorney- General is also the Public Prosecutor and has supervision and control of these judicial officers it was alleged that there was a likelihood of bias. Hashim Yeop Sani FJ ruled that the matter did not finally dispose of the rights of the accused person and the order was not a proper matter for appeal under s. 307(i) CPC. However notwithstanding the absence of the right to appeal, the learned Judge opined that it would be desirable to exercise the revisionary powers to dispose of the issue in those appeals on the merit since the questions involved have created some degree of uncertainty among judicial officers. [31] The question herein is whether the decision by the learned M2 has finally disposed of the rights of the appellant herein. The answer is in the negative as the rights of the appellant has not been finally disposed of because at the defence stage, the appellant has the right to re-call any of the prosecution witnesses and raise issues including the legality of the proceedings. [32] It is of the considered view and based on the authorities, the present matter should have been dealt with by way of revision and not by way of an appeal as the rights of the appellant has not been disposed of. Hence, on this ground alone, the instant appeal cannot be entertained. In fact, as S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 the definition of ‘decision’ in s.3 CJA is clear and unambiguous, this court must give effect to it. This court has no powers beyond those conferred by Parliament. Accordingly there is no jurisdiction to hear this matter where the decision of the learned M2 does not constitute a final resolution of the whole controversy of a case that occurs before the trial court’s final ruling on the entire case (see Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2011] 2 CLJ 845). To borrow the words of Rose CJ in PP v Hoo Chang Chwen [1962] MLJ 284 where his Lordship said: “I would add that to arrive at any other conclusion would seem to me to open the door to a number of appeals in the course of criminal trials on points which are in their essence procedural. The proper time, of course, to take such points would be upon appeal, after determination of the principal matter in the trial court.” [Emphasis added] [33] In any event, this court finds that the application made in the magistrate court appealed against before this court to strike out a criminal proceeding on the ground that the magistrate has ceased jurisdiction in the trial is unknown in criminal law. Once a prosecution is instituted and the trial begins, a criminal proceeding can never be struck out or nullified on the ground of change of magistrate during hearing of a criminal trial or that the magistrate has ceased jurisdiction in the trial. [34] In this case, before the transfer of the learned M1, it is obvious that he was still a magistrate having jurisdiction to hear the trial. In other words, the fact that the learned M1 continued to hear two more witnesses for the prosecution at the time he was already a Federal Counsel and made a ruling to call for the appellant to enter her defence cannot be said to be S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 void ab initio. So it cannot be comprehended why the entire trial is contended to be null and void solely on the ground that the learned M1 is said to have ceased jurisdiction due to his transfer while the trial was still ongoing. Hence, here lies the wisdom of decided cases where the judges had instead ordered for a de novo or continuation of the trial by the new magistrate pursuant to s 261 CPC and not striking out or nullified the entire trial. In fact, the authorities cited by both parties relating to s 261 CPC did not end up with a striking off of the proceedings or nullification of the same. What the courts have ordered in those cases are either the trial to be tried de novo or continuation of the trial by the new magistrate or trial judge based on the circumstances of the case. [35] It must also be borne in mind that in those cases, the matters before the High Courts were made by way of an application or revision or appeal at the close of the case where the issue on s 261 CPC was raised in the proper appeal (see: Mohd Amin bin Abdullah @ Kanaperan a/l Ramadass v PR [1995] 1 CLJ 33; Oh Keng Seng v Public Prosecutor [1976] 1 MLJ 143; Public Prosecutor v Kulasingam [1974] 2 MLJ 26; Abdul Hamid bin Udin v Public Prosecutor Criminal Appeal No: 42- 24 of 1999; Mukhtar Abdul Rahman v PP [2008] 1 LNS1 588; Mohd Shukur bin Hassan & Anor v PP [2004] 1 LNS1 108; Haji Ibrahim bin Wahab & 1 Lagi lwn Peguam Negara Malaysia & 1 Lagi; Public Prosecutor v Mohd Jon [1992] 1 LNS 48; Teay Wah Cheong v Public Prosecutor [1964] MLJ 21; Ruslee bin Baharum v Pendakwa Raya Rayuan Jenayah No: 42A-9-2007; Md Zaki Fazil Maon v Pendakwa Raya Rayuan Jenayah No: 42-104-2007) [36] In regards to cases cited by the counsel for the appellant such as Public Prosecutor v Syarikat Tekala Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 MLJ 500; Lim S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim and another appeal [2021] 2 MLJ 514; Repco Holdings Bhd v Public Prosecutor [1971] 3 MLJ 681; Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor v PP & Another Appeal [2022] 4 CLJ 523; Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abdul Razak v PP [2019] 5 CLJ 217, the issues in those cases relate to the capacity or legality of the persons who conducted the prosecution and consequently the legality of the institution of the criminal proceedings and not as to the change of trial judge or magistrate in the lower court. In many of these cases too, there were no discussions on the finality of a decision or order. These cases therefore have no relevance to the instant matter. [37] In Tennakoon D Harold v Public Prosecutor [1997] 4 MLJ 497, the court in refusing to exercise its revisionary power stated: “Recently, in Mohamed Anuardin bin Abdul Salam & Anor v PP [1996] 3 MLJ 298, Kang Hwee Gee J ruled that the sessions court judge’s exercise of his discretion power under s 261 of the CPC in ordering that the case against the appellants, which was partly heard by the previous sessions court judge, be continued by him from the point where it had been left off and not de novo was purely procedural and not appellable. His Lordship was further of the view that such an exercise of discretion, even if wrongful, could still be raised at the appeal of the case proper. An attempt was made to convince me that I should exercise my revisionary powers to peruse the evidence and rule in favour of the present appellant. Reference was made to the case of PP v Sandra Margaret Birch [1977] 1 MLJ where S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Arulnandom J, upon reading a report in News Straits Times of Thursday, 19 August 1978 exercised his revisionary powers under s 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and called for the records of the case by reversing the lower court’s decision. Sandra Margaret Birch’s case can readily be distinguished from the facts of the present case. There, the learned president of the sessions court wrongly held the view.” [Emphasis added] [38] The definition given as to the phrase “ceases to exercise jurisdiction” is found in the judgment of Syed Agil Barakbah J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v Goh Chooi Guan [1976] 2 MLJ 169. In that case the sole question to be determined was whether upon the transfer of the President Sessions Court to the Royal Customs & Excise Department, Kuala Lumpur as Senior Federal Counsel resulted in him having ceased to exercise any jurisdiction in the trial part-heard by him. In discussing s 261 of the CPC the learned Judge was of the view that a magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction in a criminal case by his untimely death, retirement or resignation whereby the succeeding magistrate will therefore have to act accordingly to the requirement of the section. According to the Judge, in the case of Magistrate, the proviso of sub- section (2) of section 78 of the Subordinate Courts Act 92 accords the magistrate with jurisdiction to continue with such trial by virtue of his appointment duly gazette in the former State. The learned Judge stated further that this is in accord with the principle that having heard the witness they are the best persons to continue and complete the case in the interest of justice and with a view to ensuring a speedy trial. The learned Judge went on to state that: S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 “In the case of a transfer to the post of Senior Federal Counsel or Deputy Public Prosecutor, I do not consider the President or Magistrate ceases to have jurisdiction, being still gazetted as such. He only ceases to officiate as a President or Magistrate. There appears to be no legal objection under any written law for him to continue the part-heard case. Nevertheless, a different question as regards public interest has to be considered in relation to the overriding principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. A man is disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on ground of bias in favour of one side of the other, or of prejudice against one side or of contravention of the rules of natural justice. There need not be actual bias or prejudice, but it is sufficient if in the eyes of right-minded persons there is such likelihood, in the circumstances, even though he is impartial as can be. It is not the mind of the President or the Magistrate that has to be looked into and whether he favours one side at the expense of the other, but rather the impression which would be given to the public at large (per Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577 @ 599). In the case of a Deputy Public Prosecutor, whose duties are opposed to those of a President or a Magistrate and who has direct access to investigation papers of criminal cases, it is undesirable in the circumstances for him to sit on the Bench and continue the trial part-heard by S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 him. The succeeding President or Magistrate will have to exercise his powers by invoking section 261. The position of Senior Federal Counsel is, to my mind, slightly different, especially those who are attached to Federal Ministries and Departments. Their main duty is to give legal advice. Similarly, in the case of Encik Shaari. He is Legal Adviser to the Royal Customs & Excise and if there is any court work he has to perform occasionally, that will be confined to arguing criminal appeals in the High Courts in Customs and Excise cases. His position is unlike that of a Deputy Public Prosecutor in the States. There should therefore be no likelihood of offending the principles if he continues the part-heard case. Nevertheless, that ought to be rarely exercised and only in exceptional cases as the present case. When I say the present case falls within the exceptional cases, I refer to the facts and surrounding circumstances and the probable effect caused by them.” [Emphasis added] [39] The definition given by Syed Agil Barakbah in Goh Chooi Guan (supra) had been accepted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Yap You Jee v PP & Other Appeals [2015] 7 CLJ 897. In Yap You Jee (supra), on the question whether a previous judge retained jurisdiction in the matter and can complete case that was partly heard, the Chief Justice, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat who was then the Judge of the Court of Appeal speaking for the Court of Appeal had held as follows: S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 “[37] It was submitted by Mr Gobind that the transfer of a Sessions Judge from one state to another does not cause her to "cease jurisdiction in the matter", a pre-requisite which is mandatory for the operation of s. 261 of the CPC. In support thereof counsel relied on the decision of Syed Agil Barakbah in Public Prosecutor v. Goh Chooi Guan [1978] 2 MLJ 169. [38] We agree with Syed Agil Barakbah J in Goh Chooi Guan, supra where he opined that a Magistrate ceases to have jurisdiction in a criminal case by his untimely death, retirement or resignation….” [Emphasis added] [40] On the other hand, Ajaib Singh J in the case of Oh Keng Seng v Public Prosecutor [1976] 1 MLJ143 was of the view that the transfer of the President of the Sessions Judge as a Deputy Public Prosecutor has relinquished the power of the President of the Sessions Judge and thereby ceased to exercise any jurisdiction in the trial of the applicant therein and ordered for the trial to be heard de novo. [41] It is interesting to note that the situation that arose in the case of Goh Chooi Guan (supra) is similar to the instant matter. The learned M1 in the instant matter has been transferred as a Federal Counsel unlike in Oh Keng Seng (supra) where the President was transferred as a DPP. [42] Further the principle that can be gleaned in Goh Chooi Guan (supra) is that although there is no legal objection under any written law for a Magistrate to continue his part-heard case, the overriding principle is that justice must be done and the disqualification of magistrate to continue his part heard case will happen when there is likelihood of bias or that the S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 accused has suffered prejudice in contravention of the rules of natural justice. [43] Hashim Yeop Sani J (as he then was) in PP v Kulasingam [1974] 2 MLJ 26 took the view that because the officers (Magistrates, Sessions Court President, DPP and Federal Counsels) belong to the same parent service i.e. the Judicial and Legal Service of the Federation, it would be perfectly proper for the President or Magistrate who has since been transferred to the Legal Department (or AGC) to complete any part-heard cases originally heard by him in the court where he was previously stationed. Again, the learned Judge qualified his view by stating that this must be subject to an overriding condition that there must not be any possible miscarriage of justice or any contravention of rules of natural justice. In this case the example given is where the President of the session court has been appointed to be a DPP in the same state because of the mere fact that by virtue of his office he has access to investigation papers relating to the case. [44] In Maleb bin Su (supra) Hashim Yeop Sani FJ dealt with the same subject matter under s 261 of the CPC and in the application before the learned Judge the reason given by counsel for the appellant was that "there shall not be any semblance of bias". What was asked was that there must appear to be impartial adjudication and the circumstances did not permit that. The learned Judge in addressing the issue on bias viewed as follows: “A person who has a judicial duty to perform should disqualify himself from performing it if he has a pecuniary interest in the decision or if he has a bias which renders him incapable of being an impartial judge. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 This principle was stated by Bowen L.J. in his judgment in Leeson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1889) 43 ChD366 384-385. In the same case Fry L.J. took a stricter view at Page 390 as follows: "I think that it is a matter of public policy that, so far as is possible, judicial proceedings shall not only be free from actual bias or prejudice of the judges, but that they shall be free from the suspicion of bias or prejudice." In a situation where a likelihood of bias is alleged Lord Widgery L.J. in Regina v. Altrincham Justices (supra) said: "It is enough to show that there is a real likelihood of bias, or at all events that a reasonable person advised of the circumstances might reasonably suspect that the judicial officer was incapable of producing the impartiality and detachment …" I think the correct view is also clearly stated in Healey v Rauhina & Anor [1958] NZLR 945 following R v Camborne Justices, Exparte Pearce [1955] 1 QB41 in that if bias is alleged (other than pecuniary or proprietary bias) then there must be proved areal likelihood of bias and that reasonable suspicion of bias is insufficient. Thus, bare allegations (as done in the present case) are insufficent. A fortiori bare allegations before hearing had hardly commenced. Finally, what is the "system" which counsel said they fear would produce a likelihood of bias? The judicial and legal service is one of the public services mentioned in Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution. The authority which exercises jurisdiction over the officers of the service in S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 matters of promotions and discipline is the Judicial and Legal Service Commission established under Article 138 of the Constitution of which the Attorney-General is only a member. There is nothing in law to say that the Attorney-General is head of the service; in fact he cannot be by virtue of Article 138 of the Constitution. An officer belongs to the judicial and legal service but he may serve in various different capacities in the Judicial Department and Legal Department. As normal in the administrative set-up of the public service each department has its own head. And the Attorney-General is not the head of the Judicial Department. Thus looking at the legal and administrative framework governing the service I do not think the facts here warrant a conclusion of a real likelihood of bias. If such a conclusion is made it is not the sort of conclusion which in my opinion right thinking persons armed with the proper information and advice would entertain. Based on the foregoing I do not think I should interfere with the orders made in the lower Courts in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2 and 8 of 1984. Legal bias has not been satisfactorily shown in both cases.” [Emphasis added] [45] Further in the case of Teay Wah Cheong v Public Prosecutor [1964] MLJ 21, Hashim J stated that unless it would cause hardship and great inconvenience to the accused person and witnesses, the case is better heard de novo by the new President or Magistrate. In that case, the conviction was set aside because the succeeding President of the Sessions Court had misdirected himself as to the evidence wherein he S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 found that there was only one eye witness whilst the former President had noted down that there were 2 other eye witnesses. This is where the learned Judge commented of the danger of acting under s 261 of the CPC. It must be noted that in that case, the error was identified at the close of the case. In the present matter, the “danger” as found by the learned Judge in Teay Wah Cheong (supra) has not occasioned. [46] Premised and guided by the principles enunciated by the authorities stated in the above, there is nothing before this court or the Magistrate court for that matter that shows how the appellant herein can be said to be prejudiced or had been prejudiced in the sense that there is a likelihood of bias on the part of the learned M1 having been transferred as Federal Counsel at the MECD who continued to hear his part-heard case with just two more witnesses where their examination-in-chief had completed before his transfer. [47] In Pendakwa Raya lwn Anthony a/l Rayapan dan satu lagi [2010] 9 MLJ 774, an application was made under s 323 of the CPC by the Director Johor Bharu Courts to the High Court for revision of the magistrate who had recused herself from continuing hearing his part heard for an offence under the Customs Act 1967 based on the letter of the accused’s counsel that both accused believed that they will not be fairly tried if they were to give evidence on oath. The High Court through the judgment of Kamardin Hashim JC (as he then was) stated the followings: “[12] Seksyen 261 KPJ mengandungi peruntukan khas bagi keadaan di mana seseorang majistret yang sedang membicarakan sesuatu kes terhenti daripada menjadi seorang majistret atau telah bertukar ke daerah lain. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Peruntukan tersebut menyatakan majistret berkenaan telah 'ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another magistrate who has and who exercise such jurisdiction'. Situasi ini tidak berlaku dalam kes di hadapan mahkamah oleh kerana Puan Majistret yang berkenaan masih berada dalam bidang kuasa dan masih mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk meneruskan dengan pendengaran kes terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh di sini. Seksyen 261 KPJ mengandungi peruntukan khas bagi keadaan di mana seseorang majistret yang sedang membicarakan sesuatu kes terhenti daripada menjadi seorang majistret atau telah bertukar ke daerah lain. [13] Tindakan Puan Majistret menarik diri dalam kes ini hanyalah berdasarkan kepada surat peguambela terdahulu bagi tertuduh-tertuduh yang bertarikh pada 29 September 2009 yang menyuarakan perasaan anak guam mereka yang berasa takut Puan Majistret tidak akan dapat berlaku adil kepada mereka sekiranya keterangan membela diri mereka didengar di hadapan Puan Majistret yang sama. Kemungkinannya Puan Majistret berpegang kepada prinsip asas undang-undang bahawa 'justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'. Adalah tidak disangkal bahawa mahkamah hendaknya sepanjang masa memelihara keyakinan masyarakat terhadap institusi kehakiman sebagai satu-satunya tempat masyarakat untuk menuntut keadilan dan memesongkan pandangan umum dari tuduhan bahawa seseorang majistret atau hakim itu bersifat berat sebelah. Perkara ini telah S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 ditekankan oleh Barwick CJ dalam kes R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 di ms 262–263 seperti berikut: His (ie, Lord Hewart's) statement of principle, which was recently reaffirmed in this court in Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board does go to the heart of the matter. It is so fundamental importance that the public should have confidence in the administration of justice. If fair-minded people reasonably apprehend or suspect that the tribunal has prejudged the case, they cannot have confidence in the decision. To repeat the words of Lord Denning MR which have already been cited, 'Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased'. [14] Puan Majistret tidak menghiraukan surat peguambela tertuduh yang memohon maaf dan menarik balik permohonan mereka untuk Puan Majistret supaya menarik diri. Sebaliknya, berpandukan kepada surat peguambela yang awal bertarikh pada 29 September 2009, Puan Majistret telah menarik diri daripada terus mendengar perbicaraan kes terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh di sini. Alasan permohonan peguambela supaya Puan Majistret menarik diri adalah sangat remeh iaitu tertuduh-tertuduh takut Puan Majistret tidak dapat berlaku adil terhadap tertuduh- tertuduh semasa mereka memberikan keterangan untuk membela diri. Ujian yang terpakai bagi menentukan sama ada seseorang hakim perlu menarik diri telah dijelaskan oleh Hashim Yeop Sani FJ (ketika itu) dalam kes Maleb S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 bin Su v Public Prosecutor [1984] 1 MLJ 311; [1984] 2 CLJ (Rep) 232 (Rep); [1984] 1 CLJ 378, seperti berikut: I think the correct view also clearly stated in Healey v Rauhina & Anor [1958] NZLR 945, following R v Camborne Justices, Exparte Pearce [1955] 1 QB 41 in that if bias is alleged (other than pecuniary or proprietory bias) then there must be proved a real likelihood of bias and that reasonable suspicion of bias is insufficient. Thus, bare allegations (as done in the present case) are insufficient. [15] Ujian yang sama juga telah dipakai dan disahkan kemudiannya oleh Yang Amat Arif Salleh Abas LP dalam kes Cheak Yoke Thong v Public Prosecutor [1984] 1 MLJ 311; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 87; [1984] 2 CLJ 83 di mana YAA tersebut telah memutuskan seperti berikut: From the above question, two issues are raised. Firstly, whether Cheak's fear of the possibility of the magistrate being biased, whether the fear be justified or not, is a sufficient reason for the magistrate to disqualify himself from hearing the case … As to the first issue, surely no one could come to court and seek for the dismissal of the case against him or for a trial by another tribunal just because he said that the adjudicating officer would be biased against him. On this ground alone the application should be turned down. His fear alone is not sufficient. He must, however, show by evidence that the adjudicating officer or the tribunal is in fact biased or is likely to be so. Hashim Yeop A Sani FJ has examined this question and we see no reason to differ from his view. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [16] Berbalik kepada kes sekarang, peguambela membuat alegasi kosong dengan mengatakan tertuduh- tertuduh takut (fear) bahawa Puan Majistret tidak akan dapat berlaku adil terhadap mereka. Ketakutan (fear) sahaja adalah tidak mencukupi untuk Puan Majistret menarik diri. Mengikut ujian yang dinyatakan di atas, apa yang perlu ada adalah keadaan di mana wujudnya 'real likelihood of bias' di pihak Puan Majistret. Untuk itu maka perlulah ada bukti dan keterangan yang menunjukkan telah atau akan berlakunya keputusan berat sebelah oleh Puan Majistret dalam kes ini. Surat peguambela langsung tidak memberikan apa-apa butiran ataupun landasan bagi ketakutan tertuduh-tertuduh di sini. Deane J dalam kes Webb and Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 telah memberikan empat kategori dalam keadaan mana berat sebelah (bias) boleh berlaku iaitu seseorang hakim bicara itu sama ada (i) Mempunyai kepentingan sama ada secara langsung atau tidak langsung, kepentingan kewangan atau sebaliknya dalam mana-mana satu pihak yang bertelagah seperti memiliki saham dalam syarikat terbabit; (ii) Bersekutu dengan mana-mana pihak yang bertelagah; (iii) Mempunyai pengetahuan yang berkenaan dengan kes tersebut sebelum perbicaraan dimulakan seperti telah mendengar kes melibatkan pihak-pihak yang sama sebelum itu yang melibatkan pertikaian yang serupa; dan (iv) Perlakuan hakim bicara sama ada semasa pendengaran kes yang berkenaan atau perlakuan di luar prosiding yang yang menunjukkan perlakuan berat sebelah ataupun sekurang-kurangnya S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 dibimbangi hakim bicara tersebut akan bertindak berat sebelah. Dalam kes di hadapan mahkamah sekarang tidak ada secebis keterangan pun dikemukakan sama ada di hadapan Puan Majistret atau kepada mahkamah ini apakah asas kepada ketakutan tertuduh-tertuduh bahawa Puan Majistret tidak akan berlaku adil kepada mereka. Tidak dikatakan Puan Majistret ada kepentingan atau bersekongkol dengan pihak pendakwaan atau mempunyai pengetahuan berkaitan kes ini terlebih dahulu ataupun kelakuan Puan Majistret dalam mengendalikan perbicaraan kes mereka yang menjadi asas kenapa mereka memohon Puan Majistret manarik diri kerana takut berlaku 'bias'. [17] Dalam kes ini ketakutan tertuduh bahawa Puan Majistret tidak akan berlaku adil kepada mereka adalah tidak berasas sama sekali. Sistem kehakiman di tanah air kita yang memastikan ada tiga peringkat yang memutuskan secara muktamad sesuatu kes jenayah dan undang-undang dan prosedur yang diamalkan dapat memastikan ketakutan tertuduh-tertuduh terhadap Puan Majistret tidak berlaku adil kepada mereka dapat dihindarkan dan hak tertuduh- tertuduh dipulihkan. Seperti kata YAA Salleh Abas LP dalam kes Cheak Yoke Thong seperti berikut: In our system not only is there room to doubt the existence of legal bias, but also our law of procedure and evidence meets the required standard designed to ensure fair and impartial trial and to prevent miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, see no substance in this application. S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [18] Begitu juga dengan adanya system kehakiman tiga peringkat dapat memastikan apa-apa kesilapan dan ketidakadilan dapat dipulihkan. Keputusan Puan Majistret boleh dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi dan ke Mahkamah Rayuan. YA Hakim Abdul Wahab Patail dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor [2001] 3 MLJ 34; [2001] 8 CLJ 558 telah memberikan pandangan berikut, katanya: That justice is done is as well guaranteed as can be by the fact that decisions of a judge of the High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, comprised of three judges sitting together, and in the latter court, by more than three judges as occasion may require. Indeed it would be apparent that there is adequate provision to ensure that any error or injustice that is occasioned by actual bias or pre-judgment could be remedied. [19] Dalam kes Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Yong Liuk Thin & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 213; [1995] 2 CLJ 900 Mahkamah Rayuan menyarankan agar tohmahan berat sebelah terhadap hakim bicara dan mahkamah yang tidak berasas hendaklah dihentikan, jika tidak tindakan keras kerana menghina mahkamah hendaklah diambil terhadap mereka yang membuat tohmahan yang tidak berasas tersebut: In my judgment, it is a most serious matter to allege bias against a judge whose sole function is to decide a case according to the evidence before him. I notice an unhealthy trend of late to allege bias too readily against a judicial arbiter on insufficient material. Nothing is S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 capable of eroding public confidence in the judicial arm of the state than unwarranted and unfounded allegations of bias. It is therefore to be avoided at all costs, if necessary, by having resort to the power to punish for contempt. [20] Atas alasan-alasan yang tertera di atas, saya mendapati keputusan Puan Majistret menarik diri dalam perbicaraan seterusnya kes ini dibuat tidak berlandas kepada lunas undang-undang yang mantap. Oleh itu keputusan beliau menarik diri pada peringkat kes pembelaan adalah tidak wajar dan tidak boleh dipertahankan. Seseorang majistret tidak sewajarnya menarik diri dalam keadaan kes ini lebih- lebih lagi hanya berpandukan kepada tohmahan yang tidak berasas dan tidak bijak yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh- tertuduh dalam kes ini. Puan Majistret telah mengenepikan tanggungjawab beliau untuk memastikan perbicaraan kes ini diselesaikan dengan bijaksana. Memetik kata-kata YA Abdul Wahab Patail dalam kes Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor, kata beliau: A judge has very clear responsibilities. It would be irresponsible to discharge himself on frivolous grounds, since he would be shirking his duties, and transferring his burden upon other judges. Furthermore, disqualifications if lightly taken, facilitate picking and choosing of judges to hear cases. Isu mengenai (b) [21] Seksyen 261 KPJ menyatakan bahawa majistret yang mengambilalih pendengaran perbicaraan boleh menggunapakai keterangan yang telah direkodkan oleh majistret terdahulu dan sebahagian keterangan yang S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 direkodkan oleh beliau sendiri serta majistret baru boleh jika mahu memanggil semula mana-mana saksi yang telahpun memberi keterangan sebelum itu. Proviso (a) seksyen itu pula memperuntukkan bahawa tertuduh juga boleh meminta supaya mana-mana saksi pendakwaan dipanggil semula sebelum majistret yang mengambil alih menyambung bicara kes berkenaan. Proviso (b) pula memberikan kuasa kepada Mahkamah Tinggi atas rayuan untuk membatalkan sabitan dan memerintahkan perbicaraan semula sekiranya berpendapat bahawa tertuduh telah diprejudiskan.” [Emphasis added] [48] Returning to the present matter and based on the authorities in the above, this court reiterates that there is nothing before this court and the appellant fails to show how she is being prejudiced in that there is likelihood of bias and that there is miscarriage of justice that has occasion by the fact that the learned M1 had continued with the trial until the close of the prosecution’s case. [49] This court is further compounded by the fact that throughout the trial the appellant being represented by a very able counsel had never raised any objection or made any application for the recusal of the learned M1. In fact upon the return of the learned M1 to continue hearing the trial after he was transferred, the counsel for the appellant made application to impeach two prosecution witnesses to which the application was heard and the learned M1 had made the ruling accordingly. [50] It is apparent that the present application only arose when the appellant had appointed a new set of solicitors to represent her. Change of solicitor can always happen but the principle of law remains the same S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 and one of the principles is that any objection must be raised at the time when the situation arose otherwise it can be inferred that it is an afterthought. The appellant cannot be said to have not known that the learned M1 was transferred. No averment was made by the appellant that she did not know that the first magistrate was transferred or that she was not informed by her former solicitor in her affidavit. Instead, this court finds that the appellant must have known the transfer of the learned M1 because in a letter of the complainant’s solicitor, Messrs Gani Patail Chambers requesting for the learned M1 to continue with the trial, the said letter dated 14.1.2021 was copied to the solicitor representing the appellant at that material time and yet no objection was taken up by the appellant. Instead the proceeding continued before the learned M1 until the close of the prosecution’s case. [51] There is nothing in law or rules that states a magistrate must declare his transfer to the parties in litigation before him. By virtue of s.114 (e) of the Evidence Act 1950, upon returning to continue with his part heard it can be presumed that the judicial and official acts of the learned M1 have been regularly performed including obtaining the mandate/directive from the Chief Registrar’s office for him to continue with his part heard until the close of the prosecution’s case. This is part and parcel of the administration in the judiciary. In Yap You Jee (supra), the Court of Appeal stated: “However, we do not agree that the ‘directive’ given to the succeeding sessions court judge amounts to a breach of the provisions of s. 261. It has been a practice for the Chief Judge or the Chief Registrar to decide on whether the part- heard cases would be completed either by the previous S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N A5ubzQ7EQkuIQFXdX7GsTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

SUIT NO. WA-22C-94-09/2020

PLAINTIF Devan Narayanan Raman [Messrs Devan & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)] DEFENDAN Andrew Heng Yeng Hoe, Roger Leong Chun Lim and Atiqah Yasmin Sedek (Messrs Zain Megat & Murad (Kuala Lumpur)

Enclosure 1. This case before the Court concerned a dispute on an “open tender invitation” (“Tender”) on 6.3.2013 in a national newspaper concerning a construction contract for a project described as Proposed design built of government offices including an office tower, podium, car park and other works for package 1, F3 and 4 Package 2, 3 and 4 in parcel F Presint 1 at the administrative center of the Federal Government Malaysia, Putrajaya (“Project”) that was advertised by Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”) to which Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”) had participated.

06/02/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

BA-22NCvC-515-10/2018

PLAINTIF WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN LEE KOK CHEONG

Claim for breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty against the Plaintiff’s employee-failure to disclose interest in two competing companies-sold Plaintiff’s goods at a discounted price-claim for the damages based on the difference between the sale price and price sold to the Defendant’s companies-allegation of using knowledge whilst in the employment of Plaintiff to procure a contract Plaintiff was also interested in-contract awarded only after the Defendant left the employment of the Plaintiff-whether the Defendant can be made liable.

06/02/2024

YA Puan Alice Loke Yee Ching

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=044981e1-5013-41bd-be29-3fade65a407f&Inline=true

WSA Precision Sdn Bhd v Lee Kok Cheong 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. GUAMAN : BA-22NCVC-515-10/2018 ANTARA WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 553109-U) …PLAINTIF DAN LEE KOK CHEONG (NO. K/P: 8001221-14-5093) …DEFENDAN (DIGABUNGKAN DAN DIBICARAKAN BERSAMA) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA NO. GUAMAN : BA-22NCVC-172-04/2019 ANTARA WSA PRECISION SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 553109-U) …PLAINTIF DAN LEE KOK CHEONG (NO. K/P: 8001221-14-5093) …DEFENDAN 06/02/2024 12:40:28 BA-22NCvC-515-10/2018 Kand. 170 S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The two suits brought by the Plaintiff arises from the Defendant’s alleged breach of his fiduciary duties as an employee of the former. In Suit BA-22NCVC-172-04/2019 (“Suit 172”), the Defendant was alleged to have established two competing companies which had businesses similar to that of the Plaintiff. He then caused the Plaintiff’s goods to be sold to his companies at a discounted price without the knowledge or approval of the Plaintiff. [2] As for Suit BA-22NCVC-515-10/2018 (“Suit 515”), the Defendant is alleged to have used his knowledge obtained whilst in the employment of the Plaintiff, to secure Perodua’s contract for one of his companies to supply clutch kits to Perodua. Perodua was one of the Plaintiff’s existing customers. The Defendant was fully aware that the Plaintiff was interested to secure Perodua’s contract. [3] The Plaintiff in both suits seeks to recover losses occasioned to it as a result of the Defendant’s breach as well as aggravated and exemplary damages against the Defendant consequent upon his conduct. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Background facts Suit 172 [4] The Plaintiff, WSA Precision Sdn. Bhd., was established to carry out the business of supplying and marketing auto spare parts in Malaysia. The Plaintiff is one of the companies in the WSA Group of Companies (“WSA Group”). [5] The Defendant first commenced employment with a related company sometime in 2003 as a sales executive. In 2006, he was appointed the Marketing and Distribution Manager of the Plaintiff, and responsible for the Replacement Equipment Market (“REM”) Department in the Plaintiff, where he was tasked with marketing the spare parts sold by the department. He held the said post until his resignation on 31.3.2017. [6] As an employee of the Plaintiff under the WSA Group, the Defendant was required to abide by the Plaintiff’s policy to observe confidentiality and to avoid being a position of conflict. [7] The Plaintiff was one of the authorized distributors of vehicle parts manufactured by Valeo Pyeong Hwa International Co. Ltd. (“Valeo”), based in Korea. One Auto Korea Co. Ltd (“One Auto Korea”) was Valeo’s authorized exporting agent in Korea. Orders for the supply of vehicle parts will be placed by the Plaintiff with One Auto Korea. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] Towards the end of 2014, the fall of the MYR exchange rate resulted in higher import costs of spare parts. This impacted the Plaintiff’s financial position. At the same time, the WSA Group as a whole was also experiencing cash flow problems. [9] The Managing Director and Chairman of WSA Group (PW5), became concerned about the existing REM stock and gave instructions to stop new orders from its suppliers unless the orders were approved by him, pending the clearance of existing stock. The Defendant was also urged to intensify the collection of debts from its customers to alleviate the cash flow situation. To expedite the sale of its existing stock, the staff of the REM Department were authorized to give a discount of up to 30% for the sale of its existing stock. [10] It was also around this time that the Defendant and his team received indication that the REM Department would be closed. The Defendant then perceived that he did not have any future in the employment of the Plaintiff. [11] To safeguard his interest, on 16.4.2015 he incorporated Keister Autohaus Sdn Bhd (“Keister”) and was appointed one of its directors. He was also one of the two shareholders. The business of Keister was stated as inter alia, importing all kinds of vehicle parts. It was clearly a competing company. [12] On 13.9.2016 another company, Oak World Venture Sdn Bhd (“Oak World”) was also incorporated with the same business and registered address as Keister. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [13] Between the years 2015 and 2016, the Defendant was discovered to have sold REM products of the Plaintiff to Keister. In 2017, he sold the Plaintiff’s products to Oak World. Some of the products were found to have been sold at a discount which was clearly above 30% of its selling price. [14] The discovery was made by the accounts manager of the Plaintiff (PW3) sometime towards the end of 2016. She then requested the Defendant to state his proposed sale price of the REM products for the approval of PW5. The approval was not given. [15] PW5 then instructed PW3 to prepare a Customer Sales Analysis Report for the products sold to Keister and Oak World for the period from 2015 to 2017. Her report tendered in evidence, was a computation of the difference in the total sales between the price of items sold to Keister and Oak World and the actual selling price of the items. The details in her report was based on invoices issued and which was maintained in the records of the Plaintiff. [16] Based on the Customer Sales Analysis Report, she computed the difference amounting to RM 656,760.68 which comprised of :- (a) RM 137,421.93 being sales to Keister for the period ending 31.12.2015; (b) RM 446,790.68 being sales to Keister for the period ending 31.12.2016; and S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (c) RM 72,548.07 being sales to Oak World for the period ending 31.12.2017. [17] The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s acts constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff. He ought to but failed to inform the Plaintiff of his vested interest in Keister and Oak World. He was conflicted when he sold the Plaintiff’s goods to these companies at a price which was lower than the selling price mandated by the top management, thereby profiting from his acts. [18] The Plaintiff seeks to be compensated for the amount of RM 656,760.68 as damages in Suit 172. The Plaintiff also seeks for exemplary damages to be awarded against the Defendant. Suit 515 [19] Perodua had been a customer of the Plaintiff and the WSA Group since 1999 for its Original Equipment Market (“OEM”) products. The Plaintiff had plans to expand its business dealings with Perodua by supplying clutch kits to Perodua. Clutch kits are categorized as REM products. In October 2015, a meeting was held to explore the options between the relevant parties. [20] In 2017, PW1 the Vice-President of the WSA Group (Corporate Services), received information of the sale of REM products to Keister and Oak World. In conducting his investigation into the alleged wrongful activities of the Defendant, he looked up the Facebook of the Defendant. It was then that he saw Perodua’s S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 letter dated 9.5.2017 stating that Keister had been appointed the supplier of clutch kits for Perodua. He also saw a certificate stating that Keister had been appointed the exclusive distributor of REM products of Valeo Pyeong Hwa International Co (“Valeo”) with effect from 13.5.2016. [21] The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was privy to information on Perodua. He knew the price offered by the Plaintiff to Perodua to supply its REM products. He then used this information to secure the contract with Perodua for the benefit of Keister, thus depriving the Plaintiff of an opportunity to supply REM products to Perodua. [22] The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant had abused his position in the Plaintiff by using the information gained from his employment to secure the exclusive distributorship from Valeo. [23] The Plaintiff seeks to be awarded aggravated and exemplary damages amounting to RM 1,250,000.00 for the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. The Defendant’s defence [24] The Defendant’s defence in respect of both suits is essentially this. He admitted that Keister and Oak World was incorporated whilst he was still an employee of the Plaintiff. He also did not deny these companies had business similar to that of the Plaintiff. [25] In view of the impending cessation of the Plaintiff’s business, particularly the REM department, he decided to set up both the S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 companies. He contends that the Plaintiff had knowledge of his involvement in these two companies through one Mr. Chin Ya Yen, who was his superior officer at the material time. PW3 the accounts manager, was also in the know. [26] He was pressured to clear the remaining stock as REM staff had resigned. There were other attendant problems as no staff were available to deliver the stocks sold. Customers had to collect their own goods purchased. Keister was the only customer willing to purchase the stock in bulk and make its own arrangement for collection. [27] In any event, the price of REM goods sold to Keister and Oak World was within the discount allowed by the management of the Plaintiff. [28] As for the appointment of Keister as the exclusive distributor for Valeo, the allegation is denied. The Defendant contends that Keister was never appointed the exclusive distributor, but was merely one of its distributors. In addition, the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty cannot arise as the distributorship appointment took effect after the Plaintiff had ceased to place orders with One Auto Korea, Valeo’s agent. [29] The Defendant also denies abusing his position by securing from Perodua for Keister, the contract to supply products. The appointment of Keister by Perodua was after he had resigned from the Plaintiff. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Defendant’s counterclaim in Suit 172 [30] On 27.12.2016, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he would cease his employment with the Plaintiff with effect from 1.1.2017 after taking all leave due to him. However, at the request of the Plaintiff’s management, he agreed to serve until 31.3.2017. [31] The Defendant had 82 days of accumulated leave at the time of his resignation. Although his salary was paid until 31.3.2017, the Plaintiff did not pay him for his unutilized leave. He was also not reimbursed various other claims which he made to the Plaintiff. In the counter claim filed against the Plaintiff, he seeks to be paid the amounts due to him as assessed by this court. Analysis and decision of this court [32] It is trite law that the Plaintiff bears the onus of proving his case, and the Defendant his counterclaim, and the existence of those facts which would establish their respective case. (See: sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, 1950 and Letchumanan Chettiar Alagapan (as executor to SL Alamelooo Achi (Deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn. Bhd.) [2017] 5 CLJ 418). [33] The issues to be resolved are quite confined. They are principally factual issues which turn on the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective case. The Plaintiff is to prove the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendant, and if it succeeds, the damages to be ordered by this court. In relation to S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 the Defendant’s counterclaim, this court is to determine whether the Defendant has adduced sufficient evidence for the counterclaim to succeed. Principles on breach of fiduciary duty [34] The fiduciary duty owed by an employee towards his employer encompasses duty of care, loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence and disclosure. The law was succinctly stated in the Court of Appeal case of Wong Kar Juat & Anor v S7 Auto Parts (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 527, the facts of which bear some similarities with the instant case. The Court held, [15] Quite clearly, the respondent in this action is making a proprietary claim to the proceeds of sales of the respondent’s assets and for the value of the 746 missing used engines as well as for damages consequent upon the appellants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duty and trust. The respondent is also claiming for the recovery of money based on money had and received by the appellants, and damages in compensation for the tort of conversion brought about by the appellants’ alleged unlawful interference with the respondent’s rights of property. [16] We wish to express our understanding of the law. We apprehend that as regards a breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty in the context of an employee and employer relationship, where the employee’s contract involves receipt of the employer’s property, notwithstanding whether the property consists of tangible assets or confidential information, a fiduciary obligation exists (see Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd Third Party) [2001] 1 AC 268). This obligation would in our view concern with the employee’s duty to look after the employer’s interest, the duty of fidelity towards the principal and S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the duty to act in good faith, not to make a profit out of the trust, not to place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict and not to act for his own benefit or for the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. Who is a fiduciary in law is defined by Millett LJ in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at p 11 as follows: A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which gives rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. [35] The Defendant’s involvement in Keister and Oak World which were competing companies, ipso facto gives rise to a duty to disclose his interest. [36] The Defendant claims that Mr. Chin Ya Yen, his superior, was aware as he had in various whatsapp conversation mentioned it. Unfortunately, the Defendant could have, but did not secure the attendance of Mr. Chin as a witness to support the Defendant’s claim on this issue. His absence as a witness is telling. Although the Defendant informed PW3, she was only the accounts manager of the Plaintiff. The duty to disclose must be to a person in authority. [37] Against the assertion of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was informed, there is the evidence of the Managing Director of PW5, who unequivocally denied being informed by the Defendant. PW5 was in direct communication with the Defendant with regard to the operation of the REM Department. The telephone messages bear S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 testimony to this fact. He is clearly the appropriate person to whom disclosure is to be made by the Defendant as to his vested interest in Keister and Oak World. [38] I am of the view that the Defendant’s claim that PW5 was in the know, is but an assumption on his part. There is no independent evidence before me that Defendant had expressly informed PW5. To my mind, the evidence on disclosure requires more than merely perceiving that the employer had knowledge of his activities. [39] Having weighed the evidence of both parties on the issue of disclosure, I find that it is more probable than not that the Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, I find that the Defendant had breached his fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiff. [40] I have also considered the reasons proffered by the Defendant on the setting up of Keister and Oak World. Nonetheless I am of the view that the Plaintiff’s impending plan to cease operations of the REM Department does not absolve the Defendant from his breach in setting up a competing company. He ought to have left the company before getting involved in a competing company. If at all, it merely mitigates the gravity of his breach. [41] The Defendant does not deny that he sold the REM products to Keister and Oak World at a discounted price. He stated in his evidence that he sold the REM products to Keister between the years 2015 to 2016 and to Oak World, in 2017. However, he S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 contends that the items were sold at discounts expressly instructed and authorised by PW5. [42] This calls for a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, particularly PW5’s email to the Defendant on the discount instruction. The email can be found at Agreed Bundle of Documents (B13) at page 268. PW5 in his email dated 1.7.2015 instructed, KC Try to dispose off at 30% from selling price and lets see the result. For cash on delivery perhaps you could offer an additional 5% off. [43] After the Defendant’s act of selling the REM products to Keister and Oak World came to light, PW3 was instructed to prepare a Customer Sales Analysis Report for the years ending 2015, 2016 and 2017 for sales to these 2 companies. [44] The relevant pages are reproduced below:- S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [45] The last column which shows ‘% Margin’ indicates the difference in percentage between the selling price of the product and the price sold to Keister/Oak World. [46] I have scrutinized the details of the sales report prepared by PW3 and my findings are as follows. For the year 2015, the average ‘% margin’ was 15.73%, which was well within the permitted discount of 30%. However, this was not the case for the subsequent years. In 2016, the average ‘% margin’ was 103.04%, well above what was allowed by the Plaintiff. It was the same for 2017, where the average ‘% margin’ was 124.57%. [47] The figures therefore confirm the allegation by the Plaintiff that the Defendant profited from the sales of its REM products to his companies. In the same breath, the figures demolish the S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Defendant’s case that the discounts were within the approved limits. The Plaintiff’s case for damages in Suit 172 is therefore proven. [48] I now come to the computation of the damages sought, which would be the amount of loss occasioned to the Plaintiff. For this purpose, I have considered PW5’s instruction in his email of 1.7.2015 which allowed a discount of up to 30%. For this reason, as the average discount margin in 2015 was only 15.73%, and therefore less than 30%, I do not consider the Plaintiff to have suffered any loss from the sales to Keister in 2015. [49] Only the computation for the years 2016 and 2017 is to be considered. For the year ending 2016, if a discount of 30% had been given for the total selling price of RM 878,314.60, the Plaintiff should receive RM 614,820.22 from its sales to Keister. However, the products were sold for only RM 431,523.92. There is therefore a shortfall of RM 183,296.30. Applying the same method of computation for the sales to Oak World in 2017, there is a shortfall of RM 33,311.64. The total loss to the Plaintiff is RM 216,607.94, which is the damages to be paid by the Defendant. [50] Although PW5 allowed a further discount of 5% for goods bought on cash on delivery terms, there is no evidence adduced that Keister and Oak World purchased the Plaintiff’s goods on these terms. [51] As for the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages in Suit 172, I do not find any evidence to persuade me that it ought to be S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 ordered. I am of the view that the damages computed above suffices as compensation. [52] I now come to my findings on the claim in Suit 515. The Plaintiff was never the existing supplier for REM goods to Perodua. It was merely interested to be its supplier. However, nothing resulted from the interest. Perodua did not appoint the Plaintiff as its supplier. To claim that the Defendant stole the Plaintiff’s customer based on the knowledge he had, is an allegation that is totally baseless. In the absence of other evidence, the Plaintiff’s allegation on this issue is speculative. The loss of a business opportunity may not necessarily result from Defendant’s actions. In any event, Keister was appointed by Perodua only in May 2017, after the Defendant had left the employment of the Plaintiff. [53] As for the appointment of Kiester as a distributor for Valeo’s products the Defendant stated he was approached by the representative of One Auto Korea to be the local distributor only after the Plaintiff had ceased to place orders in the three months preceding. This was confirmed by DW2, the President of One Auto Korea. He stated that, “Yes, the Plaintiff is no longer an authorized distributor of Valeo’s products since 2015. According to the terms and conditions of such authorized distributorship, if the Plaintiff fails to place any orders of Valeo parts with us for a continuous period of 3 months, the authorized distributorship would cease by itself. From my recollection, in December 2014, the managing S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 director of the Plaintiff, Datuk Wan Muhammed informed me that they are putting on hold orders. In any event, after having ceased further orders from One Auto Korea, in May 2015, Datuk Wan Muhammed who was in contact with me, informed me his decision to dispose of the Plaintiff’s Replacement Equipment Market Department (REM) to a company known as APM Automotive, thus seeking One Auto Korea and Valeo’s agreement to such disposal. While I am made to understand that the sale of the REM Department did not go through then, there were no further orders placed by the Plaintiff with One Auto Korea. Thus, since then the Plaintiff ceased to be Valeo’s authorized distributor.” [54] I do not find any reason to doubt the truth of Dw2’s testimony. In view of this, I find the Defendant to have sufficiently rebutted any allegation of wrongdoing on his part. There is no question of breach of fiduciary duty when the Plaintiff has ceased to be in the business of being a distributor. The Defendant cannot be faulted for being subsequently appointed a distributor by One Auto Korea. [55] The claim in Suit 515 is therefore not proven and must fail. [56] I now come to the counterclaim of the Defendant. The Defendant’s claim is for unpaid unutilized leave of 82 days and unpaid claims. A claim of such nature could have been substantiated by contemporaneous document. However, all that was referred to by the Defendant was an undated note presumably to PW5, stating “..based on his tender notice, we will contra off his annual leave S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 against his notice i.e. which means he will be paid for the remaining unutilized annual leave.” [57] To my mind, this suggests the Defendant has been paid his unutilized leave. [58] The Defendant candidly admitted in his evidence that he did not keep copies of his claim documents. Although the documents were applied for in a discovery action, the Defendant did not appear to have taken the matter further. [59] I therefore do not find the Defendant to have sufficiently discharged his burden of proving his counterclaim. Conclusion [60] In the result, premised on my findings above, I make the following orders:- (i) the Plaintiff’s claim in Suit 172 is allowed. Judgment is given for the amount of RM 216,607.94 together with interest at the rate of 5% from today until realization; (ii) the Defendant’s counterclaim in Suit 172 is dismissed; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s claim in Suit 515 is dismissed. S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [61] In view of outcome of the suits brought by the Plaintiff, I consider that it would be fair for parties to bear their own costs and I so order. Dated: 31st January 2024 -sgd- ....………………..….... Alice Loke Yee Ching Judge High Court in Malaya at Shah Alam Counsel for the Plaintiff : Mr. Alister Dave Henry Messrs. Kadir, Khoo & Aminah Counsel for Defendant : Mr. Choi Kian You Messrs K.Y. Choi S/N 4YFJBBNQvUGKTt5lpAfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCC-49-07/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) MI TECHNOVATION BERHAD 2. ) MI EQUIPMENT (M) SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN 1. ) CHIN YONG KEONG 2. ) LEE KIM LOON 3. ) EDELTEQ HOLDINGS BERHAD 4. ) EDELTEQ TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 5. ) EDEL TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN. BHD. 6. ) EDELTEQ VENTURES SDN. BHD. 7. ) CAMYANG ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. 8. ) DYSTEQ TECHNIQUE SDN. BHD. 9. ) TAN JOO HUNG

Application for discovery of documents and for leave to serve interrogatories – Order 24 and Order 26 of the Rules of Court – Whether necessary to fairly dispose of action or save costs – Plaintiff’s action for breach of confidence against defendant ex-employee – Whether documents sought for will show that defendant had access to the pleaded confidential information.

05/02/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=42c6b6d7-c410-4be3-86cc-af54ae40df6d&Inline=true

05/02/2024 15:14:17 PA-22NCC-49-07/2023 Kand. 146 S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 17bGQhDE40uGzK9UrkDfbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA-22|lCC-I9-D7/2023 Kand. 146 D5/a2/202»: 13:1u:17 In the mgr. Cuufl av Malaya In Penang In me Sme cl Penang Ma\ays4a Cwil SIM Na. FA—22NC AM?/2023 Eelween 1 Mflechnuvallon semad 2. M\Equvpmen|lM)Sdn arm P\ainI\fls And Chin Yong Ksong Lee Kim Loon Edeuaq Holdmgs Bemad Eaeueq Technologes Sun and EdeITschnu|ogy1M)Sdn and Edefleq Vemuves Sdn Ehd Camyang Enlerpriw Sdn am Dysleq Techmque Sdn Bhd Tan Joe Hung Delendams um..mo.m.mA gmunas 01 Deals n Imroaucuon 1. The 9“ Delendan|1'D§‘)fiIed Ma names avapplicaoun. Namely. (2) a name a! appmuon uaxed a 9; 2:12: mdl Enduwr: an (ar dlwcrvary Di dowmenls Enflmule 40 u made undar Older 24 ml: 3 and mu. 7 cl mu Rm“ av cm zmz. and 1n) a name: ovapmmnon dated 5 a ma wee Endcsure u car have in serve mllvmgalnnls an In: F: «ms Emflnsme 41 ‘s made u«r.1evD:€er2G NI: I arms was at cm 2 2 2 On 30.112023‘ 1 dismissed hem Encmsure 40 (Discovery) and Enclnsure 41 (In(en\:galanesj Here are the grounds :1! my dacismn. Backgmund vacns 3 The Plwmfis‘ case Is Ihal bslween 2:115 and 2019, three mgmy posmorved ex — empkxyees of me P\aiNiHs‘ namely, the 1“ Delendanl (‘D1')‘ 0192"“ DsVendan(|“D2“) and D9, ma acted m wncenlo mjuremeur ‘ m 17nGm«nE4nu5z><wnkDvM: «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIGH m M», .. mm., mm: flnuamnl VI mum pom! ex - employers They am so by sellmg up companies Io sen Drcduds which were produced usmg rne conuaennal Inlormaliony cnpynghl works and parerrrea Invenhun owned by marr ex — employers. The confldermul urrnacron were accessrble to warn durmg men employmenl \n the Prarrmns (arse velevved la hevem as “Mi Group") 4 The ms|an| sum canasms pnmanly mree products 0! me Mi Group Narnery - (1) M1 Senes Mrao Dre sonar Machine vr sarias vr2aR \fIsIon rnspsmrun Machme, and |m)aumwale1 nrachrne. rrrese machines are run or supponeu lay me solrware devemped by ma Mr Gmup D7 namamar Impunance rs ma snurce cede m Manon lo we macmne smlware A source code rs me versran 0! ma machme srmwara. as r: rs nngrrrauy wmlen by a pmgrammer in pram |ex|. 5 D9 was me cnrav Fmanctal omcer av me Mr Group m 2013 Ha rssrgnea m January 2019 ms Ias| dale 0! employment was 15.3.2019 6 On 27 3 2019‘ D9 set up me 4'" De1endznlmmnany(“D4')wI(h urs mamer in law Amrumg to D1‘: defence, m asked ms rnmner m Vaw. who was an mvesmf, |o Inves| In as lhmugh D4. m that macenax lime, DI was sau emphwyad m ore P\am|Ms. 7 The sharshcuurng at as and ms mother In law m m. were Cranderved m m m Apnr 2019 Aomruing to me marmms, an meslshble rnvaranaa emergm (mm «ms rs Ihit D9 and ms mnlhe law, were semng up D4 ar the rnsmrcrian L7fD1 5 The acorssam events only unfokisd men we Edefleq Group (i 2 me 3'" to 5'" Devenaancs) published ls prospectus Iorma purpuse M rm Imllal public oflermg From ws wehsfler ma Edeueq Group has‘ at Veasl, Ma machmes reIa|ed la me rnsranc sun {n} we rr rns ’sn-an vlswcn modme M rn. snauaq Gmuv's AIRIS The warnnns <:Ln>m mar lhvs rs srrnrar lo the vrmn Modma or Mr Grnup 3 VI Sena: vrzax Vmun \nIoaI:M>u Midune my me other I: we vmon mudme or m am-u cram Mum!!! new Inxpechan The warms dmm In-(M1515 smvflav In or. Mr Gimp‘: Mm mm . saar vrsm Mudule 9. Aocomrng ro ms Pmlnnlfs, arm was when my slaned m drscoysr max Ihe aetenaanrs have breached marr obhgallon at cnnfldence and mfnnged |he MI Group's wprynghts In panramar, me Mr Grcup‘s can crrawrngs and smme nudes 2 sm 17M:A:nDE4nu5xKmrkDrw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... rnnmrry mm: dnuumnl VII mum Mr ‘TM ulhmale last ls wmrmr nssmry ls mmsslry 1.: dlspmwvg Iurr/y oi lna pmceedlngs or lot nvlrlg costs An Atsefllon ma: ln. dnzumlrlts mu relevunl will rm! as good enough Equalfx an aaaenron mm the documcrlls er. Mcessary amuse may an mllwnnl wll! rm! be ermllgh - [70J[Fl1l1Il-9r, ln pansgnph [30]0(lr‘19jlldgMEH me srrrgapm mg» camnsn can-mdercd Order 2: rm. 7 mm rs pan rnaran. mm cur Order 24 we a and mm: ms: -7». eolmls, by c 24 r 1 clmcemed wrln me dlscrerlan toreiuxe dltcloswe era documtnl wiles: mo mcasvly for dlsdosula Is clearly demonstrated‘ [ZMM5 smaa snnlsr, me burden was on my rasponmls In ulabllsn in ms utlslullovv at me COW! ma! ms nu ls ml /us! relevant But alas the! II ls nzlzessary Var dlspoalng me mum my and for siwngs or wsr I: well‘ 1;; ggg E s sougrrl «or are not relevarrl and rrel neceseag 42 Enclosure an seeks In dlscuvev 7 (ll all rep ns prslzarad by KPMG Marragernenl 5 Rusk consulllng sun BM (‘KPM lpursuanl la KPMG‘s conausl 0! an rnlemal audll and Enrerpnse Rlsk Mznagemsnl sxerclse lor lne Vlnanclal year endlng 31.12 2015, ena (H) all lrrlerrral audlt plans preperea by KPMG or approved byIhe<P1alrmWs puvsuarrt to l<Pl/ls‘: condud olan rnlernal anal and Emerprlse Rusk Marlagemerfl exevclse lnr me rlrranual year endlrlg 31 12 2G1E(cu||ecllve|y‘siid documllltf) The KPMG raporl and rnler-rrel audll plans were prepares as pan olan exemls: lo assess me adequacy ellne PlalrlIllfs' risk mznagementlrzmawork and ln|emaI eerrlral sysrerns 43 D9‘: delence rs Ihal he nas llrrnlea access |o me cnnmlerrlial lnlernrsllon belurlglng lo lrre Plzlrlllfls as clalrns lnal ne does nol have assess |a ma lschnlcal cnrmaenllal rnrormallorr wlusn he descvlbed as lecnnlsal, erlglneerlng, creallve and 00121 cannuernlal rrrlermellan peflalnlng in me Ml Gmup‘s maemrree, lmellectual properly and alhel Droducls. 44 D9 avers lrral ms assess IS llm>|ed to non — Iechrllcal cunfldenllal rrrlorrnelrorr Namely, ocnfldsrnlal lnfnnnauorl relalrng lo nnance, rruman resource. lnlormalron lecrrnalogy and admlnIs|raIlon D9 ocrllendslhallhs KPMG vepcn and inlerrral almll plans wlll reveal whether he could nave accessed lne lechnrcal corrlmerrllal -nlorrnalrorr belonglng la me l=lairlms, man was allegedly mlsused M srn l7l2:mnDE4nuEzxmrkDlw “Nana s.n.l luvlhnrwm rs. .l..a a navy r... nnglnlllly mum: flnuavlnnl VI mum puns! 45 ll Is my finding nnan ma dlscevery on me send documenns would non aonreue nne threshold ondnsoosnno lalriy olnrre mallerursavlng cosns. Here Is my explarlallmn 46 Enrsnny, nne sand documams have no releuanee no nne core laenual Issue ln dreoune. rnomery wnenner no nas access no me P|alrl|lf1s' cornfldernllal rnlonnanron or purpurned lecnmear confldemlal lnformalnon. (See me Federal ooun case on Ksva/aan rvegen Kelannan v Penrolnarn Nasnonan and and onnaraopeals [2014] s MLJ 31 e154] 47 Secondly. wnenner be has access no nrre Plannnnlls‘ oanfidenllal nntormalron or ourporned lechnlcal oonlldennral nnlormalron Is a manner on eundenoe lor ma l=larmnnvs no plove an nnal 43 Thlldly, wnenner D9 naa aooess no me Plannllfls‘ oonlndennnal nnlormonnon or ouroorned necnnncan oonndenlnal nnnormonnon is a manner wi|rllrl use knowledge. ll does not vequlve dlscuvery or me send documenns for D9 no pun lonn ms oosnnnon, men could damage |he Plalnlms‘ case or suoponn ms delence A9 Eounnly. n consnder Enclosure 40 In one a fishlrlg exoednnnon Ion avrdence no prop up we case Perhaps as hopes no snumole upon somalhlng man he may use to nis advamage so on avsnn nrnal nrre dnscovery ls rnanenal In denemnnne how well nne Planrnmls were keepmg main corvfidanlnsl nnnomnannon The sand documents puroornedly will snow nrre exnenn onne Plalnllfls‘ mlernil conlvolsl which were lrn place no minrmlze ma rlsks ol leakages no nneir confldenllil lnlumlahnn. 51 The almesalfl conlerulon Is slmllar no man was evened by D9 in connecllan wnnn Enclosure 4| nlnlenroganones) lndeed lur Enclosure 40 nnnsooveryn D9 med a nooce on rmennron no use me annndavrns mnclr were filed lor nrre purpose 01 Enclosure 41 nlnnenoganoriesl And was versa Vol Encloaure 41 nlnnenoganones), D9 med a nollce on nnnennnon no use nne aflldavl|s whloh were med lor nne purpose ol Enclosure 40 nolecoveryl 52 Easicallyn ns ns usnng nne same amumenns «or bmh Enclosure 40 nnrsoaveryn and Enclosure M lnnlerrogalornes) on snmnlar gmunds as discussed earnner rn connecllorn wllh Enclosure M ||n|srmgsIerles), n find nnan D9's dlsrxwely aoolncalnon una Erlclcxule 40 VS non releuam or necessary‘ and ns a fishing expedlllorl I2 aru l7lasA:rnuE4nu5xKmnl<nrw “None s.n.n mmhnrwlu be u... m mm r... nflglnnllly sun. dnuuvlnnl van .nuuo puns! Rggvanns 53 wnn regarn to rewevancy, |he xms reparl and rnrernax am mans sought for are wnn ragam ro nne nnancral year ended 31 12 me This urns penoa rs ma|enal lor Mo reasons 54 First, the Plamlr1fs' commainls agamsl D9 are dunng me penod beiwesn eany 2019 and June me (See paragraph 750:) 0! me Amended Sla|emen|o!CJaIm) Hence, mere rs no nexus belween me earn uocurnenra and we present conrmarnrs. 55 Second‘ nownere rn ma presenr acrran am we Pramlms complmn mar D9 was m nreacn M confidence 4n 2015 A breach olcunfidenoe can nmy occur aner D9 (endeved nis resrgnanun in January zms. And Chelenfler set up D4 wnn D|‘s rnorner m Law. who was nurnonedly an mveslar to mvesl In 09 lhmugh n4 Hence, ma said aocurnenrs are me\evanI Necessity as Furlher, I dn not see the necassny Ior us to omarn ma KPMG repon an: Internal auan plans. Esoeclally rn me mm or D?s’fi|aWefiTV7e nae’ regardmg ms zccss |o the P\a|n|Ms' mnnaarnral rnvonnanen. 57 The Cowl 0! Appeal case of Malaysia Debt Ventures (supra) rs usem There, the facts are mess. The appeuann was me plamhll in me Hugh Conn The delendam sought la discover a drafl semernanr agraenrenr rn ma Hrgh coun. ms uran sememenl agveemem Is pan 0! me aerenaanrs delence Acocvdvng to me dslandam. rne uran selllemem agreernanr will snw mar mere was na default by me deiendznl In ma lacmty agreernenr, wmch has been cumpvcmnsed by ma aran aememenr agrsemanr Tne Hugh coun granled a fllscuvery ardev as n rs pan u! we delence Yhe cum L7iAppea\ reversed me decvsinn aflhe Hrgn Conn and 5&1 asvde the mscovery order 53 The Ccun av Appeal new ‘H51 Sm] aoo rs Vredrculed an ms respondents a//age-ideiault urvderan lslamr: nnancmg Iaevlvly man pamculally my . rrovulmn ugresnnml / Mm or undvllkrfiv / corpruu gaaranru and Personal guuunla -suodrvufy rna resawmenls deny mat them was any oerm wnarsomr on meal Fin n rs dlrrmd by In. resound-snl: um may had (l7uwunedM reached - compromise / stmamnvl wnn MDV <3 an 17nGm«nE4nu5z><wrkDvM: “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm r. U... a my r... nflmnuflly mum: dnunmnl VI mum war 115711.. vi-w am. clue as ufieadad by m rasuonatrlls, w an to m Ilaw me 05;: Asnfiavlntlrm m.m..udm. respandsnlfcfiavm 1haIMDVIvadla7!1g1flfy7 br cm me was cl mo pmporlod mmamrmu Fmm m. stundpovrll or me pleadings‘ 1' 5 manna retpondanls‘posmcrI u mm m... was . mmpmmmsl s.m.,.dm mm was leached between the MDV and mo Ilspandlnb norwllhsiandmg my no «mm sdfflbmafll agmement m -mmd nnd m. mum cl mc pwpaflocl eolnpromlse / sumdrnam wove reflectod ». IN mnvsuondarrcu exchange mum pames, A: such, pvlrmsdd an the pasflrwv u eonlandud Dy m. Nspandents me DSA mm was papmd by m. MDI/s wltcuors And mum. consvdrv-d Md nppmvvd by me Mm/and who had n4 (0 be fovwudsd to ma rupoadtnls, clmml be reluvanl of necessary In aelznvme me made as (0 whether . comprvlmn /samimsnl was ruched‘ 59 Slmllafly here‘ me xwe vepcrl and mlemal audu plans were men regard lolhaflninmal year ended 2015 Yet‘ m we inslanl sun, the breach dvcanndence pleaded by me Plamhfls accrued m we when D9 resigned There Is no nexus between me two Hence, we said documents are melevam and unnece$ary Qngusmn so For me Ieasuns above‘ I msmvssed D9‘: appncanon lor mscnvery was Enclosure 40 and 1Mm(ermga|anes wde Endusurs M I ordered D9 |u pay |:) |he Plammls GGS|S d1 RM5,0U0 var Enclosure 4D1DAscL7very)and cofls of RMs,unu var Enclosure 4: (lnlerragaloriesj Dalsd 15 Dedemba 2023 4? Quay Chew 5007! Judge mgr. com 0! Ma\aya‘ Penznq cmx nmsmn NCVCI Oaunseis um Chwn Kmm. Dlrmen cum and M Na (Mtsvs cx um Lnw mmm; rdnne Plammlx mane. cm (Must: mm Tun 4 cnnm var in: y» weod-m :4 sm 17hGDhDE4nuExK§urkDWhD «mm. Snr1|\nanhnrwH\I>e d... In M, .. mm., mm: dnuamnl VI mum pom! 1D. In lls defence‘ Ine EaeIIea Group pleaded that me alorememlaned Edeneq eIoIIp‘s machlnes‘ namely Ina AIRIS and ma Mamng OCR lnsnemon. are never manulacluvea Nu! are Iheve any saIes of mese machines 11 on 2772023, I gIanIeI1 an AIIIIIII Flllar urdsr |D me PIaInII«a. me man Flllar older was execIIIea Imm 31 7.2023 unlll 2 3 2023 Followmg lrom IrIIs, In IeIaIIon lo Ine :InaIysIs ol Ine selzed IIems which are In me possesswrl cl Ine SIIDENISIVIQ sollcllorsl I Iasuea Ia Inelecnve‘ meet on 15 3 2023 12 on 7 5 2023,lhe1“(o8"” Delenaams filed a nulioe nlapplicanun me EnI:IIIsIIIe 2: ID sel asule ma Amon l=IIIaI amer ThaI mener Ia penalna. 13. on 251a zen‘ I gramen leave for me PIaInIIlvs Io commence camrvvnal prooeedlngs agalnsl me 6' I)e1enaanIIcII alleged meaen ulma Anmn I=iIIarIIII1eI As well as agaInsI Ilsmo I1nemoIs (whlch Includes D1) and one employee The subslanlwe hearlng IIII cnmmillal Is pendlng Enclosure 41 lnlerragalgrg I4 I begin wIIn Erlclnsuve 41, Ie D9‘: appIIeaIInn for leave |c serve InIenogaIunes an Ine I=IaInII«s. me Law on InIeImaIenes 15 The legal prlnclples padainlng lo Inlermgalorles may be aummaraea as Iolum Ia) me Inlermgalorles mus| bu neeessarl V07 alsaoslng «any 07 me menu III «II uvvw Cnsls Necessity Is a snmgenl Iesl As sIaI. me mpesee qulfllnlli IIIIIII mm. [D III. «IIIaIIn Issue Yhelzsllsvmelhevby anxmvlrlv Ine nmposea quesllcns. II WIN veduoe In. IEAAGS. xlmnarl In. lllal and Inns save nasls Isee me reaeml Court case M Show: AIsaIIIIen sneak» Mdlllmlvldfl V mg Kack Song [1 915] I MLJ as III 90) III Ine DWIECI M Imevmqfilorles Is In oblam an aamI;sIa.I Mom In. oPP°s4rl9 party wmch wlll make In: human ar mum a.sIeI llurl ll nlhelwlse Imla have been (Set In. sIngaIIm. Hlgh cIIIIII cue M oveum . cnmase Bankmw Corvoratran um Norman wrlqm 4 Or: [1999] 3 MLJ 73 al Is; In ll we aaIIIIIsIeII er a van can be mm by 2 wltnzn Mu: wIH be mlled -ll Ine ml, Inlllmfialmlas wlll rlc|I as a rule, bu allmnd seeam II wlll lV.)| me hullfld Ia Iama lsee Ovaries: V cnmeae sanmg lsIIuIa)> 1 sm wIsIanIIz4uIe.xIIII.IInI.Ia “Nair Smnl navlhnrwlll be I... In my I... InIn.III MIMI flnuavllnl VI arlulla vtmxl (up m.1m.«mg.1u1.s 3111:1111: 11m on reuardod as 2 sown A71 .111111..11111o1111a he 1omme1y mschargad :5 pl!‘ .11 an nnteflocumry >o111aa1¢111e11« pvlramnu me 1113111 ba(lle1IIams|y m. an 153». the UK Conn o4Auou\ cassm 11.11 V smrm 1.1111121: and mm" 5ppuI[1B95]P\OR 3441 4:1 Ihe1nIevnou:«onss musk ml 1.: upuvzsswe or a 115:1"; oxpeamnn (See «:1: mg» own use of /rIdu:Ina7Pmunny Management 51111 and 1 Fat Pmpelfy sa11 Blvd 4 Am 120221 9 Nu 57 .1 m The Proposgg 9 § ans by me 9“ Defendant IE The elgm ques11m1s proposed by D9 vlde Enclosure 41 are w1m regard cu me M1 Gvoup's dilm 1121 a breach val confidence 17 In an amn for breach o1 ocnfidence, me P1 nlifls musl prove «rm — (11 me Anlonnamcn is 01 a co1muem1a1 name, (11) me 1111n1man1an was cummumcalad 111 cwcumshinces 1mpomr1g an nbhgauon av confidence: and 1111) lhere was an unaulhonsad use nl me Inforrnzlmn [See Coco v AN. Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1959) RPC 41). 1a. The legs! |es| was modified m the Smgapare Conn av Appeal use at I -Admin (Singapore) Pla Ltd 1/ Hong Ymg mg and cums [2020] 1 SLR 1130 at 1149-1152,wv11cn held -Mam Hvnmach 15.9; Ha»/mg dutimlmad mm the wmngrwoss 1111.1": rs . Mgvnmate amecuw undergndmg the law albumen 1; wnfidenoe, m consider mm 1:1. :1.1m1n=.;.1 Irumewadr don 11o4 ndtqualary ullgulm 1111: Antwan! N am mom. m.m11 II» Been mass. 711. mqmmm uiurmmronsvd 11.. 1,111: detriment 11:: mm: em :11. dcvnlnumanl 1,1 the 1“ by ovsmmpnavsmg 1». mangm gum AIIIBIEM at :11. expcrlst cum wvunyfullou minus! [557] :11 Ivnlualmg 1111.-1 mm 111.oe1am mm: to n. 1.m1,a, we take oogmssncu olruanl davvlnpmqnix 11 511,;1....1s1.a Aullraha 11. 1.11511..." V Tcheng 1 and om": ;2m112 wm 5:22 r1111.m1.11»1 ms 511911511 Cour! 0/hppval 1.1. 1: the pnucqmsne 9! may and ctelmnervl um mu um :11. .11 allvakmg il oocunwnls, wmuv an: knaw: in be cnnhdcnnal a1 ‘mtlrvhomfly nalavmrvg [confidentvafl miavmalion, m1.:1y .111: knowmq I/val ma c:.1mn1 Nlsavubly nxpect: 1 la bt pnvatm 15 mu. breach 1» m11mz.11c.- my Lard Ntuberptl un .:;ss11 11.... .1. flammable wrung: bocaust ‘IN mlomlnlmn will, thmagh me unlulhnrmd .5115; ollha .1 .1»:1,1141.1me1 loss res zmfidanlul chuxcm. 1:1 mm mm o. .1 nm oldomg Jo‘ ¢:111.11n.1. .1 [ea]; ms rsasanmy 11 11mm... ammmes a g1.a111:1rrs my!!! to massive m. mnfidvnlmllly .11 0191/ mlomvallon, echoing m. m.1.m 1,1111: wrwrqiul Ion 1111.1»: 111. mm cm 1uum11. m 51.11:» Klma 1151151411.; ;1111.u1m1e11: Mal mc cowl’: aqun.m.1,u1ua1:111;11m g1.111 runs! /91 a Dream ofconfinuvcl mly a. mvoked w11e1a1r1a1e1s-acm1ann1um1.11 a 5111 17n::m1uE4nuExxsunkDvw «mm. 5.11.1 ...1n.1w111 1. .1... 11 M1, 1... nrVg\n|HIy .1111. m.1.11 1. mum M1 abuw or covvfidsa-ma! AnloImatron' [emphasis earned] (a! 5921 An ablrglnan m mnfidencn may be broachvd Mn whom a wrunvdoer me yet In acmaur Plow [mm Imsun I50] Yheae dec-mans were Also dvwutnd by the mm Com /7! me-mo (Pal supm] By W albackgmaml, the plstrmfl wrvuzsny m creme msnuvacmv and ma cmlaa Imus and possessed a mum at ~r.v.m msagma mlovmalron /or rm: purpow A numb" nflhl P/imrvlls mwym ms:-qu...ny /mneflarrvalmlwilrwculludWmlrlus‘ Eslmuraavmg mu wamwr: smolum may look eonfidmlmr docum-ms, mm. nmlmnsntmn :9 mm): . dnlubuxa al m.m.m Vvom mm mm cwld exluu mm Information A: may w... my mgances where the deferlduntu rm acma/Vy used the pramm maltnals :9. vnnous nmpous m. noun wns not .=.m..: m mm; me queabon al mm: nu ma Iakmg or cmfid-rwal mmm m In: absemx of us: or am”. would mnutmne .2 mm olconfidence mm»./.55, m. com sumnwrsefl tn: pommn: mm m Vmenmsn and Srmlh mm balms makmv m. Ioflowmg obxan/Allan: M1205» mm eouvis um Mzcsptod mu: azwussmg, acqumrlanrmmahsmnglo sum conflomlral Walmabun may use rum . ovum or norvhdlrvzu 1». mung no-m rm mm dawlovmenl sums Ia be 5:1 awmn-st ma: In convene» at confluence rs mafiuclably shaped by me penma ml: of me am I can mgm. rm: rm ..m..msrw bdtwnan m. p.m.:, ma mmnw m wmm eonfldqnnnl mromnon was abtamad m musuru mm. m mt-gum cwmdenltalrty etc, would define ma bmmdary oi the defsndantt’ onuganon ol wnfldanzu nnfl, u. mm mm m. mrm nl wnutmvr m. gammy. was mam bnachcd Thus, wmlhurmlrullasboan nmcn olzarvfiaqnvmnpuonra 10 be u auestron M/ac! and mm mm ms! nu mgamam u: may! wnluxl Vhvs mm It usuiul In so In .5 n nnagmsds m. Jammy u. the uvpe ov a defendant’: omvganun a: confidant! m mm mtamvnv tn. inc! mu rm wrongful ms mtswst may a. mmngeu m . vansty av sttualmna aulaide actual m and msclolun ml WM mm oovmdtrurons in mud, wa sci oul . meamov app-our. mu ;:....m a. lnkan In rilltmn to bunch nltonlldoncl clniml Fresvrvmg m rwu two r-oumums m Coca [12:21 51417:), . mun mum mm: wnelhzv me mlormalvon m aussnnn ‘nu Mt neconafl away 0/ tonfiucnct am: If’ Ind n y: m been ‘rmmsrlzd m cmmmncu rmuomrvv in oohgarvon ol cnnfidence’ An oougmn nl canfldlnu wm alsn a. round vmun cunfidnnlial Inlomuuon nu bun unsnd or Icvzulrud wmou: a plaintiff‘: hnnvnudgu nrcnnslm um the sanslaotmn annexe premaumlem an mm. forbnaen oleunfldoncv It pmmma ms mgm 5. nnwaeua wnnn, luv mstumze, the dalmdanl came acrws the wormanm by acddenl or was unlwur M It: Imnfldanlrd nalwa or behaved mm m as . smmgpum-c rmamal m dvsefiosmy u uma:.».un. xp».n.mm, m. mm.» will b. on m. a.r..m.nmp~m mg: as com:-m was urufioctud m cm mm, 1!»: modvflod Jppmuclv mm avum locus an the wmngrw Ion mares: without menmnmg ma Pmltcnon cl m. wmgmpmm Interns.‘ sm 17nGanDE4nu5z><mnkDvM) «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! /52) A mm In nu. buldnrl evproemeo .44...." mo pracllcal dnmdn... /and by avmnvs u confldtnll-II Infomulron m hrinyfng a emrn In eormdm. A: mated at 1551, pllmllk may Man [:9 unlwnre pv me (EC! my somcone has dun! M m mconxlafsnl MM mm mm or eanfinenlra/vly A pnrsnha/breach coma bt drseovnmfl yam: nflav. plscmy mom an M md.rm.4 pm. foal Dvflndlnls an cnlnparallvnry pm-r lluswliunod to mourn rd: wolf tuxpuzind wrongdo/01' 19. In alhef words, n! a c\aiman| mlfvls me men and second euememe at me orlgmal tesl vdr breach of confidence, an acnun for breach 0! cunfidence us presumed The legal burden ws men smfled dr. me employees m pmvs that men eonsmence \s not aflecled. The undenymg reason var ms momfied appmach is because «he suaped Is m a peuer poswinn |a eamdnudr mew suspected wrongdoing 2n I—Admm (supre)was referred Io m ouvsholes bylhs court ov Appeal ll'| Karen vep Chev/Lmg v Binary Group ssrwces Bad and armmer eppee/ (202314 MLJ 792 at 321. wnrcn sad’ we; Lumad warms! for ma pr-mun mned us to the mean! dmropmrus m Slrlgapoa mm: me Cowl‘ dmppeer rr. Mdmm ¢smg.pdre; Pt: ud v Nong Vrmflmg errd amers [2020]1 sm 1 V30, recerlfly modlrod the burden orpreoz m .r. amwv (at brunch ofwnfiuunc u inflows [90] yr .p,...re m ne another way olnyvng mar am up. pmrmn rm: flflducfid unms Yams tvmerlu nu mm. niconlrdznlrahrrfnrmalmn, me avrdunlulbmdpn was I!) me defendant to rub»! Ind miule ‘male rs dheady . mach an r». zorrfidvvlm mtnlmulvan by dnremdrry acmsmg andxlnrmg :1 such that one may hut ready nets: to r and dtploy rl whemwr ans mas yr- 21 Yhe ubservehon 0! me cpun do Appeex, regavdwng Dompimes pemg exposed (0 me nsk dr nueuee ol donnderman wdnnemen by a same! smpluwe‘ vs Inslrucwe The Court 0! Appeal sand (at page my -153: Oompamas run . rnlnsk p«er.d.re vulnerable to lhakofcutvfldunttnl Information me: can hive demagmg consdqudmcs (Dr mew bunmass rd: ullrmclaly someone semor rr mo oamparw: would mvu Ia bu mueced wrlh mm mvtwanrial mlurmllmn ID platen us mlogmy and to prmnr MID/lwflll access and copymy oil! In [In dflnmam lithe canwamss. The lougn qulslmn has mm been who wawd guard the gulmtsns and watch me watnhmvrl Md gal: pun‘ The Ia econesaren n esse 22 Anms sxege ellhe prdoeedmgs Ido rm need m dmermme me mems 01 me seven 1 Dnly need to decide wruemer me umerrogemruee are necessary to vemy dxspase omre manner or save cosls : em 17p<:A:nuE4nd5xKwnkurw «we. sew nmhnrwm .. d... m mm .. nrimnlflly mm: dnuumnl VI mum pom! 23 The engrrn queshons mpesea by D9 vide Enclosure M rnay be summanssd as vollowe. lay as wants tn mm. m whit lonns weve eaon on nne eonnnnenoel rnnlennanlen mm Dy nns vnernnm, and were nan onnnern wave snoreo («K Ilueslluns n and 2» llal as werrns me Flamtlm ta nrsn dawn :11 Dawn: Mm nm cunlml over and aoass no naen en the eennaenrlal Wmuanlovl‘ the ear. and llml or mdl necessn and nne specmc rnrornrnenron V/nlch was awessed sr Ihe nlwvl rlnne 1:4 Iluzstlnru 3 In : and an and lot as wnnls no kmw aboul nne nmcedllresr oolrores and rnrsrnal wnlroli lsnln ln whee oy nne Flilnnfix tn ruglllnle how are eornnoennnrol rrwornnanron rs snorea And mvasumxla plmen agalnslnlnaulhonnd zcoan nan qllexnans 5 re 1) 24 II rs rrrynrranrrg nnan me rrrnerreganarres are unnecessary no nne rnsnann sun. Here are my reasons 25. Fnren. by anewenng me proposed onlesnnons, nrne lssnes relennrng no a breach lar confidmce would nc| be reduced None at nne prupoeea qnresnnone are neeeeeary or relevant no aaoreee nrne legal elennenn ol breach nltxmfidence 25 The Planrnnnlvs olleled nne lollowrng analngy ll Pany x alleges man Fzny v is me aeoueee or me slulen goods er Pmy X‘s prernnlses, how ls nn relevant or necssary lernrre cclurlla de|errmne how many persons have vlslled Fany xx prernnmv or how many pidlocks are places In: keep me dam ol Pany X's pvemlses locked7 ms ls akln no wrnan D9 ls asklng rrere. 27 secona, me proposed quesnnons 4, 5, s and s relane no reeoros on all persons who dld ln lam have access no each on me eormaennrel nnlorrrnennon And me uocurnnernls and systems 0! nne Ml Gmup penainlng no are keeping and smiling at me confidenhal Informallun. 23. I agree wnnn nne n=nanrrnms nrran nrra nrnnerrogalones are unduly ovnresslve Because nne propoeea Questions reqnlnre an rnoranrnane amount 0! «me, eflclrl and cost no review and am one infcrmallan reonlesnea, helore nrne MI Group Could praperly answer each 0! nne ques1lL7ns posed 29 Funhevr lrne pmpcsed queshon 1 does Im| reduce rrra Issues In oa determlned an nnal. Thls re because me lew aoee non lmpose any 7 srn 17o:mvnDE4nnl5z><wnkDvw won. s.n.n luvlhnrwm rs. med e my r... nflmnullly mm. flnuamnl vn mnnrla wen requirement on the lorm in wriicn trie infurmalion can cerne wnnin the nipni: oi ccnmentiat inierrnaiion For instance, a source cpde 0! a pcmputer progreni is new neid In be txmfldenllal iniormation As sucn, it is ndt necessary icr trie Pteintms to answer I| (see ‘|n|e||sz:1ua\ Property Law in Malaysia‘ by Tay Pelt sen, 2"“ editicn, pain, the High cpun case cc onesicp soiiware seiuiroris M Sdn and & Anor v Masieriree Sdn Bhd & or: [2009] 5 ML! 523 at 535) 30 Tnird, D9's airideuii in support amniied on 29 9 2023 iencidsure 46) avers inai trie inienogatenes WIII “avoid incurring costs in prim me errien: (or/ack inereao o/me sreps taken ic ensure canfidenlisllly" As mentioned eariier, n an action ier breach erconndence, K is net part or ine legal test tor the Pteintiiis K0 plmle new weH me ounfidenllal iniorrneticn is kept or stored 31 Feurui. by virtue c1DS‘s nigri ranking osiiiie executive position in me Mi Group, ne riau access ic tne eonrideniiei iniorrnaticn belonging in me Pteiniiws Triis isionined by tne cpnternpcreneaus documents. rianieiy the non - discicsure agreement and tne letter pi emptcyment These documents nave restricted D9 irdm discicsing ine t=teintme' conridentiai iniarmeudn Aixxrruingiy. ine inidrrnaiion nns been Impzrlsd in circumstances imponing an dniigaticn at cunfldsrtcs on Der wnp was trie cniei Financier oiricer or me Mi Group. 32 All in aH, 1 consider Encipeiire 41 to be a fishing exped on It seems to me tnat me am! at trie interidgatcnes is tc fish‘ evidence an new tne PIainti«s' pcniideritial iniormation was stated 01 kept Himever, that is qui|e irreievant and unnecessary in an action «or breach or confidence 33 ineoiar IS eenndentiai inicrrnaticn is cuncemed, tne Pieintms will have in prcvetriatme iniorrnetion pieaaed is capable cmaing epnnaentiei in nature interesringiy in lhis regard. D9 pleaded in ms deience mat V (l] some in Ihs iriierrnaiion may be confidential in nature, and (III wrist IMOYMEKIOH‘ according K0 riirn, s caniidennei and ne vied access (See paragraphs 6 and 2«.2 to 24 3 M ass delenoe) SA According io D9. ine preppsed duesiiens i-nu enew wneiher ne nes unietieied accesstd tneiecrinicat ccrmdentiei intermission diine Ml ereiip Bu| inere is no duestipn posed by D9 lo irie above enact. Instead, D9 is rnereiy «sning evidence regarding how well trie ccnnderiiiai inipnnaiion was kept. new meny ol tne Ml Group’: empicyeee have mess, in what terms trie ccnndentiat inipnnaiidn are and where tney are stored These are wnouy irreievant and unnecessary to me present action a srn t7M:A:nDE4nu5xKmrkDrw “Nana s.n.i mmhnrwm be u... M may i... nflgiruflly Mtmn dnuuvtnnl vu .nunc peer 35 Moveover, whal admlsslon ls D9 saeldng la elm: lrem me PIEIIHIWIS7 As alluded lp earher. a aelalled delende dn access was pleaded by as He eysn oalegonsed wnal lnlormlllon ne can awess, and whal lnlannauon he could MA and no| access It ls therefnve unnecessary hr lne Plalnllfls ld znswel ma proposed quesllons as Pemnenlly, ma Plainlills pleaded ln me Amended slelemsnlolclaurn as lollaws: ‘A3 Dnrlnfi ma lanme aa Chic? Flmnual Oflloer a! we, Herman (D9) nae awn: la. was wwy up ur wu olherwlse supphed wlln lne Corlfidemlal lnlannauon The sald await, prlvlty or wpply or lna Canfidanlril lnldnnauan wns wen la Herman lbs) lel xne sale Dumas: and llnnad pnrudaa pl VH5 anplavmenl mm M amp, and for nd ulnar pulpnse 75alV>< 1DIHaok slevs la .nwrw-ala Ersa um lhrvuyh N: aha! 5906, unmaa Igenlx Ind / nr nomlneesy namely Herman (D9). Geok seek an and Lemvg Cm: yan Suhaequenlly, na lnwrpnrxlad EVSB1D€) He alaa lnwrpcvaled msa lnal mrough ms proxy, ea. Suck Eng {ms motmr VII Vnwj 75 pm mennora beams deal max vx loo l. sapaauan mm mm Human lag) and /orKhang and /urchln had belwaan a:HyZD19laJune 2019(uIwm mherllme xndan nnlym maul nrodeeded la aanepnlmslyand wlllvuul M. Gmulfs xndalanga. appnml and /urconxum aanapned and quieter! llv|u igreemerlls / ilfinyemehls mm one anoma: lo nneapmpnala and / av nnaaaa Ine Confidermal lnlamlallon rm (her own as-sonal gem in me da-nmanl 1:! M. Grail’- av. The Flalmlfls‘ can is ml carvflned lo a dlrecl access ll ls ln n wlder approach agalnsl D9, Indudlng an Indlrec| access lmaugn D1, :22 or mel D9 ls pnvy to or supplled wlln confidenllal lnlonnauon ms is wnpl me Plainlllfs wlH have lo prove at lnal ln olhev wovds,|I1 ermgalunes wlll not vsducs any laels VI lssue aa ln any evem. me non - dlsclosure egreernenl and me leller cl employment wele signed hy D9 The releyanl clauses lhereln pnma Iacle shuws lnal D9 has access ur Dnvy |o me MY Group's confidenllal lnlonnal-an Namely, la» clause 2 al the non —d\nclasuM a9Ineme1II,wmdlruds ‘Nun - dlsckzsuvl oICm\fidIuIA.I| lnvdnnalldn smplayee snall keev campanvs cenreenlal lnlormahen, meme. av nol Drlnavad av daveluptd ny Emnlm/=2, VII me :1n<:IzsA ednndanda Employee 9 sm lvnsnnnzdnuazxmukmw “Nana s.n.l luvlhnrwm a met! a vsfly aa annnn-y am. daa.n.n. vn mung penal mu m wsdcsa sum Munvmmn In mm aumue Cmwwny nuv wm Employee make us: at any Cnnfidennll lntmvmlmn lav Erw|vye:‘s m purpullx (I: m Emplwyee‘s new emphvymnnl m unymg am am busmesi and me) Mlov Ins benefil 04 any amen um pally known by m Empluyee mm Ihin the Company wtlhnul Cnmomy‘5 pmvwmlen causal‘ my mum u ac me man 7 dxsdoime agmmm mm ‘Cnmxdenflal mlormalwon .nnum.. “CnnhdenIml |.«am.mn- mm my Iniurmllmn um us nel generafly knmm mm mm 1: wupuelaryw Company many m u; chums Cnnlxdenlxal mvomw. Induces. wllhnul hmnlanm. busmeis wens, mmmer hm. Manon! mlormanon andluuexecvelsamm Companyand wipraduus mm .nsunn.m or cmav pvupnelary mmuuun vehlmu m dsmgni, dwuonmanm ur expeumenm wan, know , mm‘ pvoamiu. nvmzsxesy smmm pmgvamsy of xonwlre mdmg' (c) Chum mullhe Ienev nIemplaymam,vm\r)1 vuds -sum-y Common Vuu Mu not .n any um gum your “mm wmh m. Cnmplny ar mm a yuan aner Mmgnahnn nrlammnhon mike pubhcevdlsuosovnzny pelwn eonwenxm mlolmzllon at my nnlme rehanm lo the Company: :0! V: m upnrluons Yhns muudes trade slant: nuchne process / Ethnology! mnoIp| / apphnilmn / aessgn m oval, wwl ny gvanmc and mama: sewtfwznan dv:wmg:' Endnsuv: An Dnscovem as F01 me masons abovey 1 dtsmwssed Enckxsure M Unlelmgalones) I move an nomln dean wm. Endosure 40, -2 D9‘: appncauun fnrdiscovery a1 ducumsnls. The Law nn mscoveg M 9;; mgnfi 40. The burden Is on D9 to sum met me documsnls sougm lor are necessary (or pnsmg famy onne acllon L2! 907 saymg costs. 41 In Ma/aysra Deb! vsnrms End 1/ Plarmum Tecllsalve Sdn End 5. 0!: [20:03 MLJU 1421‘ the coun 0! Appeal new -12.721 rn our vlaw, 1». paw upamach :9 me qunhan amnmu flttuwlryrx ‘rv9ces£nry“ may as gfieavved fmm me one 9/ saymma Hypo V um: Vorums-bank as y Asus mm: Buwann (St!-glmval PI: my and com apohcahons pow] ssrvc V55 /200414 sm 1»; as ('BayIrIs¢hl ; when we mgn Com olsonynpon =1 pamyvlwv 1311mm as rauowr m sm wvncsnnuanuaxxsunkmw «mu. sun-1 nmmrwm .. u... u my .. mm.u.y mm: dnuamnl y. mum pans‘

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-757-11/2020

PLAINTIF MOHAMED HANIFFA BIN SAINUDIN DEFENDAN 1. ) DATO' SERI SULAIMAN BIN SAINUDIN 2. ) DATIN SERI ANITA BINTI SEE RAMDZE

Case management – Order 34 Rules of Court 2012 - striking out - Failure to comply with pre-trial directions given during case management despite being informed that the Court will strike out the action for any compliance resulted in the action being struck out with costs to be borne by the solicitors for the plaintiff personally

05/02/2024

YA Tuan Su Tiang Joo

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fafc8a12-029f-4d85-a116-cb1ef4102cb3&Inline=true

05/02/2024 08:48:31 WA-22NCvC-757-11/2020 Kand. 74 S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Eor8p8ChU2hFsse9BAssw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—22Ncvc—757—11/znzu Kand. 74 as/02;2n2L 23:44) In THE HIGH COURT IN MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAVAH PERSEKUYUAN cAsE No: WA»21NCvC~751-I1I2D20 BETWEEN MOHAMED HANIFFA BIN SAINUDIN PLAINYIFF (No. KW‘ 7401134114155) AND 1. mm‘ SERI SULAIMAN am SAINUDIN (NO. K/P: 7509"-01-5511 2. DATIN SERI ANITA BINTI SEE RAMDZE DEFENDANTS (N0. KIF: 781120-01-GIIA) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT lmmduclion [1] This 15 one Mme rare cases wnerem during a case management on :5 December 2023, I had slmck out the plammrs ac1Ian wnn coats M RMZD ooo sumed to allacatur lo he paid by me eoncnors lur me plamlm pevsonafly to me aevenaams by reason of nomaompnance wnn «ms CnurI‘s dlrechons Dissatisfied me waxmllland russancnorsappealea and mese are me grounds of Juagmem m EavlvBChU2hFsuvEAssw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Partifls to mu action [2] The plamlrfi and the first ae!enaant are brothers The second defendant is me we of me is: defendant and 15 Inerehre the aIs1er-In» Law 01 me plammv Summary of p|:inIiWs action [3] In early 2013, me p\aIrmfl was mm by a menu than mere :5 a sum :71 RM9 999,999 on (“the monies‘) \n a Ma\ayan Eankmg Berhad |‘M:ybank") eurrenx account cl Auanysmam mamm Em Ahu Kassnm (NRIC No 591213035951 )‘ deceased (“Dianna”) and me widow 4:! me Deceased had made seven! unsuecessvm attempts to nave mus sum released [4] Upon approacmng me first debndanl, the p\aIrmfl was mlzxmed that me onrmer can secure the release at me memes {ml at a fee cl RM1,500‘00D 00 which vncludas expenses [51 An arrangement was arrived at belween me am delendanl and «ne wnaw of (he deceased whelem he was In omam a percentage 01 the m Enrapacnuznrsumhsw «mm. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e U... a my r... mn.u-y mum: m.n.n VI mum v-max September 2023, he (Mr Kasmalhanl reoewed a fresh bundle at documems mm». eon") Ned by me p\aIn(Ifl‘ wherein |he plalnlllf says he Is challengmg 43 aooumerrrs In the flesh BOD To «ms, learned counsel «or the pnarrrm who anerraea, Puan NurAua Auqz mm. Muhd vusot, comd nor respond as to why me plammv could not men on re» class-tyrrrg me dawmenls save to seek a short data for learned lead counsel nflha plalmm hzndmg the mallenn anerrm I men ducted me a) me p\a1nnf1|s tame a revised son by 14 September 202:!‘ the pznlas ale to put up a Pan (2 Non-Agmed Documems Index setting omme servvoe eithe notice In adrrmdocumenls and me edlnns made In carry out IH5P9C1l0I'I M documems. :2) me Pan :2 Non-Agreed Documents Index rogemer win the Non-Agreed Facts Index wrm a lormal pmiaea lo assust me parues re secure adrmssrons and reproducsd below wave In be me by 21 September 2023‘ and m Enrapuznuznru-mAssw ‘Nana smuw lunhnrwm .. U... w my r... nnmnuuly mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max n ms max a) afler obsemng man me other dlvecnans gwen an 26 June 2023 have yet In be eompuea wnh‘ me names were gwen ume um: 29 September 202310 me any amended wulness stanements they may wish to me V) I men fixed a case management date 0123 oexaber 2023 forms parlles to update (he com on due oumphanoe wan Ihe dlranlons gwan an 7 September 21:23 and mformed me pames that me coun expmeuy ran:-van In powen under Ordet :4 R06 to strike out we claim or defence in me even: of any non-cornplilnco with me come ulreeuam and mrsaed that me eouneex handlmg me case are to allend me next case management dale cf 23 October 2023 m Enrapscnuznrsumhsw «mm. snn ...n.mm .. n... n may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max 12 [171 on 23 October 2023, Mr Ian; Md Vsa (“ML Idris") avbealed as lead counsel (or the plamuw and Mr Kasmalhan Iogemer war: Mr Ahmld Amur hm Mahmoud appeared (urine defendants The1oHowmg exchanges teak Mace r) Mr Kaslnaman sard me de1endant have made attempts as Irom the last case management data lo have me dommenls m Pan C re be re-classmed. He said he had on 11 September 2023 wnllen to the plenum to ask (or rnspecmn Mdncumemslor purposes one-classmcauon of the Pan c documerus vouowed by a remmdar on 3 Octaber 2023 but lrH todale they have received no response, ammugh. just a few mmmes ago. Mr ldns sard he has the originals and (hay could mspect, ii) A3 tor the pleadmgs. Mr Kasmalhan pointed am max on 7 Septambev 2023‘ law: was gwen to me plammno amend the sat: at paragraph 51¢ revlemnat rt was RM1D brum Instead of RM10 million that was (0 be recovered but from me coun recoms. no amended soc was filed nnd Mr Kasmaman remundea me caun met an Unless Order was made on 7 Semember 2023, 1; r~ :..apscnu2nm.mm «mm. smuw nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum WM in) The raswnse by Mr Idns was that me Vawyer me was handmg IRIS mailer has since IBII and before she left we mm mm that aH lhe dvedmns have heen complied mm, and Ihat he did not Voek at me me -mm only yasxemay Mr Idns snughl tar more lime to comply wan me dxrechons M Mr Idris asserted um me amount m paragraph 5 oi Ihe soc Is my (or bnckgrnund navy and that he ws 0! me epmmn that there Is no necessmy to amend the same He admrtled navmg received me email an Quebec 2023 (mm cuunsel lcr Ihe aaranaams but sawd n ma nan-vpak emsl (par-mgalan) J m 2.72: Islam says ndak ma kerana adalvya namx attachment Saya pom seam masa um panllu ' v) Mr. Kasmalhan responded by graaously saying that «me cuun were to give more tune to weameu counsel var me plalmflf, he would have no ohm-ans vn Iexvvessed dxsavbemlrnsnt wnh Ihe conduct arms plamhfl over ms nan-comphnnoe aespne me Courl mmng on me last case management date :71 7 Semember 2023 warned the pames me! the cam may smka out the claim or m :..a»sw2nm.mm mm. Snr1I\nmhnrw\HI>e HIQG w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! defence In the event o1 any nonoomphanxae mm Ihe cams mrecuons and dssmtethe express reminder by me deienaams to amend in are same Neveruxexas. I gave a max aflmummenl of one monm mm: the 24 November zuza lur lha pwamuu m comply men we uurecuans gwen on 1 September 2023 I recorded Ihat me plalnlm does not wwsh ta amend ms soc vu) To lay emphasxs an the need for me due comphamze and m akpress me CourI's mspneasuve with such non- mmphanoe desplle the plamhfl have been reminded M the need to mmpuy, I ordered man me plimlvfl to pay costs av RM5.000 on subject to allocalur to me tievfendant to be pan: mnnmm and before me next cm managamsnl dais am: for 5 December 2023‘ and Veamsd counsel my the maxnlm was apnessry mlormed that "nu plalnm mum fldak nunuwm unmn-unhln Mahkzmih yang diner! wmasuu pomnuymn ms yang dik-nakan [um um Inl. Mahkamah ilun nwmbaulkln «nunun pllinlfl" (ampnam added) m :..apscmnm.mm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! vim Learned munsel for the plalrmfl expressed rehennen me eenan was not struck cm and thanked the caun Vnr me maulgenee gwen to me pkalntifl [13] on 5 December 2023 Mr nuns Md In again appeared as Vsad counsel forlhe plamml sna Mr Kasmathan together mm Mr Ahmad Amw bun Msnnma (“Mr Ahmad mum appeared for me usvenasnxs The lollowmg umk was: r) I dnremed me pames Ia slate wnen auvecuans nsve been gwen and whennennose dlvecnons have been earned out; n) M1 ldns sam he thought Ina! me cmy anemone were re nnnmnze the Part (2 documents and mac n was unreasonable lurlhe defendants to seek to re-daasfiy Part A documents as Part c documents‘ m) M: Kasmaman replrsd say-ng that me suegamns made by me plamm that n was unlalv Mme aelendant tn reclassny me documents as Pan C Is urwounded. W) I observed that me mreamns my me classmcanun av aocumencs have been gwen on 7 September 2023 and inquired as to why me flung av mmoes tn reflem what have 15 m Enrapscnu2nFsumAssw we s.nn lunhnrwm s. H... e mm s. mn.u-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! been done to secure adnussmns and Inspections have no! been done wn grvmg such a median, I have In mm the promsmns av Order 34 r 7 ROC whvch pruwdes that. -7 Admtssrons and agrsemen!s(O 34 r 7) A.‘ lhe case management the Court shall endeavour lo secure that Iha pames make all admlssmlvs and agreements as to lhs conduct af lhe pmceedmgs whmn ought masorlab/y Iv be made by them and may mean: any sdmrssoon m agreement 50 made, and, (mm a View to such spectalorden ilany, as m costs as may bemsrbemg made at me ma!) any relusal to make any admission or agreement. " v) For purposes :31‘ securing adm-ssmns, it \s my usua\ ptamce In remind me names In pres Inla Aid the prov Iuns of Order 27 rule 2 up, (2; and (3; R00 wmcn pmvvda ma! "2 News to sdmwacrs (0 nr 2) (1) A party to a cause or matter may not later lhan fourteen days afler me cause or matter Is set down m Emapsauuznrsumhsw mm. Snr1I\nauhnrwH\I>e HIQG n my me nflmnuflly mum: m.n.m VI .HuNa Wm! 17 rar rrral serve on any other parry a norm ruquinng nnn zo aarnu, /ar the purpose when cause or matter only, me facts snecniea m the name (2; An admrssoon made In campnanee vnm a name under W5 nrre ans/mo: be uaau agamst lhe party by whom n was made In any cause arrnaner arnerrr-an ma cause or nramar /or ma nurposa oi wmcn It was made or In favour of any person alhsl man ma person by whom [he name was given‘ and the court may at any um a/law a parry Ia amana or wnnuraw an adrmssmn so made by mm on sucn terms as u (hmks ms! (3; A name m aunnr fads under paraglaph (1) small [79 /17 Form 48 and an adrmssron of Iacts under paragraph (2) In Form 49 “ vn Mr Inns responded by saying that he was not nresent during the case management 017 seacamnar 2023 and when n was pmnled out to m that he was present dunng Ihe case management :71 23 October 2023, he assened lhal ma dwacllcns given on 7 September 2023 were nm brought up. r~ Emapsmuznrsumhsw ma Snr1I\nmhnrw\HI>e u... a my me annnun am. flnuamnl VI aHuNa warm 1: w) Mr Kasrnattran nsphed saying tnat contrary Io whak was asserted by Mr tarts, the arrections gwen an 7 September 2023 were In (an Dmught up aunng the last case management ptzs octpber 2023 Mr. Kasillalhan, went fumlur In uy rttn tttm win I call from Mr. Idril he hi: ll mud lrlutd. Mr. Ahnud Ami! on 7 Novomber 2013 asking whalwete the directions given try are Cour! an 7 somemtur 2023 end Mr. Attnud Arntr ma inlomtud Mr. Idrls must not dlncflons wan and what ward to In dam. vm) Mr Kaslnathan added that atter the case management on 7 September 2023. rte Inlonned me p\amMfs spncrtars tttat he was Draparea to go to therr cffice to rnspect ttre ttpcuments as the auegea trweslmems runs rnm lens :2! mllhmls ptnnggrt bul tne dam: Vs omy tpr was rnmtpn and rte was and by me plarntrtfs lady suhcrlnr that she has to Vacate the docurnems and win can turn stte are not A new hunme pr documents (Enclusuvs so) mntarnrng only Part B documents was then filed fulkmed by anpttter bundle wttrctt was refiled [Enuasure sat canlaintng Part B and Part 4: documents The request to mspecl them was nal met aesprte ttre tenet at H Seplernber 19 m znrapscnuznrmmm “Nate s.n.r nmhnrwm .. rt... w my r... mrn.u-y mum: mmn VI -r\uNa vmm 2023 «mm me salmms lo! the detendams seekmg Inspeclvon laHowed by a reminder an 3 Ocmber 2023, xx) Mr Kasunalhan went on (a "Warm me Coun man all the avoresam were raised during |he case managemem al 23 0z:Iober2D23 Despnelhat, nmmng was done save for a vep\y daled 21 November 2023 «nun me plzmlrfls snhcnms saying they do nul have the documents and ma appumlmenl was gwen lor me defendants’ sollclluls var Inspectlon. Nu Indlues (or me Normgraamenc Pan 0 documents and Non»Agreed Fans ware filed. x) The costs o1RM5.0D0 subpen to allocamrlhal was ordered to be Dild on (he V351 ecoawon have not DEN paid and ‘earned counsel lav me aeienaanns urged me cm to amuse the Courfs dlsmaamn to have the malter struck Ml for rmnr cnmphanoa mm me cums dlruclmns X!) M! ldns took a bellxgerem stand He sad that to Ins racullacllnn, dunng me last case managemenl (01 23 Ontubev 2023) he was only dvected to reply to me Vane! av 11 September 2023mm the scholars forth: defendams and ne did As lav ma dlraclmns given an 7 Saplamhav 2023, he said ms pmvxuus senator dud mud! rum what happened Aslovlfve 2n m Enrapuznuznru-mAssw mm. sm-w ...n.mn .. U... n may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! monies once It Is rmeased and lrom these proceeds the firs! omendnnc was in pay me plamm an“/. at what the firs! oelenuanx omannao [6] meraaner, premised upon several requests bylhe fvstdefandanl. several advanoemanm were paid by me plamllfl lo me ms: and second oeaenoams zotaumg RM3‘650,000 no Tms sum was raised by me plalnlvfi iron: 35 wweslars who paid over Ihevr mvesunems mveugh me pliirmfllo me wane-mu mrecuy and lhmugh a company namea Reswl Homing: son sna auegemy awned by one Data‘ sen Suhalme Bun saao who a. saw to he the arse defendant‘: man Apparenuy, hese 35 mvestovs were wide! me Implasslm may mu ee gemng very good return: [71 As mumeo out, me defendants auegadly am not carry out any work ca secure me me-as :11 me memes and the plalrmfl Ian mm mm me delandants have oonsplved to cheat mm and aerrauaeo mm mm rrauaulenc rmstepvesemauons The plamm sued lor me relum of me RM3‘s5o.uuu no wan mtarest thereon at 5% a a from me flake of me fillng ollhe wm (19 November 2020; unlll full semement, general and punmve damages In be assessed and Wales! on me damages unm lull sememem and costs m Eorapscnuznrss-Iahsw «ma. sane! ...n.mn .. met! a may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mums am call to Mr Ahmad Armr Mr Idns summed maklng the can btn sand he anly asked whll was the next date‘ and naming else. As for the request lor Inspecnon, he has nm found I! and that is why ha ma not raven He added men we ipphcallon lurllle action lo be struck DI)! rs too harah As hr the nan-DI)/rnenz M me costs at RM5,000 on man was ordered, he sand the defendants asked (or Ihlngs they should nm have requested [191 As mennanea, mmng me last cccasmn on 23 October 2023‘ dvecmns given on 7 September 2923 were mm and um plammr was gwen yet anmher nppunumly m gel us an together on me hundhng and dassfiwuon ov me documents wmau would Include carrying an! an mapecuon exercise to try to sellla the disputed documents and «ms The Dlamlm an! no! [20] In my considered view, me veason gwen larlhe nnmpaymem onhe costs avdered to be Dani Debi: one case managemem at 5 December 2023 V5 wnhout men! The older lav C0513 made by the Caurl on 23 October 2023v/aslo nay empnas-s on me lack ofnonoomphanue with me Courfs pfblrlll awredlons and to Impress upon the plutmlfl In Dummy with the dvacuans given bulwmch me plamuff has chosen In ignare at ms min 21 m Enrapwnuznru-mAssw mm. Snr1I\nauhnrw\HI>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! perll The reason glven lor lack of lmawleage al me auecllone glven on 7 September 202: IS wllnem mm as may won ropcllnd on 23 Omaber 2023 [21] For lean cnunsel Mr lam. la ml blame on me. lomler legal asnslam ls unacceptable when he was lead counsel lormls maller as can be seen lrom me Coun records wllh nim allenalng la me mallav in me eavller slages He oughl lo have lully apprlse lwmell M me runner ln BMVCIDIIVDVI of any querles an the pmseeullan 01 me case wlth mm belng me lead counsel For me plemll, see Teluan Azilrl, Tlmku Fzrik 5. Wang v. mu... on; Pnnnlrlhlp [2021] la cm 253 at (231, where >-us Lordshlp, Ravlnlhran Pavamagum JCA has these words uladvlce to advocals and sollcnms ' It you wmmul slylny Illllltls upemdmu eounnl who amrlcls cast mm-geamll hearings or mention: should fully marlse himself av the am and issues or a use In mllcipaclon or nsisfinn lhv com in nu mm mm an alarm, " [221 In any event‘ me some mlrllnes afwhattrarvsplred on 7 Seplember 2023 cm he easlly obmlned «mm we came records 22 m Enrapscnuznrsumhsw «mu. Smnl luvlhnrwm .. med u may he nflmnnllly mum: flnuavlml VI muua Wm! [23] Ordet 34 Me 213) R00 pmvwdes mil. ‘{3} The com Hal/mg gwsn drrsclvons under me 2(2) unme 3 may eilhsr on us awn n-anon or upon the app/matron nl any party, rr any party dslaulls m complying with any such dlractmns, dtsrmss such mun or pmcasdmgs or sink: our (he delence or wunzerclmm or enter /uagmsm or make such ardsr as n trunks M ,. [241 See also Sumvny PM|-P Connructlon Sdn Bhd V. Pemhenun cm a. crm. Sdn arm [zoos] 5 cm as (Hcp and ‘fan s-i Datuk Diana Him King @ Tlong D-How mg v L... Sun Ngunng @ uu sui cu--g [2014] 3 ML! 575 n-cc; at [33] to [371 and a1[1a]wheve Her Ladysmp su Geok Yvam said ‘[79] n rstnlelawmala ocnmss/haslhnaa dulrss ms ms: duty wmcn a counsel owes rs to me court / understand ms duty :9 mean ma! 3 munser mus: asst:-t the court In (he expedmmls, um and 9conormca/ udmmrsmzlrolv o/yusme by Ina mun wmcn encompasses me compltance mm all drrscllons given by the court umess (here Is good reason shown “ 23 m Emapscnuznrsunahsw mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIQG w my me mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI .HuNa Wm! [251 Wherefore‘ «ms coun «mas that mere has been gross drsregard m ms dlvecmns given by the Ceun on me marugamenl or unrs acuan «or man, and allowed me oeiendams‘ applrcauon to have the acuun s1ruck wt wnh wsls «or me innawmg reasons I) as uexanea abnve. me Conn nad expressly warned Ina munsex during the case management of 7 September 2023 ml me Court reserves as powers under Order 34 ROG to stnke out me dam! or defence In me even: 0! any non-oumplvlnoa wrm me cuurvs mranrons gwen, m at cne ronowmg use management on 23 Owner 2023. annougn nne plammf am not oumply wmn the directions gwen on 7 September 2023, the Courl gave an Indulgence but made an “umess ovdef mac fllhe plamlill still cans to camp\y wnn ma drrecuons made mcludmg me paymenl or cuss ordered the Courl snan smke nuuna p<amM(‘s acuon. In) on In: next case management am, .1 was apparent um the plamml has lanlsd la a) file his opening sracamans 1:) ma ma chronomgy of events. rn Emapscnuznrssanahsw mm. a.n.r nmhnrwm s. HIQG a my r... snmn.u-y mum: flnuamnl VI mung war 24 c) attended to me preparilim oi the bundlmg cf dncumanlsr up seek adrmssron on drsputed docurrrems and mekrrrg mem available (or mspectlon aj prepare the Index on me Pan c Non-Agreed Documents eemrrg our me enons made to nblam admrssmns and the results at Inspecllon exemse. it prepare me Indak on Nnn—Agveed Fans wror me are at me prowsrorrs of Order 27 Roc, and g) me ms amended witness nacemenrs by 29 sepxernner 2023 and which was water extended to 23 October 2023 and than fmafly extended ta 6 December 2:123 and h) Dav true costs olRM5.00D 00 as ordered bylha Conn an 23 October 2172310 be pard betoreme rum use managemem date at 6 December 2023‘ [25] Over arm on top ollhe larmres hs1ed above, the lack of eenduur on the part o1 Mr ldns wemhad heavily egamel mm, more so‘ when he assened ma: he are not know whal dtractmns weregwau an 7 Seplember 25 m Enrapschuznrsumhsw we smuw nmhnrwm .. H... e my r... mruury mum: flnuamnl VI mum we 2023 and that these olrecttons were not ratseo dulmg Ihe case rnanagement ol 2: Oc1cber 2u2:4 Tlne laclt o1 canooor Is also unvortunetely alsplayea by ms dental ol wnat tank plane dunng ms oorwersanon vntn ms learned mend, Mr Ahmad Armr an 7 November 2023 we was to sald lo have tnlonnea Mr Ian: what were me mrectrtans and what were to be none [27] Mr Kas-nnnan for the dedendarlns than sougnt lor costs or RM5D,00D Wand lor me oosts to be borne by me soltetturslorttte plainlllf personally He posttea that the preparatlon oittte documents are wittnn tne control oltne plainllffs snllcllnrs and lney navelatlea to do so. Further‘ ne asserted that ll ts apparent that me platntlvrs sullcllors nave rnlsplaeea the oocumens wtncn were erlln.ls1ed wnh tnent [291 Mr ldrls leplled by assenmg mat tne ttelenoants lnentselves are not enllrely tree nom olarne wnnout delalllng wnal the oetenoante have reilett (0 do Mr ldvls asserted met me problems he enooontereo were beyond rns control, and sought lar tne oroer erstnlong out to be reversed so as (0 enable rum to withdraw tne autpn wllh liberty to ale afvesh wlm no order «or eests He runner neeenea that V! any event, tnat n ls not ratrror tne sollcllars to heal the cost: personally as they were not me only one notalng tne documents bul tnat cnere were a number of them (Inves1ors) 26 IN Eoravschuznrsumhsw ‘Nair s.n.r luvlhnrwlll e. to... o my r... trttmnl mum: flnuavlmt VI nrlurta vtmxl H1 Jnhor holdmg the abcurnents a reason 1 find to be aware of mam because me plammf scum nave nad subpbenas rssueu «or me proaucnan ol me documents but none were rssued [291 Mr Kasmalhan reminded me caun me: as eeny as September 2023, I nad mqulved wnemer grven the lack at preparedness by the p\aInMl, me plamnff wcmd wen cb ccnsldev refilmq airesn but ener being unoonnea «nan Inmnamn may be an rssue, \ had given Inamgennos rbr me parties ta prepare Ibr Ina! Unlanunalely. aeepree me rrmungenees gwen, me plamlfl has favled cc earnply mm me dweclmns even .n me «aee nl bemg wamefl lhal me Conn wvll emke oul ms zchnn conclusion [:0] Ana havmg given me mad counsel var me plalnhll an opportunity m be neam on my me casts ought not to be paid by me plalrmffs eolrbuo-s ee 15 reqmred pursuannb Order 59 rme 5 my (c band 12) R00 and mm no cnmpelhng reasons cannbonung var me nnbus rvorH:nmpl\amns, I awarded costs ac RM 2D,nuD on subpct zb allocalur to be para 10 me defendanlslo be borne bylhesohonolslovlhe plarmmpersanexry Hurlher queued man a notice of me pmbeearngs on 6 December 2023 re I!) be 27 m Emapscnuznrsunahsw mu. s.n.r nmhnrwm .. u... u my r... mn.u-y mum: flnuamnl VI .HuNa v-max grven by the p|aImvlTs solvcnurs to me plalvmfl as pmwaed undev Order 59 r e (5; ROC uaxe 29 January 2024 Judlclnl Com Hiuh coun -x Kualu Lumpur COUNSEL FOR ma PARTIES: For Flnlnllff: Mv lam hm Md Vsa nogmne: mm mm Mr Muhammad Amnr lmrln hm Ammmun) Mls Ian: .5 Partners Selanpor Darul Ehsan For Doma- Mr Kasmathan Tulasu (cogemer wnh mm Mr Ahmad Amur hm Mahmoud) Mls Am 5. Ra1paIG>Iav Kuala Lumvuv [Never ms Grounds of./udgmsnl Is subject la arrow sdflonalrsvmon] 23 m :..a»scnu2nm.mm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Headnnles Case management — Older 34 Rules cl com 2012 - slrlkmg out — Failure lo oomply wlth pre—mal dneulons grven uunng case management desprle halng mfunrled mal lhe cam wlll slnke am the acllon lar any compliance resulled ln me almon belng struck out mm cosls to be home by me solicllors hr the plamtm personally 29 m EnvflvSCNl2hFsnEAssw «mm. Smnl ...m.mm .. U... w may he mm-y mm: mm. VI .mla Wm! summary or net-ndanw do!-nu [3] The first delendanl avers mar ms rme was only mraar down‘ which ne am‘ the wow of me deceased, Nalrah bum Mohamed seems this. ne had assrsned 1he pVaIrmN re omarn me servu-as M a lawyer wno In mm had recommended on Dan‘ sen sunarme Saad who Is sad to have me expemse to nmam the release cl me rnorues rn Maybank [9] The wenaancs assen mar an oeahngs lo daum lar me mease or the monies from Maybank and charges Iemea by Dale‘ sen Suhalme Saad Involved envy the plairmfl, Dalo‘ sen Suhavne Siad and me widow onne deceased, Natrah arm: Manama and nas naming xo do with men- [10] The ma uevenaant demed mat mm: have been paid In nun Instead, all payments were mude dlreclly no Date‘ sen sunarme Saad or to me laners awmml wrm Date’ Sen Suhalme Saad gmng up a wnhen acknuwiedgmem that he has renewed RM4 mllllun managed and para by me plalnhfl: Ind m giving an assurance that me rnomas dalmed of RM250 rmllmn wru be made latest by 31 October 2015 m Enrapficnuznrsumhsw «mm. s.n.r ...m.rnu .. U... a my r... nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum war [111 The (1751 defendant assens that are puarnm had mIs\ed mm mm egraemg to be summed up a director at a company mgamer mm ma plalnllll and me latter had then collected inveslmenls from investors wmrpm me necessary noense (0 do so m cmlravermon :71 me capnan Market servraes Act 2007 or Law: «or me caHeI:tIon M depawt: for mveslmems Avbllcallonl In tnnmr ma min on! [12] An flvnhcallan by me uerenaanu. to have the amen transferred to the Hrgh coun m Jenar aanm was drsrnrssed by Hrs Lordship Anmad Sm Each: .1 mm casts av RM2,ooo no on 1: April 2921 and man appeal to the Court omppeas was drscanlmued and struck out on 25 August 2021 [13] From me coun recoms, me second aevanuanrs applrcamon to have me acuan against her struck out was arse asmrssea by Hrs Laruahrp Ahmad Em aacne J mm casts of RMZDOU no on 13 Ann: 2021, and he! appaa\ In the Conn ol Appall wls dlscormnued and slmck out on 25 Augusl 2021 m Enrapscnuznrsumhsw “Nana s.n.r lunhnrwm be mad a my r... nrW\nuH|y mum: flnuamnl VI mum p-mar can munlnlmnnln [14] Ana! the d|smxssa\ :11 0|: Iwu applications on 13 April 2021, a lula! of 21 case management sessxens Iouk place mm me pames amused to have the mailer mediated as the acimn Invmved family members As It turned am‘ the mediation exevcwse ram, and on 19 June zoza. me court was mfonned mat the names wish lo pmoeed mm the man of me matlev. [15] On 26 June 2023‘ ms tollowmg fllvecimns were gwen by me Veamed Deputy Regxsirar via &Re1/Iewlov me pames ln me by 31 August 2023 n the bundle ov pxeaamgs ("BOP"). IV) their respecllve M51 0! wunesses and In sel out me main pomts men emdance wcmd cover and the length of lime they wm each lake. my a statement at agreed vaus and me pames wete enwuvaged 10 press mm and me pmvwsrons of Ordav 26 av me Runes al com 2012 (“ROC") an Intermgatunes and Order 27 R00 on Admwssmns and in pamcmar Ovdev 27 rule 2 RDC |n reduce me numbev av disputed facts A smemam of nan-agreed van; was to be prepared to ennble pamesla mnoenlvale on what ale the «acts max ave m Enrapscnuznrsumhsw «mm. sm-1 nmhnrwm s. U... a mm s. mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max bemg disputed lolacllllale cmsseximlnallan and armed at veducung me mm m crossexamlnauon. xv) a smemem a1 agreed Issues to be mad with Iha panias enoaumged in mm 41 In mice, v) an agreed chronology at events up in me am of filmg mm chronology, m) an opening statement each If! a lolmut am to cmsmg skelem submussxms and lo oontam at bl d) 3 mm nature of the claim «or 3 g breach oiconlractr the raqmsne elements 0! me cause 0! acnon and where are may pbadad wnn reference to the meanings; the when damvedr (he evwdenma to be relied upon WM bnef reference (0 me documentary and oval evidence that wm be produced and Ihe length oi me reqmlsd hr each wwness. and m Enrapuznuznru-mAssw mm. smuw nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max 9) me Varw to be relied upon, semng our the Ieurslavrerr and me legs! prrncrples mm Ieadmg aumermes m suppon vu) bundles 0! documents (0 he classmed as Paris A, B and C mm the pames re be guided by me Supteme Conn authnnly cl JIIYIV Shurl & SKI Jim-I Halhim V Tin Lip Eng 5 Mar [1597] 4 cu 509 and a) N parlles are unamera agree on documents, may are to press min are orner 27 Me 4 ROC cor documents wmch are pravlsmnally cacegrzrrsea as Part L: documents. b) w names are sun unable to agree, me Pan :2 documents are In be separately bundled with an Index In the formal pravxded marked as ‘Pa?! C Vndax" selling am when Inspedlon was carned am, when Notvues to Aumir were rssuea and reasons «or their nan-adrmssxon A cnpy of the funnel lfllile Part C Index provided In me panies Is set out beluw m Enravschuznrsumhsw “Nana smuw nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mmnuuly mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max Part I: Indox PART C DOCUMENTS INDEX vm) wnness sulements to be mad and are to be In the form M an amaavn wruch n be m nanatwe or on formal When relerenoes ave made tn ma cummnn bundles :2! documents, all names are m refer m them as “IDB 4" and mereaner m numencal ordev These mivkmgs win he adopted an the comrnanoemanl of man so as In mm me necassny of havmg to ma! wuh me Issue of marking relerences In me bundles wmch will save Ivme [15] Al the next case management dale ol 7 September 2023 .) .1 was pomted out by weameu counsel lor me «(en-ianls‘ Mr Kasmaman Tmasw mu. K::|nnth:n")‘ that me m Emapscnuznrsunahsw mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIQG w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Dlavnmfs onaxrn \s In factfor RIMO . on rathevlhan rams nnmoh. He and he a agveeable Vnr the puammv to amend ms dam: to refled such a Claim I then gave me plalmlfi noeny to amend his s1alemenl or claim (-soc") by 12 Suplember 2023 Valhng wmch me Order granting lean to amend Vapses The plamm was also dvecled to me an amended BOP m due course. M learned mumel forth: plalnllfl Imormed me coumhaxshe has yet la me the onrononagy ov events, no u was pmnted out by Mr Kaslnalhan Ihalme plamlflf Need a «rash bundle ov documents me prewous Nah! (5 Saplembel 2023; aha (hit me pxamhu Is ohauangung 43 at me dowmems He savd he haa In lad reverted to the plamnff on the cvassfimalmn of documents by letlev dated Is sopumbor 2:121 (ue twn years ago] couowad by a vemmdev by Iellev dated 23 August 202: 1 -e one year ago) wnh yet another reminder oh 2: Augun znzs be another year later) on the olassmcauon ov the documents but all he got was a phone call hum Mr ldns. the lead counsel lor me plavmfi, Ihsl na wvll raven by Fnday 1 September 21:23 but he never did And, only on s 10 m EnrflD£CM12hFsuEAssw «mo. Snr1I\nmhnrw\HI>e o... a mm o. nflmhuflly MIMI flnuamnl VI mnho v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

P-01(A)-202-03/2020

PERAYU RHB BANK BERHAD RESPONDEN Tan Lay Peng (Wakil Harta Pusaka Pemohon Sebelum Ini Iaitu Tan Leong Huat Si Mati Yang Telah Meninggal Dunia Pada 15.03.2022 Bagi Maksud Prosiding Ini Melalui Surat Kuasa Mentadbir Pa-31ncvc-446-05/2022 Bertarikh 21.06.2022)

Application for Judicial Review - To quash the Industrial Court’s Award- Unfair and Constructive Dismissal- Repatriation From Thailand to Malaysia and failure to report for duty as instructed by the Employer- Whether the occurrence of a fundamental breach of contract of employment is to be gauged by the contract test or by the unreasonableness test- Whether the High Court Judge had directed herself correctly as to the law on constructive dismissal- Whether the transfer was a disguised demotion of the employee and a fundamental breach of the contract of employment with the employer.

05/02/2024

YA Datuk Hanipah Binti FarikullahKorumYA Datuk Hanipah Binti FarikullahYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Datuk See Mee Chun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f8a6643a-61ff-4115-a8f9-d52e68774d81&Inline=true

P-01(A)-202-03 2020 - FINAL GOJ (1).pdf IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-01(A)-202-03/2020 BETWEEN RHB BANK BERHAD AND TAN LEONG HUAT [In The High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang Judicial Review Application No. PA-25-26-06/2019 Dalam Perkara Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan No.1026 Tahun 2019 bertarikh 25.03.2019; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai suatu permohonan untuk Perintah Certiorari di bawah Aturan Aturan 53, Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen 20 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan, 1967; Dan Dalam Perkara Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman, 1964 05/02/2024 14:45:18 P-01(A)-202-03/2020 Kand. 43 S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Between RHB BANK BERHAD And 1. TAN LEONG HUAT 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN, MALAYSIA CORAM: HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH, JCA LEE SWEE SENG, JCA SEE MEE CHUN, JCA S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The present matter was an appeal by RHB Bank Berhad (the appellant) against the order of the High Court Judge which had dismissed Award No 1026 of 2019 dated 25.3.2019. [2] On 25.3.2019, the Industrial Court allowed claims for constructive dismissal brought by the respondent, who was required to relocate to Malaysia from Bangkok, where he had previously worked. [3] [4] This case raises an important question on constructive dismissal: whether the conduct of an employer who is said to have committed a fundamental breach of the contract employment is to be judged by the contract test or unreasonableness test. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal THE BACKGROUND FACTS [5] The facts which are not in dispute for the purposes of this appeal are as follows. The respondent was employed by the appellant on 13.6.2011 as its Vice-President, Operation Head, Thailand Operations. [6] its Operation Head in Bangkok and was required to report to the Head of Thailand Operations, Mr Thiti Musawan and subsequently to the Thailand Country Head, Mr Wong Kee Poh. [7] In November 2013, the appellant opened a second branch in Sri Racha and it was also placed under the supervision of the respondent. [8] In 2014, the appellant embarked on an expansion plan to enlarge Thailand operations wherein the opening of a third branch was envisaged. In view of this expansion plan, the appellant felt that a more senior and experienced candidate was required to assume the role of steering the enhanced and expanded Thailand operations. [9] y Operations and she was required to oversee the combined operations of the Bangkok, S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Sri Racha and the envisaged Ayutthaya branches. With her appointment, [10] At the same time, the appellant was experiencing difficulties in securing a Branch Manager for the intended Ayutthaya Branch, and to experience, he was asked to assume the role of Branch Manager of the Ayuthaya Branch until a suitable Thai national was appointed to the role (1st [11] The respondent did not protest the short-term assignment as the Branch Manager of the Ayutthaya Branch. The respondent was informed by Mr U Chen Hock, Executive Director of Group International Business of the following:- (i) The assignment would not exceed nine (9) months; (ii) His terms and conditions of employment would remain unchanged; and (iii) The appellant will secure a suitable position for him within the Group upon completion of the short-term assignment. [12] Premised on the agreement of the respondent to assume the role of the Branch Manager of the Ayutthaya Branch, the said Branch was opened S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in November 2014. Sometime in early 2015, the appellant successfully secured a suitable Thai national to assume the role of Branch Manager of employment on 16.3.2015. [13] In view of the foregoing, by letter dated 13.2.2015, the respondent was informed that he would be repatriated to Malaysia and he would be transferred to Internal Infrastructure, PMO and Operations Support, Group also informed that:- (i) His personal grade and terms and conditions of employment would remain unchanged; and (ii) He is to report to the Head, International Infrastructure, PMO and Operations Support who will outline his duties and responsibilities. [14] Because of its relevance to the arguments addressed to us, we now set out in a little more detail some inter-partes correspondence between the parties. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [15] The transfer letter to the respondent is as follows: S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [16] The respondent responded to the transfer letter by a letter dated 25.2.2015 which states as follows: S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [17] The respondent objected to his repatriation to Malaysia and failed to report for duty as instructed on 1.3.2015. Subsequently, by letter dated 2.3.2015, the respondent deemed himself as unfairly dismissed. [18] By a letter dated 6.3.2015, the appe allegations of unfair dismissal and directed the respondent to report work S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal immediately, failing which the appellant would assume that the respondent had abandoned his employment with the appellant. [19] The respondent by a letter dated 9.3.2015 maintained his claim for constructive dismissal. Finally, the appellant claimed that the respondent, by failing to report to duty on 2.3.2015, had abandoned his employment. INDUSTRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS [20] The respondent, following the alleged termination of his employment with the appellant by constructive dismissal, presented a complaint for unfair and constructive dismissal. The Industrial Court held that the respondent had on fact on a balance of probabilities proven that he was constructively dismissed. [21] We confine ourselves to those parts of the reasoning of the Industrial Court which are relevant to the constructive dismissal issue. The Industrial Court found that: (i) the act of transferring the respondent was not done bona fidei. (ii) the fact that the respondent was issued a transfer without specifying his position at the GIB had affected his morale and reputation. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [22] The Industrial Court was also of the view that the job scope as a Branch Manager and at the GIB are significantly different. Therefore, the Industrial Court found that the respondent had proven that he was constructively dismissed and ruled that the respondent was dismissed without just cause and excuse and ordered the appellant to pay back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement amounting to RM216,840. [23] The appellant then applied to the High Court for judicial review to quash the Award. The appellant contended that the Award was liable to be quashed as there was error of law in the decision of the Industrial Court. DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT [24] the Award and affirmed the said Award. The grounds relied by the High Court are as follows: Saya dapati bahawa isu-isu berkenaan dengan pemecatan konstruktif terhadap Responden Pertama telah dibutirkan, didengar, diteliti dan dipertimbangkan serta diputuskan oleh Responden Kedua dengan sewajarnya. 26. Beliau telah memutuskan tindakan di hadapan beliau dengan menilai fakta-fakta yang relevan dan mengambilkira tentang fakta-fakta yang S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal diplidkan dan dikemukakan di hadapan beliau. Responden Kedua telah membuat keputusan dengan tidak melampaui bidangkuasanya. 27. Saya juga dapati Pemohon gagal memberi alasan-alasan untuk membuktikan bahawa Awad yang diberikan itu adalah tidak sah (illegal), tidak wajar (irrational) dan salah prosedur (procedural impropriety). 28. Saya dapati Responden Kedua telah melaksanakan budi bicaranya dan kuasanya mengikut prinsip undang-undang terpakai. Responden Kedua tidak terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dan bertindak di dalam bidangkuasanya di dalam memberi Awad. Saya dapati Awad tersebut adalah munasabah dan wajar serta tidak diselubungi dengan ketidaksahan, ketidakwajaran dan prosedur yang betul. Saya bersetuju dengan alasan- alasan yang dinyatakan oleh Responden Kedua dalam pemberian Awadnya [25] In this appeal, the appellant is seeking to set aside the decision of the High Court and the Award by the Industrial Court. ISSUE [26] The main issues for us to consider are: (a) whether the occurrence of a fundamental breach of contract of employment is to be gauged by the contract test or by the unreasonableness test. (b) whether the High Court Judge had directed herself correctly as to the law on constructive dismissal. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (c) whether the transfer was a disguised demotion of the respondent [27] We have heard and considered both the oral and written submissions of learned counsel. We have given careful consideration to the Award of the Industrial Court and the judgment of the High Court. THE LAW [28] Modern employment law is a hybrid of contract and statute. By section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, every employee is given the right not dismissal could be deemed unfair if the employer does not have a good reason for dismissal or does not foll dismissal process. [29] What circumstances can bring about a constructive dismissal is not determined by the Act which is silent on the subject, but by case law. The authorities hold that there must be circumstances amounting to a fundamental or repudiatory breach of contract by the employer. It is well settled that an employee may be entitled to claim that he or she was dismissed even though he or she resigned from employment on the ground S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal that the contract of the employer amounted to a repudiatory breach of the contract. [30] Constructive dismissal arises when an employee is forced to leave the Southern Investment Bank BHD/Southern Bank v Yap Fat [2017] 3 MLJ 327 (CA), constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because of his conduct of the employer and not the conduct of employee - unless waiver, estoppel or acquiescence is in issue. The notion of constructive dismissal An employer must not, without reasonable or proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew [1979] IRLR 84, EAT [31] In Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 92 [1989] 1 CLJ 298 (Rep) at 301, Salleh Abas L P explained the reference to the common law principle. Thus, it would be a dismissal if an employer is guilty of a breach which goes to the root of the contract or if he S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal has evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it. In such situation the employee is entitled to regard the contract as terminated and himself as Bouzourou v The Ottoman Bank [1930] AC 271 ). [32] In case, an employee would have been entitled, according to the Privy Council, to regard himself as being dismissed if his transfer from one province to another province rendered him exposed to an immediately threatening danger of violence or disease to his person. [33] In case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that when the conduct of the employer was such that it rendered the continuance [34] In Quah Swee Khoon v Sime Darby Bhd [2000] 2 MLJ 600, [2001] 1 CLJ 9, adjudication before the Industrial Court into what the profession has come here is no magic in the phrase. It simply means this. An employer does not like a workman. He does not want to dismiss him and face the consequences. He wants to ease the workman out of his organisation. He wants to make the process as painless as possible for himself. He usually employs the subtlest of means. He may, under the guise of exercising the management power of transfer, demote S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the workman. That is what happened in Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [[1988] 1 MLJ 92, [1989] 1 CLJ 298 (Rep)]. Alternatively, he may take steps to reduce the workman in rank by giving him fewer or less prestigious responsibilities than previously held. Generally, speaking, he will make life so unbearable for the workman so as to drive the latter out of employment. In the normal case, the workman being unable to tolerate the acts of oppression and victimisation will tender his whether such departure is a voluntary resignation or a dismissal in truth and [35] Our Courts have always held that disguised demotion amounts to constructive dismissal and that it also amounts to a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the employer entitling the employee to resign. In Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd [2001] 1 CLJ 9, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) clearly explained the principle (at p. 19): An employer does not like a workman. He does not want to dismiss him and face the consequences. He wants to ease the workman out of his organization. He wants to make the process as painless as possible for himself. He usually employs the subtlest of means. He may, under the guise of exercising the management power of transfer, demote the workman. That is what happened in Wong Chee Hong (ibid). Alternatively, he may take steps to reduce the workman in rank by giving him fewer or less prestigious responsibilities than previously held. Generally speaking, he will make life so unbearable for the workman so as to drive the latter out of employment. In the normal case, the workman being unable to tolerate the acts of S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal oppression and victimization will tender his resignation and leave the employer's services. The question will then arise whether such departure is [36] Recently, with gratitude, this court can refer the reader to the thoughtful analysis of these principles and test to be applied in constructive dismissal from the recent judgement of this court in the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v Ahmad Suhairi bin Mat Ali & Anor [2023] 5 MLJ 829 where this court held that: The concept of constructive dismissal is essentially a situation of does not overtly dismiss the employee and says or does nothing to communicate to the employee that he is being dismissed but rather, by reason employee feels that he has been driven out of employment and therefore dismissed. It is important to emphasise that it is not every shade or facet of e to constructive dismissal. [75] respect to the particular employee concerned against the backdrop of constitutes a significant breach going to the root of a contract of employment and it shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the (express or implied) terms of the contract, an employee is entitled to S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal walk out and treat himself as discharged from any further performance of his [37] It is to be noted that the above passage had referred to the case of Wong Chee Hong (supra). In Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd. [1988] 1 MLJ 92 Salleh Abas L. P., in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, elaborated on the legal principles (at p. 94): issue in this appeal is as stated earlier: whether the concept of constructive dismissal has application to the interpretation of section 20 of our Industrial Relations Act. Therefore we must know and be clear precisely in our mind what constructive dismi In England where this expression originated, there had been a great deal of unsettled opinions amongst chairmen of industrial tribunals and also among judges who sat to hear appeals from those tribunals. According to the Court of Appeal in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd. v. Sharp [1978] I.R.L.R. 27, it means no more than the common law right of an employee to repudiate his contract of service where the conduct of his employer is such that the latter is guilty of a breach going to the root of the contract or where he has evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the contract. In such situations, the employee is entitled to regard himself as being dismissed and walk out of his employment. ... Thus, in our judgment the transfer, which relegated the applicant to a position of lesser responsibilities, albeit on the same terms and conditions S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal of service, which transfer the appellant refused to accept, is a dismissal. It clearly shows that not only the respondent company was displeased with the appellant but it also exhibited the respondent company's intention not to be bound by the contract any longer. Such relegation of responsibility with its consequent humiliation and frustration and loss of estimation amongst his fellow employees made it impossible for the appellant to carry on being employed under the respondent company's organization. In other words, he had been driven out of his employment. This is therefore dismissal. (See Cox v. Philips Industries Ltd. [1975] 1 WLR 638 and J. F. Bumpus v. Standard Life Assurance Co. Ltd. [1974] IRLR 232 ... [38] Referring to case, this court in CIMB Bank Berhad reiterated that: The Supreme Court stated unequivocally that the conduct complained of must be measured against the There can be no doubt, as found by the Industrial Court, that the appellant was lawfully doing his duty as the Personnel and Industrial Relations Manager of the respondent company when he negotiated a new collective agreement, represented the respondent company in the negotiations, obtained an award, and implemented it. The reward for lawfully performing his duties was not promotion, but S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal departments, he was reduced to a mere cinema manager, a position which he had held some fifteen years ago as a junior executive. No doubt his terms and conditions of service remained unaltered and the transfer was part of the terms of his employment. But with respect, we cannot accept that either of these two factors or both of them entitled the respondent company to insist upon the appellant to obey its instruction. The respondent company must have known that no man worthy of a minimum self-respect would accept a transfer with a demotion in rank, stripped of all the powers he once enjoyed amongst his fellow employees. This is not a transfer but a demotion, a punishment meted out without any disciplinary action taken. What is worse is that it was inflicted not for doing a wrong act, but for doing the right thing ie to negotiate and conclude a new collective agreement, which ended in an Industrial Court award and to implement it. The appellant may well be hasty in that he did not obtain permission from nor consult his superior officer (MD) before implementing the award, but this error in our view hardly justifies sending the appellant down without power and designation. One of the higher interests of law is surely that an order of the court and this included awards of the Industrial Court must be obeyed; otherwise the system of justice will be thrown helter-skelter with grave consequences, leading to erosion of public confidence in it. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal conditions of service remained unaffected, in our view, sounds so hollow that it belies its truth and sincerity. We have perused the award of the Industrial Court and we fully concur with the comments, observation and findings made in the award regarding these two factors. Thus, in our judgment the transfer, which relegated the applicant to a position of lesser responsibilities, albeit on the same terms and conditions of service, which transfer the appellant refused to accept, is a dismissal. It clearly shows that not only the respondent company was displeased with the appellant but it also intention not to be bound by the contract any longer. Such relegation of responsibility with its consequent humiliation and frustration and loss of estimation amongst his fellow employees made it impossible for the appellant to carry on beinq employed under the respondent employment. This is therefore a dismissal. (Emphasis added.) [14] In the case of Bayer (M) Sdn Bhd v Anwar bin Abd Rahim [1995] MLJU 558; [1996] 2 CLJ 49 (HC) Low Hop Bing JC (as he then was) applied the principle that was enunciated in Wong Chee Hong and reiterated that lucid explanation on the test and the conditions which must be fulfilled in the following words (pp 52 53 of the CLJ report): In my judgment, in order to succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the employer is guilty of a breach which goes to the root of the S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal contract or if the employer has evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it. It is only in such a situation that the employee is entitled to regard the contract as terminated and treat himself as being dismissed. Constructive dismissal does not mean that an employee can automatically terminate the contract when his employer acts or behaves unreasonably towards him. Indeed, if it were so, it is dangerous and can lead to abuse and unsettled industrial relations, Thus, it is settled law that the test applicable in a constructive four conditions must be fulfilled. These conditions are: (1) there must be a breach of contract by the employer; (2) the breach must be sufficiently important to justify the employee resigning; (3) the employee must leave in response to the breach and not for any other unconnected reasons; and (4) he must not occasion any undue delay in terminating the contract, otherwise he will be deemed to have waived the breach and agreed to vary the contract. [15] In Anwar bin Abdul Rahim v Bayer (M) Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 599; [1998] 2 CLJ 197 (CA) Mahadev Shankar JCA affirmed the decision is [16] At pp 605 606 of the MLJ report Justice Shankar said: It has been repeatedly held by our courts that the proper approach in deciding whether constructive dismissal has taken place is not to ask (the unre S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal was such that the employer was guilty of a breach going to the root of the contract or whether he has evinced an intention no longer to be [17] Consequently, that the relevant test for constructive dismissal is the Supreme Court in Wong Chee Hong at (p 95 MLJ) stated: Constructive dismissal does not mean that an employee can automatically terminate the contract when his employer act or behaves unreasonably towards him. Indeed, if it were so, it is [39] The two rival tests referred to as the contract test and the unreasonableness test was explained by Lord Denning in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27. He described the 'contract' test in the following terms (at p.29, para.15): concept which is already well settled in the books on contract under the significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment; or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract; then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer's conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or, alternatively, he may S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal give notice and say he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct [40] With regards to the 'unreasonableness' test, Lord Denning described it as follows: (p.29 para.16). On the other hand, it is said that the words of [para.5(2)(c)] do not express any settled legal concept. They introduce a new concept into contracts of employment. It is that the employer must act reasonably in his treatment of his employees. If he conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, the employee is justified in leaving. He can go, with or without giving notice, and claim compensation for unfair dismissal'. [41] This bring us back to the effect of the Industrial Court decision. We find that the Industrial Court did not apply the contract test. In the present case in the light of the authorities cited above, it had erred to do so. [42] At the risk of being over-laborious, we should state the Industrial Court reasoning as follows: The Court also finds that having assigned the Claimant to the Ayutthaya Branch, the respondent had not justified to this Court why the Claimant was removed in an unholy haste. The Claimant was given a notice of two weeks to report at the headquarters on 2.3.2015. No reasons were S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [25] The Court however finds that in the evidence of COW1, it was only after the Claimant was ordered to be repatriated that one Irin Brance on 16.3.2015. Even that appointment was about a month after the order to transfer. There are no instructions in the letter of 13.2.2015 for the Claimant to hand over duties to any responsible staff at the branch given that it is a bank. The Court finds this odd as the branch was bereft of a This is also notwithstanding the fact that the transfer had nothing to do with [26] The respondent took pains to stress that the assignment was for limited period only but did not deem it fit to put the Claimant on notice that his sojourn in Ayutthaya was pending the recruitment of a local Thai Branch Manager, neither was evidence led by the respondent to show that Irin had already been shortlisted and with her impending appointment, the Claimant would have no place in the Thai operations So this begs question; why the unholy haste? Were there any other reasons? Any decision taken by the management must be above suspicion to satisfy the Court that such exercise was devoid of bad faith. [27] It is most telling in the letter of transfer to Malaysia that the position to be assumed by the Claimant is nowhere to be found. He is merely required to report to the Head of International Infrastructure, PMO and Operations Support where his duties would be outlined later. Upon perusing the Operations Chart of the section, there are three positions reporting to the Head; namely Head, Regional Governance, Supervision & Support, Unit Head of Governance Management and Unit Head of Quality Assurance. The Claimant's post was not clearly stipulated. This again shows that the respondent had not demonstrated bona fide in exercising its management S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal prerogative. The Claimant is considered to be in a fairly senior position in the bank holding that grade of a Vice President (PG6). Taking the events cumulatively, the Court is of the considered view that the Claimant was driven out of his employment. [28] The Court repeats that it is very well aware that matters of transfers are the managements' prerogative. However, it must be vigilant of any oblique motives. Any decision taken by the management must be beyond suspicion to satisfy the Court that such exercise was devoid of bad faith. The Claimant had submitted that case of Wong Chee Hong (supra) and had drawn parallels with the case before this Court. He argued that the facts were similar in that the transfers to a non-defined position and duties and responsibilities with a lower position was in fact a mala fide exercise to drive him out of employment. This Court does not agree that both transfers were non-defined. The transfer to the Ayutthaya Branch was sufficiently defined save for his abrupt removal. However, his second transfer to Malaysia was not sufficiently defined. [29] The Claimant in bolstering his position that his duties and functions had been significantly reduced cited the case of Fact System (M) Sdn. Bhd v. Faridah Rohani [2006] 4 ILR 2321. The Court finds that the case of Fact System (supra) can be distinguished as the Claimant in Fact System was stripped off of all responsibilities and authority as a General Manager unlike the case before this Court. Nevertheless, the fact that the Claimant was issued a transfer order without specifying his position at the GIB had affected his morale and reputation. The Court also finds that the job scope as a S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] The Industrial Court went on to say: The Claimant had submitted that the appointment of Marina was a prelude to take the Claimant out of his employment. Unfortunately, the Court must put it on record that the Claimant had never pleaded anything about the appointment of Marina Chin or that such action was tantamount to getting rid of him. [31] The Claimant also submitted on the case of Ngiam Foon v. Mayflower Acme Tours Sdn. Bhd. (2008) 1 ILR 538 to emphasize its point that the respondent had acte mala fide in the transfer as he was transferred to a lower category. The Court respectfully is unable to agree with the submissions as the case of Ngiam Foon (supra) can be distinguished. Ngiam Foon was an Executive Director and a General Manager unlike the Claimant. [32] It was also the submission of the Claimant relying on the case of Chong Lee Fah v New Straits Time Press [2005] 4 CLH 605 the right to transfer are not without restrictions as the respondent lacks bona-fide. Again, the Court is unable to find supporting evidence to substantiate the claim. Further, this point was directed against the appointment of Marina [44] The respondent on the other hand submitted that the transfer of a worker is a managerial prerogative citing the case of Ladang Holyrood v Ayasamy Manikam & Ors [2004] 2 CLJ 69, Ikeda IOM Holdings ( M) Sdu. Bhd. v. Gan Poh Jin [1995] 1 ILR 297 and Saiful Bahari Abdul S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Rashid v. Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd. [2012] 2 LNS 0324. The Court finds that although it is a managerial prerogative, it must be exercised in good faith. None appears to be present here. The Court finds that the Claimant had proven that the acts of transferring him were not done bona fide that there are no obligations on its part to consult with the Claimant prior to his transfer. Notwithstanding the non-requirement, COW1 had discussed [Emphasis added] [45] Based on its reasoning above, the Industrial Court had clearly gone into the bone fide considering whether there was a breach of contract when the appellant was transferred by the respondent to GIB. [46] In the light of the authorities which we have already referred above, we are satisfied that the Industrial Court had erred in law in failing to apply the proper legal test in a case of constructive dismissal. [47] The Industrial Court also held that the respondent was constructively dismissed by the appellant based on the ground that the job scope as Branch Manager in Bangkok and at the GIB are significantly different. [48] On this issue, the appellant relied on the evidence of COW-1 to support its position that the scope of work that will be assumed by the respondent in S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal GIB is not Operations and his previous experiences. In fact, we note that this evidence remained unchallenged by the respondent. [49] It is trite that findings of facts made with no evidence to support the same in the decision-making process, are clearly errors of law which warrant those findings being interfered by the higher courts. CONCLUSION [50] The test based on settled principles that was to be applied when assessing a claim for constructive dismissal had not been correctly applied by the Industrial Court and the High Court as set out in its judgement. The correct test to apply is whether there was a fundamental breach of the express or implied terms of the contract of employment. [51] judicial review not because it considered that there had been a fundamental breach of the contract by the employer but because it considered the decision or Award by the Industrial Court to be reasonable, not irrational, no procedural impropriety and it is within its jurisdiction. S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [52] It is nevertheless arguable, that reasonableness is one of the tools in a fundamental breach. There are likely to be cases in which it is useful. But it cannot be a legal test. [53] For these reasons, we allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court. Dated: 4 February 2024 Signed HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Putrajaya Counsel/Solicitors: For the appellants : N. Sivabalah with Jamie Goh Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah Kwong Hing No. 1, Leboh Ampang, City Centre 50100 Kuala Lumpur For the respondent : Devanathan a/l Seperamaniam, Jec Siose & Chen Hui Ken Messrs Jec Siose & Co. D-4-5, Medan Connaught @ Centre Point Jalan 1, Jalan 3/144A 56000 Kuala Lumpur S/N OmSmP9hFUGodUuaHdNgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AH-A73KJ-12-01/2022

PLAINTIF TING HOCK TIONG DEFENDAN 1. ) CHANDRA A/L SURINARAYANAN 2. ) YUEN TUNG ENGINEERING WORKS

Permohonan pindaan pernyataan tuntutan di bawah aturan 20 kaedah 5 KKM 2012- Pemfailan permohonanpindaan pernyataan tuntutan selepas 22 bulan pemfailan writ saman dan setelah perbicaraan penuh selesai serta diperingkat hujahan - adakah permohonan dianggap bona fide- adakah permohonan prejudis pihak-pihak, adakah permohonan dianggap pemikiran terkemudian

05/02/2024

Puan Nurul Izalina Binti Rajaai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d01a21d6-0b6c-45cd-9da6-8d3d72b2ec6f&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP AH_A73KJ_12_01_2022 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET SERI MANJUNG DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AH-A73KJ-12-01/2022 ANTARA TING HOCK TIONG (NO. K/P: 680322-08-5935) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. CHANDRA A/L SURINARAYANAN (NO. K/P: 660901-07-5741) 2. YUEN TUNG ENGINEERING WORKS (NO PEN. PERNIAGAAN: IP0125968W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Perkara di hadapan Mahkamah ialah Notis Permohonan di Kandungan 37 (Notis Permohonan) oleh Plaintif iaitu permohonan di bawah Aturan 20 Kaedah 5 Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi satu perintah untuk meminda Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 20.1.2022 dengan menambah/memasukkan perenggan 5A, 9A dan prayer (a) di dalam perenggan 10 di dalam pernyataan tuntutan tersebut. 05/02/2024 17:09:45 AH-A73KJ-12-01/2022 Kand. 72 S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 KRONOLOGI PERMOHONAN KANDUNGAN 37 [2] Plaintif telah memfailkan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan pada 26.1.2022 dan tarikh pengurusan kali pertama telah ditetapkan pada 25.2.2022. Lanjutan daripada itu, pihak-pihak telah diarahkan untuk memfailkan pembelaan dan seterusnya memfailkan ikatan dokumen perbicaraan. [3] Pada 12.8.2022, Mahkamah telah menetapkan bahawa pliding telah ditutup, pihak-pihak telah memfailkan semua ikatan dokumen perbicaraan dan TIADA LAGI PERMOHONAN INTERLOKUTORI DIBENARKAN.Peguam Plaintif dan Defendan kemudiannya mengemukakan tarikh perbicaraan masing-masing dan Mahkamah menetapkan tarikh bicara pada 2.11.2022. [4] Pada tarikh 2.11.2022 perbicaraan tidak dapat dijalankan kerana menurut Peguam Plaintif, pihak-pihak dalam penyelesaian luar mahkamah. Oleh kerana itu perbicaraan ditangguhkan dan Mahkamah telah menetapkan tarikh pada 6.3.2023 untuk perbicaraan. [5] Pada 6.3.2023 Peguam Defendan melalui suratnya memohon penangguhan bahawa pihaknya perlu meneliti dokumen yang baru diserahkan oleh Peguam Plaintif dan memaklumkan bahawa saksi Pegawai Penyiasat tidak dapat hadir pada tarikh tersebut. Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan penangguhan tersebut. S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [6] Pada 9.6.2023, perbicaraan kes telah berlangsung dengan 1 saksi Plaintif dan berterusan sehinggalah kes Plaintif ditutup pada 21.7.2023. Defendan telah memulakan dan menutup kesnya pada 25.8.2023 dan Mahkamah telah mengarahkan untuk pihak-pihak memfailkan hujahan bertulis pada 22.9.2023 dan keputusan kes pada 13.10.2023. [7] Namun begitu pada 10.10.2023, Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan di Kandungan 37 ke Mahkamah. Alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif bagi menyokong permohonan tersebut adalah seperti berikut :- i. Permohonan pindaan ini boleh dibuat di mana-mana peringkat prosiding; ii. Pemohonan pindaan bersifat bona fide iaitu tidak menambah kausa tindakan baru dan menukar sifat tuntutan; iii. Permohonan pindaan tidak prejudis atau menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada Defendan-defendan kerana Defendan-defendan boleh memfailkan pembelaan terpinda; iv. Sekiranya permohonan tidak dibenarkan akan menyebabkan Plaintif tidak dipampas akibat tindakan Defendan-defenan memutar belit kejadian; v. Perkara dan isu yang dipinda telahpun dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan penuh. [8] Manakala Defendan-defendan membantah permohonan Plaintif atas alasan- alasan berikut:- S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 i. Permohonan pindaan oleh Plaintif bersifat mala-fide kerana Defendan- defendan tidak dapat menyoal balas saksi kerana perbicaraan penuh telahpun selesai dan diperingkat hujahan; ii. Pindaan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif yang merujuk kepada Laporan Polis yang mana Plaintif telah pun mempunyai pengetahuan sebelumnya; iii. Plaintif gagal mengemukakan alasan kelewatan memfailkan permohonan pindaan pernyataan tuntutan di dalam permohonnya; iv. Permohonan pindaan ini adalah satu tindakan pemikiran terkemudian; v. Alasan permohonan oleh Plaintif bahawa Defendan-defendan memutar belit kejadian adalah alegasi serius dan tidak wajar dan ia adalah tanggungjawab Mahkamah untuk menentukan perkara tersebut. [9] Pada 15.12.2023, setelah meneliti hujahan-hujahan bertulis dari Peguam Plaintif dan Defendan yang terpelajar, Mahkamah ini memutuskan menolak permohonan Plaintif di Kandungan 37 dengan kos RM500 dibayar kepada Defendan. ALASAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [10] Jelas lagikan bersuluh bahawa permohonan di Kandungan 37 difailkan pada 10.10.2023 iaitu setelah perbicaraan penuh telah selesai pada 25.8.2023. Pihak-pihak sedia maklum bahawa writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan kes ini S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 telah difailkan pada 26.1.2022. Maka Mahkamah memandang serius bahawa terdapat kelewatan yang keterlaluan di dalam permohonan ini iaitu lebih kurang 22 bulan dari tarikh Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan difailkan oleh Plaintif. [11] Mahkamah ini sediamaklum bahawa peruntukan di bawah Aturan 20 Kaedah 5 KKM 2012 tidak menyatakan tempoh masa pemfailan permohonan atau tiada had peringkat kes dijalankan, namun berdasarkan prinsip undang-undang yang mantap, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa permohonan untuk pindaan pernyataan tuntutan hendaklah dibuat dalam suatu tempoh yang munasabah sebelum sesuatu perbicaraan dijalankan. Namun di dalam kes ini permohonan pindaan bukan saja mengambil masa yang amat panjang tetapi difailkan hanya setelah perbicaraan penuh selesai. [12] Mahkamah turut mendapati bahawa tidak satupun di dalam afidavit Plaintif menjelaskan kelewatan memfailkan permohonan di Kandungan 37 dan hal ini adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip undang-undang iaitu penjelasan adalah wajib sekiranya permohonana pindaan pernyataan tuntutan difailkan tidak secepat mungkin. [13] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah ini menolak alasan plaintif yang hanya bergantung kepada alasan “bona fide” kerana tindakan memfailkan permohonan pindaan pernyataan tuntutan ini telah melewati 22 bulan dari tarikh pemfailan writ saman dan tiada penjelasan berkenaan hal itu, maka permohonan ini tidak boleh dikatakan sebagai “bona fide” malah ianya adalah tidak wajar, keterlaluan dan tidak bermerit. S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [14] Dalam mencapai dapatan dan hasil analisa, Mahkamah ini merujuk kes Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd v. UTS Management Service Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 2069 [2020] MLJ 2259, kes Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe and Another Appeal [2015] 8 CLJ 1; [2016] 1 MLJ 301, kes Taisho Company Sdn Bhd v. Pan Global Equities Bhd & Anor [1999] 1 CLJ 703 dan kes Raphael Pura v. Insas Bhd & Anor [2000] 4 CLJ 830. Kesimpulan [15] Setelah meneliti semua keterangan dan hujahan secara total, Mahkamah ini memutuskan adalah adil dan wajar permohonan plaintif untuk kebenaran meminda penyata tuntutan ditolak dengan kos RM500.00 berdasarkan alasan- alasan yang telah dihuraikan. Bertarikh: 5 Februari 2024 Disediakan oleh: …………………………………….……………… (NURUL IZALINA BINTI RAJAAI) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret (Sivil) Seri Manjung, Perak S/N 1iEa0GwLzUWdpo09crLsbw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-25-36-06/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) MOHD KAMILZUHAIRI BIN ABD AZIZ 2. ) AB RAZAK BIN HASAN 3. ) MOHD NASSIR BIN SAHAR RESPONDEN 1. ) PENDAKWA SYARIE SELANGOR 2. ) KETUA PENDAKWA SYARIE SELANGOR 3. ) Pendakwa Raya

[1] The applicants filed an application for leave to commence judicial review pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court (“ROC 2012”) on 21 June 2023.[2] The Honourable Attorney General objected to this application for leave. [3] This court dismissed this application by the applicants for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. This is the grounds of this court in dismissing the applicants’ application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.

05/02/2024

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bb00b1e0-df37-4810-bf3a-4d17e98f04d9&Inline=true

1 BA-25-36-06/2023 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-36-06/2023 Dalam perkara Perkara-Perkara 3, 8, 10 dan 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 12(c), 49 dan 52 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Selangor) 1995; Dan Dalam perkara pertuduhan oleh Responden Pertama terhadap Pemohon Pertama yang dibacakan pada 23 Mac 2023 di Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Selangor di Gombak Barat atas kesalahan yang didakwa dilakukan pada 6 September 2019 di bawah seksyen 52 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Selangor) 1995 dibaca bersama seksyen 12(c) Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Selangor) 1995; Dan Dalam perkara pertuduhan oleh Responden Pertama terhadap Pemohon Ke-2 dan Pemohon Ke-3 yang dibacakan pada 23 Mac 2023 di Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Selangor di Gombak Barat atas kesalahan yang didakwa dilakukan pada 6 September 2019 di bawah seksyen 49 05/02/2024 16:28:33 BA-25-36-06/2023 Kand. 37 S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-36-06/2023 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Selangor) 1995; Dan Dalam perkara Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah Di Negeri Selangor bertarikh 7 October 2013 dan diterbitkan sebagai Sel. P.U. 146 dalam Warta Kerajaan Selangor bertarikh 17 Oktober 2013; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen 25 dan perenggan 1 Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. ANTARA 1. MOHD KAMILZUHAIRI BIN ABD AZIZ (NO. K/P: 661006-08-5251) 2. AB RAZAK BIN HASAN (NO. K/P: 480220-04-5039) 3. MOHD NASSIR BIN SAHAR (NO. K/P: 690929-07-5409) …PEMOHON-PEMOHON S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-36-06/2023 DAN 1. PENDAKWA SYARIE SELANGOR 2. KETUA PENDAKWA SYARIE SELANGOR 3. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The applicants filed an application for leave to commence judicial review pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court (“ROC 2012”) on 21 June 2023. [2] The Honourable Attorney General objected to this application for leave. [3] This court dismissed this application by the applicants for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. This is the grounds of this court in dismissing the applicants’ application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. Reliefs Sought [4] The applicants sought the following reliefs in Enclosure 1 (which was subsequently amended as per Enclosure 31) as reproduced below: S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-36-06/2023 “1. If necessary, an extension of time be granted to the applicants to file this application for judicial review and the application for leave to file this judicial review; 2. That the applicants be granted leave by this Honourable Court to apply for judicial review pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the following relief: (A) A declaration that the religion of Islam of Syiah sect may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of Malaysia; (B) A declaration that every person has the right to profess and practise the religion of Islam of Syiah sect pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution; (C) A declaration that sub-items i) to x) of item 2 of the Fatwa Sighah in relation to the Syiah’s teaching in the State of Selangor (“Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah Di Negeri Selangor”) dated 7 October 2013 and published as Sel. P.U. 146 in the Government of Selangor Gazette dated 17 October 2013 is void; (D) A writ of certiorari be issued against the first respondent and/or the second respondent for the following charges by the first respondent be removed to this Honorable Court and be quashed immediately: i. the charge against the first applicant read on 23 March 2023 in the Selangor Syariah Suborinate Court at Gombak Barat for committing on 6 September 2019 the offence of attempting to act in contempt religious S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-36-06/2023 authority by defying the direction of the mufti expressed in item 2 vi) of the Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah Di Negeri Selangor and thereby committing an offence under section 52 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 read with section 12(c) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995; ii) The charges against the second applicant and the third applicant each read on 23 March 2023 in the Selangor Syariah Subordinate Court at Gombak Barat each for committing on 6 September 2019 the offence of abetting the first applicant in attempting to act in contempt religious authority by defying the direction of the mufti expressed in item 2 vi) of the Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah Di Negeri Selangor by participating together with the first applicant in the same event and thereby committing an offence under section 49 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995; and/or any amended charges arising from the above charges. (E) A writ prohibition be issued against the first respondent and/or second respondent prohibiting the first respondent and/or second respondent from commencing or continuing with any proceeding including preferring any charge in the Syariah Court based on the Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah Di Negeri Selangor; S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-36-06/2023 (F) Any other additional directions, orders or prerogative writs as a remedy to the applicants that the Honorable Court might hereafter finds fit and/or suitable to the circumstances of this case; (G) The cost of this application; and (H) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.” Factual Background [5] The facts of this case are garnered from documents filed before this court. [6] On 17 October 2013, the Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah di Negeri Selangor [Sel. P.U.146.] (“the Impugned Fatwa”) was gazetted to come into effect in the state of Selangor. The Impugned Fatwa could be summarised into two parts. The first part stated that the understanding and teachings of the Syiah sect is contrary to and deviates from the real teachings of Islam according to the views of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jama’ah for reasons stated therein. [7] The second part of the Impugned Fatwa went on the state that the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor decided on what and how certain acts – all of which relate to the teachings, beliefs, and/or understandings of the Syiah sect – by any Muslim, whether individually or in a group, are to be deemed as practicing the teachings, beliefs and understandings which contravene the true teachings of Islam. Any Muslim who committed the matters mentioned in the second part of the Impugned Fatwa commits an S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-36-06/2023 offence and action can be taken under laws which are in force in the state of Selangor. [8] The applicants averred that they profess and practise the teachings of the Syiah sect, one of the major sects in Islam apart from Sunni or Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Specifically, the applicants state that they profess and practise Syiah Ja’fariyah (one of the 12 denominations of Syiah sect). [9] A major practice of the Syiah sect is to commemorate the martyrdom of Husayn bin Ali, which occurred on the 10th day of the month of Muharram in 61 A.H. (year 680 CE), known by the Syiahs as the day of Ashura (“the Commemoration”). As averred by the applicants, Husayn bin Ali is the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him, the last and final Prophet in Islam), and the Commemoration took place annually for a span of the first 10 nights every Muharram before the day of Ashura. [10] On 6 September 2019, a group of individuals including the first applicant organised a closed event for the purpose of the Commemoration (“the event”) which took place at No 9C, Jalan SG 3/16, Taman Sri Gombak, 68100 Batu Caves, Selangor. This event was also attended by the second and third applicants. [11] At or about 10 pm on 6 September 2019, the event was raided by the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (“JAIS”), and the applicants together with 19 other attendees were detained and brought to the Pejabat Agama Islam Daerah Gombak for investigation. They were released on 7 September 2019. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-36-06/2023 [12] Subsequently, on 23 March 2023, the applicants were charged in the Selangor Syariah Subordinate Court at Gombak Barat for committing the following offences (“the Impugned Charges”) on 6 September 2019: (i) in respect of the first applicant, the offence of attempting to act in contempt religious authority by defying the direction of the mufti expressed in item 2 vi) of the Impugned Fatwa and thereby committing an offence under section 52 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 read with section 12(c) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995; and (ii) in respect of the second and third applicants each, the offence of abetting the first applicant in attempting to act in contempt religious authority by defying the direction of the mufti expressed in item 2 vi) of the Impugned Fatwa by participating together with the first applicant in the same event and thereby committing an offence under section 49 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995. [13] This led to the filing of this present application by the applicants. [14] Item 2 vi) of the Impugned Fatwa is reproduced as follows: “mana-mana orang Islam sama ada secara individu atau berkumpulan yang mengajar, menganjur, mengadakan, membantu menjayakan apa-apa perayaan, sambutan keraian atau majlis yang boleh dikaitkan dengan fahaman Syiah adalah disifatkan mengamalkan ajaran, pegangan dan fahaman yang S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-36-06/2023 bercanggah dengan ajaran Islam yang sebenar” (emphasis added in the charge sheets containing the Impugned Charges) (any person professing Islam who, whether individually or in a group, teach, organise, hold, assist to make happen any celebration, carnival, festival, or party which can be linked to the understandings of Syiah, is deemed to be practicing the teachings, beliefs and understandings which is contrary to the true teachings of Islam)” [Emphasis added] The Law [15] With regard to the law applicable for leave to commence judicial review, there are numerous authorities on this point. The Federal Court in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2012] 4 CLJ 478 expounded the test for leave to commence judicial review as reproduced below: “[12] …Without the need to go into depth of the abundant authorities, suffice if we state that leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though ie unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged.” [16] The test laid down for leave to commence a judicial review in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd (supra) are as follows: S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-36-06/2023 (i) whether the subject matter is amenable to judicial review; and if so, (ii) from the materials available, whether the application is frivolous and if not thought as frivolous and if leave is granted, consider that the applicant has an arguable case which lean towards him obtaining the relief sought at the end of substantive hearing. [17] The principles governing applications for leave to commence judicial review proceedings have also been set out in Tang Kwor Ham & Ors v. Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd & Ors [2006] 1 MLRH 507; [2006] 1 CLJ 927; [2006] 5 MLJ 60 at 69 where Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) held: “[10] …. the High Court should not go into the merits of the case at the leave stage. Its role is only to see if the application for leave is frivolous…. So too will the court be entitled to refuse leave if it is a case where the subject matter of the review is one which by settled law (either written law or the common law) is non-justiciable.” [18] Additionally, the Supreme Court in Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia v. Malayan Commercial Banks Association [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 33 (SC) stated the requirement for the application to challenge an Industrial Court Award to show, prima facie, that it is not frivolous or vexatious and there is substance in the proposed challenge. The Supreme Court stated: S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-36-06/2023 “At the outset of the hearing of the appeal before us, we indicated to the parties that we would hear submissions on the issue of leave only… The guiding principles ought to be that the applicants must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. On the evidence in this case we found that the appellants had prima facie an arguable case for the granting of the relief they were seeking. Their application was not frivolous or vexatious. There were grounds to consider the allegations made by the appellants and which could only be properly heard and determined on the substantive application for an order of certiorari after leave has been granted.” [19] It is trite that the applicant will have to satisfy the tests propounded in the abovementioned cases in order to secure the leave to commence the judicial review proceedings. At this stage, the court need not go into the merits of the case, but only to see if the subject matter is amenable to judicial review or whether the application for leave is frivolous. Objection by The Honourable Attorney General [20] This application for leave was objected to by the Honourable Attorney General. The Honourable Attorney General submitted that the application for leave should be dismissed on the following grounds: (a) the application is filed out of time; (b) the Impugned Charges are not amenable to judicial review by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution; S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-36-06/2023 (c) justiciability of the Impugned Fatwa; and (d) the applicants failed to name relevant parties in the application. Decision of this Court Application is filed out of time [21] Learned Senior Federal Counsel for the Honourable Attorney General submitted that Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012 prescribes a specific time limitation for applications seeking leave for judicial review. For ease of reference, the provision is reproduced below: “(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.” [22] The Federal Court cases cited in support of this contention are Wong Kin Hoong & Anor (suing for themselves and on behalf all of the occupants of Kampung Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang) v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor [2013] 4 MLJ 161; Mersing Omnibus Co Sdn Bhd v Minister Of Labour and Manpower & Anor [1983] 2 MLJ 54 and Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Alcatel- Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 1 MLJ 563. [23] The learned Senior Federal Counsel took the position that an application for judicial review to contest the Impugned Fatwa should have been submitted within three months from the date of its S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-36-06/2023 gazetting. The Impugned Fatwa was gazetted on 17 October 2013. It was submitted that the current application was lodged on 21 June 2023, and hence the application before this court is beyond the stipulated timeframe as it is filed, to lend the words of the Learned Senior Federal Counsel, “almost exactly” 10 years after the date of gazettement. [24] It is observed that the applicants had in their application for leave to commence judicial review, sought an extension of time as follows: “1. Sekiranya perlu, satu perlanjutan masa diberikan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon untuk memfailkan permohonan semakan kehakiman ini dan permohonan kebenaran untuk memohon semakan kehakiman ini.” [25] The learned Senior Federal Counsel acknowledged that Order 53 Rule 3(7) of ROC 2012 allows the court to extend the time specified in rule 3(6) if the court considers that there is a good reason for doing so. Nonetheless, according to the learned Senior Federal Counsel, no such reason is given by the applicants before this court and hence this court ought to dismiss the application for extension of time. [26] The applicants on the other hand argued that the time frame begins when the applicants were charged in court on 23 March 2023. This application for leave to commence judicial review was filed on 21 June 2023. Hence, it was argued that this application was file within time. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-36-06/2023 [27] As apparent from the papers filed, the decision that is being challenged in this judicial review is the Impugned Charges against the applicants. Following from the decision to charge the applicants, this application for judicial review was filed. [28] It is a fact that the Impugned Fatwa was gazetted on 17 October 2013, but the grievance of the applicants is founded upon Impugned Charges which is preferred based on the Impugned Fatwa. [29] It is the considered view of this court that the time frame for the filing of this application for judicial review commences from the time the applicants were charged which was on 23 March 2023. It cannot be that the applicants are required to challenged the Impugned Fatwa when there were no decision taken against them. This court therefore finds this objection to be without merit and the objection is hereby dismissed. The Impugned Charges are not amenable to judicial review by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution [30] Learned Senior Federal Counsel on behalf of the Honourable Attorney General argued that the Impugned Charges are not amendable to judicial review. This is by virtue of the provision of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. [31] In this regard, Article 121 (1A) Federal Constitution reads: “121. (1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-36-06/2023 [32] In relation to the applicability of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution in this case and the approach this court should adopt, this court considered the case of Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai v. Shaik Zolkaffily Shaikh Natar & Ors [2003] 1 MLRA 283; [2003] 3 MLJ 705; [2003] 3 CLJ 289; [2003] 4 AMR 501 where the Federal Court held: “[16] In Abdul Shaik bin Md Ibrahim, Abdul Hamid Mohamed J held that the case is not removed from the jurisdiction of the Syariah court merely because the plaintiffs have prayed for the remedy of declarations. His Lordship did not follow Isa Abdul Rahman but followed Soon Singh which adopted the ‘subject matter’ approach rather than the ‘remedy prayed for’ approach… ….. [21] We respectfully agree with Abdul Hamid Mohamad J that Isa Abdul Rahman cannot be supported. ….. [27] With respect, the Court of Appeal, in our view, fell into the same error as the learned judge in taking ‘the remedy prayed for’ approach instead of the ‘subject matter approach’….” [Emphasis added] [33] Further, in Azizah bte Shaik Ismail & Anor v. Fatimah bte Shaik Ismail & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 529; [2003] 1 MLRA 570; [2003] 4 CLJ 281; [2002] 4 AMR 4437, the Federal Court held: S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-36-06/2023 “[5] This appeal has again raised the question of jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and the High Court. If the Syariah Court has jurisdiction over the matter, the High Court does not have jurisdiction over it – art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. That calls for the determination of the approach that the court should take in determining the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. [6] This court has very recently decided on this point in Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai v. Shaik Zolkaffily Shaikh Natar & Ors [2003] 1 MLRA 283; [2003] 3 MLJ 705; [2003] 3 CLJ 289; [2003] 4 AMR 501. In that case, the subject matter was the adjudication and administration of the will of a deceased Muslim, even though the respondents (plaintiffs in the High Court) had prayed for remedies of a declaration that the land in question be surrendered to the estate of Shaik Eusoff bin Shaik Latiff, deceased, a declaration that the land in question be vested upon the respondents as executors of the deceased’s estate and for an account and, in the alternative, the respondents prayed for damages and an injunction. [7] Haidar CJ (Malaya) (delivering the judgment of the court) surveyed the earlier judgments of this court, the Supreme Court as well of the High Court and concluded: We respectfully agree with Abdul Hamid Mohamad J that Isa Abdul Rahman cannot be supported. [8] It should be noted that ‘Isa Abdul Rahman’ is the case of Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang lwn Isa Abdul Rahman dan satu yang lain [1992] 1 MLRA 240; [1992] 2 MLJ 244; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 2010. In that case, even though the land and mosque in issue were a ‘wakaf am’, the Supreme Court held that since the real order asked for by the S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-36-06/2023 respondents was a perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant or its agents from demolishing the said mosque and to restrain the appellant from taking any preliminary steps to demolish the mosque and erect a commercial building on the site and since the Syariah Courts did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction, therefore the High Court had jurisdiction over the suit. This approach is what has become known as ‘the remedy approach’. Secondly, the decision of Abdul Hamid Page 8 of 28 Mohamad J (as he then was) referred to in the judgment of Haidar CJ (Malaya) refers to the case of Abdul Shaik bin Md Ibrahim & Anor v Hussien bin Ibrahim & Ors [1999] 5 MLJ 618 (HC) which adopted the ‘subject matter’ approach. [9] Therefore, this court has put to rest that the subject matter approach should be adopted. [10] In this case, there is not doubt that the subject matter of the case is the custody of the child. That clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. Even learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that. His argument was that since the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus, the civil court had the jurisdiction to issue the same in this case. The short answer to that argument is that habeas corpus is the remedy sought and not the subject matter of the case. [11] Since the subject matter in question is the custody of the child and since that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, by virtue of the provisions of art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the High Court has no jurisdiction over the matter.” [Emphasis added] S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 BA-25-36-06/2023 [34] Founded on the authorities cited, this court is of the considered view the approach when deciding the applicability of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution is the “subject matter” approach. [35] In this case, the remedy that is being sought is a declaration and a certiorari. In support of this leave application, the applicants have cited Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution pertaining to the freedom of religion. [36] While the applicants have cited constitutionality issue as their grounds for this leave application to be granted, the approach to be taken as determined by superior courts cited is the subject matter approach. In this case, the subject matter that is being challenged is the Impugned Charges and consequently the Impugned Fatwa. [37] Now, does the subject matter of this judicial review application fall within the ambit of the civil courts or the syariah courts? [38] The Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Ninth Schedule provides: “List II—State List 1. Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trusts; Wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and the incorporation of persons in respect of Islamic religious and charitable endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs; Zakat, Fitrah and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue; mosques or any S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 BA-25-36-06/2023 Islamic public place of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List; the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law; the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam; the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine and Malay custom.” [Emphasis added] [39] The State List manifestly confers power on the state legislatures to create laws regarding the matters provided as reproduced above. [40] Sections 52, 12(c), and 49 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, which make up the basis of the charges against the applicants, are reproduced below: “52. Attempts (1) Any person who attempts- (a) to commit any offence punishable under this Enactment or under any other written law relating to Islamic Law; or (b) to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of such offence shall, where no express provision is made in this Enactment or such other written law, as the case may be, for the punishment of such attempt, be liable to be punished with such punishment as is provided for such offence. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 BA-25-36-06/2023 (2) Any term of imprisonment imposed as a punishment under subsection (1) for an attempt to commit an offence or to cause an offence to be committed shall not exceed one half of the maximum term of imprisonment provided for the offence. 12. Contempt of religious authorities Any person who acts in contempt of the lawful authority, or defies, disobeys or disputes the lawful orders or directions, of- (a) His Royal Highness the Sultan in His capacity as the Head of the religion of Islam; (b) the Majlis; (c) the Mufti, expressed or given by way of a fatwa, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. 49. Punishment for abetment Any person who abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, notwithstanding that the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be liable to the punishment provided for the offence.” [Emphasis added] [41] The facts of this case are that, the Mufti had issued a fatwa banning the practice of Syiah teachings, specifically Fatwa Sighah Berkaitan Ajaran Syiah di Negeri Selangor (the Impugned Fatwa). The applicants were charged for the offence of violating the Impugned Fatwa. It would appear to this court that jurisdiction is vested in the S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 BA-25-36-06/2023 Selangor Syariah Subordinate Court to try these offences. This is pursuant to section 62(2)(a) of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 (“2003 Enactment”) which provides: “62. Jurisdiction of Syariah Subordinate Court (2) The Syariah Subordinate Court shall- (a) in its criminal jurisdiction, try any offence committed by a Muslim under the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment (Selangor) 1995 or any other written law which prescribes offences against the precepts of the religion of Islam for which the punishment provided by such Enactment or other written law does not exceed three thousand ringgit, or imprisonment for a term of two years or both, and may impose any punishment provided for such offences; and” [Emphasis added] [42] Consequently, the Impugned Charges are not amenable to judicial review pursuant to Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution which dispossess the civil courts of jurisdiction in matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. Article 121 and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution reads as follows: “121. Judicial power of the Federation (1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely— (a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 BA-25-36-06/2023 Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and (b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; (c) (Repealed) and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law. (1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” [Emphasis added] [43] There are numerous authorities to support this contention that the civil courts does not have jurisdiction in respect matters within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. The Federal Court in the case of Rosliza bt Ibrahim v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 181 stated: “[103] All judicial power vests solely in the civil superior courts as per the basic structure of our FC ingrained in art 121. However, art 121(1A) dispossess the civil courts of jurisdiction ratione materiae once it is established that the subject-matter of the suit is one which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts… … S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 BA-25-36-06/2023 [138] An important event took place in 1998. A new clause was added to the FC. The new cl (1A) of art 121 of the FC, with effect from 10 June 1988, provides that the civil courts shall have no jurisdiction with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. The new clause has taken away the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. If a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, the civil court has no jurisdiction over it (see Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang lwn Isa Abdul Rahman & satu yang lain [1992] 2 MLJ 244; [1992] 3 CLJ 1675 (‘Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang v. Isa Abdul Rahman’), Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v. Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793; [1993] 1 CLJ 264 (‘Mohamad Habibullah Mahmood’) and Soon Singh a/l Bikar Singh v. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah & Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 1 AMR 1211). [139] It is trite that only the FC is supreme; the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature are subject to the FC (see Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals (No 1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277; [2020] 8 CLJ 147). Pursuant to this important principle, the judicial power of the civil courts have been excluded by cl (1A) of art 121 of the FC resulting in the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts over matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. The amendment to the FC was made in order to avoid conflict between decisions of the Syariah Courts and the civil courts, to give the Syariah Courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to Islamic law (see Viran a/l Nagapan v Deepa a/p Subramaniam and other appeals [2016] 1 MLJ 585)...” S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 BA-25-36-06/2023 [44] In Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals [2018] 1 MLJ 545 the Federal Court held: “[90] Thus based on the principles distilled from the above discussion, the effect of art 121(1A) in the Malaysian context can be outlined as follows: (a) the Federal Constitution is premised on certain underlying principles. In a Westminster model Constitution, these principles include the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities; (b) these principles are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, they cannot be abrogated or removed; (c) the role of the civil courts as established by virtue of art 121 is fundamental to these principles. The judicial power of the civil courts is inherent in the basic structure of the Constitution; (d) cl (1A) of art 121 of the Federal Constitution recognises the power of the Syariah Courts when it exercises its power within jurisdiction; …” [45] See also Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v. Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793; Dalip Kaur v. Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 1; Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v. Ketua Pengarah Penjara, Malaysia & Anor [1999] 2 MLJ 241; Latifah bte Mat Zin v. Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 BA-25-36-06/2023 [46] In summary, founded on the provision of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and the authorities cited, it is clear that the civil high courts lack the authority to intervene in matters exclusively under the jurisdiction of syariah courts. The Impugned Charges, currently under the Selangor Syariah Subordinate Court, fall within the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of the syariah court. Any interference by civil high courts would be considered a violation of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. [47] As the position of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution has been expounded by the authorities cited, this court is of the considered view that the Impugned Charges are not subject to judicial review, and therefore, the application for leave should be denied. [48] As stated above, the Impugned Charges are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of the syariah court and therefore this court is not being vested with any power to consider and quash the Impugned Charges. [49] However, if the court is to consider whether the Impugned Charges are lawful, it entails the challenge against the source of power of such Impugned Charges i.e. the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 and the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment) 1995. This court has perused the Statement filed pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 filed together with this application (Enclosure 2 subsequently amended by Enclosure 32), and finds that the Statement is devoid of any complain by the applicants on such issue. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 BA-25-36-06/2023 [50] In other words, the applicants are not challenging the validity of the sections to which the Impugned Charges was relied upon, but are challenging the validity of the Impugned Fatwa. [51] Therefore, what is left before this court is the issue of the Impugned Charges which, as stated earlier, is not within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Justiciability of the Impugned Fatwa [52] The Impugned Fatwa asserts that Syiah teachings significantly violate the authentic principles of Islam. It identifies disapproved elements within Syiah teachings, considering some as inherent to its core, and declares Syiah teachings as deviant. Consequently, the Impugned Fatwa prohibits Muslims from practicing Syiah teachings due to these perceived deviations from orthodox Islamic principles. [53] The applicants seek a declaration asserting the peaceful practice of Syiah in any part of Malaysia and the annulment of charges against them. This implies a challenge to the accuracy of the finding by the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor. The applicants argue that the teachings of Syiah, specifically Syiah Ja’fariyah, align with true Islamic teachings, contesting the substance of the Impugned Fatwa. [54] Hence, in order to answer whether the teachings of Syiah Ja’fariyah is in line with Islam, and thereafter decide whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought, this court will have consider delicate and complex issues of Islamic creed and faith, history, principles of comparative studies, interpretation of the Quran and S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 BA-25-36-06/2023 prophetic narrations, and principles of practice, among others. This civil High Court is clearly not qualified nor equipped to deal with such issues. From this perspective, it is crucial to emphasize that the resolution of the issue at hand demands a thorough examination of Islamic law by competent jurists. The syariah court stands as the sole qualified forum for such deliberations. [55] More importantly, it must be mentioned that this is the rationale for the introduction of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The civil courts are not the forum to determine these matters. [56] For this reason, this court agrees with the contention by the learned Senior Federal Counsel that this application is non-justiciable. The Applicants failed to name relevant parties in the Application. [57] The Honourable Attorney General’s final ground of objection is that the applicants have failed to name relevant parties as respondents in the present application. [58] In Wang Choon Yin lwn Dato’ Seri Hj Mustafar bin Hj Ali, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) dan lain-lain [2020] 5 MLJ 793 the court stated that it is a trite principle for any judicial review proceeding to determine whether the contested decision that the applicant seeks to overturn is explicitly identified in the application for permission. If the application is directed against an incorrect decision or against the authority that made the contested decision incorrectly, it would render the application for permission incompetent. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 BA-25-36-06/2023 [59] In Ambiga a/p Sreenevasan v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen, Malaysia & Ors [2012] 1 MLJ 92 (Rohana Yusof J) held: “[10] … In a judicial review proceeding, the court undertakes the review of the decision by a decision maker, and not by any other person. Since the Chief Minister is not in any way involved in the impugned decision, he cannot be a party to the application. … [12] Thus, since the first respondent and the third respondent are not the decision makers of the impugned decision, judicial review cannot lie against them. To put it differently, there is no decision by the first and second respondents that is before this court to review. On this ground alone, this application ought to be struck out.” [60] Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J in his recent judgement for Kartini Farah bt Abdul Rahim & Anor v Polis Diraja Malaysia & Ors [2023] MLJU 2114 stated: “[37] The AGC submitted that since this application is to challenge the decision made by the deputy public prosecutor, there is no purpose in naming the Respondents as parties. The AGC further submitted that the Applicant must correctly identify the party responsible for the decision in the exercise of the public duty or function that he challenged. … [48] Hence, this Court is of the view that the failure of the Applicants in citing the correct party who had made the S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 BA-25-36-06/2023 said decision in which the Applicants wish to challenge, renders this application irregular.” [61] In the present application, the applicants seek to challenge the Impugned Fatwa. Section 47 of the 2003 Enactment provides that the power to make fatwas is in the hands of the Jawatankuasa Fatwa, on the direction of His Royal Highness the Sultan, and subsequently His Royal Highness’ assent. The provision is reproduced below: “47. Power of the Fatwa Committee to prepare a fatwa Subject to section 51, the Fatwa Committee shall, on the direction of His Royal Highness the Sultan, and may on its own initiative or on the request of any person by letter addressed to the Mufti, prepare fatwa on any unsettled or controversial question of or relating to Hukum Syarak.” [62] Section 48 of the 2003 Enactment, on the procedure in the making of a fatwa, illustrates the role of the Jawatankuasa Fatwa plays in making fatwas. [63] In this application, the applicants have not named the Jawatankuasa Fatwa as a respondent. The applicants are seeking to challenge the Impugned Fatwa. The maker of the Impugned Fatwa is the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor, which had not been named as a respondent. [64] Whilst the applicants are seeking to challenge the Impugned Fatwa, the party who made the Impugned Fatwa is not made a respondent in this proceedings. In the view of this court founded on the S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 BA-25-36-06/2023 authorities cited above, in order for the applicants to challenge the Impugned Fatwa, the maker of the Impugned Fatwa namely the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor ought to be made a respondent in this application seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings. Failure of the applicants in so doing renders this application liable to be dismissed. [65] It is observed that one of the prayers sought by the applicants namely a declaration that the religion of Islam of Syiah sect may be practised in any part of Malaysia cannot be overlooked in light of the Impugned Charges and subsequently the Impugned Fatwa which is the subject matter for this application. In this respect, reference is made to subsection 49(1) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which reads: “49. A fatwa published in the Gazette is binding (1) Upon its publication in the Gazette, a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim in the State of Selangor as a dictate of his religion and it shall be his religious duty to abide by and uphold the fatwa, unless he is permitted by Hukum Syarak to depart from the fatwa in matters of personal observance” [66] It can be gleaned from the above subsection that the Impugned Fatwa only applies to Muslims in the state of Selangor. The said prayer of freedom of practicing the Syiah sect in Malaysia sought by the applicants have far-reaching effect and without naming the relevant parties and/or stakeholders, this application before this court is not a fit and proper case to be granted leave. S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 BA-25-36-06/2023 Conclusion [67] Considering that this is a request for leave to initiate judicial review proceedings under Order 53 of the ROC 2012, it is well-established that the criteria for obtaining leave to proceed with judicial review must be met. After reviewing the application, this court is satisfied that the subject matter of this application is not suitable for judicial review. [68] Upon careful consideration, this court finds that the applicants have not successfully met the requirements of the judicial review test. As previously discussed, the subject matter in this case has been established by law. There is evidently no merit in the applicant’s case. Consequently, this leave application is deemed frivolous and unsuitable for judicial review. [69] Therefore, the application for permission to commence judicial review proceedings (Enclosure 1 amended by Enclosure 31) is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Date: 05 February 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 BA-25-36-06/2023 Counsel: For The Applicant: Eizlan Farhan bin Nakhrowi TETUAN CHEANG & ARIFF Advocates & Solicitors Aras 16, Menara 1 Dutamas, Loke Mansion, 273A, Jalan Medan Tuanku, 50300 Kuala Lumpur. +6 03 2691 0803 ca@cheangariff.com For the Respondent: Ahmad Hanir Hambaly, Imtiyaz Wizni Aufa Binti Othman JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA Bahagian Guaman, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya. +603 8872 2000 S/N 4LEAuzffEEi/Ok0X6Y8E2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AC-82JS-1-06/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH IBRAHIM BIN SHAHARI

elemen-elemen dalam kesalahan menggunakan kekerasan jenayah; tiada notis alibi; bare denial; after thought; prima facie, keraguan yang munasabah

05/02/2024

Puan Ashvinii a/p Thinakaran

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1eb97f60-38a3-4c04-a8b5-7e8c1f6db915&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET TELUK INTAN DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN [KES TANGKAP: AC-82JS-1-06/2021] PENDAKWARAYA lwn. IBRAHIM BIN SHAHARI (NO.KP: 690801055177) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PERTUDUHAN “BAHAWA KAMU PADA 09/02/2021 JAM LEBIH KURANG 9.10 MALAM BERTEMPAT DI DALAM LIF KOMPLEKS WAD, HOSPITAL TELUK INTAN, DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK, TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KEPADA XXXX (K/P: XXXX) DENGAN MAKSUD UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA, DAN DENGAN ITU, KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 KANUN KESEKSAAN.” HUKUMAN:- PENJARA SELAMA TEMPOH YANG BOLEH SAMPAI SEPULUH TAHUN, ATAU DENGAN DENDA, ATAU DENGAN SEBAT, ATAU MANA-MANA DUA DARIPADA HUKUMAN TERSEBUT. LATAR BELAKANG KES Bagi kes ini, keterangan SP1 telah didengar oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu. Puan Majistret terdahulu kemudiannya telah berpindah ke Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh, dan kes ini selanjutnya telah saya ambil alih dan disambung dengan keterangan SP2 sehingga ke akhir bicara. Saya telah meneruskan bicara kes ini dengan bergantung kepada nota keterangan yang telah disediakan oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu dan juga rujukan kepada Sistem Rakaman Audio Video Mahkamah (RVT). Saya telah menyemak rakaman tersebut dan dapat melihat suasana perbicaraan serta demeanor saksi-saksi yang telah memberikan keterangan. Pihak-pihak juga tiada bantahan dalam saya mengambil alih bicara bagi kes ini. 05/02/2024 21:40:04 AC-82JS-1-06/2021 Kand. 90 S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Namun, pada 29.5.2023 pihak pembelaan telah membuat satu permohonan dibawah seksyen 261 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk memanggil semula (recall) SP1 iaitu Pengadu kes dan Mahkamah telah membenarkan permohonan peguam. Pada tarikh yang sama Mahkamah telah memanggil semula SP1 untuk memberi keterangan. Pada masa yang sama, saya juga telah membuat rujukan kepada nota keterangan yang telah disediakan oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu dan rakaman RVT mahkamah adalah jelas dan boleh difahami. Pada 21.9.2023 Mahkamah ini telah membuat keputusan pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes Prima Facie dan Perayu telah diarahkan untuk masukkan pembelaannya. Diakhir tahap pembelaan pada 11.12.2023, Mahkamah telah memutuskan pihak pembelaan telah gagal membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah. Maka, Tertuduh/Perayu disabitkan dengan kesalahan dibawah seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan dan dihukum penjara 6 bulan dan denda RM2000.00 gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara. Stay of execution dibenarkan bagi hukuman penjara. KEDUDUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PRIMA FACIE: [1] Seksyen 173(7i)(i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) telah memperuntukkan berkenaan tugas mahkamah di akhir kes pihak pendakwaan adalah untuk memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Perayu atas pertuduhan terhadapnya. Mahkamah perlu menilai keterangan-keterangan saksi pihak pendakwaan yang credible yang telah membuktikan semua intipati pertuduhan sebelum Perayu dipanggil untuk membela diri. [2] Perkataan prima facie tidak ditakrifkan di bawah Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Balacahandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2005] 1 AMR 321: [2005] 2 MLJ 301 telah menghuraikan berkenaan ujian prima facie sepertimana yang berikut: ...The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case. [3] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keperluan untuk melakukan penilaian secara maksimum ke atas keseluruhan keterangan dan bukti- bukti sokongan di dalam kes ini. Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan kes-kes yang berkaitan telah dirujuk. Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out the procedure to be followed by the court S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal at the close of prosecution case as follows; (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal. (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence. (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction. [4] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Looi Kow Chai v. Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2003] 2 MLJ 65; [2003] 2 AMR 89 berkenaan prima facie telah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: "In our respectful view, the correct test to be applied in determining whether a prima facie case has been made out under s. 180 of the CPC (and this would apply to a trial under s. 173 of the CPC) is that as encapsulated in the judgment of Hashim Yeop Sani FJ (as he then was) in Dato' Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1983] CLJ Rep 101: [1983] 2 CLJ 10: [1983] 2 MLJ 232 at p 270: To summarize, it would therefore appear that having regard to the prosecution evidence adduced so far, a prima facie case has not been established against Nordin Johan and Aziz Abdullah, the second accused and the fourth accused which, failing their rebuttal, would warrant their conviction. In other words if they elect to remain silent now (which I hold they are perfectly entitled to do even though they are being tried under the Emergency Regulations) the question is can they be convicted of the offence of section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code ? My answer to the question is in the negative.' We are confident in the view we have just expressed because we find nothing in the amended s. 180(1) of the CPC that has taken away the right of an accused person to remain silent at the close of the prosecution case. Further we find nothing in the legislative intention of Parliament as expressed in the language employed by it to show that there should be a dual exercise by a judge under s. 180 when an accused elects to remain silent as happened in Pavone v. Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 LNS 99: [1984] 1 MLJ 77. In other words, we are unable to discover anything in the language of the recently formulated s. 180 that requires a judge sitting alone first to make a minimum evaluation and then when the accused elects to remain silent to make a maximum evaluation in deciding whether to convict or not at the close of the prosecution case.” S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal It therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under s. 180 of the CPC has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and to ask himself the question: if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution case? If the answer is in the negative then no prima facie case has been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal." [5] Kes Public Prosecutor v Poh Ah Kwang [2003] 3 AMR 670 dirujuk berkenaan maksud prima facie ini: “Since the standard of proof at this stage is prima facie proof, which means a maximum evaluation of the evidence on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of SP2 is therefore for all intends and purposes uncorroborated in so far as the answers given by the accused were concerned..” [6] Kes Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ turut dirujuk; “After the amendments to ss. 173(f) and 180 of the CPC, the statutory test has been altered. What is required of a Subordinate Court and the High Court under the amended section is to call for the defence when it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out at the close of the prosecution case. This requires the court to undertake a maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence when deciding whether to call on the accused to enter his or her defence. SEKSYEN KESALAHAN: [7] Dikemukakan seksyen-seksyen berkaitan pertuduhan dan kesalahan untuk rujukan mudah seperti berikut; [8] Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: 354. Assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine or with whipping or with any two of such punishments. [9] Seksyen 349 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan definisi "force" iaitu: "A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling. " [10] Seksyen 350 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan definisi "criminal force" iaitu: "Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. " [11] Seksyen 351 Kanun Keseksaan pula mendefinisikan "assault' sebagai: "Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault." [12] Rujukan kepada kes PP v. KAMARUL AZAMIN MOHAMAD & ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 2 CLJ 386, Mahkamah telah memperincikan elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan iaitu:- [15] The ingredients of the offence are: (i) there must have been assault or use of criminal force on a person; (ii) such assault or use of criminal force must have been made: (a) with intention to outrage modesty; or (b) with knowledge that the person's modesty was likely to be outraged. [16] Therefore it must be proven that: (i) the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the victim; and (ii) that he intended thereby to outrage the victim's modesty; or that he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage victim's modesty. [13] Justeru, adalah menjadi kewajipan dan bebanan undang-undang kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan bahawa:- i) Perayu telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap mangsa/pengadu iaitu SP1; dan ii) Perbuatan kekerasan jenayah itu dilakukan dengan niat untuk mencabul kehormatan SP1. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DIPUTUSKAN (pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Perayu dan pembelaan gagal membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah;Perayu disabitkan dan dihukum penjara 6 bulan dari tarikh sabitan dan denda RM2000.00 gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara): [14] Secara ringkasnya, keputusan Mahkamah untuk mensabitkan Perayu adalah atas alasan: a) Keterangan SP1 selaku Pengadu dalam kes ini adalah ‘overwhelmingly credible’; b) Keterangan SP1 disokong oleh keterangan SP3 walaupun tiada keperluaan untuk adanya ‘corroboration’ dalam kes-kes seksual; serta c) Kegagalan pihak pembelaan untuk membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah. [15] Mahkamah ini setelah mendengar keterangan SP1, Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP1 adalah ‘overwhelmingly credible’ kerana mampu mengingati butiran kejadian dan memberikan keterangan yang konsisten walaupun diperiksa balas bertubi-tubi oleh Pihak Pembelaan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Razali Bin Sillah v. PP [2019] 12 MLJ 205, “[13] Hence, in sum total, the most crucial piece of evidence in this case by SP2. Unlike for an offence of rape, no medical evidence is available for a case of this nature. But [the] overwhelming feature of this case is the victim’s consistency in testimony.” [16] Mahkamah juga mendapati tiada isu percanggahan dalam keterangan SP1 dan SP3 sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh Perayu. Malah, keterangan SP3 telah pun menyokong keterangan SP1 dalam menggambarkan kejadian atau situasi sebenar yang berlaku sewaktu kejadian. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Mazlan bin Mahadi v. Public Prosecutor [2018] MLJU 1818 (HC) yang mana telah memutuskan: “[31] The Evidence Act 1950 does not require any corroboration in sexual offences and a conviction for such offences may rest entirely on the credibility of the complainant. The need for corroboration remains a rule of good practice and prudence, that in some instances it is necessary to have corroboration. [32] Guidance can be found in DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2015] 2 CLJ 145, where the Federal Court held inter alia as follows: “[74] It was submitted by the prosecution that the evidence of PW1, even without any corroboration is credible and probable, and on its own was sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant. His evidence, it was argued is akin to that of a female rape victim who will not ordinarily “stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity” (a phrase taken from State of Maharshtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR [1990] 1 SCC 550). Similarly, for PW1 to come out publicly to testify that he has been sodomised would obviously subject him and his family to ridicule. There was therefore no reason for him to level a false accusation against the S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal appellant as the stigma will remain for his lifetime. SAKSI-SAKSI PENDAKWAAN: [17] Pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai lima orang saksi seperti berikut: SP1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PENGADU/MANGSA SP2 INSP MOHAMAD NURHALIM BIN SAMSURI PEGAWAI TANGKAPAN SP3 SITI NOOR AZUWA BINTI ALI SAKSI AWAM/SAKSI MATA SP4 SJN NOR HASBULLAH JURUFOTO SP5 INSP SAIFULIL RAHMAN PEGAWWAI PENYIASAT DAPATAN DAN PENELITIAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN [18] Melalui penelitian ekstensif mahkamah terhadap keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi- saksi pendakwaan dan hujahan pihak pendakwaan. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa: [19] Persoalan pertama adalah adakah mangsa dalam kes ini seorang perempuan? Berdasarkan laporan pengadu (P4), mangsa di dalam kes ini merupakan seorang wanita yang merupakan SP1. [20] Persoalan kedua adalah samada Perayu telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap mangsa? Maksud kekerasan jenayah telah didefinisikan di dalam s. 350 Kanun Keseksaan sebagai: “Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to cause the committing of any, or knowing it to be likely that by use of such force he will illegally cause annoyance to the person to whom the forced is used, is said to use criminal force to that person.” [21] Berdasarkan keterangan SP1, selepas habis syif beliau di Wad 3B, Tingkat 3, Hospital Teluk Intan, Perak, beliau telah masuk kedalah lif bahagian tengah untuk pulang ke rumah. Apabila lif tersebut terbuka beliau mendapati terdapat lebih kurang 10 orang dalam lif tersebut termasuk Perayu. Setelah beliau masuk lif tersebut, Perayu secara tetiba telah merapatkan dirinya dengan mangsa dan melagakan dadanya dengan kuat ke arah mangsa. Mangsa telah bertindak dengan menolak dada Perayu dan menyuruh Perayu berundur namun Perayu tidak mengalah dan tidak kebelakang. Mangsa melalui keterangannya telah menjerit sambil S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal memarahi Perayu di atas tindakannya itu yang secara jelas menunjukkan bahawa perbuatan tersebut dilakukan tanpa kerelaan Mangsa. Mangsa kemudiannya bertindak dengan memukul dan menolak Perayu menggunakan payung yang mangsa pegang namun Perayu enggan bergerak dan masih merapat dengan mangsa. SP3 yang merupakan saksi mata dan juga saksi awam dalam kes ini telah melihat kejadian itu berlaku dan menegur Perayu dengan mengatakan ‘jangan macam tu, bini orang itu’. [22] Keterangan SP1 semasa pemeriksaan utama J:... Saya nak masuk kat lif nombor 3. Pintu lif terbuka, sayya nak masuk tapi kat depan tu ada MA student diaorg menghalang. Kat belakang tu ada ramai porter. Dia macam saje menghalang. Dalam tu lebih kurang 8 ke 10 orang. Saya tak masuk lagi, saya baru nak masuk, saya cakap macam ni kat adik-adik tu. Adik akak nak masuk bagi laluan. Adik tu bagi laluan. Saya baru nak pusing tak habis pusing lagi PPK Ibrahim daripada belah belakang bucu kanan di buat macam ni. Ha laluan-laluan, diaa tolak saya guna dada dia pintu lift tu tutup macam ni. Kalau pintu lift tu terbuka saya dah jatuh ke belakang dah. (Pengadu telah berdemonstrasi dan menunjukkan kedudukan mereka). ... Dia macam tolak push i macam tu. I dapat rasa i punya dada ni dekat dia punya dada. Sangat dekat. Saya dah menahan tangan saya macam ni. Saya kata tepi lah, ko ni kenapa. Badan dia masih keras lagi dekat saya punya badan ni. Still keras. Masa tu hari hujan memang saya pegang payung lah. Saya pukul perut dia kuat-kuat. Tapi tak dapat, dia masih statik dekat situ. Sangat-sangat dekat dengan saya punya muka. Saya punya badan ni saya rasa dangat malu. Semasa benda tu berlaku, orang kat belakang dia semua PPK semua MA ketawa. Diaorg tak cakap apa-apa. Saya tak tahu keranap diaorg ketawa. Maybe very funny for them buat perempuan macam tu. Mungkin diaorg seonok tengok perempuan dibuli macam tu saya tak tahu. Kecuali seorang je tak ketawa perempuan sebelah saya, sebelah kanan. Saya kenal dia PPK Azuwa. Azuwa dia sebelah kanan saya. PPK Ibrahim depan saya. Dia kata jangan macam tu bini orang tu. Ibrahim sama je still statik dekat situ. .... Dia tak bergerak atau ubah kedudukan. Ada ruang sebab maacam mana dia boleh datang dari bucu kanan kalau tiada ruang. Kalau tak ada ruang bagaimana dia boleh datang daripada beakang hadap dengan saya. Kalau kata sempit dia tak booleh datang dari bucu tu kat saya, tempat itu tak sempit. [23] Melalui keterangan SP1 sejurus selepas tindakan PERAYU merapatkan badan dia S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dengan badan mangsa dan melagakan dada dia dengan dada mangsa, mangsa telah menjerit dan memarahi PERAYU serta menolak PERAYU tetapi tiada siapa yang pedulikan jeritan mangsa sehingga lah SP3 telah menegur PERAYU untuk tidak berbuat seperti itu, namun PERAYU tidak endahkan teguran SP3. SP3 melalui keterangannya mengesahkan bahawa kejadian sepertimana yang digambarkan oleh mangsa telah berlaku dan SP3 telah cuba menegur PERAYU namun PERAYU tidak endahkan teguran SP3. [24] Keterangan SP3 semasa pemeriksaan utama: J: Saya kira berdepan dengan mangsa. Keadaan lift tu amat penuh. Bila pintu lift tu tutup dengan serta merta PPK Ibrahim terus menyerang mangsa menyebabkan saya nampak dada dia bergerak dans aya terkejut dan saya tegur ‘eh bini orang kut’ tapi dia gelak. Dia gelak sambil mangsa tolak dengan payung dengan keadaan budak sekeliling student gelak bersama. Sampai ke ground floor pintu terbuka semua keluar. [25] Melalui penelitian ekstensif mahkamah terhadap keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan ini, adalah jelas perbuatan PERAYU dengan merapatkan badanya dan melagakan dadanya dengan dada mangsa telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap mangsa. Malah walaupun kedua-dua SP1 dan SP3 telah menegur PERAYU untuk tidak berbuat sedemikian namun PERAYU masih meneruskan perbuatannya yang keji itu walaupun mangsa bertubi-tubi kali menjerit dan jelas berasa tidak selesa serta takut. Tamabahan pula, melalui keterangan SP3 PERAYU gelak semasa melakukan perbuatan tersebut seoalah-seoalah PERAYU syok melihat mangsa dalam keadaan yang trauma dan takut serta tidak selesa seperti itu. [26] Mahkamah juga melihat kepada tindakan spontan atau 'at the first opportunity' yang ditunjukkan oleh mangsa dengan menahan dada PERAYU, menjerit dan menggunakan payung beliau dengan memukul serta menolak PERAYU dengan pantas tanpa melengahkan masa atau berfikir panjang. Keterangan mangsa juga konsisten sewaku diperiksa balas oleh peguambela juga telah berjaya meyakinkan mahkamah bahawa mngsa merupakan saksi yang boleh dipercayai dan tiada motif atau agenda tertentu untuk mereka-reka cerita atau memerangkap PERAYU ataupun supaya permohonan pertukaran mangsa ke Hospital Sri Manjung akan dibenarkan diseperti yang dibangkitkan oleh Peguambela. Mahkamah menggunapakai kes Public Prosecutor v. Basar [1964] 1 LNS 140; [1965] 1 MLJ 75 yang mana Perayu telah dituduh di bawah s. 354 Kanun Keseksaan dan YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Gill memutuskan bahawa: In this case there was nothing inherently improbable about the complainant's story, and her evidence was neither contradicted by other evidence nor shaken by cross- examination. In the circumstances it was the duty of the magistrate to have called on the S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal defence. [27] Secara kolektif, berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan ini mahkamah berpendapat bahawa PERAYU telah melakukan sesuatu yang disifatkan sebagai kekerasan jenayah apabila PERAYU melagakan dadanya dengan dada mangsa sehingga dada mangsa telah bergerak dan menyebabkan mangsa berasa takut, malu, trauma dan tidak selesa. Perkara ini disokong di dalam kes Mohammad Izwan Ishak lwn. PP [2009] 10 CLJ 292, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa: ... perlakuan kekerasan jenayah berlaku jika perlakuan jenayah tersebut dilakukan tanpa kerelaan dan keizinan mangsa. Jika mangsa mengizinkan diperlakukan begitu, maka perlakuan tersebut tidak terjumlah kepada kekerasan jenayah bagi tujuan seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan. [28] Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada seksyen 350 Kanun Keseksaan, illustration (f) yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her; and if he does so without her consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her,he has used criminal force to her.” [29] Maka, berdasarkan reaksi mangsa yang jelas sekali tidak selesa, takut dan mengganggu mangsa membuktikan PERAYU telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap mangsa. [30] Persoalan ketiga adalah samada kekerasan jenayah yang dilakukan terhadap mangsa dengan niat mencabul kehormatan SP1? Merujuk kepada perenggan [27 & 28] di mana mahkamah ini telah mendapati bahawa wujud satu elemen 'kekerasan jenayah' di lakukan terhadap PERAYU kepada mangsa. Selanjutnya di bawah isu ini, mahkamah perlu memutuskan sama ada 'kekerasan jenayah' ini dengan niat untuk mencabul kehormatan mangsa atau dengan mengetahui bahawa dengan tindakan sedemikian menyebabkan kehormatan mangsa dicabul. [31] Definisi mencabul kehormatan atau 'outrage to female modesty' dirujuk di dalam Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's: Law of Crimes pada ms 1336 yang menyatakan: What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. This will differ according to the country and the race to which the woman belongs... ... The Supreme Court of India has held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that act will fall within this section. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [32] Melalui keterangan yang diberikan oleh mangsa dengan secara konsisten dan kredibel menyatakan bahawa PERAYU telah merapatkan badan PERAYU dan melagakan dada PERAYU dengan dada mangsa. Tindakan PERAYU berbuat sedemikian dan terus berbuat sedemikian meskipun mangsa dan SP3 telah menegur untuk tidak berbuat sedemikian menunjukkan perbuatan itu dibuat tanpa kerelaannya pada hemat mahkamah merupakan satu tindakan yang terjumlah kepada suatu tindakan mencabul kehormatan mangsa sebagai seorang wanita. Mangsa juga dalam keterangan beliau telah berkali-kali menyatakan beliau malu sewaktu kejadian berlaku. [33] Secara keseluruhannya mahkamah berpuas hati dengan keterangan saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan. Keterangan mangsa tentang bagaimana kejadian ini berlaku dan penglibatan PERAYU dalam kes ini adalah konsisten, kredibel dan boleh dipercayai. Mahkamah berpendapat tiada sebab untuk kesemua saksi pendakwaan untuk memperdaya PERAYU sebagaimana yang dibangkitkan olehh Pembelaan. [34] Keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 dan SP5 menyokong antara satu sama lain dan tidak wujud percanggahan material. Di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2 MLJ 301, Augustine Paul FCJ menegaskan maksud 'prima facie '. Beliau menyatakan seperti berikut: “A 'prima facie case' is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal.” [35] Justeru itu, berdasarkan keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan dan di atas penilaian maksimum terhadap kesemua keterangan tersebut maka mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan setiap intipati kesalahan seperti yang dipertuduhkan dan ini sekaligus membuktikan bahawa satu kes prima facie berjaya dibuktikan oleh pendakwaan terhadap OKT. [36] Mahkamah telah memerintahkan OKT untuk memasukkan pembelaan terhadap pertuduhan yang dipertuduhkan dan mahkamah memberi pilihan kepada OKT di bawah s. 173(ha) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk: a) Beri keterangan bersumpah di dalam kandang saksi; b) Beri pernyataan tidak bersumpah di kandang OKT; atau c) Tetap senyap S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DAPATAN DAN PENELITIAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN [37] Pada peringkat ini, PERAYU telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah di dalam kandang saksi dan seorang lagi saksi pembelaan dipanggil iaitu: SD1 IBRAHIM BIN SYAHARI PERAYU/TERTUDUH SD2 NORMILA BINTI IBRAHIM KETUA JURURAWAT [38] PERAYU dalam keterangan bersumpahnya telah menyatakan bahawa pada hari kejadian PERAYU telah habis syif pada jam 9 malam. Setelah habis syif lebih kurang jam 8.47 malam telah masuk lif tengah, terus tekan button dan turun bawah. Bersama-sama PERAYU yang menaik lif yang sama adalah SP3, PPK Hafiz dan PPK Ridzuan. Kesemuanya adalah merupakan porter. Setelah sampai aras bawah, punch card dalam pukul 9 malam dan terus balik rumah. [39] PERAYU juga menyatakan lif tersebut ramai orang anggaran lebih kurang 15 orang dalam lif. 15 orang termasuk dengan 3 orang iaitu PPK Hafiz, PPK Ridzuan dan SP3 adalah 18 orang dalam lif tersebut. PERAYU juga memaklumkan lif tersebut saiz sederhana yang mana boleh muat 18 orang. Dan keadaan lif pada ketika itu sesak. Selain itu, PERAYU juga menyatakan tidak perasan mangsa berada dalam lif kerana terlalu ramai orang dalam lif. [40] Seterusnya, PERAYU telah menafikan segala keterangan dan kejadian yang diutarakan oleh kedua-dua mangsa dan SP3. Malah, PERAYU juga menyatakan keterangan mangsa adalah khayalan semata-mata. Selain itu, PERAYU juga menyatakan tidak sehaluan dengan SP3 kerana adalah masalah ditempat kerja. [41] Melalui penelitian ekstensif mahkamah terhadap keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi- saksi dan hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat persoalan utama yang perlu dijawab. Iaitu samada Pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah? [42] Perkara asas yang perlu dipertimbangkan sepenuhnya oleh mahkamah adalah elemen atau intipati kesalahan di bawah s. 354 Kanun Keseksaan telah dibuktikan secara prima facie sebelum ini. Oleh yang demikian pihak pembelaan wajib menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan ataupun mereka perlu mengemukakan pembelaan penuh (absolute defence) yang sah di sisi undang-undang. OKT juga mestilah mengemukakan bentuk keterangan yang mencukupi dan munasabah untuk menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kes prima facie pendakwaan. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] Dalam kes PP lwn. Roslan Abdullah [2007] 7 CLJ 249, YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan maksud keraguan munasabah seperti berikut: Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan Keraguan Munasabah atau "Reasonable Doubt" itu? Di dalam satu kes di India, K. Gopala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1979] SCC (CR) 310 dinyatakan seperti berikut: ... reasonable doubt does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may fit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or the other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to evict, it means a real doubt; doubt founded upon reasons. [44] Malahan di dalam kes PP v. Teh Eng Wah [1999] 8 CLJ 451, Mahkamah Tinggi memperincikan maksud keraguan yang munasabah seperti berikut: It would not do any violence to the above if the difference between 'fanciful' and 'reasonable' is viewed as whether the evidence is credible, probable, plausible or logical that a reasonable person, having regard to the ordinary course of nature or natural events, human conduct, and in the particular circumstances of the particular case, would accept it as to act upon it as having occurred or been proven to have occurred, or as truthful or accurate; and not any doubt that could, with the application of some ingenuity, be conjured up, envisioned or visualized. [45] Berdasarkan kedua-dua kes di atas jelas bahawa seperti kes yang dibicarakan ini PERAYU perlu mewujudkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan, bukan semudah penafian semata-mata tetapi mestilah mengikut seperti yang diputuskan di dalam kes Teh Eng Wah yang dinyatakan seperti di atas. [46] Mahkamah secara kolektif setelah menilai kesemua keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan berpendapat bahawa terdapat dua versi penceritaan yang berbeza yang mana pihak pendakwaan dengan hujahan yang menyatakan bahawa PERAYU telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah untuk mencabul kehormatan mangsa manakala pembelaan dengan hujahan bahawa PERAYU tidak melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Namun demikian, mahkamah dengan berwaspada setelah meneliti dengan mendalam dan terperinci jalan penceritaan pembelaan melalui keterangan bersumpah saksi-saksi pembelaan berpendapat bahawa keterangan PERAYU dan SD2 yang langsung tidak menyokong keterangan OKT adalah berbentuk penafian semata-mata yang secara langsung tidak sedikitpun menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan berlandaskan kepada alasan-alasan berikut: S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [47] Yang pertama adalah penafian kosong (Bare Denial). Di dalam keterangan bersumpah, PERAYU telah menafikan beliau tidak melagakan dada dengan dada mangsa dengan menyatakan bahawa agak mustahil untuk berbuat sedemikian kerana lif sungguh sesah dan penuh dengan orang dan keterangan mangsa hanyalah khayalan semata-mata. Setelah mahkamah meneliti dan melihat gambar lif seperti dalam P1, pada hemat mahkamah adalah munasabah untuk 18 orang berdiri dalam lif tersebut. [48] Selain itu, PERAYU juga tidak memberi apa-apa alasan untuk penafian tersebut. PERAYU menyatakan telah menaik lif bersama seorang lagi PPK Ridzuan yang mana keterangan ini juga turut disokong oleh SP3. Namun begitu, jika betul PPK Ridzuan ada melihat kejadian versi pembelaan mengapa PPK Ridzuan tidak dipanggil sebagai seorang saksi? Malah, menerusi keterangan SP3, PPK Ridzuan masih lagi bekerja di Hospital Teluk Intan. Mengapa Pembelaan juga tidakmemanggil PPK Hafiz sebagai saksi pembelaan untuk menyokong keterangan PERAYU? Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan PERAYU langsung tidak berasas dan juga tidak disokong oleh keterangan lain. [49] Oleh yang demikian, kenyataan penafian OKT ini tidak berasas sama sekali dan memungkinkan mahkamah untuk membuat dapatan bahawa penafian OKT ini merupakan penafian kosong. Mahkamah menggunapakai kes Public Prosecutor v. Ling Tee Huah [1980] 1 LNS 212; [1982] 2 MLJ 324 yang menyatakan: A mere denial without other proof to reasonably dislodge the prosecution's evidence is not sufficient. [50] Pendapat mahkamah ini turut disokong oleh keputusan mahkamah di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Nur Hassan bin Salip Hashim & Anor [1993] 2 CLJ 551 yang menyatakan: The evidence of the second Accused was only one of denial; denial of having ever seen the orange plastic bag containing the cannabis, denial of having been together with the first Accused, denial of sitting on the same chair together with the first Accused and denial of being found immediately next to the orange plastic bag containing the cannabis. All these evidence of the second Accused were offered in contradiction to the evidence of the prosecution. The denials have not in any way created any doubt, on a balance of probabilities, in the case of the prosecution. Neither were the presumptions of possession or knowledge rebutted. Nothing was offered by the evidence of the second Accused by way of rebutting the presumption of trafficking arising from the fact that the cannabis weighed 327.4 grammes. The second Accused had also therefore failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [51] Mahkamah juga mendapati versi pembelaan adalah merupakan satu ‘Afterthought’ Atau Pemikiran Terkemudian. Pembelaan membangkitkan isu masalah ditempat kerja antara PERAYU dan SP3 dimana Peguambela langsung tidak membangkitkan isu ini sewaktu pemeriksaan balas SP3 dan hanya di bangkitkan sewaktu Pemeriksaan Utama PERAYU di tahap pembelaan. Isu ini tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan. Justeru itu, mahkamah berpendapat bahawa keterangan ini tidak boleh diterima disebabkan keterangan ini adalah satu pemikiran terkemudian atau afterthought seperti yang digariskan di dalam kes Megat Halim Megat Omar v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 154 yang menyatakan: Although in our criminal jurisprudence, there is no burden on an accused to prove his innocence but merely for him to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, it is trite that his defence should be put to the prosecution at an early stage during the prosecution case. Failure to do so may move the trial court to dismiss a particular line of defence as an afterthought, or a recent invention. PEMBELAAN LAIN [52] Antara isu lain yang dibangkitkan oleh Pembelaan adalah isu Permohonan Mangsa untuk berpindah daripada Hospital Teluk Intan ke Hospital Seri Manjung. Pembelaan membangkitakan isu ini untuk mewajarkan pembelaan meraka dimana keterangan dan laporan polis mangsa adalah rekaan semata-mata supaya permohonan perpindaan tersebut akan dibenarkan. Pada hematnya, Mahkamah ini berpendapat pembelaan ini adalah ‘a long shot’ atas alasan-alasan berikut: a) Permohonan mangsa telah dibuat sebelum kejadian ini berlaku. Mangsa juga telah menjelaskan dalam Mahkamah terbuka akan alasan-alasan untuk permohonan perpindahan tersebut. b) Keterangan mangsa telah disokong oleh SP3. c) SD2 hanya menjelaskan bila permohonan perpindahan itu dibuat oleh mangsa dan tidak pada bila-bila masa menyokong keterangan PERAYU. d) Kejadian yang berlaku kepada mangsa adalah satu kejadian yang sungguh memalukan untuk mangsa. Adalah tidak masuk akal untuk seorang mereka cerita yang begitu memalukan dan menimbulkan trauma semata-mata untuk berpindah ke Hospital lain. e) Mangsa dalam kes bukan sahaja melaporkan kejadian kepada Pengarah Hospital Mahkamah Teluk Intan malah juga telah membuat laporan polis yang mana jika kejadian ini adalah sememangnya rekaan semata-mata, siasatan polis sudah tentunya akan menunjukkan penipuan tersebut dan mangsa sudah tentu akan dituduh dibawah seksyen 182 Kanun Keseksaan. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [53] Adalah pada pendapat Mahkamah, permohonan mangsa untuk berpindah ke Hospital Seri Manjung tidak kena-mengena dengan kejadian dalam kes ini. Maka, Mahkamah ini tidak boleh menerima pembelaan ini. [54] Pembelaan lain yang dibangkitkan adalah berkenaan masa. Pembelaan membangkitkan isu PERAYU telah ketip kad masa keluar tepat pada jam 9.00 malam akan tetapi keterangan mangsa menyatakan kejadian berlaku selepas jam 9.05 hingga 9.10 malam. Maka berlakunya percanggahan disana dan mohon untuk salinan kad ketip masa itu ditandakan sebagai eksibit D. Namun begitu, terdapat pelbagai otoriti yang menjelaskan dan memutuskan tarikh spesifik sesuatu kesalahan seksual adalah bukan satu kemestian, malah ia adalah ‘tidak vital’ bagi kes- kes seksual. [55] Rujukan juga turut dibuat kepada keputusan di dalam kes Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor & Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737; [2004] 3 MLJ 405. Di dalam kes tersebut, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: “ In a sexual offence, the essential ingredients are the sexual act and the identity of the offender. The date is not a vital ingredient of the charge”. [56] Maka, pada pandangan Mahkamah ini, Perayu/Tertuduh adalah sama sekali tidak diprejudiskan kerana terdapat percanggahan masa berlakunya kejadian di dalam pertuduhan- pertuduhan di atas kerana tempat kesalahan dikatakan dilakukan telah dinyatakan dengan spesifik dan seperti dalam kes Ku Lip See v. PP, lingkungan masa yang tertera di dalam pertuduhan adalah cukup jelas dan memberi notis yang memadai bagi membolehkan Perayu/Tertuduh membawa Pembelaan. [57] Persoalan disini adalah, apakah motif sebenar pihak pembelaan membangkitkan isu kad ketip masa PERAYU samada pihak pembelaan ingin membangkitkan isu alibi disini? Jika pembelaan ingin membangkitkan isu alibi maka mengapa pihak pembelaan tidak memfailkan notis alibi pada awal kes dituduh? Mahkamah juga mendapati percanggahan antara jam 8.57 hingga 9.10 adalah percanggahan yang kecil yang tidak langsung menjejaskan kes ini. Mahkamah juga ambil maklum kejadian telah berlaku pada tahun 2021 dan bicara dijalan kan pada tahun 2023. [58] Selain itu, pembelaan juga telah membangkitkan isu mangsa telah mengambil masa sebulan untuk memfailkan laporan polis. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah menerima penjelasan mangsa dimana, sejurus kejadian itu berlaku mangsa berasa sungguh malu dan tidak ingin membesar-besarkan isu ini. Mangsa juga telah berharap PERAYU akan memohon maaf dengan mangsa dan mangsa boleh memaafkan PERAYU. Akan tetapi setelah sebulan PERAYU masih S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tidak memohon maaf dengan mangsa dan pada ketika itu setelah menerima nasihat daripada kawan mangsa membuat keputusan untuk memfailkan laporan polis. Mahkamah b erpendapat, mangsa telah memberi satu peluan emas kepada PERAYU untuk mengaku kesalahan perbuatan itu dan memohon maaf, namun PERAYU tidak insaf dan langsung tidak kisah akan perasaan mangsa, lalu mangsa memfailkan laporan polis. [59] Perkara ini sering berlaku dalam kes-kes seksual dimana ia masih lagi satu ‘taboo’ dalam kalangan masyarat di Malaysia dan bukan senang untuk mangsa-mangsa tampil hadapan dan membuat laporan polis. Ia mengambil kekuatan yang tinggi untuk tampil hadapan dan melaporkan kejadian yang sungguh memalukan dan menimbulkan trauma. Mangsa walaupun apabila memberi keterangan kejadian sudah berlaku hampir 2 tahun masih lagi berasa malu dan menangis di Mahkamah terbuka. Mangsa juga memberi keterangan mangsa hanya berharapkan PERAYU akan mohon maaf dan pada awalnya tidak berniat untuk melaporkan pada sesiapa. ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (HUKUMAN) PERUNTUKKAN UNDANG-UNDANG: [60] Pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama ini memperuntukkan hukuman jika sabit kesalahan boleh dikenakan penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai sepuluh tahun atau dengan denda atau dengan sebat atau dengan mana-mana dua daripada itu. Mahkamah boleh menjatuhkan hukuman penjara atau sebatan ataupun kombinasi dua seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang dan selaras itu telah mengenakan hukuman penjara selama 6 bulan dan denda RM2000.00 gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara setelah mengambil kira faktor keseriusan kesalahan dilakukan oleh Perayu yang merupakan seorang penjawat awam dan berumur 54 tahun. Mahkamah turut mengambil kira faktor Perayu merupakan staff yang bekerja bersama mangsa di Hospital Teluk Intan dan kejadian yang berlaku sudah pastinya mendatangkan kesan trauma, ketakutan dan ketidakselesaan di tempat kerja kepada mangsa pada masa hadapan sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman yang setimpal. [61] Hukuman penjara yang telah dikenakan terhadap Perayu di dalam kes ini adalah selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan di mana Mahkamah berpendapat hukuman yang telah dikenakan ke atas Perayu ini adalah wajar dan setimpal dengan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan dan juga sebagai pengajaran bukan sahaja kepada Perayu tetapi juga kepada masyarakat amnya agar tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama. Adalah menjadi harapan Mahkamah ini bahawa dengan hukuman penjara ini dapat memberi pengajaran kepada S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Perayu untuk menjadi lebih bertanggungjawab terhadap setiap perbuatan yang dilakukannya kelak serta kembali bertaubat. REKOD LAMPAU: [62] Perayu di dalam kes ini tiada sebarang rekod kesalahan lampau dan ini adalah sabitan pertama Perayu. Y.A. Hakim Augustine Paul di dalam kes Chye Han Mun v. PP [2001] 1 LNS 38; [2001] MLJU 213 telah membuat rujukan kepada keputusan di dalam kes Sim Yeow Seng v. PP [1995] 3 SLR: "...a sentencing court should have regard to all of the accused's antecedents up to the moment of sentencing because these antecedents reveal his character, his attitudes and the likelihood of rehabilitation". [63] Walau bagaimanapun, sekalipun Perayu ini tidak mempunyai sebarang rekod lampau, namun kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu ini merupakan satu kesalahan yang serius yang mana Mahkamah melihat Perayu sebagai seorang yang berbahaya dan boleh bertindak dengan mengakibatkan perasaan yang takut serta ketidakselesaan terhadap orang lain demi kepuasan diri sendiri. Tindakan Perayu yang telah sergah dan menakutkan mangsa dan teruskan dengan perbuatan tersebut walaupun mangsa telah cuba menghalang Perayu menggunakan payung serta SP3 menjerit jangan berbuat sedemikian kerana mangsa adalah isteri orang, namun Perayu tidak endah dan masih meneruskan perbuatan yang keji itu. Ini menunjukkan Perayu ada niat untuk melakukan sesuatu yang tidak baik terhadap mangsa. Tindakanmangsa jelas menunjukkan beliau tidak selesa dan takut dengan perbuatan Perayu namun tindakan Perayu untuk meneruskan berbuat sedemikian menunjukkan Perayu tidak kisah dengan perasaan orang lain dan merupakan seorang yang memntingkan diri sendiri serta kepuasan diri. [64] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Yusmarin bin Samsudin v. P.P [1999] 4 CLJ 391 di mana Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan YA Siti Norma Yaakob menyatakan:- "The principles of sentencing have long been entrenched and well settled in our criminal law jurisprudence and a court seized with such jurisdiction is empowered to take into account the following considerations:- (1) the extent and seriousness of the offence committed; (2) the guilty person's antecedents; and (3) the public interest. " [65] Oleh yang demikian, sekalipun tiada sebarang rekod lampau melibatkan Perayu ini, Mahkamah berpendapat mengambil kira faktor di dalam kes di atas, hukuman yang berbentuk S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal pemenjaraan adalah perlu dikenakan terhadap Perayu di dalam kes ini. GRAVITI DAN KESERIUSAN KES: [66] Mahkamah berpendapat kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu ini merupakan salah satu kesalahan serius yang sering berlaku bukan sahaja di Melaka malahan di seluruh Malaysia. Kes-kes yang melibatkan jenayah seksual seperti cabul dan gangguan seksual semakin berleluasa di mana statistik PDRM bagi tahun 2018 hingga Ogos 2021 sahaja menyatakan, jumlah kes gangguan seksual di negara ini mencatatkan sebanyak 11,914 kes. Statistik ini jelas menunjukkan kekerapan kesalahan ini dilakukan dan ianya melibatkan segenap lapisan masyarakat dan pelbagai bangsa di Malaysia. [67] Hasil kajian yang dijalankan oleh PDRM turut mendapati hampir 90 peratus pemangsa seksual adalah individu dikenali seperti keluarga, kenalan mahupun individu yang mempunyai kedudukan di dalam masyarakat sementara 10 peratus lagi daripada individu tidak dikenali. Fakta ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa situasi sama terpakai di dalam kes ini yang mana Perayu yang merupakan kenalan kerja/ rakan sekerja mangsa telah bertindak melampaui batas dengan bertindak menggunakan kekerasan jenayah dan sergah mangsa sehingga mangsa trauma, ketakutan dan tidak selesa dengan perbuatan Perayu itu. [68] Mahkamah dalam hal ini mengambil kira faktor bahawa kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu adalah serius, kerana sekalipun tiada sebarang kecederaan fizikal mahupun kesan luka yang kelihatan, namun tetapi ianya tetap mendatangkan kesan trauma dan ketakutan kepada mangsa itu sendiri. Faktor mangsa seorang wanita yang cuma bekerja mencari rezeki di Hospital Teluk Intan yang mana mangsa terdedah sepenuhnya kepada perbuatan melampaui batas Perayu di dalam kes ini. [69] Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes KATHIRAVAN MARIAPIN lwn. PP [2018] 1 LNS 352 di mana Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi menyatakan:- "[18] Saya telah mengkaji semula alasan-alasan penghakiman Majistret yang ditulis dengan jelas dan baik. Pendapat utama beliau adalah seperti berikut: "The court referred to the case of PP v. Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 1 LNS 116; [1976] 2 MLJ 186 and PP v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256 whereby the court take into consideration the effect on family of the offender. Principles established in the case of Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP [1987] CLJ Rep 209; [1987] 2 CLJ 405; [1998] 1 MLJ 167 applied by the court which stated that "we have to look at the overall picture of what is the right sentence for the total involvement, the total degree of S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal criminality involved, and we had to keep the sentences in perspective with the sentences that have been passed on other occasions for offences involving criminal activity of this kind though of course varying in gravity. Clearly a deterrent element has to be involved, but because of the offences are very serious in nature, it does not necessarily follows that on the particular facts very long sentence of justified." For all the foregoing reasons, the court ordered that the accused to serve three years imprisonment from the date of arrest. The court finds that the sentence is still within the jurisdiction allowed and it is proportionate as a lesson to the accused as he is a habitual offender. Furthermore, the offence committed by the accused is serious in nature, i.e. the offence of drug abuse and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him is one of the example to the public as it's the duty of the court to give frequent reminder and set the example to the public at large." [19] Saya telah juga menanya Perayu dan Responden mengenai trend hukuman yang lazim dijatuhkan dalam kes-kes lampau berikutan sabitan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta tersebut. Jawapan mereka adalah buat masa sekarang nas-nas kes sedemikan amat kekurangan. [20] Maka berdasarkan fakta kes ini yang sedia ada, saya berpendapat bahawa tiada kesilapan rayuan dalam penghakiman Majistret yang memerlukan campur tangan rayuan (appellate intervention). " KEPENTINGAN AWAM: [70] Di dalam kes Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal [1994] 2 SCC 220 Mahkamah Agung India telah menyatakan:- "... Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting to the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment. " [71] Mahkamah telah menggunapakai prinsip di dalam kes Ball 35 Cr App R 164 yang menyatakan bahawa prinsip mengenai kepentingan awam ini telahpun lama diikuti oleh Mahkamah di negara ini iaitu sejak kes Abu Bakar bin Aliff [1952] 1 LNS 4; [1953] MLJ 19 yang mana Hakim Spenser Wilkinson telah menyatakan prinsip kepentingan umum secara jelas dan panjang lebar. Masyarakat secara umumnya menuntut hukuman berat dikenakan terhadap pesalah kes jenayah seksual dan Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Mukesh & Anor v. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal State of NCT of Delhi & Ors (Criminal Appeal Nos: 609-610 of 2017) di mana Mahkamah Agung India menyatakan:- "116.... The courts are consistently faced with the situation where they are required to answer the new challenges and mould the sentence to meet those challenges. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law. It is expected of the courts to operate the sentencing system as to impose such sentence which reflects the social conscience of the society. While determining sentence in heinous crimes, Judges ought to weigh its impact on the society and impose adequate sentence considering the collective conscience or society's cry for justice. While considering the imposition of appropriate punishment, courts should not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim and the society at large. " [72] Mahkamah ini juga berharap Perayu dapat kembali insaf dan kali ini benar-benar bertaubat serta berjanji supaya tidak kembali mengulangi kesalahan yang sama di masa hadapan kerana sekiranya Perayu masih mengekalkan sikapnya yang sama, Perayu sudah pastinya berdepan dengan hukuman yang lebih keras dan berat mengambil kira sabitan kesnya yang pertama ini. Mahkamah juga berharap, dengan hukuman pemenjaraan dan denda yang diberikan ini, dapat membantu menyedarkan Perayu untuk belajar lebih menghormati undang- undang negara ini dan mengamalkan konsep Rukun Negara yang kelima iaitu kesopanan dan kesusilaan. [73] Faktor kepentingan umum juga akan lebih terjaga dan terpelihara dengan Perayu diasingkan dan dikenakan hukuman yang mampu memberi pencegahan sekaligus memberikan amaran jelas kepada yang lain yang mungkin berhasrat untuk membuat kesalahan yang sama. [74] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, saya berpendapat bahawa sabitan dan hukuman yang telah dikenakan terhadap Perayu di dalam kes ini adalah munasabah, adil dan setimpal sebagai satu bentuk pengajaran terhadap Perayu dan saya percaya hukuman tersebut adalah bersesuaian dan berlandaskan peruntukan undang-undang terutamanya selepas saya mengambil kira semua faktor-faktor berkaitan 360 sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan di atas. [75] Walaubagaimanapun, saya serahkan kepada kebijaksanaan Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membuat keputusan yang sewajarnya. S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan [76] Setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan, ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan di sepanjang kes pendakwaan dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah di atas penilaian maksimum berpuashati untuk membuat Keputusan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap PERAYU melampaui keraguan yang munasabah maka dengan ini PERAYU disabitkan dan dikenakan hukuman penjara selama 6 bulan dan denda RM2000.00 gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara. Permohonan stay dibenarkan bagi hukuman penjara sahaja, hukuman denda perlu dibayar pada hari sabitan. ..................tt................ Ashvinii Thinakaran 1.2.2024 S/N YH5HqM4BEyotX6MH225FQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-62D-227-09/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAFIZI BIN DENDENG ZULHERI 2. ) MUHAMMAD FAISAL BIN SULAIMAN

PROSEDUR JENAYAH : Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 2 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952-sama ada sabitan teratur.RAYUAN : Rayuan atas hukuman – Memiliki dadah dibawah kawalan Tertuduh – kesalahan berulang – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan. HUKUMAN : Hukuman di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya – sama ada hukuman penjara dan sebatan melampau – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan.

05/02/2024

Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=11de8b4f-a479-45e9-8c0d-8065cf824142&Inline=true

05/02/2024 14:15:35 CB-62D-227-09/2023 Kand. 18 S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N T4veEXmk6UWMDYBlz4JBQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ca—s2D—227—u9/2023 Kand. 18 Jam/2:24 ,:1-1: *2 DALAM MAHKAMAN sssvsu DI YEMERLDH. DALAM usesm PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR. MALAYSIA xss N0: ca-s2n»227419»2o23 5 DI ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA ...PENDAKwA DAN MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAFIZI am DENDEN6 ZULNERI JERTUDUH KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT. HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN, TEMERLOH TARIKH MUKUMAN: 20 DISEMBER 2023 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN FERIIIULAAN 1 lm ada\ah rayuan danpada Terluduh yang mak berpuas hah :0 Iemadap kepmusan saya yang mbenkan Dada 20 12 2023 an mana saya le\ah menszbrlkan Terlucluh an hawah Seksyen 39M!) Aku Dadah Eenuruya 1552 «an amuxum pemava selzmz s lzmm mmai davlpada vsznza dan m seba|an dv bawah Soksyln saw) Akt: Dadah Bnrbahaya 1952. 2 Rayuan ada\aI1 lerhadap hukuman sahajz L.<mn.m..W...w.m,..mw.m )IvAI1:ASat!’-I1DANHA<uUlnVFM;Zy4IVl mu sw rmzxmmmuvamaoq -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm 5 3 4 PLI Penman pememzraan mak dilawakukan Dzlam arasan penghikxman ml. Tenuaun akan dlnuuk sebagax Tanuduh senagmmana kedudukannya dw Mahkamah sesyen. 5 Tenuduh‘ seorang Welsh Melayu bemsra 27 Iahun |e\ah amauapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Temerloh perluduhan sepam benkul mu UDUH/mr mum.» Mm BEKSAMASAMA mu cum :3 MM (mm xununs me ms nu scaum mm rmuaxm mm seas)./m mm RUMAH aesmumr No m Im so sum mzxwo.\4r.N|m.,\xi DAI,/\M mzmncmnuou m D/\Ly\M Nhfikkl mum mm mwux mama mrwm mum mwmw xwu mum sens»-mvn rims METIMVIYHETAMWE mum mm 3750 own» nun aw xmu uzum MELAKUKAN MZSALAHAN D1 mwu-1 scxsvarx :2 «:1 AKTA mum MRJJAIIAVA :95: (PINDAAN wxu)AMA 2» am not in nmuuw m aw»-1 SEKS\’tN}H/N21/\XT/\ vA\u mm um DlflACABER<I\MA sLKsYE\ . mum KtSLKS/KAN nuxumr» vpxmu ssumuk mun» KIAU rmmz». nmx xurume mm um mum mm :uuA AKAN mmmom HL’KuMIw . mu rum K\:r</we DARKPADA szvum szaum ...m. suw.\nn.«>u¢.u»n umnvn sm nuamusuvvmuvmzuauw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Page 2 2s Kembalw kepad: kss Iemadap on ml. saya menganmu maklum bahawa kesalahan bzrkaflan dadah berbahaya adalah kesalahan yang senus dan xapennmgan awam perm mnnaung; bagx menge\akkan masyarakat xeqeyas can punca Keglaun aklwm 5 dadah W FAKYOR MITIGASI 27 D: sampmg i|u saya yuga mempemmbangkan (aklor mmgasw on yang anlara \am on menanggung senrzng mu, semarlg Isten m dan 2 many anak on yuga bekeua sebagal mekamk dengan nenaapacan Rmnou sebulan FENGAKUAN SALAH 23 says was mengamnn ma pengakuan saran on Jugs Celah I5 menpmatkzn masa dan kus pwhz-1k—p\hak yang |evIiba| zu REKOD SABITAN LAMFAU 29 Walau bzgaimanapun, pengakuan sa\ah on hukamah sualu {skier Dennganan yang kua|‘ lehuhrlebm Iaguy on me\akukan kesakahan berkaman dadah 34: Says berpendapal bahawa hukuman yang beralwayardukenakan :5 I12 alas on supaya behau bolah senk flan naax mengmangw kesalzhan yang sama y-..m.y.m..-.wu..W....n.“.‘..M.m mlnmn ...m..,....u.W.>2..m.. Pzg 1| sw nwumwuvvmnvmzuauw -um smm ...m.mm be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 31 Mahkamah Rayuan da\am kes PP y Muhammad Fun Fun Mahmud [21715] 1 LNS 523 |eIah membenarkan rayuan pmzk pendakwaan ke a|as hukuman penjara 7 Iahun yang dlkenakan oren Hakim Mahkamah Tlnggl bag: kesmaluan m hawah Seksynn s 15A(2) ADE 1952 dan mengganllkannya flengan 10 namm penjara Mahkamah Rsyuan menegaskan sepem henkut 1y :1 M13 rzmslng In: Ream: ouapea: and havmg no/uswdetsd ms whm\sironsb'yhn|n Dames we run Imammmmyzgreedma1 me .mamnmam mm 01 xevan yeali ai was mexaa am by ma m leamed my» cum mass was mamvaauy mndeoune my unpemmst an our mm vmsn deahng wvm mm mm 01 an avpeal .s the Vaclav ol pubhl: mlernt As a we mmmal my .a puanayenvamaa nndme relsun undsflymg ma: pansy nas been max a cum: mus! he uaau mm In sum a way mm wouki be Is oivendas would be delerred Imm cummmmn xwmwlar awms Granted Dual mhabtlwalmn may am he a r~e\evAnl(|n:In1lo he oormdeved M uesemna cases, we Caun mvarlamy wm lean m vaywarmaw-a nula dalelvem sentence Iakmu mm aewum me ma or alarm: lha| was cnmmmed ay ma allender and ma zu rnmnnmy Msuch in ollence uaymg wrmdevad muse vacws ma Coun vml men see mm me trend on sentencing fur llrmlll mm at Menu: mxl wu bemg considered on appeal would be Mk: Having emu that me Conn .s well aware that there ya no such mm as a an: swzefils nu‘ mm m xelwenue lav alloilences :5 We law pnmdas my a range ovsenlenue wllhm um. um Conn ya emwnered ta mete mm in Iunvuurlale umgnces danendmg an m. mevam rams as we arcumnanres av Ine use may preeem [See aenauny the mse nl R y L-m1[1s51]3s Or App R 154 me an curd yuagmam ac Hllbevy u 5» [151 In W: use, me me-van! Want an pumshmenl luv the km av enema mmmmed ay ma Raapanaanu, as cunlilrved undel sec1um mm av the an has ptm/med Im a mmdmum senlenae of Me mpmanmam many years] and a mmlmum xmpnwnmemulfwe years‘ on wmnclnm am aboa mmnmum ac :5 van sums av ma wmvpmw In lms an m. leamad mgr. Com! my; run mused an ympnsanmenn mm 07 seven years Havmg scmnmsed aumaas nllmsuse lndmecwcumslanzzsa sunounflmg Inn commnsuon ul me mm andmeVan:|Il1aIIlve Rumor-Idem had weaeed gumy and was a ymnhlm awamay w: an wave av ma cnnsidevad Mew man we learned Hugh Cowl Judge had awed m exevcnsmg maaysauanan m pasmnu such a semervue ahrI\amnrImm|an ma fiespundem u was quite appalanl m us clqzmxvvn-1:1 Awxnuuwumnvfiux nuns: sACw‘.\rau~ruIu\lA\4 uur:A|>I Hg: 17 sw rmamyammnvaymauy «ma my ...ya.mm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm y.. .mm Wm! out naa Hvs lovdsmp vaken vma ncomml vn. punlv: vnvavau as me parammuvl aaasvaanavvan, he would nav have meted aav such a sanvanaa aa he and Theve was no aavansvava mum wavayvng an avavvy lenvemsentzncalhsl wu vmpovedovv me Respondenl a v.. vna ans av Elvarmulanarrda ./ayalv/eke V FP[1§32| v ML! as as apex Conn naa aaaasvan va say ‘Held mm. teamed msvvuaae was .asv.v.aa.n mflweugmng ms avea av mmaalvon v.. Ilvnur ann. aaavvs vnhvaxt wan a flew: In upmm ms flsgnvly ans aumnmy av the vaw .n ma vu cmm|ry' vvev cansvaaana vna aaava vmausl ana mevend an semencvng va. svmvlir avvanaa, vn wsw av ms vavaa imaunl an cannaaav ws agreed wmv me vaavnaa op: ma; mu asmanas bemg aapsavaa aaavnsvwas manflnlly vnadequite .n me avraamsvanvxs wa naa vs wen mm an avvsnaa av vna nltmv ought to be aaan with as avawaasvy aacvaaa aaass and lheve was na veasan for as In aaasn nam (he prevavhrvg |Iendm.IIunuld a. dunumld ham vna senlervmnv pllhm vavvawaa by In: Cour! vn smuuar cases The ..naa mxenlencmg vnav we navaaaa was aaswsan van lamlnzen zo yeavs vmpvvsorvm|n| Yrm gave us an Hes av wnav vns appmnnala aansanaa auanv va be. llkvng In|u lmnunl ms peculvavvues av (ms clan Yhs zmnum av Cannabvs vn mvs case wasavv asammaa Tlval amwm naa repressnlad mmi man In: Irlvesmumeshold EMDIAMOVSUQIINMBEIYIHKWOLIYGIYDQQOYI719 zs npelilmn n¢:sc1vun6M|he ammavvs aumsnaava umarsaclmn :eA(2v avvna sama An va aa -x::1. vlwas xeventeenlvmeswev me Imesmld amuum av so wnvmss vnav asmnaavy waava yelled me asnaasnass av live aflanna was an mat the Resverv-1en|Iud avasaaa gully lo vnaanama aaas no! mean lhil m n. waa enmlm vs an aulamalnc veduclmn in ma unlanee in as vmpasaa Semen-:vnn vs amvvavy at me mscvelvon an the cam anvass ms vaw under savavaw saaavavaa ulharwvse vn ms ms at Ezchvk Abdu/Ralvmlrv V P» [2004] 2 cu 572 (’Emmk Aaaav Rahmxn 15 can ) vv was nave mal - lhira an memiave as na aulumauc n.va vnav a glmty avaa an its awn aaavvas an amused va a lesser punishment ' Even .v an accused palwn .a armlled va a vsaaawan such vaduchun mus! veileume peaav.am.aan.ssanaas uf ma pamculav case sa any refluchun av unlanm maav be 4:» ian.1—sensv\vve n mun D2 -mply vuslvfiad by vna exlecmalma cucumxvznoes anna case asvava me sanlancmn Cmm vn snam a sswuva nol be awarded ammamy. vamev vvamuva be a product av a mature aaasaaa or vumavav avsavaaan As was nava by W: camv m vna Eachvk avn Abfluv Rnhman use [supra] gvvmg a H tedunnm vs nav a smcl nsva m max -vn exelcvse av vvs avsaetvurv n mzy wine In avam iny avsaaam- clanmdnlulx w»w>mu><A\u.w.:uv-nmlvlv xlrwwn u;v1><nnmw|m< :J>u2).\nI Pixel] am Nwanvwsuvvmnvavzuauw “Nana s.n.v nnvvhnrwm a. med w my a. avvavn.vva mvmn dun-mm w. arvuvm v-mxv nu Navma so carmdlvad we has name to mu unimmuus decmun mauhe suuerme ohmnnsanmenl nluevnn yazviuugm 5 no he sexasme and m II: Duos we run Imposed an wmprlsonmenl levm av I-n years to be mecllve lmm me da|ev1 ms wrest We had a\so decided not In drsmm 0.. mutant or Inn makes al me wmppmglhll was uupnseu by we learned mgncmmmg. wa nan lneveiore anmea the ivpeil by m. mm Pvuaculul‘ 32 Eevdasarkan kepada nas as alas, hukuman panjara s |ahun yang dxkenakan aleh Mahkamah ml adalah lebvh rendah nemanamg dengan kepuhlsan Mahkamah Rayuan m alas Hukuman m seba|an volan yang dwkenakan aaavan pahng mlnima dx bawah us seluyon :sA(2) Akla Dadah aemruyn 1952 JUMLAH DADAH YANG BESAR as Saya juga mangamml ma ‘unflah dadah yang dxmlllkl orsn on damm kes ma jug: besar ‘am; sebznyak :7 55 glam zu memampnetamme, mum mxsn msnr DAN BERYAUBAT 34 Da\am mmgasw OKT max Vangsung menuruukkan rasa bevsalah alau msal as Sekuznya nenau benar-banar sayangkan Isten, anak—anak dan kemarganya, sudah |enlu hehau ikan memmh mencan rezeki yang ha\a1dan bukannya mehbalkan dm dengan dadah E ......,m. >w,wNU;AA|lIADAmIxA><lr mm. $AhVu4hu4><\r<A/um :nA\1vAun mm N nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm KEPENTINGAN AWAM TERPELINARA as 37 say: pevcaya. Kepenmgan awam akan Iebm (erpehhara nka on dwasmgkan danpada masyarakat dalam sua|u tampon yang pamanq Semnga laIman~lahhan kamahlran yang bakal dwpelafian an peruava nann gapac menghllangkan wngalannya kepada nay: dadah can bellau mengamnu peluang (ersebm un|uk mempelayarl pcmagaw kemahrran benaeaan yang baleh mgunakan unmk mencan vezekw yang haIa\ kenka mbauasxan danpadz penjara nann FELUANG MEMEAIKI DIRI 33 Moga—moga (empuh pemeruaraan yang Vama ml memhen pemang kepada OKT unluk bermuhasabah dan mempelbalkr dw memadr wzrga negara yang lebm halk dan msnukar cam rnuup kepada yang bevmanlaal as Dv peruara jugay om berpeluang unluk helqar i|mu—Ilmu akadenuk flan Hmu—I|mu agama secara (ersusun beusauna pegawawqaegawm yang berlauluah an Adalah dmarapkan_ selepas gmebaskan danpada psruara nann. on “will (um rule: a new rear. mmusm 41 D1 am: analwsxsy saya bevpendapal hukuman yang telzh dualuhkan adalah mengwkul undangmndangy wajav dan munasahah serla senrnpal dengan kesalananyang dflakukan nleh Ienuduh c;Lzn:2nn.Im) ...w..,~....w......_rn .m.,,. ;Auu><nAnu;(um>4u«r,\A:vAnK n...:s syn nwumnauvvmnvmzuauw -nan s.nn ...n.mn be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm PENUTUF 42 Wa\au bagalmanzpun, Yang Am Hakvm Mahkamah Tmggx Temenoh adalah lebm am dan hiyaksana urnuk memumskan rayuan Im seaan-aaunya. Benarikh pad: 12hb.Janu.nvI 2024‘ m Hakim llahkzmih Sesyell Temerloh. Fahanq‘ Pihak-Fvhak: Tlmkzalan Pendakwa Ray: diwakill oluh Puan Wong Zh' Pnmm Thnbalan Pendakw: Rzya, Czwangzn Yemarloh‘ zu nnuauh mewakm am send rlnhxxvuuzurv P?|V-N5l4—AVlAAIANIlA. ‘(Aim mm Ur‘V»<1A~-4(AIa>\ mm. mm. sw nwzxmmuvvmnvmzuaoq -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm 5 Ferluduhan dv a(as lelah dmacakan kepada |erIud|m da\am Eahasa Malaysia yang dtlahaml aleh (enuduh 7 Tenudun dengan sukarsla mengaku bevsa\ah ks a|as perluduhan 3 Mahkamih seteruzmya menerangkan snau dan akIba| pengakuan salah mrsehuldan penmcukan hukuman yang boleh dnkenakan ke alislenuduh 2 Terluduh memahaml panevangan Mahkamah dzn maslh mengaku salan ke axas perluduhan‘ dan Ianam swat dan akwbat pengakuarmya nu RVNGKASAN FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN 10 sexemsnya, Tvmhalan Pendakwa Raya nevpewalarmengernukanan ringkasan iabda kes pendakwaan sepem benkul Bellmdnk am maklumm pada n7/as/202: pm team kuvang mu m psngadu bevsama — sin: magma bihlgxan smaxan ,.n:yzn narkouk mu pembal pans daerah remenon Iervm darlpada ms»: H9553 fias\y D/KPL 174995 Azrmahah mm 203436 mx Mahd m.mmn_ uxn zoms Mnhzmzd mm. dan mm 213251 Nwk Subaru dalam permgasan on tapxs dw kiwiun penudtman haw pohs Mentakab veiahhual xemuanke :02: sauna)! mm bahagan Vuaiseberah km mmah bevahmal No ans Jln Kg Suna «a 254m: Menlakab Pahang nm in Iudnpan amk baht;-an Vuavsebelah km mmameysehm bmlmzun (2; mm Melayu man; dufluk menghidip mm um um: lam a.n meuyedan kehidwrxn kzrm kedua — dua wax. Mmayu lehn melnnkzn Hm be an hmgkal pmlu bahagvan hehkang an-x larsvbm dan akmmy: beuaya dnlangkap Men mam. nperasw aw ¢t<1L*¢11)trx: ».n«.w......7.m -«Am! mnvzou g.....mm.. sxuxzynnl n nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm Via: a «em pngnv lzahaglan b-Vakxng mman, berlaku pevgemlan genus: pvmu pmnguapan auaman Fengaflu kumpmkan kaduz _ aua subjek dan K:na\><an am sebagm pegav-1:1 mm. puns dengan mermnjukkan kad xma sum dun mmm km s pengenaxan mu unluk dlpenkn Sallmsnya dvszkvkan clan mm: 4... sum Dengadu manxm psmenuaun mum hadan ke m. kedu: . dun xumak nan menjumpan apa — ape having snmh Pemankxaln um: ke atas tubgek ac mengahmx k-mdsllzn mu mbahaglan mala sebelah km, per: mam: m m banagwan Iarvgan kanan din Vengan ammgmn Iangnn um. 52 mg: memplmyax um kecfl mhahagmn lumn um sahclzn kanan alubal nergahnan Kemmtmn ruauqadu ‘zlankan pgmenksaan ks 31.. man: mu. — dua wmak wan: ubelum amen belah meruumpin malas um. dmalam tuhk nanagm. ma! sebelan my I5 mmah Nu m beg inang hemp warn: mum be/Iuha Camn Mam Fengadu Bulk: Bag mu flan palankan pemenknan dvdalamny: emu salu m nmum plishc mum, pangzdu buka bnmlan phsflc mam «emcm «amp-| bungkusan waive Imam din pengidu huk: mum mam Oavdapal (1) ran: mm" plaslm in Mam flan pengadu mm Dalman Izvsehm man ad: 11) mm lashk M smar drdakamnya hens: kelulln a... selbuk mm dmyaku dadah ‘em: syaau, VABEZE1 glam} flan jug: mun hemapalm um: piishc mnsm balm mm... .1... sarbuk xmax may-am dadah|=mssvabu1AE 3 57 gram yang u..umpam-aavam gs bog mug ilnehm (anggalin keiehruhan ms 56 5a gram) mm duumpaw nsdmam beg mlang Lersebm (1) pm: plzslrc Vulnnarmdahmnya mempunyal 44) paxgnpxasuc lulsmav musing — masmg berm Kemlan flan semukkeammin msym dndnluemx he/om ma 5 as gramhinnwbmu\vLIaIn:m1mn:maIpanmup 3» wama kurlmg dmahmuy: bans! kvlulan dan selbuk kepumvan msyah nadah ;amsHemm (AB 361 gr:m)danda\am beg sum cl4:>1x'-nu:wumvwmmn-uluxuswv zwamzn ;..w...w...4..m..mm mu sm nuamwuvvmnvmzuauw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm uuluia aaaL1)nmnpusncummarumxamnya hens: 19) but pm wnma "mu mm wv amm dadah gems pm my ( AB 099 gum} Fangaflu Yzngkip 42> lelakn mac“ din rampas bsvzlg kas umuk Imdakan selannnnya sebaqmmnnn s msuuua Rnpon mnauzn ANALISA mun» mum Swasnlan Vanlul mg dqalankan‘ yang mm hating Kai Ieuh dmmarku ,mnzn kwma Kuanlan unmk manausa Hm anahsa m ahh klrma mah mengesahkan Samnm Suva! ‘ASH’ Temapax salu 9-kel plum: lulnnzv bananda -25- Damn empil nakm masnc Vulsmav lam her\anda'DH1‘ mnggga'DH4“darI saw us mar pm»: Iulsmzv belpenulup warns kunmg henanda ‘DH5' sehap salu mengandungl bahan keluhan flan serbukwnma palm Sexelah manahsa hem hersm mm... tamauul man 4.31 glam yang menqlndunvl n.u gum hnruln am am; cram Monulollylmamhlnl . za Samnm 5...: ‘As Du: naked wastwc Vulsmav henanda ‘Dsv den 1252- saw um mecmanflunm bar-an mm mm an mandlpln beval umm bahan Iersebul semmlah sz.u.w.... yin; mnnq.IndIInnI!7 5s 25 gum Mlmlmphmmunn Slmpm wvil 'ASY' Sam p:ka| lmsmar benanda ‘nvr menuamlungv an — pm berwama merah am berm zmsm an lelsebul yaiumllh an m gram yang mtnnindungv nus gum Mullumplldamlnn cuzwnznwn ».m..w..m.L...m nun» SAlNAI|)M4>NMfl.h1)IVl(1\!Dl F3395 sw nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm H-mm‘ Manazoemmclpmne dan melhamphelamme mm. mssnamuan dmam liflual Deruma Am man Eemnhiyn 1952 um suntan Dlglwal panywaxal bevdasilkin uecuemuan halang ken amzn adalan dawn kawalan lerluduh (Hum 4227 kehk: dnahan lznpa kebenaran yang sah menmkul unding _ undaw Olen my «mum Iemnaun LE1) can mm my. mehkukanlkesalahanvanlu . ‘ Se><syurH2(2}ADE1Q52 hagldadahdalam kamlanlul gum (mm bus!!!) man Jeni: Herein am In-snoacelylmorvhlne. n semen IZ(2)ADB1952 hagvdadahdalam ma:anu.m x5 mam (mm huslh} an.» inn. Mnmlmplulamlnl nu. Seksyen as (A: ADE 1952 bag! dadah dalam kawalan 11.5: urlm (hem b-rslhj dadah mus Ilhmumphnalvllne. In Kesemu: penua-man mam mum. xeksyen 34 mun keseksaan nmgmmm u Salmanlavofl Mamakab Rvr 3073423 2 up-nan Janacan Kmua Mawaysua No Maxmx 23.FR-C. ms: 11 Fan: Kes ax alas le\ah dxbacakan kepada tenuduh melalul jurubahasa Mahkamah dan dlsahkan senaga» helul 5» 12 Fakla kss kemudlznnya duandakan sebagaw eksmn P1 :..m,..m....m.m.....m.....m‘ ..‘...,. ,..m.=~.m..».mmn. Pages N nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 13 Selemsnya‘ TImba\an Pendakwa Raya (erve\a;zr mengemukakan ekstlmeksxbnl sepem berilun (a) Menlakib Report No aonma yebagal F2 (:2) remencm Report No 3330/23 sebagaw P3 4:; 1 Vaporan xma sehagan P4 (cl) Burang senaraw geledah sebagai P5 (ab 12 kepmg gambar cempac mama" sebaga: PEA-L (0 5 kepmg gambar harang kes sebagax P7A-E 14 Ekslbn P4 mngga P7 dnuruukkan kepada terludull dan mam benar RAVIJAN vsnmoun 15. Mahkamah se|erusnya mendengal rayuan danpada |erIuduh 15 nnuaur: an dalam vayuannya menyaukan (aj Terlumm menmhon Imkuman u gankan dan mm dan (ankh (angkip (vb Terluduh bemmur 21 (shun (cy Terluduh sudah berkanwm uan mempunyax 2 orzng anak (:1) Temnduh bekeqa sebagaw penaanacan Rmoou sebulan seorang mekamk dengan (e) Vslenbekeua m Tenuuun memyunyaw 4 langgungan uanu seorzng vbu. searang Is|evI dan 2 many anak. »-2:» 7 sw nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm REKOD SABITAN LAMPAU 17 TPR memaklumkan bzhawa on mempunyaw rekud sabnan lampau xenam Barang was max dnkemukakan 15 Setemsnya. Tlmbalan Pendakwa Raye (erpe\a]ar berman sepem 3 nenxm. (a) Pohun hukuman yang beral kerana hem bersih dadah yang mmmku men on semasa kqadnzn ada\ah 3755 gram methamphetamine (up Mahkamzh pevlu mempemmhangkan bahawa kes dzdah to adalah sualu kesalahan yang serlus (ct Mahkamah perlu pemmhangkan kekevapan kes an hawah seksyen 39A12DAkLa Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang bevlsku ax NegeHFaI1ang (d) OKT anangkap Didi 752023 dan mreman darn (ankh vi Iangkzp snamm 19 Selelah mendengav pengakuan salzh (enumm Ianpa syarzt, menelnlz ekswbluakslbwl yang lelah dwkemukakan m hadapan :0 Mahkamah‘ Mahkamah menenma pengakuan ss\ah cenumm m alas keduadua penuduhan dan mensalmkan (enuduh sebagaxmana penuduhan nuxuuuu 2o Selelah memmhang vayuan lerluduh din man Txmbalan Pendakwa Raya‘ Mahkamah mengenzkan hukuman seperll benkul E...em»xn ».m....u..g.w»4.wm rmnun V-|rImnw>«.Iuu»«5)1AmALm Pa:r§ sw nwumwuvvmnvmzuauw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm so Penjzra 6 (amm mula: 7 s 2023 dan 10 seba|an m bzwah Snksyln aeuz) Am Dad»: smunaya 1552 ALASAN ATAS HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIFUTUSKAN KESALAHAN ssmus 22 Pnnsxp unaangmuang berhubung hukuman |elah ;elas dan manlap Perllmbangan mama mengenal hukuman ml se\ain VakloHak|orla|n adalah «am: kepenhngan awam D1 sampmg mu. faklov ke»en|Ingan awam mi pevlu di bang! dengan lakmr kepenlmgan lerluduh Bersesualan an smi unmk dumhas kemnan pamaxasan yang dmya|akan da\am kes Fubli: Frosncular y. Loo cnoon Fan M97612 MLJ 259 yang n1er\]e\askan seven: henKu|' ‘One Mme mam wnsmsvahont m we a|1numn| afunlzence .5 of course me quesflan al Dubhc mlnresl On nus mm u need amy quole a Dassaga «mm It»: judgmanl m Hflbsry 4 m Rex V Kennem John saw as !o\Iw4s— ‘\n demdmg ma appm.mam.n:.ncucaun;numn alwzyx befimdad byoenam conswderalmns The N31 and lovemosl u In: Dubhc mleresl ma cnmvrm Vaw 15 mm», enlnrued. not my mm Ihe oqecl at punishing came, mu a\so m cm nape Lrfnlevenlmg It A Dmher m¢e.u.e Dassed m pm: selves me public mmn m Ma way: u may um. others who mm he xemmerl la uy cnme as seemma 1.: one: easy muneyonlhe supposmovu. lhal Mm nflanflanx czugm and mmm Iawsuce, me nun\shmeMwvH beneglm-ble Such a nmanoz may xlw am on pzmcmar cnmmll Vmm wmrmllm a cum auam, or mduoe mm \o m born a crvmnal In an honest We The Dubhc mlertsl VS mdeed served, and best served n we Mendy .; minced 4;: mm «mm c4|mm.l\ ways «:2 hunts! mm Om xaw dues not Iivevelova rum wmenceiola pammavenma, um nus a mamum sentence mm weaves n m the cum to deckle whal W5 wumm me mammm, the zppmynave namanoa luv each mum: m we uammm cnrcumsmnues at each case Nal 23. Pafie v N nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm uu\yIn reglvd m uuv cnml, hm m regard «a sash cHmma\ me com! has me mm and me dmym decide whelherm be Yemen! av severe‘ Pvasudems and Magrslvales ave often mmea quwe «many to 5 be we!-symvitheiu: In me lccusnd ms us a rmvmal psychnbglcfl vazmmn «a me wuauan m which me Vonely mum ws seen many -In my alwllmsu: mm lumumy Tn- mmgnhan submmad by a ouIwIL1e¢ person WHI enso novmifly um uv nvomems at lamly havdshxn ms the n|he< usu:\ Ia pmmlrlu av Iwmg m such 2 snualmn (he owns m-gm pamaps ms m Micah to deem as to what sentence should be wmpmed so um me normcled vemm may ml :7. lumm hmdanad um. :ddmnna\ hamxhlp Yms .s my vxew us a wmng appmach we came: approach .. m smug . hnllnce .. vm is Dawn! 15 between the Imzvastx m m publwc and me mleresls 04 me amused ma Goddard mm In Rex V Gmndkawsk: mm mm: gmd mm mm. he um. we ludue mus! wnszdev me mlzresls nnusuue .. weH .. OI: mheresls L11 me pnmngls n u be omen nowadays an mougm, ovseems Io bemuuuhn lhauhe mlelesls onusuce mm: unly Iha mlnmns um: pflnmul: - BUDIBICARA 24 Selain nu, saya juga mengambu maklum bihawa kuasa 2: rnerualuhkan (empoh hukuman vm aaaxah kuasa bud: bncava Hakim am: Ielapl kuasa Im hendaklah selaras dengan pnnslp undang—undang bemuhung Iwukuman 25 Damn kes Mahkamah Rayuan, Gane:-an a/I Namilppin 4. Or: m v. P-ndakwa Raye [zoom 3 AMR 2521 dlyebskan. ‘The Wm 01 senxemng gwzn m a Inn! mun \s a msuenuna-y une and m was! Var us as me avpeflale com. |u dlslum me mmm nmpm-d. we must a. mmma Mal ma ma! Judge had ened m ipplymg me oorrecl pnnmples an semenmny at had 35 embarked an sun: uniulhmsed DI axlllnenus axevul: no mweuon (see 5-9 1/ Lou Cnnan Fat! mm] 2 MU Z56 and Bhandu/anands Jayan/aka V PP [1932] 1 MN say‘ KESALAHAN SERIUS m.,.;....m .....«..».......,.m.,.m uwnuan ,..,.«......W..\...m.». p sw nwamwuvvmnvmzuauw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24-10-02/2023

PEMOHON Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore RESPONDEN Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad

Notice of Application dated 3.4.2023 under Section 5(1) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA) and Order 67 Rule 9 of the ROC 2012 to set aside the Ex-Parte Order dated 23.2.2023 and the registration of the Judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore dated 1.11.2022 on grounds of breach of public policy in Malaysia.

05/02/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2c6dbf32-a4f6-42e0-a9b5-819eca15f453&Inline=true

05/02/2024 14:32:31 WA-24-10-02/2023 Kand. 35 S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Mr9tLPak4EKptYGeyhX0Uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—24—10—02/2023 Kand. 35 as/02;2n2L 1a:J2-3) mum rmoxnmm TINGGI MALAVA nu xunu L|.|lAP|.|R Mum wuuun psnsaxurum KUALA LUMPUR. mnuvsu xsarucuw KLIASA-KUASA mus) umm pzmu 5 Mg 145;; 5_q gnggg; Dalam Perxam Seksyen 4 Ma Pnngualkuasaan Panqhakvman smmg 1953 Dan Dlhm perxara Alulan av Kaeaah 2 KIodah—K=nd:h Mahkamah 2m2 Dan Dalam Femnrn Panghlklmln M.num.n Twzgu Repuunk Smgapura bensnkh 1 n 2022 flahm Saman No HC/DA 461/ am ANTARA MDYOR wsuasas auaznu or smmwoa: wwrmr mm mxcnrnc a. omsm wsumwcs co asmmn DEFENDAN Judgment Introduction 1. The Dmnaant med a Nance o1 Apphcanicn dated 34.2023 (Enclosure 3) under sscmn 5(1) ov me Reuprocax Enforcement M p... 1 M27 sm Mr*1ILPak4EKp4YGIyhXnLlw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgments Act 1953 [REJA) and order 57 Rule 9 of the Ruies of court 2:112 (RDC) to obtain the toiiiming orders and reiiets V 1 1 The Ex-Pane order dated 23 2 2023 and the registration or the Judgment oi the High court or the Repubhc of Singapore dated t.t1 zu22 ‘ civil suit Na’ HC/DA 461/2022 (Sinnapou Judgment) be set aside t.2. The basis :2! this appiieatiori be borne by the Piairiutt t 3 such further or other reiiet as this Honourabie ceun deems it 2. In essencei the Defendam is seeking to set aside the registration at the singapore Judgment under the order tor Regislralxlrli on grounds at breach ot pubiio ooiicy in Maiaysia 3. In opposing the Deteridants appiicaticn, the Plaintifl contends that:— 3|. The enfurcemenl ot the Singapore Judgment is not against Malaysian pupiie pchcy, The provision oi oasseriger iiabiiity under the motor insurance bureau scheme is, in fact, oonsistent with the Malaysian puoiie pohcy. and 3.2 The oatendani is barred by res iudicaia and issues astoopei to ieiitigate the issues raised in previous proceedings 4. Mlet the hearing, iaiiowed the Detenoarits appkcalion tenciosure at. This judgmenl contains the tun reasons tor my decision. aackgiourids Facts 5 The iianatibri at the hadgmund tacis herein is adopted with andlur without madIfit:a|Iun trom the written submissions Mme Flames and can be summanzeo as follows - st The Ptaintitt is e nawpmfll organisation that operates a scheme tunded by an general insurance oompanies and Lloyd‘: underwriters uansacung corriouisory motor vehtcie insurance business in Singapore The onniary funnion at the Piainmt in Singapore is to ensure that victims oi road tramc eocidents are not without recourse. in the event that must 17 ru Mr1ILPak4EKp1YGIyVtXnLIw “None s.ii.i nuvihnrwm .. UIQG In may i... uflninnflly MVMI dnuuriml vn uFiuNfl Wm! 7. suliianianiani was a pllllcrl nde« on tne Motorcycle inal Pieni was riding on 27.7.2015 at or about 5.55 pm which was involved in a iead tram: Iccldsm along Tuas West Avenue 3 in Singapore (iii- Accidnnl) AI tne time oi tne Ascidenl, ine netendani nad a pullcy insurance ave! me said nioiorcyue wnicli did ndiincliide passenger oavei 5 Tne Plaintill intervened in suit 523 and an 15.22022, 3 final iiidgment was entered by consent liar sutiiamanieni agalnsl Piem loi ssnssspou no as ldllowsz - 8.1 generul damages (inclusive 0! lrllielesn at SGD565.000 00, B 2 special damages (inclusive oi interest) at SGD25D.0Dfl 00, la 3 costs oi sentzomu no. and a 4 disauisenient cl sGDso,ooo no 9 On ie.s.2o22, me Plaintm filed Suit ND HC/OA 46!/2022 against iiie nelendani in iris Singapore l-iign couii |u ieedvei a sum sl 53985000 (Singlporl Suit). being monies paid by (he Plalnllfl to Subramanlam, an lnlured pillioii ndei or a motdmyele to The Plainlimnen cciniended lhal lne Dalendant is liable lo repay tne sum to me Plaintiff as an ’1nsurer Concerned“ under tne speaal Agreemerll and me MOA 11 By an email dated 18 52022, me Plaintiffs Singapore solicitors served ina slngapors suit cause papers on me Delendanrs Malaysian selicnois and asxed wheinei me Delendani would he insinicting Singapore soliciteis in aedept seniioe at prowss 12 Ey a letter dated 19 5.2022 to the Plainlilrs Singapore Sohcilors, lhe Defendant through its solicitors stated as follows. (I) The Plaintirl was well aware inai lnaie is no liability tor uie Delendant in repay lrie Plaintill in tnis irls|anoe. tn) The consfl'LAC|lol'l tnai tiie Flalrlllfl sougm to place on me Special Agieenieni and the MOA, and ine basis on which me Plalnllfl sought to impose liability on (he Delendant, (ell foul of Malaysian public policy Page II M 17 IN MflILPak4EKp|YGIyhXnLlw “Nair s.n.i navlhnrwm be u... a may i... nflnlnnllly MVMI dnuavlml y. muua Wm! ta. 14 is is. 17 Is. 19 (iii) A: Singapore Calms are not competent to adiudioate on Malaysian ptmllc poticy. ttie Detendant did not intend to participate in me singapore suit (iv) The Deiendants nDn—par|ictpalion in the Singapore Suil stiaii not be construed as an admission pitne Ptaintiirs. oontentions and oiairris By a leller dated 1 9 2022, tne Piaintiirs singapore sotieitore served tne Singapore suit cause papers on tna Detendant. By a tetter dated 7.9 2022 to me vtain I 5 Singapore soticitors, ttie Dateridant tnreugn its solicitors maintained triat it is not name ID repay the Platrtlrfl‘ The Defandanl did not enter an appearance tn We Singapore Sutl and did not submit to tne jurisdiction at ttie Singapore Cntms. On I 11 2022, Ihe Singapore High Cmm issued the Stngapnre titdgnieriit. wtiioti was sent by the Ptairimrs singapere Solicitors to tne oetendaiit oy a tetter dated 2 tt.2o22 on 3 2 2023. ttie Ptaintitvapptied trirougn Enetosure 1 to registertne Singapore Judgment pursuant to section 4 oi the REJA and order 67 pttne aoc. On 23 2 2023, this Honouraote court granted Enclosure 1 and registered tne Singapore .tudgment Enetosure 5 and the Notice or Registration at Foreign Judgment dated 22.3 2023 were after tnat served on the Deiendant on 22.3.2023. on 3 4.2023. ttie Defendant med Enclosure No set aside Enclosure 5 and me registratron or me Singapore Judgment, pursuam to section 5m oi tna REJA and order av Rule 9 oitne me. The Panin contention 20 The niain oontention oitne Deteiidant IS triat the eritoroenient oitne srngapoie iudgnient and ordertor Regts ration is against the pubhc policy in Matayeia. r... :2 iii 2: m MflILFakAEKplYGIyhXnLlw “Nair s.ii.i luvthnrwm be 0.... In may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuavtml VI nFtt.INfl p-iii.i 21 In gust. me Plamnff subrmts mac - 21.1 The anrorcamann M ma Singapore Judgment Is not agamsi Malaysxan Dublnc may The provismn of passenger liah" y under the motor msuram-.e bureau scheme 1s, m (act. conswslenl wm: me Mawaysuan pubhc pulley, and 21 2 The Delendanl us barred by 7% Judicava and wssues estoppel In ralmgaxe me Issues rawseu m prevxous prooeeamga 22 The Delendanls apphcanon to set aswde me Smgapure Judgmem and area: For Ragwslrahon m me present case hmges an Sectmn so i(a)|v) of the REJA‘ wh ch states as lollows » >5 my on an apphcalmn .n mm behaflauly made by any my agamsivmom a regvslered mdgmem may In amuvced me neg-slranon um» ,uagmenx— ta) shaH :22 set awe me mgxslrilmn mun u satwsfiud» M lhal lb: enfumumlnt of m ind mm would In cumrlvylovubllc nunnyln Mnllylln ov ' Iemphasvs added) 23. The nuh Issue H’! the present case 15 whether the ruguslrauun and envamemem cl me Smgapore Judgmem and Order our Rsgwsnanon I5 contrary |0 publwc policy In Malaysia 24 The ooncepl ov ‘pubhc pohcy‘ was exmamed by Ahdm Hamid Muhamad J (as he men was) m aanaua Nallonaln on Paris v. wuau Swu May 5 Anor [2000] 1 MLRH 563: moo] 3 ML! 531; [2000] 3 AMR um; lznon] 4 cu 337‘ as louowsz - 151 However 1 M57: in stress Ilml ma puma: pointy nut -mm M commmn I: ma puhllcpollcy In Malaysia. Yhax Vs whats 5(I)(a)(v) of m. as» say: Therein/6‘ Malaysva owns mum nu| My mu much on deusmns av mum m amar ownlnas Adophng lhe maples .5 not obpecuonabh but u Ilmulfl a. dung mm m aqhun. nlwlyl buvlm: In mind me prevailing cirtumxunc-s m cm cwmry. am «a mom a specwfic mmvg lhal a pamcmar mailer ‘s m .a um agamax me nub!» pointy m one ooumry at my pamcmar new cl um: under ma cwcunmanniri mam: am Mr1ILPak4EKp1YGIyhxnuw «mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! then mm ng n ma oaurnvy as a non cl saw mumme an me mg m ms counlry V5, V1 my mew nel adwsame my Sn. when a Pllllays n court is consmenng me Issue of nuhl policy In muaym. n mum leek u ynlun um M In: gmmnmn penny. Malaysia maul ululx and all am" r-Vcvanl factors (Mn pnvllllnn In Mulaysli, vndudxng man we memuzrwd sums! mun: policy" am an pumm o1s.S(I)(aKv)M nan n my V .4, w .. mn "lllngllly", am x will run Amman in man. u. I do no m k n can u. dnfimd" lemphasws added) 25 Further, we Federal Courl m Jan 01 Nul (:4) sun Bhd & Anor v. Vlncon(Tln cnu Viouu 5. Anor[2|JW]1 MLRA v1:[1nw]2 ML! 413; [2013] AMEJ 1445: [2o19]1 CLJ I new asfoflnws — 1551 As chew stated by the Court at Appua\ n Svnuv Hos (Mm Much we agvee) --m cnnc-pt cl puhllc wllny musl be one «am in cm crunu mm mm lundlmunul plimflpln Mlnw nrnntlcl n. llgaged, some e\emenI IHega\ny. vwnzre enlurcemem 01 me am/K1 mvnvve: mam .n,.ny Io pubh: good nr In: mlegnlynv me cmm . pmuesl or powers man be abused [say Yhs scene at pubhc pahcy gmuma my selling assde an arD\|ra\ avmrd could my be wwwkad ul deuewmg case we .n Inslances when: n invents a vIn\a|\nn ohhe most basn: nolmm M mnrulrly and juslwoe II ca. Ihmdlmvnlllprlnclplc nilnu Indwllu: nunblllnllwu .- well prov: ml "spun. nslances mm m upnominq of .n nmilrn ud would Ihoek um wnucnnu, M clufly nnunou. to me nllblll: gum. or vmnlly omnsm In me nrdlnary nasenahln and my lniormlfl m-mm ml the publlc, nan bun mm by wuns m vanous Mndlclxon to ran wwhm me catvgoly av mIl7\m new ground Dar semng asxde an albnral swam (emphasws added) 25 Easad an the above cases, mus Com :5 av ma vxew man when considering the reg\s1ra|I0n and enfomemenl of a fuvexgn judgment me vouowmg prirtcxmes cl pubhc pansy must be vaken inln account - n... .4 at :7 sm Mr*1ILPak4EKp4YGIyhXnLlw «wn. smm ...n.mn .. U... w my me nnmnnuly mm: mmn Vfl .nunc Wm! |l) what should be mnsldered ls Malayslan public aottey, as understood and apolred by a Malayslarl court In delermlnlng what constitutes Malayslan publlc volley. a Malaystan Courl should constder: ta) Nalaystan la (b) Irte pclllcy at the law, to) the policy In ralahan to the adminlslraltorl olme law: (dl tundamentat pnrtctples o1 suostantwe and procedural law and lusllce; tel l/lalayslan government pcltcyt tll Malayatan moral valuest to) whether the entmcementts clearly lniurlous to the oubltc good (ht whether the entoroentent ls wholly offensive no the ordrnary reasonable and tully rnlornted member of the 9|-|DllCt5l1d (I) all other relevant tacmrs preyatltng In Malaysra 27 Having perused the cause papers and suhmlsstuns ot the oames, I am at the Vlew that the reglslraltan and eniorwmenl ol the stngapora Judgmsnl wlll conlravarte Malayslan publlc pullcy lmposlllon af Singaporo Law on Mlllyilnn lnsurm 23, ll Is to be noted that me legislative framework and pnllcy ctflhe RTA I987 shaw tne lollowtrtg. - up The RTA tsa7 lmpcses a mandatory statutory duty on users or owners of motor vsnioles to dotatn an lnsurance oolrcy to cover thtrd parry nsks. Thts duty ls not Imposed on msurers r... nsuvu m MflILPak4EKp1YGIyhXnLIw «war. s.n.t luvthnrwlll r. u... In my r... nflnlnnllly Mthln dnuavlml y. arlutta vtmxl ln) However, users orowners olrrrolaryenrcles are nel oompelleo la Insure agalnsl inlury lo passengers, except ln lrmlled clrcumslances whmrl do not apply (0 ms pressnr case. Ml] nrerelore, passengers have to assess lor mernselves are risks pl laklng prlyale lransponanon (see: Slcllons sum and 21(1) oune RTA1987) 29. Yherefore, based on me above ll rs clear lhal — (ll Farllamenl nas no lnlemlan pl mandallng passenger power under me RTA 1937‘ (ll) passenger cover ls opllorlal‘ and can be Dblillrlaa by users or owners alrnoler vehlcles, snow may moose lo so so: and lull passengers should assess lor lnerneelyes ms vlsks olrakrng pnvale hansporlallon 30. Gwen me above ll ne passenger cover has peen purchased by me lnsuredr and a passenger ls lnlured. lne lnserer cannm be liable under Malaysian law In oornpenssle lne passenger ll ls me responalplllly or me mauled lo eornpensale me passenger personally :1 ms VS lne posmon slalurory prescnbed by Farllamenl Ihmwgh lne RTA1987, and W5 rs me bass on wmch lne Delendanl and olrrer Malayslzn lnsurers proyrae molorlnsurance |aIhe pubhc 32 Therefore. ills nol me duly of a Malayslan lnsuler under Malaysian law to pay lar passengernsks which me insured rurnseli has chosen nm to cover and pay an armluonal premlum car 33. As rsqulred py ENM, the Delendam places a prmnlnent nollce on me nelenaanrs Molnr Insurance Proposal Form lor all lnsuleds, wlnm slales man oonrpuleory passenger Ilablhly cover ls requrreo W Slngapore under Chamer189: “ll rs an awence wait 0:‘ new or Rspubllc 015-rlanpclra re snuar me courlvy wnmul enenarng passenger naprlny pover lo vpur rnovpr mwvlnoe‘ la... is all? srn Mr1ILPak4E><p1Ys-yhxnuw “Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll a. we a may r... annn.l-r am. dnuavlml y. nrlurm war 35 36 37. However. lne insured in the presenl case cnase not to purchase passenger cover Therefore‘ I am olttie viewlhal under me an 1937. tne Delendanl is not liable |o compensate lrie inyured pillion rider or repay sucn campens ' mlhe Piainliu The insured or lne rider is liable lor me singapore Judgment sum and tne insured cannon seek an indemnity lrpni me Detenuant under nis polioy Further‘ I view that the entoroemenl or lne Singapore Judgment will efiectiuety re-wnle lne leglslalwe policy behind me RTA 1951 wittioul any Farilamenl-sancuoned amendments mandating passenger mver II is the considered View of |his Cuurl lhal Ifle enloroemeril 0' |he Slngapnva Judgmemwlll also contravene Malaysian pubhc pollcylar |7Ie following reasons - (it Tna impiupn pi mandatory passenger cover is in direct conniot wiiti lrie RTA 1937. which governs the entire Malaysian molar venicle insurance induslry liit ll will inplate lne stalutary lreedom oi cnoioe given by the RTA 1957 I0 Malaysian insureds to procure passenger cover, evlectivaly miklng it mandatory despite um peing required py tne RTA1957, liiil it will se| a precedent and allow me Plainliii lo canimenoe similar Dwceedlngs against all Malaysian ma|ar insurers, regardless M wnetner or nol insureds have taken passenger cover (iv) it snina the onus of ahlalnlng passenger oover lrom insureds to insurers. inereey undermining tne lreedom oi insureds to make their own ctroioes and potentially limiting Ihe travel at Malaysian-registered veiiioles In Singapore (V) This is me exact opposrle ol the legislative framework and policy at ttte RTA 1957, and amounts to me backdoor‘ imppsrlign olsingappre law on Malaysian motor insurers. v... 11 ar 17 IN MflILPak4EKp1Y6dyhxnLIw «mu. s.ii.i luvlhnrwm a. u... in may i... nflmnufily MIMI dnuavlml VI nFluNfl vtmxl as aased on me akmve, It rs my viewlha1Parhamen(‘s rnrermon for me genera! pubhcw deede fnrthemsewes whemerto dmarrr passenger cover WIH be undermmsd. Ma|or insurers wm be lowed ro arrner recorrsrder pmvldmg insurance to me genera! pubhc (or vamcres lravelmg rnrd srrrgapdre, or rarse Insurance prerrnurns rdr me general public rd rnandarary cover passangar mks. 39 Funner, nnrs own rs or the cprnrcn mar enforcing me Smgapuve Judgment will have drasrrc consequences suen as me IoHuwIng' a (n Neghgem users or owners or rndrdr vemdes can 5>mp\y srr back and revrsrn vrorn omarnrng passenger cover They will eNec|Ive\y escape lronr me consequences of rnerr ammns er me expense enrrerr rrrsurers, gwsn man they may not have me vrnanerax means to rermnurse rrrerr rnsurers. an) The Defendant and runner Maraysran rnerpr rnsurers win be exposed rp addmorrax, open-ended Iiabmly xhai mey rraue ndr bargarnap lor. Trrrs may resun in me Delervdanl and other Malaysian rnsurers dsclmmg to oflev molov msurance Io muse lravelmg rnua Smgapore‘ Much would be derrrrnenrar re mern, especrauy .6 they are wurking in szngepore and have N Havel «here deny or vrequerruy 40 Tnus, rune srngappre Judgmem rs entoreed. 11 mm be transposed Into a Malaysrarr Judgment and grven ecreer, thereby rrnpcsrng srngepcre Vaw on Manaysrarr rnsurers Lruough me ‘laackuoof and (mslrahng me \egis\a\ive irnenr benrrrd the RTA 1937. ms, In my mmd sneund nor be alluwed up rrappen under any erreurnsrances. Motor Insurance |:aI|I:lIs will no nwrllun 41 II 15 a 73:21 no| d\SDu|Bd that We msured In the present case chose nor Io purenase passenger aouer dapite nerng rnade aware of me mandatory requnemeru |u oblam passenger COVE! 42. Smoe passenger cover is not can a! me msurance pahcy, me nevendanr Is no! liable cc compsnsars any rnrured pasenger er pilhon under the rnsurance pclrcy and the RTA 1957 p... 1: er :7 sru MmLPak4EKpIYG-yhxnuw “Nnne s.n.r nmhnrwm rs. met! a may r... nflmruuly mm: dnuamnl VI .nuna mar 43 This is conaislenl wiili lne proooslllnrl inai ine oaniraciual relalrorisriip bemeen an insurer and me insured for niolm insurance is gpveniea by me molar insurance policy and me RTA lss7. Therefore‘ l view «liar lne Singapore Judgnienl cannoi rewnle lne lnsurarloe pcllcy 44 ll iris singapore Juaginenl is eritarpea. lnis liindanienval legal prlnolple will be oonlrayened. Malor Insurance policies wlll be rawrlflen, as me nelenoaril and oinei Malaysian insurers will be bound lo salisly clalms made by passengers even wnare lne policies do not oover lliis rlsk 45. As a result. Malaysian lnsuleds may simply relrsin lrpni piironasing passenger cover and paying addlllonal premiums, since any passenger liapiliiy will aiiipinaiioally be borne by Malaysian lrlsurars even in me absence ol passenger cover The Financial Euldall on Malaysian lnsiireu 46. lnis coin is pl ine view inai iiine Singapore Judgment is enlproeu in Malaysia, iha Delenaani and prner Malaysian rnoior insurers will be laced wirn open-ended aria iinperian Ilabllfly in cpnipensale passengers iniureo in Slngapovei oespiie ine piilipies nai covering lriis risk 47 rnis wlll resuli in me Deienoanlana girier Malaysian lnsuiers iaising niolor irisiiranoe premiums across lne poaro lorall lnilflédfii helping delray lne aodiiional cpsis incurred. 48. In iddlllan. ENM may require all iiseis or Malaysian-reglelered rnoror vehlcles in purenase passenger power, iusi so inai persons going lnio singapore are covered. The efled ol lnis will pe iliai all users plmalaysian-regisiereo nioioryenicles will he Nquifed lp pay tor ine relatively lewer persons going imo singapore wlip, despile knowing lnai rney nave lo purdlase passenger cover, cnpose |o breach singspore law by enlenng singapore wilneur passenger cover use is El 21 srn MflILFakAEKplYSiyhXnLIw «wii. Smul luvlhnrwlll be UIQG a may i... iriiiniiii MIMI flnulvllnl VI .riiiiie wrul The prtvtty of contract will be undenn ed 49 50 52. 53 54. 55 55 To recap, when the Detendant entered Into the specral Agreement wttn the Ptatntttr tn ms, the legtslettye Vramework govemlrtg compulsory motor vehicle rneurance In both Malaysra and stngepdre was the same, as passenger cover was not compulsory In both eaunlnes However, through a 1981 amendment to chapter as. Slngapore enenged tts law and made passenger epver compulwry Tms amendment was trtduded tn CH5DleI’1E9,wVItcI1 came tutu force on 30.3.1957. In ttgnt pl chapter tea, an 24.9.1993. the pleintttt entered tnto the Supplemenlal Agreement wrtn tts members In stngapdre, whereby reterenees to chapter as tn the MoA were replaced wttn chapter 159 However, the Ftatnun never asked the oevendenr to enter mm the supplemental Agreement. and the Detendanrs obttdatron was never extended to eaver passenger rtsks tn tnts manner. In tact, as admrtted by the Ptatnttff, only 2 Melaysten rnsdrers entered rntdtne supplemental Agreement with the Platmm as they were tssutng meter trlsulartee contracts In stngapore' The Ptalnttfllurlfler adrnttted that other Mataystan rnsurers did not enter tnto the supplemental Agreement as Mateysran tnsdrers who dtd not have lo carry out tnsurence hustness in stngapore were not required to srgn the supplemental Agreement“. Tnereiore, I am of the vtaw the enlpreement at lne Strtgapare Judgment wltt tame the Detendant to ablde by the tenns of the supptementet Agreemenl much the Ptarntttt slgned wrtn tts own memeers twhren are all stngepore motor tneurers) and with 2 ulnar Meteysren tnsurers twhtcn tr-ensemed rnsurance bustrtess tn srngappre), bu| not wllh tne Detendant Further. it ts my View that the Plaintifl, through the enlorcement at me Slngapore Judgment, should not be allowed to vlolale the deetnne ol pttvlly at cpntraet and lorce tne netendent ta ablde by r... m at 27 rd Mrzttfiakdzxptvs-yhxnuw “Nair s.n.t lurthnrwttt be u... e may r... mn.t-y mt. mm. VI .nutta vtmxt a me driver cf ma molar vehicle who mjules a viclim cannot be traced, or b. ihe drlver er a uehicie ma iniures a vicwn is wiihoui efleclrve rrlsuranm to cover ms Iiabimy and IS unabie to compens-ie me viclim 5 2 The Daiandan a subsidiary bi Pacific 5 oneni aemad, a public company Incorporated in Malaysia and Hsled on me Main Markel oi Bursa Malaysia 5 3 The Delendam Is Hcensefl by his Minister 0! Finance undev the Financial Services AC1 2013(1) carry on general insuranoe busineaa WI Malaysia [Including mowr insuranue), and IS raguiaiad by Bank Nagara Maiaysva (arm) 5.4. The Dslendant VS oniy amhonsed ib carry on its insurance businfis in Malaysia Thetelnle, Ihe Defendant cannai carry on ins business outside Malaysia, and does ndi nave any business dr presence in singapore 55 The Defendanl IS an amhonsed insurer under "1! Road Transport Act 1987 (Ru 1951). The insuranoe poiieies issued by me Delendanl are inereidre gaverned by me RTA 19:31 56. All Malaysian rneioi Insurers (inuuuing me uerendann are members at ma Mbinr Insurers‘ Bureau of was: Mniaysia (MIBWM). 5 7. MIEWM was aslahlished on 15.1 1965 as a social schame and a cam: fund financed by an Maiaysian nididr insurers, in provide compensation IO road USMC accident vicllms In Malaysia who am unable to recavev comparlsahnn due (0 Inc absanda at an effective insurance policy 5.5. Shomy after us launch‘ MVBWM nflcourflered issues arising irmn accidents in Maiaysia caused by motor vehicles registered .n Singapore and insured by Singapore insurers‘ as oompensahan in: Vicllms could no| ba readily Omamed (rum these Singanore Insurers. p... a M11 m MflILPak4EKp|YGIyhXnLlw «ma a.n.i nmhnrwm a. d... a may he annn.u-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa Wm! the terms ot tne supplemental Agreement, to which the Detendant is not a party. Plntritm Ind MIEWM 57 The Ptalrttlfl on tne otner nand argues tnai both tne Ptalnllff and MIEWM have ttie same purpose and nave entered into s ar agreements The Plalntill also argues ttiat under tne MOA and tne special Agreement ttie Delendant is contractually bound to pay even where more is no passenger oouer. However, I lind that tnese arguments are wiirioui tiasis lor tne lollowing reasons: - ta) Alitiougti ltie Plaintiff was modeled on MVBWM‘ MIBWM tias atways operated against the tramework olttie RTO tesa and tne RTA 1957. wnion did not Impose mandatory passenger oover (exuept in the case at passengers being carried tor nire or reward, or by reason at or undera contract iilernployrrientt (ti) Furttier, under tne Memoranda ol Agreements entered into in 1992 oetween MIBWM and itie Minister ol Transport and MIBWM and Malaysian insurers respectlvety, MIBWM is not obliged to satisty any itittgrrieiit obtained by a tnird party but instead may onoose to make ocmpassmnate payment. tot Tlieretore, tne regimes of MlBwM in Malaysia and tne Ptaintitt in Singapore are dittereni it is lnmrrect to say ttiat the positions at tne Platrllifl and MlawM am thl same The Glnoval lriuuranu Association of Malaysia (P|AM)'s circular 55, ‘rrie Plalntlftturlheravgues mat tne PIAM issued a oireular in 1994 to Malaysian insurers, stating tnat lney are bound by tneir oontmctual obligations under the Special Agreement and tne MOA 59 Huweveri I find that thls CIFCUIHF is lrrelevarll as It does not deal with oubllc policy issues iii tne eritoroerrierit of a Slrtgapora iiiitginent in Malaysia. 60. Further‘ l find ttiat PIAM is not tne regulator or me Malaysian insurance industry PIAM was formed to rriaintatn tarltl discipline, respond to new irisuranee legislation and nsiiistwiin otentication and van 2: at 17 ru MflILFak4EKp1YSIyhXnLIw “Nair Smut luvlhnrwttt be UIQG In may i... nnntnnttly MVMI dnuavlmt VI nrlutta mi saund Insurance practices PIAM had nu irwnlvemem in me Special Agreemeni, and PlAM‘s views in my mind cenainiy do nu\ hind Msllysian Insurers an lris|eat1, the regulator oi the Maiaysian insuianae inausiry is BNM, which has nul issuea any smniei enema: (S2e' Porsaluau Insumns Am Malaysia (PIAM) A on v. can-pa Commiss|on[Z|12J]2 MLRH 414; [2022] 9 cu 268) ms Judluln 62 The Plairmflargues that me Dsfandanl VS barred by res iudicafis and issues awppei. as the issues In the present case have aiready nesn decided in- (i; the 2012 Singapore Suit, and (ii) Motor Insurer‘; Bureau ulSirigapo!e v Amcenerai insurance Bhd (20191 MLRHU 1677. [2020] 3 CLJ 581 (Ameonml sun). as The Piainuuargues mac res judlcalia applies as me 2012 Singapore suimeiennmeu me same issues which me neienaani IS now raising in Enclosure 3. ms angurnenn is miswnoeived for me loflowmg reasons: - ap Tm Inna In nu 2012 slngupou sun wore different S31 Enciosure 8 involves an anaiysis (IV the Delendanfs statutory puma policy defence under Section 5(1)(aKv) 09 the REJA. and the pubhc pohcy consequences lhal new mam Iheanlnrcemenl oflne Sinaibore Judgment In Malaysia 63 2 These issues were not decided In the 2012 Singapurs Sun This is clear from (he High Cmirfs wnnen grounds at judgment In me 2012 Singapore Sun! 53 3 in van, in would have been nnpossibie icnnese Issues In have been aeeiaea In Ihe zmz Singapore sun, as me 2012 Singapore Sun and noi invulva me enforcement 01 vngenaln m Mr1ILPak4EKp1YSIyhXnLIw “Nair s.n.i nmhnrwm .. med M my me mn.u-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! a srngepore Judgrrrenn in Malaysre, Val alane the Smgapars Judgment Much omy came rnm existence Ierer m 2022 63 4 \n Sykl Sebali sun and v. Porrgarnh Jnhaurr Flrlmlanln a. lunar [2019] 2 MLRA 1n: [zms] 3 cm 15 201912 AMR 492; [2019] 2 ML] 539, the Federa\ Cdun held as iouows. 1521 In rne pramwas me reamed wage was correct to nerd Ihal theussue ul res rudresra doe: mxeppwy emu cum vflcllon II Ioully ammm um um nnl rr. d-cld-d ..rn.r llmvly hlcauu tin Isiue dld nnlexlslea er." (ernpnssrs added) b) No wrmen grounder ol Judgrnenr by me Slngapore Cour! uf Annual 63 5 The Plamnfl has referred as me Hrgh Court‘: flecwswon m me 2012 Smgapare Sm! newng been emrmed by me Slnganuva Cnurl dc Appeal 63.6 However. me mere lac! mar rne Hrgn oauns decvsvnn was affirmed on appeal deee nor cnenge anylmng The fact remains that me rssues In Enciosure a were not delermmed by the 2012 srngepore sun. 537 In any evern. me Smgapore caun o1AppeaI drd not rssue wnuen grounds at Judgment As such, me raudnaxe behmd lhmr decrsron re unknown. and cannm be used aslhe beerscarres judxcala {See Teluan Wan snavrrlul, Hm ar on v. FF 1202314 MLRA n; [2023] I cu 3411;121:2114 MLI1). Arnseneral Suit ea The Plamllfl argues mar res Jumcala apphes smue me rssue dl wrrenner rr rs egemsr pubhc policy rd anlnlca lhe srngapure Judgment was dealt mm bylhe ooun umppea In the AmGenera\ sun, However. I find met me Defendant was not a pany lo lhe me 2: M27 rn Mn1ILPak4EKp4YG-yhxnuw «nu. Snr1|\nunhnrwH\I>e med m vufli r... nrW\n|H|Y em. dnuumnl Vfl mum vmm Amcerteral Sui! (supra! and theretpre res rurtiaata cannot appty agarnst the netendant. 65 In the Ameerrmt suit tsupra), the High Ccurl hetd that the entorcernent ot a srngepore rudgrneht otflained by the Ptathtm agamsl Arncenerat was contrary tn Malaysian publtl: penny, and that rt was not Just or conveniem hr the srngapore judgment tn that case to be enlomed In Mataysta. as The High Court's decisren was reversed on appeal Hawever. the courtamppeat dtd not rssue wnttsn grounds of ruttgrnerrt As such, the odurt of Appeavs pecrsren canndt bum either rhrs t-tenourahte court or the Detenttant tsee mush wart Shaltrixal. Hart 5 Co v. PP (suwaj scope outta sttmutpry ruhttc Policy Dulemze 57 The F'Iatn|tW argues that pubhc pehey requrres rupgmehts from recrprecat oountnes under the First schedule at the REJA. tncludtng srngepore, In be regrstered and enfatced tn Mstaysta ea However, t am of the urew that rtthe Ptarhtrirs argument ts accepted, then tl wdum render the statutory puphc pchcy detshee hugstcry, as the detence can never be reused to set aerde the registratruh at a tarergn tudgmenl underthe REJA. 59. tn fact, registratron and enlomemenl pte loretgn rudgrhent under the REJA u-nu become autdrnattc. This rs contrary to the express words at Sechort 511 |(a|(v) at the REJA. whtch states that regrstratron shau be set ssrde rt ertlorcement :x'm|ravenes Mataysran public pansy 7o Thrs Court IS at the vtew that tarergn rudgrnehrs tmrn rectprecat opuntnes (lncludmg Singapore). whtle desemng ptdue recognlltonr cannot be mechanrmny enforced vnthout an assessment 0! thetr atrghrneht wtth Mataysian putrtrc pohcy. v... n pl :1 ru MmLPak4EKp1YGIyhxnuw «mu. smut navthnrwm r. u... e may r... sruuuu mm. dnuamnl VI mutta Wm! wltelner Enelasure 3 irnpeacnlng urn merits of turn Sinqapom Judgment 7t The Plalnllfl argues that Enclosure s tmpeacttes lne rrtertts el tts clatrn under |he $pe1:IalAgreemenl and ttte MOA which resulted tn lhe slngapole Judgment 72 I and tltat tne Detendants statutory public paltcy detenoe under Seouon 5(1)(a)|v| of the REJA perlarrts Io tne enloroentent at rlte slngapore Judgmen| tn Malaysta. 73 ms cannot paestbty amount to re—lttlgatlng the rnents or the stngapare Judgment, orelse no Delerldantwllt ever be able to ratse and argue tne statutory public policy delenee. 7a Theletoflt trtts caun rt. dune cdnstdered vlew tnat lhe Issues ratsed by tne Detendant are not contractual tssuea per se. but tnstead penatn lo trte puhllc peltcy trnpltcattbns anstng lrdrn ttte ertlordentertt or tne stngepore Judgmaru tn Malaysra. 75 As I have menttoned above, trte publtc pulley caneems: - (t) Backdoor tmpesttten bl strtgapore law trt Malays f trte Slngapore Judgment ts enldrced tn Mataysta. passenger ceverwtll tn enact became mandzlory In Malaysla, and negate lrte Insured‘: treeddrn or shows ttt) Rzwnurlg nlmolorlnsuranoe paltctes: rne erllovcemenl olltte Slngapore Judgment would compel Malaystan lnsurars ta sarrsly elatrns by passengelsr even when standard tnsuranee policles do rlul cover passenger rtsks, lltds gdmg beyond me scope at the poltcte: end aflertllng tne enttre trtsuranoe landscape ltttt lncreased nnanctal burden: ll passenger cover ts made mandatory as a result ol tne enlarcentent of the strtgapere Judgment. lttts would slgntncantly and adversely tntpact ttte general publte 5 nnsnetel abttgerldns and lttetr abtlily to secure coverage. Fl]! as at xr IN MflILPak4EKp1Y6dyhxnLIw «war. s.tt.t luvlhnrwm be u... a may t... attrtt.tt-t MVMI dnuavlml VI .rtutta vtmxl (iv) Doctrine of privny of mnlracr The eniomernenl cl lhe Singapore Judgment womd undenmne mnaamemal legal DHIICVDVB. and msmpl established Vegal norms In Malaysia conclusion 76. 77 Prenused on me reasons shame, I am at the opinion max me regmmuan and enforcement M me Singapore Judgment ave comraryno lhe Malaysian pu naficy As such, I allowed the Delenaanrs apphcahun to sex aswde me Smgapore Judgment and Order Ior regnslrahan (Enclosure 3) mm costs 01 RM1n,noo.o0 subjea la the alloI:a|or !ees Dated 05’ February202A Ahmad Kamal n Md Shah Judge Hvgh Coufl Kua\a Lumpur v... 2.; M 17 m MflILPak4EKp1YGiyhXnLIw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! counnls For ma Plamnff En Chang Yea Leong ACIk Kwong Cmaw Es and Cik Cassandra on mm mm) Teman Rahmal mm 5. Farmers, Peguambela dan Peguamcara. Swle 33.01‘ Lave! 33. The Gsraens Norm Tawev, Mm vauey cmy, Lmgkaran Syad Funra, 59200 Kuaxa Lumpur {Ru}. Tuan: 0022000049) Far (he Defendant En Dhwnesh Bhaskaran (cm Wong Jwa Jmg wmn mm) Teluan Sheam Delamove 5 co, Peguambela dan Peguamcara, Tmgkat 7, Wlsma Hamzarmwong Hmg, No 1‘ Lebnh Ampang‘ some Kuala Lumpur m: :7 .1 n m MflILPakAEKp|YGIyhXnLlw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. 0.... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 5.9. To resolve thus pmbham and Cu lacrhhate the free flow 07 lralfic between Stngapore and West Mataysta, MIBWM enlered IMO mdIvIuua\ agreements wtlh Smgapore mn|ar Insurers which were not licensed to conduct insurance business In Ma\aysIa 5.10 Under tnese agreements, srngapare mum! rnsurers agreed to be bound by MlBWM‘s Amdes olAsso::|:ihort and MlEWM's Agreement wrtn me Mmisler at Trenspon Smgapore molar Insurers also agreed In revmburss M|EWM‘ W MIEWM had |0 pay claims due in the negfigenl use of Smgapom,-regtslered mater verrretes rn Maraysra 5 1:. To gwe eflect la rrs luncf n and frameworx, tne Prernurr and MIBWM both executed rent sets M agreements governrng aompensalton of Dtlrd party victims cl (Did accidents VI the‘! resper.-nve countries Yhe Principal Agreement 5.12 we P\amuV1 was subsequenfly es|abhshed on 251.1915, rnedelea on MIBWM attnet trme. 5.1: on 2221975, me Platnhfl and me Smgapovs Mrnrster or Frnanoe entered mm in agreernenl(Prim:ipl| Ngrnomlnl) to tmplemem a scheme to secure oanrpensar n for third party rnctrrns at road aecraents In Singapore in tne Ioumnng instances, name . i) where‘ nutwrttrstanarng me Smgapois Motor Vemdes (Tmrd-Party Rieks and Campensalmn) Am (MVA) (crrnpter ax) velalmg \o compulsory tnsumnoe, the vrctnn Vs depnved at mmpensahon by me absence ov Insurance or eflocuve msurancs: and tr) wnere the dnver responsrnre terms aoctdenl cannot be lraced. 5.14. Under me Pnnarpat Agreement, tne P1.-nnuif was obhged In compensate ma rnenrn of a road aeeruant amy rt tne llabt y was required to be insured by chapter as. vncludmg any slalutory mamficatrcns tnereto or any re-enactment tnereot. n......« 17 rn Mr1ILPak4EKp1Ys-yhxnuw «war. s.nn nmhnrwm r. .r.... a may r... aflmnnflly em. dnuumnt Vfl mum WM The uienieianauin at Aarclmonl (MOA) 515 on me Same day(22 2.1975). me Piainiiii and every insurer and news unaeiwiiiei Iransacling ouinpuiwy molar insurance business in Singapore entered inio ine MOA, wnicri specifies wnen a siiigapaie insuiei is liable to eoinpensaie viciini: oi a mad accldanl The ioiiawing DNVVSIDHS oi Ihe MOA are relevant‘ ii) Clause 311 i slates as ioiiaws. -ii a Judgmem is obtained in singapoie ageinsi any peison (me Judgllllnl Dlhlov) in iupm el iimiiiy nqima In D: irilund win. cuiipuisoiy insunm Lngiil: ’o1i (he Insullr Cunoemed wiii sahsiy the Olginll Judgment Credilol ii and to ma eneni lhlllhe Jitdwmanl ha: m:\ bun iallifisd nyine Judgment Dabber wiinin iwen-yeigni days iiani ine dal: upnn wnicn I212 Dluan in whose Iavour n ms Ewan iseniiiieu to enlmne ii“ (emphasis added) (ii) clausei i1e«nes“insiiieiconcenied' asfoiiaws - in. in.in.i whu 1| in. iinie ahria aociauni mien me iise In a liahlhly lequlrsd K) be Insured by me CDMDMSOVY Insurfince Leglslllion van pnwiaiiin In Inuuunco Igllnn such Ilublllly in resnecmlme which allimg uinoiiiie use olwmchlhe iieo-iiiy av ine Judgment Demarviias incmved ~ (emphasis aimed) iiii ciause i runner defines “fiompuisory insurance Legisiaian asiaiiows: nne lnmw Vihiclll (Third-Vifly mm ans Compulinvy) Act (cnavter us) and any Siamlnry nmimiions inaniio or any rs- uieciineni inanim- ienipnasis added) ii/i Undef Clause 6, ins Piainiiw may saiisry any imgnieni undav Clause 3‘ and shaH be anmled IO recover the same from me “insuiei Concerned“. - nsuln SIN MflILPakAEKflYGIyhXnLIw “Nair s.ii.i luvihnrwm be UIQG In may i... nflflinnflly MIMI dnuaviml VI .nuiin Wm! The Lagal Ohliuatiann In Malaylia and Singzp-mu n) M syll- 5.1s. Al lhe Irma onne MOA (222.1975), me Malaysian Veglslauon gcvermng oompmsory motor msurance agamsl um pany risks ansing out at me use of mm vemcles was me Read Tnafflc Ordinance 1958 (R10 195:) up Yhe Preamble uanea as lollaws. ‘An Ommance m make pmwsm «x we reamzlmn cl mmor nhrdus um :11 mm; on road: and ulhurwnn mm respect m wads and vemdes xv-emu pin: on lnr um pmsanon of -mm nlu - Ilnll um um". out at in an M motor vnhlclu. and to pmme Var me m.mumauon and comm ul meam mm mums; fiortransoon lemphasus added? (Ii) secriun 75(I)1ii| stated as follows 1:; In Omar la wmply wan me mqunvanumt mm. Pm num- Ondmawa a pawn at msumnoe must be: pohcy mum . (a) s Issued by a serum wm rs an aumonsed Insurer warm: the meamng ov mus Fan :11 [ms Orumsnce, and my mum: mm plmnn peueniordalias ulperwm as may be spammed m the penny m rained on any \ubrUlY Much may be uncuned by mm m mam m mpscnmme aeamovm hadfly vruurylc any panan caused by ur mm uul ov me use of me malnr vamcll olland nmplemanl dawn (hereby en: mar! mwoa mac sac» p-any mu m In ruquludta cw! - my except m me case no . mow: mums My man passengers Are mm rm mm or mwuld at Dy mm ov at m pursuance al a mnlmd cl smpuoym-m. naunry In n pm 01 me Gum al or many Injury in pm... I» u carrm lnor upon cumming mgclfinn on tour Plge a M )7 sm MflILPak4EKp1YGdyhXnLIw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [emphasis added) 517 Therelore. under Semen 75(‘)(H)1 except In are case or a rnowr vehlde In wnrcn passengers were named for nrre or reward or by reason or or under a con|rac|o1emp\uymenl,a rnerer msuvance pohcy was not requued lo cover passenger hammy 5 13 The RTO I955 was Water repealed and remaeed by the RTA 1937, much came mic force on 1 1 «gas. and eanrarna rne renewrng proursrons: i. Sec1mn so nnppses a stalumry duty on me person who uses or causes or perrnns omer persons m use a mnlur uenrare an the mad, |o ensure lhal nnere rs In Vorae a pprrcy at msurance respect of «mm party nsks as requrrea under Farl IV u However, secuon 91(1)(nb) rwnrcrr Is srrnrrar re seauon 7§(I)(I\) 07 lb: RTO I953] s|a|es Ihai a mD|D! msurance pchcy shaH not be requrreo ro cover passenger neprmy. axoepl In me case or a molar vemde In wrrren passengers are earned tor rure or rewarc or Dy reason or or under a eorrrrecr ofemploymem. 5 15 Therelnre. under porn the RTO 195a and nne RTA 1957‘ a mulor Insurance polrcy re nor required up cover passsngsv Iraprmy. excep| rn me case of passengers hemg named vor Iwe or rewere. or by reason 0! or unoer a mnlracl of employment 5.20 Fur1her,eI(he rrne omre MOA,al1MaIays\an nronor rnsuranee poncres were governed by a fixed pnce farm. and the terms and oenomons canlamed m me ppucres were srandaro. 5.21. As passenger cover re nor rnanoanory In Malaysra, a standard rnaror vemde policy rssued by a Malaysran rnsurer does not caver passenger risks Vnslead, me usercrowner onne motor vemcle will have In procure separate eever at a separate premium 10 cover passenger nsks Tnre wrn be added to me ppucy by an endorsenrenu » r1n4I1 SIN Mmlwakezxptvs-yhxnuw “Nana s.n.r mmhnrwm be u... a may r... pflmneflly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war ll Singapor- clrapur no 5 22 Under cnapler as (which was me legislation H'V'0fD6I7l1975’r H was nn| compulsory lar owners ar duvets al molar vehicles to eaver passenger lrabllily. except in me case 0! passengers being named lar me or reward‘ ar by reason :71 or unaer a oonlracl nlempluymenl 5 23. Trlerelore, lhe legal paslllon an lnls issue was the same as lnal in Malaysia cnapur 139 5.24. Through an amanannenz la cnapler ea, wnlcn cams in|O lame on 1 31931. ll became manualery in Singapore lor owners and drivers at motor vehicles to omaln passenger aaver ms amanarnenl was included in rne 1955 revised million or me MVAr namely chapler 139‘ which came rnlo lorce on 30 3.1937. 525 Therelare, since lalsal me operative legal Posillorl in srrrgapore has been dlilerenflmm man V7 Malaysia. nu R-lauonshlp bolwun (ho Plllndfl Ind me lmendanl Tllu spacial Ngnemerll 5 25 To recap, In 1975, lne eornpulsory malor insurance regimes in Malaysia and slngapora under me RTO 1953 and cnapler as respeellvely were largely me same. lmporlanlly. ll ms not manaalary In elihev coumry «or an insured Ia pmcure cover Ior aealn or bodily injury lo ms aaasangersr axeem in spealic lnslanoes. 5.27 Against lnrs aeelrarapr an 15 91975 lne Plalrllfll and lne nelenaenl entered into an agreernenl (special Aqrlumnm). whereby lne Delenuanl agreed to comply mm every obllgahon imposed by |ha Plaintiffs Amcles ofAssOclIllor\, the MDA and r... r or :1 rn Mr~1ILl=ak4E><plYs-yhxnuw “Nana s.n.l nurlhnrwm re UIQG a may r... anrln.l-y MIMI dnuurlml vn aFiuNa vtmxi the Princwpal Agreement, as mne Deaendarrn was a member onhe P|aInl' , 523 The Special Agreemenu arm me MOA did not require me Defendanl Io pmvvde passenger cove! under ms manor msursncs names. we Defendant was omy obliged re samsry e mdgment in respecl or habulity requvred in be Insured by Chapter ea, wl me Devenaanr was an -msurer Concerned“ providing msuranm against a Habmly vsqmred «o be msured by Chapter 53 at me (ms of me aecmenc 529 Sumlar agreemenls were enlernd mm by all lhe olher Malaysran manor msurers at the «me 5 so These agreemams (incmdmg me Specvil Agreement) weresn anempl bylhe Defendant and other Mawaysran rnmor msurars re nnamaauy and momfly. as respansrme eorporare cmzens, penonn a aruaran mncuon In eonung re arrangements Io sausfy wdgments obtained by vvclims of acmdenls uocumng In Smgapole Involvmg Malayswawregxslered veludes Subnqucnl nu uloprn-nu 5.3:. In ugrn of Chapter 159 (which came inlo «once an so 3.1957). on 24.9.1993 me lallawmg took place 1. The Smgapore Mimslev of Finianne ennaree mm a Supmsmenl Agreemem wnlh me Plalrmfl. wnereey retereneee m Chap|er as In the Fnnupal Agreement were vemaced wi|h chapter «as uxemse, me Pnamm enleved mm a supplemem Agreement wrm as members in Smgapore (Supplemental Agreement), whereby references to Chapter 55 In me MOA were replaced wnn Chap|er189 Clause 1 slates as (allows “The wonss ‘me Molar venxexes ur..ns.nny Run Ind Compensahon) Am 1Chamer as) ht dnlnlld Ind nplncod wnermr they appear In me 1915 Agreemenr [Mm] mm (M veuewrng words 7 Wm 17 rn MflILPak4EKp1YGdyhxnuw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... nflmnuuly -mm: dnuamnl VI muNa v-max -me Maxar venrdes (Thad-Pnny mm and cdmbensmny Am lChap|sv cam" (emphasis added) 5 32 As a resrm, me F\avnhWs arrangements wrrn Singapore molar msurers womd now aperale agamsl the backdrop av Chapter 189‘ WMCVI requues users D! owners 0! malnr vehicles (0 procure rumor msurance pollclei In respect of aassengar risks 5 33 Only me Makaysnen msuvers, namely London & Pacific Vnsuranoe company esmad [Lanpac lnsurancl and) and UMBC Insurence aemad, enlered In|o me Supplemenlal Agraemenl wnn the we-nm and agreed to be bound by Chap|er 159 It should be noted that both nnsse rnsmsrs stood on a drnersnuomrng vrorn dxner Malaysmn manor Insurers an «be nrns, as may were also euxnensed to lransacl msurance busmess In srngapore and had olfiues mere ms has been edrmued by me marnnu 5 34 The Delendanzwas never asked by me Plammflo emer Inlu me sdppxernenvzw Agreement. 5 as on 28 1 2u21, me Plamuff entered mtoa funherSupplemenla\ Agreernsnr (Fufllur supblonnnm Agr mm) wnn Smgapure rnsurers In amend me defin on nl Insurer Concerned“ In me MOA Lonpac Vnsuranoe and was me only Melaysran rnsurer max entered mm me Further subplernenvax Agreement wrm me F-Iarnmv. 5 35 Once agem, une Delendam was never asked bylhe Wannumo enter min the Funner Supp\emen(a| Agreement Thu Singapore sun and mo Slnglpale Judgmenl s on or amund 21.5.2015, a Ma\ays\an mdMdua\ named Subramamam A/L w gdesan (subrnrnn am) eonrnrenoed en acuon at the srngapore High cum in HC/S 2s/zurs (Suit 52a) for damages tor persona! wanes and olher consequennal losses against, amnng bmer lhmgs, me nder at molurcyde no JNH 5592 (me Motorcycle). one Prenr Kumar Venn (Prem) vane ma :7 m Mr1ILPak4EKp1YGIyhXnLIw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm r. d... m my r... nrW\ruH|Y em. dnuumnl Vfl muNa vwm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCC-1-01/2020

PEMOHON NG POH CHOONG RESPONDEN 1. ) LING GALVANIZED INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) CHEAH SHEAU WEN

1 The Plaintiff (P) won the case. Judgment was in P’s favour. P filed for his damages to be assessed i.e. a Notice For Assessment Of Damages. P filed the Affidavit In Support of the Notice For Assessment Of Damages.2 The 2nd Defendant (D2) appealed against the Judgment to the Court Of Appeal (CA). The CA dismissed the Appeal. 3 D2 applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court (FC). The FC refused leave.4 Within few days after the FC refused leave, D2 filed and served his Affidavit In Reply to be used in the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. Also within a few days, D2 filed this Application for an extension of time (EOT) to file and serve his Affidavit In Reply. 5 Should the EOT be given? What are the factors to consider in an Application for an EOT?

05/02/2024

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8693fb3a-f7c7-4305-b829-896c7ba08871&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: PA-24NCC-1-01/2020 Dalam Perkara Ling Galvanized Industries Sdn Bhd (859021-D) Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 5, Aturan 7, Aturan 28, Aturan 88 dan lain-lain Aturan Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen 345 dan 346 Akta Syarikat 2016 ANTARA NG POH CHOONG (NO. K/P: 700602-07-5227) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. LING GALVANIZED INDUSTRIES SDN BHD (859021-D) 2. CHEAH SHEAU WEN (NO. K/P: 701103-07-5745 / A1727804) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AFFIDAVIT) 05/02/2024 14:24:10 PA-24NCC-1-01/2020 Kand. 65 S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PRELUSION [1] The current proceeding is the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. The 2nd Defendant (D2) applies for an extension of time (EOT) to file an Affidavit In Reply to oppose the Assessment Of Damages. [2] Should the EOT be given to D2? PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY OF PROCEEDINGS [3] The pertinent chronology of proceedings is set out below— 27.4.2021 — High Court Order on this Originating Summons— — in favour of the Plaintiff (P) and for P’s damages to be assessed — D2 appealed to the Court Of Appeal (CA) — P straightaway filed a Notice For Directions for the Assessment Of Damages 11.8.2021 — P then filed the Notice Of Appointment for Assessment Of Damages (Notice For Assessment Of Damages) 16.8.2021 — P filed his Affidavit In Support for the Notice For Assessment Of Damages 17.8.2021 — P served his Affidavit In Support for the Notice For Assessment Of Damages NOTE: D2 did not file an Affidavit In Reply, until over a year later in September 2022. 29.3.2022—CA Order dismissing D2’s Appeal. D2 applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court (FC) S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17.9.2022 — FC refused leave 23.9.2022 — D2 filed and served his Affidavit In Reply to oppose the Notice For Assessment Of Damages 26.9.2022 — (Nine days after the FC refused leave to appeal) — D2 filed this Application for an EOT to file his Affidavit In Reply to oppose the Notice For Assessment Of Damages THE LAW ON EXTENSIONS OF TIME [4] The landmark case law authority on EOT, particularly under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) is the FC case of National Union Of Bank Employees v Director General of Trade Unions & Anor [2013] 6 MLJ 167 (FC), [2013] 5 AMR 729; [2013] 7 CLJ 957. [5] The FC propounded the principle that the matter of an EOT is one of discretion. And these are the relevant factors to consider under Order 3 Rule 5— (1) delay; (2) cogent reason for not making the application within the prescribed time; (3) likelihood and degree of prejudice, and injustice caused to the opposite party. [6] In National Union Of Bank Employees (supra), the FC held— [27] The grant of extension of time by the court is one of discretion by virtue of O 3 r 5 of the RHC. The principle to be applied by the court is settled. In Saeed U Khan v Lee Kok Hooi [2001] 5 MLJ 416, it was held that, the court should consider certain factors, when exercising its discretion to extend S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal time, namely: (1) the delay in making an application; (2) whether or not there are cogent reasons for the litigant not to have made the application within the prescribed time; and, (3) the likelihood and degree of prejudice, as well as injustice to the opposite party should the court exercise its discretion. In the present appeal, the application for an extension of time was made before the hearing of the judicial review application and the respondents were not prejudiced by this application as they had been duly served with all the cause papers before the application itself. In exercising its discretion, the court must have regard to justice. This is in line with the provision in O 1A of the RHC (see Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645; Walker v Walker [1967] 1 WLR 327). [emphasis added] [7] From the CA case law authority of Thiruchelvasegaram Manickavasegar v Mahadevi Nadchatiram [1998] 4 MLJ 297 (CA); [1998] 4 AMR 3731; [1998] 4 CLJ 883, I gleaned that— (1) the Court’s power to extend time under Order 3 Rule 5 “may be exercised even if the application is made after the expiry of the period” (at MLJ page 307); and (2) “the primary consideration” in exercising the discretion to extend time is “whether the party can clearly demonstrate that there was no intention to ignore or flout the order and that the failure to obey was due to extraneous circumstances” (at MLJ page 310). [8] Also, from the High Court case law authority of Courts Mammoth Bhd v Subramaniam Paramasivam [2007] 4 MLJ 544 (HC); [2007] 4 AMR 146; [2007] 3 CLJ 59, per Justice Abdul Malik Ishak J, I learnt that— S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (1) when considering whether to grant an EOT, I should consider whether the party applying for the EOT will “suffer grave injustice” if the EOT is not allowed; and (2) an EOT under Order 3 Rule 5 “should ordinarily be granted where the overall justice of the case requires”. ORDER 3 RULE 5 AND ORDER 1A OF THE ROC 2012 [9] Under Order 3 Rule 5, there is only one consideration, and that is that the Court can grant an EOT (or an abridgment of time) “on such terms as it thinks just” i.e. to do justice. [10] Under Order 1A of the ROC 2012, there is similarly only one consideration, and that is that I should “have regard to the overriding interest of justice” i.e. again, to do justice. [11] Under Order 92 Rule 4 of the ROC 2012, the consideration is “to prevent injustice”. The Court is empowered “to make any Order as may be necessary to prevent injustice”. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES AND THE RULES [12] A few of the pertinent procedural facts that transpired were— (1) The High Court granted a stay Order, by the consent of P, to stay the Assessment Of Damages proceeding pending the FC’s decision on leave to appeal. There was a stay of the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. P, however, submits that the stay Order was to stay the hearing of the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. P argues that D2’s time to file an Affidavit In Reply had lapsed a long time ago. P asserts that S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal D2 had not complied with the Deputy Registrar’s directions on the timetable for filing affidavits for the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. (2) The FC Order refusing leave to appeal to the FC was given on 17.9.2022. D2 filed the Affidavit In Reply on 26.9.2022, and served it by email on P on 27.9.2022, and then by hand on 30.9.2022. These steps were taken within a few days of the FC decision. BALANCE OF JUSTICE [13] Taking into account P’s arguments and D2’s conduct, I consider the balance of justice. I consider that if D2’s Application for an EOT is allowed, P merely faces a procedural circumstance where P has to perhaps reply to D2’s Affidavit In Reply. [14] In this connection, P can be compensated by costs for the prejudice caused to him for having to prepare, file, and serve an affidavit to reply to D2’s Affidavit In Reply. [15] On the other hand, however, if the EOT is not given to D2, then P’s Assessment Of Damages proceeding will proceed without any affidavit evidence from D2. P’s Assessment Of Damages will proceed almost in default, except for any submissions on the law that D2 can make. [16] But the Assessment Of Damages proceeding is fact-centric. And if it is fact-centric, then it is evidence-centric, as are most legal proceedings of first instance. S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [17] I have to be seriously mindful of these effects and circumstances when I weigh the balance of justice. And I am inclined to say that in the circumstances of this Assessment Of Damages proceeding, it is fair and just to grant D2 the EOT that he seeks to file his Affidavit In Reply, or to treat the D2’s Affidavit In Reply which was filed in September 2022 as regularly filed, and have the merits of the Assessment Of Damages heard and determined, with due adherence to the rules of natural justice and general procedural justice. CONCLUSION [18] In conclusion, I grant D2 the EOT to file the Affidavit In Reply. I regularise and admit as evidence D2’s Affidavit In Reply already-filed. [19] I make the following Orders— (1) D2 is granted an EOT to file and serve his AIR to resist the P’s Assessment Of Damages. (2) The filing and service of D2’s Affidavit In Reply (Enclosure 40)—is regularized, and allowed to be used in the Assessment Of Damages proceeding. (3) P is given 14 days from today to file an affidavit to reply to D2’s Affidavit In Reply. (4) D2 is given 14 days from the date that P’s reply affidavit is served on D2, to file one more Affidavit In Reply in this Assessment Of Damages proceeding. I direct that there be no more affidavits from either party after that date of filing and service of the last affidavit. (5) D2 is to pay costs of RM3K to P, forthwith. S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dated: 5 February 2024 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Plaintiff: Siau Suen Min [Messrs. Siau Suen Min & Tan (Kulim)] For the 2nd Defendant: Low She Warne [Messrs. Khor Lai & Partners (Butterworth)] Legislation referred to: 1. Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 2. Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 3. Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 Cases referred to: 1. National Union of Bank Employees v Director General Of Trade Unions & Anor [2013] 6 MLJ 167 (FC), [2013] 5 AMR 729; [2013] 7 CLJ 957 2. Thiruchelvasegaram Manickavasegar v Mahadevi Nadchatiram [1998] 4 MLJ 297 (CA); [1998] 4 AMR 3731; [1998] 4 CLJ 883 3. Courts Mammoth Bhd v Subramaniam Paramasivam [2007] 4 MLJ 544 (HC); [2007] 4 AMR 146; [2007] 3 CLJ 59 S/N OvuThsf3BUO4KYlse6CIcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-42IP-1-09/2021

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN WAN NUR ILANI BINTI WAHED

This is an appeal against the acquittal and discharge of the Respondent at the end of the defence case. In the Sessions Court, the Respondent was charged under Section 5(1)(b) Trade Description Act 2011 to be read together with Section 6(1) (d) of the same Act which is punishable under Section 5(1)(B) of the same Act. At the end of the prosecution case, being satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against the Respondent, the learned trial judge called upon the Respondent to enter he defence. The Respondent chose to testify under oath. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned judge ruled that the defence had successfully raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and therefore acquitted and discharged the Respondent.

05/02/2024

YA Datuk Aslam Bin Zainuddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=31cb35b0-c5dd-4f29-8211-16dea3904b70&Inline=true

05/02/2024 11:27:29 BA-42IP-1-09/2021 Kand. 46 S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sDXLMd3FKUCERbeo5BLcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—a21p—1—n9/2021 Kand. 46 05/02/2024 11:27-22 umuvsux IN me man coon m mun A1’ sum ALAM CRIMINAL nrvlslou us: no BA-4Z|P.1.|)i!2D21 anwszu puauc Pkoszcuvon mrnuur AND wm nun mm: awn wmsn nssvounsw JUDGMENT [1]Tms\s an appeax awami1 ms au:uma\ am dwchargu uflhs RupundaII| 1| on ma M the damwcc cars m m. Slnmni Conn, m. Rasvondanl was churned under Szrlmn 54110:) rm: Descnulwan Ad 2:211 In be read mculhsr wmu semen am my M me same An wmm Vs pIm\sMh\s under Sermon 511 may ov me same Am M the hind onhs Dmsscmkm um um aatrsfied that - prim: cm can mm blln ...m.x.=r.a agamal ma Rasvundn the leamsd mu wage caHe«1 upon me Rapnndenl Ia emzr he dufnnu The Resoondenlasasg Imesmy underaalh AIms:anc1us\nlIaHhs(H2L (ha V-nmed judge ruled max me delenoe ma suzszsessfmly ralnsd a naasmvahls mum Vn me Dmsemmun case and memum aoqnmsd and ulucnavgsd ma Rupumum [7] Th: shame Islhmsl the valponnam wax u rouawr g551yogp4Au wwnmw - Eahswa mm pads vs omosr 2017, mwa pm we hrs m mm: psnmaen rrsnmous H9:/In a Beauty Dsrllimar No. 54-1, Jalan sm-um 5-mmv 32/AH, semen 32, 5ukrlRvmuu. men smm mm, sursngw -1-um Dnomh pmumg ax mm Nawv So/Inga! lalan menawunrnn unmk membaka/kan spa-an. n.«s»a— baring vs»? W9‘!-ya sunlu Define! degangan pa/su kc alas kandungan yang dlyumakan mi mrammng hermit- N sDxLm3FKucERxs-u5m:A um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm mm Baring lllnnnuv Namramaqma oaam aw um! om ynvry danuktun mm wan melslmkan Mam kasalahan a/aawan Ssksyan 5(1):»; ma Punhal Duaangnn 291 1 yang dlbana bvrsama dsnpm Soksysn «mm Am yang aama dam noun dmukum m buwuh Slkxnn 5(1J(E)Akta yang aama Muxuum ssxsvsu sake Dv dorms track mmmm Rmaaooa on (saza Rams mm Rlngg/I] aaau duzsfllarumsn mama mmzan mm nnlablmfl mm»: (nga Yahun) emu )wdua41uanyI.' [3] am has 01 vmaacamm use at takln «mm ma IppII\an|‘s aaamaauaaa ‘ Dumw me pmacmm ma, 1 tom av m wimssses were czflefl by me vmsemmun ma navrallve nvma prusemmcn aaaa {s unvnmsd Ihrwgh me amlamamqlvsn Dymsse wilnaues wrlch tan summenzed as «am. \. On to Dunbar 2917, a mama mam Vsd by sP1 eonduclnd .n xamch at llauhzbus naann a. Beauty: pvvvlrws where am am cl Natural Prsams Cream nmmms wars mm and Iuhnsquanfly seized Dam ma ram, onvy Nor Suraya mum mvak, an emvloyee MHan1::lnus naam. a Baauiy was Druisnl m an Wsvmsu m. m mnmlmn Wu wman mu namamu found. wvappld m Pnsla/u mam pickngmg daany Lr-weaved lhsuhay were reuay In be waned ma aaaaa Rams wars men sen| m the Dwanmunl av Chemmry Malaysm vm further anawxls. SP5 who uundudsd lhu Inaiysvs lmlhev cnnflrmen Inst he Namm Pvsagle Guam pmduas walled From on pnemisns am not contain proqes1emns,as dumbed an us xaaana w H a unmsnmed man the Raipuvldem wu ma wle propnelorol llnnmmus Hearth a aaaazy, a« me Ivma M the mcvdam ma svklinca manned by me pmssculmn has aaeaananaa ms Racpandanrs mm (Maugham me enlhe pmoess «mm oblammg ma prudvcl iamph «mm aversan: In iarmulaflng Nalurm Pvegma Craam and nmarmg ma xaaaa fur ma Vmhhan pmfllms. The amama wars man bmugm m ma pvumhu by ma Respondent v In mama, nwaa suhmmed mal mu Rupondunl, Is he mu. pmpnmnv M llanweus Health a Esanly had anam In wpmy am ama an Nahum! Freggie Cream when a lnlis tram: dascnphon has been aama aa a ma mmposmnn From me lovsgulnu, ma 1 am sDxLm3FKucERxs-a5mxA "Nuns am n-nhnrwm be used a van; me nrimnnflly MIME dun-mm VII anum am In Wllayal Khan v. m Stat: or umw Pradvsn NR 105: so 122. 12:. 125, Chlndvaukhara mm, whln ddlvanng mu Jndgmanl at sup..." Emm ud Even m mm: mm: nmumals, me pawers av me Hugh cm an 3; wma an In aweammm <>unv\d\un. smomu Ivelwu pow-ma be born: m mind m llus zunmmun on a mu 1.. m -we-I lmm .n ncnuhul, am muumvtlun M lymnuncn ofltn lacuna cnnllmns mm up he nu ma; the mm: W: mm grual wmgm smuld be allachad mm um um byme Sauinrls Judas below wmmma um wu MB and who ma Imopncllunwy avseemg and hearing mg wnnesses ln|efler~eme wnh an mar av fiD‘1\l\I1a\ mad: by a Judnl who had me aavamwa A71 hsavmg (ha wumsm --1 ohuwmg cwraemsumurcan my sormmpemng reasons and not an . me bnlancmg cf prahabllmel and Vmpmhahflmes, ma cenamly ml banana: 5 dmumnl view some he taken Mme evidence cum lam. 1m aaun an mm has um adumbmtnd .nm._ mm nu mum m inxayfen: mm ma uscman allhe mmaa Seslans Courliudas below m acquntm um msnnarmnw me Resvflndanl mm ms shame prslsmad agamu Nev Erw mu uuamo Dawn 5 mnmyznu 1 % Auum a manual» Judllv mun cm»: In Ihlxyu smn um smngar N ;uxLmm<ucm..,sm,A um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Aggllcnnl Puan Mas syaman tn Mahlwb mum" Fandnkwn Rays mu Psmm Kemnnlsrian Psmauanwan Dalam Nsqan can Nzl Elvwm Psnmluna Eahagvan u-ea-M-mug Au: 5. Na 13 Palllarnn Pnrdnnn Premm 2 E2623 Fun-uiaya Rugondnm Fuun Wan Nur Hum Mum Wahad Na 71 man sungax Chnndong a Eanr1nrAnnaaa mm 42920 many Savanaov Dam! Ehun Rnhnncn ‘ cm: nlllllfl cu» Tanwku /lbflIlVAlV1V.P|lb‘lC wmucuwr [1 asu 1 ms 126 [1i5|lML1 «as Sham v Fubhr: Pmncuwr[1DE3]1 ML! 22 Awamumn Mn Sunrman 5. 075 v Pandakwa Rayn[1sa2l1 MLJ us The Cnmma\ Pmoedum Cons A Commentary Dam Mukhtxrbm Hashim 5Anorv Fubflrc Pmucu\ur(IUB3] 2 ML] 2az,[¢vaa1 2 cu m Penasamy am Slnnapan 5 Anovv. Pmlm Pr0secmor[1EE8l2 MLJ asnwgel :4 cu war Veamedmaljudfie had nursed macau max Vflfivemlnliutlhn mm pmvanaa aqamu ma Relaunflam hlvu um -mm-mu a1 an nd :11 m. pmucuuun us- [4] The waamaa Samara caunmga ma amum mmmma [221 Snmaflu Dembelaan/vemzmsan oKr um berm! mu Hdak‘ my: man auawnn men aaumnmya -am my man mmnal m dlhm km m mm Nor smya bum hhak Sodlngkiu adnluhlnkln hahawa pennnm Nnr Sumyn Vnhelah ma ggm mmu Hanya mkaman pemakapen helmusahaju (aumnn mayyang dlkemukukan men when pemnkwaan dan amanma manuk uanauax kalemrwan an hawinseKIyen32(lN1)Ak\aKa1zerangin I950,nlI\ahmahksm:hin1beIpun:MI1 bahawn psnam: Nmsurayl hlnu mm Nn KP nanansaz-5270 «emu nuanmggm dunm ma 193291: herdasaman saflnan san aamm ksrnanamvya yam dlkemaman Jabatan Pevmaflaran Nauam nan amamukam oleh psndakwaln can dnanuakan ulvagav -mum P47 [231 waluupun amm. rI\a:uksebngalkatamr\gan_ namu/I pm hamunya. P48 N xalav mlmnakan sem ksmmman on Mar Mahkamzh atau dancar cakav (hearsay) savvaja Panama Nu! Suraya lmak msmhankan vsrcakapan nu ma! sumpah av dalam Mankzmah sawam an kn:d\bi\rli dan (mgknh um qaamaamm panama mv 1-1-k dlufldlhhal din dmuw avah Mammmm kabanarran am. mhahlm kzlerangannya jugs max lam]! melalm pemsflksaan bulus Jusmru ‘wemhf yang scwalamya muankan kapada me Im dan rma pmnaumya auavan wnangat mmvml my Admah mam: baqi kn Psndlkwsan -yam muavu hzmyn bauandilkan keyed: Na mi sahaja beg mamwmm bnmwa Nor Surayn adahh name was mamumn kzlja-kerjn meleknlknn Vabelm mammmgkua, msn|ua\ an mengeoos/membekmkan Nmurm praggxa Cream lm ksoada pelartqganapamnugan mas arahzn on wlaku mamanm I25! Tambahan pma. wum iakla-hkta yanu hdak mcaw yawn wan msmbenkavv mam: yam: msrmhak braved: OKT um it mm Nm Sunyn ylnv name. an pmm. dun momma! pan;-«nun Dmduk Dada masa hetadlavn up mua sebaralw nmux yarlw muva duumum .1. Iumah on bag! mambnngknknn nnqgnpnn (nrwsummhn) al hiwnh xavuyen <2 APO mm mm: - Suuoflml yam: ad: dalim mlhkannyl nu: baring atau mm v-nu um: danpm mam yum Irma: din manggunlkan parmal fllunnlsn yang sums sebngalmlna yang d\sebu|da!am sumeue dnsvlalkan nubatzav mamwnyamnnam mmkun hurung— h min unIukrrImbIk:|In' G) Nada rampasan nula conslEVvmun(5£DeII1a>(sNhMD2A ssmzse semuan wahllpun kahuna!" mlnufllukkm nbihawin daflpidl 310 unit bamflg silinn Iersebm mam: dalam kzadnan um: umukdlpmkln aw Res‘: gems." yam mkeluuvkan oven Nor Sunny: kepadn mm Denflualkuzla Jabman Fmnaib Human: transaksl um mm mm: dsngsn ]|\aI lmdapll Miran urvgun‘ Inn! — 019-5159472'mbahag1an ...m mm... on ‘Wm?’ mam harm xnmarn Nnr Sursyi dun nngkzrangka xevsebvm .my. number mm mm Denhadv hefiau DKT mancaflznikan ntalzn W manunlukkan Nor Suraya membual DHVVIIIIHH Ital kzvasm Dflnbadwwa Sdmah Mahkimah membanmnnknn mu dangan we mm. dldnpan bshuwa nombm |alelm\ 01945159472 ml Jugn Isiah mam" se/algal nnmhar mm" mmbn Nor Sursyfl yam! mbenkzn swmah Kevaua peaawai Deflwazal (SWO) Mamavndawkan VDDZZ mx dwnmlsm aleh OK!’ Karina Imah dxkamukakzn ..mg.- .x.».m 4....“ wmuvaan ..m.a..my. .1. Mshkzmah u..m., M. ..y. mengambfl mus Kehnkwman Wm.- mus) izmdapnya nan meneflmarrya sebagav kelemngan dun merujamkannya mm: exsmml D22 MnK\um21 Demwfliaan YEW dlbekzhmn men Suruhanlayfi Sysnkm Ma\aYSva1SSM)Ia\|u IDD23 manurllukkavv Den: 0811.201’! Nor Surafl Mm lvhaklshh mandaflav 15713113! V§mVI\kpem\waan Hzmuwl Haalln L Balm‘! Mtvrnllldlfigkin IDD23 in: am dokumem Iwam yumu mkalxmkan cu. ssm am. umsnn Man epsrnslrvyl, uyi |e|sh e o sw sDxLMa3FKucERts-usauwx «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm mansnma mm: ml sehagaw krterangan can msnandahnnya ubauaw -kxmbn nza Kmamngnn ow yanv mm dlmhir ndihh pembqaan dam warms Mamnhus Health 4 Enemy w taelah dmnup smslah msamu um. maumua ansnn belksnuvv pad: w mznn om nu, adalah u x um um mawk nkl -ma Nor Surly: max snmpni Ielmlin kammmn um um. 09112017 mendaflsr sshllm vammk Im kerana. flan sum)! pamsaa u-mnauun in anallh wnlu tmdakan yang um» darn udsk me-vsumungkm unluk mama * tvmlwkkepndn sehuah pemmuaan ynng sedang dflanda mmxan, max law hemvarasi flan bemmsnan denfian Dandakvaun an mihkamuh paaa um-mu: mm Sm bamar-dapat sslucalunyl v-nisman my wk umuk u-mm Nor sum Im mum «pen: yang dmyulakan men on mm, u Iemn .1.» mm beuamh dun xeungxnun unluk menebus kesalanan Iensbnl kevana lslah mangkmanau on apabfla mmwax Danlumsn vruduk NIMIV my-.1»: Cream yam: Wall dlaruvu am. on Imuw yaw bun-n d\|)ua| mm Nor smya ls4ah mendanar sehngal pemmk llanmicus new memamml mnanunmmn mas xeauanamw. I211 swam din nu, say: bum-uman -mm nan mam m w m mun nmat hdak lnknmll mm mennmm cm alas pevlumlhnn yang dlkanakan Iemndapvlya w kamnn nanaan kamauzn Nor Suraya, smu pemaman yang am! am»; on men msmemukakan flan memnsnvzmkan uamnmaannya asngan mm yam mungkm |eIIN umsfikan kavad: on m. kaunl pk: Nnv Sway: mauh mun» um. omen dxbswa kg Mnnumm, ow mm. mengemukaknnnya sebagm my yang nknn menynmna nembelnunnyu man my Nnr Suruya membellkan kelenangan sebagm saks1 psndakwaan, on men msncaflzngkan hemhemnnnyn din menuabar mnmm den NIVIMIM kslalingan Nar sway: an kandarw sam- [51 Ar ms respundnm W1 this cm was umnpmssmlsd, n V: opportune, apposna me am for me no mm on mum 257 94 me Cnm\ma\ Pmosdura Code as u mmmderm mmrm In mngisimnes ma Sessbns Calm judgas on me vmoedum In be vmmm In such c\muma1a»oes The sum mum scam. -cm for Vvuasr.\mnn In he axulamed hy Cam In undalnmad unnamed (17AlsvvY um unions ma Conn an Magwslmn Wand wmnllse Own um uwn Ina accused «an m ddenee n mu. nr he is ml ranrasemed by nn udvnnalz, mfnrm nm. at nu flvhl la um swdnmza on nu own man, Ind n us mums m cm -vmsnn. on ma mm man snau can ms amsnmon In mu pnrvapav Fllmh m the mdence {or an- pmuculmn which |el\ ngmnn mm in nruer lhal he my nm nn nnpanuvflty M umlamlng mm 42» The laflure nu any may at any uncured an an. awdunua man not be mean 171: Iubnsrt of Iflvelu uillcwn by an pvvseouuon - [:1 Even though me abuve pmwsxons unne cvc talk about Mamsmm. they avmy Bquafly in ms Sumac cums San [1951] 1 ms 12e[<951]MLJ15s [71 TM: suhsedwun is auwanaa mI\Y L1) wmn an accuiad varwn ws unwwosanlsdn m vmen me auculad ha: hem caflod In sum Ms dtftnca, and 43) shcu m gm zwiuence an nu ma: behnfl TM: Vnnmdes maklnu a sla|amen4 vnnn me now see Axaflan hm Mum Annnzuzn v PP[2004I 5 ma sea‘ morn 1 cu cm, on [31 In (M us: :71 smuuu n wuauc PRosEI:uroR[uIa:q1 nu 22‘ Iha acnuxsd was amgea wun slaalmg «a bunches cl bananas onnlrarytn |he Penal Code, 5 379. me unoussd was unrepmssmed and mm me nmss ovurommngs u zwezmd mat the mawslrale an: nu| mmvlv Mm ma vluvmons at he cpc, semen 257 I: ma mlglilvate «am to Ixplam «nu nnndpaw poims againsl me loomed so mm In: accused mm have nn apponunw MexD\n‘"V‘E mm» [9] u was held by Ann 4 - Vn Ihe se mm nu, the accused was am-, as shown m nu menus, to axplam me vvwdance wvsn and \n my wunian iv an. Mag-mu Iud awuvnud nu dame! av un- xnumadas at an banana: he wanna be iequmsd In oliler welds, muuan mu Magsslmrs nan «am In expllm Ihe mnm paws oflhe ewdsnca 3gn\n:|me nppeum n. was mg \n his defiance m qlve in Vnhenlqsnl may \wou\d,IV1uslure,a|Ihuuuh Iemvn 257 mm Cnmmal Pmosduvi am am apnsarac um sxgm m be mammary by reason of me words - mu call mg msuuan-, x wnuld any man name ream In whul mm (aken Nana suhsswsnl In mm the amused had um um pmumua m m dufnnu and wou\d,uvnra1oI1,wylha\In ms pvIwn| saw mu vnimm by me Maginlma Ia mmply NM Ina pmvuiun Mme uclmn um um mmmuu any mulumcn or 5 reasonable pmmmmy oi premmw um m an nmbahn numme under ssdmn 422 0! me CvImmIlPrv.wadur1 cm- [H1] Next‘ m AWALUDDIN am suumm .1. on: v PENDAKWA suvAnm1 1 ML! a1u.ma cm: were Thme accused pemeru were shamed whh largely contrary In mm Fermi cane, s 451 The ms! and (nu ma accused Demon were reoresemsd hyenunseh am he ammea m-men infer: the um at ma p-munmvs cue Lm anamar saunas! apnuam «or me am iewssd who Ipwsd hr a shell aflmummsm m Iludy mm mm at ma pmcesdlnus. Wm: apmlnallnn ms not granted and he d\s::n.avged mmemmm nclmg loflhe flmzocussd. caumx vunne mm Emma: am am nolmm nu to :ondm:|Ihe vest no ms «nu TM Sealant cam judgu Dvsn calhd «av mu defunct In D: ammd by all three amumd The mu accused elected in mmain mm whilst ma Ieeond and mm accused erecied b make 3 smemem «mm me am M was awusad Parson: were sunsequanuy oonvmed my On appaax, on mgn Scum mturulfa, mu lhal ms appuw ream: am not shvw vmethav the Seams Conn judge had mmpflafl wflh the cue. senian 251 byczlhnq m the allenlmn al me ummemea amused ma Dr1no\va\ pom; m we pmseunmnm case m muanuvmam lo havn an owmluvvfl‘/In axmaun mam [12]l'?1u\aImediudgs sen mist an. ‘In my mnsidemd mew mmam even mvlsldenng me mam: Mme vnnmns leg mused m IN: aweal, n am saflsfled mu (here was 3 mlslllal m Ims mass The mmvd daafly mm mat W5 |na\ had run been conduclsu m accordanoa mun vmvav ma: vmcaamss or m a manner cxmducws In fawmsss anfllumuu mm; muflmom .s ml a nave for Duunul a Maria, «L: appear, auppw, ruapvuar and duawnav at 7 sw ;uxLmm<ucm..,sm,A «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm ms wmm and may A «mm mum vs am in may vflhs cum — he was a duly mm m an mm! and In ms dhm. Ila delencs Connie‘ mm: to dlwhsrgu rwnwlflrum mrmav mug lornn amused pa-son, ms fluxnl and hamurahlemlrvq vamimm dn V: m wmm the sum zmmmgxy zuqum mum demand me! he nppesvs m cmm In vamuy dwschargn hvmlalf n mm In somewhat am:-.u luv mm In flo,lV1un 7:5 -mu an Van! wme In mm mm nr mlorm on me: wunsel ax>¢um\ng\y.' [131 TM abwvu dhcussmn an section 251 we wa: mi\n\y(ak5vI hum ma book rm cumm-I Proctdun can» A Commnmlvy am ednwn 2023, by Ihe learned author Slimumunn mean [1 4 smumy m cm pvasnm can «mm mung 3| Ina avne-II records‘ 4 «nu ma: mu Influle m mmmy wam me pmvmon M seem» 251 cwc my nut accauumfl any pmumcs or u veasoname pmhiblfily of wanumu m ma -espomm as she was seq-amen byme $emnns Dnun Fmlhenmm nag on omasmn wmch us mum. undnr sacflau ¢22 nlma C1imma\ Pvucodurs Code Aw“! cu In Hun Can!‘ [151 Yho appmadl in be taken by In appsflils mm in an spans! a suocinclty Ind Iaonnlcaily slnled m m. vamm case av Dnlo Iokmlr am nun»... u. Anorv Pubflc Puvinmnur 11 gas; 2 ML! 2324193312 cu 40 when we Feasval Own hem: ~ ‘Thu mazmmy av . wilvlass Vs pnmamy a mailer Var me mun Judge Them \s a homogeneous oonA:a\sns(Iun m amhomy on ms nflnnlple and m M» w m. /noun dasslnws an ms aspen in . usage In the ]udqmen| ul Lom Thanksnnn xn War! or Tnolnas v. THamas[19J7]AC A80 4.‘ p 487) The Fnvy Cauncn send wu Caldslra 14 Gray [1Ii34]VLNS5|ha( lne Vuncflnns M an appofiala Conn. men dezhng Mm a qulnvon M Oat!‘ and a uueslmn ar mu m vmlch qlashons A71 uudvmmy ave mwwm. in llmmad in nmmraaaram soaps‘ and (ham: an appeaw hum aducman alumna! Judge man an ms opwuun oi the rruslwnflmness alvnmesse: whom 71: ha: neon, In svpaflma com mull m am: 1.; NVMW‘ nul memry emxenam doubts whellser ms detzlswu new a mm but ha cnnvinoed lhal n u wrung We feel mm are Vaflvwing passage (st 1:. us) lmm ma ludwmem :21 (Ml Seam xv. mm cue delivered by Land Muss: burs mm" mcxlanw rm nppeum ‘s axarcumg . ngh|nfnnpea\mmxan1 ml by righl, am mow Lemma: mwgmse Inzl may cannot merely because ms qunmun a one al led, and because xx nu bsen uaum m on: way byihe («mud Tm! Judas abdhztn mswautym rewew ms Gammon, and m reverse in, w may deem n In be wrong Nonethelsu‘ ma iuvlcnnnl av 5 Cum av Aweal. mu mum Mm . quesflcm M van, and n quesllnn M ha. morsovvr, m men, a. Mv1.b1uul\ons :4 ornmbwly am Vnvmvea, am man u: their character and wow ms In mmium law n has reeewed many Hluslmunns . nnd‘ m pnrlicmnr in ms News of was . me most recent ul mass hem: me use oVPoweN a Wife V Shealhsm Manor Nwsvnv Hum [1s35lAc 243, wen u KE 304‘ 152 LT551 19 st 179, 51 rm us In Iha| case mm mm mur Whereme Judie anha Mal has some to 5 mncmslnn upon me uussncn mam am. wllnuses‘ wmm he has mm and mm, are vusmonhy and mm are nan, he Vs rmm\nl\y m a tumor pawn in judge u! my msltv than his apvsflzte mmmv can ha. and ma nppellals MMAMI wdl qensmHy mm to me eonduflon Mwich ma mu Judge has coma. Lard wnm m the course anus spasm we we pnwvlsvx are beyumd wmmvalsy mm m u dsar. hat, m an applal -11 (ms nhnmmzv, mm is «mm 19:: daculnm al . mu ma. baled an In: uwmun av the lmswmnhlness M Mmessas whom he has scan, Ina omm n|ADDEE\'mu:1‘ m order m vavarw‘ not mswly erltemzm doubts vmelhsr ms daemon hekiw ls mm. am he mnvmuod mm mm wrong‘ - may Vn me case M Pnvlnumy gm Shllnpplll a. Ann: u Puhllc Pmucutov mm: MLJ 551‘ ‘ mm] 3 Cu 157 the cam amweal smaa name name uflne law‘ vma|was medulyand hmmnn aims learned mags on awed’? His duly and Nnchon um um ma wmecluf muumu in a great many lasss am «or purvuses wo find m -mncum m Mar tn Mu uf Ihue m um Khoak Taang v mm Pmsanumr(19al]1 cm 207 (mp), ms Suwnm Ooml M-um Ina accused on {we mamas underme Prevarmen ulCawup1.|mI A:Lms1, amzvhavmu hsuvd N: antenna a sw sDxLMa3FKucERts-usauwx «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm On avbuav. Inn mgr. own set ism: ma ovdsvul aazqumal and iubimulsd mursfluvnn nnier at m.mu.,.. The named avvfled my me new renamed 5 as M was cm; a! mmam Ad‘ man, u: venwve a uuanmn :71 ‘aw 1.. llhwwn m. apphnllinn m qullllmg um cnnwzlmn, m. rm. I own mm. Iudimam Wm flafivemd by Hasmm Vaan San! FJ Hana! OJ Malaya) £316 |W1l LIEVI have hsnanse flmly W! VeV| that muve WEI no 9709- IDDPIWHIV M57190 swam V Kirly-Emtmur NR 19:: Pc 227 ms sammfly puma > .5 foflww rm», M c; .n Rex V Law Tan Cheng||9A1] MLA 1, me man... Judge wem mm mm with the trend of anmmiflsa Vn s\mv\zrlImIdk1|urIa WVIII VBWN1. Mull Lard Rupu\L71KIHLwan xatd In SAID SWIVIIP waslhal am-awn no Wmimims would he olncefl on me power av lhe npoeflale cam in exerusing the pawer mnflened ‘me High court muna Ind VAII mm. awn pmpnr wright um w...:¢.mm. in men mmku as’ (1 p the vwwn of the mnl Judge on ma credbfllly of (he wvtnausl. (2Hha Dresnmnlnn afinnocsnce in Vavwur ollhe ncnusefl‘ (3! the fight nlme accused In me henem MAW daum and (4) (M flawnesss (71 an anvsilate Com‘ wrv miturbwlvg I findmq 011391 amvud II \7y I Judgawhu had the zdvlmlaa of sunny Wu Mlnollés um Ram! mum ml: Sam: pl\nclp\e Vn Esnmaxv Au.s1mMo1mCo.L1d u 955] AC 370‘ (575 vmava he named [mm Lord Thanksnurfs ludflmsnl Vn Thomas V. Tnoma5[1BA7'l1 AH an 5s2,ma1 Whnva I Qusslmn 0! Ian his lawn mad by 2 Juflfli wflhom 3 WW. ind than w: M ..u.m.. Mmisflxmcnmw uflumsqll bylhaluduu, In nvnulnls can we» is was-a «a name no . mum: mncmsim omhe primed evwdenne sum name an unless ms aaflsfled mm any udvanlnsle ellloyad by me Me! Juana DY mason Mhawva seen and heard the wmmssss‘ omm no| he wMunn| In ewlam av Juglfly |VIa ma! J\Idis'a cnndwlmn m. learned avpalllta mg. mm lhanhe Vaamld Pravdenl rm ‘muamsa llwmsfl an Am npbnltlnn elm: aucuud ‘GVVIH menu: nssvalsd M apoml record, can u be mm mac mam wn: . misd\mn7dnn7 Or 5... xx he said am ma damslnn av we learned Prasmam was 'D4amVy unsmmd'7 (Thames v 1'homaa{suDraN On the lads oflms casewe flu ml max so

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-12B-30-04/2023

PERAYU 1. ) RADZUAN BIN ABIDIN 2. ) SPANCO SDN BHD RESPONDEN MOHD AZHARI BIN TURMUZI

UNDANG-UNDANG TORT: Kemalangan jalan raya – Rayuan mengenai isu liabiliti – Dapatan mengenai agihan liabiliti 70:30 – Sama ada Responden/Plaintif berjaya dalam beban pembuktiannya – Laporan polis Responden/Plaintif tidak menyebut bahawa Responden/Plaintif terbabas dan masuk ke laluan Defendan Pertama – Keadaan terbabas lebih kepada Plaintif dan bukannya Defendan Pertama − Sama ada inferens oleh Mahkamah bicara betul – Sama ada keseluruhan rayuan adalah “fundamentally flawed” − Prinsip “appellate intervention on the plainly wrong test”.

05/02/2024

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1b55982b-add8-4903-b6a0-a699d375c852&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: BA-12B-30-04/2023 ANTARA 1. RADZUAN BIN ABIDIN 2. SPANCO SDN BHD − PERAYU-PERAYU DAN MOHD AZHARI BIN TURMUZI − RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Selayang Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman No.: BD-B53KJ-19-09/2021 ANTARA MOHD AZHARI BIN TURMUZI − PLAINTIF DAN 1. RADZUAN BIN ABIDIN 2. SPANCO SDN BHD − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN) [yang diputuskan oleh Puan Nor Rajiah binti Mat Zin, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, Selayang yang diberi pada 31-3-2023] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN 05/02/2024 14:42:06 BA-12B-30-04/2023 Kand. 21 S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Pengenalan [1] Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah iaitu Mahkamah Sesyen Selayang difailkan oleh Defendan-Defendan sebagai Perayu-Perayu terhadap keputusan Puan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana (selepas ini disebut “Pn HMS yang bijaksana”) selepas suatu perbicaraan penuh. Defendan-Defendan (Perayu-Perayu) merayu terhadap isu liabiliti sahaja. [2] Pada 31-3-2023, Pn HMS yang bijaksana memutuskan bahawa setelah meneliti semua kertas kausa yang difailkan, bukti dokumentari dan keterangan lisan dan setelah membaca dan menimbang penghujahan bertulis peguam-peguam, Pn HMS yang bijaksana memutuskan bahawa – • Defendan-Defendan adalah bertanggungan sebanyak 70% dan Plaintif adalah bertanggungan (cuai sumbang) sebanyak 30%. • pada kadar 100% Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif seperti berikut: (a) Jumlah Ganti rugi Am = RM102,000.00 (b) Jumlah Ganti rugi Khas = RM28,000.00 S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 • Faedah ke atas Ganti rugi Am sebanyak RM102,000.00 pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh penyampaian writ saman sehingga tarikh penghakiman iaitu 185 hari = RM2,584.93; Faedah ke atas Ganti rugi Khas (kehilangan pendapatan sebenar) sebanyak RM21,000.00 pada kadar 2.5% setahun dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh penghakiman iaitu 2230 hari = RM3,207.53; Faedah ke atas jumlah penghakiman sebanyak RM130,000.00 pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga pembayaran sepenuhnya. • Defendan-Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada peguam cara Plaintif kos mengikut skala sebanyak RM14,424.20. [3] Defendan-Defendan yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam (MTSA). [4] Saya telah mendengar rayuan ini dan pada 21-9-2023, saya memutuskan rayuan Perayu-Perayu/Defendan-Defendan dibenarkan di mana liabiliti ialah Responden/Plaintif bertanggungan 70% manakala Perayu/Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan 30%. Selanjutnya, keputusan MTSA ialah − S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 KEPUTUSAN RAYUAN Radzuan bin Abidin dan SPANCO Sdn Bhd iaitu defendan- defendan dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah Sesyen Selayang tidak berpuas hati terhadap isu liabiliti yang diputuskan iaitu Perayu/defendan-defendan bertanggungan 70% manakala Mohd Azhari bin Turmuzi iaitu Responden/plaintif bertanggungan 30%. Adakah Perayu/defendan-defendan berjaya menunjukkan betapa Pn Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana (Pn HMS) telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta kerana gagal mengambil kira kesemua keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat (IO), plaintif dan defendan pertama apabila mencapai dapatan mengenai liabiliti? Mahkamah ini telah meneliti notis rayuan, memorandum rayuan terpinda yang mengandungi 19 alasan Perayu/defendan- defendan dan hujahan bertulis utama pihak-pihak. Berdasarkan Nota Keterangan dan Alasan Penghakiman, Mahkamah ini mendapati Pn HMS khilaf apabila mencapai dapatan mengenai liabiliti bahawa Perayu/defendan-defendan bertanggungan 70% manakala Mohd Azhari bin Turmuzi iaitu Responden/plaintif bertanggungan 30%. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Terdapat fakta yang jelas menunjukkan bahawa kemalangan jalan raya ini bukan berpunca daripada Perayu/defendan- defendan sehingga liabiliti Perayu/defendan-defendan diputuskan sebagai 70%. Kemalangan ini berpunca daripada Responden/plaintif. Walaupun, kes ini dirujuk kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR) dan diputuskan sebagai “NFA”, namun keseluruhan pendapat & penelitian TPR perlu dipertimbangkan. Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa – (a) rayuan Perayu/defendan-defendan dibenarkan di mana liabiliti ialah Responden/plaintif bertanggungan 70% manakala Perayu/defendan- defendan bertanggungan 30%. (b) Mahkamah membenarkan kos sebanyak RM1000.00 dibayar oleh Responden/plaintif kepada Perayu/defendan-defendan. [5] Kini, Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan MTSA merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. Rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi [6] Dalam memorandum rayuan, Defendan-Defendan menyenaraikan alasan di mana terdapat kekhilafan Pn HMS yang bijaksana yang memutuskan bahawa Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan sebanyak 70% manakala Plaintif hanya bertanggungan sebanyak 30%. Defendan- Defendan menyatakan keputusan ini khilaf dari segi undang-undang dan S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 fakta, iaitu − (a) punca kemalangan sebenarnya adalah disebabkan oleh Plaintif yang hilang kawalan lalu tergelincir dan terjatuh sendiri lalu terbabas di atas jalanraya. (b) gagal mengambilkira keterangan Plaintif di Mahkamah yang berbeza dengan kandungan laporan polisnya di mana – i. kandungan laporan polis Plaintif tidak mengandungi pengataan “masuk ke lalauan saya” dan pengataan ini hanya muncul pertama kali apabila Plaintif memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. ii. kandungan laporan polis Defendan Pertama yang dibuat kurang 3 jam selepas kemalangan dengan jelas menyebut “telah terbabas dan memasuki laluan saya dan menghentam bahagian kanan hadapan m/kar saya”. iii. keterangan Defendan Pertama di Mahkamah adalah konsisten dengan kandungan laporan polisnya dan harus diterima oleh Mahkamah berbanding dengan keterangan Plaintif. (c) gagal membuat penemuan fakta yang tempat perlanggaran yang munasabah berlaku di “Y” dalam rajah kasar seperti yang ditanda oleh Defendan Pertama berbanding di “X” seperti yang ditanda oleh Plaintif. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (d) gagal membuat penemuan fakta yang tepat bahawa kesan kerosakan m/kar Defendan pada bumper hadapan adalah konsisten dengan versi Defendan Pertama tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. (e) gagal membuat penemuan fakta yang m/kar Defendan berada dalam laluan sahnya berdasarkan dari kedudukan mayat si mati (isteri Plaintif) yang berada di atas jalan di sebelah kanan m/kar Defendan di antara pintu hadapan dan pintu belakang kanan m/kar dan mayat berada di atas garisan berkembar pembahagi jalan. (f) gagal mengambilkira keputusan siasatan polis adalah “NFA” dan keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat bahawa kecuaian adalah di pihak penunggang m/sikal dan bahawa Plaintif tidak dipertuduhkan di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalan atau disaman di bawah mana-mana kesalahan trafik atas faktor simpati isteri beliau meninggal dunia dalam kemalangan tersebut. (g) apabila tidak mempertimbangkan arahan Timbalan pendakwa Raya dalam Kertas Siasatan yang dibacakan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat yang berbunyi “kemalangan berlaku berpunca daripada penunggang m/sikal sendiri yang hilang kawalan lalu terbabas kemudian bertembung dengan kereta Spanco. Si mati adalah isteri K2. K2 masih bersedih di atas kematian isteri. Sila NFA.”. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (h) gagal membuat penemuan fakta bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan kecuaian Defendan Pertama. (i) gagal mengambilkira situasi “agony of the moment situation- collision” yang dilakukan oleh Plaintif yang menyebabkan Defendan Pertama tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa untuk mengambil apa-apa langkah untuk mengelak dari kemalangan tersebut. (j) terkhilaf apabila mendapati Plaintif cuai sumbang hanya 30% sedangkan Plaintif yang menjadi punca sebenar kemalangan ini. (k) gagal menolak tuntutan Plaintif atas kegagalan Plaintif membuktikan kecuaian Defendan Pertama. [7] Defendan-Defendan (Perayu-Perayu) memohon agar rayuannya mengenai isu liabiliti dibenarkan dan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana untuk isu liabiliti diketepikan. [8] Pada peringkat rayuan ini, Mahkamah merujuk pihak-pihak sebagaimana mereka di Mahkamah Sesyen Selayang. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi [9] Fokus Mahkamah bagi rayuan ini ialah sama ada wujud kecuaian di pihak Defendan-Defendan dan sama ada Plaintif cuai sumbang. [10] Pada 21-9-2023, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti rekod rayuan, nota keterangan, hujahan bertulis utama pihak-pihak dan Alasan Penghakiman Pn HMS yang bijaksana, Mahkamah ini memutuskan untuk membenarkan rayuan oleh Defendan-Defendan dan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana mengenai isu liabiliti diketepikan. Mahkamah mendapati Plaintif adalah cuai sumbang sebanyak 70% dan Defendan-Defendan hanya bertanggungan sebanyak 30%. [11] Pn HMS yang bijaksana dalam alasan penghakimannya (AP) menilai keterangan lisan 3 orang saksi Plaintif iaitu Pegawai Penyiasat (SP-1), majikan Plaintif (SP-2) dan Plaintif (SP-3). Melalui saksi-saksi Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan, dokumen yang dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit adalah – • P1 → Rajah kasar & kunci. • P2 (a) hingga (k) → 11 keping gambar tempat kejadian. • D3 → Laporan polis Defendan Pertama. • P4 (1) hingga (7) → Pendaftaran Perniagaan Team Multilogistics (M) Sdn Bhd. • P5 (1) hingga (6) → Slip Gaji Plaintif bagi bulan Oktober hingga Disember 2016 dan Januari hingga Mac 2017. • P6 → Laporan polis Plaintif. • P7 (1) hingga (19) → Sijil Cuti Sakit Plaintif. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 • P8 (1) hingga (2) → Memo Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya. • P9 → Tax Invoice & resit rasmi dari Zuelliq Pharma. • D10 → Laporan pembetulan Defendan Pertama. [12] Dalam menganalisa fakta mengenai kemalangan dengan memfokuskan kepada isu liabiliti, Pn HMS yang bijaksana dalam alasan penghakimannya (AP) menyatakan bahawa beliau telah meneliti laporan polis oleh Plaintif dan laporan polis oleh Defendan Pertama dan pada perenggan [16], Pn HMS yang bijaksana merumuskan − “[16] Setelah meneliti kedua-dua laporan polis Plaintif dan laporan polis Defendan Pertama, terdapat dua versi berbeza tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Menurut Plaintif, motokar Defendan Pertama yang datang dari arah bertentangan dan melanggar Plaintif dan isterinya. Motorsikal Plaintif mengalami kerosakan iaitu calar di bahagian cover set sebelah kiri, paddle di sebelah kiri bengkok dan kerosakan-kerosakan lain yang belum dipastikan. Defendan Pertama pula menyatakan bahawa Plaintif telah terbabas dan memasuki laluan Defendan Pertama dan Plaintif telah melanggar bahagian kanan hadapan motokar Defendan Pertama. Kerosakan motokar Defendan Pertama pada bumper hadapan sebelah kanan dan kerosakan- kerosakan lain yang belum dipastikan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan versi mana yang lebih ‘probable’ dan versi mana yang tidak ‘probable’ dan perlu ditolak. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Tabarani Mohd Arshad & Anor v. Chan Tenn Yau [1999] 3 CLJ 188 apabila Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 ‘There were two versions of the accident. One version came from the respondent, plaintiff himself while the other version was that of the first appellant/defendant. The trial court fell in error when it approached the case solely on the basis of deciding which story to be believed. When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and considered other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. This approach provides a wide leverage for the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the testimony of the credible witness.’ ”. [13] Dalam menggunapakai prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam kes Tabarani Mohd Arshad & Anor v. Chan Tenn Yau tersebut, Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah meneliti dan menilai keterangan SP-1. Pengamatan Pn HMS yang bijaksana kepada keterangan SP-1 adalah – “[19] Mahkamah mendapati keterangan lisan SP-1 adalah berubah-ubah tentang tandaan “C” pada Ekshibit P1 sebagai tempat kejadian dan tempat mayat jatuh dan tercampak selepas kemalangan. Walau bagaimanapun daripada keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP-1, lokasi kejadian atau tempat mayat manusia ditandakan “C” adalah berada di tengah-tengah jalan lebih ke dalam laluan Plaintif. Kes ini telah diklasifikasikan sebagai “No S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Further Action (NFA)” oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya setelah dirujuk oleh SP-1 supaya SP3 disaman di bawah Rule 10 L.N. 166/1959 walaupun kes ini disiasat di bawah subseksyen 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987. Oleh itu, SP-3 tidak dikenakan apa-apa saman oleh pihak polis. [20] Walaupun keterangan lisan SP-1 adalah berubah-ubah tentang tandaan “C” yang merujuk kepada tempat pertembungan dan tempat mayat jatuh selepas kemalangan, Mahkamah menerima keterangan SP-1 bahawa tandaan “C” adalah tempat pertembungan motorsikal Plaintif dan motokar Defendan Pertama memandangkan tandaan “C” tersebut dan catatan pada Ekshibit P1 telah dibuat oleh SP-1 selepas SP-1 membuat siasatan penuh terhadap kes ini. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Abdul Rahman v. Soon Ah Hai [1978] 2 MLJ 31 apabila Mahkamah Persekutuan mengakas keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendapati Perayu 100% cuai dan memutuskan bahawa – ‘The sketch plan showed the impact to be very near the centre of the road. In the circumstances the appellant and the respondent were equally to be blamed and liability of the appellant should be 50%.’ ”. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [14] Berkenaan dengan pengamatan Pn HMS yang bijaksana kepada keterangan Plaintif sendiri (SP-3), alasan penghakiman Pn HMS yang bijaksana menyatakan – “[22] Mahkamah mendapati SP-3 tidak menyatakan dalam laporan polisnya di Ekshibit P5 bahawa motokar SD-1 datang dari arah bertentangan, masuk ke laluan SP-3 dan menyebabkan kemalangan. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah meneliti Ikatan Pliding dan mendapati butir-butir kecuaian Defendan Pertama di muka surat 4 dan 5 Ikatan A telah diplid yang menyatakan bahawa motokar Defendan Pertama masuk ke laluan SP-3 dari arah bertentangan dan menyebabkan kemalangan.”. [15] Keterangan saksi-saksi Defendan-Defendan yang dinilai oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana pula dinyatakan pada perenggan 23 hingga 26. Pn HMS yang bijaksana menilai fakta mengenai tempat pertembungan dan versi berbeza dan bertentangan mengenai bagaimana kemalangan ini berlaku, Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah merujuk keputusan kes Lee Ewe Teik v. Ariffin bin Hussain [1990] 2 CLJ (Rep) 332 di Mahkamah Tinggi, keputusan kes Chew Soo Lan v. Ludhiana Syndicate & Anor [1976] 2 MLJ 205 di Mahkamah Persekutuan dan keputusan kes Siti Rohani Mohd Shah & Anor v. Hj. Zainal Hj Saifiee and Anor [2001] 1 CLJ 498 di Mahkamah Tinggi. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [16] Dalam menggunapakai ketiga-tiga nas undang-undang kes itu, pada perenggan 27 dan 28 alasan penghakiman Pn HMS yang bijaksana menyatakan – “[27] Mahkamah merujuk kepada keterangan SP-3 semasa pemeriksaan balas apabila SP-3 tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan peguam Defendan-Defendan bahawa SP-3 selepas hilang kawalan terhadap motorsikal yang ditunggang telah masuk ke laluan bertentangan. Berdasarkan prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam kes Chew Soo Lan v. Ludhiana Syndicate & Anor (supra) dan kes Siti Rohani Mohd Shah & Anor (supra), memandangkan motokar SD-1 mengambil selekoh ke kanan dari laluan atas ke bawah, Mahkamah membuat inferens bahawa motokar SD-1 boleh memotong sudut (cut corners) dan masuk ke laluan sah motorsikal Plaintif. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada tandaan “X” (berwarna hitam) oleh SP-3 sebagai tempat di mana pertembungan berlaku antara motokar SD-1 dan motorsikal SP-3 adalah di hujung sudut laluan sah Plaintif di selekoh kiri di laluan SP-3. Ekshibit P1 juga menunjukkan bahawa mayat manusia iaitu isteri Plaintif berada di tengah- tengah jalan dan lebih di laluan sah Plaintif disokong oleh keterangan SP-1 bahawa tandaan “C” di tengah-tengah jalan adalah ‘1st place of impact’. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [28] Berdasarkan bukti kerosakan yang tertumpu kepada bumper hadapan sebelah kanan motokar SD-1, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, bahawa kemalangan ini berlaku disebabkan SD-1 masuk ke laluan sah SP-3 dan melanggar motorsikal SP- 3. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa keterangan SP-3 adalah konsisten dengan siasatan dan keterangan SP-1 yang mengesahkan tempat pertembungan di tandaan “C” dan tandaan “C” tersebut adalah dalam laluan sah SP-3.”. [17] Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah memutuskan bahawa Plaintif telah cuai sumbang memandangkan keterangan SP-3 sendiri menyatakan bahawa dalam keadaan cuaca hujan SP-3 telah hilang kawalan terhadap motorsikal dan motorsikal SP-3 telah menggelongsor dan jatuh atas jalan. Mahkamah berpendapat dalam keadaan hujan SP-3 sepatutnya mengambil langkah-langkah berjaga-jaga dalam menunggang motorsikal. Dalam keadaan cuaca pada hari kejadian adalah hujan SP-3 sepatutnya menunggang motorsikal dengan kelajuan yang boleh dikawal jika terdapat mana-mana kenderaan yang masuk ke laluan SP-3. SP-3 tidak memberikan sebarang perhatian yang sewajarnya pada keadaan trafik serta keadaan sekelilingnya dan beliau telah gagal mengawal motorsikalnya sehingga hilang kawalan dan menggelongsor atas jalan sehingga menyebabkan SD-1 yang datang dari arah bertentangan menghadapi situasi atau keadaan yang tidak boleh dielak dalam menyebabkan kemalangan. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [18] Pn HMS yang bijaksana memutuskan bahawa walaupun SP-3 menyatakan bahawa kelajuan motorsikal SP-3 adalah 30-40km/j, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa SP-3 menunggang motorsikalnya secara laju kerana jika dengan kelajuan yang sederhana 30-40km/j, SP- 3 sepatutnya boleh mengawal motorsikal yang ditunggangnya dalam keadaan cuaca hujan dan boleh mengelak daripada motorsikal hilang kawalan dan menggelongsor atas jalan. Tambahan bagi laluan SP-3 adalah menuruni bukit. Pn HMS yang bijaksana merujuk keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes Gurisha Taranjeet Kaur (an infant suing by her father and litigation representative, Taranjeet Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh) & Anor v. Dr Premitah Damodaran & Anor [2020] MLJU 519. Penilaian, Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah ini dalam memutuskan rayuan terhadap keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana [19] Keputusan Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan isu laibiliti yang dirayu oleh Defendan-Defendan memutuskan bahawa keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah khilaf apabila mendapati bahawa Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya dan liabiliti Defendan-Defendan ialah sebanyka 70% dalam menyebabkan kemalangan ini dan Plaintif menyumbang cuai sebanyak 30% dalam menyebabkan kemalangan ini. [20] Keputusan Mahkamah ini pada peringkat rayuan telah mengusik dapatan fakta oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana dan sekaligus mengubah dapatan Mahkamah Rendah dalam isu liabiliti. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [21] Seperti juga yang dinyatakan dalam keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana, pendekatan yang perlu diikuti oleh Mahkamah perbicaraan di mana terdapat percanggahan material di antara versi kedua-dua pihak adalah dengan menimbangkan versi manakah di antara kedua-duanya lebih berkemungkinan dengan berdasarkan bukti yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah, versi manakah yang lebih berkemungkinan. Nas undang- undang yang dirujuk oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah betul dan saya merujuk kepada kes Noorianti bte Zainol Abidin & Ors Tang Lei Nge [1990] 2 MLJ 243, di mana dinyatakan pendekatan yang perlu diikuti oleh Hakim perbicaran dalam kes-kes sebegini− “It has also been said two conflicting stories he should not approach the case upon the basis of considering which of the two conflicting stories he should believe but rather on the basis of considering which version is inherently probable or improbable - see for the instance Koay Teik Choo & Ors v. R [1956] MLJ 52.”. [22] Versi manakah yang lebih berkemungkinan? Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Pn HMS yang bijaksana berpendapat bahawa versi Plaintif lebih berkemungkinan berbanding dengan versi Defendan- Defendan. [23] Pn HMS yang bijaksana memutuskan bahawa keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat (SP-1) tidak memuaskan hati hakim yang membicarakan manakala penilaian kepada tempat kemalangan lebih berkemungkinan di mana Defendan Pertama yang memasuki laluan sah Plaintif. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [24] Dalam menimbangkan mengenai capaian cuai sumbang, Pn HMS yang bijaksana menyatakan mengenai keadaan cuaca, Plaintif gagal mengawal motorsikalnya hingga menyebabkan motorsikal Plaintif menggelongsor, tempat kemalangan adalah selekoh dan Mahkamah Sesyen membuat inferens bahawa motokar SD-1 boleh memotong sudut (cut corners) dan masuk ke laluan sah motorsikal Plaintif adalah dapatan Mahkamah bicara bahawa Defendan Pertama bertanggungan 70% dan Plaintif hanya 30%. [25] Pada peringkat rayuan, hujahan bertulis utama Defendan-Defendan (perayu-perayu) dan Plaintif (respionden) di samping rekod rayuan yang mengandungi alasan penghakiman Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah membantu Mahkamah ini untuk mengubah dapatan bagi isu liabiliti. Dapatan Rayuan: Isu Liabiliti [26] Undang-undang berkait dengan beban pembuktian adalah mantap. Dalam kes tuntutan kerugian akibat kemalangan jalan raya, pihak yang menuntut perlulah terlebih dahulu membuktikan tuntutannya berdasarkan peruntukan seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1950. [27] Hashim Yeop A Sani H (pada ketika itu) dalam kes Ng Chul Sia v Maimon Bt Ali [1983] 1 MLJ 110, memutuskan – “In an action for negligence the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it unless there are disclosed facts which raise a presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been a breach of a specific or general duty by the defendant and this S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 resulted in the damage to the plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail. ...When an accidental harm is done it is not for the doer to excuse himself by proving that the accident was inevitable and that there was no negligence on his part. It is for the person who suffers the harm to prove affirmatively that the accidental harm was due to the negligence of the other person.”. [28] Jelasnya, pada setiap masa beban pembuktian adalah di bahu Plaintif membuktikan dengan tegas kecuaian di pihak Defendan- Defendan kecuali dapat dibuktikan ada anggapan yang memihak kepada Plaintif bagi Defendan-Defendan membuktikan sebaliknya. Persoalan yang perlu diputuskan mahkamah bicara adalah sama ada pihak Plaintif telah membuktikan dengan tegas di atas imbangan kebarangkalian Defendan-Defendan telah cuai semasa kemalangan tersebut berlaku. [29] Keterangan Plaintif perlulah diteliti dan diuji. Berdasarkan keterangan pihak plaintif sendiri adalah nyata bahawa laporan polis oleh Paintif menyebut bahawa Plaintif (penunggang motorsikal) telah menggelongsor. Dalam keadaan menggelongsor itu, motorsikal Plaintif memasuki ke laluan Defendan Pertama dan bukan menggelongsor ke arah satu lagi. Apabila ini berlaku, motokar Defendan Pertama dari arah bertentangan tidak dapat mengawal keadaan dan bukti kerosakan pada kedua-dua kenderaan (motorsikal Plaintif dan motokar Defendan Pertama) adalah sepadan dengan impak pertembungan. Apa yang mendukacitakan ialah isteri Plaintif (yang membonceng motorsikal suaminya) menemui ajal akibat daripada kemalangan ini. Walau bagaimanapun, tuntutan ini adalah di antara Plaintif (suami) dan Defendan-Defendan sahaja. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [30] Apabila Pn HMS yang bijaksana membuat inferens bahawa – “[27] … motokar SD-1 boleh memotong sudut (cut corners) dan masuk ke laluan sah motorsikal Plaintif. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada tandaan “X” (berwarna hitam) oleh SP-3 sebagai tempat di mana pertembungan berlaku antara motokar SD-1 dan motorsikal SP-3 adalah di hujung sudut laluan sah Plaintif di selekoh kiri di laluan SP-3. Ekshibit P1 juga menunjukkan bahawa mayat manusia iaitu isteri Plaintif berada di tengah- tengah jalan dan lebih di laluan sah Plaintif disokong oleh keterangan SP-1 bahawa tandaan “C” di tengah-tengah jalan adalah ‘1st place of impact’. [28] Berdasarkan bukti kerosakan yang tertumpu kepada bumper hadapan sebelah kanan motokar SD-1, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, bahawa kemalangan ini berlaku disebabkan SD-1 masuk ke laluan sah SP-3 dan melanggar motorsikal SP- 3. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa keterangan SP-3 adalah konsisten dengan siasatan dan keterangan SP-1 yang mengesahkan tempat pertembungan di tandaan “C” dan tandaan “C” tersebut adalah dalam laluan sah SP-3.”, Mahkamah ini mendapati Pn HMS yang bijaksana mempercayai keterangan Plaintif berdasarkan inferens yang Mahkamah bicara nyatakan. Ternyata Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah tersalah arah apabila pada suatu sudut Pn HMS yang bijaksana menyatakan bahawa keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat berubah-ubah. Manakala dari sudut satu lagi, Pn HMS yang bijaksana bergantung kepada pengesahan tempat pertembungan Pegawai Penyiasat. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [31] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 2 MLJ 175 memutuskan – “In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the defendant's negligence. “Evidence is the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself.” see 15 Halsbury (3rd Ed.) p. 260.”. [32] Dalam kes Krishna Murthey & Anor v. Law Lye Chua [1992] 1 CLJ 684, KC Vohrah H (pada ketika itu) setelah merujuk kepada kes Ng Chul Sia v. Maimon Bt Ali telah memutuskan – “The onus is not on the defendant to prove that he was not negligent.”. [33] Pn HMS yang bijaksana sepatutnya membuat penilaian terlebih dahulu ke atas keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif bagi menentukan sama ada Plaintif telah membuktikan kecuaian di pihak Defendan-Defendan; dan Plaintif layak untuk memperoleh ganti rugi am dan khas akibat kecuaian Defendan Pertama. Agihan liabiliti antara kedua-dua pihak perlu mengambil kira setelah Plaintif berjaya membuktikan kecuaian di pihak Defendan-Defendan. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [34] Kemalangan ini melibatkan 2 buah kenderaan iaitu sebuah motorsikal dan sebuah motokar. Apabila melibatkan kenderaan besar dan kecil, anggapan bahawa motokar yang bersalah handaklah disemak dan menilai keterangan neutral pegawai penyiasat (SP-1) [35] Dalam kes Chan Sau Chuan v Choi Kong Chaw & Yap Yun Chun [1991] 2 CLJ 394, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa – “Taking the evidence of the investigation officer, PW3, first I must mention that this witness has no personal interest in this action between the two parties. The second observation I would like to make is that although PW3 is not an expert witness in the strict sense of the words, nevertheless he is more than competent to give his views because of his experience as an investigation officer in traffic accidents and the quality of the evidence he gave in this trial. To my mind he is skilful enough for this court to take into serous consideration of some of the things said by him in his evidence.”. [36] Peruntukan seksyen 106 Evidence Act 1950 adalah “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”. [37] Laporan polis oleh kedua-dua pihak telah dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan dan punca kemalangan sebenarnya adalah disebabkan oleh Plaintif yang hilang kawalan lalu tergelincir dan terjatuh sendiri lalu terbabas di atas jalanraya. Persoalan “terbabas di atas jalanraya” hendaklah jelas iaitu sama ada terbabas ke laluan Defendan Pertama atau kekal di laluan Plaintif sendiri. Jawapan yang logik ialah “terbabas ke S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 laluan Defendan Pertama”. Kesan kerosakan dan impak kerosakan tidak bercanggah dan ianya sepadan untuk memahami bagaimana kemalangan/pertembungan berlaku. [38] Fakta khas yang hanya dalam pengetahuan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama iaitu sama ada Plaintif menunggang dalam had sederhana, sama ada gagal mengawal motorsikal dan sama ada motokar Defendan Pertama yang memasuki laluan sah Plaintif adalah persoalan yang hanya boleh dibentangkan di Mahkamah bicara melalui keterangan lisan saksi- saksi iaitu SP-1 (Pegawai Penyiasat), Plaintif (SP-3) dan Defendan Pertama (SD). [39] Keputusan pihak polis untuk “NFA” di mana Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama tidak dikenakan apa-apa tindakan undang-undang atas kemalangan ini. Keputusan ‘NFA’ sebab pihak polis tidak dapat menentukan siapa yang bersalah dan tidak cukup keterangan untuk dakwa dan saman mana-mana pihak, bukan menjadi faktor utama untuk agihan liabiliti. [40] Mahkamah ini mengenepikan dapatan fakta yang ditemui oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana. Hasil daripada dapatan fakta tersebut Mahkamah ini mendapati Pn HMS yang bijaksana terkhilaf menggunakan prinsip undang-undang untuk mencapai keputusannya. Dapatan fakta oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah berdasarkan keterangan yang diperoleh daripada keterangan saksi-saksi dan keterangan dokumentar. Maka, sewajarnya Pn HMS yang bijaksana menganalisa fakta di hadapannya dengan teliti untuk memutuskan mengenai isu liabiliti. Dapatan oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah terkhilaf. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Prinsip Campur tangan dan Gangguan Mahkamah pada peringkat rayuan [41] Ciri utama bagi sesuatu “appellate intervention” adalah jelas dan mantap dalam semua peringkat rayuan. Tugas Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan ialah untuk memastikan sama ada Mahkamah yang membicarakan itu mencapai keputusannya berdasarkan keputusan atau dapatan secara betul mengenai keterangan dan berasaskan kepada undang-undang. [42] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1 memutuskan – “[14] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention, ie to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Clearly, the phrase ‘insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence’ merely related to such process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal’s restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to appellate intervention, ie that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.”. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [43] Begitu juga dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia v. Global Upline Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2017] 1 MLJ 170 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa “an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its conclusion and where there has been insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. [44] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 memutuskan “the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is ‘the plainly wrong test’ principle”. [45] Prinsip undang-undang mengenai appellate intervention only justified that on the available evidence, that the SCj is erred (Kes Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 146). [46] Dua ujian yang dikenal pasti perlu dipenuhi bagi tujuan appellate intervention adalah “plainly wrong test” and “insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence test” (the case of Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at 98-99). [47] Dalam kes Ong Leong Ciou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at 329, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa – S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 “[125] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court of first instance. The general principle is that the conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral evidence based on the demean our and credibility of the witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an appellate interference merely because the appellate court entertains doubt whether such finding is right.”. [48] Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa – “... an appellate Court should not interfere with factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial Judge was plainly wrong or one that no reasonable Judge could have reached. If it is not, the fact that the appellate Court may have reached a different conclusion on the facts, is irrelevant.”. [49] Dalam kes rayuan dari Mahkamah Sesyen ini, isu liabiliti adalah menjadi paksi kepada pertikaian pihak-pihak. Berdasarkan Analisa Mahkamah ini ke atas keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana mendapati bahawa Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan sebanyak 70% dan Plaintif adalah bertanggungan sebanyak 30% adalah tidak boleh dikekalkan. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [50] Tindakan Plaintif yang “senyap” mengenai masuk ke laluan siapa hanya disebut dalam keterangan lisan Plaintif di Mahkmah bicara. Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan membangkitkan isu/persoalan ini dan Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Pn HMS yang bijaksana memutuskan ketiadaan pengataan “masuk ke laluan saya” ada diplidkan dalam pernyataan tuntutan. Berbanding dengan laporan polis oleh Defendan Pertama yang melaporkan bahawa motorsikal Plaintif terbabas dan memasuki laluan saya (Defendan Pertama). [51] Selepas meneliti keseluruhan keterangan dalam perbicaraan melalui rekod rayuan dan hujahan peguam-peguam di peringkat rayuan, Mahkamah ini bersetuju dan dapat memahami tempat pertembungan antara 2 kenderaan ialah motorsikal Plaintif menuruni bukit manakala motokar Defendan Pertama menaiki bukit. Keadaan terbabas lebih kepada Plaintif dan bukannya Defendan Pertama. [52] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mengetepikan dapatan liabiliti oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana dan Defendan-Defendan adalah hanya bertanggungan sebanyak 30% sahaja. Cuai sumbang Plaintif adalah sebanyak 70%. [53] Dalam kes Ahmad Zulfendi bin Anuar v. Mohd Shahril bin Abdul Rahman [2022] 4 MLJ 892, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan − “[102] The law in that situation requires proof and evidence of negligence either to limit such a claim, to such extent that the claimant may be liable on a certain apportionment of contributory negligence or deny the claim altogether, if he is found to be fully liable.”. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [54] Mahkamah ini menjumpai terdapat keterangan kukuh yang dapat mengetepikan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana. Keterangan Defendan-Defendan sama ada di peringkat perbicaraan dan peringkat rayuan tetap kukuh menegakkan bahawa tiada kecuaian Defendan- Defendan kepada kemalangan yang mencederakan Plaintif dan meragut nyawa isteri Plaintif. Plaintif-Plaintif gagal melunaskan beban pembuktiannya untuk menuntut bahawa Defendan-Defendan cuai. [55] Dalam kes Formosa Resort Properties Sdn Bhd v. Bank Bumiputra Malaysia [2010] 6 CLJ 530, yang mana Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA memutuskan bahawa – “It is trite in civil cases that he who asserts must prove, and here the appellant is the asserting party… on that premise the appellant had failed to prove its case on a balance of probability.”. [56] Apabila dapatan fakta oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana yang tidak tepat maka rumusan bahawa Defendan-Defendan adalah cuai dan Plaintif cuai sumbang maka agihan liabiliti perlu dibetulkan. Kesimpulan [57] Berdasarkan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, penghakiman saya memutuskan bahawa keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah terkhilaf dan gagal menurut lunas undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian rayuan Defendan-Defendan dibenarkan dengan kos sebanyak RM1000.00. S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [58] Pada peringkat rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, saya telah menjalankan appellate role. Oleh itu Mahkamah ini would interfere with findings of facts. The findings and interpretation of the law by the learned SCj are incorrect. [59] Pembelaan Defendan-Defendan berjaya menangkis keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif melalui keterangan lisan dan keterangan dokumentar. Terdapat kekhilafan dalam keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana sebagaimana yang disenaraikan oleh peguam cara terpelajar Defendan-Defendan dalam notis rayuannya. Bertarikh: 2 Februari 2024. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC12 Peguam cara: Bagi Pihak Perayu-Perayu/Defendan-Defendan: Noor Haliza binti Ishak Tetuan V P Nathan & Partners, Petaling Jaya Bagi Pihak Responden/Plaintif: Jagjit Singh A/L Pomman Singh Tetuan Thomas Bala & Associates, Petaling Jaya S/N K5hVG9itA0m2oKaZ03XIUg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-178-05/2021

PEMOHON WCE Holdings Berhad RESPONDEN Menteri Kewangan Malaysia PENCELAH Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN)

Judicial Review- Mandamus - Seeking for order for Minister of Finance to give direction to DGIR to set aside or exempt Notice of Additional Assessment deemed served on the Applicant - Non reply or non- response of Minister to Applicant's letter - Whether section 135 of ITA impose legal duty on Minister to make decision - Whether Applicant circumvented and failed to exhaust domestic remedy i.e SCIT under ITA.

05/02/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=14526439-00b2-4c8b-8eca-6ca5c96579f7&Inline=true

05/02/2024 11:41:56 WA-25-178-05/2021 Kand. 75 S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OWRSFLIAi0yOymylyWV59w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—25—178—U5/2021 Kand. 75 as/02/202: mu-sa mum: MANKAMAN mace: mun on mun Lumzun mum wlumu PERSEKUYUAN mun LLIMPUR. muvsu (BANAGIAN KIIASA KUASA Kms) pzmogoum uurux ssvmom xsnmmm N wnsuwus/mzu DaVam Demara sushi Dermcmunan yang |eIah mbual kepada Respomlen menurm Seksyen 135 am Sqklyin mun Aha cm. Pendapaan 1951 yang benankh as as 2021 u... Da\am parklrx Alurln 5: xaaaamcaeaan Mahkamah 2012 mm we: momma: azmun Pzvnumn Dan mama: xzwmem mmsu Rarspom-n Dan KzruAPzN5ARAN NASIL mm NEGERI Pencalah ».,..mu sm awasrlwnyhymywyvmmm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Judgmonl Introduction 1 This Is In apphnaiinn luv Weave filed by he Auphnanl an 12.520221 \0 odmrnenee iudiciai review pVo0eedmg(ElII:|oIi|1I'l 1; undeioidei 53 oi Ine Ruies di Coun 2012 mac) seeking iniei sue, me lollowings: - i 1 An oidei iioin me Respondent in exercise iis power under seeiion us and/di seeiidn 127(3Aj at me Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) |a set aside crexempllhe iniand Revenue Board‘: (IRE) decision, as maniiesied in me Nmices oi Addiiienai Assessment «or me years oiassessmeni (VA) 2015 and 2013, and Naiioes o1AddilionaI Assessmem «dime us 2016 and 2011 mi daied 30.4.2021 (As5Iasmoms)cnII1e gluwlds mal ine Assessment 3!! unis VVVBL I egat void. unlawml and/di In excess oi smneniy, inaiienai andlcr uiiieasunabte and oensinuies a deiiiei oi me Appiicanrs legitimate expeciaiiuns, 1 2 A Dedaration ma: iiie RE is nntempowefed to invoke seciioii 140A(2) oi me ITA to deem inieiesi on me idans and/oi advances made by me Appllcanl is me ieiaisd company. West Coas1 Expressway sdn Bhd (WCESB): 1 3 max an iunnei proceedings ineidding ine enloroemenl and effect oi me Assessmenis he stayed unm we run and nnai deieiininaiion dc iiiis apphcation, I4 Thai ins Respondent is prdrneiisd iidni Faking any «aim of enlorcemenl action oi proceedings in relation to or arising rioni me said Assessmenis, ineiuding wimeui iiniiiauon id, demanding paymem of me taxes and penaiuy auegediy assessed under me impugned Assessmenis, oi faking any s|eps In enioice me impugned Assessmerus and me Rzspondenrs Decision 0! any similar decision oi opinion in ieiaiion ID iiie [axes and penally aiiegediy payauie undei me impugned Assessmenisi pending vie determinalion oi me validity of the impugned Assesanienis and me Resimndenrs Vnezovxu IN UWRSFUAflyDymy\yWV5D« “Nair s.n.i nuvihnrwm s. d... is my i... sniin.iiiy MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nF\uNfl Wm! [15] wen me new vans in resound m on iDn\Icam’s new dated 2912 2016 me lDm>un|ukes we Dnsmon max Ine new 5 Venerdaled 29122015 .. me dlcmon ov me new and deemed to be have heenserved on me SDnVI\:an| an 29 1 2017 mnu, ma apuueanc «ma mu Ivollcllionloriudlcinl mu... nation." (ernpnem. added) 1a. u Is vnpunanl to note that Order 53 onne ROC aH0ws for a broader scopa M revlewable decisions as compared to me previous uravwsxons under me Runes or \he Hugh Conn 1950. A declswn deemed made by me Respondent ws sufflcxenl Io wnmale an apphcalvon lav judicial review In Tang Kwor Nlm A are (supra) me Court alAppea\ held‘ - 1w] m mm pcflnl ram by Vsamsd comuev amen us mm «n ma: ennfidanca emaunere was here no “dec\smn'byanynne And Smce o 53 y zw speak: at n 'decmorv me eppncams have no cause In argue on enappueamneeuuaeueneyew Auzlmlclnnotlwrvc o. 53 v. 2(4) musum beread In mnauen. Ilmullbl ma omlhxlullly, In§IIhurvt||h0 53: Slflwhsch nnmm [31] mm Iub~mIu nu ma Iogomarnnd In mu pvnpur wnllxv. n can by seen that Ihcn nnd rm Ihvayx In In actual ducuion by sumemn ~ (emphasxs added) 19 1 noticed [hit me mgr. Court has adopted a svrular posmon m auowmg judwcwal revuew agams| deemed delisxons made by pubhc autharmes In Ims regard, me mg» Conn has declined in my on oraer daemons that were prenmsed upon Order 53 Rule 214) of ma Rmes of Hugh Cmm 19BD,MIerethe ammz ol revwewable decwsmns vs Iurmlsd 2n I can pvomue no beller reference man me case of Imp an seloka Sdn and v. Manm-I Kawangan Malnylla [2n22] uuu 3419; [2022] AMEJ znza wharem my wearneu brulher. wan Ahmad Find J hem esvonmvs — 1271 Tha Veamnd Samar Fedeml semen ammea my euennen in mi Vmpugned Vellev ana mm me |u me nmgmenl uune Court omppezu Abdul Rahmnn hm Abdmlnh Mumv&Ou y Daluk Bender Kuaw Lumvur 4. Anurxzuuay 5 MLJ ma CA Yhu lamud src ttwn submiflnd mat mu MInI|ur'I mm--penn In um lmpufimd mm am net colulillnn a doclslnn wwmn me meamng M o 53 r 2141 In men (he Panllafm em awasmnmybymywmfim «mm. s.nn ...m.mn .. H... e may he nrW\ruH|y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl muNa Wm! Vaarned src contended run any attempt to owed a ‘deemed an Inn“ would glvn n In in umlclnl m nlnq in 0!: word “dIciIiwL" [291 wnh respeu av-I Iluwld lpnvolch [ht duclulun nnlms soacflu: ma m Abdul Rahman hm Abdumah Mumr mm caunm My reasmv ws ms nu axmu. 01 m. Cami al Appnl 5. pnml .4 an o 53 r m; M an comm Rum oflilnh Conn 1!§D.ns(aIex us «ounws - Any parlnn mo .: adversely alluded by me decnsmns cl any wane znmanly mu be enwed tn make me apphcanon Hawevev (ha unit 0 as raw mm Roc pmwaes asiulbuws 7 Any pvvsoo wha is mm-vy avncm by in: dlcvllon. mum or omimm In Mano/I to Ihe exnslenoe cl me Dubhc duly or fimchon man be enlmad In make Ina npphcalmn [291 Wis rum 0 ss : am Mm noc ion and nu ma “doclllon. aclvon nr omlssinn in nu. mm: m mm mm vuhllcduw or inaction." m my wem, mu wold emission is simply . o Inn in mm nae’ an. mummmmnn. wnnun Mroduc an arm. wurfl "omission" In me nlw u 5: : 2(4)‘ mu quullon of In “zfllllclal dueulul can not longs! nan ~ 130] Tm Mnlallnn on non-dlclllnn, In mymlnfl, is amcnahln loludlclal mm m zamax hm Hap Nasvmddm V we Rsgnslrarolsomenes[2012] MLAU um. ma awhcanl zpmled my regnslraban cl PAKAR under me Sruclvnu Am 1966 The demsxan m rawsluv at nlh-rwlu .. mm the dxscreuun no me Rsgmm unearth: Somehes Aa1956 The Reg\sIrar u moms by lhe Social . Am «a mun:-(Ina appflulmrl no maku a aacmon However, me Regxslmr had «mu «u make a declsm — Ame way m me cnhav Ravwnmran Paramagulu JC mow JCA) we ma! In my oomkm the mnrmnale am wnhnmrvg de\ay wnmm good reason m we vnslam cuss m aqmm-m lo mm: In make a aemsm As we appncam has summem legal umecesl m the dmy so me Rsgwslvav «a make 3 a. [nu an m aprahcuwn to reuuier man 1 mm um the Islam! In mm a dsclsiun ws unvamm and um mes lhe Secieue1Acl19Ss (emphasis aausdb a) (see Syarllul Kapasl Sdn Bhd v. Muuun Kuwnngan and olhu nun [2023] AMEJ 0471; [znzsl MLIU b) ED Agrlculnm (Malaysia) sdn Bhd v. Munurl K-wmuun Malaysln [1023] 4 AMR 963; [2023] MLJU 4341; 9:5: 1: av m sm awRsFuAmyDymy\yWv5m «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! c) cum Invaslmunt Ltd v. Manllri Kwtannan Malaysia [2n22] uuu mo) 2i Based on are above‘ it IS evidem met me Resnondenls deemed decision oi in 5 2021 arising «rain as non»rep|y la Ihe Appiicanrs ieuer can be amenable |n iudiciei leview under order 5: Ruie 2(4) al me R00 22 Themlorei lhilr Caurl does rim agree with me can|en(Ion oi me iearned FC and RC on this obieciion. nu Nollce M ksessmlnl rilsnd by (ha DGIR who was no: named an a party to mix Icllon 23 The ieamed FC argued |hat by noi naming me new in me present sI.H| is indeed inuoious and vexatious because the subieci mailer relaxes In me aeeessmanis raised by me DGIR Hence, ine assessments by me DGIR IS me decision mai me Aanlicanl is dissaiisned Min 24 Hawevev, pursuarii to an order oi «his cum daied 162.2023 |he new rias been aiiowed lo inieruene as an lnlervsner in nine iudieiai review apphcahon under order 53 Ruie a dime Roc Tnereiore, I Vlew |ha( me iearned FC 5 ouieciion VS a nan—issue and has become academic 1 e Appl|cIm -1 in man a mandamus. Hownvor, mo Appllunt 1 India tshhl in legal duiy 25 The iearried FC oniecied that me Appiimni is noi enmied io a rehef Io cumpel the Respondent to sel aside me Assessmenis issued by DGIR all daied 30.4 2021 as me Respondent has no legal duiy to do so. 25 The Federal own In Minimr M Financ Gov-mmum of Saturn V. Peirojasa sdri Bhd[200a1 4 MLJ 641. 1200515 CL.) 321; [ms] 1 MLRA 705, neid mat an mderol mandamus can begrarned eiiher. (a) under section 44 uflhe Specific ReiieiA:1 1950 (SRA), or r... I! at no ru uwRsFuAflyDymyWN5w «mu. e.n.i nmihnrwm a. u... m may he nflmnnflly MVMI dnuuvinnl vu .nuue Wm! my me addmcnifl powers of me Hwgh caun pmvlded by pavagmph I of me Schedmeto me Court: auuamamra Act 1954 (on). 27, I also to be noted that Order 53 Rule 1(2) or me Roc pmvudes that «ms Drdur (0 53) is subjam to ma pruvlsmns L71 chnpcar vm oi Pan 2 at the SRA 23. Therdare, any appnca mn Fur an omer a1 mandamus Made By way 07 pmicial vemew proceedings mus! wmply wun me raquvrervvenl of secnon 44 oflhe SRA 29 Seclren 44 nuns SRA reads as iuuows surancsmsnr or vuauc nurlis Pawuvlo am: punue nrvanu and Minn In do “min spasm: -as u m A Judge may make an aide! requumg any specmc an In be done er Iavbomey lay my wsan huhmn . nublrc Mflce. whulhat 01 a pamunnnl or a tzlmporary nalure. ur Dy any omvnramn at any wun subuvdmam «a ma mgr. Conn Pm»/Vded «na:— m an apphcalxun (01 such an order be made by same persnn whose pmpviy fmncmle. or persona! nghl would be Wumfl By ma «omeanng ardnmg aslhe use may bay oflhe sand specrfic am‘ my such amnq orlomearmu vs. unamnynawvarumnnu bung -n «am deany mcumbenlunlhu psrscn oroourl xn Msanls pubixc anaaaen nron ma mrwrihon m as wrporate zharanlet, «c; .n ma amen nl Inc Judge ‘nu dnmg av Inrbllrmg n mnuarum m ngm anu msnce: my the appncanx ha: no umavsoecmc and edequane legal remedy: ms (9) ma remedy gwln by IM arfluanphnd Vurwm bu oumplete m uunmng Vn um. uauan m:H bu answer: In lumunzl . Jung ta) In mm my my bmdmg on ma Vang dxaPenuan Agency an u: make any nrderon any servam 4:! any Guvsrnmem m Mahysia, as such, mermy In animus cm uusvamn at a cmm upon lhal sayammsnnnv p... u o! In an awnsmnmyoynnywvm E «M. s.nn lunhnrwm .. HIGH n my .. nrwmlflly mum: flnuamnl y. mum Wm! 1010 make any order wrnen rs etnerwtee expressly exduded by my law tor me me bemg .n lama.‘ an In Keen Hoi cttow v. Putarn stngtt [1912] 1 ML: was; [1:12] 1 MLRH 497, srternta J (as he Ihen was] had outnned tour oterequis-tes essertttet to the reeue or an order under sectrdn 44 ot the SRA or a mandamus- tr) wnetner tne Apphcam has a clear and specmc teget rtgnt to tne rettet sought. tn) wnetner tnere rs a duty tmuosed oy taw en tne Respondents, UH) wnetrter sucn duty ts of an tmperaltve nurnstenat ottaraeter mvnlvmg no tudgrnent or dtscrehon on tne pan at trte Respondents and try) wrtetner lhe Apphcam has eny remedy, other trtan by way at mandamus, lorlhe entoreement o1 tne nghl wnron nas oeen dented to mm 31 Based on the case‘ H1 order to tssue tne order of mandamus, tne Apphcanl must snow not only met ne nes a teen: ngnt la have me act pervonned out Ihal Ihe nghl must be so clear. speemc, and wen defined as to be tree Irent any teasenahre t:nn|mversy The order cannot oe tssued when we rtght ts doubttut or 45 a quahfied one or were rt depends upon an reeue er fan to be deterrn ed by trte Respondent. The tenure to snow tne extstenoe o1 any tegat ngnt te oernpet trte pertormenoe at e regat duty casl upon tne Respondent vnu deny the order of mandamus 32 Anolher Important hulme the! needs to be crossed by the Appltcanl Ce! Bll order 01 mandamus VS 10 show lhil them Is 3 duly untamed by taw on the Respondent, In the eosenee at such tegat duty, tne mandamus snau not he agatnst trte Respondent 33 Coming back to the (acts tn the presenlcase,Ifim1lhaI tne Aportcant seeks an order In compel tne Respondent (Min|s|ev or Finance) to ssl-astde the Assessments an dated so 4 2021 The quasllcn IS whether a tegat duty exis|s tor this (loan to grant a mandamus v... Is at zn ru UwRsFuAflyDymyWN5m «war. s.n.r luvthnrwm e. u... e may r... nflmruflly -mm: dnuamnl VI .nuua WM 34 lfind nnenne rennevsougnn byIheApplncan1Islnke mandamus Le. lo compel me Respandenn no exercise nns power under see n I35 and/or Ssclnon 127(3A) :11 the ITA H must be borne VII mind (hi!| (ms power is disuennonaryend the Respondenn nasnne nnoeny lo exemse ns powerwnnoun oenng noroed no do so 35 Moreover. nne exemplnon of nex saugm by nne Ayplvcann cannot be gnven wnhom oansndenng aH nne relevant (ads and documents dune ease. The aapmeen naken by me Applncanh as .1 ans Respcndem nas no opnnen onner than no agree and abide by «he Appuesnrs request as Tneretore, nn ns nne respecnmn vnew ovnnns coun men there vs no negan duny to be nrnposed on me Respondent under any law hence me Apphcanx ns non enninned lo oornpen nne Respondenn no sen asnde nne Assessnnenns nssued by DGIR an daned 3042021 reason bemg Respondenn nas no legal may no set asnde nne ksessmenls under ms nu. secniona 1:5 and 127(3A) at me IYA do non nave mxus no sen aside nno Notlu of Assessment Issued by me DGIR 37 The DGWR is empowered by (he ‘TA |o VEISE he assessmems and me Anplicant ns lrymg no quash lhe sand assessnnenn by enlorcnng nne Respenaenn |c exercise Its dnsdrennonary powers under Semen 135 and secuon n27(aA)o1nne ITA wmch prmndes as lollaws - "135 Pawn cl mnnnsnenno awe dllezucns to Director General The Mnmslermay gme In me nneadreeneren dneemnsuve geneval euerener nnon I/nmnsnslenl mn IN: AN as no me exams: on nne nnnenuns cl nne nnecnm Geneml under unis Acl and nne nnreenen censran shafl gwu emu no any dnecoons so given‘ as Seclnon 127(3A| of me ITA reads as lauws Exunlnllon lmm In. general 1:» me M: an. may nn any aannunnn tan Ixampn any person nen. an: or any ml e pmmwn of «ms nu, enner osnerenny or n. vespan on any nnwme at a Dlmculav km av my mu: nl nnmmu 01 . plmculal km 7 me ns ar 29 srn uwRsFuAmyDymyWN5m “Nana s.n.n nmhnrwm be wed in may n... nrW\ruH|Y nmma m.n.n Vfl arnurm v-man 39 40 41. 42 43 44 Upon readmg Secnon 135 and Seclmn \Z7(3A)a1Ihe um, I find that both pnmsaans carry me word ‘may’ wmch dearly shows that me Respondent has 2 duscrehon on wnmner xo exercise as pawn! or not under these sand secuons and therefore. the Aflflhcanl cannot camps! me Respondent .1 me Respondent chonsss not to do so. The word may‘ ounnme a norrmandalnry nature as reflecled m lhe case of Lock Wee Kock V. Menleri Hal Ellwal Dalam Negeri ls Anor [1I93] 4 CLJ ZII; [1993] 3 ML] 691; [1W3]I MLRA 483; 11 my 2 AMR use where «he men Supreme ceun held that‘ . M The mgmficlnoe cl Inch . pmrvmun .n m Vmerprulal-on Acl Wm remun me new dmflmnn m away: uonfiru lhn use an Inn vmvd am to its mandllnn’ un n cullnsl In the use of the ward -my which dunaln n vlnn an nvdlwullnn" (emvhasxs added! Gmng by me mam readmg 01 Sediuns 127(3A) m was onne ITA, x am a! me View max no ngm was gwen to me Apphcanl enne: |o ask or dvrecl me Respondent |n exempt the assessment rawsed by me DGIR, but Instead, n Is purely lhechscrelvun powererme Respondent xn exemse or nm. ms Oourl us of the View lhal w Parliament Intends |u do so. Farhament wm s|a|e lhal me Apphcam may make me appncanon to me Reswnaem or one Rasuonaenn may wssue Inslruchuns to me new on me App|Inanl's apphcallun. Therehre, me secnon mus1 be read plaxmy as legwslaked by me Parhamenl. In nnleruratmg suen pmvwsvansu wmen are clear and unanmgueus In meaning‘ mus Honourable Coun has ecnswstenlly new that such pmvwswons shcmd be gwen their pIaIn.na|ura1am1 ordmary meamng. Further, our Supenav Courts have new that In unxerpreung statulory pvovlslons, lhe couns snoum me<e!y gwe eflect we me laws enacveu oy Psrhlmenl and snoula not usurp me legmalwe luncuan by extending a slawle \o meet a case «or wmen pnmsmn has dearly and unueumealy not been made. wit u at no n4 awRsFuAmyDymyWN5m «mu. sum nmhnrwm .. med e mm s. nrW\ruH|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! A5 Based on the above ltus court agrees mm the submisslon ol the learned FC and RC that sectmns 135 and 127(3Aj al the ITA do not nave nexus |a sat aslde lns Assessments lssueu by the DGIR nu App-aliclnl clrcurnvont nnd tuned to olthlun tn: dolrlulit: romody provided under the In 45 rt ls a tact not alspuled that the Appllcant challenged ln tne town at Notlces ol Andmonal Assessments on me Appllcanl «or us 2015 to 2012 all dated so 4 2a2l ralsea by the DGIR 41 The Applluam belng dlssallsfied and aggllevsd by an assessment ln true sale nollces snauld make an appeal lo tne spectal Ccmmlssloners of Income Tax (scrr) lot delermlrlallon. Tne rlght to appeal ls pmvtded under Seclmn 99 or the ITA 43 The Avalteant had tns|sad shun clvcul|‘ and taken a ‘shorlcuf to ‘deal wlth tne addl|imla| assessment ralsed bythe DGIRthrough the ludictal revlew apphcaltcrl agalnsl Ihe Respandent 49 slnce the Appllcnnt had already filed Form 0 to appeal to the sclt the apnl-canon lot nmlmal levlew by me Appllcant ls lmolous, vaxattoux and an abuse at tna pmoess all me Courl. Relernng Io lite case at Ya wu Rully Sdn elm v. Dirlclor Glnurll M lnllnd Rnvonun [2004] 1 MLRH 754; [2004] 6 CLJ 393: (200414 AMR 52:; [2004] e ML! 5:, me Court relused tne appllcalmn tar leave lot judlcial mlsw and held that: 1391 Flmhet I an. alsn at me vlew tnat tn. wrlcurv!rl| fillrlg M tne lnslant lppllcllnarl und Ipphurlls appeal aalms ms Speclal Cnmmlsslenets oenalniy oatls|ltllne a auplmy af pmceeams and s lnaeea lrlvoluusl vuallaus and an anuse of ms probes: oltne calm “ so There are numeluus cases on Ihls quesllon at whether an Appllcarll should exhaust the domesuc remedy available were nlaklng an appl on louud-clal revlew. cases have cteclded Iha| the Apphcant ls na| entltlsa ta mlllate a judlclal revlew pmceedtrlg against the Respondent as me Appllcam had lalled lu exhaust the statutory appeal pmcodure avallaule. tsee Kntun Ping: in Hull D an uogun v. Alcahl Luc-nt Malaysia Sun and I Anor [2l211| 1 PI]: n at xn m awRsFLlAmyDymylyWv5lm “Nair s.n.l nmlhnrwm s. UIQG m my me nflnlnnllly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl nrlutta vtmxl MLRA 251; mm 2 cm 1; 12:11:11 ML: 563 nnmzl Assumhlnr Sdn Bhd v. Memerl Kawangan 5 Ann! um: MLRHU 793; [2015] 1 LNS 915; T: Wu Really sun arm v Kolun Fongnrah Hull Dalum NIBOII L Anor [1003] 2 MLRA I5 2009] 1 ILR 1; [2004] 4 AMR 521; [2001] 5 cu 2:5; {ms} 1 MLJ 555 [Caun euppean: Rabin Tan Pang Hang v. Kolun Ponvarnh Kcsatum Sukc . M lylll 8- Anov[2|'lI0]1 MELR 61; [2010] 2 MLRA 571; [1010] 9 CLJ 505: [2|‘lII] 2 MLJ I57]. 51 Based on the shave, Ihvs Court we 07 the vwew max me Apphcanfs apphcahun Vonudxcial rewaw IS premaluru, The ‘aw provides Yer an avenue to appeal to be exhausted firsi befcrelhe sen pursuamto SBCIVDH 99 01 the ITA concl-men 52 Frermsed on me aforesawd rsasuns \ am 01 |he mew lhat me Anphcanls appneacion var weave to eemmenee judwcwal revvew Is 1nvo\aus and vexauaus and an abuse process of me 0mm 53 As such I dlsrmsssd me Appncanrs appueamn for leave to wmmenoejumcumrevwew|Enc\osure1|Mth eoscs omM2,5oo.oc to me Honomame Anamey General and Wervenel wnhoul me aHo:a(or lee Dated Di Fehruzry2024 Judge Hugh caun Kua\a Lumpur vueuavzn m awasiunmyhymywmmm “Nana em nmhnrwm be LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnH|:I em. dnuumnl VII nF\uNG Wm! counnls For ma Apphcanr For \he Hanourabla Anomey General: Far me lnlervener En, s. Saravsna Kama: (Cvk Nw Hamna bl Mohd Azham with mm] Teman Rasfi Daman Saravana Partnership, Feguambela dan Peguamcara. Level :5, Marmara 1 Dmamis. solans Dmamas. No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1‘ 50450 xuaxa Lumpuv. mu. Tuan RDS/SKS/NH/2021/0441) cm ><nsnna Pnya A/P venugopaw, Federa\ Counsel, Jabatan Paguam Nsgam Bahaswan Guamarl‘ 45, Perslararv Pemana. Praswm 4. emu Putmyaya Clk Swan: emu Che Ismail, Revenue Counse\ Lemoaaa Hisvl Dalam Negen Mmaysxa‘ Jabalan Rayuan Knas, Aras 16, Menara Hasm Pamaran Rmma Parmaw. Cyber a. sauna Cyhenaya‘ Selangor Iaxezumw m awRsFuAmyDymy\yWv5m «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Declsion in lhls urooeedlng under Order 5: ol the Rec (lncludlrlg any funherappeals merelranrlr 1 5 Trral all necessary and oonsequenlral drrecllans and orders be grven, 1 e Trral lhe costs ol nus applicalion be cwsts ln me cause, and l 7 All olner and lunher relrelwrrrm lhls Honourable Courldeems M and proper 2 In essence lne Applmarllfllefl lne applrcalran lor leave to uummerloe Judlclal review agarnal me Honourable Mlnlster vi Flrlanoe (Respondent). The apphcallcn seeks various reliels. mcludlng an order lor me Resparruenl lo exerclse nrs powers under seclron 135 and sec1lonl27l3A)olllrelTAro exenrpl me Nalrces a(Assreisman( lur was 2015 and 2013 and Nullces ol Anumonal Assessnrenl lor ‘(As 20:0, 2015 and ZDI7 Tnese rlclloes all aaleu 30.4 2n21 (rm Nollno ). were rarsed by me Drreclor General of Inland Revenue (lrrlemrror). 3 Aflarlhe neanng I dlsmlssed lne Applrcenrs Ippllcallun «or leave la uornrnenoe judlclal reurew [Enclosure 1) I wlll new sel out me graunaa lor my deolslon Background has 4 The background facts ohms case, extracted from me slalernenl wrln approprlale modlflcahorls. are as lollows — A1 The Appllcalron rs a publsc lrsled company Incorporated ln Malayslar prlnerpally engaged ln me buslness ol rrweslmenr holdlng. 4.2 The chmnulogy cl key evenls leadlng lo lne Ruponeenrs deasron, whlch rs nor dlsnuledr ls as «allows 1_ um Evnnl 19.l.202I The IRE lniormed rne Applrcarrr at l|s auurll fndlng lor ms YA: 2u15 In 2015. Among arnersu Pin a ma ru awRsFLlAmyDymylyWv5m “Nana Smnl ...nu.rwrrr .. met! a may r... arwlnallly mm. m.n.n VI arlurm war the IRB proposed In deem tnteresl on tne purported advances made by me Apptiunt to WCESB on the bests that tne purported advances were not made at enrrs tengtn 3.2.2021 The Appttcent wwte in me IRE and, among imhers. requested (04 an exlenston of tune k) 1 pmvtds a response on lhe tsslle of deemed tmeresl. 4.2.2021 The ma mlormed the Applicant vva emarl that the Apphcants request «or exlenstort cl lime was duty gramed 12.3.2021 The AvpMcan| attended a dtscusston wilh the IRB ‘ ‘ pertatnmg to tne tssues raised in the audit t to findmgs 3n.:.2n2I The Applreent pmvtded tne VRE wtlh additional suppomng document and tnhnrmallun as requested by the RB 2.4.2021 The Apphcanl submmed vurtner documents to tne IRE 5.4.2021 The Applicant wrote to the IRB explaming, among otners. mat the amounlcwtng by wcssa is an eqmly I:on|vtbtmon lov tne west Cnasl Expressway Project . 1a.A.2nz1 The IRS memtamed I|S pusmorl to deem Interest 1 on tne purnoned advances made to WCESB t Paulavm rn awasmnmybymytyvmfim «mu. s.n.t luvthnrwm .. u... e may r... nflmnnflly -mm: dnunvtml VI arttma em 2 21 his IRE inionned the Applicant tnieiigii email that tne extension oi time I! granted iintii 27.4.2021. i 27.4.2021 The Applicant wrote totne IRE in iesponse tome IRs's ietter dated 1sA2t)2t nie Appiimm 1 exp ned I15 disagreement witn the Miss position on tne issue oi deenied interest. 23.4.2011 The IRS wrote to the Applicant and maintained its position. 30.4.2021 Ttie IRB maintained its position and issued Ihe Assessments and the anioiint or taxes payable are as beiow - VA Ainoiint RM 1 2015 ’ _ T 2016 4.1D3,05990 ‘ 277 5e7,sat.7t . 2018 4.940,3|0.56 ‘ total 10.252.105.30 6.5.2021 Ttie Appiicant submitted an application dated 552021 tot tne Respondent to exercise its pvwer under section 135 and/or I27(CIA) of me ITA to set aside or exempt the mas de on in the iotm oi the Assessments A 3 As ttie Respondent iniied to respond to me Appltcanfs ieqiiest to issue a diieaion under Secltan tas oi the in to set aside tne Assessments andioi provide exemphcn iindei Section 12713A) of the ITA, the Appiicant is filing tne present application to piseive its iegei ngnts The Respondents decision, in its ieitiire to respond is treated as e ieieomn me n... s all!) SIN UWRSFUAflyDymy\WN5Dn g «we. s.ii.i luvihnrwm be iii... e vuny i... nflginlflly eiii. dnuavimt Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! Anpficanfs vequest under sectton 135 and/or for lax exempnon under Sentun I2713A)oHhe JTA. 11:. uw 5 The Fadaral Coun m WRP Am we c Sdn arm v. 1. ug- Nasiunal End [2012] 4 CLJ An; mm] A MLRA 251, [21112] 4 mu 2% at 303, speakmg tmougn Slmyadl Hahm Omav FCJ1as he then was) held ~ Leave may be gmmed W Ins haw apphcatmn .s ml Ihaugm at as lnvmnus and W Weave IS gmmid an avquama case m lavor Maranltng lhe mm mnghl at me sunslanuve hearing may be me resmlant otnwme A wide! must be acumen I: we avnhnaluan Imwh I unl-u the mallur lor wanna! mm ts ameuataue ta IMd\c\a\ revtew absohne y no suc1;ss may be elmsiged‘ 6 The test tatd dawn tor Ieave to eommenae a tudtctax revtew m WRP Asia Pacific sun Bhd (supra) are as follows 6 t whether one sumect matter VS amenable to yudmal revvew: and N so 5.2. from the malena\s avauable, whether me applvcalton IS lnvoltaus and :1 nm thought as tnvoxous, |o consider met me Apphcanl has an arguame case to obum me raked sougm at the substantive neanng 7 The principles guvemmg appltcaltans for weave to commence puma: revwew proceedmgs have em been set out in Tang Kwor Ham at on v. Pengurusan Dz-uham Naslonal and 5. ors [2006] I MLRH 507; [2003] I cu 4121; [2005] 5 Mu no at as were G-wax Sn Ram JCA has he then wa5)I1e|d' nor ma Ntgh Cmm mum nnl go we Ina meals 04 Inc use Al ma tam slage us me VS anvyto sea flma appmtton fmleeve .5 Vrwnvous so me mu Ins wun be enmlsd to muse tem .1 M II x case Mums ms subpd mane! at me remsw 15 one Much hy seltlad law (mun! wmlen law ur the common law) VS mu-.mtctante.' 3 It is Iri\e that the Appncant have In sansfy the tests propounded In me abuvemermoned cases Io secure me leave to commence me we-eta: rwtew proceedings. AI Ihts stage, the noun naed not go we the ments at the case, but omy lo see N the subject mane: IS me s o! :0 sm awRsFuAmyDymy\y\Nv5m «mm. smut ...m.mm .. med u may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max anlenalale lo ludlclal veview or whether lne appllcalmn for leave is lllvolnus. 9 ln any evenl, a judicial revlew la lne dlscrelion of lne court, we appllcallan lm leave to eernlnenea lneleal revlew may be allowed ln exceptional clrcumslaness as explained by (ha than Supleme COW! in Govommonl of Malaysia a. Marv. Jaadix Slrluh mm 2 ML] la5:l1ses|l MLRA 207; [19:11 cu REP11fl which held -llele aflawlngtheappeal (1)Ihedlsaellorl lssllll Mm lna ouunitu an by way or Mlelal revlew lnll were (here la an appeal nmvlslon avallahle la llne applltanl eemmen should nol mumallylisae unless Itlenls snewna clnarlnck gurlsdlchon ma blavarll lalllne Ia penonn Wm: slannory duly or "I aWmDrIa|e cam a venous bmach el me pnnclvhl av rl-M-I lull-an nle grounds lor the judicial mlow 1D The gmunds ol Ieuels sougnl are based on lne cunlenllon that me Reeponaenls eeelslon was Illegal‘ vole, excess 0! aulnenly, unreasonahlel mlmnal and made In breach el leglllmale expeelallon These oonlenllons are supnoned by several reasons anlene men are lhe1oHowings' — lllouallly 10.1 The Resporldenfs ueclslon ls ullra vires, lllegal vaId.un\aw1u\ andlur ln excess Maulnonly my me reasons oulllned below (a) The Respondenl fallen ln glue due regard Ihal secllon 1AOA(2) of me ITA dues no| granl the Dlreclor General ol lnlana Revenue (DGIR) lo deem mlsresl income ll ls clear lnal lns Pamamenl ma rla| inlend lo! DGIR lo deem lnleresl lrloarne pursuanlluSecllan14DA(2]of|he rm (n) ma Respondent railed lo conslder lne preuedenl set by the case 01 Malayalan Bulk can-lm aemau where both me Special Gommlsslonars cl Income Tilt and lne Hlgh calm lelecled lhe DGIR's allenlpl lo lrwoke Secllcn 140 ollne lTA\o invoke deemed lnleresl Income Due 2 Mn am UwRsFLlAflyDymylyWv5m «wee s.n.l nuvlhnrwm be UIQG e may l... nflnlnnflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nnna penal and raise aasessnlenl amoLm|lng In approximately ml/l5a,4nc,al)a no agalnsl lne haxpayer. 10 2 Furlhlrmorel m arrlvlnq at its declslanl |he Respondent fallen to lake lnlc aooounl the lollowlng wile prlrlclples lhat la) In a laxlflg acl, one can only laok lauly al me language used and what is clearly said and lnal nothing is lo be read ln nor nnollao as held WV Nallonal Land Flnaneu co-oporalivo saeiuy Ltd v. Dlruclov Gonoral oi Inland Revenue [1993] 1 MLRA E4; [1993] 1 MLRA 512; [mu] 1 MLJ 99; [1993] 2 AMR 3551; 1199:] 4 cL.i :39: and my A piavision M a (axing slahile rnusl he read sIIlc||y ls irnenoeo lo he applied agalnsl me Revenue and not In lls lauour. Any doubt mat arises, rnusl be resolved in lne laxpayers lavein Irvalionnl Ind umusanabln lo 3 The Respondents oecision has been nralional and/nrunreasanable (or me lollowlng grounds — ill ‘lne Responcienrs declsiurl K5 llable lo be quasneo on me ground lnel n is so unreasonable lnal no reasonaole person could have arrlved al such declslon ms Y5 especially when the Responoenuaileo on give any vallo ]USMlCS|lOn, reason or oasis lor ils declsiurl. [H) There is also a good baSlS lor me Aoplioanl le belleve lnaune Respondent had exerelseo ns aulhonly arbllrarlly and/or mechanlcally wnnoul applying lls mind lo lne lame and clmumslances onne Appllcanl as noilnng in me Respondenfs decision suggests lhal me Respondent nao glven even lne oneiesi ol lhouonl in me exnlznalmn cunlalrled III we Appllcanrs lelter oaleo 5.5102: The Applicanl al Ill mllenal llrnes acled in good fall?!‘ gave lull co-operaiion, made lull ano lvank disclosure and obralned prolessional advlce ln managing ns nnanoe and lax allalrs. v... - o1 xu rn UwRsFLlAflyDynlylyWv5w “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlll be mad M my me oflnlnnllly sun. dnuuvlnnl Vfl mane ml (N) The declsion ollhe SuDsrlorCmmsand lnls Honourable Court ln relallon lo lne lnlerprecallon and oonslructlon ol leglslauon and case law are pan ol me laws or Malaysla and are binding on me Raspandsnl The Respondenl had cleadylalled lo lake cognlsarloe cl mose declslons, (V) The (allure ld appleclale and glve eflecl lo the lrue efleel and appllcallon of me In amounts to a dnect oonlravenllon cl Amcle as dl lhe Federal Oansmu|lan Lngnunalo Expoctltlom 10,4 The Respondenrs declfilon. made wllhoul any regard la: lne declslons ol cur Superlor Cnurls regardlng lne lrllerprmallan and l:ons|ruI:Ilon or leglslalions, consumes a denlal of me Iegllimale expeclallorls ol me Applcanl. The Apphcanl anllclpalsd that the Respondent would lake nugnlsance or soon dsclslons. Case lor um Hanourahlu Allomoy General and lnlurvnnar ll. The learned Federal Counsel (rc) ldr lne Honourable Adorney Geneval and learned Revenue counsel (ac) «or me Inlervener ralsed a simrlar prellnnnary oblecllan (PD) The F0 was premlsed an lne fnllowlng grounds - (l) Nu DECWSDVI‘ An or olnlsslon was made by the Respondenl (Mlnisler cl Flnanee) under Order 53 OHJIE ROC: (n) The Name at Assessrnenl ralsed by DGIR who was nol named as a pally lo lnls acllonz The Applicant rellei m affect a mandamus hawever the Appllcam falled la eslabhsh legal duly: |lv) Sec\ions135 and 12‘/(SA) cf lhe ITA do not have nexus to sel aslde lne Nolloe M Assessrnenl issued by DGIR. lv) Appllcanl clrcumvenled and lalled (0 exnausl (ha dcmeshc remedy pmvlded under me lTA n... 9 al In m awRsFLlAmyDymylyWv5m “Nair s.n.l ...n.mn .. UIQG It: may he nflilruflly -mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna Wm! Tho daemon of mu noun 12. I wlll now deal Wllh me Pos ralsed by me learned FC and RC Na naalalan, Aal oromlulon was mine hymn Rupondonl (lalnlmr oVFlrlanu)unl1uv omr 53 Mme Rec 13. order 53 Rule 2(4) cl the ROC expressly allows persons who are ‘advatsely awaclaa“ by me declslun made by a publlc aulncnly lo rnmale ludiclal revlew appllcallorls For ease of reference, subrule 4 Is reproduced as Iollvws: up Any persan mo rs ndvauary aloe».-lea by me deals-arr, icllun or nmlsslan m ralamn la the exemlse or me publlc duly av «uncnan shall he emllled 10 make the appllcallerl “ 14 The requlramenls aloraer 5: ol me ROG ale manaarory and mual be complied W||h. lallrng whlch me appllc n waula not he entenalned by me Court 15. The learned Fe and RC submll lrral lne Responaerll has made no declslorl mal la amenable |a judlclal vevlew and ma: me Appllcanfs Ippllcalion IS pramalura la say man Ihe Respondenls nan-raply to me Appfllznfs lecler does nol amaunl la a declslon amenable lo lualclal reylew umler Order 53 ullhe ROG we || ls Inle law lhal fallure or remsal by a pubhc aulhorlty la make a aealsran Is also amenable to ludrelal revrew 17 In orange Roderic! Aps v. Kenn Fnngarall Haall Dalam mom [ma] MLRHU N55; [2019] 1 ms 354; [2013] MLJU zla, Azlzah Nawawl .l (naw JCA) had allowed ma laava applrcallor. and had staled mar » my On ma snnn d.y4 lr. Illllclrlt also vlroh lo Illo new nullnll nu legal puslllon mar pulsu-Int la Amaa lx nfme Malaysa—DeNnaIk on anu me can laws, Daymems mcalved by We nvnllcalulmm Wlfl sme are rlul subpedm Wvlhholfllng lax rurmermara ma ivnhcarll vvmeriled um Amue lx 0! ma MalaysIa—Derlmark on prevalls over 5 AA my av |huIYA1987 The Iwllcanl Illa cxpnuly mm: in cm mm mm ll Ihe new (ill: in Iixpund lueuraely In mu applrearws npmurrauon and mm: rr... Ihu -npllclnlwlll rraar m lpplll arm rvvluenlallon as being njcmd eym DGIR r... II} a! 2n am uwRsFLlAflyDymylyWv5lm “Nana a.n.l mmhnrwm .. UIQG w my r... nrwlrullly mm: dnuuvlnnl Vfl nFluNG war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BB-A52NCvC-135-08/2022

PLAINTIF SUHERMAN BIN RASHID DEFENDAN MOHD KAMAL BIN SULAIMAN

Samada Perjanjian sah atau terbatal - perjanjian tidak ada terma yang pasti - JualBeli rumah PPR kepada Bukan Warganegara - adakah ia satu sewaan atau perjanjian pindahmilik

05/02/2024

Puan Sazlina binti Safie

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ee55237c-6bdc-42f2-90a8-118fcc4abefa&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - BB-A52NCvC-135-08-2022 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN PETALING JAYA DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN WRIT SAMAN NO – BB-A52NCvC-135-08/2022 ANTARA SUHERMAN BIN RASHID [IDENTITY CARD NO.: 670424715193] [TETUAN TENGKU AMALIN & FAIZI] …PLAINTIF DAN MOHD KAMAL BIN SULAIMAN [IDENTITY CARD NO.: 720724105111] [TETUAN ADNAN SHARIDA & ASSOCIATES] …DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (RAYUAN SELEPAS PERBICARAAN PENUH DENGAN SAKSI) LATARBELAKANG KES TUNTUTAN PLAINTIF 05/02/2024 08:17:16 BB-A52NCvC-135-08/2022 Kand. 34 S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [1] Plaintif adalah seorang individu pemegang MyPR (Pemastautin Tetap) dari Indonesia manakala Defendan adalah seorang individu Warganegara Malaysia. [2] Sekitar tahun 2004, Defendan telah membeli sebuah rumah beralamat di B1-11-03, Blok 1, PJS 6/5E, Desa Mentari, 46000 Petaling Jaya Selangor (selepas ini disebut sebagai “Rumah Tersebut”) daripada Defendan. [3] Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju untuk membeli dan menjual “Rumah Tersebut” dengan harga RM12,000.00 dan dengan syarat sebagaimana dalam perjanjian bertarikh 8/4/2004. [4] Plaintif bersetuju bahawa “Rumah Tersebut” akan ditukar nama kepada anak beliau iaitu Nur Fadhilah Binti Suherman dan bukan atas nama Plaintif memandangkan Plaintif adalah seorang pemegang MyPR. [5] “Rumah Tersebut” telah dicagarkan kepada Ambank Berhad di mana Defendan membuat pembiayaan “Rumah Tersebut” memandangkan Defendan masih belum menyelesaikan pembiayaan “Rumah Tersebut” dengan pihak Ambank Berhad. [6] Sebagai balasan pertukaran hakmilik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Plaintif, pihak-pihak bersetuju bahawa disamping pembayaran harga belian rumah sebanyak RM12,000.00, Plaintif juga S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 bertanggungan untuk menyelesaikan baki hutang pembiayaan “Rumah Tersebut” dengan pihak Ambank Berhad dengan membuat bayaran bulanan sehingga selesai pembiayaan pinjaman. [7] Sebaik sahaja perjanjian dimuktamadkan, Plaintif telah membuat bayaran Harga Belian Rumah sebanyak RM12,000.00 kepada Defendan sekaligus secara tunai. [8] Perjanjian tersebut telah ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak pada 8/4/2024 dengan disaksikan oleh seorang individu bernama Mohd Thani Bin Said (K/P: 691229-01-5231). Perjanjian disediakan sendiri oleh Defendan tanpa menggunakan khidmat peguam dan tidak dimatikan setem. [9] Defendan telah mengeluarkan wang simpanan KWSP beliau untuk tebus hutang “Rumah Tersebut” sebanyak RM18,815.93 dan mengikut persetujuan antara Plaintif dan Defendan, jumlah Tebus Hutang tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada terma balasan perjanjian dan Plaintif harus membayar balik Tebus Hutang tersebut. [10] Plaintif telah membayar balik Tebus Hutang tersebut secara bulanan melalui deposit bank bermula April 2008 hingga Oktober 2009. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [11] Dalam perjanjian tersebut juga, Plaintif bertanggungjawab membayar pembiayaan bulanan berjumlah RM317.00 kepada Ambank Berhad. [12] Plaintif telah membayar sepenuhnya pembiayaan tersebut berjumlah RM44,574.71 pada tahun 2011. [13] Walaupun begitu, Defendan enggan untuk memindahmilik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada anak Plaintif sebaliknya meminta jumlah RM60,000.00 dari Plaintif secara tunai sebagai bayaran tambahan memandangkan nilai “Rumah Tersebut” telah meningkat. [14] Plaintif tidak bersetuju dengan syarat dan tambahan ini. Walaupun begitu, Plaintif masih menetap di “Rumah Tersebut” dari 2011 hingga 2018 tanpa gangguan mana-mana pihak. [15] Pada tahun 2018, Plaintif telah didatangi oleh ejen penjualan rumah yang menyatakan bahawa ada pembeli yang berminat untuk membeli “Rumah Tersebut”. Defendan juga kemudiannya menghubungi Plaintif memaklumkan bahawa beliau akan menjual “Rumah Tersebut” dan Defendan tidak bersetuju memandangkan “Rumah Tersebut” telah dijual kepada Plaintif. [16] Pada tahun 2021, Plaintif mendapat tahu bahawa Defendan telah memasuki perjanjian Jualbeli secara formal bertarikh 13/6/2019 S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 dengan pihak ketiga dan meminta Plaintif keluar daripada “Rumah Tersebut”. [17] Pada 14/2/2021, Plaintif telah membuat satu laporan polis untuk melaporkan kemungkiran perjanjian dan penipuan Defendan. Walaubagaimanapun, Plaintif telah menerima Notis Tuntutan Penyerahan Milikan Kosong “Rumah Tersebut” oleh peguamcara Pihak Ketiga bertarikh 7/4/2021 dan meminta Plaintif keluar dari “Rumah Tersebut” dalam masa empat belas (14) hari dari penerimaan Notis Tersebut. [18] Plaintif tidak bersetuju dan enggan memberikan milikan kosong. Plaintif kemudiannya diserahkan satu Saman Pemula untuk pemilikan dan pada 28/5/2022, Pihak Ketiga telah mendapat perintah Mahkamah yang memerintahkan Plaintif memberi milikan kosong atas “Rumah Tersebut” kerana Pihak Ketiga adalah pemilik berdaftar kepada “Rumah Tersebut”. [19] Selepas seminggu Perintah tersebut dikeluarkan, Plaintif terpaksa keluar daripada “Rumah Tersebut”. [20] Berdasarkan perjanjian, Plaintif dan Defendan setuju bahawa pindahmilik “Rumah Tersebut” akan dibuat selepas lima (5) tahun sekiranya: i) Tiada unsur penipuan dalam perjanjian tersebut; S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 ii) Segala kos ditanggung oleh pembeli setelah setuju terima dilakukan; iii) Tiada unsur-unsur ingin menjualbeli “Rumah Tersebut” dalam proses perjanjian selama lima (5) tahun. [21] Sepanjang masa material, Plaintif telah memenuhi terma perjanjian dan sedangkan tindakan Plaintif memasuki perjanjian dengan Pihak Ketiga dan menafikan hak Plaintif adalah satu kemungkiran kontrak yang nyata oleh Defendan. [22] Defendan juga telah memberikan satu representasi palsu apabila memasuki Perjanjian dengan PIhak Ketiga. Perjanjian Defendan dengan PIhak Ketiga telah dimasuki lebih dari lima belas (15) tahun selepas Perjanjian antara Plaintif dan Defendan dan setelah Plaintif membuat bayaran penuh bulanan, Tebus Hutang dan Harga Belian yang jelas menunjukkan bahawa Defendan sememangnya bertujuan untuk menipu dan memanfaatkan Plaintif. [23] Selain itu, Defendan juga mengambil kesempatan atas perjanjian yang beliau sendiri sediakan yang jelas menunjukkan niat Defendan untuk menafikan penguatkuasaan perjanjian tersebut. [24] Tindakan Defendan memasuki perjanjian dengan Pihak Ketiga dalam keadaan mengetahui bahawa wujudnya perjanjian dengan Plaintif dan dengan sewenang-wenangnya mengabaikan perjanjian S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 tersebut telah mengakibatkan Plaintif kerugian dan kehilangan tempat tinggal. [25] Tindakan Defendan dan kemungkiran perjanjian oleh Defendan jelas satu perbuatan tort tipu daya dan penganiayaan oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif. [26] Oleh demikian, Plaintif menuntut: i) Satu deklarasi bahawa perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8/4/2004 adalah perjanjian sah dan mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan secara kontraktual; ii) Satu deklarasi bahawa terdapat kemungkiran Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8/4/2004 yang nyata oleh Defendan apabila Defendan menjualkan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Pihak Ketiga selepas pembayaran penuh oleh Plaintif bagi “Rumah Tersebut”; iii) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah melakukan satu tort tipu daya yang nyata terhadap Plaintif apabila Defendan enggan menukar nama bagi pemilikan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada anak Plaintif dan memasuki perjanjian dengan Pihak Ketiga pada 13/6/2019 walaupun kesemua pembayaran bagi “Rumah Tersebut” telah selesai dibuat oleh Plaintif; S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 iv) Akibat kemungkiran perjanjian bertarikh 8/4/2002 dan tipudaya oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif, Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif Gantirugi Khas sebanyak RM245,390.71 iaitu jumlah yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif bagi Harga Belian “Rumah Tersebut”, Jumlah Bayaran Bulanan dan Tebus Hutang Rumah Tersebut; v) Defendan hendaklah membayar Gantirugi Am yang akan ditaksirkan mengikut bidangkuasa Mahkamah bagi kemungkiran dan penamatan salah Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8/4/2002; vi) Defendan hendaklah membayar Plaintif Gantirugi Am yang akan ditaksirkan mengikut bidangkuasa Mahkamah bagi tort tipu daya yang dilakukannya terhadap Plaintif; vii) Defendan hendaklah membayar Plaintif Gantirugi Teladan yang akan ditaksirkan mengikut bidangkuasa Mahkamah bagi tort tipu daya yang dilakukannya terhadap Plaintif; viii) Defendan hendaklah membayar Plaintif Gantirugi Teruk yang akan ditaksirkan mengikut bidangkuasa Mahkamah bagi tort tipu daya yang dilakukannya terhadap Plaintif; ix) Faedah penghakiman sebanyak 5% setahun bermula dari tarikh pemfailan Writ sehingga penyelesaian penuh; S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 x) Kos tindakan ini; xi) Apa-apa relief atau perintah lanjut dan/atau selainnya yanhg dianggap sesuai dan patut diterima oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. PEMBELAAN DEFENDAN [1] Defendan menyatakan bahawa unit B1-11-03, Blok 1, Jalan PJS 6/5E, Desa Mentari, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan “Rumah Tersebut” adalah hartanah milik Defendan. [2] Defendan telah membeli “Rumah Tersebut” pada sekitar tahun 2002 dengan harga RM35,000-00 dengan membuat pinjaman dengan pihak pembiaya dan membayar ansuran bulanan sekitar RM320-00. [3] “Rumah Tersebut” dibina oleh pemaju di bawah Projek Perumahan Rakyat (“PPR”) dan salah satu objektif pembinaan adalah bertujuan pemindahan setinggan di kawasan terbabit. [4] Defendan tidak dibenarkan untuk memindahmilik dan/atau menjual “Rumah Tersebut” di dalam tempoh lima belas (15) tahun. [5] Sekalipun tempoh lima belas tahun berakhir, pembeli dan/atau penerima milik “Rumah Tersebut” mestilah memenuhi syarat pemilikan rumah PPR. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [6] Pembelian Hartanah tersebut bertujuan untuk pelaburan yang mana “Rumah Tersebut” akan meningkat naik nilainya sekiranya dilupuskan pada masa yang sesuai dengan mengambil kira faktor lokasi dan permintaan. [7] Sekiranya Defendan tidak mempunyai keperluan untuk melupuskan “Rumah Tersebut” Defendan akan mewarisi Hartanah tersebut kepada anak-anak Defendan pada masa depan. [8] “Rumah Tersebut” tidak pernah dijual kepada Plaintif. Pada masa yang metarial, Defendan mengenali Plaintif sebagai individu bukan warga negara Malaysia melalui rakan tempat Defendan bekerja. [9] Sekitar tahun 2004, Plaintif telah datang dan bertemu Defendan dan meminta pertolongan Defendan untuk membenarkan Plaintif menginap di “Rumah Tersebut” kerana tidak mempunyai kediaman pada masa yang metarial. [10] Memandangkan “Rumah Tersebut” dibeli oleh Defendan untuk tujuan pelaburan dan pewarisan Defendan membenarkan Plaintif untuk tinggal di “Rumah Tersebut”. [11] Plaintif pada masa yang material berjanji untuk menjelaskan bayaran ansuran bulanan pembiayaan “Rumah Tersebut” sebagai bayaran sewa. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [12] Defendan telah menegaskan kepada Plaintif bahawa “Rumah Tersebut” dibeli oleh Defendan bertujuan untuk pelaburan dan pewarisan dan Plaintif akan diminta untuk meninggalkan dan/atau keluar dari “Rumah Tersebut” apabila Defendan melupuskan “Rumah Tersebut” atau dipindahmilik kepada waris-waris Defendan. [13] Defendan juga menjelaskan bayaran ansuran bulanan “Rumah Tersebut” dan juga menjelaskan bayaran-bayaran yang perlu dijelaskan sebagaimana yang diarahkan oleh pihak “Joint Management Body‟ (“JMB”). [14] Defendan tidak mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan Perjanjian bertarikh 8.4.2004 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Perjanjian tersebut”). [15] Secara alternatif dan/atau tambahan, sekiranya perjanjian tersebut wujud yang mana dinafikan dan perlu dibuktikan oleh Plaintif, Defendan menegaskan bahawa Perjanjian tersebut cacat, berlawanan dengan fakta yang sebenar dan tidak berkuatkuasa ke atas Defendan antara lain “Perjanjian Tersebut”: a) Bertentangan dengan niat Defendan yang hanya membenarkan Plaintif menduduki “Rumah Tersebut” secara sewaan; S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 b) Tidak menyentuh dan bertentangan dengan fakta yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif sendiri berkenaan pindahmilik kepada anak Plaintif; c) Harga jualan yang tidak mengikut harga pasaran semasa yang bertentangan dengan tujuan pembelian “Rumah Tersebut” oleh Defendan; d) Perjanjian tersebut tidak dimatikan setem; e) Perjanjian tersebut secara keseluruhan tidak mempunyai elemen-elemen penting yang mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan terutamanya obligasi pihak Defendan untuk mendapatkan kebenaran pindahmilik; f) Perjanjian tersebut tidak menyatakan elemen penting berkenaan tempoh masa perjanjian dan tarikh penyempurnaan (completion date). [16] “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah tidak sah dan terbatal di atas alasan- alasan yang berikut:- a) Plaintif sebagai individu bukan warganegara dan/atau pemilik kad MyPR pada masa yang material sebagai pihak di dalam “Rumah Tersebut” yang tertakluk kepada syarat pemilikan S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 hartanah di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara dan syarat pemilikan rumah di bawah PPR; b) Perenggan 5 “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak mematuhi proses pindahmilik kepada individu bukan warganegara dan/atau pemilik kad MyPR seperti Plaintif yang tertakluk kepada Kanun Tanah Negara; c) Perenggan 5 “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak mengambil kira status Hartanah tersebut sebagai PPR yang mana pemilikan oleh Defendan secara mutlak di dalam tempoh lima belas (15) tahun; dan d) Terma 5 (iii) “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang, peruntukkan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara dan syarat pemilikan Hartanah tersebut di bawah PPR. [17] Plaintif tidak pernah memperolehi kebenaran daripada Pihak Berkuasa untuk memiliki dan/atau membeli Hartanah tersebut dan kebenaran pihak yang berkaitan untuk membeli dan/atau memiliki rumah PPR seperti Hartanah tersebut. [18] Pindahmilik Hartanah tersebut tidak akan dapat disempurnakan sama sekali kepada Plaintif yang kononnya pihak pembeli di dalam “Perjanjian Tersebut”. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [19] “Perjanjian Tersebut” sekiranya wujud dan dibuktikan oleh Plaintif (yang mana dinafikan oleh Defendan) tidak sah, terbatal dan/atau void abinitio dan tidak berkuatkuasa ke atas Defendan. [20] Defendan menegaskan sekiranya ada bayaran yang dijelaskan kepada pembiaya Hartanah tersebut, ianya sebagaimana yang dijanjikan oleh Plaintif sebagai bayaran sewa ke atas Hartanah tersebut. [21] Defendan tidak terikat dengan Plaintif dan berhak untuk menjual Hartanah tersebut kepada pihak ketiga. [22] Tindakan yang diambil oleh Pihak Ketiga tersebut adalah dibuat selaras dengan peruntukkan undang-undang dan terma perjanjian jual beli. [23] Sehingga kini, Plaintif masih lagi enggan untuk keluar dari Hartanah tersebut. [24] Plaintif telah memungkiri terma 5 (ii) Perjanjian tersebut apabila tidak menjelaskan bayaran yang telah ditetapkan dan perlu dibayar kepada pihak JMB. [25] Suatu kemungkiran perjanjian dibawah kontrak tidak membentuk dan/atau berkaitan dengan tort tipu daya. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [26] Secara spesifik Defendan memplidkan bahawa Defendan tidak pernah membuat sebarang representasi melalui perjanjian atau secara oral bahawa Hartanah tersebut akan ditukar milik kepada Plaintif atau pihak yang dinamakan oleh Plaintif. [27] Plaintif telah beroleh manfaat secara langsung dan tidak langsung semasa menduduki di Hartanah tersebut. [28] Defendan memohon supaya tuntutan Plaintif disini ditolak dengan kos. NOTIS RAYUAN [1] Notis Rayuan di Lampiran 30 difailkan oleh Perayu/Defendan yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen selepas perbicaraan di Petaling Jaya yang diberi pada 30 November 2023 merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut yang memutuskan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif dibenarkan seperti berikut: - i) Satu deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8 April 2004 adalah perjanjian yang sah dan mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan secara kontraktual; ii) Satu deklarasi bahawa terdapat kemungkiran Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8 April 2004 yang nyata oleh Defendan S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 apabila Defendan menjualkan Rumah tersebut kepada Pihak Ketiga selepas pembayaran penuh dibuat oleh Plaintif bagi Rumah tersebut; iii) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah melakukan tort tipu daya yang nyata terhadap Plaintif apabila enggan menukar nama bagi pemilikan Rumah tersebut kepada anak Plaintif dan memasuki Perjanjian Pihak Ketiga pada 13 Jun 2019 walaupun kesemua pembayaran bagi Rumah tersebut telah selesai dibuat oleh Plaintif; iv) Akibat kemungkiran Perjanjian bertarikh 8 April 2004 dan tort tipu daya oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif, Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif Ganti Rugi Khas sebanyak RM245,390.71 iaitu jumlah yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif bagi Harga Belian Rumah, Jumlah Bayaran Bulanan dan Tebus Rumah tersebut; v) Faedah penghakiman sebanyak 5% setahun bermula dari tarikh pemfailan Writ sehingga penyelesaian penuh; dan vi) Kos mengikut skala. [2] Tiada Rayuan Balas oleh pihak Plaintif. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [1] Kes dijalankan melalui perbicaraan penuh yang dengan saksi di mana Plaintif telah memanggil satu (1) orang saksi iaitu Plaintif sendiri (SP1) manakala Defendan juga telah memanggil satu (1) orang saksi iaitu Defendan sendiri (SD1). [2] Antara isu-isu yang dibangkitkan untuk perbicaraan adalah seperti berikut: 1. Sama ada terdapat persetujuan jual beli Hartanah antara Plaintif dan Defendan. 2. Sama ada Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8.4.2004 adalah wujud dan sah untuk mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan. 3. Sama ada terdapat kemungkiran persetujuan jual beli Hartanah dan/atau kemungkiran Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8.4.2004 oleh Defendan. 4. Sama ada Defendan bertanggungan terhadap kesemua kerugian yang telah diplidkan disebabkan kemungkiran persetujuan jual beli Hartanah dan/atau Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8.4.2004 tersebut [3] Dalam kes sivil, Beban pembuktian adalah atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan oleh S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ho Hup Construction Company Berhad v. Woo Thin Chong [2018] 2 MLRA 321 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: "[43] It was trite that while it was true that the overall burden of proving a civil claim on a balance of probabilities was on the party bringing the action (the plaintiff), a party who alleged or relied upon a particular fact had the onus or responsibility to establish on evidence the existence of that fact. Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the EA (in so far as was material for our decision on this point) were as follows: "Section 101: Burden of proof (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependant on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of the fact shall lie on any particular person.” S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [4] Dalam kes ini, pihak Plaintif telah mengemukakan satu Perjanjian bertulis yang dimasuki oleh kedua-dua pihak (“Perjanjian Tersebut”). “Perjanjian Tersebut” terkandung dalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian C). “Perjanjian Tersebut” ditandakan sebagai eksibit “P1”. [5] Walaupun Defendan (selepas ini dirujuk SD1) mempertikaikan “Perjanjian Tersebut”, SD1 tidak pernah menafikan tandatangan yang tertera di “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah tandatangan beliau. SD1 juga hanya memplidkan bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak sah dari segi undang-undang dan tidak boleh dilaksanakan. Walaupun begitu, “Perjanjian Tersebut” dari dapatan Mahkamah wujud dan tidak pernah dipertikaikan dan terbatal. [6] Fakta bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak dimatikan setem adalah isu berbeza. Dalam Akta Kontrak intipati kontrak dinyatakan sebagaimana berikut: CONTRACTS ACT 1950 (REVISED 1974) ACT 136 2 Interpretation In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context- S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (a) when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal; (b) when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise; (c) the person making the proposal is called the "promisor" and the person accepting the proposal is called the "promisee"; (d) when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise; (e) every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement; (f) promises which form the consideration or part of the consideration for each other are called reciprocal promises; (g) an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void; (h) an agreement enforceable by law is a contract; S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (i) an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract; and (j) a contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable. [7] “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah menepati keperluan intipati sesebuah kontrak. Tambahan pula, perbuatan (conduct) pihak-pihak adalah menjurus kepada pematuhan “Perjanjian Tersebut”. [8] Plaintif telah membuat segala bayaran yang dinyatakan dalam “Perjanjian Tersebut”. Defendan tidak pernah mempertikaikan bayaran-bayaran yang dibuat dan dalam pembelaan, tidak ada penafian tentang jumlah yang dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif bagi melaksanakan “Perjanjian Tersebut” termasuk bayaran awal, bayaran Tebus Hutang, pembiayaan bulanan berjumlah RM317.00 kepada Ambank Berhad serta pembiayaan sepenuhnya “Rumah Tersebut” oleh Plaintif. [9] Resit-resit dari mukasurat 93 – 129 tidak dicabar oleh Defendan dan tidak dipertikaikan sepanjang perbicaraan walaupun ia diletakkan di Bahagian C Ikatan Dokumen Bersama. [10] Defendan hanya mengemukakan satu resit di mukasurat 130 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama dan memberi keterangan bahawa Defendan S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 adalah pihak yang membayar kos penyelenggaran JMB “Rumah Tersebut”. [11] Jika diteliti, resit pembayaran tersebut adalah bertarikh 24/7/2019. Terdapat juga baki tunggakan penyenggaraan sebanyak RM5,253.55. Defendan memasuki perjanjian Jual Beli dengan pihak Ketiga pada 13/6/2019. Pada tahun 2021, Plaintif mendapat tahu bahawa Defendan telah memasuki perjanjian Jualbeli secara formal bertarikh 13/6/2019 dengan pihak ketiga dan meminta Plaintif keluar daripada “Rumah Tersebut”. [12] Ini bermakna, sepanjang tempoh “Perjanjian Tersebut” antara Plaintif dan Defendan (8/4/2004 hingga 13/6/2019), adakah caj JMB tidak pernah dibayar? Jika tunggakan hanya RM5253.55 ia hanya untuk tempoh lebih kurang 3 tahun sahaja (RM5,253.55/bulanan RM113.00 = 3.8 tahun). Mengikut keterangan SP1 beliau ada membuat bayaran caj utility dan penyelenggaraan, SD1 pula hanya tunjukkan 1 bulan sahaja resit bayaran dengan tunggakan masih ada. [13] Dari perbuatan (conduct) kedua-dua pihak, jelas menunjukkan bahawa niat asal kedua-dua pihak adalah untuk memasuki Perjanjian Jual Beli. SD1 memplidkan bahawa beliau tidak pernah berniat untuk menjual “Rumah Tersebut” kepada SP1 dan hanya S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 memberi sewa. Jika benar, kenapa kedua-dua pihak boleh sediakan Perjanjian Jual Beli sedangkan tiada perjanjian Penyewaan dibuat? [14] Jika dirujuk “Perjanjian Tersebut”, ia ditujukan kepada Plaintif. Perenggan 1 “Perjanjian Tersebut” menunjukkan niat SD1 untuk menjual dan memindahmilik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada SP1. Dalam perenggan 5 pula dinyatakan “Sekiranya dalam jangkamasa lima (5) tahun pihak pembeli boleh mendapatkan penukaran nama pemilik rumah dengan syarat …” [15] Bagi terma ini, Mahkamah dapati bahawa samada SD1 sedar atau tidak, ia sememangnya tidak dapat dilaksanakan atas dasar: 1. syarat rumah PPR tidak boleh dipindahmilik dalam tempoh 15 tahun. 2. Plaintif bukan warganegara Malaysia. [16] Oleh demikian, Mahkamah dapati bahawa samada SD1 dengan ada pengetahuan tentang perkara ini atau dengan niat memperdayakan SP1 atau hanya pada peringkat tindakan ini dibawa, ia adalah satu pemikiran semula (afterthought) untuk membangkitkan bahawa dari segi undnag-undang “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah terbatal, tidak sah dan tidak boleh dilaksanakan (null and void). S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [17] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes LAI CHIN WAH & ANOR v. SITRAC CORPORATION SDN BHD COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA [2023] 6 CLJ 232 Lee Swee Seng JCA: [1] The circumstances under which the court may intervene with the freedom of contract are limited. It is easier to intervene in cases of illegality where parties cannot agree to do that which the law prohibits. What then is the position where a matter is not prohibited by statute but expressly stated as a right of a party? [2] The question then is whether contracting out of a statute would be permitted. Should the court nevertheless refuse to enforce such a term if to do so would unfairly prejudice the rights of the weaker party to the bargain, or that it would defeat the purpose of the law or be contrary to public policy. Interestingly in this appeal, the issue is whether a developer can enforce a term in an agreement where the purchaser has agreed not to apply for change of category of land use from "agriculture" to "building" for the land that he purchased. At The Court Of Appeal [10] It was argued before us that the consideration or object of the agreement is of such a nature that, if permitted, would defeat any S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 law and/or be opposed to public policy pursuant to s. 24(b) and (e) of the Contracts Act 1950. [46] The Federal Court in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 441; [2021] 2 MLJ 60 further emphasised that where the provision of the law is to protect the weaker party, the court will interpret its effect consistent with its paternalistic purpose to uphold the rights of the weaker party and only to declare the offending clause void and not the whole contract as follows: [76] Thus, it can be said that the general principle of law flowing from this discussion is as follows. When it concerns social legislation and the stronger side to the transaction has committed an illegal act, the existence of a penal provision does not automatically render the contract void. If that were so, then the legislation would, if it were taken to destroy the contract or to erase the weaker side's right to a remedy, be to defeat the very protective purpose for which it was enacted. Accordingly, in such cases, the weaker party to the transaction will not be deemed to be in pari delicto and shall accordingly be entitled to the appropriate remedy. The natural result of this is that the stronger party will have that illegality construed against them. The result of S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 that exercise depends very much on the facts of a particular case. (emphasis added). [47] Parliament and the court recognise that leaving it to the parties to agree would render the rights of purchasers illusory and subject them to being abused under the guise of the weaker party having agreed to it and so cannot now complain. See the case of the Federal Court in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 162; [2020] 1 MLJ 281 and the Court of Appeal case of Loh Tina & Ors v. Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2020] 7 CLJ 720; [2020] 6 MLJ 191. [51] Thus, one can appreciate that generally, the Contracts Act 1950 deals with the terms that parties may freely agree with one another and any protection afforded is more of a personal right which parties under the same contractual principles of freedom to contract, may decide to waive. However, where the rights are conferred by other specific statutes, the court would have to ask the further question as to whether the rights conferred are purely personal or do they serve a higher and broader public purpose as may be gathered from the statute. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [18] Jika dilihat daripada tingkahlaku (conduct) SD1, isu ini tidak timbul dalam tempoh 15 tahun Plaintif tinggal di “Rumah Tersebut” bersandarkan kepada “Perjanjian Tersebut”. Ia hanya timbul selepas 15 tahun, iaitu tempoh di mana SD1 telah layak untuk memasuki perjanjian jual beli bagi rumah PPR tersebut. Ini kerana SD1 tahu dan maklum bahawa terdapat sekatan atas “Rumah Tersebut”. [19] Walaupun tahu tentang sekatan (samada tempoh 15 tahun atau sekatan kewarganegaraan bagi hakmilik), SD1 masih perlu menunggu sehingga selepas 15 tahun bagi boleh melaksanakan pindahmilik. Jika SD1 jujur dan dengan berniat baik (good faith), SD1 boleh memindahkan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada anak SP1 atau berurusan semula dengan SP1 bagi tujuan pindahmilik dan bukan secara diam, membuat perjanjian lain dengan Pihak Ketiga setelah semua pembiayaan dibuat oleh SP1 dan “Rumah Tersebut” tiada lagi tanggungan atau tunggakan. [20] Mahkamah bergantung kepada kes LAI CHIN WAH & ANOR di atas dan membuat dapatan bahawa pihak lemah/terkesan dalam tindakan ini adalah pihak Plaintif. Oleh itu, SD1 tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya pada masa ini, selepas tindakan Mahkamah S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 dimulakan, bergantung kepada pembelaan bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. [21] Mahkamah merujuk kembali kepada pembelaan Defendan. SD1 menegaskan bahawa “niat Defendan yang hanya membenarkan Plaintif menduduki “Rumah Tersebut” secara sewaan”. Jika ini benar, pendirian yang sama juga harus dipakai bahawa tiada langsung Perjanjian sewaan dimasuki pihak-pihak atau jika perjanjian sewaan adalah berbentuk lisan, apakah tempoh sewaan dan terma yang dipersetujui oleh SD1? Mahkamah membuat dapatan, pembelaan SD1 ini adalah hanya pemikiran semula (afterthought) dan bukan niat asal SD1. [22] Jika dilihat daripada resit bayaran yang dibuat oleh SP1, tiada bukti bahawa SP1 telah gagal membuat bayaran sewa bulanan atau apa- apa notis oleh SD1 menunjukkan SD1 tidak lagi berniat untum meneruskan dengan penyewaan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada SP1. [23] Dalam kes ini, masa bukanlah intipati kepada perjanjian (time is not the essense of the contract). Kedua-dua pihak akur bahawa tiada ketetapan masa diberikan oleh kedua-dua pihak untuk sempurnakan “Perjanjian Tersebut”. Walaupun dalam “Perjanjian Tersebut” ada menyebut tentang tempoh 5 tahun, ia tidak pernah menjadi isu atau ditimbulkan oleh pihak-pihak. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [24] SD1 juga tidak pernah menyatakan hasrat untuk membatalkan “Perjanjian Tersebut” setelah tempoh 5 tahun tamat atau “Perjanjian Tersebut” dikira terbatal. Pihak-pihak masih meneruskan hasrat sebagaimana sedia ada dan ia berlanjutan sehingga tempoh lebih 15 tahun. [25] Pembelaan Defendan seterusnya adalah bahawa “harga jualan yang tidak mengikut harga pasaran semasa yang bertentangan dengan tujuan pembelian “Rumah Tersebut” oleh Defendan”. Bagi isu ini, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa SD1 adalah pihak yang paling beruntung dalam tindakan ini. [26] Harga “Rumah Tersebut” semasa SD1 menandatangi Perjanjian Jual Beli dengan Pemaju pada 2/1/2002 adalah RM35,000.00. SD1 memasuki “Perjanjian Tersebut” dengan Plaintif pada 8/4/2004. SD1 hanya membayar ansuran rumah tersebut bagi tempoh 2 tahun. [27] Selepas 2 tahun, SD1 telah mendapat RM12,000.00 secara tunai daripada SP1, bayaran Tebus Hutang telah dibayar semula oleh SP1, ansuran bulanan telah diselesaikan sepenuhnya oleh SP1, “Rumah Tersebut” telah habis hutang, liability bulanan samada utility atau caj JMB telah dibayar oleh pihak lain (SP1). Pada peringkat ini, semua bebanan SD1 terhadap “Rumah Tersebut” telah diambilalih oleh SP1. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [28] SD1 kemudiannya telah menjual “Rumah Tersebut” dengan harga pasaran terkini (mengikut Perjanjian Jual Beli dengan Pihak Ketiga, harga jualan adalah RM170,000.00). Jika inilah yang dikatakan oleh SD1 tujuan dan konsep beliau membeli “Rumah Tersebut” untuk suatu pelaburan, SD1 telah mendapat keuntungan berganda. [29] “Perjanjian Tersebut” antara Plaintif dan Defendan sudah tidak dapat diteruskan. “Rumah Tersebut” telah dipindahmilik dan didaftarkan kepada Pihak Ketiga. Plaintif sudah keluar dan memberikan milikan kosong kepada “Rumah Tersebut”. Plaintif juga tidak berhasrat untuk meneruskan dengan penukaran hakmilik bagi “Rumah Tersebut”. [30] Plaintif hanya menuntut gantirugi bagi apa yang telah dibelanjakan dan dikeluarkan serta kerugian-kerugian lain yang dialami. Ia juga adalah sukar dan tidak munasabah untuk mendapatkan perintah Mahkamah untuk menukarkan geran milikan “Rumah Tersebut” dan ia melibatkan satu prosedur Panjang di Pejabat Tanah. [31] Oleh demikian, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif seharusnya dipampas bagi kerugian akibat “Perjanjian Tersebut” yang terbatal dan dengan tidak membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif di sini, Defendan telah diperkayakan dan mendapat manfaat yang tidak sewajarnya dari pihak yang lemah. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [32] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes DREAM PROPERTY SDN BHD v. ATLAS HOUSING SDN BHD, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA [2015] 2 CLJ 453 yang mana diputuskan; “(5) It would remain manifestly unfair and unjust for the plaintiff to be enriched to the extent of the full commercial value of the mall, while having only to pay for the costs of its physical construction to the defendant. The defendant was entitled to a monetary award in the sum equivalent to the current market value of the mall excluding the market value of the land without the mall. The consequence of this order was that after paying the said monetary sum to the defendant, the plaintiff would from then on enjoy the full benefit of a completely constructed mall on the land. This would unquestionably place the plaintiff in a far better position than it would have been had the plaintiff not entered into the SPA with the defendant. (para 136). [33] Sama seperti kes dihadapan Mahkamah ini sekarang, Defendan tidak mengeluarkan apa-apa modal tambahan dan segala tanggungan atas “Rumah Tersebut” sepanjang 15 tahun ini telah dialihkan kepada Plaintif. Selepas 15 tahun apabila segala hutang dan tanggungan selesai, Defendan menerima “Rumah Tersebut” S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 tanpa apa-apa liability dan menjualkannya kepada Pihak Ketiga dengan harga empat (4) kali ganda harga belian. [34] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD & SATU LAGI lwn. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA [2023] CLJU 2520 yang diputuskan seperti berikut: “[42] Sebaliknya Defendan akan menerima enjin utama, 'gear box' dan peralatan berkaitan sepertimana perintah Mahkamah. Sebarang award ganti rugi hanya akan memberi kekayaan berganda kepada Defendan (rujuk; Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453).” [35] Dalam kes ini hanya ada keterangan SP1 dan SD1. Tiada keterangan saksi lain dikemukakan menyokong versi masing- masing. Plaintif telah mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen berkait dan bagi pihak Defendan beliau hanya menafikan “Perjanjian Tersebut” dan menegaskan bahawa niat beliau adalah untuk sewaan sahaja. [36] Walaupun begitu, tiada perjanjian sewa dikemukakan. Defendan juga tidak memberikan apa-apa notis awal kepada Plaintif menunjukkan niat beliau untuk menamatkan penyewaan dan S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 berhasrat untuk menjual dan akan memindahkmilik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada pihak Ketiga. [37] Ini adalah tindakan tidak wajar di pihak Defendan. Jika sekalipun ia adalah perjanjian penyewaan, Defendan perlu memberikan notis yang cukup kepada Plaintif untuk keluar dari premis tersebut dan tidak meletakkan Plaintif dalam keadaan yang tidak disangkakan (caught by supprised). [38] Tiada keterangan bahawa Defendan ada mengarahkan Plaintif untuk mengosongkan premis sebelum Defendan dengan secara tiba-tiba dan tanpa notis telah memindahmilik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada pihak Ketiga. Ini tidak adil kepada Plaintif walaupun Defendan adalah masih pemegang geran “Rumah Tersebut” pada masa material. [39] Dalam masa yang sama, jika dilihat, sepanjang masa material selama daripada Plaintif masuk ke “Rumah Tersebut” sehingga bayaran terakhir ansuran “Rumah Tersebut” dibuat, adalah mustahil untuk Plaintif membayar dua amaun sewa iaitu (1) RM317.00 setiap bulan kepada Bank dan pada masa yang sama perlu membayar (2) RM 1,000-00 kepada Defendan. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 [40] Keterangan SD1 sendiri akui bahawa tidak pernah wujud perjanjian sewa antara Plaintif dan Defendan bagi “Rumah Tersebut”. Keterangan di bawah adalah dirujuk semula: “Peguam : Encik Kamal kata Encik Kamal bagi sewa. Saksi : Ya Peguam : Betul Peguam : Setuju jika saya cadangkan tidak ada apa-apa dokumen contohnya perjanjian sewa di hadapan Mahkamah. Setuju tak takda dokumen yang menunjukkan Encik Kamal memberi sewa kepada Encik Suherman. Saksi : Setuju”. [41] Defendan dalam hujahan mereka berhujah bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak sah dibawah Seksyen 30 Akta Kontrak. Seksyen 30 Akta Kontrak 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut : 30. Agreements void for uncertainty. Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. [42] Defendan menyatakan bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” secara keseluruhan tidak mempunyai elemen-elemen penting yang mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan terutamanya: S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 a) Obligasi pihak Defendan untuk mendapatkan kebenaran pindahmilik; b) “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak menyatakan elemen penting berkenaan tempoh masa perjanjian dan tarikh penyempurnaan (completion date). c) Perjanjian tersebut tidak mempunyai elemen-elemen di atas Ini menjadikan tarikh penyempurnaan Perjanjian tersebut satu ketidaktentuan (uncertainty). d) Harga jualan “Rumah Tersebut” juga satu yang tidak tentu atau muktamad. e) Perjanjian tersebut juga terbatal disebabkan Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus apabila tidak mendapatkan kebenaran pihak berkuasa negeri. [43] Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa perkara yang dibangkitkan adalah semata-mata alasan dan pemikiran semula dan atau helah/tipu daya Defendan untuk menafikan wujudnya satu Perjanjian yang sah dan mengikat. [44] Defendan sendiri tahu fakta ini sejak dari awal. Walaupun begitu, Defendan masih memasuki “Perjanjian Tersebut” dengan Plaintif. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Jika isu ini dibangkitkan, apakah niat dan motif Defendan pada masa tersebut? [45] Persoalan yang sama boleh ditujukan kepada Defendan bahawa jika benar niat Defendan adalah untuk memberi sewa “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Plaintif, apakah terma sewa, tempoh sewaan, notis penamatan sewa dan sebagainya? Tidak ada juga apa-apa kepastian di situ. [46] Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa tindakan Defendan di sini bukan sahaja satu kausa tindakan di bawah pemecahan kontrak (breach of contract) tetapi juga secara tidak langsung timbul isu penipuan/frod yang memperdayakan Plaintif dan menggunakan Plaintif bagi kepentingan Defendan sendiri. [47] Sebagaimana dinyatakan oleh YAH dalam kes PJD Regency Sdn Bhd di atas yang mana di petik: “[47] Parliament and the court recognise that leaving it (contract) to the parties to agree would render the rights of purchasers illusory and subject them to being abused under the guise of the weaker party having agreed to it and so cannot now complain.” [48] Seksyen 17 CONTRACTS ACT 1950 (REVISED 1974) ACT 136 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 "Fraud" “includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract- (a) the suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (b) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (c) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (d) any other act fitted to deceive; and (e) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. [49] Defendan tahu daripada awal syarat-syarat rumah PPR. Defendan tahu siapa dan latarbelakang Plaintif. Defendan tahu bahawa tempoh 5 tahun yang dimasukkan dalam “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah mustahil untuk dilaksanakan. Walaupun semua ini ada dalam pengetahuan Defendan, Defendan masih lagi bersetuju dengan “Perjanjian Tersebut”. Defendan sememangnya tiada niat untuk melaksanakan “Perjanjian Tersebut”. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 [50] Walaupun begitu, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif perlu membuktikan dengan tegas butir-butir frod/penipuan. Dalam kes ALW CAR WORKSHOP SDN BHD v. AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BHD, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA, [2019] 7 CLJ 667, Mahkamah memutuskan beban untuk pembuktian terhadap Plaintif bagi alegasi frod adalah tinggi dan perlu dibuktikan dengan ketat sebagaimana berikut: [46] On this point, we agree with the Court of Appeal in its findings, as stated in para. [33] of its judgment, that: Whether any particular claim is tainted with fraudulent intent is a question of fact to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Making a false statement in the belief that it is true constitutes misrepresentation. However, making a false statement with the knowledge that it is false or not believing it to be true and the intention to deceive amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation. The test of fraudulent misrepresentation as enunciated by the Privy Council in Baron Akerheilm v. Rolf De Marc [1959] AC 789 PC is as follows: The question was not whether the defendant in any given case honestly believed the representation to be true in the sense assigned to it by the court on an objective consideration of its truth or falsity, S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 but whether he honestly believed the representation to be true in the sense which he understood it albeit erroneously, when it was made. [53] On the issue of standard of proof in proving 'fraud' in civil cases, we find that the matter is already settled in law. It is not a novel issue. This court in Sinnayah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd (supra) has put the issue at rest. In that case, Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) (as His Lordship then was), delivering the judgment of the court, made the following ruling: The correct principle to apply is as explained in In re B (Children) where it was stipulated that at law, there are only two standards of proof, namely beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases and on the balance of probabilities for civil cases. As such, even if fraud is the subject in a civil claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. There is no third standard. Therefore, it is up to the presiding judge, after hearing and considering the evidence adduced as being done in any other civil claim, to find whether the standards of proof has been attained. [51] Dalam tindakan ini Mahkamah mendapati tindakan adalah lebih kepada satu kemungkiran kontrak. Tiada bukti mencukupi dikemukakan Plaintif menunjukkan wujudnya frod secara langsung oleh Defendan. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 [52] Oleh sebab itu juga Mahkamah membenarkan gantirugi hanya bagi pemecahan kontrak dan tidak bagi gantirugi teladan atau …sebagaimana dinyatakan seterusnya dalam kes ALW CAR WORKSHOP SDN BHD di atas: “[86] Damages ought to be allowed after a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation. In Kee Wah Soong v. Yap Boon Hwa And Another Appeal [2018] CLJU 1284; [2018] 1 LNS 1284, the Court of Appeal held as follows: [85] We take note that the learned trial Judge had made findings of fact that the 2nd Plaintiff had committed fraudulent misrepresentation on the Defendant, but did not grant any damages in favour of the Defendant, although it was specifically prayed as an alternative relief in the counter claim. Although we agree with the learned trial Judge's findings on the fraudulent misrepresentation, the learned trial Judge had erred in her refusal to grant damages for the same. Damages ought to be allowed after a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the 2nd Plaintiff. (emphasis added) [53] Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan. Dalam S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif, Plaintif menuntut Gantirugi Am, Gantirugi Teladan dan Gantirugi Teruk. [53] Mahkamah hanya membenarkan perenggan 70 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (ix) dan (x) Penyataan Tuntutan. Bagi Perenggan 70 (iv), Gantirugi Khas yang dibenarkan adalah bagi pemecahan kontrak oleh Defendan dan bukan atas dasar Tort tipu daya. Mahkamah kembali kepada dapatan Mahkamah bahawa tort tipu daya perlu dibuktikan dengan ketat oleh Plaintif tetapi Plaintif tidak dapat berbuat demikian. [54] Oleh sebab itu, Mahkamah tidak membenarkan satu Gantirugi Am, Gatirugi Teruk dan Gantirugi Teladan seperti dituntut oleh Plaintif diperenggan 70 (v), (vi), (vii) dan (viii). [55] Bagi Gantirgi Khas untuk jumlah RM245,390.71, Mahkamah dapati bahawa Plaintif telah berjaya mengemukakan bukti menyokong tuntutan tersebut. Resit-resit dan dokumen yang ditunjukkan tidak dapat dinafikan dan disangkal oleh Defendan selain daripada keterangan lisan yang hanya membuat penafian tanpa mengemukakan bukti bertentangan. [56] Tambahan pula, jika jumlah tersebut tidak dibuat oleh Plaintif selama ini, bagaimana “Rumah Tersebut” selesai segala bebanan kewangan jika bukan dengan bayaran-bayaran yang telah dibuat dan ditunjukkan oleh Plaintif. Bagi JMB pula, Defendan gagal S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 membuktikan Plaintif tidak pernah membuat bayaran atau gagal membuat bayaran JMB selama tinggal di “Rumah Tersebut”. [57] Mahkamah juga membuat dapatan bahawa pampasan dan gantirugi yang dibenarkan Mahkamah adalah wajar berdasarkan prinsip kekayaan berganda Defendan sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD & SATU LAGI lwn. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA [2023] CLJU 2520: “[39] Isu selanjutnya adalah berkaitan ganti rugi iaitu sama ada selain mendapatkan semula enjin utama, "gear box" dan peralatan berkaitan, Defendan layak dipampas. [40] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa secara amnya, ganti rugi seperti ini bukan merupakan relif yang sesuai di dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan perjanjian. Ini berdasarkan apa yang telah disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Public Bank Berhad [2023] 10 CLJ 430; [2023] 1 LNS 1802 seperti berikut; "[119] And as for whether aggravated and exemplary damages are claimable in a breach of contract case, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Lee Swee Seng Judicial Commissioner (as he then was - now JCA) in Ang Beng Choo v. RHB Insurance Berhad S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 [2013] CLJU 382; [2013] 1 LNS 382 (HC) where the Learned Judge said: Damages Whether aggravated and exemplary damages are claimable for breach of contract The basis for assessment of damages in a breach of contract is to put the Plaintiff, the non-defaulting party, in the position as if the contract has not been wrongfully terminated. It is compensatory in nature. As such aggravated damages is generally not awarded for a breach of contract simpliciter.......... [120] In PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v. Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] SGCA 26; [2017] 2 SLR 129 the Singapore Court of Appeal (per Justice Andrew Phang) unequivocally enunciated that punitive damages are not claimable in breach of contract claims. The learned Judge gave a number of reasons why punitive damages are not claimable in a breach of contract situation. They may be stated as follows: (f) In so far as the issue relating to the possible award of punitive damages in a purely contractual context was concerned (and considering, first, the arguments against the award of such damages), allowing the courts to punish a party who had breached S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 a contract sat uneasily with the concept of a contract as an obligation arising from a voluntary and binding agreement. The courts ought to have but a minimal role in regulating the contracting parties' conduct without regard to their agreement. It would be anomalous or even inappropriate for the court to regulate the contracting parties' conduct by imposing an award of punitive damages on the party in breach by way of what is in effect an external standard." [penekanan ditegaskan] [41] Berdasarkan kepada prinsip-prinsip ini, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Defendan adalah tidak wajar diberikan apa- apa ganti rugi. Tambahan pula Defendan turut tidak membuktikan apakah kerugian yang ditanggungi oleh Defendan. [58] Berdasarkan prinsip ini juga, Mahkamah memutuskan Gantirugi Teruk dan Gantirugi Teladan adalah tidak sesuai diberikan bagi sesuatu kemungkiran kontrak. [59] Secara alternative jika “Perjanjian Tersebut” adalah terbatal, Mahkamah merujuk kepada peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 66 Akta Kontrak 1950 yang mana diperuntukkan: S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 Seksyen 66 – 66 - Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void “When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under the agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it.” [60] Dalam kes DREAM PROPERTY SDN BHD v. ATLAS HOUSING SDN BHD, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA [2015] 2 CLJ 453 diputuskan: “(4b) Injustice had occurred to such an extent that the defendant had not only suffered a loss, but the plaintiff was at the same time made richer by the defendant's loss by the same amount. This sense of injustice at the defendant's expense was central to the foundation of the relief of restitution based on the law of unjust enrichment. The plaintiff should not be allowed to reap the windfall at the expense of the defendant. The defendant lawfully constructed the mall on the land not intending to do so gratuitously with the plaintiff enjoying its benefit. On this basis, it warranted judicial intervention as a legal response triggered by an unjust enrichment in the fact situation of the present case. The defendant had made S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 out a cause of action in unjust enrichment in that the plaintiff had been enriched, that this enrichment was gained at the defendant's expense, and that the plaintiff's enrichment was unjust. (paras 130 & 131) (5) It would remain manifestly unfair and unjust for the plaintiff to be enriched to the extent of the full commercial value of the mall, while having only to pay for the costs of its physical construction to the defendant. The defendant was entitled to a monetary award in the sum equivalent to the current market value of the mall excluding the market value of the land without the mall. The consequence of this order was that after paying the said monetary sum to the defendant, the plaintiff would from then on enjoy the full benefit of a completely constructed mall on the land. This would unquestionably place the plaintiff in a far better position than it would have been had the plaintiff not entered into the SPA with the defendant. (para 136). [61] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa apa yang telah diterima oleh Defendan selama ini perlu dikembalikan jika didapati dari segi undang-undang “Perjanjian Tersebut” tidak sah. Defendan tidak berhak menerima hasil usaha Plaintif apabila Plaintif tidak dapat apa yang dijanjikan oleh Defendan. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 [62] Dalam masa yang sama, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa “Perjanjian Tersebut” telah tidak dapat diteruskan (frustrated). Ini kerana “Rumah Tersebut” telah dipindahmilik kepada pihak ketiga. SP1 juga telah keluar dari “Rumah Tersebut” dan tidak menuntut untuk “Rumah Tersebut” dikembalikan kepadanya. [63] Dalam kes DAMANSARA REALTY BHD v. BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA [2011] 9 CLJ 257 diputuskan: “(2) Whether or not time had been intended to be of essence would depend on the conduct and dealings of the parties. There was no necessity in law that a clause making time of the essence must be expressed in any given contract. It is trite that there is a prima facie acceptance that in commercial contracts, time would be of the essence. (paras 25 & 31) (3) Though the PDA did not expressly state that time was of the essence, it was implicit in the PDA that time was of the essence for the development to be commenced and completed within the 15year period though it did not set out in detail the stages in which the development was to be progressed upon. Besides, even if time was at large, there was still a duty on the plaintiff to commence work within a reasonable time. By its failure to commence any S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 development activity for 13 ½ years, the plaintiff was guilty of having breached the PDA. Thus, the defendants were entitled to terminate the PDA. (Contracts Act 1950, ss. 47 & 56) (paras 32 & 41). [64] Dalam kes ini, tempoh masa untuk “Perjanjian Tersebut” dimuktamadkan tidak dinyatakan. Terdapat tempoh 5 tahun ditulis dalam “Perjanjian Tersebut”. Walaupun begitu, dari tingkahlaku kedua-dua pihak menunjukkan masa bukanlah intipati kontrak. Defendan tidak pernah meminta Plaintif keluar dari “Rumah Tersebut”. Plaintif juga telah bebas tinggal dan melaksanakan tanggungjawab Plaintif seperti dipersetujui kedua-dua pihak. [65] Oleh demikian, masa bagi “Perjanjian Tersebut” telah dilanjutkan (enlarged), Selepas 15 tahun, secara tiba-tiba, Defendan telah menukar milik “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Pihak Ketiga tanpa memaklumkan Plaintif apatah lagi berbincang semula dengan Plaintif. [66] Ini adalah suatu tindakan tidak wajar walaupun Defendan selaku tuan rumah berdaftar bagi “Rumah Tersebut”. Menurut kes DAMANSARA REALTY BHD di atas, apabila wujud keadaan sebegini, Plaintif berhak menamatkan kontrak dan menuntut gantirugi bagi kehilangan yang telah beliau alami. S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 [67] Akhirnya, Mahkamah membuat keputusan dan dapatan bahawa Plaintif adalah pihak yang teraniaya dalam tindakan ini. “Perjanjian Tersebut” telah tidak dapat dimuktamadkan. Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian dan Plaintif harus dipampas semula bagi kerugian yang telah ditanggung sepanjang tempoh “Perjanjian Tersebut”. [68] Oleh demikian, setelah meneliti semua keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit, hujahan dan otoriti kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif seperti di Lampiran 1 seperti berikut: i) Satu deklarasi bahawa perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8/4/2004 adalah perjanjian sah dan mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan secara kontraktual; ii) Satu deklarasi bahawa terdapat kemungkiran Perjanjian Jual Beli Rumah bertarikh 8/4/2004 yang nyata oleh Defendan apabila Defendan menjualkan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Pihak Ketiga selepas pembayaran penuh oleh Plaintif bagi “Rumah Tersebut”; iii) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah melakukan satu tort tipu daya yang nyata terhadap Plaintif apabila Defendan enggan menukar nama bagi pemilikan “Rumah Tersebut” kepada anak Plaintif dan memasuki perjanjian dengan Pihak S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 Ketiga pada 13/6/2019 walaupun kesemua pembayaran bagi “Rumah Tersebut” telah selesai dibuat oleh Plaintif; iv) Akibat kemungkiran perjanjian bertarikh 8/4/2002 oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif, Defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif Gantirugi Khas sebanyak RM245,390.71 iaitu jumlah yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif bagi Harga Belian “Rumah Tersebut”, Jumlah Bayaran Bulanan dan Tebus Hutang Rumah Tersebut; ix) Faedah penghakiman sebanyak 5% setahun bermula dari tarikh pemfailan Writ sehingga penyelesaian penuh; x) Kos tindakan ini; Sekian untuk pertimbangan YAH. Disediakan oleh: Sazlina Safie ………………… Sazlina Bt Safie Hakim Sesyen, Mahkamah Sesyen 3 Sivil, Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Tarikh :5/2/2024 S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 PEGUAMCARA PLAINTIF: PN. NURUL ATIQAH BINTI BADRUL HISHAM [TETUAN TENGKU AMALIN & FAIZI] PEGUAMCARA DEFENDAN: EN. NASRUL HADI BIN MAT SAAD [TETUAN ADNAN SHARIDA & ASSOCIATES] S/N fCNV7txr8kKQqBGPzEqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019

PLAINTIF AINUN MAZIYAH BINTI HASSAN DEFENDAN 1. ) AWANG @ HAMZAH BIN DAUD 2. ) TENGKU WAJIHAH BINTI RAJA HARUN 3. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

sama ada ujudnya perjanjian lisan dan/atau perjanjian bertulis bertarikh 18.12.2016 (PJB) antara Plaintif dan Defendan 1 bagi Hartanah Tersebut dengan harga RM140,000 bagi 3/10 bahagian.(ii) sama ada harga jual beli Hartanah Tersebut sebanyak RM140,000 adalah harga semasa dan/atau harga munasabah bagi keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa semasa PJB dibuat.(iii) sama ada Plaintif telah diperdayakan, ditipu dan/atau disalah arah oleh Defendan 1 dengan secara sengaja di atas jual beli bagi Hartanah Tersebut.(iv) sama ada pendaftaran pindah milik yang dibuat oleh Plaintif bagi kesemua bahagian tanahnya dalam Hartanah Tersebut di hadapan Defendan 3 kepada penerima milik Defendan 1, sah dan berkuatkuasa sebagaimana Kanun Tanah Negara yang tidak boleh disangkal.(v) sama ada Plaintif dan suaminya telah membuat ugutan tembak dan cedera kepada Defendan 1 dan keluarganya mengenai jual beli Hartanah Tersebut.(vi) sama ada Defendan 1 adalah pemilik berdaftar yang sah yang tidak boleh disangkal melalui pendaftaran pindah milik yang sah sebagaimana Kanun Tanah Negara.(vii) sama ada Defendan 2 telah memenuhi obligasi statutori dalam memproses borang pindah milik (Borang 14A) bertarikh 4.5.2017.(viii) sama ada Defendan 2 bertanggungjawab dari segi undang-undang untuk memberikan penerangan bagi tujuan penyempurnaan borang pindah milik (Borang 14A) bertarikh 30.3.2017.(ix) sama ada Plaintif mempunyai “caveatable interest” ke atas Hartanah Tersebut setelah menjual dan memindah milik kepada Defendan 1 dengan sempurna.(x) sama ada Plaintif dan Defendan mempunyai hak untuk gantirugi sebagaimana yang diplidkan.

04/02/2024

YA Dato' Roslan Bin Abu Bakar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8bc473aa-82e5-4913-bad7-f2e9fa4a5882&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - DA-21NCVC-7-04-2019 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-21NCVC-7-04/2019 ANTARA AINUN MAZIYAH BINTI HASSAN … PLAINTIF DAN 1) AWANG @ HAMZAH BIN DAUD 2) TENGKU WAJIHAH BINTI RAJA HARUN PENOLONG PENTADBIR TANAH, PEJABAT TANAH DAN JAJAHAN KOTA BHARU 3) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN, NEGERI KELANTAN 4) KERAJAAN NEGERI KELANTAN … DEFENDAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Plaintif dalam kes ini memohon dari mahkamah antara lainnya untuk mendapatkan suatu pengisytiharan bahawa pendaftaran pindah milik 3/10 (5 ekar 320 depa) bahagian tanah yang dikenali sebagai GRN 29932, Lot 932, Mukim Ketereh East (Timur), Jajahan Kota Bharu, Kelantan (selepas ini dipanggil “Hartanah Tersebut”) dari Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. [2] Manakala Defendan 1 memfailkan tuntutan balas terhadap Plaintif menuntut antara lainnya gantirugi am, gantirugi khas dan perintah tegahan kepada suami Plaintif untuk tidak memasuki serta membuat kacau ganggu di Hartanah Tersebut atas alasan Plaintif telah tersalah dan tersilap memfailkan tuntutan ini terhadapnya. [3] Plaintif adalah pemilik asal 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut dan beralamat di A-112, Pondok Haji Hassan, Jalan Melor, Ketereh, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. [4] Defendan 1 adalah pembeli dan mempunyai alamat di Kampong Banggor Lepah, Ketereh, 16450 Kota Bharu. 04/02/2024 09:08:40 DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019 Kand. 77 S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [5] Defendan 2 pula adalah Penolong Pendaftar, Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu dan merupakan agen/pekerja Defendan 4 dan beralamat di Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu, Kelantan. [6] Defendan 3 adalah Pendaftar Hakmilik di Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kelantan dan beralamat di Kompleks Darulnaim, 15503 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. [7] Defendan 4 adalah majikan/prinsipal kepada Defendan 2 dan Defendan 3 dan beralamat di Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Kompleks Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, Blok 2, Aras 1, Kota Darulnaim, 15503 Kota Bharu. Fakta [8] Plaintif adalah pemilik asal 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut dan memaklumkan kepada suaminya ingin menjual Hartanah Tersebut. Selepas mendapat pembeli, Plaintif memasuki suatu perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 18.12.2016 (selepas ini dipanggil “PJB”) dengan Defendan 1. [9] Kedua-dua pihak telah hadir di pejabat Defendan 2 semasa menandatangani borang pindah milik (Borang 14A) di hadapan Defendan 2 pada 30.3.2017. Defendan 1 telah membayar sejumlah RM140,000 sebagai bayaran pembelian dan menjadi pemilik terkini 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut. [10] Plaintif kemudian membuat laporan polis bahawa ujudnya penipuan dalam proses jual beli dan pindah milik Hartanah Tersebut kerana dia berniat untuk menjual seluas 2 ekar sahaja dari keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa, yang dinafikan oleh Defendan 1. Laporan polis juga dibuat oleh Defendan 1 kerana mendakwa terdapat ugutan jenayah oleh Pihak Plaintif. Isu [11] Isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan mahkamah adalah: (i) sama ada ujudnya perjanjian lisan dan/atau perjanjian bertulis bertarikh 18.12.2016 (PJB) antara Plaintif dan Defendan 1 bagi Hartanah Tersebut dengan harga RM140,000 bagi 3/10 bahagian. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (ii) sama ada harga jual beli Hartanah Tersebut sebanyak RM140,000 adalah harga semasa dan/atau harga munasabah bagi keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa semasa PJB dibuat. (iii) sama ada Plaintif telah diperdayakan, ditipu dan/atau disalah arah oleh Defendan 1 dengan secara sengaja di atas jual beli bagi Hartanah Tersebut. (iv) sama ada pendaftaran pindah milik yang dibuat oleh Plaintif bagi kesemua bahagian tanahnya dalam Hartanah Tersebut di hadapan Defendan 3 kepada penerima milik Defendan 1, sah dan berkuatkuasa sebagaimana Kanun Tanah Negara yang tidak boleh disangkal. (v) sama ada Plaintif dan suaminya telah membuat ugutan tembak dan cedera kepada Defendan 1 dan keluarganya mengenai jual beli Hartanah Tersebut. (vi) sama ada Defendan 1 adalah pemilik berdaftar yang sah yang tidak boleh disangkal melalui pendaftaran pindah milik yang sah sebagaimana Kanun Tanah Negara. (vii) sama ada Defendan 2 telah memenuhi obligasi statutori dalam memproses borang pindah milik (Borang 14A) bertarikh 4.5.2017. (viii) sama ada Defendan 2 bertanggungjawab dari segi undang- undang untuk memberikan penerangan bagi tujuan penyempurnaan borang pindah milik (Borang 14A) bertarikh 30.3.2017. (ix) sama ada Plaintif mempunyai “caveatable interest” ke atas Hartanah Tersebut setelah menjual dan memindah milik kepada Defendan 1 dengan sempurna. (x) sama ada Plaintif dan Defendan mempunyai hak untuk gantirugi sebagaimana yang diplidkan. Kes Plaintif [12] Plaintif memaklumkan kepada suaminya (SP3) hasratnya untuk menjual Hartanah Tersebut dengan harga RM140,000 seekar. SP3 memaklumkan pula kepada broker hartanah iaitu SP1 untuk mendapatkan pembeli yang berminat. SP1 berjaya mendapatkan pembeli yang berminat iaitu Defendan 1. [13] Perbincangan telah diadakan antara Plaintif dengan Defendan 1 di mana Defendan 1 bersetuju membeli seluas 2 ekar dengan harga RM280,000 (iaitu RM140,000 seekar). Defendan 1 meminta SP1 S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 menyediakan PJB bagi menjadi bukti bahawa dia akan membayar deposit sebanyak RM10,000. [14] Pada hari PJB ditandatangani iaitu 18.12.2016, Defendan 1 telah membayar deposit sebanyak RM10,000 dan meninggalkan baki RM270,000. Status ini telah dinyatakan dalam PJB. [15] Kemudian Defendan 1 memaklumkan bahawa dia tidak mampu untuk membayar baki tersebut dan meminta untuk membeli satu ekar sahaja dengan harga RM140,000 dan dipersetujui oleh Plaintif. [16] Setelah Defendan membayar baki RM130,000, kedua-dua pihak telah hadir ke pejabat Defendan 2 di mana dokumen pindah milik (Borang 14A) ditandatangani Plaintif dan Defendan 1 dihadapan Penolong Pentadbir Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu (Defendan 3/SD9). [17] Plaintif mengatakan dia tidak arif dalam mengisi Borang 14A dan meminta tunjuk ajar Defendan 1 untuk mengisinya terutamanya dibahagian atau kolum 4 (“Bahagian tanah [jika ada”]) muka surat 4 borang berkenaan. Plaintif mendakwa Defendan 1 menyatakan untuk diisi perkataan “SEMUA” dalam kolum tersebut. Plaintif juga menyatakan dia telah memberitahu Defendan 2 bahawa keluasan untuk jualan adalah 1 ekar tetapi Defendan 2 tidak membuat apa- apa pengiraan. [18] Selepas Borang 14A ditandatangani, Plaintif memberikan wang sebanyak RM1,300 untuk Defendan 1 membuat pindah milik dan bagi mendapatkan geran Hartanah Tersebut. [19] Plaintif cuba menghubungi Defendan 1 berapa minggu selepas itu tetapi gagal. Selanjutnya Plaintif pada 6.5.2018 suatu carian di Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu dibuat dan mendapati kesemua 3/10 bahagian (5 ekar 320 depa) telah dipindah milik kepada Defendan 1. Plaintif menyatakan dia percaya keseluruhannya kepada Defendan 1 tetapi Defendan 1 secara tidak jujur memberikan tunjuk ajar yang tidak betul dalam mengisi kolum 4, muka surat 4, Borang 14A yang mana menyebabkan keseluruhan keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa telah dipindahkan kepada Defendan 1 dengan harga RM140,000 sahaja. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Kes Defendan 1 [20] Pihak Defendan 1 telah diberikan dua kali tarikh untuk memfailkan penghujahan bertulis iaitu sehingga 28.8.2023 dan sekali lagi sehingga 6.12.2023. Setakat 19.12.2023 penghujahan berkenaan belum difailkan. [21] Memandangkan saya akan bersara mulai 1.1.2024 dan mula bercuti pada 22.12.2023, saya menyediakan penghakiman ini berdasarkan penghujahan bertulis Plaintif, Nota Keterangan yang disediakan oleh pihak-pihak dan nota keterangan catitan saya sendiri alam buku kes. Kes Defendan 2, Defendan 3 dan Defendan 4 [22] Pihak Defendan 1 telah diberikan dua kali tarikh untuk memfailkan penghujahan bertulis iaitu sehingga 28.8.2023 dan sekali lagi sehingga 6.12.2023. Setakat 19.12.2023 penghujahan berkenaan belum difailkan. [23] Memandangkan saya akan bersara mulai 1.1.2024 dan mula bercuti pada 22.12.2023, saya menyediakan penghakiman ini berdasarkan penghujahan bertulis Plaintif, Nota Keterangan yang disediakan oleh pihak-pihak dan nota keterangan catitan saya sendiri alam buku kes. Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [24] Setelah mendengar dan meneliti kes dari kesemua pihak dalam perbicaraan ini, saya mendapati dan memutuskan seperti berikut: Terhadap Defendan 1 (a)isu PJB (i) hasrat Plaintif untuk menjual Hartanah Tersebut [25] Plaintif (SP2) telah memaklumkan hasratnya untuk menjual bahagiannya dalam Hartanah Tersebut iaitu seluas 5 ekar 320 depa kepada suaminya (SP3) dengan harga RM140,000 seekar. SP3 kemudiannya memaklumkan pula kepada seorang broker hartanah (SP1) untuk mencari pembeli yang berminat. Saya percaya dan berpendapat dalam memberikan makluman ini kepada SP1, S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 semestinya SP3 akan memberikan butir-butir lengkap Hartanah Tersebut seperti bahagian hakmilik Plaintif (5 ekar 320 depa), harga seekar iaitu RM140,000, kategori tanah, keadaan muka bumi, status pegangan dan sebagainya. Ini adalah butir-butir utama yang perlu diketahui oleh mana-mana broker hartanah (seperti SP1) bagi mencari pembeli yang berminat. [26] Saya juga percaya dan berpendapat butir-butir inilah yang dikemukakan kepada Defendan 1 melalui abang Defendan 1 (SD8) sehingga Defendan 1 berminat untuk membeli seluas 2 ekar dari bahagian Plaintif dalam Hartanah Tersebut. Dengan itu saya berpendapat Defendan 1 pada masa tersebut telah mempunyai pengetahuan berhubung dengan harga RM140,000 seekar seperti yang ditawarkan untuk dijual oleh Plaintif. [27] Atas keinginan untuk membeli tersebut (2 ekar), Defendan 1 telah ke rumah Plaintif sekitar tahun 2016 untuk berbincang. Perbincangan telah berjaya di mana Defendan 1 bersetuju untuk membeli seluas 2 ekar bahagian Plaintif dalam Hartanah Tersebut dengan harga RM280,000 iaitu RM140,000 seekar dan Plaintif pula bersetuju untuk menjualkannya. Keadaan ini telah mengujudkan suatu perjanjian lisan pada masa material. [28] Bagi menjadi bukti bahawa bayaran deposit sebanyak RM10,000 akan dibuat, Defendan 1 telah mengarahkan SP1 menyediakan PJB kerana SP1 adalah broker kepada transaksi tersebut. Disebabkan SP1 seorang yang buta huruf, dia telah meminta seorang lain iaitu pemilik kedai fotostet untuk menyediakannya. Di peringkat ini saya berpendapat SP1 juga telah memberikan butir- butir Hartanah Tersebut (seperti yang dijelaskan di atas sebelum ini) kepada orang tersebut termasuklah kesediaan Defendan 1 untuk membeli 2 ekar tanah dengan harga RM280,000. Melalui butir-butir yang diberikan itulah orang berkenaan menyediakan dokumen PJB. [29] Saya selanjutnya mendapati Defendan 1 telah berpuas hati dengan dokumen PJB ini dan telah ke rumah Plaintif pada 18.12.2016 bagi membayar deposit RM10,000 dan seterusnya menandatangani PJB. Turut hadir pada masa material selain dari Plaintif dan Defendan 1, adalah SP1 dan SP3. Defendan 1 dan Plaintif menandatangani PJB berkenaan dan SP1 juga menandatanganinya sebagai saksi. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [30] Merujuk kepada PJB tersebut (ditandakan sebagai eksibit IdP1 pada awalnya), di muka surat 2, perenggan 1, saya dapati jelas dinyatakan bahawa Plaintif menjual Hartanah Tersebut (bahagiannya) seluas 2 ekar kepada Defendan 1 dengan harga RM280,000. Juga dinyatakan dengan bayaran pendahuluan sebanyak RM10,000, maka bakinya RM270,000 perlu dilunaskan selewat-lewatnya pada 20.3.2017. [31] Dari keterangan tersebut di atas, saya berpuas hati bahawa adalah menjadi hasrat Plaintif untuk menjual Hartanah Tersebut (bahagiannya) dengan harga RM140,000 seekar dan menjualkannya kepada Defendan 1 seluas 2 ekar dengan harga RM280,000. (ii) pembuat PJB (maker) tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi [32] Defendan 1 menghujahkan PJB ini tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan kerana pembuat PJB tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi bagi mengesahkan kesahihan PJB berkenaan. Ini diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 73A, Akta Keterangan 1950: Section 73A. Admissibility of documentary evidence in civil cases, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document and tending to establish that fact shall, on production of the original document, be admissible as evidence of that fact if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) if the maker of the statement either- (i) had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement; or (ii) where the document in question is or forms part of a record purporting to be a continuous record, made the statement (so far as the matters dealt with thereby are not within his personal knowledge) in the performance of a duty to record information supplied to him by a person who had, or might reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of those matters; and S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (b) if the maker of the statement is called as a witness in the proceedings: Provided that the condition that the maker of the statement shall be called as a witness need not be satisfied if he is dead, or unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness, or if he is beyond the seas and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance, or if all reasonable efforts to find him have been made without success. (2) In any civil proceedings, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, order that such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (1) shall be admissible as evidence or may, without any such order having been made, admit such a statement in evidence- (a) notwithstanding that the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness; and (b) notwithstanding that the original document is not produced, if, in lieu thereof, there is produced a copy of the original document or of the material part thereof certified to be a true copy in such manner as may be specified in the order or as the court may approve, as the case may be. (3) Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated, involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish. (4) For the purposes of this section, a statement in a document shall not be deemed to have been made by a person unless the document, or the material part thereof, was written, made or produced by him with his own hand, or was signed or initialed by him, or otherwise recognized by him in writing as one for the accuracy of which he is responsible. (5) For the purpose of deciding whether or not a statement is admissible as evidence by virtue of subsections (1) to (4) , the court may draw any reasonable inference from the form or contents of the document in which the statement is contained, or from any other circumstances, and may, in deciding whether or not a person is fit to attend as a witness, act on a certificate S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 purporting to be the certificate of a registered medical practitioner, and, where the proceedings are with assessors, the court may in its discretion reject the statement notwithstanding that the requirements of this section are satisfied with respect thereto, if for any reason, it appears to it to be inexpedient in the interests of justice that the statement should be admitted. (6) In estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement rendered admissible as evidence by this Act, regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement, and, in particular, to the question whether or not the statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts stated, and to the question whether or not the maker of the statement had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts. (7) For the purpose of any rule of law or practice requiring evidence to be corroborated, or regulating the manner in which uncorroborated evidence is to be treated, a statement rendered admissible as evidence by this Act shall not be treated as corroboration of evidence given by the maker of the statement.” [33] Keterangan dalam kes ini menunjukan semasa Plaintif dan Defendan 1 menandatangani PJB berkenaan pada 18.12.2016, telah hadir tiga orang saksi yang melihat kedua-dua pihak menandatanganinya (saksi mata) iaitu Plaintif sendiri, suaminya (SP3) dan broker hartanah (SP1). Ketiga-tiga mereka ini saya berpendapat mempunyai pengetahuan yang khusus berhubung dengan kandungan PJB tersebut seperti tujuan PJB, subject matter, keluasan tanah yang hendak dijual, harga, bayaran deposit dan sebagainya. Sehubungan itu saya memutuskan keterangan ketiga- tiga saksi ini boleh diterima pakai bagi mengesahkan PJB berkenaan walau pun pembuat PJB tidak dipanggil. Ini selaras dengan keputusan keskes: Sin Kung Logistics (KL) Sdn Bhd v Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd [2019] 10 CLJ 137: “(1) Section 73A of the Evidence Act 1950 clearly gave the court the power to admit the Forms as documentary evidence without calling their makers. Seterusnya saya juga merujuk:- S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [6] Further, Lordship said s.73A of the Evidence Act 1950 allows primary documents to be tendered without the necessity of calling the maker to the court.6” Dali bin Hashim v Abdul Halim bin Mohd Noor [2023] 1 LNS 1538: “[26] SP1 telah mendapati empat tandatangan yang dikatakan ditandatangani oleh Si Mati adalah bukan tandatangan simati setelah pemeriksaan dilakukan. Keterangan ini bertentangan dengan keterangan Defendan Pertama yang mengatakan simati menandatangani di hadapannya. Keterangan pakar tulisan tangan bukan merupakan tandatangan bukan merupakan keterangan yang konklusif kerana ia adalah keterangan berbentuk pendapat. Jika ada keterangan daripada seseorang yanq boleh dipercavai melihat seseorang itu menandatangani sesuatu dokumen maka keterangan orang itu boleh diterima mengatasi keterangan pakar.” (iii) Plaintif menandatangani PJB untuk SP1 sebagai saksi [34] Seperti yang dinyatakan sebelum ini, SP1 adalah seorang buta huruf dan tidak tahu untuk menurunkan tandatangannya pada PJB. Sehubungan itu Plaintif telah menandatanganinya bagi pihak SP1. Keadaan ini telah disaksikan oleh Defendan 1 sendiri dan SP3. Tiada bantahan mana-mana pihak pada masa material. Saya percaya dan berpendapat Defendan 1 sendiri tidak mempunyai bantahan kepada tindakan tersebut kerana dia yakin dan mempercayai SP1 kerana SP1-lah yang memperkenalkan Hartanah Tersebut, membawanya menemui Plaintif, mengarahkan SP1 menyediakan dokumen PJB dan bersetuju dengan kandungan PJB berkenaan. (iv) dakwaan Defendan 1 bahawa tandatangannya pada PJB dipalsukan. [35] Dari rekod Case Management System (CMS), kes ini telah ditangguhkan beberapa kali bagi membolehkan Defendan 1 menghantar PJB ke Jabatan Kimia bagi dibuat analisa berhubung dengan ketulenan tandatangan Defendan 1. Rekod menunjukan permohonan Defendan 1 kali pertama untuk merujuk ke Jabatan Kimia adalah pada 28.7.2019. Sehingga perbicaraan penuh S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 bermula pada 1.8.2022, Defendan 1 masih gagal mengemukakan laporan kimia. [36] Alasan yang diberikan adalah bahawa dia telah menyerahkannya untuk tindakan kepada peguamcaranya. Plaintif telah memberikan kerjasama dengan memberikan dokumen PJB asal kepada Defendan 1 untuk tindakan tersebut tetapi gagal dimunafaatkan olehnya. Saya tidak dapat menerima alasan Defendan 1 ini kerana saya percaya tanggungjawab peguam adalah untuk mematuhi arahan anak guam jika benar arahan tersebut diberikan. [37] Keterangan adalah jelas bahawa tiga orang saksi mata melihat Defendan 1 menandatangani PJB. Saya juga berpendapat keterangan saksi-saksi mata ini adalah mencukupi dan mengatasi keterangan dari laporan kimia (prinsip kes Dali bin Hashim v Abdul Halim bin Mohd Noor [supra]). Dengan itu saya memutuskan Defendan 1 telah menurunkan sendiri tandatangannya pada PJB. [38] Oleh itu saya juga tidak dapat menerima akuan bersumpah abang Defendan 1 iaitu SD8 yang mengikrarkan bahawa Defendan 1 tidak menandatangani PJB. SD8 adalah saksi Defendan 1 yang hadir memberikan keterangan bersumpah dalam mahkamah. Oleh itu keterangannya adalah tertakluk pada soal balas dan juga terhadap keterangan-keterangan lain yang dikemukakan. (v) perbezaan kepada nama Defendan 1 [39] Defendan 1 menghujahkan namanya seperti dalam kad pengenalan adalah “Awang @ Hamzah bin Daud”. Dalam PJB pula dicatitkan namanya sebagai “Awang Hamzah bin Daud”. Namun nombor kad pengenalannya adalah sama iaitu 590924-03-5477 dan diakui benar olehnya. [40] Saya berpendapat ini bukanlah suatu isu kerana berdasarkan keseluruhan fakta dan keterangan, Defendan 1 adalah penama yang terlibat dalam transaksi jual beli Hartanah Tersebut dan bukannya seorang individu lain. Oleh itu saya memutuskan kedua- dua nama tersebut adalah merujuk kepada Defendan 1. (vi) Defendan 1 tidak berada di rumah Plaintif pada 18.12.2016 untuk menandatangani PJB. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [41] Defendan 1 menghujahkan dia berada di Tanah Merah pada masa material kerana bertugas sebagai ahli jawatankuasa untuk suatu majlis sekolah (jamuan akhir tahun). Defendan 1 mengemukakan saksi SD2 iaitu Guru Besar sekolah tempat Defendan 1 bekerja bagi mengesahkan kehadiran Defendan 1 dalam majlis tersebut. Keterangan menunjukan SD2 hanya mula bertugas di tempat kerja yang sama dengan Defendan 1 pada tahun 2018 sedangkan majlis tersebut diadakan pada tahun 2016. SD2 hanya bergantung kepada kad perakam waktu kerja Defendan 1 bertarikh 18.12.2016 bagi mengesahkan perkara tersebut (eksibit “D6”). [42] Defendan juga mengemukakan SD3 yang juga rakan sekerja sekolah berkenaan bagi mengesahkan kehadiran Defendan 1 dalam majlis tersebut. SD3 juga bergantung kepada kad perakam waktu yang sama (“D6”). Tiada keterangan yang menunjukan SD3 hadir pada petang 18.12.2016 kerana SD3 bukanlah seorang ahli jawatankuasa majlis berkenaan yang akan berlangsung pada malamnya (eksibit “D7”). Sehubungan itu saya menolak keterangan kedua-dua saksi berkenaan. (vii) PJB ujud dan tulen [43] Selain dari keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan di atas yang menunjukan keujudan dan ketulenan PJB berkenaan, saya juga mendapati terdapatnya cop setem cukai RM100 pada PJB tersebut (muka surat 2, PJB). Ini pada pendapat saya membuktikan bahawa kedua-dua pihak adalah serius bagi memastikan transaksi jual beli berkenaan berjalan dan berjaya. Oleh itu saya berpendapat PJB ini adalah ujud dan tulen. [44] Dengan penemuan-penemuan di atas, saya memutuskan menerima dokumen PJB ini sebagai keterangan dalam perbicaraan ini dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit “P1”. (b)Defendan 1 menukar pembelian kepada 1 ekar sahaja. [45] Keterangan (melalui Plaintif, SP1 dan SP3) juga menunjukan bahawa selepas membayar deposit RM10,000 dan perlu membayar baki RM270,000 selewat-lewatnya 20.3.2017, Defendan 1 memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa dia tidak mampu membayar baki tersebut dan memohon untuk membeli seekar sahaja dengan harga RM140,000. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [46] sebagai seorang broker hartanah, perniagaannya bukan dengan Plaintif dan Defendan 1 sahaja tetapi dengan pelanggan lain pada masa material dan masa hadapan. (c)harga Hartanah Tersebut RM140,000 adalah munasabah dan mengikut pasaran semasa [47] Hartanah Tersebut terletak di Mukim Ketereh dalam Jajahan Kota Bharu (salinan geran hartanah ditandakan sebagai eksibit “D14”). Sebahagian besar Jajahan Kota Bharu adalah suatu kawasan bandaran dan mempunyai banyak kemudahan dan infrastruktur. Syarat nyata adalah tanaman getah. Rupa buminya adalah rata (lawatan mahkamah ke Hartanah Tersebut pada 6.7.2023). Juga terdapat jalan masuk ke Hartanah Tersebut yang boleh dilalui kenderaan seperti kereta. Foto yang dikemukakan Defendan 1 tidak menggambarkan keadaan sebenar Hartanah Tersebut. [48] Keluasannya adalah 5 ekar 320 depa dan bagi seekar dapat dipecahkan kepada 6 lot (penjelasan Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu semasa lawatan mahkamah ke tapak berkenaan). Dengan itu sebanyak 30 lot dapat dipecahkan dari keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa tersebut. Keadaan ini menunjukan potensi ekonomi Hartanah Tersebut. [49] Keterangan SD9 iaitu Defendan 3 sendiri (seorang pegawai yang bertugas di pejabat tanah kawasan berkenaan dan biasa dengan hal ehwal hartanah di situ) mengesahkan harga RM140,000 untuk keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa adalah tidak munasabah (semasa di soal balas peguamcara Plaintif, di muka surat 319, Nota Keterangan). [50] Saya juga berpendapat keterangan SP1 iaitu seorang broker hartanah yang arif dengan harga pasaran di kawasan itu adalah suatu panduan yang tepat. [51] Sehubungan itu berdasarkan kepada penemuan tersebut, saya berpendapat harga Hartanah Tersebut sebanyak RM140,000 untuk keluasan 5 ekar 320 depa adalah tidak munasabah dan tidak menggambarkan harga pasaran. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 (d)Notis taksiran pindah milik hartanah dari Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri bertarikh 10.4.2017 [52] Notis ini telah dikemukakan dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit “D18”. Dalam notis ini Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri menilaikan 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut bagi tujuan pencukaian sebanyak RM215,000. [53] Saya mendapati penilaian tersebut adalah berdasarkan kepada dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Defendan 1 sendiri yang jelas bertentangan dengan PJB. Ini dapat dilihat di bahagian lampiran notis berkenaan di Bahagian A(a) dimana dinyatakan “Balasan (seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Surat Cara Pindah Milik)” sebanyak RM70,000. Sedangkan pada hakikatnya tiada catatan jumlah atau jenis balasan yang dicatitkan dalam borang pindah milik (Borang 14A). [54] Sehubungan itu saya berpendapat nilaian 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut sebanyak RM215,000 adalah tidak tepat kerana berdasarkan kepada maklumat yang tidak betul. (e)borang pindah milik Hartanah Tersebut (Borang 14A) [55] Plaintif memberikan keterangan bahawa dia tidak begitu faham untuk mengisi borang pindah milik Hartanah Tersebut (Borang 14A) yang dikemukakan sebagai eksibit “P2”. Dia telah meminta tunjuk ajar (bertanyakan) dari Defendan 1 terutamanya untuk mengisi butiran di kolum 4, muka surat 4 iaitu kolum “Bahagian tanah (jika ada)” kerana Defendan 1 lebih mengetahui darinya. Defendan 1 memberitahu Plaintif untuk mengisi perkataan “SEMUA” pada kolum tersebut. Keterangan ini disokong oleh SP1 dan SD8 yang hadir bersama Plaintif dan Defendan 1 di Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu pada 30.3.2017. [56] Merujuk kepada kolum berkenaan, saya juga mendapati tajuk “Bahagian tanah (jika ada)” telah dicatitkan oleh Plaintif dengan perkataan “SEMUA (324/1080)”. Meneliti kepada kolum ini saya percaya Plaintif mengalami kesulitan serta kekeliruan untuk mengisinya (sebagai seorang biasa yang munasabah) iaitu apa yang perlu ditulis di kolum 4 (“Bahagian tanah [jika ada]”) atau apa maksud sebenar kolum tersebut iaitu sama ada keseluruhan keluasan yang dimiliki Plaintif atau keseluruhan keluasan Hartanah Tersebut atau keluasan yang hendak dijual kepada Defendan 1. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [57] Saya berpendapat dengan kepercayaan Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 yang memaklumkan untuk menulis “SEMUA” yang dikatakan bermaksud keluasan 1 ekar yang hendak dijual, Plaintif telah menulis perkataan tersebut. Tetapi Plaintif juga telah mencatitkan tambahan dengan tulisan “(324/1080). Merujuk kepada cabutan geran hakmilik Hartanah Tersebut (muka surat 1-2 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama), saya dapati terdapat juga endorsan untuk pemilik-pemilik bersama lain seperti 37/1080 bahagian dan 54/1080 bahagian. [58] Saya percaya dan berpendapat, walau pun Plaintif mencatitkan perkataan “SEMUA (324/1080) tetapi dia bermaksud untuk keluasan 1 ekar sahaja. [59] Selain dari itu Borang 14A tersebut juga menjadi suatu instrumen “cacat” (defect) kerana tiada catitan di bahagian balasan (di muka surat 1). Keadaan ini menjadikan ianya tidak sah dan terbatal di bawah Seksyen 26 Akta Kontrak 1950 yang memperuntukan: “Section 26. Agreement without consideration, void, unless - An agreement made without consideration is void, unless - it is in writing and registered (a) it is expressed in writing and registered under the law (if any) for the time being in force for the registration of such documents, and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other; or is a promise to compensate for something done (b) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do; or or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law. (c) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.” [60] Ini selaras dengan keputusan kes-kes: Tuan Mat Tuan Soh & Ors v Zaiton Ismail & Ors [2020] MLRHU 2075: “[23] Isu kedua ialah samada Borang 14A, iaitu Eksh P2 tersebut, adalah cacat atau sebaliknya. Menurut HMS yang bijaksana, Borang 14A tersebut tidak langsung menyatakan apakah balasan di dalam urusniaga tersebut. Setelah merujuk kepada kes Siti Haida binti Ismail v. Siti Maznah binti Yahya & Ors [2018] 5 MLRA 325; [2018] 6 MLJ 701, yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan, HMS yang bijaksana berpandangan bahawa perjanjian tanpa balasan adalah tidak sah mengambil kira s 26 Akta Kontrak 1950.” Siti Haida binti Ismail v Siti Maznah binti Yahya & Ors [2018] 6 MLJ 701: [61] The deceased and the defendant do not stand in a near relationship to each other. It follows that when the transfer in Form 14A is contrary to s 26 of the Contracts Act 1950, consequently, the Form 14A being instruments of transfer prescribed under the NLC was not fit for registration under para (c) of s 301 of the National Land Code for being contrary to s 26 of the Contracts 1950. Further, we hold that as the Form 14A is an instrument which is not fit for registration, the Form 14A is incapable of registration on the basis that it is insufficient or void instrument. Form 14A is null and void for illegality and must be set aside.” [61] Atas penemuan-penemuan tersebut, hakmilik berdaftar Defendan 1 adalah menjadi boleh disangkal di bawah Seksyen 340 kanun Tanah Negara: Section 340. Registration to confer indefeasible title or interest, except in certain circumstances (1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 NOTES Provisions of the National Land Code Modification Paragraph 339(2)(b) In its application to the Federal Territory of Labuan, delete the words “or 265(4)”. — see P.U. (A) 454/2009 (2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible— (a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or (b) where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or (c) where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law. (3) Where the title or interest of any person or body is defeasible by reason of any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2)— (a) it shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body to whom it may subsequently be transferred; and (b) any interest subsequently granted thereout shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body in whom it is for the time being vested: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any title or interest acquired by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person or body claiming through or under such a purchaser. (4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent— (a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or sale conferred by this Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such law; or S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 (b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law. (f)caveatable interest [62] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan-penemuan di atas, saya berpendapat Plaintif mempunyai caveatable interest dengan memasukan kaveat persendirian ke atas Hartanah Tersebut pada 8.5.2018 (eksibit “D21”). Kepentingan untuk mengkaveatkan ini diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 323 (1) Kanun Tanah Negara: “Section 323. Applications for entry of private caveats (1) The persons and bodies at whose instance a private caveat may be entered are— (a) any person or body claiming title to, or any registrable interest in, any alienated land or undivided share in any alienated land or any right to such title or interest; (b) any person or body claiming to be beneficially entitled under any trust affecting any such land or interest; and (c) the guardian or next friend of any minor claiming to be entitled as mentioned in paragraph (b).” [63] Juga telah diputuskan dalam kes Shamsul Azlan Mazelan & 1 lagi v Mohd Nor Hafiz Mohd Nor & 9 yang lain [2023] 1 LNS 331: “[12] Selanjutnya dalam kes Score Options Sdn Bhd v Mexaland Development Sdn. Bhd. [2012] 6 MLJ 475 Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan bahawa tujuan kaveat dimasukkan adalah untuk memelihara kepentingan ke atas suatu Hartanah dan untuk memelihara status quo tanah sementara menunggu penguatkuasaan kepentingan atau hak tersebut. [13] Sementara itu mana-mana orang yang terkilan boleh memohon untuk membatalkan kaveat tersebut di bawah subseksyen 327(1) KTN.” (g)gantirugi am [64] Sepanjang perbicaraan dijalankan, Plaintif telah gagal mengemukakan sebarang keterangan untuk menunjukan bahawa dia mengalami kerugian atau tidak dapat menggunakan secara S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 ekslusif 3/10 Hartanah Tersebut. Semasa lawatan mahkamah ke tapak berkenaan, didapati tiada rumah Plaintif dibina atau ditanam pokok-pokok buah-buahan atau aktiviti menternak binatang. [65] Kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif hanyalah dari segi tekanan dan kesedihan (saya mengambil judicial notice walau pun tiada laporan perubatan dikemukakan) ekoran dari insiden tersebut. Terhadap Defendan 2, Defendan 3 dan Defendan 4 [66] Defendan 2 sebagai penjawat awam pada masa material iaitu berjawatan Penolong Pentadbir Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu bertindak sebagai saksi semasa Plaintif dan Defendan 1 menandatangani borang pindah milik (Borang 14A). [67] Penyaksian tersebut adalah berdasarkan kepada tugas statutori beliau dan berpandukan kepada dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan dihadapannya seperti Borang 14A, kad pengenalan, geran hakmilik dan sebagainya. [68] Oleh itu Defendan 2 dalam menjalankan tugas tanpa dakwaan penyelewengan atau frod, adalah dilindungi di bawah Seksyen 5 dan Seksyen 6 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956. Seksyen tersebut juga melepaskan tanggungan Defendan 3 dan Defendan 4. [69] Sesyen 5 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956 memperuntukan: “Section 5. Liability of the Government in tort. Subject to this Act, the Government shall be liable for any wrongful act done or any neglect or default committed by any public officer in the same manner and to the same extent as that in which a principal, being a private person, is liable for any wrongful act done, or any neglect or default committed by his agent, and for the purposes of this section and without prejudice to the generality thereof, any public officer acting or purporting in good faith to be acting in pursuance of a duty imposed by law shall be deemed to be the agent of and to be acting under the instructions of the Government.” S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [70] Seksyen 6 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956 memperuntukan: “Section 6. Limits of liability of the Government. (1) No proceedings shall lie against the Government by virtue of section 5 in respect of any act, neglect or default of any public officer, unless proceedings for damages in respect of such act, neglect or default would have lain against such officer personally. (2) Any written law which negatives or limits the amount of the liability of any public officer in respect of any act, neglect or default committed by that officer shall, in the case of proceedings against the Government under section 5 in respect of such act, neglect or default of such officer, apply in relation to the Government as it would have applied in relation to such officer if the proceedings against the Government had been proceedings against such officer. (3) No proceedings shall lie against the Government by virtue of section 5 in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person while discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in him, or any responsibilities which he has in connection with the execution of judicial process. (4) No proceedings shall lie against the Government by virtue of section 5 in respect of any act, neglect or default of any public officer, unless that officer was at the material time employed by the Government and paid in respect of his duties as an officer of the Government wholly out of the revenues of the Government, or any fund certified by the appropriate financial officer for the purposes of this subsection or was at the material time holding an office in respect of which the appropriate financial officer certifies that the holder thereof would normally be so paid. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) the expression “appropriate financial officer” means, in respect of the Federal Government, the Minister of Finance, and in respect of the Government of a State, the State Financial Officer, and, in the case of the States of Sabah and Sarawak, the State Minister responsible for finance.” Tuntutan balas Defendan 1 [71] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan-penemuan dalam kes ini, saya berpendapat disebabkan Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan 1, maka Defendan 1 tidak S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 mengalami sebarang kerugian atau kesusahan yang disebabkan oleh Plaintif. Segala kerugian dan kesusahan (jika ada) adalah disebabkan oleh sikap Defendan 1 sendiri yang tidak jujur dan cuba mengambil kesempatan di atas kekhilafan Plaintif. Keputusan [72] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan-penemuan dalam kes ini dan atas imbangan kebarangkalian saya memutuskan seperti berikut: (1)Tuntutan terhadap Defendan 1 (i) tuntutan terhadap Defendan 1 dibenarkan seperti berikut: a) satu periystiharan diberikan bahawa pendaftaran pindah milik 3/10 (5 ekar 320 depa) bahagian Hartanah Tersebut dari Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. b) Defendan 3 diperintahkan dalam masa 30 hari dari tarikh serahan perintah membatalkan pendaftaran hakmilik Hartanah Tersebut dari Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 dan mendaftar semula 1 (satu) ekar dari 3/10 bahagian hartanah tersebut yang kini didaftarkan atas nama Defendan 1 kepada nama Plaintif. c) Defendan 3 membatalkan pendaftaran hakmilik Hartanah Tersebut dari Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 dan mendaftar semula baki lebihan 1 (satu) ekar dari 3/10 bahagian Hartanah Tersebut atas nama Plaintif. d) Defendan 1 diperintahkan membayar gantirugi am sebanyak RM5,000 sahaja. e) gantirugi khas ditanggung sendiri oleh Plaintif. f) faedah 5% setahun dari tarikh pindah milik dari Plaintif kepada Defendan 1 hingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh. g) Defendan 1 diperintahkan membayar kos kepada Plaintif sebanyak RM25,000 dan tertakluk pada 4% alokatur. (2)Tuntutan terhadap Defendan 2, Defendan 3 dan Defendan 4 a) tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan 2, 3 dan 4 ditolak. b) Plaintif diperintahkan membayar kos sebanyak RM15,000 kepada Defendan 2, 3 dan 4 (berkongsi). S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (3)Tuntutan balas Defendan 1 Tuntutan balas Defendan 1 ditolak. Bertarikh: 28 Disember 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Plaintif: Roshayati binti Hassan, Tetuan Norzaimah Roshayati & Co, PT 5327, Jalan Desa Mardhiah Binaraya Jalan Satu, Panchor 16100 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi pihak Defendan 1: Mohd Syukran bin Noordin, Tetuan Syukran Noordin, Lot 3063 (A), Wisma Cikgu Hamid, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kubang Kerian, 16150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi pihak Defendan 2-4: Tuan Adam bin Mohamed @ Mamat, Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Tingkat Bawah, Blok 5, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. S/N qnPEiWCE0m61/LpkpYgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-22NCvC-12-02/2023

PLAINTIF C.V. TIMBER INDUSTRIES SDN BHD DEFENDAN AD CATERING AND CANOPY SDN BHD

Civil Procedure— Pleadings— Striking out counterclaim,— Rules of Court 1996 O 18 r 19(1)— Abuse of process — What constituted abuse of process of court —Whether the counterclaim that seeks to shift the focus of the case away from the Plaintiff's legitimate claims for unpaid rent and vacant possession was abuse of process of court — Rules of Court 1996 O 18 r 19(1)(d) — the categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed and depend on relevant circumstances of the case

03/02/2024

YA Tuan Moses Susayan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1cf83e9b-f381-4926-b91a-1aa7afba8259&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ C V Timber (FINAL).docx 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CIVIL SUIT NO.: AA-22NCVC-12-02/2023 BETWEEN 10 C. V. TIMBER INDUSTRIES SDN BHD ...PLAINTIFF (Company. No.: 198401015761) [128317-P] AND 15 AD CATERING AND CANOPY SDN BHD ...DEFENDANT (Company No.: 201601022427) [1193366-V] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 20 [1] After a careful review of the Statement of Claim, Defence and Counterclaim, Reply, and Defence to Counterclaim, and after considering the submissions from both parties, this court is firmly convinced that the Counterclaim should be struck out. Before 25 setting out the reasons for this decision, I will first set out the contentions of the respective parties. Plaintiff’s case [2] The Plaintiff's case focuses on a rental agreement and subsequent 30 disputes over non-payment of rent and unauthorized alterations to 03/02/2024 23:47:15 AA-22NCvC-12-02/2023 Kand. 29 S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 the property. The agreement, signed on September 28, 2016, was for a period of 36 months, with a specified rental rate. Initially, the Defendant complied by paying a security deposit and the first month's rent. However, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant 35 defaulted on rent payments from the start of the rental period. Furthermore, unauthorized modifications were reportedly made to the premises by the Defendant. [3] When the Defendant continued to default on rent, the Plaintiff, 40 issued a notice of demand on October 4, 2022, terminating the rental agreement and demanding overdue rent and the return of the premises. Despite this notice, the Defendant refused to make payment as demanded and refused to vacate the premises. As a result, the Plaintiff is seeking recovery of the total outstanding rent 45 of RM1,667,354.84 as of 30 September 2022, plus double rent from 1 October 2022, until the premises are returned. This claim also includes demands for utility arrears and other related costs. Defendant’s case 50 [4] The Defendant's case focuses on issues related to the rental agreement, property condition, and financial expenditures. They contend that upon entering the rental agreement, the premises were soon affected by flooding, which led to significant property damage and business losses for the Defendant. The Defendant claims to 55 have informed the Plaintiff about these issues and states that the S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Plaintiff was already aware of the flooding problem but did not disclose this information at the time of the rental agreement. [5] According to the Defendant, there was an understanding with the Plaintiff that rent would not be collected until the flood issues were 60 resolved. Consequently, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent, diverting these funds instead to address the flooding problems. The Defendant also contends that they invested approximately RM3.5 million for the restoration of the premises and flood mitigation efforts. 65 [6] The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff was fully aware of and had implicitly agreed to these restoration efforts, which transformed the premises from an old wooden factory to a modern restaurant and event space. The Defendant also refers to the Plaintiff's failure to demand rent during this period as acknowledgment of these 70 circumstances. [7] The Defendant expresses surprise at receiving a termination notice, given the alleged cooperative relationship with the Plaintiff in resolving the flooding issues and the lack of prior rent demands. The 75 Defendant seeks to have the Plaintiff's claims dismissed and demands compensation for their investment in the premises if required to vacate. They also request a reasonable extension to exercise the option to purchase the premises at an agreed price, in addition to other relevant reliefs deemed fair by the court. 80 S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Plaintiff’s Defence to Counterclaim [8] In response to the Defendant's defence and counterclaim, the Plaintiff denies the allegations and maintain their original stance. 85 The Plaintiff rejects the Defendant's claim of an understanding to withhold rent until the flood issues were resolved. The Defendant was expected to conduct due diligence before entering the rental agreement and had the option to terminate the agreement if the flooding adversely affected their business. 90 [9] The Plaintiff’s leniency shown regarding rent collection was due to the Defendant's financial difficulties, not an agreement to waive or suspend rent collection until the flood issues were resolved. The flood problems are a government and local authority matter, not the 95 Plaintiff's responsibility. The Plaintiff also states that the Defendant had the right to terminate the lease agreement if they found the renovation costs too high, which the Defendant failed to exercise the right. Lack of Merit in Defendant's Counterclaim: 100 [10] The Defendant's counterclaim, which seeks reimbursement for renovation and development expenses on the premises, by not paying a single month rent to the Plaintiff lacks merit. These expenses incurred by the Defendant was for their own business 105 purposes and were unrelated to any obligations or agreements with S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 the Plaintiff. This assertion establishes that there is no reasonable cause of action by the Defendant against the Plaintiff. [11] In the case of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan 110 Banking Corporation Bhd (1993) 3 MLJ 36, it was held that the court should only entertain claims or counterclaims that are not "obviously unsustainable" and should not be used to divert attention from the core issues. In this case, the Defendant's counterclaim lacks merit as it does not have a reasonable cause of action against 115 the Plaintiff. Scandalous and Vexatious Counterclaim: [12] The Defendant's counterclaim is scandalous and vexatious because it attempts to divert attention from the core issues of rent arrears and 120 vacant possession. The Defendant's counterclaim, which is essentially a claim for business expenses unrelated to the lease agreement, is presented in a way that is intended to confuse the court and delay the proceedings. This misuse of the counterclaim process undermines the integrity of the court proceedings. 125 [13] In the case of Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin (1998) 1 SLR 374, the Singapore Court of Appeal stated that an "abuse of the process of the Court" includes considerations of public policy and the interests of justice. It signifies that the court's 130 process should not be abused and that counterclaims should not be S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 used in a manner that is scandalous, vexatious, or intended to delay proceedings. This case supports the Plaintiff's argument regarding the scandalous and vexatious nature of the Defendant's counterclaim. Held (4) of the case states as follows: 135 “(4) The term, ‘abuse of the process of the Court’, in O 18 r 19(1)(d) had been given a wide interpretation by the courts. It included considerations of public policy and interests of justice. This term signified that the process of the court had to be used bona fide and properly and was not to be abused. The categories 140 of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process were not closed and would depend on all the relevant circumstances of the case” Abuse of Court Process: 145 [14] The Defendant's counterclaim constitutes an abuse of the court process. By making a counterclaim that seeks to shift the focus of the case away from the Plaintiff's legitimate claims for unpaid rent and vacant possession, the Defendant is misusing the legal process for its own advantage. This abuse of the court process undermines 150 the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal system. [15] In the case of Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin (supra), the court stated that the categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process were not closed and 155 would depend on all the relevant circumstances of the case. S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Conclusion [16] Based on the grounds mentioned above, this court finds that the Defendant's counterclaim lacks a reasonable cause of action, is 160 presented in a manner that is scandalous and vexatious, and constitutes an abuse of the court process. Therefore, the court allows the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 13 that the Defendant's counterclaim dated 13 June 2023, be struck out with costs of RM2000.00. 165 Date : 29th January 2024 170 Moses Susayan MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 175 at Ipoh, Perak 180 S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Parties: For Plaintiff : Lim Wai Hung Advocates and Solicitors 185 [Messrs Rusnah Loh Ng & Co.] Ipoh, Perak For Defendant : Saranjit Singh Advocates and Solicitors 190 [Messrs Saranjit] Ipoh, Perak (Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision) 195 Headnotes: Civil Procedure— Pleadings— Striking out counterclaim,— Rules of Court 1996 O 18 r 19(1)— Abuse of process — What constituted abuse of process of court —Whether the counterclaim that seeks to shift the focus of the case away from the Plaintiff's legitimate claims for unpaid rent and 200 vacant possession was abuse of process of court — Rules of Court 1996 O 18 r 19(1)(d) — the categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed and depend on relevant circumstances of the case S/N mz74HIHzJkm5Ghqnr7qCWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-11BNCvC-25-08/2022

PERAYU TAN NGEE HIONG RESPONDEN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Civil Justice - claim for electricity supply - temperance of meter allegedly by defendant - defendant took vacant possession later than the date specified in claim - lack of written statement by the plaintiff pursuant to subsection 38 (4) Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Act 447) - appellate intervention warranted - appeal allowed to the extent when defendant took vacant possession and closed his account with TNB, the plaintiff.

03/02/2024

YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=03060b0c-3e03-4c66-9c36-fd222780c55d&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF DARUL EHSAN SELANGOR CIVIL APPEAL NO. BA – 11BNCVC – 25 – 08/2022 BETWEEN TAN NGEE HIONG (IC NO. 690915 – 01 – 5499) AND TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT 200866 – W) 03/02/2024 15:46:58 BA-11BNCvC-25-08/2022 Kand. 37 S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Preface and Background Facts [1] This case pertains an appeal after an open court trial at the magistrate’s court Shah Alam. Parties are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as they were described so at the trial. The plaintiff being Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) and Tan Ngee Hiong is the defendant. In short, the magistrate had allowed the claim by the plaintiff against the defendant for loss of revenue for electricity supply resulting from tampering of meter allegedly by the defendant. [2] The defendant is the registered customer of the plaintiff with an account number 6141 2100 7959 4705. He has received electricity supply at the premises no. 6 – 1, Jalan Hillpark 11/5, Pusat Perdagangan Hillpark, 42300 Puncak Alam, Selangor. [3] The material dates arising in this case are vital, which are the following: • The defendant had received vacant possession of the premises on 18.7.2018. • He then entered into a tenancy agreement with a company named Magtrix Sdn Bhd (No. 1272904 – X) (Magtrix) on 31.7.2018. S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 • The plaintiff had carried out inspection on the said premises in the absence of the defendant on 23.1.2019. • It was at that inspection; the plaintiff had found that the meter has been tampered. • Pursuant to that, the plaintiff had instituted a claim against the defendant for the sum of RM80,148.65, alleged to be loss of revenue for the supply of electricity to the defendant for a period of time from 29.5.2018 until the date of inspection on 23.1.2019. • It is noteworthy, the tenancy agreement with Magtrix was only entered on 31.7.2018. • Therefore, for the period of time from 29.5.2018 until 30.7.2018, the defendant had no control over the said premises, although it had taken vacant possession of it on 18.7.2018. • Despite the above, the magistrate had allowed the claim by plaintiff for the said amount with costs of RM4000. • Being dissatisfied, the defendant had appealed to this court for a remedy arising out of an appellate intervention, if warranted so. • As this court had found the decision of the magistrate to be plainly wrong, the appeal by the plaintiff was allowed on 29.3.2023 and the decision of the magistrate was set aside to the extent that the claim by the plaintiff is only allowed for an amount of S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 RM11,671.45 for the period of computation from 18.7.2018 until 20.8.2018 with costs of RM5000 to the defendant for this appeal. • In view of the amount of claim involved, the plaintiff has to seek leave of the Court of Appeal (COA) to appeal against the decision of this court to the COA. Such leave was only granted on 6.9.2023. Consequently, a notice of appeal was lodged against the decision of this court on 8.9.2023. The Law applicable [4] To recover loss of revenue resulting from meter tampering the law as provided for in subsection 37(1), (3) and (14) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Act 447) applies. Those provisions deal with criminal offences, criminalizing the act of temperance of the meter supplied by the plaintiff to its customer, including the defendant. Subsection 37 (1) provides that any person who tampers with any installation or part thereof is said to have committed an offence, which upon conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding RM1 million or to a period of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both. Specifically, on meter temperance subsection 37(14) provides that any person who damages or removes any meter or other instrument used on or in connection with any licensed installation for recording the output or consumption of electricity commits an S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or to a period of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both. [5] Pursuant to subsection 38 (3) the plaintiff may require the defendant to pay for the loss of revenue due to the offence committed under subsection 37 (1), (3) and (14) and any reasonable expenses directly incurred by the plaintiff, including expenses incurred in respect of the reconnection of electricity in the manner as have been directed by the Energy Commission. There is a proviso to subsection 38 (3) which is inapplicable to the fact situation of the case as the plaintiff had proceeded with a claim against the defendant for loss of revenue and expenses in the magistrate’s court. But subsection 38 (4) has a vital bearing on the claim by the plaintiff against the defendant, which provides as the following: 38 (4) A written statement by an employee of the licensee duly certified by the licensee or any person authorized by the licensee specifying – (a) the amount of loss of revenue or the expenses incurred by the licensee; (aa) the manner of calculation of the loss of revenue and items of expenses; and (b) the person liable for the payment thereof. shall be prima facie evidence of the payment that has to be made by the consumer under subsection (3) and such written statement shall be S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 notified to the consumer within fourteen working days or any period as extended with the written approval of the Commission after the disconnection. (emphasis is mine) The licensee referred to in subsection 38 (4) is TNB, the plaintiff in this case and the defendant is the consumer, who is being sued for loss of revenue. Therefore, the law makes it so clear as crystal that there must be prima facie evidence that the defendant must have committed a criminal offence under subsection 37 (1), (3) and/or (14) of Act 447 before the plaintiff can issue a written statement. [6] A decided authority by the Court of Appeal (COA) in the case of Nikmat Maju Development Sdn Bhd v TNB (2015) 4 MLJ 502, which serves as binding precedent on this court pertains determination of a dispute, if the plaintiff has proven its claim against the defendant. It decides the following at paragraph 26 of the judgment. I have broken it down into separate paragraphs for ease of understanding and appreciation of the said judgment. First of all, there has to be sufficient credible evidence of the commission of any of the offences under s 37. This is not something that can be conveniently assumed in the absence of convincing evidence where the burden of proof on the civil standard lies on the plaintiff. S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 There must be evidence of tampering to serve as a foundation of the loss of revenue claim. The second issue that immediately intrudes is: who tampered with the meter installation? On the facts of this appeal, did the evidence point to the offence being committed by the appellant, or some other person? If the tampering was done by a third party, can the appellant be held fully accountable just on the basis that the appellant has reaped a benefit from it as against loss suffered by the respondent? Thirdly, if tampering is proven, whether by the owner of the premises or a third party has the calculation of losses been properly done? In other words, has the quantum of losses been established and proven on a balance of probabilities? (emphasis is mine) Distilled from the decided case by the COA, there has to be following elements fulfilled in order for the plaintiff to mount a civil claim for loss of revenue for supply of electricity from the defendant, which are: • there has to be sufficient credible evidence of the commission of a criminal offence as catered for in section 37 (1), (3) and (14) of Act 447; • The real person who tampered with the meter installation; and • If tampering is proven, has the quantum of losses been established and proven on a balance of probabilities? S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Decision by the magistrate [7] The decision of the magistrate is anchored on no consideration on the following material facts: • That the defendant had received vacant possession of the premises only on 18.7.2018; • Therefore, a claim by the plaintiff for loss of revenue cannot be maintained and allowed from the date 29.5.2018. [8] Flowing from the above misconception, the magistrate had gone on further to decide that the plaintiff is only required to offer proof on a balance of probabilities that an offence had been committed by the defendant pursuant to subsection 37 (1), (3) and (14) of Act 447. Albeit applying the correct burden of proof bestowed by the law on the plaintiff, the magistrate had erred in fact by concluding that there was tampering of meter at the said premises and that the defendant is responsible to pay, simply because there was a direct connection to the Distribution Board at the said premises. The wiring was hidden in a hole in the pedestrian pathway in front of the said premises and that the back billing calculation using the Beban Kehendak Maksima (BKM) method is in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Energy Commission, without any consideration of the salient fact as testified by witness SP3 for the S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 plaintiff, that there is a difference between the real current and the recorded current for the red phase, blue phase and yellow phase that resulted in the failure to record the actual use of electricity at the said premises. Findings by this court [9] One serious error committed by the magistrate, rendering her decision to be flawed on the facts of the case and the law applicable, is that upon arriving at a conclusion on the correct standard of proof on a balance of probabilities which is applicable, the magistrate had erred when she concluded that there was a direct connection to the Distribution Board coupled with the fact the plaintiff had offered prima facie evidence, sustaining liability on the defendant. It is so, as she did not direct her judicial mind to the following salient issues: • Who had tampered with the meter installation, was it the defendant when he had only taken vacant possession of the said premises on 18.7.2018; entered into a tenancy agreement with Magtrix only on 31.7.2018; and inspection of the said premises was carried out by the plaintiff on 23.1.2019 in the absence of the defendant. Thus, was the quantum of losses purportedly suffered by the plaintiff established against the defendant? S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [10] It is an undisputed fact that the defendant had occupied the premises only at the material dates referred to above. It is also noteworthy, the meter box at the said premises is placed in a public walkway, thus opening way for its temperance by anyone other than the defendant. Therefore, is the defendant liable to pay to the plaintiff an amount of RM80,148.65, without establishing the quantum of losses in respect of the loss of revenue as necessitated by subsection 38 (4) of Act 447. It seems that the magistrate had referred to decision by the High Court in the case of Ooi Poh Chin v TNB (2016) MLJU 814 which had decided, regardless of whether the defendant had tampered with the meter, he is still liable as account holder as he is the registered consumer who has a contract with TNB for supply of electricity, which is far-fetched and against the grain of the decision by the COA in the case of Nikmat Maju Development. [11] It is also found to be wrong that the sum of RM80,148.65 was calculated from the date 29.5.2018, which was premised on generation of input from the plaintiff’s system. This evidence was not plucked from thin air but as testified by the plaintiff’s own witness SP1. He was also unsure of the amount of bill for the month of May 2018 and January 2019 but had been forthcoming to admit and S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 confirm that the calculation of the sum of RM80,148.65 is premised on a template provided by TNB, the plaintiff. Hence, whether the calculation for quantum of losses was properly and accurately done is a pivotal question to be asked by the magistrate in terms of the claim against the defendant. As the claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant has got to be not only correct but reasonable, it is the duty of the plaintiff on a balance of probabilities to explain, elaborate and state the mode and manner by which the quantum of losses was calculated using the BKM method and not merely to state that the calculation was auto generated by the TNB system. Further, it is also not possible and reasonable for the plaintiff to have calculated the loss of revenue when there was no consumption of electricity by the defendant until the occupation of the said premises by Magtrix, his tenant. Further, to calculate vide back billing was erroneous, as it has to be based on the actual number of days and not to unfairly bill the defendant for consumption of electricity from 29.5.2018 to 23.1.2019, when as at 29.5.2018, the defendant is yet to receive vacant possession of the said premises. There is no clear explanation by the plaintiff’s witnesses on how the back billing was computed other than merely stating the calculation was auto generated. As such, considering the salient fact that the defendant had only received vacant possession of the said premises on S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 18.7.2018, the sum of RM80,148.65 claimed by the plaintiff is erroneous and unsupported by cogent proof as required under subsection 38 (4) of Act 447 which is supported by the decision of the COA in the case of Nikmat Maju Development. Further to that another decision of the COA in the case of Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd v TNB (2014) 6 MLJ 461 equally lends support too. In that case it was also decided that it is for the plaintiff TNB to prove liability and quantum for the loss of revenue, and that is the ultimate burden resting on the plaintiff. It went further on to decide, provisions of Act 447 provide aid to TNB to prove both the elements of liability and quantum of the loss of revenue, its success or failure is still premised on the state of pleadings and the quality of the evidence marshalled and presented by TNB which in that case disclosed shortcomings. Likewise, in the present case, wherein the trial magistrate when arriving at the finding on liability and quantum of loss of revenue, did not consider the principle of law entrenched in both the decisions of the COA as well as the legal provision as in section 38 (4) of Act 447. Thus, her finding stands out like a sore thumb to be erroneous and plainly wrong, which has to be corrected on appeal. [12] A further observation in this case against the defendant, is that there was in fact closure of the TNB account by the defendant on S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 20.8.2018. This piece of evidence is not plucked from thin air, but acknowledged and affirmed by the plaintiff TNB vide its e mail at tnbcareline on 21.8.2018 as a reply to the defendant’s e mail via yahoo.com. This piece of evidence makes it more cogent and explicit that that there was a closure of the TNB account on 20.8.2018. Confirmation of this vital piece of information is via an authorization slip to close account no. 2100 7959 4705 on 13.8.2018 with the receipt stamp of the plaintiff TNB on the said slip. That amounts to corroboration of the oral evidence by the defendant, which was offered by the defendant on the closure of the TNB account. That per se, satisfies the burden of proof resting on the defendant to have proven to the trial court that the relevant account with the plaintiff TNB had been closed since 20.8.2018. The testimony of the defendant comes within the ambit of section 60 (1) (a) and (c) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA/Act 56) and production of the documentary proof to corroborate his testimony is admissible under section 60 (3) EA. In the absence of evidence to the contrary by the plaintiff, that piece of corroborated evidence serves as the best evidence by the defendant in support of its closure of the TNB account, pursuant to section 101 EA. Once again, this pivotal point on closure of the TNB account by the defendant was not considered at all by the magistrate trying this case. It was erroneously left out S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 amounting to a misdirection on her part, warranting correction on appeal. [13] Another point worthy of consideration which favors the defendant is the fact that when the inspection of the premises was carried out by the plaintiff, the defendant or his representative was absent. There is also no notice intimating to the defendant or his representative to be present at the said inspection. This goes against the grain of the procedure laid down by the guidelines of the Energy Commission which has to be strictly followed by the plaintiff TNB as the licensee under the law to wit Act 447. Non-compliance with the said procedure tantamount to a breach of natural justice, whereby the defendant who stands condemned for non-payment of the loss of revenue for the alleged meter temperance was not duly notified or informed of the decision by the plaintiff to inspect his premises, but its outcome forms the premise of the claim brought by the plaintiff against him for an amount which was incorrectly and unreasonably billed. Conclusion [14] Reading subsection 38 (4) of Act 447, it is apparent that the plaintiff has to offer a written statement containing the outcome of the inspection on the defendant’s premises which had taken place in his S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 absence. The written statement would amount to a testament of the charges incurred by the defendant resulting from meter temperance allegedly interfered by the defendant. Argument by the plaintiff TNB that the notice of demand sent to the defendant before the court action tantamount to be a written statement pursuant to section 38 (4) of Act 447 is a bizarre argument. Unlike a written statement, a notice of demand only serves as a letter by which the plaintiff explains its legal position in this dispute and requests the defendant to take some action and in the present case to make the payment due. On the other hand, the written statement as required under the law has to contain statement of facts which comes before the court action, where the defendant would be put on alert on the charges incurred by him resulting from the alleged meter temperance. With that early information to the defendant, he would be in a position to reply and alert the plaintiff TNB that he has objection to the charges levied on him upon inspection at his own premises in his absence. This is case where the inspection which had taken place in the absence of the defendant is further compounded by an absence of a written statement as required under the law, which renders the claim by the plaintiff to be less probable, as opposed to the case of the defendant who had ventilated his arguable defence categorically S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 rendering sufficient proof on a balance of probabilities, tilting the case in his favor. [15] In the upshot, for the reasons given above, this court finds the decision of the magistrate to be plainly wrong warranting appellate intervention. (See the decision of the Federal Court in the case of UEM Group Berhad v Genisys Integrated Pte Ltd (2010) 9 CLJ 785). However, all is not lost for the plaintiff, as the defendant has still got to pay for the electricity supply at his premises for the period he stands occupying it, be it by him individually or his tenant. Therefore, the claim by plaintiff is allowed only to a certain extent in the following terms: 29.3.2023 For decision Brief grounds of judgment read out. 1. Claim by the plaintiff against defendant is for non-payment for utilization of electricity supplied by the defendant. 2. The claim was allowed with interest and costs. Amount allowed is for a sum of RM80,148.65. 3. The magistrate had allowed the claim pursuant to the facts of case as well as evidence proffered by both plaintiff and defendant. 4. She did not err in fact and law, when the claim by plaintiff was allowed, premised on her finding that the defendant was in possession of the premises; he was the registered consumer for the said premises and the utility electricity bills were registered in his name. However, there has been an error on computation of the amount to be paid. S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 5. The defendant had adduced evidence to demonstrate that he only took vacant possession of the impugned premises on 18.7.2018. He let out the premises for rent to the third party, against whom judgment in default had been obtained by the defendant, with effect from 31.7.2018. His electricity utility account with the defendant was closed on 20.8.2018. 6. Against that strands of material evidence, the magistrate had still allowed the claim for the period of computation from 29.5.2018 to 23.1.2019. 7. On that score, and on a balance of probabilities, the period of computation ought to have been from the time the defendant took vacant possession of the premises from 18.7.2018 until he closed his account with the plaintiff on 20.8.2018. 8. Hence the period of computation has to be from 18.7.2018 until 20.8.2018. The plaintiff has to now inform the court on the amount to be paid for that period of computation. 9. In the upshot, appeal by defendant is allowed and the claim allowed is varied to the amount to be calculated for the period of computation from 18.7.2018 until 20.8.2018. 10. Amount - for plaintiff to revert. 11. Costs to be decided on 11.4.2023. 12. Parties to revert on 11.4.2023 as to the amount for a final closure of the matter. 11.4.2023 1. Appeal by defendant is allowed and the claim allowed is varied to the amount to be calculated for the period of computation from 18.7.2018 until 20.8.2018. 2. Parties to revert on the amount for a final closure of the matter. 3. Counsel for plaintiff/respondent reverts - amount to be paid by defendant is RM11,671.45. 4. Costs – counsel for appellant prays for costs of RM6000, for the appeal. Counsel for respondent prays for costs of RM4000. S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Court allows costs of RM5000. Appeal allowed. Extent of claim reduced. Dated 3 February 2024 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan Judge, High Court Apple Teoh Ee-Shone of Messrs. Neo & Partners, counsel for defendant/appellant. Ashley Lim Suat Leng with Siti Fatimah Azaharah Abdul Hamid of Messrs. SN Fam & Co, counsel for plaintiff/respondent. S/N DAsGAwMZkycNv0iJ4DFXQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12BNCC-39-10/2022

PERAYU 1. ) SYBER QUEST AEROSPACE SDN BHD 2. ) AMROU BAKOUR RESPONDEN PEISCHL PHILIPP

Appeal from Sessions Court – Failure by the Sessions Court Judge to consider fully the defence of money lending that was put up by the defendant - The decision should have been a “speaking judgment” to enable the appealing Court to understand the reason why the said defence was rejected in accordance with the current legal position stated by the superior courts – The court has power to direct the Sessions Court Judge to rehear the arguments and decide on this issue – This Court leaves this issue to be decided solely by the learned Sessions Court Judge based on the evidence before her - Suitable case for the case to be remitted back to the Sessions Court Judge to reconsider this defence as she had the opportunity to have seen the witnesses and this defence should have been fully ventilated by her in the written judgment.

02/02/2024

YA Dato' Indera Mohd Arief Emran Bin Arifin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f5d895f9-4ddb-44a0-8ba2-87a1588546ac&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) APPEAL NO.: WA-12BNCC-39-10/2022 BETWEEN 1. SYBER QUEST AEROSPACE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1113528-K) 2. AMROU BAKOUR (NRIC NO.: 830814-88-5059) APPELLANTS AND PESICHEL PHILIPP (PASSPORT NO.: U1907487) RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Appellants have appealed against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 11-10-2022 that was delivered after a full trial. 2. This Court having considered the record of appeal, the submissions filed by the litigants and after hearing counsels finds that this matter should be resent back to the Sessions Court for a rehearing of the issues 02/02/2024 15:14:18 WA-12BNCC-39-10/2022 Kand. 42 S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 raised by the Appellant as they were not fully considered by the learned Sessions Court Judge. B. Reasoning of this Court 3. I have considered the decision of the Sessions Court and I find that the learned Judge has failed to consider fully the defence of money lending that was put up by the defendant. 4. In this case, the learned Sessions Court Judge had only dismissed the said defence on the grounds that the agreement mentioned that it was only an investment agreement and did not mention that it was not a loan agreement. Please refer to paragraph 18 of the grounds of the learned Sessions Court Judge. 5. However, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondent, I find that this issue should have been canvassed carefully by the lower Court and reconsidered. The decision should have been a “speaking judgment” to enable this Court to understand the reason why the said defence was rejected in accordance with the current legal position stated by the superior courts. 6. More so when the Appellant’s counsel has shown to me that the Respondent himself has agreed that there was an interest element to the S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 loan agreement that is made up in the said agreement between the parties. This issue has to be deliberated and considered in detail by the learned Sessions Court Judge. 7. When I consider the agreement as a whole, the terms may contain an element of interest, as parties did agree that once the aircraft is sold then the monies to be repaid may include an interest element of 50% from the of the net profit from the sale of the aircraft to the sum of USD 325,000.00. 8. This was not explained or considered by the learned Sessions Court Judge and to dismiss this defence within a single paragraph merely on the ground of what allegedly parties decided to refer to the agreement as an investment agreement is wrong. What the learned Sessions Court Judge should have done is to analyze the defence claimed based on the totality of the evidence before her more so when one has to deal with section 100A of the Money Lenders Act 1951. See Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers & Ors v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd [2023] 10 CLJ 187. 9. I am however not convinced that the appeal should be allowed in full as suggested by the Appellant based on the circumstances of this case. S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 10. However, I find that this case should be remitted back to the Sessions Court Judge and this issue be reconsidered. The Defence of moneylending should be analyzed and reconsidered by the Court below in detail based on the evidence available and heard before her. 11. I make this decision as the learned Sessions Court Judge had the benefit of hearing and seeing the said witness in question and the evidence relied on by the Appellant. She would then be able to ascertain whether the said statement relied on by the Appellant was explained or otherwise and whether the Respondent was in the business of moneylending as suggested by the Appellant. As it stands, this was not explained by the learned Sessions Court Judge, and I find it to be unsatisfactory. 12. I refer to Dr Hari Krishnan & Anor v Megat Noor Ishak Megat Ibrahim [2018] 3 CLJ 427 where Md Raus Sharif CJ held: - Non-speaking Judgment Of The High Court [35] In order to determine whether a judgment is a speaking judgment, one has to look into its contents and decide whether it has sufficient coverage of material facts to enable one to determine the legal issues, with reference to the crucial arguments for and against as raised by the parties. S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 13. I am also guided by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Karen Yap Chew Ling v Binary Group Services Bhd [2023] 7 CLJ 534. 14. Guided on the above, I find that the defence of moneylending should have been dealt with in detail by the learned Sessions Court Judge. The Court below had summarily considered it in a single paragraph without any detail as to the issues raised by the Appellant. This does not warrant a full dismissal of the Respondent’s claim, but I believe warrants this Court to exercise its power to direct the Sessions Court Judge to rehear the arguments and decide on this issue. This does not mean that this Court agrees with the Appellant and this Court leaves this issue to be decided solely by the learned Sessions Court Judge based on the evidence before her. 15. Therefore, I find this is a suitable case for the case to be remitted back to the Sessions Court Judge to reconsider this defence as she had the opportunity to have seen the witnesses and this defence should have been fully ventilated by her in the written judgment. I also do not find it suitable for the case to be retried as that would be a waste of judicial time. I only direct that the defence be considered in detail by the Sessions Court. S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 16. A point that needs to be noted is that during the hearing of this appeal, the Respondent’s counsel was asked whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had dealt with the issue of moneylending in detail and, even he agreed that this was not done by the learned Sessions Court. In view of the said admission, this case is best to be reheard in the interest of justice. The parties will be able to resolve the issues again based on the same evidence before the Sessions Court without the need for a retrial. C. Orders 17. For the above reasons, I allow the Appellant’s appeal, but I send this case back for reconsideration. There is no need for a retrial but only for a reconsideration of the defences raised by the Defendant. No order as to costs. Dated 19th January 2024 Dato’ Indera Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin Judge High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur NCC 5 S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Counsel RS Sodhi for the Appellant Messrs. Sodhi Chambers Advocates & Solicitors Ramesh Sivakumar together with Calvin Lim Sin Guan for the Respondent Messrs. Goik, Ramesh & Loo Advocates & Solicitors S/N ZXY9dtNoESLooehWIVGrA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCvC-2478-08/2022

PEMOHON FLARE BUILDING MATERIALS LLC RESPONDEN PEMBINAAN SPK SDN BHD

The Plaintiff obtained a final UAE Judgment against the company Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd – Abu Dhabi for AED7,719,567.00 equivalent to RM9,375,659.49. After executing the UAE Judgment in Abu Dhabi, the Plaintiff realized part of the judgment sum leaving a balance of AED1,890,453.49 equivalent to RM2,294,896.06. The Plaintiff sought to enforce the balance sum against the Defendant, Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd. The enforcement of the balance sum was done under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (‘REJA 1958) together with interest and also costs. The Court was moved under s 8 REJA 1958 and O.67 and O. 28 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘ROC 2012). But, the Plaintiff sought under common law. The UAE Judgment was tendered as evidence but through an undated supporting affidavit of the Plaintiff. Whether the Plaintiff enforced the UAE Judgment in Malaysia on the correct party or otherwise. Keywords: Reciprocal enforcement of Judgments, final judgment, common law, undated affidavit, identity of defendant

02/02/2024

YA Puan Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ee24cdf6-e78d-4d4d-af4e-b4afce0ab2e4&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022 BETWEEN FLARE BUILDING MATERIALS LLC … PLAINTIFF AND PEMBINAAN SPK SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 122900-W) … DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) A. INTRODUCTION (1) The Plaintiff is a foreign company having its business in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’). As a specialist contractor of building materials, the Plaintiff supplied materials to the company Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd–Abu Dhabi (‘SPK–Abu Dhabi’). The company SPK-Abu Dhabi awarded 5 Letters of Awards to the Plaintiff for the supply of building materials in project development areas namely Al Reem Island, Al Raha Garden and Village 4 of Al Falah 02/02/2024 11:55:14 WA-24NCvC-2478-08/2022 Kand. 62 S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Community all of which are situated in Abu Dhabi. The works were completed by the Plaintiff but progressive payments were inconsistent from SPK–Abu Dhabi. To secure the amount owing, the Plaintiff and SPK–Abu Dhabi signed a Settlement Statement of Account for the balance outstanding of AED7,600,000.00. (2) When SPK–Abu Dhabi failed to honour the settlement, the Plaintiff took to the courts in Abu Dhabi where a final judgment was obtained for the sum of AED7,719,567.00 and interest at 4% per annum calculated on the judgment sum from 22.1.2014 until full realization (‘The Judgment’). The Judgment was dated 22.6.2014. Again, SPK– Abu Dhabi did not pay towards the Judgment. Hence, the Plaintiff took execution proceedings at the Abu Dhabi Execution Department vide Execution No. 1982-2014-T Commercial-MR-T-AD (‘Execution Bond’). (3) The Plaintiff managed to recover a sum of AED6,890,452.00 from SPK–Abu Dhabi leaving an outstanding balance of the judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49. By this time, the Plaintiff found out that SPK-Abu Dhabi had left Abu Dhabi and abandoned its business there. Due to S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 this, the Plaintiff proceeded to make the claim against the Defendant on the same of cause of action as in the Judgment in the Malaysian jurisdiction. (4) Both the Abu Dhabi Judgment and the Execution Bond are collectively referred to as the ‘Abu Dhabi Judgment’. B. The Originating Summons (5) The Plaintiff filed the Originating Summons on 29 July 2022 (‘OS’) (Enclosure 1) with the Supporting Affidavit which was undated but filed on 11 August 2022 (Enclosure 3). The Plaintiff moved this Court on s 8 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA 1958), O. 67 and O. 28 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘ROC’). In essence, the Plaintiff asks for an Order that judgment to be entered against the Defendant based on the Abu Dhabi Judgment on 22 June 2014 as follows: S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 a) The judgment sum of AED7,719,567.00 equivalent to RM9,375,659.49 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022); b) Defendant is required to pay the balance judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49 equivalent to RM2,294,896.06 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022); c) Interest at 4% p.a. on the balance judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49 equivalent to RM2,294,896.06 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022); and d) Costs. (6) As the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the balance of the judgment sum in the UAE, the Plaintiff intends to enforce the Abu Dhabi Judgment in Malaysia by way of common law. (7) The use of common law was not in the intitulement of the OS but stated in the body of the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit (paragraph 23 therein). S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (8) Both parties exchanged affidavits namely the Defendant’s Reply Affidavit dated 8 March 2023 (Enclosure 22), Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit dated 28 March 2023 (Enclosure 27) and Defendant’s Reply II Affidavit dated 19 April 2023 (Enclosure 29). (9) In support to the OS, the Plaintiff contends that the Abu Dhabi Judgment is capable of registration pursuant to REJA 1958. It can be executed here in accordance with the procedure of the common law. (10) The Defendant vehemently objected to the OS. The grounds being: i) The OS is defective under O. 7 rule 3 (1) ROC 2012 as the Plaintiff cannot apply REJA 1958 because the UAE is not a reciprocating country in the First Schedule. Hence, s. 8 REJA 1958 is inapplicable. Also, O. 67 ROC 2012 has no application to the OS. ii) The OS is not supported by any affidavit. The undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit does not have the endorsement on the date it was affirmed. This runs contrary to O. 41 rule 9(2) ROC 2012. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 iii) The Plaintiff has no case against the Defendant. This is because the Defendant has no knowledge of any of its business activities in Abu Dhabi. The Abu Dhabi Judgment is not against the Defendant but a different entity. The commercial licence was issued to SPK-Abu Dhabi and not the Defendant. iv) The Abu Dhabi Judgment was not against the Defendant, but SPK-Abu Dhabi. There was no privity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. v) The Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. The Abu Dhabi Judgment was dated 22.6.2014. Based on s 6(1) Limitation Act 1953 (LA 1953), the limitation period is 6 years. (11) The Plaintiff argued that limitation does not set in under the LA 1953 because the Defendant made payments in 2021 of AED1,890, 453.49. As for the undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff argued that based on Exhibit KS-1 in the Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit, the emails showed the arrangements made for the affirmation of the said affidavit. The time frame being between 27 July 2022 until 10 August 2022. Although undated, the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit is not S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 defective because it was signed and sworn before the Counsellor/Head of Chancery/Consular Officer from the Embassy of Malaysia in Abu Dhabi. (12) The Defendant upon receiving the OS applied to this Court to strike out the OS under O. 18 rule 19(1) ROC 2012 on the grounds of a defective OS that had wrong intitulement, no supporting affidavit since the affidavit filed was undated and the OS is barred by limitation under REJA. The striking out application was dismissed on 8 February 2023. (13) Unfettered, the Defendant filed another application to convert the OS to a Writ (Enclosure 23) on the grounds that there exist issues to be ventilated properly through testimonies and not by affidavits This application was also dismissed on 29 August 2023. (14) The Defendant’s contention in opposing the OS is that the OS is defective as s 8 REJA 1958, O. 67 and O. 28 ROC 2012 do not confer any jurisdiction on this Court to grant the relief prayed. The other grounds in opposition are that the OS is not supported by any affidavit because the affidavit filed was undated although signed by the S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 deponent for the Plaintiff, the Abu Dhabi Judgment was obtained against SPK–Abu Dhabi and not the Defendant and also that the OS is barred by limitation period as the Judgment was dated 22 June 2014. (15) Despite asking for relief under s 8 REJA 1958 in the OS, the Plaintiff through its undated Supporting Affidavit and the Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit argued on common law and not s 8 REJA as basis of the application. The Plaintiff has departed from its intitulement thus creating a surprise to the Defendant. (16) The Plaintiff did not apply to seek leave to amend the OS to include common law as one of its avenues for relief. The Plaintiff also did not ask for leave to admit the unsigned Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit in Court. Save for the explanation in the Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit that emails were exchanged to show the unsigned Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit was actually signed before the Counsellor/ Head of Chancery of the Consular Office at the Embassy of Malaysia in Abu Dhabi. (17) The Court finds that the wrong laws stated caught the Defendant off guard when the Plaintiff departed from its intitulement to argue on S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 common law. The mistake is embarrassing. In the case of Cheow Chew Khoon @ Teoh Chew Khoon (T/A Cathay Hotel) v Abdul Johari bin Abdul Rahman [1995] 1 MLJ 457, the action was dismissed. The judgment of YA Gopal Sri Ram (as he then was) is echoed: “Now I think that that is not only wrong but plainly embarrassing. How, might one ask, is a defendant or the court to determine which rule of court the plaintiff is invoking unless he explicitly specifies it? If a defendant and the court should have to conduct a close examination of the supporting affidavit in each case in order to determine the particular jurisdiction or power that is being invoked by an originating summons or other originating process that requires an intitulement, then a plaintiff will be at liberty to shift from one rule to another or indeed from one statute to another as it pleases him without any warning whatsoever to his opponent or the court. It would make a mockery of the principle that there must be no surprise in civil litigation.” (18) While in the case of Doyenwest (M) Sdn Bhd v Penghuni-penghuni yang tidak dikenali [2022] MLJU 1306 the High Court did not strike out the OS therein. (19) I am bound by the earlier decision made on 8 February 2023 where the Defendant’s application to strike out the OS on the same ground was dismissed. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 C. The undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit (20) While the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit embodied the reasons for the OS, the uncalled undated affidavit cannot be dealt with lightly. An undated affidavit is short of evidence and it leaves the Plaintiff with no supporting affidavit. The Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit at paragraph 6.4 merely mentioned that leave can be craved from this Court for the undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit to be admitted. (21) There was no action taken to obtain such leave from Court to admit the undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit as evidence. (22) Reference to O. 41 rule 9(2) ROC 2012 provides that: “(2) Every affidavit must be indorsed with a note showing on whose behalf it is filed and the dates of swearing and filing, and an affidavit which is not so indorsed may not be filed or used without the leave of the court.” (23) In the case of Licvem Shipping & Trading Aps & Anor v JLM Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 10 MLJ 247, the undated affidavit was rejected because the Plaintiffs there intimated to the court that ‘for reasons unknown to us’ the affidavit was not dated. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (24) I find that the Plaintiff’s explanation justified on why the affidavit was undated. Based on the email correspondence, the undated affidavit was signed in the morning on 8 August 2002 and would be ready to be collected within the next 2 days. The filing of the undated affidavit was on 11 August 2002. I find the time duration was short and I accept the undated affidavit was indeed signed and deposed by the Plaintiff on 8 August 2002. The mistake in not dating the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit cannot lie on the Plaintiff. (25) In applying O. 2 rule 1(3) ROC 2012 on the non-compliance with the Rules of Court allows me to deal with the non-compliance as I think fit to enable this Court to deal with this case justly. The undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit is admissible as evidence of the Plaintiff. This Court proceeds to hear the merits of the OS. D. Abu Dhabi Judgment (26) The Plaintiff produced vide Exhibit P-2 of the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit the particulars of SPK-Abu Dhabi which Commercial Licence bears its Trade Name as “Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd–Abu Dhabi”. Its S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 legal form is stated as “Foreign Branch-Malaysia”. Exhibit P-3 in the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit shows that the company search on the Defendant does not bear any relation of SPK-Abu Dhabi with the Defendant. (27) The Abu Dhabi Judgment in Exhibit P-10 and Exhibit P-11 in the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit were never produced as original before this Court. (28) Nonetheless, s 78(1)(f) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA 1950) states that public documents of any other class in a foreign country – by the original or by a copy certified by the lawful keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a notary public or of a consular officer of Malaysia that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the lawful custody of the original and upon proof of the character of the documents according to the law of the foreign country. (29) The Abu Dhabi Judgment was produced as exhibit in an undated affidavit by the Plaintiff is visibly a photocopy with the Arabic to English translation by the licensed legal translator by the Ministry of Justice which certified that the translation is correct and identical to the S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 original text. The Malaysian Consular Officer of the Embassy of Malaysia certified the signature appeared on this document is that of Customer Happiness Center from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of International Cooperation–Abu Dhabi. The Embassy of Malaysia in Abu Dhabi is not responsible of the accuracy of the information contained therein. (30) The original copy of the Abu Dhabi Judgment was primary evidence to be proved under s 62 EA 1950. Although secondary evidence is acceptable under s 65 EA 1950, it must accord with the requirements of ss 74, 78 and 86 EA 1950. (31) A quick look at s 74 EA 1950 on public documents consist of documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority; official bodies and tribunals; and public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether Federal or State or of any other part of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country; and also public records kept in Malaysia of private documents. (32) While s 86 EA 1950 is on presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records may be presumed as genuine and accurate if the S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 documents purports to be certified in any manner certified by any representative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in or for such country to be the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial records. (33) I find that the requirements of ss. 74, 78 and 86 EA 1950 are satisfied. E. REJA 1958 (34) A look at s 8 REJA 1958 states: “8. General effect of certain judgments (1) Subject to this section, a judgment to which Part II applies or would have applied if a sum of money had been payable thereunder, whether it can be registered or not, and whether, if it can be registered, it is registered or not, shall be recognized in any court in Malaysia as conclusive between the parties there to in all proceedings founded on the same cause of action and may be relied on by way of defence or counter-claim in any such proceedings. (2) This section shall not apply in the case of any judgment – (a) where the judgment has been registered and the registration thereof has been set aside on some ground other than- (i) that a sum of money was not payable under the judgment; (ii) that the judgment had been wholly or partly satisfied; or (iii) that at the date of the application the judgment could not be enforced by S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 execution in the country of the original court; or (b) where the judgment has not been registered, it is shown (whether it could have been registered or not) that if it had been registered the registration thereof would have been set aside on an application for that purpose on some ground other than one of the grounds specified in paragraph (a).” (35) REJA 1958 only applies to the countries listed as the reciprocating countries which the UAE is not. The First Schedule in REJA 1958 does not include UAE. As such, the Abu Dhabi Judgment cannot be enforced. The applicability of s 8 of REJA 1958 is none as the UAE is not a reciprocating country. This is the reason why the Plaintiff used the common law to support the OS. F. Common law (36) In arguing on the enforcement of the Abu Dhabi Judgment by using the common law, the Plaintiff relies on the case of PT Sandipala Arthaputra V Muehlbauer Technologies Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1063. The salient points in the said case are the following: “[10] For the Malaysian court to recognise a foreign judgment under the common law rule, the foreign judgment which the plaintiff’s action is mounted on must be S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 for a definite sum and is final and conclusive (see PT Adhiyasa Saranamas v Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd & Ors [2014] 1 MLJevi 91, p. 95, HC; The University of British Columbia v Lim Siew Eng [2020] 1 LNS 710, HC). Upon satisfying these preconditions, the local court would enter judgment recognizing the foreign judgment, unless there is/are sustainable defences which have been raised opposing its recognition. [11] Our then Supreme Court in See Hua Daily News Bhd v Tan Thien Chin & Ors [1986] 2 MLJ 107, p. 109, has set out only four defences that avail to a defendant opposing the recognition of a foreign judgment under the common law. The apex court held as follows: “In an action on the judgment at common law, one or more of the following defences may be raised – (1) that the foreign court had no jurisdiction; (2) that the judgment was obtained by fraud; (3) that the judgment would be contrary to public policy, and (4) that the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice.” (37) The case of Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd – LLC & Anor and another appeal [2023] 2 MLJ 324 brings light as the Federal Court dealt with the same issue of enforcement of foreign judgment under common law action. Although the Defendant succeeded in their appeal because of the Plaintiff’s failure to fulfil ss 78 or 86 EA 1950 due to the original of the Abu Dhabi Judgment was not tendered in evidence; nor a copy of the original certified in accordance with s 78(1)(f) EA 1950 tendered. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (38) Unlike here the Plaintiff had produced the Abu Dhabi Judgment properly to be admitted as secondary evidence under s 65 EA 1950 and the Abu Dhabi Judgment also accord with the requirements of ss 74, 78 and 86 EA 1950. (39) The said case held: “(1) Whilst REJA served to facilitate direct execution of foreign judgments, it was only in respect of those reciprocating countries listed in in the First Schedule to that Act. The right to sue in common law upon a judgment obtained in another jurisdiction nevertheless remained. At common law, a foreign judgment was treated as an implied obligation to pay a debt, that debt being the sum awarded by the foreign court. Sans REJA, that foreign judgment could not be enforced as a judgment. That foreign judgment only created a debt between the same parties and provided a cause of action upon which the debtor could be sued on our shores. It was the judgment that was obtained from our courts, and not the foreign judgment, that was enforceable as a judgment in this country. (2) In order to be enforceable, the foreign in personam judgment must be final and conclusive between the same parties and it must have been awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, it was imperative that the foreign judgment was produced to prove the claim. (3) The requirement to produce the original copy of the Abu Dhabi judgment was more acute in the present appeals as the original judgment was not in the National Language or even in the English language. Further, the translations of the judgment that were prepared by Conaire was substantially disputed at the trial. The original copy of the Abu Dhabi judgment was primary evidence which had to S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 be proven under s 62 of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘the EA’). Although secondary evidence of the same was acceptable under s 65, it had to accord with the provisions of ss 74, 78 and 86 of the EA.” (40) I am guided by the said case of Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd (supra) as it is similar to this instant case. The respondent Conaire Engineering, a foreign-registered company, obtained a default money judgment against a joint-venture company, SPK-Bina Puri JV in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance in the UAE. To avoid confusion, the said judgment is referred to as the “UAE Judgment”. (41) In the said case, the UAE Judgment was applied to be enforced against Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd, the same Defendant here. The respondent failed to enforce the UAE Judgment because the original of the UAE Judgment was never tendered in evidence. In fact, copy of the original certified UAE Judgment under s 78(1)(f) EA 1950 was also not produced. Only a copy of the UAE Judgment was exhibited as an attachment to the translations which were inadequate by themselves. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (42) The Federal Court further held that the admission of the translation did not ipso facto admit the copy of the UAE Judgment that remained intrinsically inadmissible due to the failure to comply with ss 78 or 86 EA 1950. (43) Unlike here, the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements under s 78(1)(f) EA 1950 where the ABU DHABI Judgment was produced as evidence in Exhibits P-10 and P-11 in the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit. S 78(1)(f) EA 1950 lays down the conditions on proof official documents: (1) The following public documents may be proved as follows: (f) Public documents of any other class in a foreign country- By the original or by a copy certified by the lawful keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a notary public or of a consular officer of Malaysia that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the lawful custody of the original and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. (44) The UAE Judgment is therefore admitted as evidence. G. Limitation Period (45) The Defendant raised amongst others, the issue that the OS is barred by s 4(1) REJA 1958 as the OS was filed after 6 years has lapsed from the date the Abu Dhabi Judgment was entered on 22 June 2014. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (46) The Plaintiff defended by arguing that payments had been made subsequent to the Abu Dhabi Judgment dated 22 June 2014. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant made payments towards the judgment sum of AED6,890,452.00. As of 30 September 2021, the balance outstanding was AED1,890,453.49. Thus, it was the Plaintiff’s contention that the revised judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49 started only from 30 September 2021 and the OS is not caught by limitation period. (47) The Plaintiff is on the right footing based on s 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 (‘LA 1953’) that states: “26. Fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or part payment (2) Where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim, or any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest therein, and the person liable or accountable therefore acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment: Provided that a payment of a part of the rent or interest due at any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder of the rent or interest then due, but any payment of interest shall have effect, for the purposes of this subsection only, as if it were a payment in respect of the principal debt.” S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (48) The judgment in the Federal Court case of Genisys Integrated Pte Ltd v UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd & Ors [2023] 3 MLJ 627 is relevant: “Such admission amounts to an acknowledgment that if the Limitation Act applies, and we will discuss this next, s 29 of the Limitation Act provides for a fresh accrual of action in which case, the claim is not time-barred.” (49) The Plaintiff admitted to receiving payments from the Defendant towards the judgment sum in 2021. This amounts to an admission to the judgment debt and it is a fresh accrual of action upon acknowledgment of the judgment debt in 2021. I find that the Abu Dhabi Judgment is not barred by LA 1953 based on the part payments received. H. SPK-Abu Dhabi (50) I now arrive at the crux of the matter on the issue of locus standi of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in terms of whether SPK-Abu Dhabi is in fact the Defendant. (51) The Abu Dhabi Judgment was applied to be enforced against Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd, the Defendant here. I noticed that in the Defendant’s application to strike out the OS, the issue of locus standi of the Plaintiff was not a ground to show there is no cause of action S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 by the Plaintiff. In the Defendant’s Reply Affidavit, the Defendant argued that the Abu Dhabi Judgment was not against the Defendant but against SPK-Abu Dhabi. There was no involvement of the Defendant with the Abu Dhabi Judgment and there was no privity between both parties. (52) The Plaintiff knew all along about this issue of privity but the Plaintiff did not tender any evidence to prove that SPK-Abu Dhabi and the Defendant are the same company. (53) When the Plaintiff contended that part payments were made by the Defendant towards the Judgment, no proof was tendered to ascertain it was the Defendant who made the part payments, and not SPK-Abu Dhabi. Even if SPK-Abu Dhabi is Defendant, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove because the Defendant denies any relationship with the Plaintiff and/or SPK-Abu Dhabi in the Abu Dhabi projects mentioned. (54) It is not an agreed fact that the Defendant is SPK-Abu Dhabi for the requirement of admission to be excluded from proof under s 58 EA1950. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (55) Clearly, the Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to prove the Defendant is indeed SPK-Abu Dhabi. (56) While the Plaintiff previously corresponded with SPK-Abu Dhabi in the Project and also in enforcing the Abu Dhabi Judgment by receiving part payment towards the Abu Dhabi Judgment, the Plaintiff would produce evidence to show their engagement with the Defendant who is SPK-Abu Dhabi. (57) There is no excuse for the Plaintiff in not being able to produce proof to show relationship because the Plaintiff was the party dealing with SPK-Abu Dhabi. If indeed SPK-Abu Dhabi is the Defendant, this Court must be shown with such evidence. Here, there is none. (58) At this juncture, I again refer to Genisys Integrated Pte Ltd v UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra). In the said case, the Defendant who is the defendant there, admitted that SPK-Bina Puri JV is the defendant, Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd. (59) Unlike in this case, the Defendant denied having knowledge of any S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 business activities in Abu Dhabi but most importantly, the Defendant denied having any relationship with the Plaintiff and SPK-Abu Dhabi. Since the Plaintiff failed to show proof such relationship exists, this Court is unable to find that SPK-Abu Dhabi in the Abu Dhabi Judgment is the Defendant. I. Decision (60) In careful analysis of the facts, arguments and the applicable laws put forward by parties and in taking heed of the Court orders that dismissed the Defendant’s applications to strike out the OS and to convert the OS to Writ Summons, I find that the Plaintiff failed to show locus standi against the Plaintiff. (61) Despite fulfilling the requirements under common law, the Plaintiff did not satisfy this Court on whether there is any cause of action against the Plaintiff. This is due to there being no iota of evidence to show any relationship between the Defendant and SPK-Abu Dhabi. (62) The Plaintiff has the burden to show proof of its case on the balance of probabilities which I find the Plaintiff failed to do. The OS is hereby dismissed with costs. S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 (63) As for costs, this Court is bound by O. 59 r. 7(2) ROC 2012. I have heard submissions from parties and took consideration of the manner in which the matter arose, the time and labour expended, the location and circumstances which the business took place together with the large amount involved. (64) Thus, I hereby award costs of RM20,000.00 to the Defendant, subject to allocator. Dated 18th January 2024 Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi Judicial Commissioner High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur NCvC 8 Ain Nurawanis Ahmad Jais for the Plaintiff Messrs Chiong & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Nicholas Poon Qianfan for the Defendant Messrs. Kit & Associates Advocates & Solicitors S/N 9s0k7o3nTU2vTrSvzgqy5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ORGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION B. The Originating Summons C. The undated Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit D. Abu Dhabi Judgment E. REJA 1958 F. Common law G. Limitation Period H. SPK-Abu Dhabi I. Decision Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

Tika 2.6.0

MA-25-8-04/2023

PEMOHON Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) RESPONDEN Majlis Perbandaran Hang Tuah Jaya

Sections 137 & 141 Local Government Act ('LGA') - Application for Judicial Review - Applicant received Notices of New Valuation List as owner of electricity transmission towers in 4 districts in the State of Melaka- Respondent claims that the Applicant is the owner of 263 holdings within the meaning of "holding" in the LGA and is therefore liable to pay rates - out of 263 holdings only 5 towers are located on lands owned by Applicant - all other lands located on State land and lands owned by private owners on which the Applicant has rights of easement under the Electricity Supply Act 1990.Applicant disputes that it is liable to pay rates - Grounds of dispute: (a) there is non compliance with section 137 LGA with respect to the particulars of holdings; (b) the Applicant is not the owner of holdings within the meaning of "owner" in the LGA - Applicant seeks to quash the decision of the Respondents in rejecting the Applicant's appeals against the Notices and in imposing the rates on the Applicant.Issues: (a) what constitute sufficient particulars to identify transmission towers for purposes of section 137 LGA - is postal address required - are geographical coordinates sufficient information taking into account location of towers; (b) whether the definition of "holding" in section 2 of LGA sets apart the State of Melaka from other states - whether holding includes land and building - construction of definition of "holding", "owner" and "owner of holding" - consideration of Court of Appeal decision in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Majlis Daerah Segamat. Held: transmission towers are unique structures distinguishable from other structures - any one tower is part of a grid of power transmission line - towers usually built on remote areas - details of location, tower number and geographical coordinates are sufficient information and there is no need for postal addresses - information must commensurate with the context of the building - there was compliance with section 137 LGA.Held: the definition of "holding" in tthe State of Melaka includes building apart from land - however, the definition of "owner" deems that the registered owner of the land is the owner of the building which in this case the transmission towers - therefore for the purposes of the LGA only the registered owner of the land is liable to pay rates.Held: Application allowed with regards to towers on State and private land other than lands owned by the Applicant - Application dismissed with regards to towers on Applicant's own lands.

02/02/2024

YA Tuan Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=08636d4c-0624-4e77-8259-3f4bab364042&Inline=true

02/02/2024 15:33:41 MA-25-8-04/2023 Kand. 24 S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TG1jCCQGd06CWT9LqzZAQg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal fl m\—2s—a—o4/2023 Kand. 24 32,01/2224 ,5»: :11 IN IHE HIGH COURT QE mum ALMELAISA sw n3vCcm:4mxcwnm:zzAuw In mu runner nl Jnwmnkuan Mandenuar Enntahln dnn Rayuan Culvai Tak n Majls Bandaraya Mullka berkennn Cukai Taksirln yang dlkenakan ke am “Kepllluun manamnenara Kilian penqhlnhtun aleklrlk yang lerietzk dullm renlis laluan di Mukim-Muklm am-ang, Balai Panjanq, sanau an. Baru Sek. Iv, Bukil mm, Padang Samlbok, Parlnuglt. Semabuk. K533 dun KB yang kesemuanya «menu an mmn man ‘r-ngun, mum"; And In «no malter uf ‘'57 Mom Sonlrli Nilaian Earn Majlis Eandurlyl Mollka Bersejarah benarikh 1.9.2112: berkenaarl Cukai Taksinn yang di keuakan kc ms menu:-menara lalian pengnanunn evexmk yang tellelak uni-m venlls Ialuan dl uuknn-Muknm Bacnlng, Balal Panjang, annauskx. 1 mm Sum IHIVVDIY wm be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm Barn 5: Iv, Bukil u. Fldlnu Samahok, Peringgn, Semabok. KB33 am KB 3: ynnv kesemuzny: Ierleaak di Daerah Melaka Yengah. Mulaka": And In nu rnIIurolS:clinna11.12 Ind16 Electricity Supply AcI1S9D[A1:l 441); And In mo mamror section: 121‘ 137 and 141 Local Government Am 1915 (Act 171); And In the mallet of Older 5: Rules 2, 3. 4 and 5 Rules 0! Own 2012; And In mu mamr of ord-r 92 Run: 4 Runs ofCaurK 2012 x sw YG1n3cxx:4mxcwYvu:zzAuv .11.; s..1.1...m..wu1.. .15.. 1: mm 1.. 111111.11-y mm; dun-mm VII mum pm mwers ave av wno owns them No other may any men Tanaua Naamnll Bemad wms and operates power gnae. which unuuaee me transmxssuon hues and me asmualed lowers m me state of Melaka [171 |n pumcular, mm resped to lands owned by the Apphcanl. which are 5 within me Vocal government -mnamy oi Melexe Elndar Raya Bersepren and one eam under Nor Ga]ah and Hang man Jay: (his cum dos nvl nnd any real busy: «or the Apphcanl to deny knomedga of Inem and men: mey are names All we mlmmahon ws nut plsl wnthm me records or me respectwe Respondent bul a\so IVV the records vflhe Appl-cam asthe uwner of [hose Irywers Thaveiare. «ne Appucenx cannm be misled or urewamed by me ochaclwe miormamon cl me numbef and cuormnemee at moee towers [151 n xi mooneewame lar me Apphcanl to deny knawiedge ena Iocenon at any pamculer (wet and where they resxde‘ wheaher on Sll|e nr pvwut: ‘Ind DI ‘and: owned by (he Applwclinl Any one «we we panonne sume powergrld orlransmwssxon nnes To deny knomeage -nu ownership of one lower ‘s ta deny nu otner lower: 11 m mwcnsmcmu v mm. s.n.\ ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mune Wm! cmnedsd to the same Kransrmsiwon line grid Tneremra, mus Conn finds met me vnfuvmauon contamed m me respectwe Nance: Mm: ma requurensenn olsedvun 137 ov me An, sumecx to ma aacennunauon at one meaning ol owner at a holding m me pvzsenl Aspncauons. mnf [19] Now the Applicant contends max ma vaaumg o1 secnon 2 at me Acl clelrly shows mm a nonmng Is aemnea Is any wana, mm or wnnouc buildings thereon and that me awner a1 a nonmng ws defined as m relanon to any land ov bun mg as me regIs1eIed prapnemaraflhe warm Semen 145 nuns Act pnwmaamm an ram an." be paxd by ma perms who are me owners onne holdmgs same we Apphcanl Is not the registered owner at me state lands or wands on much it has an easement as a hcensee Io emer such land: as pnwldad under me Eleclnclly Supply Act 1990, cleafly the Applicant cannon be me awnev av sucn non-Jungs [201 References were made to me declsmns m Ensy vim v. mag. Nasianal Barnad[2021] 1 cu 45:1 {ma} MLJU 1417; s nk 11 m mwcqsmcmu w ‘Nair am ...m.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-nun! VII mum pm I2‘! Land Dwulopmsnr Sdn. Blvd. v. Fonzadbll 1-nan xuala Langarsan [2l715]4 cu sue /(242151 JMLI 451 am Toabros Devolormr-nr Sdn. Bhd. v. Tunlgn Nuionll Buhud [2007] D CLJ 775 /[2007] 7 ML./ :7. In reobma Dovolopmont (supra) the Com held » 712] /I is to be noted lnar lne ngnr or way’ that may be granted by me land aammrsnalor under s 11(7) (0 lhe defendant ls rm! a permanent and rnaalaasrola rlght [13] rnrs is me Poslllorl ol me law because upon arwlrcauan by me /arrdowrlsl unoars 14 menrloned alzova, ma sma Aumonly may at sny tlme issue an ardslto raqulra ma defendant to remove me elscmclly lme out ol me land and may svsn order ma defendant to bear ‘the cost ol executlng the removal or alleralrorl‘ Tr-erelc-re, me delenuanl has a lemporary r-gnl la enrerpnvale /and ru elem e/ecmclly pylons lor (hell {rallsmlsslon lmes rnney use the Eleclnclly supply Act vsso, and a pemlalrevlr ngnulana only lllhey choose to aaqwa ma land pemvanemly by uslng ma Land Acqulsmon Ac! 1950 (Emphssls added ; ‘ In advinclng ma case iorlheApph1:anI. great reliance was placed by mm counsels on the coun nl Appeal decrslon ln Toma: Nnslunnl and. y. Ila/ll: Daaruh s-gunu 12022) 5 MLJ 454 / (202319 cu 114,whe1e n was declded me: the Apnneanl who was also a party In that casez rs nm name for ma payrnem of mines smu: may xre not me regrttered awnm of ma Ilnds In quesuon The Applrcam cannot be charged «or rate: merely because they awn me cransrnrssran towers The pnrne consrderauun Is the land upon wmch me translmssmn mwers are located Ta put n s|mp\y. n ma Appflcanl rs no! the registered mmev av |ha land, than the Nnmoas pumuam ta sectmn137 olme Acx do um apply to them The Conn 01 Appear held - “[441 ms ward ‘owner rs delmsd rn s 2 o/me LGA 1976 to be as furrows - owner rn rs/man to any /and or but/dmg means ms registered pmprvelur ol ms land and /I rn ms opmron 0/ ms lacs! aurnorrry the registered pmnnetor of me land canrml be Irsosd, rrrs person fortne urne nerng recerwng me rentolme prsmrses m oormsctron wrrn wnrcn me word is used whether on hrs awn account or as agent or trustee /or any nrher person or renewal or who would mcsn/9 me same rt such prernrses were lel to a tenant (Empnasos added ) [45] The emphasis that the rates must be para by me owner rs rerrerazedrrr s 146 onne LGA 1975, whrch pravmas that — u rn mwcqsamscvrrv v m. snrm nunhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII munc v-max AH raraa shall be pm by me persons who are owners of me harmng iol me me bemg [451 secnon 146 was consrdsrs-1 by ma High Coun m SI/pprah V Dewan Eandaraya Kuala Lumpur [1990 3 ML./ 44 where the com hs/d ma: - /Us obvious M8! the persan who has lopay Ms rates is Me owner anna pmperry Under: 133 olthe Act. we annual rates am to be paw na/1 yeany 1:. advance by me current owner .11 January and July ml each year rnererura, Ihs words ’owners or the holdings for the (we bemg'in s 145 sllou/dbe readm mean we owrrerlm M9 penod D, which the rates are Imposed That Is what appears re be ma mlanhan olPamam5nI (Empmisos aaaaa ) [47] The above decrston was alfimvsd by me Supreme Cam‘ in Dewan Eanda/aya Kuala Lumpur /wn Supp1ah[1991 2 ML] g 1199111 cu Rep nu, when ma Supreme Court held mar» saxsyan us sekarang 1m msngandunw nga perkara atau pmposrsx Mimi panama sewa atau cukarpmlu hendaklah dengan syarat mngm pemnmkan Kanurv Tanah Nsgam menjadr {anggungan alau Immiperrama, kedua, langgunmawab rerierak aias luan empunya mnan semasa den kebga, membsntanu bahawa pemnlukanpenmlukan yang belrkumya adalah dtpaksl unruk memmlur Aembah saws alau nuke: pmlu yang lelan hdak dmsyur m Ymficqsaoscvrrv a ma 5.1.1 nmhnrwm be .1... m mm .. 11111.11” mm: dnuumnl VII mum mu Ada/In /alas Ivampaknya Am 1976 ml me/elakkan tanggungawzb pembayalsn sewn mu cukm pmlu ks ares ruan smpunys ransn (owners of holdings) darn flask ms pengnum anzu panduduk (occuprersj sapem 111 England Perbezaan .11 Emma mun krfa dangan Slafuldl England re/sh dukuralkan aaram bebsrapa ks: rnsngenm cm. pmlu — lthal Les Wsh Bank Ltd v The Com/-mssronsl 0/ Federal Capr!aI[1962[ 1 ML] 2: dan Home Luck Investments Sdn ana v Comrmssroner oi Federal capuar ofKua/a Lumpur 11959} 1 MLJ 248, [1969] 1 ms 55 (Emphasis sddsd) [431 Fm/n (he ubave pmvrsfons, 1: rs crystal clear that under me LGA 1975, me assessment rates Ior the natmngs, Including the pyrans, are to be paid by the rsgrstsrsd ownsls oi the Sam (ands ‘ [22] Reievemxs were am made «a me aecmans -n Ln wan Bank Ltd 1/ mo commmlonu :11 Foam: cupn-1 or Kuala Lumpur (19521 1 uu 23; Name Luck Invesllnenll sun. and. v. Commisinncr av Fodoril capital of Kaila Lumpur (ms) 1 Mu zu; Dcw-n B-ndnllyl Ku-I. Lumyur v. Suppilh (1991) 1 MLJ 145 /(139111 cu 429, Ma/(ls Daonll Dungun v. Tenaga Nasional Bemad [2006] I MLJ 7.11 / [2005] 4 AMR 211 and Tlnnga Nuion-I and, v. Mlilis Porbandaran Subenng Pm (209314 MLJ 151 /(zoos) I AMR ML IN m1flL:qs4oscwwLuzzmw mm. smm ...m.mm be .1‘... m mm 1.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum Wm! [23] \n opposmv lhuie arguments Connie! Var the Respondenxs argues Ihll the rum and me Ilrw eons-aeueu -n en muse cases, especially me cpun av Appea\ declsmn In Mnjlls Damn Slylmat must be msnngunsneu The s1amng poml Is (he definmon onecnpn 2 m we AC1 n Is me Respondents‘ eenlenllun that, as tar as me State or Melaka ws oenpernea, semen 2 pmvlded an extended definmon to the meaning of ‘holdmj, mere mamora Is not unly nmnea to land: bufextendad xp Include 'messuagas, bulldmgs easements enu no/sdmamsnls or any tenure‘ smce secnon 2 a\sc defines ‘bu1\dIng“ an wncmde xransnneemn «were, as confirmed by me own of Appeal m Mnflix Dnorlh sag-nun eeee. nne Apphcanl mus! be regarded as an comer pvnomungs The enensnan M me dedmmon 171 Section 2 Ihal apphes svecxfvcahvy to the State of Melaka thevelme dmlmgulshes me Appncexions In the case 1romlheVac|s and law conswdeted by me count alAppea\ In Ma/IV: Damn Segamnl [24] In counter argurnem, cnunsexs varcne Appncenc pmncs out that we caun should not deparl ham me paw Ilrnvvslun of Vzw as pmmea under Sscuan 145 anne A421 and as wnllvmed by me declsmns m Lee Wlh sum ma (supra), Homo Luck 17 m rewcesuoscvnu v mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. u... m may he nnmnmly mm: dnuumnl VII .nnue Wm! Investments (snare) and Dman Banduraya Kuala Lumpur (supra) that rates shtwld only be part: by Land when und net the oocupters tn Damn Enndlrayl Kuara Ltm-pun the Supreme coun neltt - “Adslalt yere: nampaknya Am: 1976 W melerakkan tanggulvgjawah pembayaran sewe eteu cukar prntu ks stas man empunya lanah (owners of notdmgs) dart ttdak ates penghunr srau psnduduk (occupiers) sepem I11 Eng/and Pemezaen at entere slalut me dsngsn slalurdi England lelalt ctrrkzrrenran da/am beberapa kes mengener cuka; prntu 7 that Lee Wah Bank Ltd v The Commrssmnelal Federal Camel [1962] 1 MLJ 23 den Home Luck tnyeatrnents Edit am y Comlmssloner cl Federal capuer ol Kaela Lumpur[1969] 1 MLJ 248“ [25] Theretare, the argument pm Yotwam by tne Respcndenls that the meamng ol notarng tnet appttes ta the state at Metaxa Is dlstmrx from other states cannot be accepted tt IS argued that the rneanrng at the words ‘ rn the me or Penny and Marscca. 'noIr1mg' Includes bmtdrngs " must he vead to mean pan oi any tand and not rnaepenrtent of any land. so that t wiH be WI harmony wnn the my aehnnren at -owner" unuer sectron 2 ol the Act that VI retatron to any land or tttnterng‘ the owner I5 the regtsleved piopnelov at the land nr mwcnsaoscvtrrv u ‘Nair s.n.r nmharwm be u... m mm r... unnn.tt-y mm. m.n.n VII artuttc mt EaHL1.€_1fi.flb.eLan:za.s [251 In deliberating on ms Issue, «ms Conn would ms: s1aIe that m would be unnenessaryln d|sI:usslI1a\awwnh mqamm ma vlghts and DWNCIS 0'01: Anlhomwas to chaga and cmlecl rates on holdings They laws are selllad and manure no msoussmn. [271 The issue that needs dotermmlnon ls vmemerme uonsuuwan of the dafinmon a1'holdmg‘ unaeuecuon 2 at me Ac! sols ipun ma scope and exlenl 01 that uenmuon lur me states at Penang and Melska In making that uexarmnnaum, Ims coun must not leak at seclmn 2 m xsmamn bulmgetherwllh an ether relavlnt provisions or the Acl As new by me Federal Conn m Mnfllz Pnrbmdurln smmoan v Tenlga Naslonalfiemad (M20) 12 ML] 1, where the canslructvan and meamng or semen 144 uv me Aa was cansmerea a statute must firs! be read as a whole am (hen rend by sammn so meme provision (‘an In unaefslood ma mmprexed m the context of the Au as a whale - “[301 The rmpanms 0/ leading an Act as a whole mas been emphasised In many cases In Marrsgo Sdn Bhd v Arkrtek Meor L Chew Sdrl Em’! and another appssI[2D19[ MLJU 742, [2019]B m mwcqsmcmu v mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm cu 133 (ms mun Isfsrrsd to the case oIRsssrve Bank oi India v. Peeness General Fmance and Investment Co Ltd 1937 scnrz) 1 wnemn Chmnapps Raddy J said — Interpretation mus! depend on me next andlhe wmext my are tm bases olinrerpnnanon One may well may if the text is tbs Iutulu, canlexr Is what 7/vss the coluul Norther can be rynorsd Both are rmpananl That Inrarprafsbon is best man makes me Isxrual mlerpverntron n-etch tno contextual A statute It has! interpvwrso when ma ob/ea and purpose oi ns enactnmnt IS known um um: Knowledge, the slllura must be mad, fiIS( as a whole and men secmn by secnon, clause by cause, ph/Esq by phase and want by won! It a statute VS room: -1‘ m we context o/its anaclmanr, mm tno glasses bun. ststuts mam pru-/tded by such mmux! ns sclluma, (ha sscltons, clausas, phrases and wow: may lake wluur and appear dnflslunl man when ma statute is baked at William ma 9/use: pmyiaaa by [he context wnn than grasses we! must look at the Act as a whole and o/scam mat eacn sscnon, each clause, sun pmsu and sun word ls moan! and designed to say as to m mto ms scmrne buns enme Act. No pan ola alarms Bndno word on statute can be oanxtnled In rsolamzn Stulmss have to bs conslruod so that every word has a place and as/slytnmg IS in as place [31] It IS beyond dispute tnat each P'°‘(rsran owen are I7’l1I/Istafl must be read In it: immsdmle context and in the context nmve Act as 5 whole When words an land in melrlmmediaks context. ma rvaoerlomls nn wprsssmn as to mwrmeunmg Any Impress/on m uuum mm. my ...m.mm .. U... m may t... mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! BETWEEN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD APPLICANT AND IIIAJLIS BANDARAVA MELAKA EERSEJARAH RESPONDENT GRoyND§ Q gyjzgufiul MATTER EEFORE THIS COURT [1] Thxs Is I decwsmn on 4 auphcaixans for Judu:Ia> Review Waugh! by the same applicant Tenaga Naamnal semaa (‘Appl|canl‘) agamsl [our Lacs! Government Aulhonnes namely, Minus Bandaraya Melzka Bslsqavah Mews Pemandavan Nov eepn, Majlts Farbandavan Jasm and Mam: Pevbandaran Hang man Jaya pursuant to cases no MA-25-5-03/2023. MA-25-6-D4/2023 MA—25-1-o4¢2o23 and MA-25-8-D4/2023 respectwely (‘Aulfmnly/Aulhomles/Respondents ) rAppncenons') [2] All the Appluceuons were heard together as they Involved me same wssues and (or that reason, mus Grounds of Judgment wm em vG1flcqs4mxcwwLuzzmw we Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm based on rmmedrate wnzexr must be supmsmsnred by cons1aen'ng me lest olths Act, ilmludmg all omsrpmvrmns of ma Act and man vanous stmclural compnnanls (see Rum Sullivan, Dnedgar on ma Consuuclton at States (an: Ed) Eurrerwonhs). 132/ Therefore, we say, 5 144 of Act 171 cannot he read m rsolanon {mm Ins Ins! nfms pmwsmns 1n Pan xv afAcf 1 71 Tins 15 because the legislative scheme provided under Part xv under me neamng or ‘Rarmg and VaIual1on'rslVscrslhs whole scope or me As: snd the rsal fnlsnmm onns snacnng body 111 dsalmg wflh tins Issue As such. me mun must not only aansxder one sectron but all seonons 1n Act 171, mcludmg me n.-Ianon atone semen lo the other secrmns, me re/anon 0! a semen (a ma gsnsml obpcr mlended to D9 secured by ms Act ms :s In oonsanance wan ma aocmne or harmumous cansn-ncnon as explamsd by this mun III Pmak Bsnmasa Talalsmb Mqlrs Parbandaran Seberang Perar 5. Anal V Muztadr om Mu)<IIrar[2020) 1 MLJ 141, [2020] 1 cu , 1, [291 Now, ‘ho/dr/17‘ 1:. defined under amen 2 171 me Act as ieHaws ‘means any land, wun orwtlhaut Dmldmgs (hereon, whrch rs held under a separate document onme and m me case ofsubdrvrded burramgs. the common prupeny and anyP€'cellheIeofanll 1n me case 0! Penang and Ma/acca 'hoIdmg" mduoes messuages am/amgs easements and heledlrzments of any tenure, whether open or endosad, wnslher am an or not, whether public A)! plrvate‘ and wnune: mslnlamed n! no: under stalulary aumanry,“ 1; m mwcqsaoscvrrv a mm. 5.11.1 nmhnrwm .. .1... w my 1... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl wa mum M1 [29] Yhe reaamg cf that deflnmon poms In Mn mscernible vans‘ me rust pan. wmch mikes - general mvuenoe to land, and ma second pan wmcn relers speancany to the Slale of Panang and Malacca The rust pan ol that pnwvsion puts enuphasus on the word \and as the sumecl maner erholaung, ' means any /and “ In ms Conn‘; view the wares “ mm or wnhom buudmgs msruon “ callowmg the word ”/and“ only describe me common or the wand and do not act as adding on sumea matter other than land Thualare. the amphasls on me meamng at namung remes only no Inna [30] New, havmg made a general pnwvs-on. me definition then moves to the second plfl, wmcn mlilas omy (0 the Slate A71 Plning and Malaom Aller having vead that delmman VI its ennreiy‘ V! I5 Ihls Courl's mternretatvon that the swarm pan Mthaldefinmon serves to expand me subjacl miner M holdmg in me States at Penang and Malacca VI seems to IMS Calm Ihfll I: fat as 1! names In hundmg, u would have been unnecessary and redundant «cane draflers Io memmn *burh1mg” again In lhe second pan IV V! was not to be regarded is 3 distinct subject mallet since bulldmg was mentioned as a par! ulland mlheVvs|parl Thus, the use onha 11 m Ymficqsaoscvrrv , mm. smm ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: mmn VII mum pom! word “bur(dmg“ m ma saoona pan 0! max defimllun mus| have been mlenued lo I» a separalz and dlsuncl sumed mailer «mm land, as manuanaa m mama pan Tnuslhe wards‘ m the case 0/ Penny and Malacca, ’hoIdmg' mdudes aummg " must mean that aparl «rum land a holding m ma 51am 4:! Malacca (Melzka) mdudes hmldlng as a sapama and duswux subject maner Therefore nu ma scan or Melakz a homxng radars run only In \and not also, nmungsx others, building [an Smce nus Conn apmes that me warn 'ho!dmg" m (ha sme of Mslaka a\sa mamas buvldlngs aparl item land, haw um «ms m No (he meaning of “awnsrnmve I-mldmg", who a. name in pay [or rales as pmvmad undev semen 146 olme A4:1’7 "AH rates shall a ma rsnns wha ma wners an Egg for the me new and um so pam shall, subject lo the pmwsrons 0! me Narmnar Land cooe, be a ms: charge an ma hold/ngs m respect at wmcn may are assessed and rf nol pan: wnhm ma presumed ume, shall he recoverable m the manner hersmsllsrpmsclmsd (emphasis added) ' [:2] seem 2 at ma A421 does nal define “ownelol a nmamg" as a phrase um provides separate defimuons to ma word “holding” and m mwcasaoscmu n ma Snr1n\nuuhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max "owrvsf Thus, the definmuh to the phrase “owner oi a hotdtng" requtres a synlhests onhe dtflevem definmons Turning namn the deflntlmn at hwrtef, the An defines wt as taucms - n gm; /and and, In the apmron afme moat authortrylhs regtslsled pmpneto: nl Ins land Carmel be traced, the person lar tn. lllns bemy recen/mg the ram aims pmnnes In mnrtecfrun mm wmcn the word rs used whether an hrs own account or as agent or ntnu II n tmstse [or any other person an as recewar or who would rsoetve the same tlsuch premtsss were Is! to a tenant. and (at in the case 1:! subdrvtded omtmngs, fndudss the management corporation and any subsidiary pmpnston " lemphasts added] [331 what ts apparent In that aennman II that although tt slates land and nu-tdtng sepamlaly‘ ll does not mike I msunctton VII the ilalus at awnsrsh-p between the awner 01 a land and the awnev 0! a bmldtng, although they may nut netzssanly be tegatty aa- inctdemat Meaning. although a party may be the owner of a huttathq amt not the owner :2! a wane, the Act presumes that the bmlflmg ls owner: by the regtstetea cwnet of the land wheve mu 2. m Ystficqsaoscvrrv , ‘Nair s.n.t nmthnrwm .. LAIQ4 M mm .. mn.ny mm. dnuuvtnnl vu mum amt bundmg may reswde smoe ms word “buHc1mg' used m me dennmun o1‘noidmg”mcIudestmnsmuuson towers, men muawx um semmn 2 me Acl presumes or deems |he vegmerea ownev 56 the land to be also the uww onne Ivansmlssuon lewev [24] Carmng am In the caun ov Aupeava ueuuen In M4/ll: Dunn Sogalnn‘ almaugn me (3:13 mm bmughl about me cmsuievauan at only me firs! pan or? Seciuon 2, m me man analysws‘ one second pan does not anenne Vegil position max me mar or me \And 15 mspmsmve oar me paymenl of me rile: pursuant to any name nsauad pursuant to sermon 137 at the Ad In «ms Court's view the defimllun 01 ‘ownef‘ under secnon 2 cwcumscrlbu me wnbaxl 01 who me Act regam at me owner of a nuwmng Whflsl «ms Court agrees manna second pan of Ser.1|on 2 swands the scope ol holding Ior me state of Melaka to mclude hmldmgs‘ me aennman or mmner‘ also scale n manne mlnciple of uw man my me owner nl um land .: vespnnslble lar paymont av rates remams unchanged The veadmg ov me word Welding“ cannot be read m Isnlahan and must be read suluect In we express definman of “owner” Thus «he meaning M “owner ora homing‘ m me context or lransmxssmn lowersotpylansus and m mwcqsmcmu v mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! remains‘ m the state of Melaka, the regwstsrsd awner nf the land [35] To cuncluae, ms coun finds that me Apphcanl cannm be Inapla lar me payment onhe ms: pursu-nname Nolvoes under section «:7 ov me An Vol an muse Cransmlssxon towers mm are located an Stale land 01 muse erected pursuam |o hoenses or easements under the Elecmcny Suppry Act 1990 smce the Act presumes me regvsterad mmer of the land where me transmlssxon towers are erected are use me mmsmvms bunamgs orlrunamussuon (awem my purposes at xmposmnn of rules unaer tha Act gag mg App mam sllll be name under mmm Lg gflflg 5;; [351 Yhe Respundents ocntendslhal m any evenl. me Aophcanl ws sun Ilable Cur plymonl cl the rates V01 transmission lawus situated on Stale Land and swine me meaning of “ho(dmg“ m Me\ak.a extends to bulldmgs which mdude uansnussmn towers. pursuam Io semen use of me An, me Applicant we Mable m pay me miss as an ocouD\e( seam 15:: pm»/mas » (1; '/n the case of bu/Idmgs sduafad on Stale land or on /and reserved for a public purpose and nor accumed by me Federal or Slate Gavernmenzs the meal aumonry, wrlh me 15 m Ymflltqsaoscvrrv w mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! approve! of ms Slate Authority may nnposa ma IEIES relened to m sectmn 127 upon the annual value orrmpruved ua/us 17/ all or any L7! such uuuamgs‘ and the occupiers of such uuuamgs shall be name to pay me sex: was (2; The pmwsmns at rms Pun shall apply to any /are Imposed unoe: sulzsecfron (1) except that m me appncauon rnereof Iufsnances to a 'houung"snaIr be deemed to be references to a "buudmg", and references to the "uwnar ov a nolmng snau be deemed to be Islslsnoss to me "occup19r' al a hulldmg ' [37] Fm purvusas atsacnan «ea anne Am, me 'awnef Ma holdma rs deemed to also be rafermd to -4 ma “occuplsf at me bmldmg M firs! ghnoe the leadlng or those provwsxons suggesls that any owner vi a mmdung cl Ilinsmisslon lawsr on Slate Land would be deemed to be as occupier ma cnemore llabla for ma: Tm would rn nIae\y min me Respondents‘ oonlanlmn [as] However, :1 musi be noted mm me deemmg provnsmn vs praducaled firstly on [I19 “nwnef O7 1 Nfldlng Thai sealcn don nm, Ind this disllncllon Is Important. deem lhe mverssu lhll I! Illa occupier at me bulldmg or the (ransrmssmn tawerx ave deemed as nwners at a nalmng Sunnelhls coun luflds zne vwewlhal the m Ymflcqsaoscvrrv v ‘Nun: sum nmhnrwm .. u... m my u. nrwhuflly mm: dnuumnl wa mum Wm! defimnen av mine! of a transmission «war under Sactmn 2 anne Act men to me tegwslered cwner of me land w would be wnsmem wmn «ms Court‘; wow «a sly mm under sea-on «as n 15 only ma raglslemd owner at me land who >5 us. oocupxer and «mature liable to pay the rates [39] In any evenl, mlsmnn la rns earlier com at Aupears demsuon m rung. Nulonal Bomnd v. Mufll: Dnnn Sog|mnI[2011]4 MLJ you on the wssue of Notices xssued pursuani to semen 163 or me Aux, this Ccun ws beam! by stare dscfsrs la find mu wme mg Nmlces Issued by the Respondents In me presanl case negleaed to expressly state whxm of the Iocannns are Stale lands‘ men the Respondents are barred lrom makmg : claim under that pvomsmn - 723} Section 153 is applicable for rates m be Imposed by me Iocalsumonfy mna ‘!1uNd:ng‘ Is sltualed an sfale orresen/Ed /and /n am appeal, me us: attached to me Respondents‘: Ivolrce dated 13 November 2014 mfomlmq M9 apgsllantlnal ma Fespundsnls ma prepared a new valualran /rs! cl ms apps/lan('s nomngs pursuant to: 141 or the Ac!d»d not slats that the py/ans are snualed art me state land or on [he resen/ad land I! merely sets out may the pylons amocma an hundreds ollocamzns Where Is m YGWL:ns4oscvrrvLuzzAnw mm. smm nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my me nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! the stems ol the lands wevs obviously unknuwrl/pnvarely owned /ands wrrnin me am admmislslsd by me Respondents Tnslsiars mmour smmg the status alrsna whether rt rs slate ar reserved land, [he Respondents cannot use % al the Art to mount ns alarm " DECISION [40] In cnnduiion, lhls cnun finds max ma Appucam us not Mable fur paymenl af rams under the raspeclrva Nouoes Vor umnus on lowers man are Iocma on 31:12 Land and an prwace wands amer man those uwned by me Appllcam To that extent‘ this Court anows each 0! me Apphcanon and Ihewefote |he decision o1 me rasvuchve Rasoondam on Ihs unposnion ensues anlhe Avhllcanl 101 an moss Irunsmlssuon lowers ws Ihervby qunnea and set name. [411 For an muse lrlnsmlsslon lowers mm are located on lands awnad by me App:-cam, zms Cam finds that me Awhcanl ws I-amen: pay me Vales xmposed «or (nose [wars To that exlenl‘ me Apphcahans relatmg m the daemons of Mam: Bandaray: Melaka aenyajmn Mam; Pemandarnn Nor cam and Maw: m mwcqsmcvnu v mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Perbandaran Hang Tush are arsmrssed [421 No order as m casts /«&~»~=_~3~_ MOHD RADZI am ABDUL’ HAMID JUDGE men coum MELAKA Da|ed Ihls 1" February 2024 Loumannllum EncikGoh Pang Hung (crx son Lung Lmg] Messrs Lal Goh & Aswcranes Am/oca(es 5. Senator: B-3A4. B|Dd( E‘ Lavel 3A Megan Avenue N Na 12‘ Ja\an vap Kwan Seng 50450 Kulla Lumpur Puan Naxalra Ixa brrm Nasamdmn [Encwk Tengku Nazml hm Tengku Anuar 5. Wang Van Zhang) Messrs Am 5 Assocvltes Advocates & Senators Tmgkal u Msnm Ksck Song 203 Jalan sum Blnlang 5510a Kuala Lumpur sm Yatficqsamcwvvuzzzmv nine sanaw n-nhnrwm .. .4... w my r... mrmu-y am. dun-mm VII mum v-mm rederto all the Applrcatrens eollecttvely unless otherwise speetfied [3] Thela Appllciltans arose Flam the declslons or each ol the Aumonly dated 29 12.2022 twlelaka eamtar l3erse,ereh enu Alor Gataht. 3ot22n22 (Jasin) and t1t2o23 (Hang Tuah Jaya) respectwety lhal had dlsmlsied the Applrcenrs aetectrens or appeals agaIns1 each or the Respehaents‘ Notroes ul New valualron Lrst lssued pursuant to secltons 137 and 141 at the Local Gaverrlmentmrtt97St‘AA:1‘)t‘Ncltces‘) [4] Those Not-ues were Issued wrth respect lo the rntposittorr whales on the Appltcanl on tmnsmrston lrne towers or pylons erected by the Appllcanl as e lloensee under the Eledrlclty supplyAc1 1990. It ts the stand taken by each ol the Respondems that the Applteeht rs the what at all these trensmtssrm towers and as owner or these Iransmlsslon lowers, the Appltcent rs llable lot the payment ol mes lor each at those tewers wmcft are relerved Io as ‘l‘lo|dlngs“ under the Act [5] The Notloes ettected 263 holdrngs — rn mtficqsaoscvrrlw , we s.n.r nnvlhnrwlll .. t... m mm r... nflglrrnllly mthln mm. VII «rune pnnxl EnL||1:.B|.|undsu1: Da1ukAdIIIIh btnn Ahmad Nemm ¢c.x Numb Nasysran mun Mona Heuemy a. Clk Flllvlyaam Hatznan mm: Mohd Shaan) Messrs Admah A Nordln Aauocates 8. Sohculors No 82, Jalan TU2 Tanun Taslk Ulama‘ Mrrc City 75450 Ayer Kavoh‘ Melaka 31 sm mwcqsmcmu v m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (a) 57 holdangs unaer aandamys Melaxa Bersejarah cm 0! much u wars held under State lurid‘ 5 were held by me App1|canl's\and and as were new by me Apphnlnl under easement (b) 42 holdmgs under Alcr cam omwhu:h18 were new under Stat: land, 1 wls held under the Appncanrs llnd mu 2: were held by the Apphcan! under easement. (c) as holdings under Jasm am of which 5 wars held under Stale land ma 59 wave new by the Appncam under easement, and (an 99 holdings under Hang Tuah Jays, um atwmcn 32, 1 were held by me Applutanfs wand and 66 were held by the Applicant under easement. [51 It ws me Appflcanfs posman manme rates Vovlhe holdmqs are orfly Imposmle on and payame by me awnavs of (hose wands and mm m any wen! lha Applvcanl n mm lmme m pay all ma mes on me grwnd me: each of the Nance: Is ddeclwe due to non- complmnoe mm semen 137 av the Act m mwcqsmcmu v mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [71 ms mesa Apphcalmns are made to quash the deusicns mean 01 me sad Aumomy mac lhe Apphcant ws l<ah\e under me Act as uwner 0! all me 253 nenamgs VSSUES [31 The Awlicanl Is remesenled by 2 dfliervnf law nuns m me Applvcanons For me Apphcauons under MA-25-5-03/Z023 and MA—25-8—D4/2023‘ IUS leplesemed by MIS La1‘Goh & Associates‘ while fax ma appncaxicns undev MA-256-on/2m and MA—257— cwzm n .5 represented by M/s Axmi A Assouales All me Respomenu are represented hy M/s Aaman A Nordln [9] sum sets 01 <:uun|e\s lor ms Avphcam had mused me same mm: In Iuppomng the Aaphnanons Thay an premised on 2 majnr pom luslly‘ ma| me Names rm lmled |c oompxy wnn me requwremems or secuan 131 onhe Aci wnn regards to pamcmavs of mmer and addmss oi me holdmgs and secondly mat the Appncam us ncl me owner 01 me hmdmgs wmun me meanmg M [ha Acl and m merulara um Ihe pmpev pmy against whom me Nolloes shumd be Issued m YG1flL:ns4o:cvrrvLuzzAnv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES [10] me Applrcant commas rrm am at me Rasporrdanrs had larled to comply with me raqurremerrre av aearorr 1:47 of me An In mar the Nuuces ma nor have me pamculars of me name of the street or Iocamy In wmcrr mm rmrarrrg rs situated and that mere was rneumcrem desngnamen or me horarng edhu by rreme or number sumuern lo rdenmy M It was argued mm the Names merely referred ro me rrarrsmissron «wars by way or numbers ooordmalss arm me arsmu where they are eupeusemy rccanea In addmon, wt was also argued that me names av me owner and occupier M the holarrrgs were not correary Idenhfied Sechon 137 prwldes - (1; The racer aulhonly mu cause a Vu/unllvn Lrstolal/holdmg nol exsmplsd Irorn ma payment 0! me: to be pmparsd caruamrng.- (5) the name 0/ the strsst or /oca/rty m wmcrr such ho/dmg ls situated. (n; ma desfgnatron or me ha/dmg either by name nr number sumcram m raarmfy 1!; m rswcqsaoscwrru v ‘Nair smar n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mrmr-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG v-mar (6) me names olths owner and ocmrprer, lfknawn: (d) me annual value allmproved vs/us aims holdmg (2; The valllsllon us: together wlm ms amendments made under sectlon 144 shall Iemalrl in me will ll ls superseded Dy .3 new Va/ualloll us: (37 A new Vahlsbon Lisl wmcn small conlaln me same pamculars as m subsecllun (1; shall be prepared and compleled once every five years or wlllun such exlended penod as Mu slave Alllnanry may detsrmlns [1 <1 The Rasnomlems‘ lillulala camply wlmme specmerequuremencs olsecuon 137 ml me Amnevelove renaeveame Nollces aelectwe Relerenoe was made m we aeclslans In Abdul Hamid Molld Amin v. Rllnncon corpornlon sun. and. (20151 3 cu 111,- nnag. Nnslonll aemul v. mjllu Dunn SIglmll[1021] 4 MLJ 900; $1/Irikal calvaya mm: r-em (oil) Sdn. Bhd. v. Mlllll Dlaflh Tlplh [2017] 1 LNS 11lJ/[2017] MLIU 128 Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangol v. United Ptanlntlons Sdn Blvd [2021] 5 ML! 529,- and and Sui Arum bin Ibrahim v. Tun DI Mnllutll/I b Moilumarlllovzj 2 MLJ 41 IN rawcqsdmcwrmzzmw Wain Sum! ...m.mm be used m mm n. mm-y mm: dun-mm wa .mm mm [12] on me uther hand, me Respondents conlend that each oi me Names conumed wtflcuenl mlormzmon as required by secllun 137 In me context of uaenmy-ng me Iucalmn anne uansrmssmn lowers. II was argued mm u it. common knowxeage that Irinslmsslonlowers are not bunldmgslhat are usuafly Idanlmod by pom: addresses Vn most cases. transmlssvon Iuwers are ccnslmcted on lands lhal are remote and Hal easxly accessible Thus, ma Idenlmcatvm ov me Iocalmn av ma |ransm\ss4an tuwars by rsterenoe to the Inmvmual numne-s, geograpnmax uoovdlnales and plot numbers are sufficvenl. In any event it s not disputed that me Iranlmxssxon lowers taflerred In m me Names do belong lo ma Appncam [131 wnh regam to the nanung Mme nwner <71|ha nuwdmgs, n was submmed ms the Appncam was named as me owner or me hmdwngs cunslslenl wan me pasmon caken by each ov me Respondent mu: (ha wner a! me nomngs. .3 me Apphcanl Coulfs de/rberalmns [14] Whflsl «ms Court agrees ms: the worn “shall” used m seciuon 137 onne Act connotes a mandatory obhgallon, wt is true. cam. wew m mwcqsmcmu v m. smm nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nnmnmy mm: dnuumnl VII munc Wm! mat the inlovmallun required to he Included II’! «he Names must be cnmmaniurate mm me comm oflhe buwldlng referred to ‘me puvpase Mlha Informaman raqmrsd Is to -damty wan eenamxy me nolmngs, Ihelr lumen and me Kienmy M the owner at oocupm [15] Now‘ m cannot be wgnoveu mac lrinsmwssxun nmers are umqua sxeex slmciuvss mm mm Ipan arm as easuy dlslmguwshable from ulhev bu-mugs More Impananlly‘ no ans amar man a hcensee under me E\edric4(y Suvwy Act 1990, when m «ms case I: Terms Naswonal Berhad hasme ngmlo nanslrud opeme and mamtam thosalowurs Addmanally‘ I! u wmmon knawneagen-at many transmission Iuwers are ouns1mded along uansmussmn ar Dvwer gndsmat are run across mm! and remote aveas where one lands on wmcn they am conslmcted Ira um usuavy mennfied hy refarenu to postal addresses [151 rnerevure, «ms Cour! agrees mm me ennlemlon at m; Respondems [hit these (must; or htfldlllgi as may arc marred m cm purposal mm Act, are sufficlarmy Idermfiable by velaenca lolhelr numbers_ geograpmcaw mardumnas and Iocauan as 54! out mme Nouoes Them can be no common about where mass m m Ymficqsaoscvrrv , mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-22NCC-34-03/2021

PLAINTIF PELLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED DEFENDAN XFYRE (M) SDN BHD

Contract – Novation – Requirements for valid novation – Fundamental terms of contract – Whether there was breach of the fundamental terms – Contracts Act 1950, sections 63 and 71.

02/02/2024

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5de35b23-b8f2-43c7-b1d0-23223e5c2a36&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO.: BA-22NCC-34-03/2021 ANTARA PELLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (No. Pendaftaran: 1131206) … PLAINTIF DAN XFYRE (M) SDN BHD (No. Pendaftaran: 201301020345(1050175-D) … DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] As noted by the World Bank, the dreaded COVID-19 pandemic not only infected millions around the world but also brought economic activity to almost a near-standstill. However, one area of trade and commerce that thrived was the one related to the production and distribution of gloves, masks and personal protective equipment. The effects of the rise in business activities relating to these products continue to reverberate to the present day. One such ensuing consequence comes in the form of suits filed by the contracting parties for reliefs resulting from alleged breaches of contracts entered into between the parties. The present suit 09/02/2024 10:02:04 BA-22NCC-34-03/2021 Kand. 98 S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 is one of the many of such cases that has found its way into this Court’s docket. The Parties and Nature of the Suit [2] The Plaintiff, Pelle International Ltd, is a private limited company incorporated in Hong Kong. [3] The Defendant, XFYRE (M) Sdn Bhd, is a Malaysian company. [4] The Plaintiff had entered into a contract with one Formogen Co Ltd for the purchase of 150,100 boxes of gloves. It is not disputed that the Plaintiff made the full purchase price to Formogen Co Ltd. [5] Formogen Co Ltd then entered into a separate contract with the Defendant for the supply of the gloves. Formogen Co Ltd then made the full payment for the gloves to the Defendant and these monies were held in an escrow account. [6] As the Defendant had failed to deliver 104,307 boxes of the gloves (out of the 150,100 boxes as promised and contracted), the Plaintiff commenced this action to recover from the Defendant: (a) a refund of the sum of USD677,995.50 for the 104,307 boxes of gloves that have not been delivered; (b) a return of the sum of USD250,000.00 being the air freight costs; and (c) a claim for the sum of USD12,315.50 which the Plaintiff had paid to their own forwarder. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 The Principal Issues [7] The first of two primary issues for determination is whether there has been a novation of the contract from Formogen Co Ltd to the Plaintiff. [8] If the answer to the above question is in the negative, the Plaintiff’s claim fails. [9] However, if the answer is in the affirmative, the second major issue then is whether there was a breach of the terms of the contract by the Defendant. The Parties’ Contention [10] It is the Plaintiff’s submission that there was a novation of the contract. [11] The Plaintiff submitted that the contract between Formogen Co Ltd and the Defendant dated 9th September 2020 had been handed-over to the Plaintiff and this was within the knowledge of the Defendant. [12] The Plaintiff further averred that by a letter dated 11 October, 2020, the Plaintiff had informed the Defendant that Formogen Co Ltd will no longer be involved in the said transaction whereby the Defendant did not deny nor oppose at any time to the said letter. Reference was made to another letter dated 3 November, 2020 from Formogen Co Ltd to the Defendant. According to the Plaintiff, the content in this letter about the “handover” of the contract from Formogen Co Ltd to the Plaintiff “is in tandem with the letter of the Plaintiff dated 11 October, 2020. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [13] More importantly, the Plaintiff alluded to the fact that after receiving the instructions in the letter dated 11 October, 2020 from the Plaintiff, the Defendant via a letter dated 15 October, 2020 did not rebut the contents of the letter dated 11 October, 2020 and had instead promised to arrange the delivery. In a delivery order dated 20 November, 2020, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had named the Plaintiff as the “Buyer”. [14] After the delivery of 45,640 boxes of gloves, the Plaintiff alluded to evidence of the Defendant having issued a letter dated 26 November, 2020 acknowledging the “handover” of the contract and testimony by the Defendant that there was contract handover. [15] The Plaintiff thereafter referred to section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 and cited H&R Johnson Tiles Ltd v H&R Johnson (M) Bhd [1998] 4 MLJ 13 (“H&R Johnson Tiles Ltd”) in support of its contention that there was a valid novation of the contract from Formogen Co Ltd to the Plaintiff. [16] Crucially, the Plaintiff submitted that the requirements for a novation have been fulfilled in this case. [17] This novation point was challenged by the Defendant. [18] The account by the Defendant was that Formogen Co Ltd had introduced the Plaintiff as Formogen Co Ltd’s authorized associate and that at all material times, there was no mention of any existence of contract between the Plaintiff and Formogen Co Ltd nor was that established. [19] The Defendant’s version was that through a letter dated 3 November, 2020, Formogen Co Ltd had informed the Defendant of its S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 intention to novate the contract to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would be required to negotiate with the Defendant “for the release of the price of the products”. The Defendant then claimed that through its letter dated 26 November, 2020, it had informed to the Plaintiff that they had received the letter sent by Formogen Co Ltd and started negotiation with the Plaintiff for the release of the price. However, the Defendant highlighted that the Plaintiff did not respond to the letter dated 26 November, 2020. [20] This non-reply, according to the Defendant, meant that there was no novation of contract between the parties. [21] The Defendant also relied on section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 for the proposition that a novation of contract can only take place when it has been agreed by all parties. The Defendant reasoned that since the Plaintiff and the Defendant had failed to agree on the terms of the new contract, “the novation of contract had failed”. [22] Reliance was placed on the decision in Daya Cmt Sdn Bhd v Yuk Tung Construction Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 871 (“Daya Cmt Sdn Bhd”) where the learned Judge has quoted from Chitty on Contract, Vol 1, (1983 Ed), at paras 1315- 1316, that is: “Novation is a new contract. It extinguishes rights and obligations under the old contract for which the new contract is made. Being a new contract, there must be consent by all parties and there must be consideration, and rights and obligations under it are not those transferred from the old contract which is already extinguished.” S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [23] On the consequential issue of whether there had been a breach of the terms of the contract if this Court were to find that there was a novation of the contract, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had not only failed to deliver 104,307 out of the 150,100 boxes of the gloves that had been agreed upon under the contract, but had also unilaterally changed the contract price and logistics payment which the Plaintiff had never agreed to. That too, as pointed out by the Plaintiff, was after the full purchase price had been paid to the Defendant. It is thus the Plaintiff’s contention that the above constituted as a breach of the terms of the contract. [24] Since there was failure to deliver the outstanding boxes of the gloves despite repeated requests from both Formogen Co Ltd and the Plaintiff through two Delivery Orders and three letters dated 4 September, 2020, 17 September, 2020, 20 September, 2020, 11 October 2020 and 26 January, 2021, only 45,793 out of the 150,100 boxes of gloves as contracted were shipped out. [25] The Plaintiff referred to evidence of admission by the Defendant of having received USD250,000.00 from the Plaintiff being the air freight costs and submitted that since the Defendant had failed to arrange any air freight and failed to fully deliver the gloves after receiving the sum of USD250,000.00, the amount received should be refunded to the Plaintiff. [26] As for the remaining claim for the sum of USD12,315.50, the Plaintiff explained that this amount was a result of it having arranged their own forwarder, namely, Chu Kong Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd to pick up the gloves when it was the Defendant who was responsible for payment of the freight charges. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [27] The Plaintiff also relied on section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 and the following cases, namely, Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 AMR 601; [2015] 2 CLJ 453; [2015] 2 MLJ 441; [2015] 2 MLRA 247 (“Dream Property”), Sediperak Sdn Bhd v Baboo Chowdhury [1999] 5 CLJ 31; [1999] 5 MLJ 229; [1998] 3 MLRH 886 (“Sediperak”), Siow Wong Fatt v Susur Rotan Mining Ltd & Anor [1967] CLJU 161; [1967] 2 MLJ 118; [1967] 1 MLRA 53; (“Siow Wong Fatt”) and Intergos spolka z organiczona odpowiedzialnosca v Xfyre (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] AMEJ 1150; [2022] 9 CLJ 418; [2022] MLJU 1909 to substantiate its claim on the principle of unjust enrichment. [28] The crux of the Defendant’s case in response to the breach of the terms of the contract issue is simply that the contract for the delivery of the 150,100 boxes of Xfyre Theracom Powder-free Nitrile Examination Gloves was a contract between the Defendant and Formogen Co Ltd. The Defendant underscored the fact that until the date of the filling of this suit, Formogen Co Ltd had not requested nor demanded for any return of monies from the Defendant. [29] Interestingly, the Defendant also argued that there was no evidence of the monies being paid by the Plaintiff to Formogen Co Ltd. [30] Following the above, the Defendant submitted that since the Plaintiff had failed to prove that they had made payments to Formogen Co Ltd and/or the Defendant for the purpose of the contract between the Plaintiff and Formogen Co Ltd, the Defendant’s position is that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim for the amount of USD677,005.50, being the sum for the boxes of gloves that have not been delivered. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [31] Correspondingly, the Defendant insisted that the payment of USD250,000.00 was also in relation to the contract between Formogen Co Ltd and Defendant. Since the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the purpose of payment of USD250,000.00 was for the purpose of the contract between Formogen Co Ltd and the Plaintiff, the latter, according to the Defendant, is not entitled to claim for the return of this sum of USD250,000.00. [32] Finally, on the freight charges of USD12,315.50 incurred by the Plaintiff, it is the Defendant’s contention that this claim should also fail on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that payment was made by the Plaintiff to Chu Kong Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd. As pointed out by the Defendant, what was relied by the Plaintiff to show that payment was made to Chu Kong Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd was merely an invoice billed to the Defendant. The Applicable Law and Principles [33] As the issue of novation features prominently in this matter, it is apt the relevant provision in the Contracts Act 1950 relied on by the parties are set out. [34] Section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 provides as follows: Effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract 63. If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [35] In H&R Johnson Tiles Ltd, it was explained that in order for there to be a valid novation, the following requirements must be present, namely: (1) There must be an intention to novate; (2) Novation may be expressed or may be implied from conduct; (3) There must be consideration; and (4) There must be consent of all the parties concerned.” [36] As the Plaintiff has invoked section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 in support of its claims for the sums which it says that the Defendant are liable for, it is appropriate that this provision is set out and examined. Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 reads as follows: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act 71. Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. [37] As explained by cases such as Dream Property, Sediperak and Siow Wong Fatt, the provision in section 71 of the Contracts Act is triggered if the following four conditions, namely: (1) must be lawful, (2) must be done for another person, (3) must not be intended to be done gratuitously, S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (4) must be such that the other person enjoys the benefit of the act or the delivery are fulfilled. The Decision of this Court [38] The trial of this matter was conducted on 7 and 8 August, 2023. A total of two witnesses testified in this trial, one for the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant. For the Plaintiff it was Li Feng Juan (PW-1) and for the Defendant it was Khamil bin Ismail (DW-1). [39] The Defendant had raised a preliminary objection that the Plaintiff through the evidence of PW-1 had in her witness statement, made hearsay statements in questions and answers 6,7, 8, 21 and 22. [40] The objection was raised on the premise that documentary hearsay evidence was made by PW-1 (in providing her own opinion on the documents) when the makers of the documents, that is, Formogen Co Ltd and/or Chu Kong Logistics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd were not called by the Plaintiff. [41] This Court is of the considered view that the answers to the questions emphasized by the Defendant are not hearsay evidence. As the Plaintiff had merely stated what is contained in the documents the evidence is to establish the facts in issue instead of the truth of what is contained in the statement. This Court is also in agreement with the observations by the High Court in Maruthiah Chillayah v Hydro Aluminium Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 LNS 841; [2011] 8 MLRH 309 that evidence S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 pertaining to the contents of a document that has properly been admitted is not hearsay. As explained by the learned Judge: [13] In this case, Exhibit P2 was undisputed documentary evidence from the records of D itself. What P heard from the two directors may be hearsay but the contents of P2, which was properly admitted, was not hearsay. The inherent dangers of hearsay evidence, such as inaccuracy, fabrication and concoction did not apply to P2. P could as such, place reliance on P2 to sustain his claim founded on the decision of the B/D. It was indisputable that the BID made the decision claimed but D asserted the decision was not binding until further resolutions and directions. However, the available evidence did not support this assertion. [42] What is obvious is that the present matter would have been one that is straightforward if Formogen Co Ltd had commenced an action against the Defendant. However, since it is the Plaintiff that is the party that has filed this action against the Defendant, the novation point becomes contentious. [43] Based on the evidence before the Court and the case of H&R Johnson Tiles Ltd, this Court is satisfied that pre-requisites for a valid novation have been satisfied. The intention to novate is evident from the conduct and contemporaneous evidence before this Court. So too are the elements of consideration and consent. [44] This Court acknowledges that the effect of a valid novation is a “new contract”. This authority for this proposition is section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 itself and the reminder by Lee Swee Seng J (as his Lordship then was) in Daya Cmt Sdn Bhd. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [45] The question then is what are the terms in the new contract. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had failed to agree on the terms of the new contract, rendering the novation of contract as having “failed”. This Court is unable to agree with this submission. This Court is of the view that the terms of the new contract is similar to those in the “old contract”. [46] As this Court has concluded that there was a valid novation of the contract, the following issue for consideration is whether there has been a breach of the terms of the contract. As noted in paragraphs [23] and [24] above, the Plaintiff’s assertation was that the breaches in the form of the unilateral change of the contract price and logistics payment by the Defendant coupled with the failure to deliver the outstanding boxes of the gloves were clear breaches of the terms of the contract. [47] The Defendant did not deny to the above except to raise the arguments that there was no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the right party to commence proceedings against it is Formogen Co Ltd. [48] As this Court has concluded that there was a valid novation based on the same terms, the arguments raised by the Defendant in the preceding paragraph are not defences that rebut the allegation of breaches of the terms of the contract. [49] Order in terms is granted to the Plaintiff as per the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [50] As the monies are in the escrow account of Messrs Fahmi Zhafri Ashraf & Co which holds the money as stakeholder, the prayer for an order that Messrs Fahmi Zhafri Ashraf & Co to release the sum of USD677,995.50 and USD250,000.00 to the Plaintiff being the consequential order is allowed. [51] The First Defendant to pay Plaintiff costs of RM30,000, subject to allocator. Dated: 2 February, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Lim Soo Zee for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Tee Wei Fong & Co.) Isa Aziz Ibrahim with Wong Yun Loong for the Defendant (Messrs. M. Raman & Associates) S/N I1vjXfK4x0Ox0CMiPlwqNg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018

PLAINTIF 1. ) Siva Kumar A/L Jeyapalan 2. ) AMMSA Property Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN Firwas Sdn. BhdPIHAK KETIGA1. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K.RAGAVAN 2. ) Shoba A/p Govindasamy PENCELAH SHOBA A/P GOVINDASAMY

[1] The case before this Court was a patently and obviously a fraudulent and sham claim by fraudulent personas who by their concerted deceit and outright lies maliciously attempted to force the Defendant-vendor to conform and abide by a fraudulent Draft Sale and Purchase Agreement (which at all times was never signed and in fact had been clearly rejected by the Defendant-vendor). The fraud was concocted by the Plaintiffs themselves together with another fraudulent property agent and a fraudulent interloper within the legal fraternity who was unlawfully holding herself out as a qualified person (and lawyer) despite having proven to have forged her qualifications before the Malaysian Bar Council. The sheer magnitude of falsity emanating from this sham claim was overtly astounding to the grave extent that this Court must remark its disdain and chagrin to the callous and brazen deceit that the Plaintiffs and its cohorts have tried to delude this Court to believe.

02/02/2024

YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=64252d4d-dd25-4e2b-a34d-123648608515&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) WRIT SAMAN NO: WA-22NCVC-677-10/2018 ANTARA 1. SIVA KUMAR A/L JEYAPALAN (NO K/P: 711229-10-6235) 2. AMMSA PROPERTY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1272577-X) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN FIRWAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 108654-T) …DEFENDAN (Melalui Tindakan Asal) DAN FIRWAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 108654-T) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. SIVA KUMAR A/L JEYAPALAN (NO K/P: 711229-10-6235) 2. AMMSA PROPERTY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1272577-X) 3. THEVANDRAN A/L K. RAGAVAN (NO K/P: 721117-10-5827) (disaman dalam kapasiti peribadinya dan 02/02/2024 15:46:03 WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 Kand. 402 S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 sebagai pemilik tunggal Thevan Realty, sebuah agensi hartanah yang didaftarkan di bawah Lembaga Penilai Pentaksir, Ejen Harta Tanah dan Pengurus Harta No Pendaftaran, E(3) 0751) 4. SHOBA A/P GOVINDASAMY …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (disaman sebagai rakan kongsi Tetuan Chambers of Rahimi Ibrahim & Co dahuluya dikenali sebagai Tetuan Ibrahim & Co dahulunya dikenali sebagai Tetuan Mohd Faizol Rahimi & Partners, firma guaman peguamcara dan peguambela) (Melalui Tuntutan Balas) DAN THEVANDRAN A/L K. RAGAVAN (NO K/P: 721117-10-5827) …PLAINTIF (dalam kapasiti peribadiya dan sebagai pemilik tunggal Thevan Realty, sebuah agensi hartanah yang didaftarkan di bawah Lembaga Penilai Pentaksir, Ejen Harta Tanah dan Pengurus Harta No Pendaftaran, E(3) 0751) DAN 1. FIRWAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 108654-T) 2. JASIM SURA PUTHUCHEARY (NO K/P: 700418-10-6169) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (Melalui Tuntutan Balas) S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. FOREWORD [1] The case before this Court was a patently and obviously a fraudulent and sham claim by fraudulent personas who by their concerted deceit and outright lies maliciously attempted to force the Defendant-vendor to conform and abide by a fraudulent Draft Sale and Purchase Agreement (which at all times was never signed and in fact had been clearly rejected by the Defendant-vendor). The fraud was concocted by the Plaintiffs themselves together with another fraudulent property agent and a fraudulent interloper within the legal fraternity who was unlawfully holding herself out as a qualified person (and lawyer) despite having proven to have forged her qualifications before the Malaysian Bar Council. The sheer magnitude of falsity emanating from this sham claim was overtly astounding to the grave extent that this Court must remark its disdain and chagrin to the callous and brazen deceit that the Plaintiffs and its cohorts have tried to delude this Court to believe. [2] The core facts of the sham claim were simple. The Defendant-company was the owner and vendor of a large piece of land. The Defendant- company was desirous to sell the piece of land. The Plaintiffs were the failed prospect who was unable to conclude an agreement with the Defendant to purchase the piece of land. Prior to negotiations, the Plaintiffs have allegedly demonstrated their commitment by paying an earnest deposit to the fraudulent property agent to the amount of RM1.2 million. It remains undisputed that this earnest deposit had never been remitted nor S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 paid to the Defendant-vendor and had always remained in the possession of the fraudulent property agent. [3] A temporary receipt for the earnest deposit was signed although clearly subject to continued negotiations for terms and final agreement. It was clearly mentioned and discussed that the purchase price for the property was RM60,000,000.00. The temporary receipt stipulated that the purchase price was for RM40,000,000.00 (to be paid in 2 tranches) while a contemporaneous signed Letter of Undertaking by the fraudulent property agent had admitted that the final 3rd tranche RM20,000,000.00 shall be paid simultaneously with the 2nd tranche of the RM40,000,000.00 under the temporary receipt. [4] The reasons the negotiations were aborted were inter alia plainly that: a. The Defendant rejected all the Draft SPAs drafted by the fraudulent lawyer as the Draft SPAs did not clearly reflect the RM60,000,00.00 purchase price that was preliminarily negotiated upon; b. The Defendant rejected all the Draft SPAs considering the conspicuous and dubious manner the fraudulent lawyer and fraudulent property agent was insistent that the Draft SPAs to only reflect the price of RM40,000,000.00; c. The Defendant rejected all the Draft SPAs in fear of being held accountable to collude in a tax evasion scheme for understating the true purchase price of RM60,000,000.00 within the Draft SPA itself; d. The Defendant rejected all the Draft SPAs as it was never agreed that the final 3rd tranche of the RM60,000,000.00 be satisfied via transfer of S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 some properties of equal value. Instead the Defendant had at all times insisted that all the RM60,000,000.00 shall be paid by liquid means. [5] The breakdown and failure of negotiations were plain and obvious. Apart from the clear failure of negotiations, the rejection and abortion of negotiations was clearly recorded and communicated to the fraudulent property agent and the fraudulent lawyer. In fact, the fraudulent lawyer and the fraudulent property agent had by their own written words acknowledged and admitted that either the negotiations had not reached any conclusion or that the negotiation was outright aborted and rejected. There was a barrage of documentary evidence to prove all of these facts both from the Defendant and the Plaintiffs themselves. [6] Due to the failed negotiations with the Plaintiffs, the Defendant was well within its rights to deal with the land and subsequently sold the land to the successful purchaser, one Dato Lee Siang Huat ("Dato Lee") of Eastern Titan Sdn Bhd ("Eastern Titan") for a cash price of RM58,000,000.00. [7] Despite being fully aware and personally informed of the total failure and abortion of negotiations with the Plaintiffs, the fraudulent property agent and the fraudulent lawyer (and to an extent even the Plaintiffs) were altogether willing stoop so low so as to hatch a fraudulent scheme in order to secure the would-have-been interest (either in legal fees, agency fees, and land ownership) that these three fraudulent personas would have gained if the negotiations with the Plaintiffs were a success. And these three fraudsters were willing to stoop so low despite having full knowledge that the negotiations have failed and the Defendant had never at any point in time signed or even agreed on any terms with the Plaintiffs. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [8] And the insidious modus operandi of their conspiracy to defraud is to fabricate a façade and false narrative as though the Plaintiffs were well within their legitimate expectation to rely on the ostensible authority of the fraudulent lawyer and fraudulent property agent (as alleged ‘agents’ of the Defendant) to deem that the Defendant-company had ‘agreed’ to one of the Draft SPAs that were prepared by the fraudulent lawyer. Unbeknownst to and without the Defendant-company’s knowledge, the fraudulent lawyer and the fraudulent property agent colluded and had ‘accepted’ one of the sham Draft SPAs which led to the Plaintiffs to sign one of the sham SPAs prepared by the fraudulent lawyer. Supposedly, the Plaintiffs were insisting that the fraudulent lawyer’s and the fraudulent property agent’s acceptance would bind the Defendant-vendor as principal. [9] In furtherance of their detestable scheme, the fraudulent lawyer and the fraudulent property agent allegedly had ‘accepted’ a further deposit of RM4,800,000.00 (paid to the fraudulent lawyer’s firm) from the fraudulent Plaintiffs. This was yet another façade employed in the machinations to fraudulently force the Defendant-vendor to commit and conform to the sham SPA that it had never agreed to. [10] The inexplicable contradictions were glaring and were significantly reflective of the fraudulent lawyer’s fraudulent conduct and intent. Despite having confirmed via written email to the Defendant that the negotiations had been aborted, the same fraudulent lawyer subsequently emailed the Defendant-vendor for ‘further instruction’ on the sham SPA that had been signed by the fraudulent Plaintiffs. [11] To further cement the fraudsters’ sham claim, the fraudsters had the audacity to file the Main Suit [Plaintiffs: (i) Sivakumar a/l Jeyapalan (ii) S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 AMMSA Property Sdn Bhd v Defendant: Firwas Sdn Bhd] before this Court seeking for damages and specific performance to force the Defendant to perform the sham SPA it had never signed and agreed to. To add further disgrace to their sham claim, the fraudulent Plaintiffs, the fraudulent lawyer, and the fraudulent property agent even attempted to delude this Court into believing that the sale price negotiated was a mere RM40,000,000.00 while expecting this Court to ignore barrage upon barrage of evidence in which even the fraudsters admitted to the sale price negotiated had always been RM60,000,000.00. The fraudulent Plaintiffs even lodged caveats upon the land to protect their fraudulent ‘interest’ in the land (in which there was certainly none). [12] While defending against the Plaintiffs’ sham claim, the Defendant-vendor had also filed their own counterclaim within the Main Suit (Defendant- vendor’s counter-claim: [Plaintiff: Firwas Sdn Bhd v Defendants: (i) Sivakumar a/l Jeyapalan, (ii) AMMSA Property Sdn Bhd, (iii) Thevandran a/l K.Ragavan and (iv) Shoba a/p Govindasamy] for consequential orders to remove the fraudulent Plaintiffs’ wrongful caveat as well as damages for the removal of the caveat and damages against the fraudulent property agent and fraudulent lawyer’s firm. [13] As though the fraudulent scheme could not have been more sinister, the fraudulent property agent even hatched his own sham counterclaim against the Defendant-vendor and the Defendant’s Director to enforce the sham SPA and to keep the earnest deposit of RM1,200,000.00 he received from the fraudulent Plaintiffs as his ‘fees’ as the Defendant’s property agent. The fraudulent property agent counter-claim against the Defendant-vendor: [Plaintiff: Thevandran a/l K.Ragavan v Defendants: (i) Firwas Sdn Bhd (ii) Jasim Sura Puthucheary]. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [14] This Court had sat through lengthy days of trial having to hear many dubious, inconsistent, and downright nonsensical testimonies from many dishonest and deflective witnesses all of which were from the Plaintiffs’ side of the case. This Court shall certainly put the meat on the bones of this foreword to clearly unravel the clear fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duties that the Plaintiffs had dragged before this Court’s doorstep. [15] On the other hand, this Court must laud and express this Court’s utmost appreciation for the Defendant-vendor’s solicitors for preparing an immaculate Written Submission which by and large had encapsulated the core essence of the case. Although the Written Submission was lengthy (spanning over 146 pages), the manner in which the Submission was arranged and presented to this Court had proffered this Court with ease of reading, as well as concise and precise recollection of the critical events that had transpired during trial before this Court (and all the material facts which led to the filing of the Main Suit and the 2 counterclaims). [16] It is well within this Court’s comprehension that Firwas (Defendant- vendor) had not literally pleaded a case for fraud or conspiracy and instead pleaded a case for wrongful breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful entry of caveat. Nonetheless, it was impossible for this Court to ignore the factum that the pleaded facts clearly show that the manners in which the breach of fiduciary duty were perpetrated was obviously fraudulent. Thus, it would not be entirely correct to say that Firwas had not at all pleaded a case for fraud or conspiracy. As far as this Court is concerned, the facts and particulars pleaded within Firwas’s pleading (in its Statement of Defence as well as Counterclaim) sufficiently pleaded the manners and methods the fraud and conspiracy were perpetrated. There is nothing inherently wrong to plead a case that a breach of fiduciary duty was perpetrated by way of fraud or S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 conspiracy, as in essence, the abuse of a fiduciary position can occur vide fraudulent conducts and conspiracy against the victim who had entrusted the fraudster to become his fiduciary. [17] Although the law requires that the allegation of fraud needs to be specifically pleaded, the word ‘fraud’ in the generic sense NEED NOT BE PLEADED. The Federal Court in its landmark decision in Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo Achi alias Sona Lena Alamelo Acho, deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 697 had clearly held that the question whether the word ‘fraud’ was explicitly pleaded was an insignificant “semantic detail”. The proper question to ask was instead whether or the not the facts which make up the fraudulent conduct were pleaded. In which case, the entire facts of the fraudulent unauthorised ‘acceptance’ of the sham SPA (despite clear failure and abortion of negotiations) by the fraudulent lawyer, fraudulent property agent, and the Plaintiffs were all fully pleaded within the Defendants’ Defence and Counterclaim: “[26] Order 18 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 read together with r 12(1)(a) requires a specific plea of fraud as well as the particulars of fraud. Yet, it is not always necessary to plead the word ‘fraud’. In Davy v Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473 at p 489), Thesiger LJ said: It may not be necessary in all cases to use the word ‘fraud’ — indeed in one of the ordinary cases it is not necessary. An allegation that the defendant made to the plaintiff representations were untrue, and known to the defendant to be untrue, is sufficient. The word ‘fraud’ is not used, but two expressions are used S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 pointing at the state of mind of the defendant — that he intended the representations to be acted upon, and that he knew them to be untrue. [27] Lord Millet LJ, in Armitage v Nurse and others [1998] Ch 241 clearly agreed with Thesiger LJ: The general principle is well known. Fraud must be distinctly alleged and as distinctly proved: Davy v Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473 at p 489, per Thesiger LJ. It is not necessary to use the word ‘fraud’ or ‘dishonesty’ if the facts which make the conduct complained of fraudulent are pleaded. … Given its wide acceptance, it is therefore surprising that neither Davy v Garrett nor Armitage v Nurse and others was ever applied in Malaysia to resolve whether it is necessary to plead the word ‘fraud’, until Ranjeet Singh Sidhu v Zavarco PLC [2015] MLJU 638, where Wong Kian Kheong JC first cited Armitage v Nurse and others and said: I do, however, draw attention to two separate aspects of the requirements relating to the pleading of fraud. The first is that there must be an express allegation of fraud. The words fraud or dishonesty do not have to be used. The use of words which are inconsistent with the absence of fraud and dishonesty is enough. It is enough, therefore, to plead that the Defendant was party to an unlawful means of conspiracy since such involvement is wholly inconsistent with an absence of fraud or dishonesty. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [30] The time has surely come to make a stand. We entirely agree with the reasoning in Davy v Garrett, Armitage v Nurse and others, and Three Rivers that it is not always necessary to plead the word ‘fraud’ if the facts which make the conduct fraudulent are pleaded.” [18] Even if this Court was wrong in this matter, this Court must staunchly remark that the evidence of fraud and conspiracy was profoundly glaring to the extent that it would be in the interest of justice for this Court to make findings and take judicial notice of the brazen fraud and illegality of the conspiracy that had been perpetrated. It would be well against public policy if this Court were to ignore the glaring illegality that the fraudsters were attempting to enforce. This Court shall take heed upon the Federal Court’s call to vehemently cull and unravel illegalities as and when the illegality arises before the Court EVEN IF THE ILLEGALITY WAS NOT PLEADED (see Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Shazryl Eskay bin Abdullah [2015] 5 MLJ 619): “[35] Clearly, therefore, courts are bound at all stages to take notice of illegality, whether ex facie or which later appears, even though not pleaded, and to refuse to enforce the contract. In that regard, we endorse the following [2015] 5 MLJ 619 at 638statement of law by the Court of Appeal per Hamid Sultan JCA, delivering the judgment of the court, in China Road & Bridge Corp & Anor v DCX Technologies Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2014] 5 MLJ 1: At the outset we must say that the trial courts must be vigilant not to provide any relief on contracts which is void on the grounds of public policy, or illegality … whether or not it is the pleaded case of S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 the parties or whether the issue was raised during the trial. The case of Blay v Pollard & Morris [1930] 1 KB 628 where Scrutton LJ observed: Cases must be decided on the issues on the record; and if it is desired to raise other issues they must be placed on the record by amendment which has been followed in a number of local cases will not stand to tie the hands of judges to deal with the above issues, or arrest impropriety on its own motion at limine …” [19] Thus, guided by the Federal Court’s call, it would only be just and appropriate (and it would be well within this Court’s inherent jurisdiction) to address and unravel the rampant illegality (in the form of fraud and conspiracy) plaguing the sham SPA that the Plaintiffs are now trying to enforce. It would be well within this Court’s authority to delve into the law and elements of fraud and conspiracy. This is further supported by the fact that Section 24 (c) of the Contracts Act also clearly stipulated that AN AGREEMENT IS ILLEGAL OR UNLAWFUL IF “IT IS FRAUDULENT”. Thus, even if there was no literal pleading of the words “fraud” or “conspiracy” (in which this Court believes there was sufficient pleaded facts of fraud and conspiracy), it remains well within this Court’s power to delve into the illegality of the sham SPA (which was illegal by fraud and conspiracy). B. FACTS OF THE CASE [20] As mentioned prior, Firwas Sdn Bhd (“Defendant-vendor / Firwas”) was a family business incorporated by one late James Puthucheary and his brothers on 25.10.1983. Three of the four brothers have since passed away. The company survived and is now held by the shareholding of James’ widow, Mavis Puthucheary, Dominic and the estates of the three S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 deceased brothers. Firwas is primarily left under the care, management, and representation of one Jasim Puthucheary (“Jasim”) who is Firwas’s Director and also son of the late James Puthucheary and Mavis Puthucheary. Firwas is the registered proprietor of a large parcel of land held under Lot No. 49259, Geran 5238, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Takzim ("subject land"). B(i) The introduction of the Fraudulent Property Agent Thevan to Firwas [21] Firwas was desirous to sell the subject land. What the Defendant thought was an opportunity to sell (but instead turned into an insidious ploy to defraud) was the introduction (by Jasim’s now wife, Irene Raj Kumar (“Irene”)) to Thevandran a/l Ragavan (“the fraudulent property agent / fraudulent Thevan / Thevan”). The fraudulent Thevan sought to abuse the close friendship he shared with Irene. In all dealings and negotiations regarding the subject land, Irene and Jasim had always worked in tandem (together with Mavis as shareholder) to represent Firwas’s interest. In fact, it is by the ticket of Irene’s friendship with fraudulent Thevan, that Firwas had approached Thevan to assist Firwas to find a prospective buyer of the subject land circa late 2017 and early 2018. Irene’s active involvement and representation of Firwas was readily informed to, and acknowledged by Thevan in his WhatsApp conversation with Jasim on 24.1.2018: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [22] Thevan then introduced Firwas to the failed purchaser, Siva Kumar a/l Jeyapalan (“2nd Plaintiff / Siva”) who had offered to purchase the subject land for the purchase price of RM60,000,000.00. Firwas (via Mavis, Jasim, or Irene) had never directly communicated with the 2nd Plaintiff. Instead, the negotiations were by and large orchestrated by the fraudulent Thevan (together with the fraudulent lawyer). Since the initial stages of negotiation, it was absolutely clear that Firwas was looking for at least a RM60,000,000 valuation for the purchase price. The mechanism of payment of the RM60,000,000.00 (via the Temporary Receipt and Supplementary Letter of Undertaking by Thevan) was discussed as early as 24.1.2018 via the WhatsApp group correspondence between Jasim, Irene, and the fraudulent Thevan: … S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [23] In the same WhatsApp group conversation, Thevan also shared a photo of a cheque allegedly issued by Siva for RM1,200,000.00 as earnest deposit to demonstrate Siva’s commitment to further negotiate on the possible purchase of the subject land. The draft Temporary Receipt for RM40,000,000.00 and draft Undertaking by Thevan for the 3rd tranche of RM20,000,000.00 (total RM60,000,000.00) was also shared within the same WhatsApp group conversation. [24] From the outset, even without having to refer to the actual Temporary Receipt and the Letter of Undertaking signed by Thevan, it was already glaringly clear that the negotiated price had always been RM60,000,000.00 and never for RM40,000,000.00. This was one of the many compelling reasons why this Court has to record this Court’s disdain against the appalling attempt by the fraudulent Thevan and Siva to delude this Court to believe that somehow Firwas had agreed to only go by the RM40,000,000.00 valuation in the Temporary Receipt. Against the backdrop of Thevan’s own written admissions, Thevan and Siva still insisted to lie before this Court despite the gruelling evidence that ran adversely against Thevan’s and Siva’s lies. [25] Nevertheless, the evidence of fraudulent Thevan’s and Siva’s lies can be further cemented by further contemporaneous documents (which this Court shall address further down this judgment). Following the WhatsApp group conversation, a meeting was held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on 2.3.2018 between Jasim, Irene, and the fraudulent Thevan (“MO Meeting”). During this MO Meeting, Thevan passed to Jasim a Temporary Receipt dated 5.2.2018 (“Temporary Receipt”) which covers the first two tranches of the RM60,000,000.00 (total payment of RM40,000,000.00) alongside the earnest deposit paid by Siva to Thevan. The Temporary S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Receipt was not at all a concluded contract but merely was Siva’s avenue to demonstrate his intent and commitment to purchase the subject land. Negotiations have not yet properly begun and the purchase was still subject to a properly agreed and executed Sale and Purchase Agreement: [26] Simultaneous to the Temporary Receipt, Thevan also signed and passed an undated Letter of Undertaking in which Thevan undertakes to ensure that Firwas be paid the 3rd tranche of the RM60,000,000.00 via the transfer of two properties owned by Siva. This 3rd tranche payment was negotiated to be transferred simultaneously with the cash payment of the 2nd tranche S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 RM20,000,000.00 stipulated in the Temporary Receipt. This undated Letter of Undertaking was later replaced by Thevan with a dated and signed Letter of Undertaking dated 29.3.2018 (“Dated Undertaking”) which Thevan had forwarded via Whatsapp to Jasim on 5.4.2018. Despite the fact that the draft versions of the Dated Undertaking were clearly exchanged and discussed between Thevan himself, Irene, and Jasim between 27.2.2018 to 5.3.2018, Thevan still insisted on lying before this Court regarding the authenticity of the Letters of Undertaking Thevan himself had signed. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 B(ii) The introduction of the Fraudulent Unqualified Lawyer Usha to Firwas [27] Adding further misfortune to Firwas, the fraudulent Thevan had on 2.2.2018 introduced to Firwas, the legal conveyancing services of one Maragatham a/p Karuppiah (“fraudulent Usha / fraudulent lawyer / Usha”). It was well within evidence that fraudulent Usha was falsely holding herself out as a licensed lawyer when in truth, she was far from any legal qualification. Her LLB(hons) qualification printed on her (un)professional calling card was a total sham. Unbeknownst to Firwas, fraudulent Usha together with one of her ‘fraudulent firm’s’ partners were currently facing criminal charges for her fraudulent and illegal practice. Usha was in actuality a deceitful pretender who ‘ran’ and salaried the operation of Messrs Mohd Faidzol Rahimi & Partners (now known as Chambers of Rahimi Ibrahim & Co) (“Usha’s fraudulent firm”). The Managing Partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm one Siti Nur Aliaa Binti Shaik Khamarudin (“Siti”) stood before this Court in a tell-all testimony where she revealed the true fraudulent modus operandi of Usha’s fraudulent firm: DATO’ Cik Aliaa, dalam firma anda, siapa mengendalikan akaun, semua akaun firma? SITI Siapa yang? DATO’ Siapa yang, who handles – S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 JUDGE Siapa yang mengendalikan akaun firma tersebut? Siapa yang mengendalikan akaun firma tersebut? Duit masuk, duit keluar, cek masuk, cek keluar, siapa yang kendalikan? SITI Yang Arif, saya, boleh tak saya nak minta izin? DATO’ No, just answer the question. SITI Yang mengendali – DATO’ Jawapan soalan. JUDGE Tak, semalam Cik Aliaa kata Cik Aliaa bila jadi managing partners, tak tahu tentang kewangan, you buat fail sahaja. You buat fail sahaja. Jadi, dalam firm, you tak buat kewangan langsung. Jadi, kita nak tanya, kalau you tak buat kewangan, mengendalikan akaun, siapa yang buat kewangan dekat firm,firma Cik Aliaa? SITI Yang Arif, saya bercakap jujur bahawa semua keluar masuk duit adalah Usha. JUDGE Usha? SITI Bukan saya. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 JUDGE Saya bercakap jujur. Jujur pasal apa, kita Islam, kan? Pasal akhirat nanti, ya. Akhirat nanti. Kita tak tahu, nanti kalau kita tak minta maaf dekat orang – SITI Saya tersepit, Yang Arif. JUDGE Allah akan cari. Pasal saya hidup, 60 tahun saya hidup atas principle bercakap benar. Bukan kerana wang, bukan kerana material. SITI Saya tahu. … JUDGE Saya nak bercakap benar, dan sebenarnya Usha yang mengendalikan? SITI Usha yang urus semua. JUDGE Ya? SITI Usha yang mengurus semua tentang pejabat. JUDGE Ok. … S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 DATO’ Sama ada Usha tidak ada jawatan official dalam pejabat, dia control semua? SITI Benar, Yang Arif. JUDGE Again? DATO’ Even though she does not have any official position in the firm, she controls the firm. JUDGE Walaupun dia tidak mempunyai apa-apa position, dia mengawal firma tersebut. Ini firma Rahimi lah, ya? Firma Rahimi, ya? SITI Chambers of Rahimi. DATO’ Sebenarnya, Cik Aliaa, Usha adalah tuanpunya, Usha is the owner of the firm. SITI Ya. [28] In fact, one Sebastian Fashiano Albert (“Albert”), the then Registrar for Brickfields Asia College (“BAC”) had testified before this Court that all of her BAC certificate or qualifications were all blatant forgeries. Usha neither had any degree from King’s College nor was she ever offered an opportunity to do her CLP at BAC. Albert’s testimony went entirely unchallenged. None of the counsels who were offered the opportunity to S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 cross-examine, actually took the opportunity to cross-examine Albert’s testimony regarding Usha’s blatant forgeries and fraud. Thus, the factum of Usha’s forgeries of her qualifications and Usha’s fraudulent unlicensed law practice remained totally unchallenged and admitted by all parties. [29] Shedding further light onto fraudulent Usha’s treacherous ways was one Faidzol Rahimi (a former partner in Usha’s fraudulent firm) who was already struck off the rolls due to prior professional misconduct (“Faidzol”). Faidzol testified before this Court and had during cross-examination even admitted that the entirety of the firm was managed by fraudulent Usha to the extent that Faidzol admitted that he had NO FUNCTION at all within the firm: “Judge: Ok, itu untuk barang dokumen, jadi, urusan-urusan pengendalian oleh, transaksi ini, siapa yang uruskan? FAIZOL: Usha dan kerani … Judge: Segala urusan Usha yang buat? Faizol: Ya. Judge: Segala mana itu, kewangan, Usha yang buat. So fungsi you kat firm itu apa? Saya nak Tanya fungsi you kat firm itu” Faizol: TAK ADA FUNGSI, YANG ARIF” [30] The extent of manipulation and deceit by Usha was so gruelling to the extent that Faidzol outright testified that Usha had abused Faidzol’s qualifications as a lawyer to cover her unlawful activities of rendering illegal legal services without proper qualifications. This Court pauses here to S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 remark that both Faidzol and Aliaa’s demeanour during their testimonies were reflective of their guilty conscience for illegally holding out Usha as a qualified lawyer (when in truth she was merely a conniving fraudster). They knew of Usha’s fraudulent modus operandi and they knew that Usha had hired them into the firm only to abuse their legal qualifications as lawyers: “Judge: Wait, before. Jadi, you ini sebenarnya dipergunakan lah betul, boleh saya kata you dipergunakan? Faizol: BOLEH, YANG ARIF” B(iii) The total and obvious failure as well as cease of negotiations with Siva [31] Thus, the fraudulent Usha had from the very beginning of her introduction by fraudulent Thevan bore an insidious intent to fraudulently reap monetary benefits by fraudulently facilitating the sale of Firwas’s subject land. Considering Usha’s fraudulent beginnings, the fraudulent manner in which Usha and Thevan conducted their business were difficult to hide. Their fraudulent design gradually slipped through the cracks. Firwas via Irene, Jasim, and Mavis was constantly perplexed by Usha’s insistence to not follow their instructions and insistence to clearly and honestly stipulate the purchase price of RM60,000,000.00 and the mechanism of payment of the full purchase price in one singular SPA. Usha had always came up with Draft Sham SPAs which never spelled out the RM60,000,000.00 despite numerous instructions to consolidate all of the payment mechanism within one singular SPA. Usha’s insistence even heightened Jasim’s cautiousness as to not be implicated with any criminal charges for tax evasion. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [32] As Usha was the supposed conveyancing lawyer suggested by Thevan, Jasim had clearly voiced out his disagreements with all of the draft sham SPAs which were prepared by fraudulent Usha to both Thevan and Usha. Jasim was unequivocally concerned that everything that Usha had prepared was not even legally enforceable or was nowhere close to reflecting the terms negotiated for the sale of the subject land. One of the core errors that Thevan and Usha peculiarly always had failed to rectify was the manner and method the 3rd tranche of the RM60,000,000.00 was supposed to be paid. Jasim had always remained resolute that all of the RM60,000,000.00 shall be paid by cash means. However, Usha and Thevan kept on failing to amend the draft SPAs and kept on insisting that the 3rd tranche be paid by the transfer of two other properties owned by Siva: "[30/03/2018, 1:23:04 PM] Jasim: Chief the letter says that payment of the 20m balance will be satisfied through the transfer of the two properties. I think this has to be reworded to say that the 20m will be satisfied in cash from the sale proceeds of the 2 properties. Once this payment is received the property will be transferred under the spa [30/03/2018, 123:17 PM] Jasim: Can I collect later today chief {02/04/2018, 10:25:59 AM] Jasim: Chief my side has a concern that they will agree to transfer the property under the spa for 40m whether or not the balance 20m is paid or not. They are concerned that they may not receive the balance. Basically they are saying that is not the way the sale should be done. Can you assist to give a solution to this? one way is to include this as an additional instruction to the purchasers S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 solicitors so they have to receive the 20m from you and pass this to our solicitors before they can register the transfer. Is that ok? 02/04/2016, 10:45:30 AM] Thevan: Oh my” [33] Despite Jasim’s clear instructions, Thevan merely just sent the Dated Undertaking and had not endeavoured to ensure that the next draft SPA be amended to reflect the terms Firwas had always intended. AND BY THEVAN’S OWN WORDS, THEVAN ADMITTED THAT “THE DEAL WILL FALL” if Firwas continues to insist on the cash payment of the final 3rd tranche of the RM60,000,000.00 (which Firwas indeed had insisted on): [05/04/2018, 2:34:39 PM] Thevan: 20180405142007696 • 1 page attached 00000305-20180405142007696.dE>[Undertaking date 29.3.2018 attached] [05/04/2018, 2:46:52 PM] Jasim: Chief I appreciate the changes made. However I have been instructed that the 20m cash must be available to us at the time the transfer Is to be done. I don't know how to accomplish this. [05/04/2018, 2:50:15 PM Thevan: Aiyo [05/04/2018, 2:50:21 PM] Thevan: The deal will fall [05/04/2018, 3:09:47 PM] Jasim: I can't do much to change their decision. I have tried my best. They need certainty in receiving cash when transfer is to be done. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [34] Despite being informed by Firwas that the negotiations are already at the precipice (cliff) of failure, fraudulent Usha was still not able (or was intentionally reluctant) to prepare a draft SPA which would effectively incorporate Firwas’s terms. Firwas was resoundingly frustrated and had on 10.4.2018 indicated its intent to cease dealings with Usha and to appoint new lawyers to best represent Firwas’s interest. Upon being informed of Firwas’s intent, Thevan desperately scuttled and informed Firwas that he would speak to Usha to rectify the matter: [10/04/2018, 2:35:42 PM] Jasim: Chief I've gone through the two agreements sent by Usha and on top of general mistakes and inconsistencies, my comments before on the relationship of the 2 documents remains. I have asked her to clear up the documents and then explain to me how the documents are legally enforceable. If she can't complete this step I suggest proceeding with someone else because we are losing too much time on getting this right [10/04/2018, 2:36:56 PM] Thevan: Let me speak to Usha" [35] Up to this point, it was already apparent that even as early as 5.4.2018, negotiations have failed and not even one of the draft sham SPAs prepared by fraudulent Usha was accepted by Firwas or any representatives of Firwas. Fraudulent Thevan had in clear terms expressed that the negotiations with Siva “WILL FALL” if Firwas still insisted on the terms they had already intimated to both fraudulent Usha and fraudulent Thevan. Thus, considering that Firwas remained unmoved and insistent on its terms, it should have been abundantly clear to both Usha and Thevan that Firwas had never agreed to the sale to Siva. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [36] Two (2) months had passed since Firwas’s clear, absolute, and unmitigated rejection of the negotiation with Siva. Despite the clear ceasing of negotiations, fraudulent Usha still attempted to protract her scheme to falsely commit Firwas to the sham SPAs that she had drawn up. Despite the clear failure of negotiation, Usha still sent a single draft SPA for the wrong purchase price of RM40,000,000.00 (in clear contravention of Firwas’s instruction and intent) on 4.6.2018. It must be kept strictly in mind that Firwas had NEVER signed any of the sham SPAs prepared by fraudulent Usha. [37] Considering the failure of negotiations, it was apparent that Firwas was free to deal with the subject land as it pleases. The Temporary Receipt from the outset was never a binding contract to begin with as it was merely an ‘agreement to agree’ or an agreement subject to the finalisation and th execution of a formal contract. In accordance to Firwas’s indefeasible rights as registered proprietor, Firwas successfully secured an agreement to sell the subject land to Dato Lee of Eastern Titan on 12.6.2018. [38] Irene as one of the known representatives of Firwas had in clear terms informed fraudulent Thevan that Firwas and Mavis (as shareholder) were no longer interested to negotiate with Siva. Irene in clear and unambiguous terms informed Thevan via whatsapp on 18.6.2018 that the negotiation is “gone” and that Mavis does not want to proceed with the draft SPAs prepared by Usha: "17/06/2018, 13:50 - IR: Abang 17/06/2018, 13:51 - IR: the shareholders are meeting today. JP's mom does not want to do the deal. 17/96/2018 14:03 - TR: Oh S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 17/06/2018, 14:11 - TR: Call 17/06/2018, 14:11 - TR: I call nirvana? 17/06/2018,14:12 - IR: Can't afford nirvana 17/06/2018,14:13 - TR: ·· 17/06/2018, 14:14 - TR: Find out why? Perhaps work on that to correct it? 17/06/2018, 14:16 - IR: With all the constant changes, she is very unhappy. 17/6/2018, 14:18 - TR: No more changes 17/06/2018, 14:18 - TR: It's almost there. 17/06/2018, 14:19 - IR: Yes, and they have not agreed from the previous 17/06/2018, 14:19 - TR: Ok. Call when u can 17/06/2018, 14:19 - TR:, tj 18/06/2018, 10:08 - IR: Good morning 18/06/2018, 10:13 - TR: Salam 18/06/2018, 10:19 - IR: Its gone 18/06/2018, 10:19 - TR: .. 18/06/2018, 10:20 - TR: Good la 18/06/2018, 10:20 - TR: Reason? 18/06/2018, 10:21 - TR: 18/06/2018, 10:21 - TR: What to do lo .... ·· 18/06/2018, 10:21 - IR: She does not want to go ahead because she is unhappy with constant addendums. 18/06/2018, 10:22 - TR: Must give her a chill pill 18/06/2018, 10:22 - TR: · 18/06/2018, 10:22 - TR: And vodka 18/06/2018, 10:22 - IR: She said she has decided and no more talking” S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [39] Despite having full knowledge and awareness of Firwas’s decision to not proceed with the sale to Siva, Thevan had already begun to spur his fraudulent scheme by knowingly withholding Irene’s communication from Siva. Fraudulent Thevan testified before this Court that he had done so on the pretext that Irene’s communication was somehow ‘inconclusive’. Thevan’s testimony over the ‘conclusiveness’ of Irene’s communication was one of the barrage of instances of Thevan’s outright lie and self- contradictions before this Court. Despite denying the conclusiveness of Irene’s communication, Thevan himself by his own viva voce testimony before this Court admitted that he himself understood that Irene’s whatsapp message indeed conclusively indicated that either: a. Firwas does not want to sell the subject land to Siva: b. That the negotiation or deal with Siva has ceased or was ‘gone’: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 c. That Irene was clear in saying that the deal is ‘off’: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 [40] The fact that Thevan spurred further continuation of the negotiation despite Irene’s clear and resolute termination of the negotiation was simply confounding. Thevan then informed of the ceasing of negotiation to Usha. Usha in turn, in clear and unequivocal terms had admitted and acknowledged that the negotiation has been “ABORTED”. Fraudulent Usha had recorded as such in writing via her email to Thevan dated 18.6.2019 which was forwarded by Thevan to Irene (“Usha’s Abortion Email”). Usha had also enclosed her firm’s invoice for conveyancing work done: [41] It was glaringly obvious that even fraudulent Usha had acknowledged that the negotiations between Firwas and Siva “had been aborted”. There literally was not any room whatsoever for fraudulent Usha, and fraudulent Thevan to squirm and to delude this Court to believe that there has not been any outright termination by Firwas. It must be strictly kept in mind that Usha’s Abortion Email here was sent to Thevan and Thevan had forwarded the same to Irene. If Thevan genuinely believed that the termination was S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 inconclusive, then Thevan should have replied to Usha’s email to set the record straight. The fact that Thevan had never bothered to ‘correct’ Usha simply proves the truth of the matter that indeed the negotiations had already been entirely aborted without any room for confusion or uncertainty. [42] Following the consistent resolution to cease all negotiations with Siva, even Jasim had sent an email dated 18.6.2018 to clearly put on record that Usha consistently failed to abide by Firwas’s comments and instruction to amend the terms within the draft sham SPAs. Jasim further recorded that Firwas does not agree whatsoever to the draft sham SPAs prepared and sent by the fraudulent Usha: [43] The end and total cease of negotiations between Firwas and Siva could not have been clearer. Fraudulent Usha had by email confirmed that the sale was aborted. Adding further finality to the abortion was the fact that Usha herself had issued a final bill for the conveyancing work she had fraudulently done under the guise of the fraudulent firm. But despite the clear and total abortion of the negotiations, Thevan, Usha, and now, the fraudulent Siva began to collude and turn the wheels of their tri-partite S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 concerted fraud to falsely commit Firwas to the sham SPA prepared by Usha. B(iv) The tri-partite concerted fraud of fraudulent Thevan, fraudulent Usha, and the fraudulent 2nd Plaintiff, Siva [44] Now, before this Court delves into the inner workings of the tri-partite fraud, this Court must address Siva’s testimony before this Court that Siva allegedly had no knowledge of the sale by Firwas to Eastern Titan, and had only relied on Thevan’s and Usha’s say-so as agents of Firwas. This was one of the many excruciatingly obvious lies and deception that riddled the entirety of Siva’s testimony. [45] Siva attempted to feign ignorance and ‘innocence’ as though he had proceeded to sign the sham SPA prepared by fraudulent Usha and had proceeded to allegedly pay a further RM4,800,000.00 million deposit to Usha’s fraudulent firm as he was unaware of the sale to Eastern Titan. But this entire façade of a testimony can be debunked by referring to the close, direct, and interpersonal WhatsApp group conversations shared between the three fraudsters Usha, Thevan and Siva. Bear in mind that all of these fraudulent scheming had transpired AFTER Firwas’s sale to Eastern Titan and AFTER all three of the fraudsters already knew that the negotiations have entirely failed and Firwas had sold the subject land Eastern Titan. [46] Before the fraudulent ‘acceptance’ of Usha’s sham SPA on 2.7.2018, it was fraudulent Siva himself who had ‘alerted’ Thevan and Usha on 26.6.2018 (two weeks before the fraudulent acceptance of the sham SPA) of the fact that Firwas had sold the land to Eastern Titan. It was Thevan who shared S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 photos of the Power of Attorney issued by Firwas to Eastern Titan under the sale to Eastern Titan: WhatsApp between Usha and Siva on 26.6.2018 and 27.6.2018: "26/6/2018, 19:30 - Siva Kumar: [23 Images on land clearing at the Property - B11, p.15 - 18] 27/6/2018, 11:20 - Siva Kumar: [3 Images of Power of Attomey- B11, p.19 - 21] 27/6/2018, 11:20 - Siva Kumar: They have sold the land ... pls check 27/6/2018, 11:42 - Siva Kumar: [1 Image of Power of Attorney and 2 Images of land clearing at the Property – B11 - p.22 -24] WhatsApp between Thevan and Siva on 26.6.2018 and 27.6.2018: 26/06/2018, 14:10 - Siva Kumar: [8 Images land clearing at the Property- B6, p.106 -109] 26/06/2018, 14:14 -Siva kumar: [2 Images land clearing at the Property - B6, p.110] 26/06/2018, 14:16 - Siva Kumar: [Image of land clearing at the Property- B6, p.111] 26/06/2018, 14:16 - Siva Kumar: Media omitted S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 26/06/2018, 14:16 - Siva Kumar: Media omitted 26/06/2018, 14:16 - Slva Kumar: Media omitted 26/06/2018, 14:16 - Slva Kumar: Media omitted 26/06/2018, 14:31 - Siva Kumar: I am in JB till tomorrow. My flight is at 6pm.. can come to.arrow and make police report ect will b good. I can join u guys. 26/06/2018, 14:31 - Thevan R: Ok 26/06/2818, 20:00 - Siva Kumar: [Image of land clearing at the Property- B6, p.111] 26/06/2018, 20:01 - Siva Kumar: Red 15 location where land is cleared Now 26/06/2018, 20:04 - Siva Kumar: <Media omitted> 6/06/2018, 20:05 - Siva Kumar: Need to rotate this anti clockwise to match the earlier map 26/06/2081, 20:05 - Thevan R: Ok. 26/06/2018, 21:43 - Thevan R: Chief No news as of yet. Will chat am 26/06/2018, 21:48 - Siva Kumar: Ok sir, S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 27/06/2018, 11:15 - Siva Kumar: [1 Image of Power of Attorney and 2 Images of land clearing at the Property- B11- p.22 -24] 27/06/2018, 11:20 - Siva Kumar: «Media omitted» 27/06/2018, 11:20 - Siva Kumar: <<Media omitted> 27/06/2018, 11:21- Thevan R: Oh my 27/06/2018, 11:22 - Siva Kumar: Pls call me sir 27/06/2018, 11:25 - Thevan R: Ok Chief 27/06/2018, 11:41 - Thevan R: «Media omitted> 27/06/2018, 11:41 - Slva Kumar; <Media omitted» -y PoA 27/06/2018, 11:41 - Siva Kumar; <Media omitted> 27/06/2018, 11:41 - Siva Kumar: «Media omitted» 27/06/2018, 11:41 - Siva Kumar: <Media omitted 27/06/2018, 11:59 - Siva Kumar: There was also a police report made by Eastern Titan to do the land clearing. [47] Thus, without a shade of doubt, Siva had colluded with Thevan and Usha (“fraudulent trio”) as the fraudulent trio to fabricate a narrative of ‘innocence’ and innocent reliance on the agent-principal relationship S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 between Firwas, Thevan and Usha. Siva knew well ahead of the fraudulent acceptance on 2.7.2018 that the negotiations have failed and that the subject land has already been sold to Eastern Titan. The first step taken to actuate the tri-partite fraud was that Thevan instructed Usha to lie and deceive Ms Selvi into believing that Firwas had agreed upon the last draft sham SPA Usha had prepared. This lie was clearly reflected within Ms Selvi’s email to fraudulent Usha on 20.6.2018: [48] During cross-examination, Usha effectively admitted her fraudulent collusion with fraudulent Thevan as she had admitted that she had ‘accepted’ the draft sham SPA on the instruction of Thevan and NOT OF HER OWN CLIENT, Firwas. When questioned further, fraudulent Usha even ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD NOT VERIFIED THE ACCEPTANCE DIRECTLY WITH FIRWAS and was fraudulently adamant to only rely only S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 on fraudulent Thevan’s say-so. It was truly unimaginable that a lawyer (albeit a fraudster in this case) would not even care to get direct and personal confirmation from her own client especially when the mandate she undertook was at least valued at a life-altering sum of RM60,000,000.00: … S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 [49] It must be remembered that this communication between Selvi and Usha had occurred despite the fact that Usha had confirmed (earlier in time) via email that the negotiation had been aborted. This gross self-contradiction was thoroughly inexplicable and can only logically be inferred as an intentional deception to lay the foundation to the tri-partite fraud. Thereafter on 2.7.2018, Siva instructed Selvi to pass the sham SPA which he had signed together with the cheque for the deposit balance to Usha. With the fraudulent ‘acceptance’ and alleged payment of the deposit balance, the fraudulent trio effectively fabricated a narrative as though Firwas had already committed itself to be bound by the sham SPA (despite the fact that Firwas never signed nor had ever agreed to any of the sham SPA prepared by the fraudulent Usha). [50] In furtherance of the tri-partite fraud, Usha had via her email on 5.7.2018 to Jasim sought for Jasim’s instructions despite Usha having fully admitted and acknowledged that the negotiations have been aborted since 18.6.2018. Jasim on 12.7.2018 had clearly put on record via an email to Shoba (one of partners of Usha’s fraudulent firm) which was also copied to S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 Usha, that Firwas had never at any time approved of any of the sham SPAs prepared by Usha and that negotiations have already been recorded to be aborted by Usha herself: [51] The tri-partite fraudulent scheme continued when fraudulent Siva had wrongfully lodged a caveat on the subject land. On 30.8.2018 Siva whatsapped Dato Lee informing him that he had lodged a caveat onto the subject land and that he already had paid RM6,000,000.00 deposit to Firwas under the sham SPA. [52] And as a final act of the fraudulent trio’s fraudulent machinations, the fraudulent Siva had the audacity to sully this Court’s doorstep and filed the Main Claim against Firwas for damages and to specifically enforce the sham SPA which Firwas had neither executed nor ever agreed to. The S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 fraudulent Thevan also had the gall to file a counterclaim to support Siva’s unlawful attempt to enforce the sham SPA while also claiming to declare that the earnest deposit he had received from Siva is rightfully his as his ‘agency fees’. Firwas astutely defended against all the claims and had also filed its own counterclaim against the Plaintiffs, fraudulent Thevan, and Shoba a/p Govindasamy (as a partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm) inter alia for consequential order to remove the unlawful caveat lodged by fraudulent Siva, damages for the unlawful lodgment of the caveat, as well as damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conspiracy. [53] This Court went over many challenging days’ worth of Notes of Evidence, ploughed through voluminous documents and written submissions across the Plaintiffs’ sham Main Claim, Thevan’s sham counterclaim, and Firwas’s counterclaim and this Court is of the view that the case before this Court can be determined by gradually addressing and answering the following issues: a. Preliminary issue 1: Whether or not there were any merits to Thevan’s, Shoba’s and the Plaintiffs’ perplexing challenge as to Jasim’s and Irene’s representative capacity to represent the interest of Firwas; b. Preliminary issue 2: Siva, fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha were deceitful witnesses with critically impugned credibility; c. Whether or not Siva can ‘innocently’ rely on the ostensible authority of fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha to falsely commit Firwas to the sham SPA prepared by Usha; d. Whether or not Firwas was bound to the terms of the sham SPA which it had never signed or ever agreed to; and S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 e. Whether or not fraudulent Siva, fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha (and her fraudulent firm) had all colluded in a concerted tri-partite scheme to fraudulently force Firwas to commit to the sham SPA C. PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: Whether there were any merits to Thevan’s, Shoba’s and the Plaintiffs’ perplexing challenge as to Jasim’s and Irene’s representative capacity to represent the interest of Firwas. [54] This Court is beckoned to first address a preliminary issue raised by the Plaintiffs, Thevan, and Shoba. In typical fashion of a deceitful and sham claim, there are bound to be inexplicable discrepancies, self-contradictions as and when untruthful litigants were no longer able to bend the truth of a matter. One perplexing contradiction which arose from the Plaintiffs’, Thevan’s, and Shoba’s case were their awkward and self-defeating challenge against Jasim’s and Irene’s authority to represent Firwas. [55] Thevan and Shoba raised this challenge in their attempt to deflect any fiduciary duty as claimed by Firwas. By their flawed logic, as Jasim and Irene were not legal representatives of Firwas, they had no authority to appoint either Thevan or Shoba as fiduciaries. The Plaintiffs on the other hand was attempting to impugn the validity of the termination communicated by Firwas via Jasim and Irene. [56] These challenges were befuddling firstly because it goes against the very fabric of their sham claims against Firwas. By plain logic and law, if Jasim and Irene both had no authority to speak for Firwas, then the entirety of the negotiation facilitated by Thevan and Usha across the Temporary Receipt until the sham SPA WERE ALL UNLAWFUL AND UNENFORCEABLE. Thus, by this logic, the cases for Shoba, Thevan, and S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 Siva would unceremoniously fail. It is certainly perplexing that Shoba, Thevan, and Siva would even consider staking this stance. The only viable explanation would be that they were thoroughly desperate and were merely raising false contentions at their whims without any proper consideration of plain logic and the unbendable truth which they know they cannot defeat. [57] Secondly, these challenges would grossly contradict their own conduct in admitting and acknowledging Jasim’s and Irene’s representative capacity and authority to represent Firwas. If Jasim or Irene were genuinely believed to not have any authority, then this Court asks the rhetorical question, why did fraudulent Thevan, fraudulent Usha, and Shoba exclusively communicated with either Jasim or Irene in seeking instructions as to Firwas’s position on the many draft sham SPAs prepared by Usha? If Firwas’s interest does not depend on Jasim’s or Irene’s say-so, then why did they bother dealing with Jasim and Irene at all? It is plain and obvious that all parties had acted in manners which clearly acknowledged Jasim’s, Irene’s, and Mavis’s authority to represent the interest of Firwas. [58] It is very apparent to this Court that the Plaintiffs, fraudulent Usha, and fraudulent Thevan had no integrity and honest cohesion whatsoever in their cases. They contend arguments and negated the same arguments as and when they please and as and when the argument was ideal to their cases. They blew hot and cold. At one end they were more than willing to uphold Irene and Jasim’s representative capacity of Firwas to commit Firwas to the Temporary Receipt and sham SPA but at the other extreme end they deny Jasim’s and Irene’s authority to represent Firwas in appointing Thevan, Usha, and the Usha’s fraudulent firm as fiduciaries of Firwas. [59] Estoppel shall apply to bar the Plaintiffs, Shoba, Thevan, and Usha from inequitably denying the representative capacity of both Jasim and Irene. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 The principle of estoppel was very recently restated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ho Yau Hong & Ors v How Yaw Ming and another appeal [2023] MLJU 933: “[40] The Federal Court’s decision in the case of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 331 has cautioned against such adoption of contradictory stances: “When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption either of fact or of law – whether due to misrepresentation or mistake makes no difference – on which they have conducted the dealings between them – neither of them will be allowed to go back on the assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so”. lt would facilitate moral decadence within our social structure. [41] Such approbating and reprobating of stances have also been cautioned against by the Court of Appeal in the case of Cheah Theam Kheang v City Centre Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals (2012) 2 CLJ 16 which had held the following: “In other words of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC in Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd and Others (1990) 3 All ER 376 at pp. 383 to 384: There is a principle of law of general application that it is not possible to approbate and reprobate. That means you are not allowed to blow hot and cold in the attitude that you adopt. A man cannot adopt two inconsistent attitudes towards another: he must elect between them and, S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 having elected to adopt one stance, cannot thereafter be permitted to go back and adopt an inconsistent stance” [60] Effectively thus, the Plaintiffs, Thevan, Usha, and Shoba are all estopped from denying Jasim’s and Irene’s authority to conclusively terminate the negotiations with Siva. The negotiations were validly terminated and no parties have any rights to impede on Firwas’s rights to sell the subject land to Eastern Titan. D. PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: Siva, fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha were deceitful witnesses with critically impugned credibility [61] As this Court has mentioned prior, the extent of deceit and dishonesty emanating from the Plaintiffs’ witnesses were astounding and confounding. The deceit was glaring as Siva, Thevan, and Usha could not stand against the overwhelming evidence which ran adversely against their fraudulent narrative. They were caught in their web of lies as the cross-examinations and even their own documents gradually chip away their lies and reveal the real truth of the matter. Siva, Thevan, and Usha in actuality had a plethora of deceits and inconsistencies that they were unable to clarify or rationalize. However, this Court is of the mind that it shall suffice that this Court highlights the more profound deceits that the fraudulent trio could not justify. D(i) Usha’s admission to perjury and falsification of Bank Documents [62] One of the core contention led by the fraudulent trio to commit Firwas to the sham SPA was that Firwas (via the fraudulent firm) had accepted a further RM4,800,000.00 from Siva (which Siva allegedly had paid to Usha’s fraudulent firm). It was this further payment of deposit that the fraudulent S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 trio had leveraged to somehow prove that Firwas had agreed (and had obtained monetary benefit) from the deal with Siva. [63] But it was utterly detestable when this Court discovered that fraudulent Usha herself, upon cross-examination, had ADMITTED TO PERJURY AND FALSIFICATION OF BANK DOCUMENTS to reflect the supposed receipt of RM4,800,000.00 by the fraudulent firm. [64] The perjury and forgery were unearthed when Firwas called to challenge the truth of the alleged receipt of RM4,800,000.00 by Usha’s fraudulent firm. Usha had attempted to prove receipt of the monies by tendering into the Court a totally perjured AmBank Account Statement which supposedly showed that Firm’s account had a balance of RM4,808,048.22. AmBank officers were called to testify and the officers testified that the figures in the account statement had been ALTERED. In actuality, the real and authentic account statement indicated that the Firm’s account only had RM48.22. [65] When faced with the evidence of this perjury, FRAUDULENT USHA ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD ARRANGED AND INSTRUCTED THE PERJURY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 … [66] The lengths and extent fraudulent Usha would endeavour to sell her deception was immeasurable. It was not beneath Usha to tender into this Court forgeries and perjury. This ran consistent with fraudulent Usha’s fraudulent constitution from the very setup of her fraudulent firm. It is second nature to Usha to lie and deceive. It is not at all far-fetched that Usha had ill-intentions from the very beginning of her introduction to Firwas by fraudulent Thevan. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 [67] The only lacklustre justification fraudulent Usha could muster was that she was cornered to commit the forgery because Faidzol had absconded with the monies. But even this falsity does not make any sense as there should be no reason for Usha to risk her own reputation and position to cover up Faidzol’s supposed abscondment of the monies. It would have been far simpler and far more ideal for Usha to just pass the buck to Faidzol. But this was not at all the case here. For some inexplicable reason, Usha would risk her own neck to cover Faidzol’s abscondment. In truth, it was thoroughly more probable than not that Usha had committed the forgery not to hide Faidzol’s abscondment but instead to FALSELY CREATE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE PAYMENT OF RM4,800,000.00 BY SIVA TO FURTHER CEMENT THE TRIPARTITE FRAUD. [68] When cross-examined on her falsified qualifications as a lawyer, Usha could only repeat bare denials of BAC’s registrar’s evidence of proving her forgery of her BAC certificates. Almost anything and everything regarding Usha was fraudulent and were forgeries. Her BAC qualifications was a scam, the SPAs she had illegally prepared were a sham, and now even her firm’s own bank statement was admitted to be a total sham. [69] We have already delved into Usha’s fraudulent ‘acceptance’ of the sham SPA on behalf of Firwas in the earlier part of this Judgment. Adding further damage to Usha’s fraudulent indulgence (debauchery), she was also lying on the supposed ‘agreed’ selling price of the subject land. It was clearly recorded in writing that Firwas had always insisted on a RM60,000,000.00 purchase price. Documents were even prepared to attempt to construct a mechanism in which Firwas would in some manner receive RM60,000,000.00. Nonetheless, despite all these immutable evidence, Usha still insisted on lying before this Court and insisted on the S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 RM40,000,000.00 sham purchase price prescribed under the sham SPA fraudulent Usha had prepared. Usha during cross-examination initially admitted that the payment mechanism was for a two-parts payment totalling up to RM60,000,000.00: [70] Keeping with her web of self-contradictions and lies, Usha also suddenly contradicted herself and kept insisting to lie before this Court that Jasim was in agreement to whatever price that was stated in the sham SPA Usha had prepared (being RM40,000,000.00). Usha insisted on this lie despite testifying before this Court that she had never sought for confirmation or verification of Jasim’s supposed instruction from Jasim himself: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 [71] There was not even a spec of honesty or consistency in Usha’s testimony. The sale price was somehow both RM60,000,000.00 and RM40,000,000.00. It was neither here nor there. It was whatever it could be as and when it benefits Usha’s web of fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. D(ii) Thevan’s obvious lies and contradictions in his testimony before this Court [72] As Thevan was also a prominent persona in the tripartite fraud, it was not at all surprising that Thevan was also in sync with fraudulent Usha’s web of lies and self-contradictions. Just like Usha had done, Thevan was also willing to stoop so low so as to lie despite his own written documents and admissions were totally in contradiction to the fraudulent narrative he was trying to paint. [73] Just as fraudulent Usha seemed flustered and confused with her stance on the ‘agreed’ purchase price for the subject land, Thevan also fluctuated between admitting that the negotiated purchase price to be RM60,000,000.00 and at other times RM40,000,000.00. This telling contradiction was astutely highlighted by the learned counsel for Firwas. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 [74] Twice in fraudulent Thevan’s Amended Defence to counterclaim and also his Amended Witness Statement, Thevan insisted that the negotiated purchase price had always been RM40,000,000.00. Thevan went as far as try to conceal and deny the existence of the Undated Undertaking and the Dated Undertaking that he himself had prepared and signed to suggest a mechanism to Firwas for the payment of the 3rd tranche of RM20,000,000.00 (totalling up to RM60,000,000.00). [75] Thevan first lied in his own Amended Defence to Counterclaim inter alia in paragraphs 7, 15, 16, and 17 by insisting that the purchase price negotiated and agreed had always been RM40,000,000.00: … S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 [76] Thevan echoed the same lie in regarding the alleged RM40,000,000.00 purchase price in his own Amended Witness Statement. In fraudulent Thevan’s Witness Statement, Thevan testified that Firwas or Jasim had never written to any party to confirm that the sale price was to be RM60,000,000.00. This lie Thevan testified despite his own written and signed documents admitting that there were 3 tranches payment totalling up to RM60,000,000.00. This lie Thevan proffered despite his own confirmation and communications directly with Jasim that the 3 tranches payment shall total up to RM60,000,000.00: [77] Fraudulent Thevan’s lie was then aptly dismantled during cross- examination when Thevan no longer had any excuse or room to deny the real truth of the matter in that he had lied and that he had all this while admitted and acknowledged that the purchase price negotiated was S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54 RM60,000,000.00. Against his own pleaded case and witness statement tendered, Thevan thoroughly and completely contradicted himself and admitted that the RM1,200,000.00 earnest deposit Thevan had collected from Siva was to secure the purchase price of RM60,000,000.00 and not RM40,000,000.00 as Thevan had incessantly lied ad nauseam in his own pleading and Witness Statement: … [78] It was apparent that fraudulent Thevan would not hesitate to hit below the belt and lie to this Court as and when Thevan seeks to vindicate himself. This Court was very well aware that Thevan then had to ‘shift’ his lie and S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 55 later testified another version of deception in that Firwas originally insisted on RM60,000,000.00 price and later reduced the price to RM40,000,000.00 out of ‘desperation’. Thevan was already caught in his first web of lies and there was nothing compelling at all for this Court to now believe whatever false narratives Thevan was desperately trying to concoct. Besides, Thevan’s testimony on Firwas’s desperation was never pleaded by Thevan. Thus, fraudulent Thevan’s lies and deception not only seen him stoop so low that Thevan contradicted his own pleaded case, but also see him desperately raising unpleaded facts. D(iii) Siva’s obvious lies and contradictions in his testimony before this Court [79] Siva’s role in the tripartite fraud came to a clear revelation especially during Siva’s thorough dismantling during cross-examination. In the same deceptive fashion, even Siva was desperately trying to delude this Court to believe that Firwas had always agreed to the price of RM40,000,000.00 stipulated under the sham SPA that Firwas had never signed. This was despite Siva’s own written WhatsApp evidence that the purchase price was for RM60,000,000.00. When examined on this admission, Siva had demeaned himself so low to the extent that he defies his own image of a ‘businessman’ in that SIVA COULD NOT EVEN (OR SIMPLY REFUSED TO) DO SIMPLE MATHEMATICS. [80] In Siva’s own WhatsApp conversation with Thevan, Siva himself expressed that he was not keen that he would end up paying RM80,000,000.00 as he had to pay an additional RM20,000,000.00 from the sale of of Siva’s PJ lands. Simple mathematics would clearly dictate that RM80,000,000.00 subtracted with the additional RM20,000,000.00 WOULD LEAVE A S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 56 TOTAL OF RM60,000,000.00 AND NOT RM40,000,000.00. Thus, it was in Siva’s own written evidence that he understood clearly and undoubtedly that the purchase price was RM60,000,000.00 and not RM40,000,000.00 stipulated in the sham SPA Siva was trying to insist upon Firwas. … [81] Further unravelling Siva’s lies, Siva himself has exhibited both the Temporary Receipt TOGETHER WITH THE DATED UNDERTAKING in his Affidavit to prove his interest over the subject land in Firwas’s Application to remove Siva’s caveat (“Caveat Proceedings”). In Exhibit SK-1 of Siva’s Affidavit, Siva defined the Temporary Receipt together with the dated undertaking as “Option to Purchase”. The fact that Siva was more than willing to adopt the Dated Undertaking as the truth in his sworn Affidavit was incredibly telling that; 1) Siva had full knowledge of the 3rd S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 57 tranche payment by sale of his properties and 2) Siva admits that there was a further RM20,000,000.00 that must be paid on top of the RM40,000,000.00 stipulated under the Temporary License. Thus, on the same authority of Ho Yau Hong and Boustead Trading mentioned above, this Court finds that fraudulent Siva ought to be estopped from insisting on the RM40,000,000.00 price mentioned in the sham SPA. [82] Apart from failing or refusing to do simple mathematics, Siva also went to the extent of defying plain logic and common sense. This Court was also aware that one of the ‘alternative’ narratives that Siva was concocting was that he was not ‘involved’ or ‘aware’ of Thevan’s dealing for the 3rd tranche of the RM60,000.000.00 and that this 3rd tranche payment was a personal dealing between Jasim and Thevan. Typical of fraudsters, when the house of cards falls, the fraudsters will not hesitate to throw each other under the bus. Now, Siva blamed Thevan for ‘underhanded’ dealings to earn ‘secret profit’ from the sale of the subject land. [83] However, this narrative proffered by fraudulent Siva defies plain logic and basic business acumen. This was simply because, the 3rd tranche payment negotiated was supposed to be funded FROM THE SALE OF SIVA’S OWN PROPERTIES. This very fact blew Siva’s narrative wide open for the simple reasons that: a. It does not make any logic or sense that Siva was ‘not involved’ in the 3rd tranche dealing considering the contra properties at stake were Siva’s own properties. Siva must have known and must have proposed to Thevan to put Siva’s properties as part of his bargaining chip; and S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 58 b. It does not make any logic or sense that Siva would be willing sacrifice his own contra properties so as to allow Thevan to benefit from the ‘personal trade’ Thevan allegedly had with Jasim. It simply does not make any sense for Thevan to solely earn from the sale of Siva’s (NOT THEVAN’s) properties. [84] It was overwhelmingly clear to this Court the fraudulent trio, Thevan, Usha, and the 2nd Plaintiff-Siva had consistently exhibited the demeanour of an untruthful, evasive, deflective, and deceptive witnesses totally devoid of any credibility. It is trite law that oral testimonies must always be tested against contemporaneous documentary evidence tendered into Court (see Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as his Lordship then was) in the Court of Appeal case of LEE ING CHIN @ LEE TECK SENG & ORS v GAN YOOK CHIN & ANOR [2003] 2 MLJ 97): “A judge who is required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. He must, when deciding whether to accept or to reject the evidence of a witness, test it against relevant criteria. Thus, he must take into account the presence or absence of any motive that a witness may have in giving his evidence. If there are contemporary documents, then he must test the oral evidence of a witness against these. He must also test the evidence of a particular witness against the probabilities of the case. A trier of fact who makes findings based purely upon the demeanour of a witness without undertaking a critical analysis of that witness' evidence runs the risk of having his findings corrected on appeal. It does not matter whether the issue for decision is one that arises in a civil or criminal case: the approach to judicial S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 59 appreciation of evidence is the same. There are a number of important and leading cases in which the point has been considered [85] In the present case the fraudulent trio had obvious motives to lie and delude this Court as their respective positions were also at stake. And as this Court has demonstrated at long length above, even the fraudulent trio’s own documentary evidence was totally contradictory to the fraudulent trio’s oral testimonies. [86] And considering that the fraudulent trio for more than one occasion had brazenly lied before this Court, it is only just and proper that this Court finds that fraudulent Thevan, fraudulent Usha, and fraudulent Siva to be unreliable witnesses. (see Thompson LP in Khoon Chye Hin v Public Prosecutor [1961] MLJ 105): “If a witness demonstrably tells lies on one or two points then it is clear that he is not a reliable witness and as a matter of prudence the rest of his evidence must be scrutinised with great care and indeed with suspicion. E. WHETHER OR NOT SIVA CAN ‘INNOCENTLY’ RELY ON THE OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY OF FRAUDULENT THEVAN, AND FRAUDULENT USHA TO FALSELY COMMIT FIRWAS TO THE SHAM SPA PREPARED BY USHA [87] As this Court have already deliberated at length above, there was absolutely nothing innocent about Siva in his supposed innocent reliance on the agency of his co-conspirators Thevan and Usha. Siva did not just rely on Thevan and Usha but had already went to the extent of S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 60 colluding and conspiring with them as the fraudulent trio. The initial agency of Thevan and Usha (to Firwas) was not ‘relied upon’ but was menacingly abused and manipulated by Siva, Thevan, and Usha. [88] Thus, any spec of agency Thevan and Usha might have had with Firwas had effectively been eviscerated the very moment Thevan and Usha went rogue and began to turn the wheels of fraud by acting on behalf of Firwas without due authorisation and instruction by Firwas. Although generally a principal would be bound by the acts of his agents, but the same principle shall not apply when the agents had maliciously acted in excess of the agents’ scope of authority. Hence, since Thevan and Usha were both instrumental in maliciously concocting Firwas’s fraudulent acceptance of the sham SPA without Firwas’s instruction and authorisation, Firwas clearly cannot be forced to commit to the sham SPA. Even if this Court were to find that there existed an agent-principal relationship between Thevan, Usha, and Firwas, that agency had long ceased even before Usha had in bad faith ‘accepted’ the sham SPA at the instruction of Thevan. (see The decision of the Court of Appeal in Ooi Men Khin v Amanah Scotts Properties (KL) Sdn Bhd [2014] 6 MLJ 488): "[60) The applicability of the Turquand's rule is fully circumscribed, in that it is only applicable in aid of a person who deals with a company in good faith. It is a rule so prescribed to protect the innocent party doing bona fide business with a company. It has been noted that even if the party who seeks to avail himself of this rule in his favour, does not have actual knowledge that an irregularity has happened, that party will still be precluded from availing himself if the circumstances were such as to put him on inquiry he failed to make. Sometimes, the very nature of the proposed transaction may put a party S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 61 on inquiry, even if he has no special relationship with the company (see, Walter Woon on Company Law (3rd Ed) at pp 80-100) (Emphasis added.) What has also become clear as well is that this: Turquand's rule does not apply in a case where forgery is involved ... " [89] In any case, it would be severely unjust if this Court were to subscribe to any rule of law to commit Firwas to the sham SPA when it was well established and proven that the sham SPA existed purely by the malicious concoction of concerted fraud by the very same co-conspirators who spearheaded the fraudulent scheme. At no point in time does this Court intend to be an instrument of fraud and give any effect on anything that was created via the fraudulent trio’s scheme. [90] Thus, this Court hereby finds that Siva cannot contend that he had innocently relied upon the agent-principal relationship between Thevan, Usha, and Firwas as the same fraudulent trio had acted in bad faith. Nothing in their conduct ever reflected even a spec of good faith. There had not been any representations made by Firwas to reasonably lead Siva into ‘believing’ that Thevan and Usha both had ‘accepted’ the sham SPA on behalf of Firwas. This was obviously clear considering that the fraudulent trio had full knowledge of the ceasing of negotiations and the prior sale to Eastern Titan well before any ‘acceptance’ took place by Firwas (which there was never any acceptance). F. WHETHER OR NOT FIRWAS WAS BOUND TO THE TERMS OF THE SHAM SPA WHICH IT HAD NEVER SIGNED OR EVER AGREED TO [91] Following this Court’s findings in the first three issues above, it should naturally and logically follow that this Court answers this fourth issue in the Negative. Firwas clearly were never bound to commit to the sham SPA that S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 62 had been fraudulently concocted by the fraudulent trio, Thevan, Usha, and even Siva. [92] Breathing any life or legitimacy to any of the tripartite fraud would be a severe affront to sheer justice, the law, and equity. The fraudulent trio had sought for the long arms of the law with thoroughly soiled and dirty hands. There should be no feasible reason, factual or legal, that should incentivise this Court to enforce the sham SPA upon the innocent Firwas. This rings especially so considering the sham SPA was also prepared by a fraud who led Firwas to believe that she was a qualified lawyer. It would be profoundly wrong for this Court to allow this tripartite fraud to be perpetrated any further. [93] This Court finds guidance in Gopal Sri Ram JCA’s (as his Lordship then was) decision in the Court of Appeal case of Seri Kelangkota Rakan Engineering JV Sdn Bhd & Ors v Arab-Malaysian Prima Realty Sdn Bhd [2001] 1 MLJ in which his Lordship explained: “Parties to a transaction may disguise its true nature and purport by whatever means available to them. Yet, the court will tear away the disguise and reveal to the world at large the true arrangement arrived at between the parties. It is important for reasons of public policy that the court seised of this power. Were it not so, the law would be lending its aid to enforce pretended and not real obligations.” [94] This Court cannot sit idly by and become the wheels that put the tripartite fraud (perpetrated by the 2nd Plaintiff Siva himself with Thevan and Usha) into motion. It is the Court’s solemn duty to ensure that no fraud shall see any light of legality or enforcement and to stifle all fraud at any time of the S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 63 proceedings. Suffice that this Court refers to the Federal Court decision in Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Shazryl Eskay bin Abdullah [2015] 5 MLJ 619: “It is very well settled that the courts take judicial notice of such illegality and refuse to enforce the contract, and such judicial notice may be taken at any stage, either at the court of first instance or at the appellate stage irrespective of whether illegality is pleaded or not where the contract is ex facie illegal. … In that regard, we endorse the following statement of law by the Court of Appeal per Hamid Sultan JCA, delivering the judgment of the court, in China Road & Bridge Corp & Anor v DCX Technologies Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2014] 5 MLJ 1: At the outset we must say that the trial courts must be vigilant not to provide any relief on contracts which is void on the grounds of public policy, or illegality … whether or not it is the pleaded case of the parties or whether the issue was raised during the trial” [95] There was never any binding agreement to begin with. Even if there was, the sham SPA insisted upon by the fraudulent trio was borne out of the fraudulent scheme concocted by the fraudulent trio and thus, was illegal, void ab initio and was certainly unenforceable. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 64 G. WHETHER OR NOT FRAUDULENT SIVA, FRAUDULENT THEVAN, AND FRAUDULENT USHA (AND HER FRAUDULENT FIRM) HAD ALL COLLUDED IN A CONCERTED TRI-PARTITE SCHEME TO FRAUDULENTLY FORCE FIRWAS TO COMMIT TO THE SHAM SPA [96] This Court has at long lengths deliberated on the machinations of the tripartite fraud which was perpetrated by the trio of conspirators, Thevan, Usha, and Siva. It is opportune at this juncture for this Court to be minded of the law underlying the tort of fraud, and conspiracy to defraud. Suffice that this Court refers to the case of Yap Sau Choon@Yap Bee Yong & Anor v Cheong Hong Mun & Ors [2016] MLJU 1203 (in which the High Court had aptly collated the law relating to fraud and conspiracy). The relevant portions of the precedent are reproduced here: [23] This Court lauds the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs for encapsulating and collating the law on the determining elements of the existence of a fraud. In reference to the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v Abdul Rafi a/l Abdul Rajak & Ors [2012] MLJU 884, the pertinent factors or elements in determining the existence of fraud are as follows: a. Existence of fraud is a question of fact and the range of fraud is ad infinitum per the infinite facts b. The fraud must be an actual fraud. And actual fraud is defined as: i. “dishonesty of some sort where the designed object of a transfer is to cheat a person of an existing right”; or ii. “whether by a deliberate and dishonest act, a person is deprived of his existing right” S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 65 [24] It is already well settled by the recent Federal Court’s decision in the case of Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 1 (FC) that the burden of proof for a case of civil fraud is no longer beyond reasonable doubt, but is now based on the balance of probabilities. [25] Now the learned counsel for D4 has fairly and rightfully warned this Court against supposing a finding of fraud on mere suspicion and conjecture. This Court takes heed from this warning. However, even with that said, there is no law that suggests that in the absence of a direct evidence of fraud, that this Court cannot draw an inference from all facts of the case to make a finding of a fraud. In fact, it is this Court’s ardent duty and right to take in, analyse, and draw an inference out of the facts and evidence tendered into Court. This is a case of fraud, a state of dishonest intent, thus it would be preposterous to assume that any fraudster, would out of his own volition, make it known to the world in direct evidence that he has intended to commit such fraud. This Court finds valuable guidance from the Indian Privy Council decision in the case of Satis Chandra Chatterji v Satish Kantha AIR 1923 PC 73 in which the Privy Council has held: “Charges of fraud and collusion…must, no doubt, be proved by established facts or inferences legitimately drawn from those facts taken together as a whole. Suspicions and surmises and conjecture are not permissible substitutes for those facts or those inferences, but that by no means requires that every puzzling artifice or contrivance resorted to by one accused of fraud must necessarily be completely S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 66 found against him. If this were not so, many a clever and dexterous knave would escape” Referring to a decision closer to our local chapter, the English Court of Appeal in the case of Dadourian Group International Inc and other v Simms and other [2009] All ER (D) 175 (Mar) has held that: “Mr Cakebread appeared to be equating proper inferences with conjecture and assumption. At times he came close to suggesting that fraud can only be established where there is direct evidence. If that were the case, few allegations of fraud would ever come to trial. Fraudsters rarely sit down and reduce their dishonest agreement to writing. Frauds are commonly proved on the basis of inviting the fact-finder to draw proper inferences from the primary facts. That is exactly what the judge did here.” The elements and law of Conspiracy to fraud and Conspiracy to Injure [27] The elements to prove a case of a tort of conspiracy are namely: i. an agreement between two or more persons; ii. an agreement to injure the Plaintiff iii. acts done in execution of the agreement resulted in damage to the Plaintiff See SCK Group Bhd & Anor v Sunny Liew Siew Pang & Anor [2011] 4 MLJ 393 (CA); Yap JH v Tan Sri Loh Boon Siew & Ors [1991] 3 CLJ 2960 [28] With regards to the element of an ‘agreement’ it is already a well settled law that the agreement between conspirators need not even be S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 67 proven by direct evidence. An agreement can be inferred from the culmination and analysis of facts so long as the facts indicate and infer a common intent and machination of fraud by the fraudsters. Such conspiracy may be derivative of an analysis of circumstantial evidence. In simpler terms, such conspiracy may be founded on an inference from facts, not necessarily an agreement per se. [29] This Court is guided by Gopal Sri Ram JCA’s (as he then was) decision on behalf of the Court of Appeal in the case of MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493. Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was): “Conspiracy is a tort that is not always capable of proof by direct evidence. Like so many other facts, an agreement to do an unlawful act by unlawful means may be established by evidence of circumstances from which such an agreement may be inferred. It is axiomatic that there must be proof and not mere conjecture. In the present case there was sufficient evidence which conspiracy could be properly inferred” [97] To this Court’s mind, fraudsters Thevan, Usha, and Siva were all fraudsters in their own respective rights and were conspirators in a tort of conspiracy. There are four (4) salient elements that would make up the cause of action of fraud. (see Radiant Splendour Sdn Bhd & Ors v Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak & Ors [2020] MLJU 961) [110] The elements of fraud to an extent coincide with the elements of conspiracy. As per the case of Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo Achi Alias Sona Lena Alamelo S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 68 Acho, deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 697 and the case of Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Lam Tat Ming & Ors [1995] 4 MLJ 328, the elements to prove fraud are as follows: a. a willful act; b. with the intent to deprive another of his lawful entitlement; c. brought forth vide illegal or inequitable means; and d. had caused damage and losses [98] This Court believes that the deliberation on the facts above was more than sufficient to reveal the fraudulent designs of the fraudulent trio. Suffice that this Court briefly alludes to each of the trio’s fraudulent design. Thevan had full intention to unlawfully reap monetary gains from agency fees from his intended brokerage of Firwas’s subject land. Thevan’s fraud (and role as co-conspirator) against Firwas [99] Thevan had wilfully acted on his own accord to abuse the personal relations he shared with Irene and Jasim. He had introduced Firwas to the fraudulent Usha with full knowledge that fraudulent Usha was not a qualified lawyer and was a fraudulent knave who had a knack for lies and deception. Thevan had full knowledge of the failure and ceasing of negotiations. Thevan also had full knowledge of the sale of the subject land to Eastern Titan. Despite knowing of these truths, Thevan perpetrated an insidious deceit to force Firwas to suffer losses by falsely committing Firwas to the sham SPA. Thevan had done so by deceitfully and fraudulently instructing S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 69 Usha to ‘accept’ the sham SPA on behalf of Firwas despite having clear confirmation of failure of negotiation and full knowledge of the prior sale to Eastern Titan. Thevan instructed as such despite knowing that he had no instructions whatsoever by Firwas to proceed with the sham SPA. Thevan then lied before this Court insisting that the purchase price for the subject land was for RM40,000,000 despite his own documentary admission that the negotiated price was RM60,000,000.00. Usha’s fraud (and role as co-conspirator) against Firwas [100] Usha had wilfully acted on her own accord to abuse the trust placed by Firwas on her as a fiduciary. She had gained Firwas’s trust by deceitful means and misrepresenting her qualification as a lawyer (which in truth were all blatant lies and forgeries). Usha had full knowledge that she was fraudulently practicing as a lawyer and had abused the legal qualifications of other qualified lawyers as a disguise to conceal her fraudulent practice. Throughout Usha’s fraudulent service to Firwas, Usha had consistently refused to honestly reflect the RM60,000,000.00 purchase price in any of her draft sham SPAs despite being instructed time and time again to amend her draft sham SPAs by Firwas. [101] Usha had full knowledge of the failure and ceasing of negotiations and had by her own written email confirmed the abortion of negotiations with Siva. Usha also had full knowledge of the sale of the subject land to Eastern Titan. Despite knowing of these truths, Usha perpetrated an insidious deceit to force Firwas to suffer losses by falsely committing Firwas to the sham SPA that she prepared. Usha had done so by deceitfully and fraudulently following Thevan’s instruction to ‘accept’ the sham SPA on S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 70 behalf of Firwas despite having clear confirmation of failure of negotiation and full knowledge of the sale to Eastern Titan. Usha had followed Thevan’s instruction despite knowing that she had no instructions whatsoever by Firwas to proceed with the sham SPA. Usha then deceitfully informed Siva’s lawyer that Firwas had approved her sham SPA despite having full knowledge that Firwas had rejected all of her draft sham SPAs. [102] Usha had also admitted to committing forgery and perjury by falsifying her firm’s bank account statement to reflect the supposed RM4,800,000.00 further deposit paid by Siva under the sham SPA. Usha had actively conducted herself in brazen deceit to ensure that Firwas was fraudulently forced to commit to the sham SPA even after she knew that Firwas had already aborted all dealings with Siva. Siva’s fraud (and role as co-conspirator) against Firwas [103] Siva had wilfully acted on his own accord to abuse the former agent- principal relations between Firwas (as principal), Thevan, and Usha (as fraudulent agents). Siva had lied before this Court and had attempted to feign innocence that he had no knowledge of the sale to Eastern Titan before signing the sham SPA prepared by Usha. In truth, Siva had full knowledge of the prior sale of the subject land to Eastern Titan. Despite knowing of these truths, Siva perpetrated an insidious fraud to force Firwas to suffer losses by falsely committing Firwas to the sham SPA. Siva had done so by deceitfully and fraudulently signing the sham SPA despite having clear confirmation of failure of negotiation and having full knowledge of the prior sale to Eastern Titan. Siva had attempted to feign innocence despite clear evidences that Siva had had close and direct communications with both fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 71 [104] Siva then lied before this Court insisting that the purchase price for the subject land was for RM40,000,000.00 despite his own documentary admission (and sworn Affidavit) that the negotiated price was RM60,000,000.00. Siva further cemented his fraud by wrongfully lodging his caveat upon the subject land despite having full knowledge that his supposed ‘interest’ upon the subject land was a sham concocted vide the tripartite fraud. [105] From the above, it was apparent to this Court that the fraudulent trio Thevan, Usha, and Siva had committed fraud of their own respective brand and make. Acting as individuals they were clearly fraudsters. On the other hand, as co-conspirators acting in concert with each other, it was also sublimely apparent to this Court that each of the fraudulent trio played their respective roles in order to realize their common conspiracy to defraud Firwas (in falsely forcing Firwas to commit to the sham SPA Firwas had never agreed to or even signed). As a result of their common conspiracy, Firwas had suffered grave losses as they run the risk of losing the subject land at a RM20,000,000.00 loss, or at the very least incur massive losses in payment delays as Firwas was hindered from properly performing its bargain in Firwas’s Agreement with Eastern Titan. [106] The aforementioned considered, this Court hereby finds that the 2nd Plaintiff-Siva, fraudulent Thevan, and fraudulent Usha had all committed the tort of fraud and were also complicit in the conspiracy to defraud Firwas. H. DECISION ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ SHAM MAIN CLAIM AND THEVAN’S FRAUDULENT COUNTER-CLAIM [107] All of the aforementioned findings and deliberations in extenso considered, this Court hereby DISMISSES THE PLAINTIFFS’ SHAM S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 72 MAIN CLAIM (SIVA’S CLAIM). This Court also finds that Thevan’s counter-claim was also a total sham and hereby DISMISSES THEVAN’S SHAM COUNTER-CLAIM. I. DECISION ON FIRWAS’S COUNTER-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND REMOVAL OF SIVA’S WRONGFUL CAVEAT [108] It was plain and obvious to this Court that Siva’s wrongful lodgement of his caveat was part and parcel of the tripartite fraud concocted by the fraudulent trio (including Siva). It is altogether obvious to see that the lodgement of the caveat was done in overt bad faith to unlawfully deprive Firwas of its ardent right to deal with the subject land as it sees fit. It is a statutory feature within section 329 of the National Land Code 1950 that any party who had wrongfully entered a caveat upon a land “SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION”. [109] As to the measure of damages payable by Siva, this Court finds that the foreseeable loss was clearly the years of deprivation of the balance purchase price by Eastern Titan that was hindered by Siva’s (and the fraudulent trio’s) fraud. This was especially foreseeable considering Thevan, Usha, and even Siva all had full prior knowledge of the sale of the subject land to Eastern Titan. It is trite that delays in payment of the balance purchase price would indeed cause the deprivation of use or opportunity to use the balance purchase price which have already fallen due but-for Siva’s fraud and conspiracy. If not for Siva’s fraud and conspiracy, the balance purchase price would have been fully paid to Firwas more than 3 years ago. Thereby, at the very base level of commercial earnings, Firwas was deprived of the opportunity to earn interest on the RM52,200,000.00 for more than 3 years. This would be the lowest foreseeable denominator S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 73 of opportunity loss caused by Siva’s fraudulent hindrance. Thus, if there were no other proof or evidence of a higher denominator of loss, it shall only be appropriate that this Court to at the very least award damages to Firwas for its loss of opportunity to earn interest on the balance purchase price. (see MD Biomedical Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd v Goh Yong Khai [2021] 5 MLJ 408 (CA) ; Mah Siew Seng & Anor (both as administrators of the estate of Mah Khin Kee (the deceased)) v Seema Development Sdn Bhd [2014] 7 MLJ 372 ; Ting Sieh Chung v Hock Peng Realty Sdn Bhd) [110] The precedents by and large indicated that an interest of 8% per annum was the industry standard for deprivation of the opportunity to earn interest on sums of which payment had been delayed. At least in the present case, witnesses from Eastern Titan, Firwas, AND SIVA HIMSELF all agreed that the industry standard measure for damages for deprivation of use of monies was 8% per annum. Siva himself had testified during cross- examination that in another case he was embroiled in for his property in the Mines, that the rate of 8% per annum is “normally used” in measuring damages for delayed payments. Adding further propriety to the rate of 8% per annum, was the fact that clause 4.2 of the sham SPA that Siva himself had attempted to force upon Firwas also stipulated a rate of 8% per annum for delayed payments. This certainly reflects the commonly agreed standard interest rate applicable for delayed payments (at the very least within this case) to be 8 % per annum. [111] Firwas had earnestly informed this Court that had the sale with Eastern Titan went undisturbed by Siva and his co-conspirators, Eastern Titan would have to contractually settle the entire purchase price by 22.9.2020 (“accrual date”) S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 74 [112] Thus, this Court hereby awards damages (“Judgment Sum”) to Firwas calculable or assessable in the following manner: Rate of 8% per annum x RM52,200,000.00 for the entire period from the accrual date (22.9.2020) until one (1) month after the full removal of Siva’s wrongful caveat = (“Judgment Sum”) [113] This Court is minded that it cannot extend the interest period to the time of full settlement by Eastern Titan, as the payment from Eastern Titan was beyond Siva’s control. On the other hand, the removal of Siva’s wrongful caveat is well within Siva’s control. Thus, the cut off time for the interest period shall reasonably be one month after the removal of Siva’s wrongful caveat. This is especially so considering Eastern Titan’s contractual deadline for full settlement was 22.9.2020 and thus, Eastern Titan should presumably be able to fully settle the balance purchase price soon after the removal of Siva’s wrongful caveat. [114] Hypothetically or notionally speaking, if Siva was able to remove his caveat on 31.12.2023, then the interest period from the accrual date until the notional cut-off date (being 31.1.2024) would be 3 years 4 months and 9 days. The rate of 8% per annum upon RM52,200,000.00 would be RM4,176,000.00 per year (RM348,000.00 per month OR RM11,441.10 per day). Thus, the total notional general damages payable would be RM11,441.10 x 3 years 3 months and 9 days (or 1226 days) amounting to RM14,026,783.56. This would be the sum of general damages payable by Siva in the circumstance that Siva removes his wrongful caveat by 31.12.2023. The amount should accordingly increase following the actual interest period that ran between the accrual date and the cut-off date. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 75 I(i) Thevan’s joint liability as fraudulent co-conspirator [115] Accordingly, as the wrongful entry of the caveat was only one part of the entire fraudulent conspiracy concocted by Thevan, Usha, and Siva, Thevan shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay the same Judgment Sum (as calculable above). [116] It is trite law that co-conspirators within a conspiracy are considered to be joint tortfeasors and thus each of the conspirator shall be jointly and severally liable to the fraud and conspiracy. Suffice that this Court refers to the Court of Appeal decision in Lai Soon Onn v Chew Fei Meng and other appeals [2019] 2 MLJ 96: [68] It is trite law that where there are two or more persons liable for the tort of conspiracy, and where the liability of each person is joint and several, a plaintiff is entitled to sue whomsoever that he wishes (see the Court of Appeal of Singapore case of Chan Kern Miang v Kea Resources Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR (R) 85 at p 91). This is fortified by O 15 r 4(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 which states: Where relief is claimed in an action against a defendant who is jointly liable with some other person and also severally liable, that other person need not be made a defendant to the action; but where persons are jointly, but not severally, liable under a contract and relief is claimed against some but not all of those persons in action in respect of that contract, the court may, on the application of any defendant to the action, by order stay the proceedings in the action until the other persons so liable are added as defendants. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 76 I(ii) Thevan’s and Shoba’s liability for breach of fiduciary duty [117] In the alternative, if this Court were wrong on its endeavour into the law of fraud and conspiracy, it would still remain resoundingly clear that the same facts and mechanism of fraud and conspiracy deliberated above ALSO SUFFICIENTLY PROVES FIRWAS’S PLEADED CASE OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. [118] In truth, apart from Thevan and Shoba (who were made parties in Firwas’s counter-claim) it was astoundingly obvious to this Court that USHA WAS ALSO CENTRAL TO THE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY. Usha was also the appointed fiduciary of Firwas when Firwas was fraudulently misrepresented of Usha’s forged qualifications as a lawyer. Had Usha been made a party to the present case, this Court would have had the discretion and authority to direct that fraudulent Usha to be jointly and severally liable to the fraud and conspiracy, and at the very least be liable for the breach of her fiduciary duty owed to Firwas. Despite the fact that Usha was a fraudulent unqualified lawyer, Firwas had appointed Usha in the misrepresented belief that Usha was a qualified lawyer. Thus, notwithstanding Usha’s clearly forged qualifications, Usha still stood as a person in a fiduciary position to Firwas. [119] Unfortunately, before this Court, Usha was not made a party to the Main Suit or Firwas’s counter-claim. Nonetheless, considering Usha’s glaring complicity and involvement in the fraud (and breach of fiduciary duty), it would be severely remiss if this Court does not take judicial notice that Usha was indeed involved in the fraud and conspiracy, and had clearly breached the fiduciary duties she owed against Firwas. Although this Court’s hands are tied and cannot attach liability to Usha in the present case, this Court S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 77 shall leave it to Firwas’s ingenuity and discretion to pursue an action against Usha in light of this Court’s findings in the present case. [120] Notwithstanding, it was resolutely clear that Thevan (as Firwas’s fraudulent property agent), and Shoba (as Partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm) all were in the position of a fiduciary to Firwas. They were in the position to safeguard Firwas’s interest and to ensure that they act in the best interest and benefit of Firwas from the sale of the subject land. (see Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1; Solid Investments Ltd v Alcatel-Lucent (M) Sdn Bhd (previously known as Alcatel Network Systems (M) Sdn Bhd) [2014] 3 MLJ 785: “A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. [121] Fraudulent Thevan had undertaken to act on behalf of Firwas as a property agent. Firwas had appointed Thevan in trust and confidence that Thevan would act in good faith to the best interest of Firwas. But it is sublimely apparent (as this Court had unravelled at length) that Thevan had committed fraud of his own design, and was complicit in the tripartite conspiracy to defraud in order to reap monetary gains (in agency fees) from the fraudulent sale of the subject land to Siva. S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 78 [122] Shoba on the other hand, although having minimal involvement in the tripartite fraud, Shoba was still the partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm at the material time the tripartite fraud all took place. Although it was unfortunate that the true fraudster Usha was not made party to the present case, the fact remained that Shoba as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm shall still be liable to the fraud and conspiracy that was perpetuated vide the fraudulent firm as a whole. [123] This Court is cognizant of the fact that Shoba perhaps might only have minimal involvement in the tripartite fraud or conspiracy. However, the law is resolute that Usha’s fraudulent firm as a whole owed a fiduciary duty to Firwas. And as a partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm (specifically at the material time of the tripartite fraud) Shoba shares the same liability as the firm notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the tripartite fraud was perpetuated by Usha. [124] In any case, this case would serve as a keen reminder to the legal fraternity so as to not undertake the position and liability as a Partner in a firm lightly. It has always been trite law that Partners in a firm share joint and several liability of the firm notwithstanding the fact that the firm’s liability might have been incurred by another Partner within the firm. To be hailed as a legal firm’s partner is not just a matter of prestige or accolade, but a serious and real matter of responsibility, liability, accountability, and most pertinently integrity. A Partner is expected to be reasonably aware of the firm’s affairs as a whole as all the partners’ liability are on the line. [125] Most relevant to Shoba’s personal liability as partner would be Section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961. The section reads: “12. Liability of firm for wrongs S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 79 Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the firm or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person not being a partner in the firm, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. [126] In view of the provision above, Shoba would be liable in the following manners: a. Firstly, Shoba had by her own volition knowingly held out or allowed Usha to be held out as a lawyer in Usha’s fraudulent firm despite having full knowledge that Usha was an unqualified person; b. Secondly, Shoba had also by her own volition wrongfully allow herself to enable the fraudulent manner in which Usha had conducted her illegal ‘practice’ as an unqualified lawyer. Even if Shoba had no idea whatsoever of Usha’s forged qualifications, Shoba had omitted to conduct proper due diligence to verify and investigate the obviously peculiar manner in which the fraudulent firm was primarily run, owned, and managed by fraudulent Usha; and c. Thus, independent from Usha’s role in the tripartite fraud, Shoba also had her own set of wrongs she had both committed and omitted in the ordinary course of the fraudulent firm’s business. [127] Meanwhile, it would be wrong for this Court to assume that Shoba can be left unscathed merely because Usha was not a partner in Usha’s fraudulent firm. It must be reminded that Partners are not only bound to the act of other co-partners as agents to one another under section 7 of the Partnership Act 1961. Partners are also bound to the acts (executed in S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 80 the name of the firm) of any person authorised by the firm even if that person was not a partner in the firm (see Section 8 of the Partnership Act 1961): “8. Partners bound by acts on behalf of firm An act or instrument relating to the business of the firm and done or executed in the firm-name, or in any other manner showing an intention to bind the firm, by any person thereto authorized, whether a partner or not, is binding on the firm and all the partners” [128] Shoba had full knowledge of Usha’s active involvement in managing the fraudulent firm’s affairs and business. Shoba had not questioned Usha’s active role in the fraudulent firm and thus, had directly authorized Usha to conduct the business of the firm in the fraudulent firm’s name and authority. Thus, even if perhaps Shoba had minimal involvement in the tripartite fraud, it remains immutable that Shoba had full involvement in the fraudulent manner that Usha’s fraudulent firm was managed. It is simply implausible that Shoba can insist that a land deal worth RM60,000,000.00 would go unnoticed right under her nose as a partner of the firm. In fact, Shoba had knowledge of Usha’s dealings and had in fact sent an email to Jasim on 28.6.2018 seeking for Firwas’s instruction in view of the signed sham SPA and alleged further RM4,800,000.00 the fraudulent firm had allegedly received from Siva. [129] Thus, although Shoba might not be primarily involved in the tripartite fraud, Shoba still had full knowledge of and had authorised Usha’s fraudulent works under the banner and name of the fraudulent firm. Therefore, this Court finds that Shoba as a Partner of the fraudulent firm (at the material time of the tripartite fraud) was clearly liable to the fraud, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty perpetrated under S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 81 the name of the firm. (see GUTHRIE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT HOLDING BHD v BAHARUDIN BIN HJ ALI & ORS [2011] 3 MLJ 416; [2010] MLJU 91): “[18] On the totality of the evidence, it is my finding that the firm was appointed by the plaintiff to act on its behalf in respect of the Bukit Jelutong project. It is clear from the exhibits tendered that the firm acts as the stakeholder in the terms of cl (h) of the second schedule to the sale and purchase agreement. On the same token, I am also satisfied that the sum of RM1,292,396.98 has been paid to the firm as stakeholder. It is evident that the plaintiff appointed the firm and not any particular solicitor in the firm as an individual to act as solicitors for the vendor. The firm owes a duty to the plaintiff. In Dato' Seri Au Ba Chi v Malayan United Finance Bhd & Anor; Dato' Au Development Sdn Bhd v Malayan United Finance Bhd & Anor [1989] 3 MLJ 434 the court held under headnote 5: Under the general law, the relationship of solicitor and client gave rise to a duty as a solicitor to exercise that care and skill on which he knew his client would rely, and to a duty not to injure his client by failing to do that which he had undertaken to do and, which, at the solicitor's invitation, the client had relied on him to do. [130] On a similar note, Thevan as a fiduciary of Firwas had also by his own fraudulent design and complicity in the tripartite fraud had clearly breached his fiduciary duty owed against Firwas. He had malicious motive to force Firwas to commit to the sham SPA so as to allow himself to fraudulently earn fees as Firwas’s property agent. And Thevan had indeed acted in manners which were vastly injurious to Firwas’s interests. Thus, even if this Court were wrong regarding Thevan’s liability for fraud and conspiracy, it remains unshakeable that Thevan (by the same conducts) had breached S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 82 his fiduciary duty he owed against Firwas. Thevan’s breaches of fiduciary duty are inter alia as follows: a. Outright lying regarding the true purchase price that Firwas had always insisted upon being RM60,000,000.00; b. Thevan by his fraudulent instruction had caused Siva’s signing of the sham SPA at the lower price of RM40,000,000.00 which was never agreed to by Firwas; c. Against Firwas’s clear instruction to abort and cease negotiations with Siva, Thevan still instructed Usha to fraudulently approve the sham SPA on behalf of Firwas; d. Thevan concealed the fact of the sale to Eastern Titan from Siva’s lawyer in order to falsely commit Firwas to the sham SPA prepared by Usha; and e. Thevan knowingly introduced fraudulent Usha as a qualified lawyer to Firwas despite the fact that Usha was a fraudster and an unqualified person. [131] Considering that Thevan’s and Shoba’s breach of fiduciary duty laid the very foundation in which Siva had wrongfully lodged his caveat, then it was well within the realm of foreseeability that Thevan and Shoba was aware that their breach of fiduciary duty would directly hinder the performance (and delay payments) under the agreement between Eastern Titan and Firwas. This is especially foreseeable considering Thevan and the fraudulent firm clearly had prior knowledge of Firwas’s Agreement with S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 83 Eastern Titan. This Court hereby finds that Thevan, and Shoba shall be jointly and severally liable to the same extent and quantum of the Judgment Sum as Siva is also liable to for his wrongful entry of caveat upon the subject land. I(iii) Examplary Damages against Thevan, Siva, and the fraudulent firm [132] As to Firwas’s prayer for punitive (or exemplary) damages, the Court of Appeal decision in Sambaga Valli a/p KR Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors and another appeal [2018] 1 MLJ 784 is certainly instructive for this Court’s consideration: “[32] Now, aggravated damages are classified as a species of compensatory damages, which are awarded as additional compensation where there has been intangible injury to the interest of personality of the plaintiff, and where this injury has been caused or exacerbated by the exceptional conduct of the defendant. [33] The exemplary damages or punitive damages — the two terms now regarded as interchangeable — are additional damages awarded with reference to the conduct of the defendant, to signify disapproval, condemnation or denunciation of the defendant’s tortious act, and to punish the defendant. Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice, or where he has acted with a ‘contumelious disregard’ for the right to the plaintiff. The primary purpose of an award of exemplary damages may be deterrent, or punitive and retributory, and the award may also have an important function in vindicating the rights of the plaintiff (see Rookes v S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 84 Barnard [1964] 1 All ER 367; AB and others v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 609; Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 354, Laksmana Realty Sdn Bhd v Goh Eng Hwa and another appeal [2006] 1 MLJ 675). [133] With the above precedent in mind, it would be exceedingly obvious from this Court’s lengthy deliberations above that the fraudulent personas involved in the present case had indeed acted in manners in which were exceptionally detestable, repugnant, brazen, malicious, and in complete and contumelious disregard to Firwas’s interest. The fraudulent trio together with the fraudulent firm had full knowledge that Firwas firstly stood to lose at the very least RM20,000,000.00 had their scheme escaped the detection of the law. They deperately tried tooth and nails to lie to this Court that Firwas had agreed to a RM40,000,000.00 purchase price although documentary evidence had consistently shown that the negotiated price had always been RM60,000,000.00. Firwas also stood to lose even more millions of ringgit by being deprived of the use and opportunity to earn interest on the purchase price that would have been already settled by Eastern Titan if not for the fraudsters’ hindrance. Despite having knowledge of the monumental loss that Firwas stood to lose, the fraudulent trio and the fraudulent firm had not even for a moment hesitated to actuate their fraudulent scheme. [134] The manner in which the fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duties were perpetrated certainly reflected an abhorrent absence of morality, basic conscience, and total lack of consideration to the victim of their tortious wrongs (being Firwas). Despite the clear and unambiguous instruction to abort and cease the negotiations, the fraudsters go well out of their way to perpetrate forgeries, perjury, and unauthorised approval of S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 85 sham contracts, all in their collective and individual scheme to force Firwas to commit the sham SPA. The deflective and dishonest demeanour of the fraudsters during their testimony before this Court indubitably further adds to their brazen and unapologetic attitude when they were called out for their numerous wrongs. [135] Considering the nature and character of the fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty, the monumental injury caused against Firwas, and the quantum of the Judgment Sum awarded above, this Court finds that exemplary damages would be appropriate to be awarded. This Court hereby orders exemplary damages of RM100,000.00 each to be paid by Thevan, Siva, and Shoba (as Partner of the fraudulent firm) to Firwas. (totalling up to RM300,000.00 in aggravated and exemplary damages) (see SAMBAGA VALLI A/P KR PONNUSAMY v DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2018] 1 MLJ 784; [2017] MLJU 557; LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN (FELDA) & ANOR v AWANG SOH BIN MAMAT & ORS [2009] 4 MLJ 610; [2009] MLJU 465; [2010] 1 AMR 285; [2009] 5 CLJ 1) J. COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS ACROSS THE MAIN SUIT, THEVAN’S SHAM COUNTER-CLAIM, AND FIRWAS’S COUNTER-CLAIM [136] Considering the confounding manner that Siva’s and Thevan’s claims were presented before this Court, this Court also finds that it would only be just and appropriate that this Court orders cost on an indemnity basis for the benefit of Firwas. It was obvious during the course of trial that Siva’s, Thevan’s, and the fraudulent firm’s witnesses were constantly shifting and evolving their stances as and when they were unable to squirrel away from the solemn truth that was clearly reflected in their own documentary evidence. They relentlessly and unapologetically tried to breathe truth to S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 86 obvious lies and delusions which were clearly contradicted by the barrage of their own documentary evidence furnished into Court. They callously and deplorably held onto their irreconcilable false narratives right to the bitter end. They tried to lie at the face of their own contemporaneous evidence that clearly does not support their falsities. The entire litigation to enforce the sham SPA was clearly a malicious attempt to obscure the truth and illegally enforce a sham SPA which was fraudulently prepared by an unqualified lawyer who had misrepresented her forged qualifications. [137] This Court finds guidance in the English decision in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporate and ors v Yuri Privalov and ors [2011] EWHC 664 (Comm) had held the following: “(1) The court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case and the discretion to award indemnity costs is extremely wide. (2) The critical requirement before an indemnity order can be made in the successful defendant's favour is that there must be some conduct or some circumstance which takes the case out of the norm. (3) Insofar as the conduct of the unsuccessful claimant is relied on as a ground for ordering indemnity costs, the test is not conduct attracting moral condemnation, which is an a fortiori ground, but rather unreasonableness. (4) The court can and should have regard to the conduct of an unsuccessful claimant during the proceedings, both before and during the trial, as well as whether it was reasonable for the claimant S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 87 to raise and pursue particular allegations and the manner in which the claimant pursued its case and its allegations. (5) Where a claim is speculative, weak, opportunistic or thin, a claimant who chooses to pursue it is taking a high risk and can expect to pay indemnity costs if it fails. (6) A fortiori, where the claim includes allegation of dishonesty, let alone allegations of conduct meriting an award to the claimant of exemplary damages, and those allegations are pursued aggressively inter alia by hostile cross-examination. (7) Where the unsuccessful allegations are the subject of extensive publicity, especially where it has been courted by the unsuccessful claimant, that is a further ground. (8) The following circumstances take a case out of the norm and justify an order for indemnity costs, particularly when taken in combination with the fact that a defendant has discontinued only at a very late stage in proceedings: (a) where the claimant advances and aggressively pursues serious and wide-ranging allegations of dishonesty or impropriety over an extended period of time; (b) where the claimant advances and aggressively pursues such allegations, despite the lack of any foundation in the documentary evidence for those allegations, and S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 88 maintains the allegations, without apology, to the bitter end; (c) where the claimant actively seeks to court publicity for its serious allegations both before and during the trial in the international, and national and local media; (d) where the claimant, by its conduct, turns a case into an unprecedented factual inquiry by the pursuit of an unjustified case; (e) where the claimant pursues a claim which is, to put it most charitably, thin and, in some respects, far-fetched; (f) where the claimant pursues a claim which is irreconcilable with the contemporaneous documents; (g) where a claimant commences and pursues large-scale and expensive litigation in circumstances calculated to exert commercial pressure on a defendant, and during the course of the trial of the action, the claimant resorts to advancing a constantly changing case in order to justify the allegations which it has made, only then to suffer a resounding defeat.” [138] Closer to home, this Court refers to the Federal Court decision in Takako Sakao (f) v Ng Pek Yuen (f) & Anor (No 2) [2010] 2 MLJ 181 S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 89 [8] Some of the guidelines for an award of indemnity costs were discussed by Millett J (later Lord Millett) in Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc and others (No 3) [1995] 3 All ER 747: “The power to order taxation on an indemnity basis is not confined to cases which have been brought with an ulterior motive or for an improper purpose. Litigants who conduct their cases in bad faith, or as a personal vendetta, or in an improper or oppressive manner, or who cause costs to be incurred irrationally or out of all proportion as to what is at stake, may also expect to be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis if they lose, and have part of their costs disallowed if they win. Nor are these necessarily the only situations where the jurisdiction may be exercised; the discretion is not to be fettered or circumscribed beyond the requirement that taxation on an indemnity basis must be 'appropriate'. [9] What appears clear is that the discretion to award costs on an indemnity basis is unfettered. All that is required is that it must be an appropriate case warranting an award on that basis. There is no doubt that in this case, the second respondent conducted its case in bad faith. Its directing mind and will — indeed its alter ego — was the first respondent's common law husband. In essence he was the company. Both he and the first respondent set themselves upon a course to unlawfully deprive the appellant of her legitimate interest in the subject property.” S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 90 [139] The above considered, this Court hereby orders Costs as follows: a. In dismissing Siva’s sham Main Suit, this Court hereby orders Costs on an indemnity basis to the benefit of Firwas to be paid by Siva and Ammsa Property Sdn Bhd to Firwas; b. In dismissing Thevan’s sham counter-claim, this Court hereby orders Costs on an indemnity basis to the benefit of Firwas to be paid by Thevan to Firwas and Jasim; and c. In allowing Firwas’s counter-claim, this Court hereby orders Costs on an indemnity basis to the benefit of Firwas, to be jointly and severally paid by Siva, Ammsa Property Sdn Bhd, Thevan, and Shoba (as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm – Chambers of Rahimi Ibrahim & Co formerly known as Messrs Faidzol Rahimi & Partners). K. THIS COURT’S ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS ACROSS SIVA’S SHAM MAIN CLAIM, THEVAN’S SHAM COUNTERCLAIM AND FIRWAS’S COUNTER-CLAIM [140] For ease of reference, this Court recapitulates this Court’s core findings, orders and declarations in the following manners below. [141] As for Siva’s sham Main Claim and Thevan’s sham counter-claim, as this Court has already decided above, this Court hereby dismisses Siva’s sham Main Claim and Thevan’s sham counter-claim with costs on an indemnity basis as per the order for costs mentioned above in Part J of this Judgment. [142] As for Firwas’s Counterclaim, this Court hereby allows Firwas’s counter- claim and accordingly declares and orders the following: S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 91 a. This Court declares that there has never been any agreement entered into by Firwas or Siva to sell the subject land to Siva; b. This Court declares that the sham SPA that Usha had prepared and wrongfully accepted by Usha and Siva to be illegal, fraudulent, void ab initio and was clearly unenforceable; c. This Court declares that Firwas was well within its indefeasible rights to sell the subject land to Eastern Titan; d. This Court finds that Thevan and Usha (as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm) had indeed breached their fiduciary duties owed to Firwas; e. This Court finds that Thevan, Siva, and Shoba (as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm) had indeed perpetrated their own respective fraud and colluded in a collective tripartite conspiracy to defraud Firwas; f. Considering that Usha was also central to the tripartite conspiracy to defraud but was not made a party within these proceedings, this Court can only leave it to the ingenuity and discretion of Firwas to pursue an action against Usha in light of this Court’s findings; g. This Court orders that Siva’s caveat be removed forthwith within fourteen (14) days of this Court’s order; h. This Court orders that Siva is liable to pay general damages (Judgment Sum) for wrongful entry of his caveat assessed at the rate of 8% per annum x RM52,200,000.00 for the entire period from the accrual date (22.9.2020) until fourteen (14) days after the full removal of Siva’s wrongful caveat (as this Court had earlier mentioned above); S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 92 i. This Court also orders that Siva is liable to pay exemplary and aggravated damages of RM100,000.00 to Firwas; j. This Court also orders that both Thevan and Shoba (as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm) to be jointly and severally liable to the general damages (Judgment Sum) in sub para (h) above that Siva is liable to pay to Firwas; k. This Court also orders that both Thevan and Shoba are respectively liable to pay RM100,000.00 each in exemplary and aggravated damages to Firwas; l. In allowing Firwas’s counterclaim, this Court further orders Costs on an indemnity basis to the benefit of Firwas, to be jointly and severally paid by Siva, Ammsa Property Sdn Bhd, Thevan, and Shoba (as partner of Usha’s fraudulent firm – Chambers of Rahimi Ibrahim & Co formerly known as Messrs Faidzol Rahimi & Partners); and m. This Court also orders interest of 4% on the Judgment Sum in sub-paras (h) and (j) and the exemplary and aggravated damages in sub-para (i) and (k) awarded from the date of this Court Order until full settlement of all the sums awarded. [143] On an ancillary note, this Court shall briefly allude on the position of the RM1,200,000.00 in earnest deposit held by Thevan and the RM4,800,000.00 allegedly paid and held by Usha’s fraudulent firm. [144] As to the legal ownership of the RM1,200,000.00 earnest deposit paid to Thevan, this Court finds that essentially the earnest deposit must be S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 93 returned to Siva as there was no agreement concluded between Firwas and Siva. Thevan has no rights at all to claim for any damages owing to his dirtied hands stained by his core complicity in the conspiracy to defraud. In any case, since Siva had been found to be liable to compensate Firwas for its losses, this Court accordingly orders that this sum held by Thevan be directly paid to Firwas to partially settle Siva’s Judgment Debt owed to Firwas. [145] As to the legal ownership and alleged dissipation of the RM4,800,000.00 of the alleged further deposit held by the fraudulent firm, this Court in essence finds that this sum is only relevant between Siva and the fraudulent firm. In truth, this Court must remark on the peculiar and dubious circumstances surrounding the alleged payment of the RM4,800,000.00 sum. It was readily admitted by Usha that the fraudulent firm’s bank statement was fraudulently perjured and forged to reflect the payment of the RM4,800,000.00 although there was not a single cent of the sum within the firm’s account. Even more peculiar would be Siva’s perplexing disinterest to pursue, investigate, and trace his monies allegedly held by the fraudulent firm. Nonetheless, Siva did not claim for the return of the RM4,800,000.00 from the fraudulent firm in his Main Suit. Thus, this Court shall not endeavour to make any finding or orders as to the legal position of the RM4,800,000.00 allegedly held by Usha’s fraudulent firm. It is up to Siva to pursue this sum directly against the fraudulent firm or Usha (if Siva can prove that there was indeed such payment made to Usha’s fraudulent firm). [146] Lastly, it would be severely remiss if this Court were to ignore the glaring illegality that is the fraudulent manner in which Usha is rendering fraudulent legal services by manipulating and abusing other qualified lawyer’s license S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 95 FIRWAS’S COUNTER-CLAIM For the Plaintiff - Messrs. Shaikh David & Co. Dato’ David Morais, Miss Pavitra Pillai, Miss Sarah Jailany & Miss Ellia Fatanah For the 1st & 2nd Defendants - Messrs. Rose Hussain Mr. Selva Kumaran For the 3rd Defendant - Messrs. Mastura Partnership Mr. Sivabalan & Mr. Goh Wan Ping For the 4th Defendant - Messrs. Dinesh Praveen Nair Mr. Dinesh Praveen Nair THEVANDRAN’S COUNTER-CLAIM For the Plaintiff - Messrs. Mastura Partnership Sivabalan & Mr. Goh Wan Ping For the 1st & 2nd Defendants - Messrs. Shaikh David & Co. Dato’ David Morais, Miss Pavitra Pillai, Miss Sarah Jailany & Miss Ellia Fatanah S/N TS0lZCXdK06jTRI2SGCFFQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

MA-45SOM-9-04/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH MOHD SHAM BIN IBRAHIM

Seksyen 18A Akta Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 ('SOSMA') dan Seksyen 5(2) & 35 Akta Antipemerdangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 ('ATIPSOM') - Keputusan ketetapan/ruling - Samada Seksyen 18A SOSMA mengenai penerimaan keterangan terpakai didalam kes di bawah ATIPSOM - Pertimbangan Seksyen 5(2) dan 35 ATIPSOM atas prinsip generalia specialibus non derogant - Pertimbangan keputusan kes-kes berkenaan pemakaian Seksyen 18A SOSMA - Ketetepan/ruling: Seksyen 18A SOSMA tidak terpakai untuk kes di bawah ATIPSOM - peruntukan Seksyen 5(2) dan 35 ATIPSOM mewajibkan pemakaian Seksyen 35 ATIPSOM.

01/02/2024

YA Tuan Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e738cbf-bcd0-4dbf-8687-77a2d2f57d67&Inline=true

01/02/2024 12:30:03 MA-45SOM-9-04/2019 Kand. 101 S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N v4xzDtC8v02Gh3ei0vV9Zw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mx—45sou—9—ua/2019 Kand. 101 am;/zuu mm-m DALAM MANKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA PERBICARAAN JENAYAH No: MA45SOM-9—D4l2M9 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAVA DAN MDHD SHAM BIN IERAHIM KEFQTUSAN KEYETAFAN RULING FERKARA DI HADAPAN MAMKAMAH m m. adalah satu kexexapan atau “n4!mg' sen: amnn kepulunn Iemadap pelsoalan samada dn bawah satu perluduhan my hawah Akta Anhpemerdagangan Orang flan Armpenyemdupan Mwgrzn 2007 (‘AT|PSOM‘) salu pengakuan lenuduh m aawam rlkaman pemakapanyang mnenkan kepada Pegawan Fenywasal mbawan Seksyen 112 Kanun Talacara Jenayah amen duenma sebagaw keterangan m hawah Seksyen 18A AH: Kesalihan Kaseramacan (Langkan-Langkan Khas) 2012 (SOSMK) 1 ..m.Wmw W LATAR BELAKANG [21 Tertuduh tehh mun-m dengin sam kasalnhan m bawah Seksyen 26A ATIPSOM kevana melakukan perbualan penyeludupan 5 nmgyan lanpa mn Semasa Pemenksaan mama SP4 (‘Pegawzu Penylai-at‘) ms‘ nu lelah manymakan Terluduh man mengaku rnanyeludup rmgran yang terkan semasa memben rakaman percakapannya Gan pads kemka nu nihak Pendakwaan lelzh mamahon kepada Mahkamah .m unluk mengemukakan raklman percakapan nu sebagal kelerangan K25 Pendakwaan me\aluI pemakawzn Seksyen 18A ma sosm Permohonan nu Isiah an:-man aleh plhak Pemneraan [:1 Mahkamah (elah mengarihkan kedun-dua p. Ik Pendakwam n1anPembeIaIn unmk momasukkan man." secara bertulls untuknemmbangan Mahkamuh Im Seialah menehlr dan mempemmbangxan myanan keuuadua plhak Mankamah membull dapalan uan kstetapan sepem benkul m uuuxcmuzenzexmwzw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! kapmusan tam (emadap pemakavan seksyen ISA SOSMA hendaklah dlbaca tamed kepada lakla Kes~kes nu ma] Mengenav kevuxusan an dalam kas cimu pole‘ wulaupun kes nlu mehbalkan perluduhan dw bawah Seksyen 26A nwsom, malangnya Mahlcamah wax mempemmhang Isu kesan pemntukan Seksyen 5(2) dan as Am=soM berbandmg Seksysn «an sosm da\am mancapaw kefellpan bahawl Seksyen 15A Idalah perumukan yang Iarpakaw aeguu [uga an dalam kes PPV. Knh on/n Wah .5 Anar[2022) MLJU 1924/{ m2] 1 ms 1517 Mamman fldak memflfilmbflng parunlukan Seksyan 5(2) dill Seksyen 35 ATVFSOM dalam membua| kmevapan bahawa Seksyen TBA soswx lerpakax a. dalam kes yang mellbalkan penuduhan dv hawah Seksyen 26A ATIPSOM Maka, Mahkamah iru berpendapal kepulusan Hakim perblcaman dx dI\am kn-kes nu Juga perlu dmadkan kepada «am ax dalzm makes an [17] Adaxan .e1as bahawa keduadus Ana ATVPSOM aan SOSMA adalah undang-unflang yang khusus Parsnalannya apakah perunmkan Seksyen 2 sosMA yang menecapkan bahawa Akva 11 . XX nzemwzw "'1..‘ SnE:1kfiifnzIErw\\\I>euIe4mvamlnenrighvnfllymiml ¢...m.w..mm W nu Ielpakm kepadi semua kn kesallmalan lanpu pengecuu n rmngavau pemakalnn Selwyen 512) dan as ATVFSOM Kellhnlannya «pen: Ida pomanggahan alau konmk amm perumukan kedul-dua Aku nu Sehlgal pemandmgan - iqksfirv 2 SOSMA - “Am im hendak/an Ierpakal bag: kssalahan kaselamaran ' ks n AT/P M- 'S9kWHIVya lemma! ape-cps pelcanggahan atau kemakse/arisen aura/zparunlukanAk1a Intderrgsnpemnlukanmana-mane unaang undang berm/us lam, pslwlmkarl Akia ml hendaldan terpakm darn panmlukan mans-mans undang-undang berm/ts /am yang narcsnggah alsu mink seraras rm he/vdsklah, setskal percanggshan aleu ketrdaksa/urasan flu‘ drstlalkan dlganllkbfl " [ca] Menquk Kepada kepulusan Mlhkamah Fersckuluan an amm keg Abdullan Am: r. PP[zo2o] 0 CLJ 151/ 1217201 I MLJ 727, ualnm memmnoangkan perkall pertanggahan alau kanfllk pemnlukan dun undangundang yang barbeza VAA Tengku Mawmun Tuun Mat KHN meagalakan sepem henkul - .1 M01 mm. W.‘ s£'n‘fi...u§EM.,.u.....nM,....mM.y.m.m.u.m..num W “[53] where mere 1: acormlcrbolwasna specrfc /aw and a general law, me name: may be resolved m one oflwo ways The m1 >51/lathe maxrm gyms/1s sgg mg; mg ggmag; mg seconL11§!he dogma olhalmgruous mn§[IuL‘tmn [58] sscoon 15014; ol ma CFO and : ma.) 0/ ms om must be read Inzrmon/ously, apolymg ms ducmne nl harmonious mnslmclion In 5 nulahsfl, Ma doc!/we requires that me fegrslslmn be conslruad m a way wmcn would acmeva a hannomous rssu/I and mm cunsmlclron would favour coherence m ma /aw (sseP1‘hak Berkuasa Talsrsmb Majlrs Psrbandulan Seberalvg Farm 5 Am y Mumm MukntaI]2fl20] 1 cm 1, [2020] 1 MLJ 141 alparas 7510 79) A harmunrou: cnnxtmcbon wowd//mvl ‘clsdmle av/1derrcs‘lo ma Actual lindmg ofpassessron, As propoundad m Muhammad Hassan, and once that rs eslab/rshsd successlu/ly, 1: would rm/aka me pmsumphon ollraflrckmg Dslsnee wuil men be called on lralfckmg Wham [he lays! burden would sum to me accused to mspmve Ilalnckmg " [<9] Melujuk pull kepadi kepulusan Mznkaman Fersekululn dwdllam kes Flluk auimnn Tmnmib Mum: Porblndlran Sabvrlng Puni 5 Ann: 1/ Marital Maxim: [2020] 1 EL! 1 I [2020] l MLJ 141, pnrmp ‘hannoluus aanstmcnorr aalam mmevaxkan u umcmozenzexmwzw W.‘ 5.1.1 ...1..Mm.,.1.....,:w..1,...my.u.y.m. 1m.m..n_.m W pevcanggahan amara dua pemnlukan undangmndang le\ah an nyatakan sepem benkm - 775] In mis regard. :2 wau/d be convumlnl rar us (0 dtscuss me aocmne ofhamvomous nnnstrucfrons To mu u mp/y, ma docmns or Ilsrmamous conslvuzmzn means a stalme should as read as a whole and one pmvrstorv of ms Act should Denonslmsd mm raismnca to other pmvmons nu ma same Act an as u: make a wnsmanlenaclmsnl o/"ms whole mane Such an mzerpmsnon ts beneficial m avonirng any means/ska/icy or rapugnancy srlnsr wmun a semen or oazwesn s sectron and other pans aims statute The five rna/n pnnciples 1:! ms docmna/rule am as /o/mws-. (5) mo noun must avoid a head on dash ar sesmmg/y corvlradrblary amvisrons and may mus! construe the conmmcmy pmvmons so to Immmmse them (see Gommrssmnsr of Income Tax v Hindustan Bulk Gamers 1200213 sec 57 at p 74;,- ([7) ms provrsmn al one secnon canrml be used (:7 defeat the pmvismn canramed m anamar mess the court, dsspne a// Rs slrans, is unable ru find a way to rscancr/a man differences‘ (C) when If Is rmpassmle (0 oampmely rerzoncfls Me IIIWSIBDGGS m contradictory pm-/ismns, ms nouns mus! mrerpra: them In such a way that allbcf rs given In both pmwsrons as much as 11 .1 mzemmwu W.‘ s£'n‘fi...u..Mm.,.u......1M,....mm.u.y.m.m.u.m..n_.Na W possible (see Su/tans Begum v Prem CIvand.la1n AIR [1997] so 1005 at pp 1005-1010), (:1) court: must also keep in mrmmrai mlalprelamzn that reduces one prawsmn m useless or dead lumber IS rm! hammmous canslruclmn (sae[202U] 1 MLJ 141 at 155Commsssronsr of Income Tax v Hindustan Bulk cam'ers[2oa2) 3 scc 57 at p 74), and (e) to harrnomse rs rm: to destmy any statutory pmvlsmn or to rsndelit /rumess [79] In a nutshell, me aocmna requrrus that me legrslavan he mnslrusd m a way wnrcn would acmevs a harmomous result, and ma: mnskmcnon should favour coherence rrr me law “ [Z0] Eevpandukan keputusan lldv Mahkamlh berpendlnan kedurdua pemnluknn nu mengalasl pemakalin Seksyen 18A SDSMA dx dalam kas ATVPSOM Wllaupun ksdua-dua Akla rmpsom dun SOSMA adalah Akta yang khusus namun perumukan Seksyen 542) Arwsou yang jelas menyalakan bahawa dmam keadaan man: cerdavat percanggahan anlau perunlukan ATIPSDM dengan unaang-unaang lam - pamnlukan mans-m-ma um1arrg— undurvg wmns /am yang bemanggan alau max se/alas nu .1 armzenzemwzw W.‘ s£'n‘fi...r..Mm.,.u.....nmy....mr.u.y.m.m.r.r.r...n_.Na W hendak/eh‘ selakal psmanggahan mu kshdskse/a/asan nu, mszrankan digantrkan Seksyen 5(2) ATVFSOM mak mengecuankan SOSMA, make SOSMA lermasuk dalam many lingkup perunmm manawvana undang-undnng bsnulu /am [211 Pada panuagax Mahkumah W, wauupun SOSMA man mguzm pad: 2012 kemudwan danATlPSOM yang dlgubal pada tahun 2007‘ namun pengakalan pemmukan Selmyen 5(2) nan 35 AnPsoM Lanna pengecuanan alau pmdaan aelepas SOSMA berkualkussa menycbxbkin ksdua—dua pemnmkln nu kekal seuagax perunlukan undlngmndang yang mesa dlben kesan aleh Mahkamah nu Sekvva penggubal undangundang memalkan sebahknya sudah pain Seksyen 5(2) wish mpmaa unluk menyalukan soswx sebagn undang-undang yang dlkecuahkan um pemnlukan an [221 Mahklmih menaapun -was pump genera/rs spscmllbus non aemgam Seksyen s(2p ATIPSOM menuncm pemakaran Seksyen 35(2) ATIPSOM lemadap kebursmenmaan keeerangan aesualu kenyaca-n cermdun m dllim kei ATVFSOM Gan mmn Seksyen ISA SOSMA 15 W [231 Mahkamah jugs berpcndapai pemakalan pnnslp “harmnnms construct/on“ sepem yang dr mmpammualam kes Abdullah Ann rnenjuslmkasxkan penusahan pemncukan Kedua-dua ma rm lebm» leblh lam kerana pemnlukln nyata Seksyan sapmpsom Maka sepemmana ken Abdullah Akin memuluskan pelunlukan Seksyen 37(da) ma Dada» Bavbahaya 1952 dan Seksyen1E0(4)Kanun Tatacava Jenaysh pedu an baca aecavi harmonl, begltu juya pemmukan Saksyen 542; den 35 Awsom hams m on seclu narmom dengan Seksyen ISA sosm Alas pemmbangan nu, Seksyen 35 ATIPSOM hams Ierus lerpakal Imluk semua kes keselimatan unpa perlu mengqangu pemakaIanSeksyen1EA soswa kepada kes-ken keaellmman yamn ATVFSOM den sebn nya KETETAPAN (RULING) [241 Dengzn yang aemman Mahkamah menelapkan - 1.) Seksyen 35 ATVFSOM din bukan Seksyen MA sosMA, ad: n perunmkzn undangmndlng yang lerpakaw aamm menenmkan xenuremenmaan kelevangan upa—apa kenyalaan n . XX nzemwzw $1..‘ s.“'n‘fi5.“.‘.‘u’fi,yyyy.,.u.....,:my....my.u.y.m.¢...u.m..n_.m W tarmduh m dalam satu pemmaraan perluduhan dx bawah Aw-som, den (:2) Dengsn yang demman apa—apa kelerangan pengakuan Tenuduh kepsda spa mdalam «as semasa ndak bo\eh dilemma sebagai kelerangan jvx/fre.<..:\Ja norm mxbz: am AE‘Dl‘JL-HAMID HAKIIA MAHKAMAH TINGGI MELAKA Tankh — 1 Febman 2024 Bag Pvhak Penggmgan Tusn Mom: Asri Sm Abd Rahman smuk nmbaxan Fendakwa Raya Pejlbll Fsnaslhm Undenqundang Negen Melaka Na: 2‘ vwsma Persexuman, Jalan Business Cwty Bnndav MITC, 75450 Ayer Kernh Me\aka Bagx Fmak Terluduh Puan suzana Norllhan Emu Alias Tetuan suzana Nomhan & Co Feguarnbela A Peguamcava Suite 33-91 33''’ Hoe: Menara Keck Seng 2n: Ja\an sum Bvmang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur 1| sw vaxxnxcavuzenzemwzw w m. smnw IIIVVDIVWW be used m van; .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm fl HUJAHAN PIMAK-PIHAK U] [5] Plhak Fendakwaan menghujahkan soswx mam sa|u Akl: yang khusus mu-gens: Ialacava pemumraan kes keselamatan dan mengandungl perunlukan yang khusus mengenal penenmaan keterangan D1 dakam penmuan kes samasa perunlukan yang wkaul adalah Seksyen 15A Seksyen Ilu mempemmukkan - ’Apa-spa pemyaraan aleh sesearang termduh same ad: sscara nsan atau bsnu/rs kepads mane-mans orang pads bllawbr/a mass hsndak/ah bolsh drtenma ssbagat ketsmngan “ oxen kevana permduhzn dldilam kes samasa adalah ax bawnh Seksyen 26A ATVFSOM aan kesalahan nu dlsenavax dx dalam Janna! Panama SOSMA ssuagau kesaranan kesehmatan, maka dlhmahkan Seksyen 18A sosMA adalah Ierpakal an dalam ks: Inn Rujukan man d|hua| kepsda kepumsan d\da\am kes Pendakwn Raya I-wan sin‘ Nanr Ailhah Alam [21117] 1 Lu: an /[2017] 7 ML] 464,- PP v. Am: Hasln cnan Bin Abduuan mm] 1 Llvs 1539; PP v‘ Azroy Acne! mm} ecu 702/(201119 MLI 702,- sm vaxxnxcavuzenzemwzw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm din Pondakvra R-yn mm. ./un.t.w.ttst. Abdul Gnam'[2010) 1 LNS 1557 ylng (Nah mamuluskln Seksyen 13A SOSMA idallh lerpakat dalnm pznenmaan kelsrangln an dI\am K:s—t¢s keselnmalan D! dalam kes Aszmy Anhoi Mahkamah memuluskan sepem berikur» -[23] cmmser /oraccussd obfictad to ma stntementan the gmund mat a Is not admlsstbls under the cmmn-t Pmoadula Code I avenuled the omactmn as (he SDSMA rs a spam! law that gm/ems trials alsecunly olfurvcu In accordance mm the bsstc pnncuals nl stalulaiy Irvterprslulran captured in ma Laltn maxim gsnarulta spoctsnbus nun dvmgant wmcn means that me general provision: or (he law must yte/1.1 to scene! provtatans ol ms /saw, I t-om that 5 1:3 avsmdes any /Inpedrmant to me admtssron arms sata sltalemem that IS found In tne Cnmmal Procedure cm 0/ me Evtdemae Ac! two In Incl, : 15 )5 lound In Fan VI! ol the SOSMA and: 17 enacts that Pm VII shall have sllecl notwttnstandmg any /nconsrslarmy w/tn (ha Evtdsncs Act 1950 124] II/nd support lo! M: vtaw III the umpaned case: ofPsn-itakwa Raye /wn Si!/' Naor Arshan bf Atam {zen} 7 MLJ 451 and Pendakwl Rays v ./usmnawatt at Abdul snam [2016] MLJU 1256 that was brought to my sttsnltcrt by me learned DFP In me Said cases, the coun hold mat a conlassro/vary statement clan accused person can by summed un-ms 15;: wtlhounagardla the m uumcmemmwu mm. S-rm ...m.mm .. U... m may .. mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mtma Wm! pmwsions ol the Cnminsl Procedure Code and me Ewdsnce Am 1950' [6] Feguambeia unmk Tamduh pm: mngmankan wahupun seksyen 13A sosMA Idalah pemnmkan khas yang berpakal unluk kes-Kes xesetamatan, namun Mahkamah hdak boleh mengeneptkan perunlukan Seksyen 512)dan 35 ATIPSDM dalam pemmnangan samada Seksyen 18A soswx lerpakal unluk sllu pemmunan dw bawzm A‘nPsoM 171 Seksyan 5 (ZMTVFSOM memperunlukkan - (1; Pemnlukan ma ini nerldak/ah men/ad! lambshan made, dan lrdak Inengurangkan pelumukan ma/va—mam3 undang- undsng bertulrs /am yang berfmbungan dengan pemeldagsngan arang dan penyemupan mlgran (2) Sskrragga tsgggal agraga Eanmnan aggu ks akselarasan mars mmukan A a rm den an gsmnmun mans-mgna unganguyam gguns [am run! In A m: h ndskl n (5 « dart nm! rr mane-m n un a -an ism 3 arm: ndak sslaras rm ngndak/an sezskgz ggmgmgangn gm kstrdak salamsan nu drsflalkay mganugag ' £‘n.,'.“§.“'n‘fi5.”.‘.‘u’fi,"$T?€E‘f..“.7.,: mm .. nrimnnuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum W [3] Manakala Seksyen 35 (1 | ATIPSOM pula memperunlukkan - "m Kscua/1 sebagalmans yang drpalunlukkan dnlam Saksysn /m, linds pemyalssn yang drbuat a)sh mlns—mana orang kepsda sessorzing pegawsu pengusl kuasa semnss permasamn mus: m hswrah Am ml wan digunakan da/am kalsrangan “ M Mangmn Saksyen 2 ATIPSOM “pagawmpe»guau<uasa' xermmk mana-mans Pagawau Polls mu Pegawm Inugmen aaau Pegawaw Agerm Fengualkuasaan Manum Mnlaysia no] Selerusnya Faguambelu menghmarlkan kers-km y-ng amuk aleh p|hiK Fendukwnan hendaklah dnbuakan dlfl Kes semasa kerana semua kepulusan nu mehbalkan kesa\ahan keselamatan dx bawan Kanun Keseksaan .1: man: max ads pemmbangan pemakalan peruntukanaaerunlukan ATIPSOM lid! Kevan: flu, kepumaalh kapmusln Ixersebul udak maven kepada pemmbangan Mahkamah W [M] Peguambexa telah menank pemauan Mahkamah kepada sum kepulusan an daram FP lawn: Citaru [2022] 1 LNS 1565 /[2022] .1 M01 mm. W.‘ SE:1lfinmI1Gn:‘wH\I>euIe4mvsmmennghvnulyM1M|dnuummvunF\uNG W uuu 1551/ mu] cuu ms a. mans walaupun kes mu mehhatkan satu penuduhin an bawah Seksyen 2sA ATVPSOM namun Mahkamah Ivdak mempemmbanq pemakaxan Seksyen 512) flan 35 m AT¥P$OM Ietnpl seballknya mamutuskan bahawl Seksyen 13A SOSMA aaaran letpalrax Psguambeva mengmqahkan keputusan dx aavam kes ml lvdak holeh dnenma uleh Mahkamah iehagiu atom: unluk pemakaxan Seisyen «SA sosm a. damn m nwsom kevana r-«mm dv dmam kes cum ndak Iangsung memjuk kepada perunmkan—perunlukan ATVFSOM um da\am mencapal kaputusan mas nu kebalehlanmuen kalerungan Hakim an dalam on-n memuluskan . ‘B. Peuerimaan Perlyalun OKT (M725) Stblgll Eksiblt 112/ unzuk im prhakPsm1akwa5n menquk kepsda Ssksysn 18A Akts Kesalahan Kese/amacan (Lang;<an4angkan Kim 2012) yang memperuntu)<kan'- "Apaapa psmyalaan o/ah seseorxng tarruduh samada S906!!! Ilsan atau bertulrs kspada mana—marm orang pads btla-D4/5 mass hsndaklah Imlelv drtsnma sebsgs: kefelfllvgarl “ . XX Gmsmwzw $1..‘ s.“'n‘fi5.“.‘.‘5..Mm.,.u.....nmy....mm.u.y.m.m.u.m...n_.Na W [13] Plhak Pendukwaan msrlghu/ah Ssksyan 2 sosMA msmpemnmkkan Oshawa Aids Isrsebut adalun tsrpakar kspsda semua Kass/aha/v Kaselamararv Kasalahan Keselamatan marsh d/Iafs4rkan m bawah Suksyslv 3 SOSMA sebagm kesa/ahan yang d/masukksn m bawah Jadual Panama SOSMA Dr bswah./aduaIPerramaterseDu!,Ianya/em: msmpelunfukkan ape-spa Iarvgkspan penahanan alau pertuduhan an Dav/ah Bshagran MIA ATIPSOM 2007 adalalv m bawah SOSMA yang mane Seksysn 26A mngga 25x Akra ada/ah .1; bawalv Bahsglsn I//A ml 114/ me)! ksrarm cw drruduh .1, Bowen Saksyen 25/: AnPsoM make nrosedur m Dswah sosm secara auvomallk tsrpakar olen yang dam/ktan is/alas danger! Saksyen 15» SOSM/lpenyataan on be/sh anenms masuk sebagar kelelangan [Ru/wk PP V Ann Hasan cnan Abdullah [2020] v uvs 1539 115] Dengan msnggumiksn prmsrp "generana specralrbus non deroganl"maka psnyataan OKT ba/sh wrenma masuk den dilandakan ssbagar P25 “ PENI LA|AN MAHKAMAH [12] Menyemuh tenebm dahulu mengenai SOSMA Mahkamsh Rayuan dwdmam kes PP v. Kharruddln Abu Hassan 4'. Anar[201714 ELJ . XX Gmlsmwzw $1..‘ s.“'n‘fi5.“.‘.‘5..Mm.,.u.....nmy....mm.u.y.nn.m.m.v...n_.Na W fl [13] m /[2017] MLJII 1:» dan Mam-n Rahndrzrv v. PP [2022] 1 MLRA 707 / [2022] 5 MLJ aw / [2022] 1 cu sun talah memuluskln buhawa SOSMA talah dlgubal unluk memerangl lecvnsme Man II adalah saw Akla yang khusus yang man dngubal mengenal Lalacava permcaraan kes sebagan kes keselamaxan sepem yang dlsenaralkan dalam Jaauar Panama SOSMA D. atas pemakalan pnnswp genera/re spams/mus non derogant perunlukan Eahaglan 7 sosm mengalasl pemakaxan Akla Kelerangan 1950 selakat mana wa bercanggah dengan Akta Kelerangan Dengan uemman keputusamkeputusan ax dawn kas Pendnkwa R-yl /awln 51:; Now Alshnh Anm (20171 1 LNS su /[2017] 7 ML./ 461; PP v. Ahu Nasan cum (7. Abdullah [20217] 1 ms 153»; PP v. Azrvy Acnai[2o1a) 9 CL: 752 /mm) 9 MLJ 702; flan Pcndakwl R- Inwnn Jusninwltl bl. Abdul Glunl ROM] 1 LNS 1657 [Nah memuluskan pemyataan lertuduh yang Iermasuk salu pengakuan baleh dilemma sehagal keterangan a. bawah Seksyen 19A SOSMA walaupun secara umumnya Ianya Irdak boleh anenma wbagal kelarnngzn a. bawah pavunlukzn Kanun Tatacara Jenayah 9 . xx ammwzw 5%.‘ s.“'n‘fi5.“L‘5..Mm.,.u.....amy....mm.u.y.«w.m.u.m...n_.Na W [14] Menyenluh puxa mengenal pamnmkan ATPSOM‘ Saksyen 512; mempatunlukkan dengan Mn bahwa ATVPSOM mengl1as4 mans mam undangmndang ram yang bemanggah dengan pemmukan ATIPSOM Adalah perlu unluk dvsebut banawa perunmkan sepem dx dalam Seksyen 5 ¢2) um ndak terkandung an dalam SOSMA Make, mat penggubal undanwunoanv hahiwa pevunmkan ATIPSOM mm lernakan suura khusus lerhadap kasallhan flv bawah undang-undang nu hsndaklah amen kasan oleh Mahkamah [15] Setelah memhtv kapuluIan—kepmus.In yang dlmmk oven pmak Fendakwaan dun Pembelaan‘ Mahkaman vaeusemu dengan hujahan pihak Pembexaan bahawa kes-kes yang dwrujuk men pmak Pervdakwaan meubankan kesalahan-kesalahan an bawah Seksyen mm Iaum) (n), 130JB (1)(a)dan mum Kinun Keseksaan dun bukan kesarar-an dw bawah ATIPSOM Oleh kerana penuuunan an dalam kes—kes nu mefihatkan kesalahan keselamalan m bawah Kanun Keseksaan maka adalah wan: bnhawa perunmknn SOSMA lerpzkal an dlmm kemkes nu Dengan yang dermknan kepmusam .1 M01 uwwzw W.‘ s.“'n‘fi...ufi,”:‘iu.,.u.....nM,....mM.y.m.¢...u.m..n_.m W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1888-10/2022

PERAYU AIRBUS HELICOPTERS MALAYSIA SDN BHD RESPONDEN AERIAL POWER LINES SDN BHD

Stay of proceedings under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 - whether by requesting for extension of time to file Defence, the defendant has evinced an unequivocal intention to proceed with proceedings in Court - whether a request for extension of time to file Defence is “taking any other steps in the proceedings” when before the extension of time is engaged and well within the period to file Defence without any extension of time, a Stay Application is made - whether a stay should be made when the Court has not made any decision on the oral application to extend time to file Defence and a Stay Application is made.

01/02/2024

YA Dato' Lee Swee SengKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin GhazaliDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7ebc6e28-187d-4aec-a983-4c4ffc8cf5bf&Inline=true

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1888-10/2022 BETWEEN AIRBUS HELICOPTERS MALAYSIA SDN BHD (formerly known as Eurocopter Malaysia Sdn Bhd) [COMPANY NO: 200201023378 (591041-A)] APPELLANT AND AERIAL POWER LINES SDN BHD [COMPANY NO: 201301028714 (1058544-X)] RESPONDENT [(In the matter of Notice of Application dated 1.8.2022 (Enclosure 9) in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Sivil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-198-04/2022 Between Aerial Power Lines Sdn Bhd [Company No: 201301028714 (1058544-X)] …Plaintiff And Airbus Helicopter Malaysia Sdn Bhd (formely known as Eurocopter Malaysia Sdn Bhd) [Company No: 200201023378 (591041-A)] Defendant 06/02/2024 11:31:18 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1888-10/2022 Kand. 27 S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 CORAM: LEE SWEE SENG, JCA CHE MOHD RUZIMA BIN GHAZALI, JCA DR CHOO KAH SING, JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] It has become an almost reflex action when appearing for the first case management date by way of e-review, for counsel for a defendant to invariably ask for an extension of time to file Defence especially when the Statement of Claim has just been served and when it runs into many paragraphs. [2] Here the Statement of Claim had been served just 2 days before the first case management hearing, running into no less than 100 paragraphs consisting of many more sub-paragraphs of technical details with respect to the malfunctioning of a helicopter. [3] Little did the defendant’s counsel know that such a request would result in the plaintiff vigorously resisting a subsequent application to stay the court proceedings under s 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA 2005”) (“Stay Application”) with the argument being advanced that the defendant had clearly and unequivocally elected to abandon arbitration in favour of litigation before the High Court. Here no Defence was filed for as soon as the contract documents were made available by the defendant to its solicitors, its solicitors had promptly filed the Stay Application. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] The High Court agreed with the plaintiff and dismissed the Stay Application and hence this appeal to the Court of Appeal. Perhaps the position of the law needs some fine-tuning, appreciating the need to be consistent as far as possible with other jurisdictions that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. [5] Section 10 AA 2005 mandates the Court to stay the proceedings before it if the parties have agreed to arbitration to resolve their disputes unless the party making the stay application has taken other steps in the proceedings or that on the evidence before it, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. [6] Section 10(1) of the AA 2005 reads as follows: “10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court (1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.” (emphasis added) [7] The Courts have moved way past the uncertainty as to whether the entering an unconditional appearance is considered “taking a step in the proceedings.” The Federal Court in Sanwell Corp v Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 625 had clarified and S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 confirmed that entering an appearance and an unconditional one at that is a permitted, excluded or an exempted step in the proceedings that does not amount to a step in the proceedings within the meaning of the then s 6 of the Arbitration Act 1952 (“AA 1952”) which would prejudice the applicant's right to apply for a stay of the proceedings. [8] The filing of Defence is invariably a step in the proceedings, indicating a clear and unequivocal intention to proceed with litigation. This is so even though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties where a dispute has arisen out of or in relation or in connection thereto. It does not matter even if one has not read the arbitration clause or asked whether there was one or addressed the issue of whether there was an option to proceed to arbitration. [9] The Federal Court in Sanwell Corp (supra) delineated what is clear with respect to what is included in “taking any other steps in the proceedings” where entry of appearance and service of pleadings are concerned and left other actions to be determined by the nature of the action and whether or not it indicates an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to abandon the right to have the dispute disposed of by arbitration. This is how the Federal Court stated the position of the law with respect to the then s. 6 AA 1952 and by extension, the current s.10 AA 2005 at pp 229-230: “Therefore, the legal position in Malaysia may be neatly summarised as follows: (a) The entry of appearance is the mandatory procedural step to be taken by an applicant in a proceeding in the High Court. It is a step in the proceedings as required by the RHC. However, it is a S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 permitted, excluded or an exempted step in the proceedings that does not amount to a step in the proceedings within the meaning of the s. 6 of the Act which would prejudice the applicant's right to apply for a stay of the proceedings. (b) If the applicant has served any pleadings, then he has clearly taken a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s. 6 of the Act. He has thereby elected to proceed with the proceedings in the High Court and would be barred from applying for a stay of proceedings to refer the dispute to arbitration (c) If he has taken any other action in the proceedings (other than step (a) or (b) abovementioned), the court will then have to consider whether such action amounts to a step in the proceedings by determining the nature of the action and whether or not it indicates an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to abandon the right to have the dispute disposed off by arbitration.” (emphasis added) [10] What is less clear is whether a request for an extension of time to file Defence (“the Request”) is also indicating an unequivocal intention to abandon the arbitration agreement and instead proceed with litigation. Has the defendant by so asking, waived its right to arbitration? It would appear that such a determination would invariably be fact-centric and fact- sensitive. Before the High Court [11] The High Court was satisfied that by not qualifying the request for extension of time to file Defence, the defendant had invoked the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) which can only signify its taking “any other steps in the proceedings”. Thus it was then too late to backtrack and resile from that declared intention made known to the Court and to the plaintiff at the first case management hearing. Before the Court of Appeal [12] Before us it was argued for the defendant that the said Request was made on an abundance of caution as there was difficulty contacting the parent company of the Malaysian subsidiary as the parent company was in France and there were intervening holidays before the first case management date. Learned counsel for the defendant said he had not sight of the contractual documents yet and so he thought that an extension of time to file Defence would be a prudent step to take. [13] As no Defence was filed, the defendant could not be said to have surrendered to the jurisdiction of the High Court and indeed upon realising that there was an arbitration clause, the defendant’s solicitors promptly filed the Stay Application on 1.8.2022. That was before the next Case Management date of 2.8.2022 and the deadline of 10.8.2022 for the Defence to be filed under the ROC 2012. [14] It was submitted before us on behalf of the defendant that the defendant’s action could not, in the circumstances of the case, be interpreted to mean that it had taken “any other steps in the proceedings” such that the defendant had forfeited its right to proceed with arbitration. Neither could it be said that the mere Request was a clear and unequivocal election to proceed in the High Court. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Whether the Applicant in the Stay Application under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 has shown a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon arbitration [15] The basic principle must be stated at the outset: an arbitration agreement is a term of the underlying contract and the Court would enforce it unless it can be shown that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The Federal Court in Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417 had stated the position of the law emphatically as follows: “[88] The court should lean more towards granting a stay pending arbitration under s 10(1) of the 2005 Act, even in cases where the court is in some doubt about the validity of the arbitration clause or where it is arguable whether the subject matter of the claim falls within or outside the ambit of the arbitration clause…” [16] If there is a prima facie arbitration agreement the party commencing litigation would be in breach of such an agreement and when objected to by a defendant promptly, the Court would generally grant a stay of the Court proceedings unless the defendant had evinced a clear and unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and not to be bound by the arbitration agreement. The Court in line with holding the parties to their bargain instead of allowing a party to breach it, would enforce the arbitration agreement by granting a stay of the court proceedings. Thus, in Ranhill E & C Sdn Bhd v Tioxide (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2015] 1 LNS 1435 Mary Lim J (now FCJ) explained as follows: S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 “[36] The whole jurisprudence that has developed around the Court’s minimum intervention in arbitration is because of the recognition of the parties’ freedom to contract, including the freedom to contract on how and where they would like to resolve any dispute or difference that may arise between them. Where the parties have made that choice in clear and emphatic terms, the Courts tend to lean in favour of upholding such a clause which is after all, a contractually agreed term. I have myself observed in for example Government of India v. Cairns Energy & Others [2013] MLJ 123, just as many other Courts have, that where the Courts sent the parties back to their contractual terms, it is done not because the Courts lack jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Courts do have jurisdiction. In and when referring the parties to arbitration, all that the Courts are doing is reminding the parties of their contractual obligations and ensuring that the parties keep to their end of the bargain. It is not for a want of jurisdiction.” (emphasis added) [17] The arbitration agreement in the Clause 13 of the Sales Contract read as follows: “13. Arbitration 13.1 The parties agree to use best endeavors to settle by way of direct negotiation any difference or dispute which may occur or arise between them in connection with this Contract. 13.2 Failing an amicable settlement of negotiations pursuant to clause 14.1 within 14 days of their commencement, either party may refer the difference or dispute for arbitration as provided for in clause 14.3. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 13.3 Any differences or dispute referred to arbitration under this clause 14 must be settled in accordance with the Malaysian Law by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with those Laws. Any arbitration proceedings must be conducted in English and unless the parties agree on an alternative location, must take place in Malaysia.” [18] Another way of looking at the situation is from the point of view of whether the defendant has waived its right to insist on going for arbitration or is otherwise estopped from so contending by its action or inaction in court. [19] Very often during the first case management if not earlier, the solicitors acting for the defendant would request from the Court an extension of time to file Defence or that they may have written to the plaintiff’s solicitors for such an extension and may have obtained the latter’s consent to the extension. This is provided under Order 3 rule 5(3) ROC 2012: “5.(3) The period within which a person is required by these rules, or by any order or direction, to serve, file or amend any pleading or other document may be extended by consent (given in writing) without an order of the Court being made for that purpose.” [20] Consistent with the principle that the courts will lean in favour of arbitration if the parties have a clear arbitration clause in their underlying contract, there must then be an equally clear intention reflected in the action of the defendant in not wanting to proceed to arbitration but instead to litigation. After all an arbitration agreement is a term of the contract and one would have thought that the plaintiff would have known of the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 arbitration agreement too as it would in all likelihood have scrutinised the relevant clauses in the underlying contract before filing its claim in Court. It goes without saying that the plaintiff did not at the outset write to the defendant to say that whilst parties had an agreement to arbitrate, it now wanted to litigate and then to seek the defendant’s written agreement to vary the mode of dispute resolution to that of litigation instead of arbitration. [21] To then consciously choose to proceed to Court as opposed to arbitration would be to consciously abandon arbitration in breach of the arbitration agreement. Like all agreements, it may be varied by the mutual consent of the parties and where the variation is by conduct, the other party must be judged by its conduct with respect to whether it has accepted the variation in the mode of resolving the dispute. [22] It is in that context and by that standard, that one must judge the conduct of the defendant in determining if it too has shown a clear and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the arbitration agreement in as much as the plaintiff in commencing the suit, appeared to have elected to come to Court instead of going for arbitration. [23] If asking the right question is the key to finding the right answer, then the right question to ask is whether the applicant in the Stay Application has waived its right to proceed to arbitration or is estopped from so doing by its action. Has the applicant participated in the Court proceedings by “taking any other steps” such that it could be said that the applicant had foregone arbitration and followed the plaintiff to litigate in Court? Has the applicant also preferred to proceed to Court just like the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 plaintiff and indeed has pursued litigation by participating in the process in taking “such other steps in the proceedings” in Court? [24] The consistent approach of the Court has always been to lean in favor of arbitration even when the arbitration agreement is less than clear. Similarly, the Court should be inclined to uphold the parties’ declared intention to arbitrate in circumstances where the arbitration clause is clear, despite the defendant's unclear intention as to whether it has agreed with the plaintiff’s intention to proceed with the Court proceedings in spite of the arbitration agreement, especially when it has yet to take the plunge by filing the necessary documents within the timeline set by the Court or in the ROC 2012. [25] It becomes obvious then that the answers to the questions variously asked to decipher the defendant’s intention must be fact-centric and fact-sensitive. The applicant’s intention must be assessed from how it has manifested in its actions and when in doubt to look at its actions as to whether the actions are preparatory to and not the actual “taking any other steps” in the Court proceedings. [26] Thus, in Kejuruteraan Sinar Selaseh Sdn Bhd v Global Built Sdn Bhd [2020] 11 MLJ 442, Lim Chong Fong J (now JCA) opined as follows at p.450F-G: “Put simply, the determination of whether a step had been taken has to be evaluated by examining the defendant’s conduct as to whether it had unequivocally made the election to abandon its right to stay the suit for referral to arbitration when served with the suit. It is fact sensitive depending on the circumstances of the case.” S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [27] In a case like the present case where the Request had not been decided by the Court we do not think that the applicant/defendant could be said to have made known a clear and unequivocal intention to proceed to Court. We have no good reason to disbelieve the defendant when it said through its Head of Legal and Compliance Department that it had not obtained the relevant documents then because the Writ of Summons was served only on 13.7.2022 and the first case management by way of e- review was on 18.7.2022 and it had only time to instruct its solicitors to act on its behalf and the said solicitors had only time to file and serve a Memorandum of Appearance. [28] Moreover, the Statement of Claim ran into some 100 paragraphs and the contract documents relied on in the Statement of Claim was signed some 9 years ago and it was not unreasonable that some time would be needed to retrieve it and to take instructions from its parent company in France where its headquarter is. [29] The defendant had acted promptly before the next case management date on 2.8.2022 by filing the Stay Application on 1.8.2022 even before the time frame to file Defence on 9.8.2022 as prescribed under the ROC 2012, before any extension of time was engaged, even assuming for the sake of argument that such an extension had been given. [30] The relevant O 18 r 2(1) of the ROC 2012 provides the following time frame for a Defence to be filed as follows: “Subject to paragraph (2), a defendant who enters an appearance in, and intends to defend, an action shall, unless the Court gives leave to the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 contrary, serve a defence on the plaintiff before the expiration of fourteen days after the time limited for appearing or after the statement of claim is served on him, whichever is the later.” (emphasis added) [31] As the Writ, Amended Writ and Statement of Claim were all served on 13.7.2022, the defendant had 14 days to enter appearance under O 12 r 4(a) which last day would be 26.7.2022, inclusive of the day of service as stated in the Amended Writ. Thus, the last day to file Defence would be 9.8.2022. The next step in the proceedings after the filing and service of the Memorandum of Appearance would be the filing of Defence and as that was never done since a Stay Application had been filed on 1.8.2022, the defendant cannot be said to have elected to proceed with the Court proceedings and to have abandoned arbitration. [32] To hold otherwise would be to penalise the defendant for his articulated thoughts, that of having thought of filing a Defence and so acting on an abundance of caution, asking for an extension of time and before any decision was made by the Deputy Registrar, to then file promptly the Stay Application. Generally, in civil matters, no one is prejudiced by the expression of a thought unless it is defamatory of the other or putting the other in fear of bodily harm or injury. Thus, no prejudice having resulted from the mere expression of an intention and neither had the plaintiff acted on it to its detriment, the defendant should not be prevented from wanting to honour what both parties had earlier agreed as reflected in the arbitration agreement. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [33] In fact, it is the plaintiff who had been less than candid in wanting to go for litigation without expressing its intention not to want to proceed with the prior agreement to arbitrate and perhaps hoping that the defendant might have forgotten the prior agreement to arbitrate for whatever advantages the plaintiff now perceives the litigation in Kuala Lumpur would give them. An agreement to arbitrate as a preferred mode of resolving dispute should be upheld by the Court as a term of the parties’ contract with each other unless the defendant has agreed to have the dispute resolved in the Courts as the plaintiff might now have preferred by filing a writ action in Court. [34] Absent a clear, unequivocal and irrevocable intention to abandon arbitration though both parties had earlier agreed in the arbitration clause to arbitrate and to agree to and affirm the plaintiff’s action in proceeding in Court, this Court would allow a stay of the Court proceedings in favour of arbitration, which remains a terms of the underlying contract. We echo what was held by the High Court in Nam Fatt Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Petrodar Operating Co Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 732 (“Nam Fatt Corporation”), where it was observed at p.762A-C as follows: “…Indeed, there is a palpable paradigm shift in the Arbitration Act 2005 towards affirming parties, agreement to go for arbitration and the court will only refuse the parties intention if the defendant can be shown to have so irreversibly and irrevocably taken positive further steps in the proceeding that one can affirmatively, assuredly and avowedly say that the defendant has abandoned its intention to arbitrate altogether.” (emphasis added) S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [35] Assuming for a moment that the plaintiff was itself not aware of the arbitration agreement, for it had been signed some 9 years ago, then it should not subject the defendant to a higher standard of wanting to enforce the arbitration agreement, other than that it would suffice if before the filing of Defence, and even before the deadline for its filing, it realised that there was actually an arbitration agreement and so acted promptly to file the Stay Application before “taking any other steps in the proceedings.” [36] To dissect and analyse in minutiae the granular ingredients of when one’s thoughts and intentions articulated but not yet acted upon should be accepted as “no sooner said than done” would be to disproportionately dissuade the parties from arbitration in the face of a prior declared intention housed in the arbitration agreement signed by the parties. [37] There is nothing preventing the arbitration agreement from being honoured; nothing that the defendant had done could be said to be a clear and unequivocal intention to forgo and forsake arbitration in favour of forging ahead with the Court proceedings. A stay of the Court proceedings would be reasonable and proper in the circumstances of this case. Whether the Request for an extension of time to file Defence is a “taking any other steps in the proceedings” [38] A survey of the cases in the High Court shows that some courts have taken a rather strict approach and concluding that a mere Request for an extension of time to file Defence cannot be done without invoking the ROC 2012 and by so doing, one has taken “any other steps in the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 proceedings” with the result that it would be too late to file a Stay Application. [39] Cases falling on the other side of the line would be cases where the courts have held that it is at most “a step preparatory to taking a step in the proceedings” and so no punishment or penalty should be visited on the defendant who did not file its Defence but instead filed its Stay Application. [40] The High Court in Winsin Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Oxford Talent (M) Sdn Bhd [2009] MLJU 286; [2010] 3 CLJ 634 (“Winsin Enterprise”) found that the Defendant had abandoned its right to arbitration by requesting for time to file Defence. It is true that a Defence is only filed where a party intends to defend an action. Order 18 Rule 2(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 (“RHC 1980”) provides for that in that a defendant must serve a Defence on the plaintiff within the prescribed period unless granted leave to the contrary by the Court: “2.(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a defendant who enters an appearance in, and intends to defend, an action must, unless the Court gives leave to the contrary, serve a defence on the plaintiff before the expiration of 14 days after the time limited for appearing or after the statement of claim is served on him, whichever is the later.” [41] The High Court observed as follows: “From the evidence it is clear that the Defendant sought and was granted by the Plaintiff an extension of time to 21.7.2008 to serve and file the Defence. Having evinced such an intention to the Plaintiff section 10(1) is no longer available to the Defendant. This would be the position whether S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 under the new or old law. In fact, I am inclined to go further to say that because of the language deployed in section 10(1) where stay is now mandatory, subject to the reservations as earlier discussed, applicants who seek to rely on an arbitration agreement must make the application for stay promptly, even before the filing of an Appearance.” [42] The High Court case or Winsin Enterprise (supra) was followed in Mun Seng Fook v AIG Malaysia Insurance Bhd [2018] 8 CLJ 394. In that case the relevant facts are as follows: “[6] The appellant filed a writ of summons dated 14 June 2017 claiming for, inter alia, the sum of RM900,000 for the loss of his left eyesight. The writ and statement of claim (‘the writ action’) was served on the respondent on 3 July 2017. The respondent filed the memorandum of appearance (‘the appearance’) dated 10 July 2017. The matter was fixed for case management on 18 July 2017. [7] During the case management on 18 July 2017, at the requests of the respondent’s solicitors, the appellant’s solicitors mentioned on behalf of the respondent and requested for an extension of time for the respondent to file the statement of defence until 1 August 2017. The time limit for the respondent to file the statement of defence would have been 24 July 2017. The learned Sessions Judge granted the extension. At no time did the respondent’s solicitors notify the appellant’s solicitors or the court of the respondent’s intention to apply for stay of proceedings. [8] On 28 July 2017, the respondent filed the application to stay the writ action.” [43] The High Court in allowing the appeal and in setting aside the order of the Sessions Court granting a stay of the Court proceedings held as follows: S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 “[21] The learned Sessions Judge had granted the extension of time for the defence to be filed by the respondent as that was all that the respondent requested and as such, by its own conduct or action, the respondent had waived reliance on the arbitration clause and must be taken to agree that the appellant’s claim be resolved in the court. The respondent had utilised the court’s process as found in the Rules of Court 2012 and as such, it must be regarded as having taken a step other than the step of applying for a stay. Section 10 of the Act is no longer available as of right and the application for stay taken out on 28 July 2017 just before the extended time given to file the statement of defence is irrelevant as the respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and in breach of the mandatory terms of s. 10 of the Act.” [44] It is important to note that in both the above cases an extension of time to file Defence was consented to by the plaintiff and that the defendants there were already into the extended time period when Defence was to have been filed before the Stay Application was filed. [45] Cases falling on the other side of the line where the High Court had decided that a mere request for an extension of time to file Defence does not amount to “taking any other steps in the proceedings” would include the following: Dynaciate Engineering Sdn Bhd v Punj Lloyd Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 2252 and Dian Kiara Sdn Bhd v GCH Retail (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 570. [46] There was also the case of C & B Global Sdn Bhd v Getthiss (M) Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 765 where pursuant to the direction given by the Deputy Registrar during case management the defendant was ordered to file its Defence and managed to get the consent of the plaintiff’s solicitors for an extension of time to file its Defence by 17.1.2019 and the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Defence filed on 16.1.2019 contained a reservation of the defendant’s right to make a Stay Application which was filed only on 15.2.2019. The High Court there granted a stay of the Court proceedings after satisfying itself that the defendant had not evinced a clear and unequivocal intention not to be bound by the arbitration agreement. See also the case of Kejuruteraan Sinar Selaseh Sdn Bhd v Global Built Sdn Bhd [47] Whilst it is always a prudent practice to reserve one’s right to proceed to arbitration, all is not lost even if such a reservation has not been made. In the Singapore High Court case of Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd [2013] SGHC 273 (“Broadcast Solutions”) it was opined as follows: “[16] …It is true that there may be occasions when a defendant expressly reserves the right to apply to set aside a similar order. However, while it would be ideal for a defendant to do this, the absence of such an express reservation did not transform an equivocal act into a clear submission. Therefore, there was no basis to say that Zoom had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court when it filed the 1st EOT Defence Application. In fact, it was held in Carona at [95] that “[a]n application for an extension of time is not in itself tantamount to an unequivocal submission to jurisdiction”. Therefore, Carona was authority in favour of Zoom’s position on the point rather than Broadcast’s.” (emphasis added) [48] Whether a request for an extension of time to file Defence was “taking any other steps in the proceedings” must be decided in this instant case against the backdrop of the following relevant facts which are as follows: S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (a) The Writ, Amended Writ and Statement of Claim was served on the defendant on 13.7.2022; (b) The defendant filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 15.7.2022; (c) At the Case Management by way of e-review on 18.7.2022 the defendant’s solicitors requested for an extension of time of 1 month to file the Defence (“the Request”); (d) The reason given in its affidavit to stay the proceedings under s. 10 AA 2005 was that the defendant is a wholly- owned subsidiary of its parent company in France and that the Sale Contract for the helicopter, the subject matter of the dispute, was executed some 9 years ago and was unable to have access to contract by the Case Management date; (e) Moreover, the defendant’s solicitors had difficulty getting instructions from the French headquarters as relevant employees were on leave for the summer holidays in France from 8.7.2022 to 31.8.2022 with 14.7.2022 being a public holiday in France on occasion of Bastille Day and the headquarters in France was closed on 16.7.2022 and 17.7.2022 which fell on Saturday and Sunday which was the weekend before the Case Management at 9.00am on Monday, 18.7.2022; S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (f) The helicopter, the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim with respect to alleged technical defects, was manufactured by Airbus Helicopters in France; (g) The defendant’s Request was made for the sole intention of preserving the defendant’s interests in the interim, pending proper instructions being received from its headquarters in France; (h) The subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim in the High Court Suit is voluminous and technical in nature, as evidenced by the Statement of Claim which contains no less than 100 paragraphs (excluding sub-paragraphs) of allegations of technical defects of the Helicopter supplied under the Sales Contract; (i) The defendant’s Request was not considered by the High Court during the Case Management on 18.7.2022 as the High Court Suit was reassigned to another Court since the Judicial Commissioner hearing the case was from the same firm of solicitors as the solicitors now acting for the defendant; (j) That the defendant promptly filed its Stay Application on 1.8.2022 and before the next Case Management date of 2.8.2022 and the deadline of 9.8.2022 for the Defence to be filed under the ROC 2012. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [49] A workable guide to determining if a step is “before taking any other steps in the proceedings” is perhaps to ask if the step is merely preparatory to “taking any other steps” or is it “the step itself” and a request for extension of time to file Defence which Defence was never filed and which Stay Application was filed even before the time frame as stipulated in the ROC 2012 for the Defence to be filed before the extension of time operates, may well be within the meaning of “before taking any other steps in the proceedings”. [50] The Federal Court in Sanwell Corporation v Trans Resources Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 213 at pp 229-230 when considering if “any other steps in the proceedings” have been taken other than entering its appearance and serving its Defence, the court will have to consider the nature of the action and whether or not it indicates an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to abandon the right to have the dispute disposed off by arbitration. (emphasis added) [51] The Federal Court had explained that entering an appearance is a necessary step to be taken even if the defendant wants to apply for a Stay Application for otherwise a judgment in default of appearance may be entered against it. As for the service of pleadings by the defendant, that would be a clear step in the proceedings. [52] The Federal Court in giving the above guidance was fully conscious of the fact that there may well be cases where there had been a request for extension of time to file Defence but that no Defence was ever filed. Such a request may be made orally at the date of the first case S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 management or by way of a written letter to the plaintiff’s solicitors or by way of a formal application for extension of time to file Defence. [53] With the greatest of respect, it would be too simplistic and indeed too strict an approach, steeped in technical traps, to say that a mere request for an extension of time to file Defence would ipso facto tantamount to “taking any other steps in the proceedings.” An approach consistent with the paradigm shift in encouraging parties to go for arbitration and to hold them to their bargain to so proceed in the arbitration agreement would resonate with the overall focus of s 8 of the AA 2005 which is that no court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act, except where so provided in this Act. If we may be so bold as to say that when intervention is allowed as in s 10 of the AA it would be more predisposed to promoting the bargain earlier struck by the parties in favour of arbitration considering that the plaintiff had coyly commenced litigation in breach of the arbitration agreement without candidly communicating to the defendant that in spite of the bargain struck it had now no intention of so arbitrating for whatever may be the reasons. [54] There could be various variations in the circumstances such as a case where even before the extension of time for filing Defence is engaged, the Stay Application has been made, or in another case, the Stay Application was made during the extended period for filing Defence or perhaps in a case where the period to file Defence had expired and the defendant is asking for an extension or even a situation where the Deputy Registrar had given direction to file Defence by a certain date and the Defence is filed with a clear reservation of right to file a Stay Application for the matter to be referred to arbitration. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [55] The Federal Court had referred to Usahabina v Anuar bin Yahya [1998] 2 CLJ Supp 131 (“Usahabina”) and teased out the relevant fact that the defendant had entered an unconditional appearance but failed to file his defence within the time limited for doing so. He had requested for, and the plaintiff had agreed to, an extension of one week to file the defence. As the defendant failed to file the defence within the extended period, the plaintiff entered judgment in default. It was only after judgment in default was entered that the solicitors for the defendant drew the attention of the solicitors for the plaintiff to the arbitration clause in their contract document and consequently gave notice that the defendant wished for the dispute to be referred to the arbitrator. [56] After the defendant had received a copy of the judgment in default, he filed a summons-in-chambers praying for an order that: (a) the judgment in default be set aside; (b) the matter be stayed and/or referred to an arbitrator; (c) alternatively, he be allowed to bring in a third party to the proceedings; (d) alternatively, he be allowed to file his defence and counterclaim. [57] The Federal Court observed that the defendant's belated attempt to resort to arbitration was an afterthought after judgment in default had been entered against him. The Federal Court also noted that the alternative prayers (c) and (d), i.e., that he be allowed to bring in a third party to the proceedings and that he be allowed to file his defence and counterclaim, would also indicate his intention to continue with the proceedings in the High Court. The Federal Court opined that these actions as prayed could arguably constitute additional steps in the proceedings taken by the defendant which would negate his belated wish to return to arbitration. Having indicated his election to allow the S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 proceedings to go on in the High Court by applying for the extension of time to file his defence, and after having failed to do so within the extended time, it was too late in the day for the defendant to revert to arbitration after abandoning his right to do so. Thus Usahabina (supra) was a case where the defendant had taken more than one step in the proceedings. [58] It was in that context that the Federal Court carefully and circumspectly laid down the test that “if the applicant for stay has taken any other action in the proceedings, other than step (a) the entry of appearance or (b) the service of any pleadings, the court will then have to consider whether such action amounts to a step in the proceedings by determining the nature of the action and whether or not it indicates an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to abandon the right to have the dispute disposed off by arbitration.” (emphasis added) [59] The above approach appears to be consistent with the decisions in other commonwealth jurisdictions. [60] In the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and Others v Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR 460, the defendant/appellant had filed a Stay Application of the Court proceedings because of an arbitration agreement in a Franchise Agreement. Before the Application could be heard, the plaintiff/respondent’s solicitors gave a 48 hours’ notice to the appellant’s solicitors to file their defence. The plaintiff applied to enter a judgment in default of defence against the plaintiff. The Registrar allowed the default judgment to be entered and made no order on the Stay Application. The High Court affirmed the Registrar’s decision. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [61] On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the default judgment. The Singapore Court of Appeal laid out the test with respect to whether an act is “taking any other steps in the proceedings” as follows: “[93] Having examined the approaches adopted in various other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and Canada, it appears to us that the courts in these jurisdictions appear to quite uniformly take into consideration the circumstances enveloping an act in deciding if it constitutes a step in the proceedings. First, where a party performs or carries out a significant act signifying that it is submitting to the court’s jurisdiction rather than to arbitration to resolve the outstanding issues between the parties, that party will be deemed to have taken a step in the proceedings. Second, the act will be regarded as a step in proceeding if it is a step-in furtherance of the action by advancing the hearing of the matter in court in contrast to one that serves to smother the action and stop the proceedings dead in its tracks. Third, where a party does an act with the consent of the other party, this will not amount to taking a step in the proceedings. Finally, the courts usually take the position that parties should not blow hot and cold or equivocate. Instead, they should be decisive about whether they are insisting on arbitration in preference to litigation. Disingenuous reservations will be disregarded. Should a party wish to proceed to arbitration, that party must be ready and willing to do all things necessary for the proper conduct of the. [94] In our view, an application for an extension of time to file a defence plainly does not constitute a "step in the proceedings" under s 6(1) of the Arbitration Act. First, as mentioned earlier, we agree with the views of Woo JC expressed in Yeoh Poh San ([21]; supra) that, where a plaintiff's solicitor insists on the filing of the defence notwithstanding the pending application or an appeal therefrom, the defendant's solicitors should then promptly apply for an extension of time to file the defence S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 pending the outcome of the appeal. A pragmatic approach is warranted when assessing the procedural act in question. We are not impressed by some of the older English cases that appear to place an undue premium on procedural subtleties rather than on the substance of the issue at hand. In our view, it would be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the means adopted rather than on the ends of an application to stay which is to challenge the appropriateness of the court's jurisdiction and to bring an immediate closure to the pending court proceedings. We should add that citing isolated decisions from other jurisdictions will usually not be helpful in resolving the competing tensions that are almost invariably present in assessing this issue. Each case should be approached and resolved on the basis of principle rather than merely precedent.” (emphasis added) [62] The focus should be on upholding the bargain initially struck by the parties to elect arbitration in resolving their disputes and not litigation and to avoid being unduly fastidious with or fixated on technical non- compliance seeking to trip and trap the defendant into litigation when the declared intention in the arbitration agreement is loud and clear. [63] The United Kingdom is not a UNCITRAL Model Law country and so cases on stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration may not enjoy the same default gravitation towards arbitration unlike Model Law countries that would encourage a hands-off approach where the Court’s interference is concerned unless expressly provided for under the equivalent of our s 8 AA 2005. That said the current s 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 is generously worded to encourage arbitration unless the applicant has taken any step in those proceedings to answer the substantive claim as follows: S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 “Stay of legal proceedings (1) A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought (whether by way of claim or counterclaim) in respect of a matter which under the agreement is to be referred to arbitration may (upon notice to the other parties to the proceedings) apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter. (2) An application may be made notwithstanding that the matter is to be referred to arbitration only after the exhaustion of other dispute resolution procedures. (3) An application may not be made by a person before taking the appropriate procedural step (if any) to acknowledge the legal proceedings against him or after he has taken any step in those proceedings to answer the substantive claim. (4) On an application under this section the court shall grant a stay unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 (5) If the court refuses to stay the legal proceedings, any provision that an award is a condition precedent to the bringing of legal proceedings in respect of any matter is of no effect in relation to those proceedings.” (emphasis added) [64] It would take a massive dose of persuasion to convince the Court that a request for extension of time to file one’s Defence is an answering the plaintiff’s substantive claim. [65] The applicant/appellant referred us to the Canadian Prince Edward Island Supreme Court case of Central Investments & Development Corporation v Miller Associates Ltd [1982] 133 D.L.R. (3d) 440 (“Central Investments”), where the Court held that an application for an extension of time to file a statement of defence for the purposes of receiving proper instruction did not constitute a step taken in the proceedings in view of the complexity and voluminous nature of the case. The Supreme Court held at p. 442 that: “Turning to the second point, reference to the application to extend time indicates that such extension was for the purpose of receiving proper instructions in order to prepare and file a statement of defence, due to the complexity of the case and its many issues. It should be noted that the statement of claim contained some seventy paragraphs. The object of the extension was thus "to receive instructions" only consequent to which could a defence be prepared, or alternatively, such instructions might equally establish to prudent counsel, that no defence was available…” … S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 “... An application for time to receive proper instructions cannot in my opinion be considered as a thing which would advance the matter for trial, or of putting the action in such a condition that it might be dealt with by the court. Indeed, the results might well be quite to the contrary, and have the effect of removing it entirely from the court. I would hold, in consequence, that the application in question is not a step in the proceedings.” (emphasis added) [66] Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant also referred us to the recent Supreme Court of Canada case of Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., [2022] SCC 41 (“Peace River Hydro Partners”) whereby the Court affirmed the decision in Canada Investments, and held that the very purpose underlying a request for an extension of time to file a defence is to decide whether or not to take a step in the proceedings such that it is not an election to proceed with the action: “[97] Determining whether a step in the proceedings has been taken requires an objective approach. The court must ask itself whether, on the facts, the party should be held impliedly to have affirmed the correctness of the proceedings and its willingness to go along with a determination by a court of law instead of arbitration (McEwan and Herbst, at § 3:27) ... [98] I acknowledge that the Receiver now argues in this Court, for the first time, that requesting the other party’s consent to an extension of time to file a defence constitutes a step in the proceedings. Assuming, without deciding, that this submission is properly before our Court, I reject it. In my view, requesting an extension of time cannot be considered a “step”. In the context of s. 15(1), the very purpose of such a request is to decide whether or not to take a step, and there is no election to S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 proceed with the action (McEwan and Herbst, at §3:31). Indeed, the result of an extension "might well be quite to the contrary, and have the effect of removing [the action] entirely from the Court" (Central Investments & Development Corp. v. Miller (1982),133 D.L.R. (3d) 440 (P.E.I.S.C.), at p. 442).” (emphasis added) [67] The Court of Appeal case of IFCI Ltd v Archipelago Insurance Ltd [2022] 2 CLJ 535 can be distinguished as there the respondent requested twice for an extension of time to file its Defence and both requests were granted and the application for stay was only made after the defence had been filed. [68] Likewise, in the Court of Appeal cased of Yeo Eng Lam v Infinity Vantage Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 616 the Stay Application was filed by the defendant after an application to disqualify the plaintiff’s solicitors had been filed and after the defendant had filed its Defence and Counterclaim. It was a case where both the defendant’s hands and feet and indeed his whole body and being were already participating fully in the proceedings in Court. [69] To consider if an action taken is a step in the proceedings, some guidance may be had to the case of Hamidah Fazilah Sdn Bhd v Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) [2016] CLJU 1170 where the defendant after being served with the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim had written for further and better particulars of certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim. The question was whether the defendant by so doing had evinced a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon arbitration and to elect for litigation to resolve the disputes that had arisen. The High S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 Court held that the said request for further and better particulars must be read in its proper context and it observed as follows: “[15] Paragraph 2 of the said letter started off by the solicitors for the defendant categorically stating that the action filed by the plaintiff in the High Court is inconsistent with the intention of the parties under cl 67 of the I contract to proceed with arbitration to resolve all matters, disputes and differences arising out of or in connection with the contract. The whole of cl 67 was then set out. [16] Paragraph 3 of the said letter reiterates that the reference should be to arbitration as agreed by the parties to the contract. [17] The last paragraph in para 6 ended with the note that their client, the defendant, shall apply for a stay of the proceedings pending reference to arbitration pursuant to cl 67 of the contract and that the defence be filed after the disposal of the application for stay. … [20] What is more important was that there was no prayers for an order for better and further particulars to be furnished by the plaintiff and that all the other prayers in the single application filed had been withdrawn with the exception of the prayer (c) for the proceedings to be stayed pending reference to arbitration. At most the request for further and better particulars in the whole context of the said letter is only an act preparatory to taking a further step in the proceedings and not a further step in the proceedings.” [70] It would be prudent with the benefits of hindsight to, even in a case of requesting for extension of time to file Defence during a first case management by way of e-review, to reserve the right to apply for a stay of proceedings in the event that there is an arbitration agreement especially S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 when the client is a foreign client or the contract is an industry standard- form contract with or without modifications. However, in the overall circumstances if this case the mere Request here could not be said to mean that the Defendant had evinced its unequivocal intention to proceed with the court proceedings as it cannot be said to have “taken any other steps in the proceedings” in the sense of a significant and definitive step in advancing or participating in the court’s proceedings. Decision [71] We find merits in the appeal and so the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside. We make an order of permanent stay of the proceedings in the High Court pending reference of the parties to arbitration with no order as to costs. Dated: 1 February 2024. Lee Swee Seng Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia For the Appellant: Manshan Singh Ho Pui Yan Messrs Skrine S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 For the Respondent: Farhan Ghani Harjoth Singh Messrs Rozana, Segran & Co. Date of Decision: 3 July 2023. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 Legislation referred to: Order 18 rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 Order 18 rule 2(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 Section 6 of the Arbitration Act 1952 Section 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 Cases referred to: Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd [2013] SGHC 273 C & B Global Sdn Bhd v Getthiss (M) Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 765 Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and Others v Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR 460, Central Investments & Development Corporation v Miller Associates Ltd [1982] 133 D.L.R. (3d) 440 Dian Kiara Sdn Bhd v GCH Retail (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 570. Dynaciate Engineering Sdn Bhd v Punj Lloyd Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 2252 Hamidah Fazilah Sdn Bhd v Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) [2016] CLJU 1170 IFCI Ltd v Archipelago Insurance Ltd [2022] 2 CLJ 535 Kejuruteraan Sinar Selaseh Sdn Bhd v Global Built Sdn Bhd Kejuruteraan Sinar Selaseh Sdn Bhd v Global Built Sdn Bhd [2020] 11 MLJ 442 Mun Seng Fook v AIG Malaysia Insurance Bhd [2018] 8 CLJ 394 Nam Fatt Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Petrodar Operating Co Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 732 S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., [2022] SCC 41 Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417 Ranhill E & C Sdn Bhd v Tioxide (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2015] 1 LNS 1435 Sanwell Corporation v Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 625; [2002] 3 CLJ 213 Usahabina v Anuar bin Yahya [1998] 2 CLJ Supp 131 Winsin Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Oxford Talent (M) Sdn Bhd [2009] MLJU 286; [2010] 3 CLJ 634 Yeo Eng Lam v Infinity Vantage Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 616 International Rules and Guidelines: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. S/N KG68fn0Y7Eqpg0xP/Iz1vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

TA-B53KJ-13-07/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) MD SHIBLU RAHMAN 2. ) MD ABDUR ROSHID 3. ) MD HRIDOY KHAN 4. ) MD BULBUL SIKDER DEFENDAN TENGKU SHAHRIL BIN TENGKU ISHAK

1. Permohonan pihak Plaintif-plaintif untuk pembayaran interim ditolak. 2. Pihak Plaintif-plaintif tidak dapat memenuhi kehendak Aturan 22A Kaedah 3 KKM 2012 bagi membolehkan Mahkamah menggunakan budi bicaranya untuk membenarkan permohonan pembayaran interim ini. 3. Tindakan ini adalah tidak sesuai untuk perintah pembayaran interim kerana terdapat isu-isu untuk dibicarakan memandangkan Defendan tidak mengakui liabiliti terhadap kejadian kemalangan tersebut.

01/02/2024

Puan Norashima Bt Khalid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8d7b294f-0567-4b1c-a99b-d605672ee7b3&Inline=true

01/02/2024 16:44:14 TA-B53KJ-13-07/2023 Kand. 33 S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Tyl7jWcFHEupm9YFZy7nsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal n»a52KJ-13-n7/2023 Kand. 33 a1/n2/2b2A mu-14 DALAM Mmgggfl §E§VEN m KUALA TERENGGANU unum NEGERI rsksngggy ng; | MAN muvsm SAMAN N0 zu-asaxa-1:-o7/nuuu 101; ANTARA 1. MD SHIBLU RAHMAN [no PASSPORT El naunu l 2. MD ABDUR Rosmn [NO PASSPORT: 5.: M52154] 3. Mn nmuov KHAN [No nssponr: EJ nmm I 4. MD BULEUL SIKDER [NO PASSPORT: EG 0991392 1 LAINTIF-FLAINTIF mu vznexu SHAHRIL am YENGKU ISHAK [No K/P: ssosns-11-1067] ...DEFENDAN m Yymwcruzuv-nvvFly7mw mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIQG w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! [1] [Z] A 5&5 PENQNAKMMI my adalah riyuan yang dlkemukakan olsh pmak perayu Plawnmr p\aInMy|ng liduk berpuas nan danger: kepuluian Mahkamuh Dada 2o Dwsemher 2023 ynng menulak perrmhonan parayu PImnm~ mamm manurul Amran 22A Kaedah-Kasdan Mahkamah 2021 saperfi mans Kandungln 5 dengan kos smnyak RM3000D0 kepaua pihak Defandan. Nous pelmullonan omak parayu PIa<mW—plaImI1 sepemmana Kandungan 5 mernohon pennun Mlhkaml ‘ ‘ sapem berikul 1 Plavnritplaunlfl dnbsnarkin kebenaran umuk memfanlkan pmnmmnan ml 2. Pmak msurans kepada Defemian mm Euqa Tlkalul Bemad membua| pembayaran Inlenm Iabanyak RM300,00000 lam: RM2D0,000.00 kapndn Plmnm Fanama, RM50.000.D0 kepedn Plaimif Kedua dan RMsu,ooo.oa dibenksn Kepada Plnmm Kenya. 3 Ava-apa relfl yang difiknkan paml nan am» oleh Manxamn yang mulia irv sm r,w.wm«z.mwn,m.. “Mm: sm-1 nmwmu .. H...» Wu. .m.m.»., mm. am.m m muua puns! {3} Nasan-alasan nag: permohonan P\aIn|if-wawrm Im aaalan swam yung benkul; 1, I=Iamu1.pIaimw nerpexsa menanggung perbelanpaan hanan yang linggw dun uav kemampuun munaubih mereka akIba| danpada kamamngan Lerseoul. 2 mmm-plaunm lelsh kchllingun ksnu dun punna pandapalan akmal aanpaua kemllingan «menu: dzn karpaksa menanggung kos pemhacan dan penjagasn yang sangal ungg. Knmnums In In yung diruiuk: a Nuns Permchunan Kanmmgan 5. b Ar-am Sokongan Kandurvgan s. c Afldsvnl auaun wenuan Kandungan 7 d Afidavll aaasan bemoan Kandungan 10 s Hujnhan Berlulis P1aino'1 Klndunfiun 1-: v. Humhan Bormhs Delandan Kandungan 13 9 Human Tambahan Piamlil-plainlri Kandungan 20. n Nuiahan was eemm Pmak Dafandan Kandungan 21 sm rymwcrnzupmvvnyvnsw “Mm: sm-1 ...u»..mm .. H...» Wu. m.m.»., mm. am.m m muua puns! Pl [5] u. Hwanan Balls PIaInMTedIadap Hujahan aemus Delendan Kandungzn 25 Rnngm n lularbcllkang kn lnr adalan mompaksn kemuan kemalangan yang beriaku pads 29 April 2023 jam «exam kurung 10.30 pagl‘ an KM 51‘ Jzlan Kuala Terenggnnu-Kuanmn yang muhbdlkan Fllmlif-p\IInlW yang mung beualan kalu or tempat Kajaman aan kemudlannya ldah ddanggar ,, o\eh kenderaan Deiendan. Akibal danpada kemmangan im, P p\zinn'1|s|ah menglliml keeodernan aan smarusnya mumfaflkan Imdakan saman mi Iemadap Defends". Saleniulnya‘ pmak Plnmul-p\aAn(Il wan memraukan perrnohonzn ini temadap pvhak Defenuan. Dapman Malllramah Solalnh Mnhklmsh msnelm kovIas—keflas xausa sena hujnhan yang dibual oleh kedua-dua belah pmsk‘ Mahkxman xeoah mamutuskan banawl pennohonan pan-k perayu Plalrm-pialnm dnclak dwgun K0: ubanyak RM30D0.00 kepadn Dufundzn sm rymwcrnzupmwnyvmn “Mm: sm-1 nmwmu .. H...» mu. .m.»., mm. am.m m muua puns! Alasan-alas:-u uaummh: 1 Perrnuhunan pmak perayu Plainlll-plimm um -aaxan max memenuhi kepenuan yang Iemapal .1. hawah A|uran 22A Kaeuan 3, Kudah -Knedah Mahkamah 2012. Dengan merujukAIurIn 22A Knednh 1(3)Knd|h-Kandnn Ihhlurnah 2012: (1) Sekuanya alas penflengaran sualu penmnonan m bawah Kasdnh 2, dalam sualu flndakan umuk ganti rugl‘ Mahkamah barwas ham oahaw-, (a) weman yang xamaaannya penman dupehon lelah munqikui lllblllfl baql qanll mg: PI-Imu. my ma-numnun mondlpat plnqlukimln I-rludan nmnaun mg: pun lugl ylng alx-mnwu dilakslrkan alau. (E) Se|un1nya|Indakan mcemskan unluk p-mucaraan. Hnlmn Ilun muldlpll rm-gmknn... gnnll rngl subslznsial Ilrhadap Defundan avau. pke leniapal dua aluu Iubih Dalsndan. nemaaap muna»mana danpada meraka m Yymwcruzuv-nvvFly7nsw ‘Nan: sm-1 ...m.mm .. U... w my .. mmuny mum. flnunmnl m mum Wm! I“) lhhlumlh bclah dan uunny. amkmunnya pawl dan Ienakluk kepiua pevenggan 2. msmarminnkln D-vmnn bngl mambuul mm pambayamn Interim hag: apa-ape amaun yang amkmnnya am. max memom: saw kadav ganm rug! yang munustblh ylng pads pandapa| Mahkamah acman belkemungkunan am-paman kambaln om Ptamm selelah mengamzm klra Ioa~ an: mun.-n urlnun yang mlavan can apupa wakan, Iunluun slang mu mmuvan hams, yang padarvya defenflan nu bemnk unluk hetsamiar. Berdasarkan Aluran 22A Kaeduh 213; yang dlruwk. udalah jalas bahzwa unluk berjaya ualmn parmohcrlan ml, omak P\aInM-plmnfll paflu memenum kehendak Amran larsebut sebagalmana para |1)(I||b)dan (c)sepeHimana av am. [5] Salem: Mlhkamnh mempemmbanglun nu.-nan PlaInN—pl|ml|! dan iuga hujahan Devanuan, Mahkaman menaapau bav-awa plllak PIumm—p4ainni1 Islam gagal untuk memevumn kapirluin Amran 22A K-scan 2 snbngasmana par: at-xa) Gun (:2) (anew! sm rn1.wcmz.¢.nwn,7m. “Mm: snn uunmrmu .. H...» Wu. .n.n.»., mm. flmamml m muua puns! [7] Pihak Plairm-Dlalnm liflak daual menunjukkan kepnda Mahkaman bahawa p k Defendun Ielah nun rrvengikm mmaaup Iubnlm an dalam m m sebagaumana var: cap.) Muran 22A Kaedah 2 lersebul. HII H11 ;uga lsllh mpsmuaman lag: dangan hujahan pihak Delendan yang lurul menyaakan bahawi mereka liflak psmah mengak m d\ dalam Imdakan Am gs} Selaruulnya. Mahkamah mendapin bahawa dakarn llmakan .m, had: anunmkkan bahawa v Ialahrum k Plam|i1-P msndavelkan Pinihaklman lemafllp Deiendun hag! ganu mgi yang dukehsndalu anakman sshagaimana yang dlperunlukkan dw da\am para am Alunan 22 A Kaedah 2 Kaadah-Kaedih Mankan-an 2012. 19) Bsrkanun oengan para 3(c)Aluran 22AKaedah2 pma, Mahkamah juga mandanati hahawa uhax Plainuivlalrml kalzh gaga\ un|uk memanum kehendnk pavanggan im. Hal mi mum ksruna Mamaman (Idak dmmjukkan banawa sakuranya lmdakan um dnaruskan unmk pemman nmak Flamnf-Plamm akan berjayz mendivalkun Dlnghaklmin gum rum wbsurmal tamldup plhak sm m1Mcn<Eun-v\vvrzy7nsn “Mm: sm-1 nmwmu .. U...» v-viymu nflI\nIV|Y mm. u....m m .HuNa WM Defendan. Jusleru kehendak para 3(a) (Blah nuak dlpenuhl olch pmax Plilnlitplzinlfl. no] Mlhkamah jug. balpcnflapal bahnwa ponnnhonun Dmlk Piainlit plalnlil IN aanian Iidak mus. ulbenarkan pad: penngka\ mi dun salu pethicaraan penull perm oiauakan dan isu iiabimi serta ganii rug: yang DDIIH diawurdkln kepada Pluirvflf-plumm wan dipuluskan Derdnsarkan kelsrangan salts‘-slksl sens Iapuvnn pcmbllan pakur yang dikemukakan kapada Mahkamah. lni iuga seiaras deiigan penuinan pihak neianuan yang mm nan mangakui Iiammi dslam Imdakan VII. [11] Mlhkamah yuga neiuiuiu dengan huiahan plhak Defandan bahuwa pembayaran mlarim yang fllpohnn Meh p -k Piaimn-piainm aaiam nermomnan mi adaluh muangkuml ganu rug mas sepefll kos xeminngan pempenan, hos pemhatzn dun kos peniagaan. G-niimgiganiimgi kn» ll'|I msmermkan pembukhan samva saacmk dan ieiperinci sebelum ianya wen uirnnaikan, Mahlramah lelah mevujuk kes Ckurpllh Mmusng sun and vs Mnlnyan sanning 5-um: 21222) 11.»: est yang menyai-km uiperu hulikul sm rymwcrnzup-nvvny7nsw “Mm: s.n.i nnvibnrmu .. H...» Wu. nflninlmy mm. flmalmm m muua puns! - n rs (rile law that specral damages musrbe maven smcfly“ Panama [12] Berdasarian alasarvalasan dw alas, Mahkamah lelah menoxak permohonanp nkPefayu Plainlwtplu sebagaimanaKandungan 5 aansan kos sebanyuk RM3000 on manna nmak Delendin Tank?! 17 Januan 2024 [Nauru u Khalid) Hakim Mankamah Sesyen swn, Kua\a Tsrengganu. m Yymwcrnzuv-nvvFly7nsw ‘Nan: sm-1 ...m.mm .. U... m vary .. mmuny mm. flnunmnl m mum pm sw YymWcFHEuvmVvF1y7nsw mm smm ...m.mm be used w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020

PLAINTIF KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALANKRISNAN DEFENDAN VINOTH A/L PONNIAH

Kemalangan jalan raya - plaintif cedera parah tidak dapat memberi keterangan - saksi bebas dan edefendan memberi keterangan - percanggahan versi saksi bebas dengan defenddan

01/02/2024

Puan Lailawati Binti Ali

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8d188548-a6a1-4cac-87bc-f539a646e04c&Inline=true

JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BHARU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 ANTARA KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 910604-01-6779) … PLAINTIF DAN VINOTH A/L PONNIAH (No. K/P: 960808-04-5243) … DEFENDAN DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BHARU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. JA – B53KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 ANTARA VINOTH A/L PONNIAH (No. K/P: 960808-04-5243) … PLAINTIF DAN KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 910604-01-6779) … DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN 1. Kedua-dua tindakan ini merupakan tindakan silang yang bermula daripada satu kemalangan jalan raya yang berlaku pada 5.9.2018 lebih kurang pukul 11.30 pm di Jalan Ibrahim Sultan Johor Bharu 01/02/2024 15:16:27 JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 Kand. 54 S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 2 melibatkan dua buah motorsikal masing-masing ditunggang oleh pihak-pihak di dalam tindakan-tindakan ini. 2. Bagi memudahkan rujukan di dalam alasan ini, KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN akan dirujuk sebagai plaintif dan VINOTH A/L PONNIAH dirujuk sebagai defendan. 3. Kedua-dua kes dibicarakan bersama dan pada 27.11.2023 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kemalangan disebabkan kecuaian sepenuhnya oleh defendan. Tuntutan plaintif di dalam tindakan JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 dibenarkan dengan kos dan tindakan defendan (sebagai plaintif) di dalam kes JA – B53KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 ditolak dengan kos. 4. Defendan tidak berpuashati dengan dapatan terhadap liability dan kini merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. 5. Mahkamah kini mengemukakan alasan-alasannya seperti berikut. LIABILITI 6. Bagi penentuan isu liability, saksi-saksi yang memberi keterangan adalah seperti berikut: i. Sarjan Mohad Fadli bin Ali / Pegawai Penyiasat – SP1; ii. Mohamad Nazrullah bin Zuraimi / saksi bebas – SP2; iii. Defendan – SD1 Versi Plaintif S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 3 7. Plaintif tidak dapat memberi keterangan akibat kecederaan teruk kepada kepalanya dan ini tidak menjadi pertikaian di dalam kes ini. 8. Keterangan SP1 ialah kemalangan ini melibatkan motorsikal JSW 3453 yang ditunggang oleh plaintif dan motorsikal JSN 2574 yang ditunggang oleh defendan. Kedua-dua motorsikal tiada pembonceng. Maklumat pertama kemalangan diterima oleh SP1 pada lebih kurang 12.30 malam dan pada 12.50 malam SP1 tiba di lokasi kejadian bersama jurugambar. 9. Apabila sampai di lokasi kejadian, SP1 melihat hanya motorsikal JSN 2574 yang berada di tepi sebelah kiri jalan. Mangsa-mangsa dan motorsikal JSW 3453 tiada di lokasi. Jurugambar ada merakamkan 5 keping gambar motorsikal dan tempat kejadian yang ditandakan P1(a) – (e). 10. Tempat kemalangan merupakan jalan lurus satu lorong setiap hala. Daripada siasatan SP1, plaintif bergerak dari atas ke bawah dan defendan pula dari bawah ke atas. Rajah kasar tempat kemalangan ditandakan P2. 11. Pada masa kemalangan jalan raya tidak sibuk dan cuaca baik. Terdapat kesan darah ditemui di lorong kiri dan menurut SP1 kesan ini ditunjukkan kepadanya oleh orang awam yang ditemui di lokasi kejadian. 12. Terdapat seorang saksi bebas yang tampil memberi keterangan iaitu SP2. Menurut SP1, beliau menemui SP2 selepas kembali dari lokasi S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 4 kejadian dalam lebih kurang pukul 1.00 am. Beliau menemubual SP2 pada malam yang sama tetapi hanya merakam keterangan SP2 selepas SP2 membuat laporan polis pada 8.9.2018. 13. Menurut siasatan SP1, kemalangan berlaku apabila motorsikal defendan yang bergerak dari bawah ke atas di lorong A-B telah memotong motorcar SP2 dan masuk ke lorong bertentangan iaitu B- C dan bertembung dengan motorsikal plaintif yang sedang bergerak dari atas ke bawah. 14. Keputusan kes ialah defendan disaman di bawah Rule 12(3) LN 166/59 kerana memotong garisan berkembar dan menunggang bertentangan arah trafik. 15. SP2 pula merupakan saksi bebas yang mendakwa berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan tersebut berlaku. Keterangan SP2 ialah pada masa yang material beliau sedang memandu motorkarnya no. WQF 2804 dari pusat bandar ke arah Stulang iaitu dari bawah ke atas rajah kasar di lorong A-B. Tiba-tiba sebuah motorsikal berwarna kuning (defendan) datang dari arah belakang ditunggang laju telah memotong motorkar SP2 dan bertembung dengan sebuah motorsikal yang datang dari arah bertentangan (plaintif). Kemudian motorsikal defendan berpusing-pusing dan hampir mengena motorkar SP2. SP2 memberi keterangan kemalangan berlaku di lorong B-C dan bukannya di lorong A-B. 16. SP2 pergi ke balai polis pada malam kejadian lebih kurang pukul 1.00 am. SP2 ada berjumpa dengan SP1 pada malam yang sama. SP2 S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 5 membuat laporan polis Trafik Johor Bharu (S)/21693/18 (eksibit P4) pada 8.9.20218. Rakaman percakapan SP2 juga diambil pada hari yang sama. 17. Semasa disoal balas SP2 menyatakan tidak pasti di mana kedua-dua motorsikal atau mangsa jatuh selepas kemalangan. SP2 juga bersetuju bahawa beliau tidak dapat mengemukakan apa-apa bukti menunjukkan kehadiran beliau di tempat kejadian pada masa yang material. Versi Defendan 18. SD1/defendan sendiri hadir memberi keterangan. Keterangan defendan ialah pada hari kejadian defendan sedang menunggang motorsikal JSN 2574 dari Stulang Laut hendak ke Permas Jaya dan apabila sampai di Jalan Ibrahim Sultan tiba-tiba sebuah motorsikal JSW 3453 dari arah bertentangan masuk ke laluannya. Defendan tidak sempat mengelak lalu berlaku pelanggaran dan defendan terjatuh di sebelah kiri. 19. Defendan membuat laporan polis Trafik Johor Bharu (S) 23014/18 (eksibit D18) pada 24.9.2018. Kandungan laporan polis D18 adalah sama seperti keterangannya di Mahkamah. 20. Defendan telah menandakan “X” di lorong A-B di atas rajah kasar sebagai tempat pelanggaran. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 6 21. Defendan mengaku ada menerima saman yang dikeluarkan oleh SP1 tetapi tidak membayarnya. Defendan menyatakan beliau enggan membayar saman tersebut kerana beliau tidak bersalah. 22. Semasa disoal balas defendan tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan peguamcara plaintif bahawa defendan yang memasuki laluan plaintif dan menyebabkan kemalangan ini. Defendan juga menafikan lewat membuat laporan polis kerana ingin mereka-reka ceritanya. BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN KES 23. Di dalam mana-mana kes kemalangan jalan raya yang bersandarkan kepada kecuaian sebagai kausa tindakan, beban pembuktian kecuaian adalah ke atas plaintif. Prinsip undang-undang matan ini dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam locus classicus Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 1 LNS 151; [1971] 2 MLJ 175 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: “In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence is the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself.”; see 15 Halsbury (3rd Edn.) p. 260.” 24. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ng Chui Sai v. Maimon Bt. Ali [1983] 1 MLJ 110 di mana Hashim Yeop A. Sani H (pada masa itu) telah menyatakan: “In an action for negligence the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it unless there are disclosed facts which raise S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 7 a presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been a breach of a specific or genuine duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to the plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail.” 25. Beban pembuktian yang diletakkan ke atas plaintif untuk membuktian kesnya adalah selari dengan peruntukan seksyen- seksyen 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 (rujuk MGI Securities Sdn Bhd v. Teong Teck Leng & Ors [2000] 5 CLJ 163; [2000] 1 MLJ 354). ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH 26. Di dalam kes ini kedua-dua pihak memberikan versi yang bercanggah di antara satu sama lain tentang bagaimana kemalangan tersebut boleh berlaku. 27. Prinsip undang-undang adalah matan bahawa apabila terdapat dua versi yang bercanggah, apa yang Mahkamah perlu putuskan ialah versi mana yang lebih berkemungkinan dan bukannya siapakah yang memberikan keterangan yang benar atau siapa yang tidak bercakap benar. 28. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Tabarani Mohd Arshad v Chan Ten Yeu [1993] 3 CLJ 1888 di mana diputuskan: “When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and considered other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. This S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 8 approach provides a wide leverage for the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the testimony of the credible witnesses.” 29. Apa yang pasti, jika diteliti daripada keseluruhan keterangan SP1, siasatan SP1 bergantung sepenuhnya kepada keterangan saksi bebas iaitu SP2. Peguambela defendan berhujah bahawa keterangan SP2 hendaklah ditolak kerana SP2 merupakan saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai kerana: i. Tiada bukti SP2 berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan; ii. Tiada keperluan SP2 membuat laporan polis P4 menafikan terlibat di dalam kemalangan; iii. Terdapat percanggahan material di dalam keterangan SP2 di Mahkamah. 30. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No. 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1, 79 yang menggariskan panduan menilai kredibiliti seseorang saksi yang dipanggil memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. Augustine Paul H, (pada masa itu) menyatakan: “The Privy Council has stated that the real tests for either accepting or rejecting the evidence of a witness are how consistent the story is with itself, how it stands the test of cross-examination, and how far it fits in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case (see Bhojraj v Sitaram 1936 AIR PC 60). It must, however, be observed that being unshaken in cross-examination is not per se an all-sufficient acid test of credibility. The inherent probability or improbability of a fact in issue must be the prime consideration (see Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257). It has been held that if a witness demonstrably tells lies, his evidence must be S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 9 looked upon with suspicion and treated with caution, but to say that it should be entirely rejected would be to go too far (see Khoon Chye Hin v PP [1961] MLJ 105). It has also been held that discrepancies and contradictions there will always be in a case. In considering them, what the court has to decide is whether they are of such a nature as to discredit the witness entirely and render the whole of his evidence worthless and untrustworthy (see De Silva v PP [1964] MLJ 81). The Indian Supreme Court has pointed out that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments (see Ugar v State of Bihar 1965 AIR SC 277). It is useful to refer to PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 where Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Highness then was) said at p 19: ‘… In my opinion, discrepancies there will always be, because in the circumstances in which the events happened, every witness does not remember the same thing and he does not remember accurately every single thing that happened … The question is whether the existence of certain discrepancies is sufficient to destroy their credibility. There is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed in its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good and cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness and to reject the other.’ In the absence of any contradiction, however, and in the absence of any element of inherent improbability, the evidence of any witness, whether a police witness or not, who gives evidence on affirmation, should normally be accepted (see PP v Mohamed Ali [1962] MLJ 257).” 31. Setelah mendengar dan melihat SP2 memberi keterangan, Mahkamah mendapati SP2 merupakan seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai. Sungguhpun terdapat percanggahan di dalam keterangan S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 10 SP2, namun percanggahan tersebut tidaklah material sehingga keseluruhan keterangannya patut ditolak. 32. Keterangan SP2 ialah beliau terus pergi ke balai polis untuk membuat laporan polis selepas beredar dari lokasi kemalangan. SP2 juga memberitahu beliau berjumpa dengan SP1 di balai polis pada malam yang sama. Ini adalah konsisten dengan keterangan SP1 bahawa beliau menemui SP2 di balai polis selepas kembali dari lokasi kemalangan. 33. Sungguhpun SP2 tidak dapat mengemukakan apa-apa bukti menunjukkan kehadiran beliau di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan berlaku, namun fakta menunjukkan SP2 telah pergi ke balai polis dalam tempoh masa kurang daripada 2 jam selepas kemalangan juga relevan untuk dipertimbangkan. 34. Sekiranya SP2 tidak berada di tempat kejadian dan tidak menyaksikan kemalangan berlaku, adalah mustahil bagi SP2 untuk l tiba-tiba muncul di balai polis dalam tempoh kurang 2 jam daripada masa kemalangan berlaku dan dapat menyampaikan kepada SP1 tentang kejadian tersebut. Mahkamah yakin bahawa SP2 ada pengetahuan tersebut kerana beliau berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan berlaku. 35. Defendan berhujah bahawa tiada keperluan untuk SP2 membuat laporan penafian penglibatan di dalam kemalangan tersebut kerana FIR di dalam kes ini (m/s 30 Ikatan D) tidak menyatakan motorkar SP2 terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 11 36. FIR di dalam kes ini dibuat pada 6.9.2018 jam lebih kurang 12.03 am. SP2 tiada pengetahuan mengenai kandungan FIR ini. Semasa SP2 datang ke balai pada malam kejadian, SP2 tidak membuat apa-apa laporan polis. SP1 hanya menemubual SP2 sahaja. Walaupun SP2 berkeras mengatakan beliau membuat laporan polis pada malam yang sama, laporan polis SP2 (P4) hanya dibuat pada 8.9.20218. 37. FIR hanyalah merupakan laporan awal yang merekodkan aduan tentang sesuatu kejadian jenayah bagi pihak polis memulakan siasatan dan di dalam kes ini FIR itu berkenaan kemalangan jalan raya. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Herchun Singh & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1969] 2 MLJ 209 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Ong Hock Thye HMP merujuk kepada komentar di dalam Sohoni’s kepada seksyen 154 Indian Penal Code, in pari materia dengan seksyen 107 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “The first information report is not an Encyclopaedia. It is not the beginning and ending of every case. It is only a complaint to set the affairs of law and order in motion. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. But it cannot be said that omissions in the first information report would always be of no significance. The report is not substantive evidence and omissions in it will not ipso facto lead to the case being thrown out. “ 38. Mahkamah berpendapat, ketiadaan maklumat penglibatan motorkar SP2 di dalam FIR tersebut tidak bermaksud SP2 tidak berada di tempat kejadian dan tidak melihat apa yang berlaku. Ia juga tidak bermaksud SP2 dihalang daripada membuat laporan polis P4 S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 12 mengenai kejadian ini ataupun dijadikan asas untuk mencurigai keterangan SP2. FIR hanyalah permulaan kepada siasatan dan semasa siasatanlah SP1 menemui SP2 dan memperoleh keterangan mengenai bagaimana kemalangan ini berlaku. 39. Keterangan SP1 ialah beliau menerima arahan daripada pegawai atasannya untuk menghubungi SP2 untuk membantu siasatan. SP1 ada menghubungi SP2 untuk membuat laporan polis namun SP2 hanya dapat datang ke balai pada 8.9.2018 kerana bekerja. SP2 membuat laporan polis P4 hanya dua hari lewat daripada Tarikh kejadian. 40. Pada pendapat Mahkamah tempoh dua hari lewat ini tidaklah terjumlah kepada kelewatan yang melampau. Tambah pula SP2 sebenarnya telah bertemu dengan SP1 pada malam kejadian. SP1 menyatakan keterangan SP2 pada malam kejadian adalah sama seperti keterangannya di dalam laporan polis P4. 41. Jika diteliti laporan polis P4, dilaporkan bahawa “… semasa kejadian motorsikal tersebut telah berpusing dan hampir mengenai motorkar saya, tetapi saya sempat mengelak ke tepi jalan.” Daripada penyataan ini, ianya menunjukkan motorkar SP2 sendiri hampir terlibat sama dalam kemalangan tersebut tetapi SP2 sempat mengelak. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, adalah munasabah untuk SP2 datang tampil ke balai polis selepas kemalangan untuk menjelaskan keadaan sebenar yang berlaku iaitu motorkar beliau tidak terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah tidak mengesyaki SP2 mempunyai apa-apa “ulterior motive” apabila membuat laporan polis P4 tersebut S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 13 dan memberi keterangan kepada SP1 seberapa segera selepas kemalangan. 42. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Hong Teng Yong v Khaw Kim Seng & Anor [2010] 9 MLJ 448, 453 di mana di dalam kes ini keterangan saksi bebas yang menyaksikan kejadian kemalangan jalan raya di antara perayu dan responden diterima oleh Mahkamah kerana saksi bebas tersebut tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan mana-mana pihak di dalam kejadian tersebut dan bukanlah pihak berkepentingan di dalam kes tersebut. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan: “[5] SD2 was an eye-witness who was called by the second respondent. The essence of her evidence was that after vehicle ADH 2102 was inexplicably driven on to the other side of the road, she saw the oncoming car of the second respondent swerve to its left on to the grass to avoid it and in the process hit the motorcycle which was also on the left. Since she was driving she told her son to take down the registration number of the encroaching car. [6] At the scene of accident she subsequently gave her name, contact number and the car registration number to the second respondent who was invited to contact her if she was required as his witness. There was no evidence to suggest that SD2 was an interested party to the suit. Neither was she known or related to any party. There was hence no sustainable reason for her to concoct a story favourable to the second respondent in particular.” 43. Sama situasinya seperti kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini. SP2 merupakan saksi bebas di dalam kes ini. SP2 tidak mempunyai apa- apa kaitan dengan mana-mana pihak di dalam kes ini. SP2 tidak S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 14 mempunyai apa-apa faedah untuk mereka-reka keterangannya di dalam laporan polis P4 dan seterusnya di Mahkamah. Peguambela defendan juga tidak pernah mencadangkan kepada SP2 bahawa SP2 merupakan pihak berkepentingan di dalalm kes ini semasa SP2 disoal balas olehnya. 44. Defendan juga berhujah bahawa keterangan SP2 telah dicemari dan dipengaruhi dengan keterangan SP1 kerana SP2 berada di dalam Mahkamah semasa SP1 memberi keterangan. 45. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mohamed Nor v Public Prosecutor [1939] MLJ 305 yang memutuskan: “In this case the magistrate refused to accept the evidence of a witness because the witness had remained in court and had not retired when the witnesses were told to so. In my opinion this is no ground for refusing to allow a witness to give evidence although it may reduced the weight to be attached to such evidence as may be given.” 46. Di dalam kes ini SP2 berada di Mahkamah dari mula SP1 memberi keterangan sehingga peringkat awal pemeriksaan balas. Hanya pada masa itu kehadiran SP2 di Mahkamah disedari oleh pihak-pihak dan beliau telah diminta untuk beredar. 47. SP2 tidak mendengar keseluruhan keterangan SP1 kerana pemeriksaan awal SP1 adalah berdasarkan penyataan saksi (WSSP1) ditambah dengan beberapa soalan tambahan. Semasa SP1 disoal balas dengan Panjang lebar oleh peguambela defendan Puan Noor Fauziah, SP2 sudah tiada di Mahkamah pada ketika itu. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 15 48. Mahkamah berpendapat dalam kes ini, tiada sebab untuk Mahkamah mencurigai keterangan SP2 hanya semata-mata beliau berada di Mahkamah ketika SP1 memberi keterangan. Mahkamah telah menimbang keterangan SP2 dan telah membandingkannya dengan keterangan-keterangan lain yang dikemukakan dan berpendapat Mahkamah versi SP2 mengenai kemalangan ini adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding versi defendan dan tidak bertentangan dengan keseluruhan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini. 49. Keterangan defendan ialah beliau bergerak dari bawah ke atas di lorong A-B. Defendan juga telah menandakan “X” yang berada di lorong A-B sebagai tempat pelanggaran. Defendan menyatakan terdapat kenderaan di hadapan dan belakangnya tetapi jarak kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut adalah jauh. Defendan juga menyatakan tiada kereta berada di hadapan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C. 50. Sekiranya tiada kereta di hadapan plaintif di lorong B-C dan terdapat kenderaan di hadapan dan belakang defendan (yang didakwa jaraknya jauh) dan defendan pula sedang menunggang di lorong A-B, maka Mahkamah berpendapat tiada sebab bagi plaintif untuk masuk ke laluan defendan secara tiba-tiba dan membahayakan nyawa semua pihak yang ada. Lebih berkemungkinan sebenarnnya defendan yang memasuki laluan plaintif dengan tujuan untuk memotong motorkar SP2 pada ketika itu dan berlaku pelanggaran dengan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 16 51. Lagipula sekiranya benar plaintif yang memasuki laluan defendan dan berlaku pelanggaran sudah pasti plaintif dan defendan akan dilanggar oleh motorkar SP2 yang berada di lorong A-B ketika itu. 52. Agak malang sekali pemeriksaan balas peguamcara plaintif terhadap defendan tidak efektif dan tidak membuahkan apa-apa hasil untuk menjejaskan kredibiliti defendan. Namun Mahkamah mengambil peringatan yang diberikan di dalam kes Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257 yang menyatakan bahawa: “It must, however, be observed that being unshaken in cross-examination is not per se an all-sufficient acid test of credibility. The inherent probability or improbability of a fact in issue must be the prime consideration.” 53. Mahkamah berpendapat pada peringkat ini, keterangan yang ada menunjukkan versi plaintif adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding dengan versi defendan sungguhpun pemeriksaan balas terhadap defendan tidak Berjaya menjejaskan kredibilitnya. 54. Selain itu, adalah menjadi undang-undang matan keterangan senyap di dalam kes kemalangan jalan raya seperti rajah kasar, gambar tempat kejadian, kesan kerosakan kenderaan boleh membantu Mahkamah mencapai keputusannya (rujuk Chan Hon Fah v Khoo Hoon Ann [1988] 1 CLJ 791). 55. Rajah kasar P2 yang dilukis oleh SP1 merupakan rajah kasar yang neutral. Tiada sebarang tandaan kesn pecahan, darah, kesan brek ataupun kedudukan kenderaan dilukis di dalam rajah kasar. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 17 56. SP1 memberi keterangan semasa sampai di lokasi hanya motorsikal JSN 2574 yang berada di lokasi kemalangan dan kedudukannya telah diubah dari tempat asal. Motorsikal JSN 2574 boleh dilihat pada gambar P1(a-d) iaitu di sebelah kiri jalan menghala dari bawah ke atas. 57. SP1 bersetuju semasa disoal balas bahawa gambar P1(a) – (e) menunjukkan ada tompok-tompok darah di sebelah kiri jalan lorong A-B dan juga terdapat kesan calar di lorong yang sama. Namun begitu SP1 tidak melukis tompok-tompok darah dan kesan calar tersebut pada rajah kasar kerana SP1 berpendapat tiada kaitan dengan kemalangan ini. Menurut SP1, keterangan saksi menunjukkan kemalangan berlaku di lorong B-C dan bukannya di lorong A-B. 58. Keterangan SP1 ialah beliau tidak memeriksa motorsikal plaintif JSW 3454 kerana motorsikal tersebut tiada di tempat kejadian semasa SP1 sampai dan tidak dibawa ke balai selepas itu. Manakala menurut SP1 kerosakan motorsikal defendan adalah di bahagian hadapan namun tiada butiran kerosakan disenaraikan. 59. Gambar-gambar motorsikal defendan di eksibit P1(c) dan (d) juga tidak menunjukkan dengan jelas apakah kerosakan pada motorsikal defendan. Apa yang pasti terdapat kesan calar pada bahagian hadapan tetapi tayar dan mudguard hadapan masih kekal. Mahkamah berpendapat kerosakan pada motorsikal defendan tidak menawarkan keterangan yang konklusif mengenai mekanisma kemalangan. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 18 60. Mengenai isu tompokan darah pada bahagian tepi kiri lorong A-B, SP1 memberitahu tompokan darah diberitahu oleh orang awam yang berada di tempat kejadian. Tiada apa-apa keterangan dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan tompokan darah tersebut merupakan tempat jatuh mangsa-mangsa di dalam kes ini iaitu sama ada plaintif mahupun defendan. Defendan di dalam keterangannya juga tidak menyatakan tempat beliau jatuh adalah di tempat di mana tompokan darah ditemui. Defendan hanya menyatakan beliau jatuh pada sebelah kiri sahaja. Keterangan SP2 pula ialah beliau tidak pasti di mana mangsa-mangsa jatuh selepas kemalangan. 61. Kesan calar yang ditemui pada lorong A-B juga tidak membuktikan kemalangan tersebut berlaku di lorong B-C seperti yang dihujahkan oleh defendan. Mahkamah berpendapat kesan calar di lorong A-B lebih konsisten dengan keterangan SP2 bahawa selepas kemalangan di lorong B-C, motorsikal defendan berpusing-pusing dan hampir mengenai motorkarnya yang berada di lorong A-B. 62. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Foong Nan v Sagadevan [1971] 2 MLJ 24 yang memutuskan: “In my view the position of the vehicles after the accident can afford absolutely no clue, in this case, to their respective positions on the road immediately before or at the moment of collision. The vehicles could not have instantly stopped dead upon impact, but the heavier vehicle must by its greater momentum have pushed the lighter one backwards.” 63. Di dalam kes ini, kemalangan melibatkan dua buah motorsikal yang bergerak dengan kelajuan yang tersendiri. Tambah pula keterangan S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 19 SP2 ialah motorsikal defendan dipandu dengan laju semasa memotong motorkarnya sejurus sebelum kemalangan. Kedua- duanya merupakan kenderaan ringan berbanding dengan motorkar. Oleh itu, adalah mustahil bagi kedua-dua motorsikal tersebut akan jatuh di tempat di mana kedua-dua motorsikal tersebut bertembung. Sudah pasti akibat impak pelanggaran kedua-dua motorsikal akan terpelanting ke arah yang lain. 64. Mahkamah boleh membuat inferen yang munasabah bahawa kesan calar pada lorong A-B adalah diakibatkan oleh motorsikal defendan telah berpusing-pusing dan jatuh di lorong A-B selepas berlanggar dengan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C sepertimana keterangan SP2 melalui P4 dan di Mahkamah. 65. Mahkamah berpendapat keseluruhan keterangan kes lebih menyokong versi plaintif berbanding versi defendan dan membuatkan versi plaintif lebih berkemungkinan daripada versi defendan. KESIMPULAN 66. Di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah memutuskan plaintif telah Berjaya membuktikan keterangannya terhadap defendan. 67. Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan plaintif di dalam kes JA-B53KJ- 75-07/2020 dengan kos dan tuntutan defendan dalam kes JA-B53KJ- 79-08/2021 ditolak dengan kos. S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 20 Bertarikh pada 1 Februari 2024 -------------------------------- LAILAWATI BINTI ALI Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 3 Johor Bahru JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 Bagi pihak plaintif: Bagi pihak defendan: Subashini Balaskanda Noor Fauziah binti Kadir T/n Zaman & Assoc. T/n SK Lee JA – B5KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 Bagi pihak plaintif: Bagi pihak defendan: Gajendran a/l Toreraju Sekar Palaniandy T/n Gajendran & Assoc. T/n Sekar Gill & C. Suren S/N SIUYjaGmrEyHvPU5pkbgTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCC-46-05/2023

PEMOHON Aurora Industries Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN 1. ) Klanggroup Holding Sdn Bhd 2. ) Ong Kwee Lee 3. ) Gan Thiam Kok 4. ) Golden Valley Industries Sdn Bhd

The application for stay of the Originating Summon was allowed pending the disposal of a winding up petition to avoid duplicity of proceedings.

01/02/2024

YA Puan Zaharah Binti Hussain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fafb1979-717a-4f28-ae80-e2f59044c31c&Inline=true

01/02/2024 16:21:07 BA-24NCC-46-05/2023 Kand. 24 S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eRn7npxKEugOL1kETDHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—2am:c—a6—u5/2u23 Kind. 24 y,/oz/um ,a 2; nr DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELAMGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAVSIA GIJAMAN SIVIL No: BA-zmcc-45»o5I2o23 Dalam Derkara mengenal Galden Valley mausnias Sdn Bhd (No. Syirikat 1333317-H) Dan Da\am perkara mengenau Seksysn 5546 den Seksyen 351 Akla Sysrikal 2015 Dan naram Pevkara mengenan Ana syankaczme Dan Da\am Ferkara mengenai Aluran as Kaedah-kaedah 2 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA AURORA INDUSTRIES SDN EHD (NO. SVARIKAT: M33657-V) ...PLAlNI'lF DAN 1. KLANGGROUP HOLDINGS sun BHD (No. SVARIKAT: 1na112D«A) srNeRn7nvxKEuganx£mHA ““""““‘ ” ”‘”“’ mm Sum M... M“ a. used M mm a. ..w.m mm; nnmmnm VII mum pm 2. am: KWEE LEE (no. KIP: 751115-01535:) GAN THIAM KOK (N0. KIP: 7e112a-1o-5323) 4. GOLDEN VALLEV INDUSTRIES sun am: (N0. SVARIKAT: 1333617-H) ,..DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT lnlmductlon [:1 On 7“ September 2023, «ms Cuurt had aHowed the Dslendams 1,2,3 apphcauon m Enclosure A dated 22 05 2023 |o s|ay the Driglnalmg Summon wmlsn pendxng ma disposefl uipelihon BA-28NCC-96-03/2023 to wind up 4!" Dslandant pursuant to Sachan 470 Cnmpanies Acl 2016 and/or Order 92 Rule A was ovccun 2012 Background anm Cass as Submlltad by (hi nun-dun: [21 For nrevny and carwenianee, ma pames are redened as rouoms: 1.) The Puamm 15 referred In as 'Aumra". my 1* Defendant ws Iefervad In as “KG" (an) 2"“ Delendanl ws Mswed to as '0ng', rNeRn7nvxKE»§oL1x£mHA ““ “"“"“ “’‘°“ W. Sum M... M“ be used m mm m. nvVWuH|Y mm; .1.M.m VII mum pm Pawn lo dllmlss or stay Pmcudmas when ilia mum in quesllonls in/uillc nlmwun rhopnllos arwlim by rusun al muliipllciiy or pmcendlnqs in my coim or com: me pmcot ings augnl nol tn bu conflnuod. [14] This court make reiaience la the case olsowkm vFulIurs llnmd Elnnlric Works Llmlml (19231 1 KB 150 The gum-al palicy al me com in exetcising lriis jurisdiction, whorl ii p-ilrlon nus bun lmsenml wliioli may nsult in a winding-up unfair or . achtmt, is to stew‘ that no ciuoliol shnll Ihnncoforwlrd qnln prlollty om oilim of lils clus, Ind when an application ls nu a in my proc--dings under x.1Aa my cxcfimlorlul circumstances mus: exisi ta jusmy in» com: in Musing no nude to in: application, bocausc ll inn pIlIn!l‘fi’.i ncilon is no: my»: ho wlllgor plymonl ln lull wllilo ll his union is srayod ha will an nls p/act pfoperfy among DIIIOV creditors of his class. I cannot 599 any excapfiorlill clrcuinsuncos In in: pl-son: cast. [15] com oi Appoai auiiioiiiy oi si-l Jeluda Sdrl Blvd V Perltllink Sdn Ehd pm] 4 cu 359 ieleiied Ia Bowkett aria recognised iiiai Bowkell is very poisiiasiilo aiiiinpiny given manna Engiisii companies as! is aiincsi siniiiai to me DNVISIOVI seciiori 222 oi iiie Companies M1 1955 (iii pari iiiaisna wiin s 470 CA 2016) !NeRli7nvxKEM§Dl1kEYDHA “""‘ 1”“ ‘” “W” 'NnI2 s.ii.i numb]! M“ be used M mm me mW\luH|Y Minis flnnlmlnl VII .;ii.iia WM! [22] Apm from me provlslon ofp-In (n) nni.1(b] under onqiisn s.2zs, which imi bun oxpiaineu by the ioarnod iuogo as afnrosnid, thltaacrlon Is almost:/mllarla s. 222 ollhu Act. w. are own view rim mo prlnclpla, oi:/oer and mason undvllyinv bani pruvi ans Ire the nine. rno d-clsloivs in iaowimi v. Fuiiois United Elccmc and Rs Dynamics Corponllon or Amuic. which we have advorisa to. are Merofom, my penmsivo nhmncns in iii: inrorpminion ois. 222 aim: Act. Ailnlyxls and Finding unnix Court [151 Tnis Cnun iioiioeiiiai inswinoing up p n was flied earherby KG (KG) beioia ins Plsinlifl filed mas Originating Summmli in was com. As submitted by the ooienosnis, me winding up Pelillon and mis Originating summon have me same background oi isms, iniioiiis [ha sanie psinies and have overispping issues. The same ducumems win he ieiiso in Ihese 2 acmms. [I1] This court agree Wilh lhe ccnlenlicn Ironi me Defanaanis |ha| me possibiiicy oi contradictory decisions by (we (2) caurs invoiving me same names‘ ine same background fans and ovariapping issues warrant ihe Oouvfs BKBVCISB oi aiscraiion io gram the stay application The Deiendanvs never to me auinoiiues hsiow. man I/iMC( is osmiz; 17 I Supverne com aumnruy M Luca Duvolopmont carp Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Building sacmy Bhd[19n] 2 ML] 114 : /r is undesirazaie to ariow a simatfun where two uiirereni court: would try and dsiermine ms same issues arising beiwssn me same Parties reianng lo the same subject mszzer. As MES nsd chosen to sue Lsscu in me Commercial Dlvrsmn bsfom filing ms onginanng summons and mars was slraady dalaulljudgmsnl In ms sun and ins sppncanon in ssi aside this delaulljudgmenl is still nendfnq, m our opi‘ ion me hearmg or the ongmafmy summons should have been postponed unni final disposal n!‘ the sun in tho commsmiar nninion. Thelelare, we under that the order ofssls bs ssl aside. We lurmsr Ordsr [hat Ihs aliginafing summons be deaf! win after me final disposal of me sufl, and ma: appmpnsls ordsls should be made on the originating summons Iakmg Into consideration ms rssu/I aims sull. 17.2 rum Four Sdn Bhdv/Aug Kim Chang @Ang Tong Kok is Dis (2017) MLJU 1494, the cam adopted Lssco and al/owed the stay application whilst pending ma msposai afa winding up psmion, on gmunds that me wnnding up peimon and the own suit shared the same background iacis, involved [Iva same psmss and similar issues. [151 /I is also we naisvan: facts that: srNeRn7nnx><Eunonx£mHA "“""""“"“ ""1"" warn Sum ...m.. win as used m mm s. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (a) me background oriaara aiidpariiea cl (his sun and ii-ia said mnding Up Pslnion are via same as ii invofl/es ins aarna 5 Iarni/ias; (b) iiia sania/pan of ma aania aocuniania that have aaan lsfi/ad and adduced as eviiiancs in ma said Vflnding Up Painian will be pmducsd in this suit. (0) me aania witnesses are going to be caiied to give onai raaiirnaiiyin this sun and me said vwndiiig Up Paiiiion, and (.1; ma 1-’ oaiandanrs 50/! M10 appealed aa a wiinaaa in ma Mfind/ng Up Court has aaan cross examined extslisive/.V on ma iaaiia of siiadaw diracior and aim on iiia aiiegad assisianca given by min to (he 1*’ Deianaai-ii. Ti-ia 1“ Daianciani iiinisaii wiii also be called as a witness in ma said vwnuing Up Petition to give his evidence on ma similar issue and other ieievani issuaa/aiiegaiiaiis raised by me Respondents againsi riirn in riie said Winding L/p Paiirian my Upon the iaaiiaa mamianau in paragraph 17abave being vaciaad by riia vwiidirig up court. such iiiiiiing WW bind ma aii-iar iiiigaiion cases ior wriicri aiiriiiar isauaa ara /arsed. AI ma pom! annis Enaioauia 31 being heard on 19.06 2017 ma aanpinuaa iiaaiing for me said Vifinding Up Pembn riaa Lisen iixad wiiri dates uniii ociaiiar 2017 and priomy nas aaan g/vsn by me VVindmg Up Court to expedite the disposal of ma aaia vwiiiiing Up Peiition siNeRn7rwnxi<E»nOUkEYDHA “‘“ ""“ “"°’”'”‘ 'NnI2 a.n.i in-vihnrwm a. used m mm a. niwiruflly MIN: flnunfllnl VII .riuiia WM! [20] Till: Court has Dean persuaded that special clroumsrarmes would arise in whlch more would be conlradrcrory dscislons/findlngs given by ml‘: com and the Vwndlng Up Coun ll mrs Sui! ls nol slsysd pendlng (ha disposal onrrs sald vwndrrrg Up Pamlan. The case alnsac Eank (m and v Jejlk min Resources sdrr and 5 ars 12915] Va MLJ us ls relerred as guidance. . [Ia] Upon wlndmg up ol the Company, me Viquldalor would be me besl uupa candldata Io lrwesugale the allegsd complaints and declde whether no oblain leave to proceed with this 05. In Tum Fmtr sdrr Ehd v Anq Klm Cllong @ Any rank Kok L ars [2017] MLJU 1494‘ the learned judlclal cammisslonel Azmi Abdunah sald /24] Further, aflsr a wlnd/Ivy do order ls made, in general na one our only the /lquidalor can ad on panel! olrhe vorrwalvy. Hers, ila wlndlng up order is granted by the windlng up com, Team Four would no wound up and ms llquldalor would no appainlsd lo deal with me assets and liabl/mes ol Team Four and /7 rs also {or the llqdldalor to decide wrrsmsr 10 ohm. /aavs lo proceed mm mls sun or olrrerwroe Therefore, mars Is no premdlce whatsoever occasioned to Team Four bysrayirlg rhls uclion perrdrrrg the dlsposal aflha I/I/lnding Up Fellllon. SW_RmmKEwommM 15||1A.2/Int:-as~VS/2|!) x 'NnI2 Sum mm. WW he used M mm rr. mmmu-y mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [251 rnis »s oeeaiise me prwisionai iiqiiidaier if eppoinied woirid oe the pest person is investigate into me aiieged cornpieinis/eiiegaiions. This Court refers io Hup Lac Calvhbulldurs Holdings sdn Ehd v cycie & carnage ainiiing aridlziml 1 ML! as wnicn observes. [11] iis is a iiindaineniai pnni.-ipia oi law ihar mice a iirniied company is wound up its assets and iiabiiiiiee vssl in me iioiiideior eppoinied. ii is up to him io decide wneiner io insmiive. EDHIWIME me Pfosecufian ol or delend legal proceedings. (14) At ine iirne offi/my ihe preeeni ecricn eiiine property as wcii as inings in action to wnien me appeiianr company was or appeared to be enimed, were vesiad in me iiqiiidaior appoinied (the oiriciai assigrles) ii was oniy ins oiivciei assignos who can bring or defend any action or oiher iegai proceeding which relates to rhai property or which it was necessary to bring or defend /or inc purpose or civccruaiiy winding up the company and recovering lls property. in omer words, only the alficial eeeignee has me necessary icciis siandi io commence irre action on oenaii of me appeiianr company ageinei me respondent The Appeiieni company IEIBAVI/mci: A5 «size» SIN eRn7nrix><E»nonxEmHA we Sum ...ne.. MU as used a yaw me airimiiiy cums dun-mm wa .riaiic WM! itsslfol ns shareholders ar us mews have no locus scam to do an wllhout ma Issvs onna omclalasanynaa 0! ma com. An amran filed by ma appanam wnnouz any Issve [mm ma officfsl assignse (as riqmdarov) 0! ma court or mad by ma Appauam without having any mus szanm to do so in law is many maga/ and Invalid. The said action ougm to be struck out. 1151 saauan 236(2) of the Companies Ac! 1965 strengthens ma paawon mar only ma amaia/ assfgnae as the appomrsd liquidate: has me power m bring or aarana any action any man or other legal proceeding in ma name and on ma wound-up company. m) It Is me finding v1 this Conn that here are duphmty of ma prooeamngs and ma daemons by ma 2 wurls rmghl be comramcnng concluuon [20] lfis this Cour!‘ wawlhauhera would ha oonuadxctary nnmnga bylms Court and me Winding up Courh L therefore, allowed ma Defendants appflcalion ea slay lms Ongmaung Summons whflsl pending the disposal srNeRn7nnx><Ewonx£mHA ‘” 3" “'“‘ “ “”““ -nag Sum In-uhnv WW as used m mm as nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm wa mum pm n EA—28NCC—BErD3/2023 Io wind up the 4"‘ Dame: 3'" January 2024 ( Bum HUSSAIN) Pesuvumaya Kehakimar( Mahkamah Tlnggl NCVC 2 Shah Avam srNeRn7nnx><Ewonx£mHA “‘“"“““"5 "5/‘°" Nuns sum ...m.. WW be used m vaw u. mVn\ruH|:I mm; dun-mm VII nnum Wm! KAUHSEL sag: plluk PuuyuIFIn|nlIf: Tamar: Preagravs 3. Matthews TingkaI1. No. 2 Lehuh Pantah 1D30G Pulau ' Hg No Tel‘ 04-2626155 Ema\|' re a s cunrklc ma m'\h ma com dkK@presmaI.cam aagi ihzk natandan Pamma Kmua Kallga: Tsluan cheeng & Arifl Loke Mansiun 273A, .Ja\an Medan Tuanku 50300 Kuala Lumpur Ma\aysia sag: Plh D ndan Knunu Teluan Aaron KC Ng A Parlners A4412, Kelana Square No.17‘ Jakan S57/26 Ke\sna Jaya 47301 Petaling Jaya, Seflangor srNaRn7nnx><Ewonx£mHA " ‘ "‘ " """“ “’”°” -ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 3 ggnk 1 Bawken v Fuflers United Elecinc Wnrks Limited [1923] 1 KB use 2. Sri Jaluda Sdn Bhd V Pemalink Sdn Ehd [2006] 4 CLJ 359 3. Lesoc Dsvvabpmenl Corp Sdn Ehd v Malaysia Building Sammy Ehd (193512 MLJ 154 4. Team Four Sdn am: v Aug Km: Chang @ Ang Tang Kak & Drs [2017] MLJU M94 5. HSEC Bank1M) Bhd vJajak Maw Resources Sdn am 5. Or: [2015] we MLJ 545 6. Hup Lee Ccachbuildels Holdings Sdn Bhd v Cycle & Carriage Bmlang Bhd (201311 MLJ 406 srneknvnnxxiunolwxzvnnn "““'“"“ “"“‘”‘”‘ um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm (iv! 3'“ Defendant is referred to as 'Gan“, (v) 4"‘ Defendant is rsteneo to as 'GV’, (vi) Dam Goh Cheng Huai is referred to as ‘Dam cow. [3] eoioen vaiisy inousrries son and (D4) (ev) is 3 ion: veniure company inwrpurated pursuant to a rorni vsnrors and Shareholders Agreement dated 27.122019 and Addendum dated 15.1.2020 tcalleciiveiy, JVSA) [41 Aurora and KG are me snarsnoiosrs or av. The Plainlifl hoios 49% of the shares whereas KG noios 51% oi me snaras in GV. There are aiiogernsrrrrraa (a) nominee directors VI ev, nameiy Orig. Gan and one Dale eon Chang Hual (Dam Gnh) (mg and Gan are Aur0ra's nominee oireciors, whereas Data son is me Aurora's nonrinea drrscior VI GV. (51 The relationship heiwsen ins Aurora and KG deteriorsled around iara December 2022 and :1 managsnrem deadlock mists In the anairs of av. It osoarne sooarenr that both panies oouio no longer wom together and that male is a breakdown or mutual trust and ooniroenos osrween bmh pamss. siNeRn7npxr<EugoL1xEYDHA 3“""""“"‘ “"1"” -roo sum ...ro.r on he used M mm o. niimruflly sun; flan-mrrl VII mime wnxi [5] Prernised upnn the above, on 2 3.2023 KG filed the wu Feli|iorl in Wind up GV based on just and equllanle grcunas. The penis: who are named in the WU Petition are we Aumm. K6 and GV, mass are also pamas who are new rlamsd in the Aurora's as rn The ssue which form pan of me wu Petition based an jual and aquwalala greunas are- (H The rnanagernenl oi ev was frustrated and ma relallanenlp lurlher soured men we irlcldenls below occurred (ii) wnen KG daimsd far an outstanding project rnanagernenl lee (omslanaing Management Fae) lrom ev, the Aumra was nm agreeable to me same Dale sen (Flalnliffs nominee director) alae relusee |o allend several board el dlracwrs’ meeungs to deliberate an lna nulslandlrlg prolact management lee and sought Io Inlmlidala zna meetings. (iii) KG filed a civil suit [Sun sosl lo clairn lor lhe Outstanding Mal1agemerlIFeeimm ev The malcmy enne hoard Mdlreclors (EDD) deliberated on sun 505 and resolved In acknowledge lne Oulsmrldlrlg Managemenl Fee (Suit 5:25). Nmwllhslandlng lnal, nala Goh appointed seliumrsrorev wilnoul me EOD's appmval. (iv) subaaquanuy, Data Goh called iar eon meefirlgs seeking in ranfy me appulnlrrlenl of snhcllors (impugned Appalmnianl), slNeRn7npxl<EugonxEmHA "“ 14"“ ‘‘ “’”“’ we s.n.l ...n.r will be used e mm ea nnn.u-y MW; dun-mm wa arlum wrul meanwniieme used son snernpied is deny one end em (KG's nemmee dIrec1mx)lmm attending ins said rneeiings iv) Tne Aurora sougm in appoim two (2) other nominees direciors and sougnnp pumhase1% otsnsres in GVfrom KG (coilscrivsly. Proposed Exercise), even wnen KG iniorrned mat me Proposed Exercise is unm In visw o1 en undisciased misresi 01 one Mr Ng Keng Hoe (diremor oi KG) inrougn Data Goh/Piainlifi, wnicn remains a live issue in another Civil suii isuii 147) [3] Approximaieiy two (2) manins siisrine iiiiing oiine wu Petition and despite naving kndwiedgs oi me same, Aurora naw mes us 05 against the neiendenis |o purnonediy oieim inai KG, ong. Gan had oonnmmed wmngdumgs. The as is s mindnry oppression action, ine Aurora's aiiegaiipn againsi ins oetendani emsngsi oiners, are as loiiows (all ere denied) ii) Aumra was oppressed when KG eiaimed ior ins ouisisnding Mansgemeni Fee irorn av and wnen KG sieimed is: me ouisisnding Mariagemenl Fee irom GV (iii Aumra wes oppressed wnen suii 505 was passed (iii) Aurora was oppressed wnen KG inipnned lhallhe Proposed Exercise is unm in view oi me undisciosed inieresi oi Mr Ng Keng Hoe which remain a IIVS issue in sun 1A7 SiNeRri7nnxKEMnOl1kEYDHA 5*“ “"“ ” “’“‘” Wain Sniini Ilnvihli wiii be HSQG is mm is. niiniruiily MVM5 flan-vinnl VI] .nune pm (iv! [9] Aurora his been oppressed wnen KG presented the wu Petition against GV based on Just and equitable grounds in its reiiets, Aumra is seeking 2 monetary compensalians in its 05. the mint: ohhls cl 0 an punnuit bytiie Plalmllf [1 n] In tnis action, Aurora‘: case is hasicaiiy‘ 0) (ii) (iii) Due to KG, mg and Garrs wrongful and oppressive eenduct VII the artairs at GV, there was unlawtui demand tor managsmenl tees ot RM5,a55,7wt,tu tram KG and Aurora was denied payment at RM7.349,510 00, being the Aurora’: entitiement pursuant to lite rsduclion ptcapmel from sv. Due to the KG. Ong and Gene wrengtui amt oppressive oandum in the aneirs at 6V, tne KG had tnmugn iii Mo (2 nmmnee direclurs‘ namely mug and Gen have in abuse at as maiarily in the scant oi GV wrongful passed a purported Board resoiuuan dated 23 Deeemberzczz approved payment ol managemenl tees of RM5t355,791 to to KS. KG nae wmngmiiy tiied Shah Atam High Court Suil Nu. BA» 22NCVC—5D5—1212fl22 (suit 505) against 5V in respect of its ciaim lor management tees at RM5,a55,79t to. sin. 24Nc(—l5 as/zazz SIN eRn7npxKEwnOl1kEYDHA -we Sum ...m.. M“ he as... m mm Die bvimruflly mm; dun-mm VII munc Wm! (iv) Due to K61 Orig and Gan‘: wrorrgiui and oppressive conduct in ma affairs af ov, Aurora’: rrgrrr was denied ro appornr me Aurora's second nominee direcior and appmrrunerrc M 5* direclm and chairman oi me board M Due re KG. Orig and Garfs wrungiui and aware census: in me aflaus :71 ev, KG has wrorrgiuiiy denied Aurora‘s ngm to (:31! o (vi) KG had in bad faim wrarrgmuy man a Winding Up Pemiun Nu. BA-28NCC-96-03/2023 an Shah Alam High Ccurl (haleinafler reierrea to as ‘the said vwrraing Up Petition“) against av My KG. Ong‘ arm Gan. amrng alone and/or mgemer have wrraucreu lhe aflairs oi ev in a manner oppressive and ill disregard Mme Aurora's irrieresr as a shareholder oi ev, (min KG rrava acres in its own inreresi In breach ai ii: unuenakrng |u ad in me best interests 01 6V purauarri lo Clause 11 mi; of lhe JV Agreement. (ix) Dug and Gan. acting aiene andlar iogarrrer have amen in marinev which uniairiy rirnrnare against or mherwise preiudicial ro me Aurora as a shareholder in av. (X) KG. ong and earn, azmng alone andlartogemer have adsd in manner which untarny drsenrrrirrsne againsl or otherwise preiudicial in the Aurora as a sharenoirser of Gv. siNeRn7nnx><Eunonx£mHA "“"“"“’”’“’“‘” ‘Nata s.rr.r ...ra.r M“ r. used m mm re niimruflly MIN; dun-mm Va aFiuNG mm [11] Trre Iehefs sorrgm by Amara in |hls acflan are Inter-alla as iouaws: (i) A deelaraticn mar KG as a sharehomer arev have cnnduclsd me alfairs av sv in a manner apuressrve and m disregard or me Amer-a's rrrrarssr as a sharehmder 07 ev and have procured and/or caused to be done anulur lhrsalamng In procure or caused Ia he done In GV which wm rrrrlamy dlscrimwnate agamsl or which S or will be ulherwise pram al to rrre Aurora as a shareholder 07 ev. (Ii) Adedaralmn mar KG have sued in us own rrrrsrssrs rrr breach M Its undertaking to ad m the best lmerusts cf GV pursuant to Gauss 11.1 ov me JV Agreement (In) A dedaralron mamra Ong and San as drrsaars MGV whether aarrrg a\one and/or ingelher had breached msrr fidudary duties nor In act irr uormrcr wrrrr urerr dunes |o sv arm abussd their powers as dlvscwrs aiev m a manrraroppressiva and/or in disregard ms Arrrnras rrrrarasr as a shareholdar MGV. (iv) A declaranon mar Ong srru Gan are rrur enflllad err vols m ma Board meeting of ev In respect 0! any rssomrorr ro appoml solicitors (0 ran on behalf or ev to defend or any o|har lsgal pmoeemngs brought by K6, Ong and Gan agains1 sv. srNeRrr7rrnx><Ewonx£mHA ‘W 1”“ “‘“”“‘ Nuns s.rr.r In-uhnv WW .. used m mm rr. nflmrrnfilii mm; dun-mm VI] anurm Wm (V) An order KG, my and San indemmfy Gv m respect or any judgment, losses and damages which ev may suwer ansmg (mm cm: sun No. BA-ZZNCVC-50512/2022. M; A dedaranan (hall me Board Rssomtion dated 23 uasemper 2022 wmch approved ma paymem 0! managemenn lses M RM5ya55\791 10 to KG is nufl and V0 (vm An un1sr|haHhe KG, Drug and Gan execute an documents and up an «hinge necessary to sppoim Mr. Yeah Chang Chye as the Aurora's second nommee dmaclor lo the beam 0! dveulovs 0' GV and MI Ng Keng Hue as the fiflh diraclur and chavrman 0! av. (vii!) An order u1a| the KG, Ong and Gen execule an documents and do aH things neoassary m eflact the can npflon exercised by the Aurora for me Flulchase and hansler oi 1% shareholding new by K6 in sv. (ix) An order that me KG, Ong arm Gan on pay Aurora damages rs be assased (x) Casts aflhe praoeedmgs harem be home by me KG, Dng and Gun jointly and severally on an inuemmy basis (X!) such lunher or other rehei and/or mdsr be gwen by «ms Harruurable cmm as daemed just am equnams. srNeRn7nnx><Eunonx£mHA ‘-““""‘“ ‘*5 “‘”‘”‘ -use sum In-nhnv WW be used m mm we nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm ifi lawn in] Secliori 47D[1|CompanIes Am 2015 read as luI\wIs' "419 ppm: ol court to stay OI rasmln pmcudlngs uynlnsl zamplny prior ta ardur olwlndlng up (1) iii any Ilml after the presenllfion i.7I . winding up pcmipn and bwforo a winding up order nas been mlda, the lmmparly or any crutlllar or oanlriblllorv mayi when my anion or pmcmilng ngnlnn rho company Is psndlny, apply to in. com In: an mm in my DI nsinln Iumlcrpmcudlligs in in. acllon or pmcmiing lccurdingly on aucii min: A: It mink! lit.” (2) nu Appllcnit sluii lodge with me in-gisnar (Ive oflice copy cum order wmiin roinmn days rmm llna making nfsuch am: under subs-nctlan (1). [13] s 25(2) pl |he Courts cf Judlcahiie Acl 1964 (cm) and para 11 of me Schsdme in CJA* s 25(2) ullne cu Without pmjudlco is in. generality of suuscciipn (1; (In: High com snail haw Mu uldiiionalpowors sat mi: in tin scnaciulo: Provided lliul all such powers shall be exercised in nccordance will. any wrlmn law amilcs or calm mlating lo the sam. Par: 11 nlrhe Scliodulu ta c.lA Ionururlcc A5 as/you SIN eRn7nvxKEu§0nx£iDHA -ma Sum Mn... vim be used m mm me nin.un mm; nnmmnnl n. muila win

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021

PLAINTIF VINOTH A/L PONNIAH DEFENDAN KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALANKRISNAN

kemalangan jalan raya - plaintif cedera parah dan tidak dapat memberi keterangan - defendan dan saksi bebas memberi keterangan - versi defendan dan saksi bebas bercanggah

01/02/2024

Puan Lailawati Binti Ali

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5acd75eb-9c9f-43e4-ac08-33210a4fa096&Inline=true

JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BHARU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 ANTARA KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 910604-01-6779) … PLAINTIF DAN VINOTH A/L PONNIAH (No. K/P: 960808-04-5243) … DEFENDAN DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BHARU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. JA – B53KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 ANTARA VINOTH A/L PONNIAH (No. K/P: 960808-04-5243) … PLAINTIF DAN KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 910604-01-6779) … DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN 1. Kedua-dua tindakan ini merupakan tindakan silang yang bermula daripada satu kemalangan jalan raya yang berlaku pada 5.9.2018 lebih kurang pukul 11.30 pm di Jalan Ibrahim Sultan Johor Bharu 01/02/2024 15:19:11 JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Kand. 21 S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 2 melibatkan dua buah motorsikal masing-masing ditunggang oleh pihak-pihak di dalam tindakan-tindakan ini. 2. Bagi memudahkan rujukan di dalam alasan ini, KALAIYARASU A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN akan dirujuk sebagai plaintif dan VINOTH A/L PONNIAH dirujuk sebagai defendan. 3. Kedua-dua kes dibicarakan bersama dan pada 27.11.2023 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kemalangan disebabkan kecuaian sepenuhnya oleh defendan. Tuntutan plaintif di dalam tindakan JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 dibenarkan dengan kos dan tindakan defendan (sebagai plaintif) di dalam kes JA – B53KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 ditolak dengan kos. 4. Defendan tidak berpuashati dengan dapatan terhadap liability dan kini merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. 5. Mahkamah kini mengemukakan alasan-alasannya seperti berikut. LIABILITI 6. Bagi penentuan isu liability, saksi-saksi yang memberi keterangan adalah seperti berikut: i. Sarjan Mohad Fadli bin Ali / Pegawai Penyiasat – SP1; ii. Mohamad Nazrullah bin Zuraimi / saksi bebas – SP2; iii. Defendan – SD1 Versi Plaintif S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 3 7. Plaintif tidak dapat memberi keterangan akibat kecederaan teruk kepada kepalanya dan ini tidak menjadi pertikaian di dalam kes ini. 8. Keterangan SP1 ialah kemalangan ini melibatkan motorsikal JSW 3453 yang ditunggang oleh plaintif dan motorsikal JSN 2574 yang ditunggang oleh defendan. Kedua-dua motorsikal tiada pembonceng. Maklumat pertama kemalangan diterima oleh SP1 pada lebih kurang 12.30 malam dan pada 12.50 malam SP1 tiba di lokasi kejadian bersama jurugambar. 9. Apabila sampai di lokasi kejadian, SP1 melihat hanya motorsikal JSN 2574 yang berada di tepi sebelah kiri jalan. Mangsa-mangsa dan motorsikal JSW 3453 tiada di lokasi. Jurugambar ada merakamkan 5 keping gambar motorsikal dan tempat kejadian yang ditandakan P1(a) – (e). 10. Tempat kemalangan merupakan jalan lurus satu lorong setiap hala. Daripada siasatan SP1, plaintif bergerak dari atas ke bawah dan defendan pula dari bawah ke atas. Rajah kasar tempat kemalangan ditandakan P2. 11. Pada masa kemalangan jalan raya tidak sibuk dan cuaca baik. Terdapat kesan darah ditemui di lorong kiri dan menurut SP1 kesan ini ditunjukkan kepadanya oleh orang awam yang ditemui di lokasi kejadian. 12. Terdapat seorang saksi bebas yang tampil memberi keterangan iaitu SP2. Menurut SP1, beliau menemui SP2 selepas kembali dari lokasi S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 4 kejadian dalam lebih kurang pukul 1.00 am. Beliau menemubual SP2 pada malam yang sama tetapi hanya merakam keterangan SP2 selepas SP2 membuat laporan polis pada 8.9.2018. 13. Menurut siasatan SP1, kemalangan berlaku apabila motorsikal defendan yang bergerak dari bawah ke atas di lorong A-B telah memotong motorcar SP2 dan masuk ke lorong bertentangan iaitu B- C dan bertembung dengan motorsikal plaintif yang sedang bergerak dari atas ke bawah. 14. Keputusan kes ialah defendan disaman di bawah Rule 12(3) LN 166/59 kerana memotong garisan berkembar dan menunggang bertentangan arah trafik. 15. SP2 pula merupakan saksi bebas yang mendakwa berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan tersebut berlaku. Keterangan SP2 ialah pada masa yang material beliau sedang memandu motorkarnya no. WQF 2804 dari pusat bandar ke arah Stulang iaitu dari bawah ke atas rajah kasar di lorong A-B. Tiba-tiba sebuah motorsikal berwarna kuning (defendan) datang dari arah belakang ditunggang laju telah memotong motorkar SP2 dan bertembung dengan sebuah motorsikal yang datang dari arah bertentangan (plaintif). Kemudian motorsikal defendan berpusing-pusing dan hampir mengena motorkar SP2. SP2 memberi keterangan kemalangan berlaku di lorong B-C dan bukannya di lorong A-B. 16. SP2 pergi ke balai polis pada malam kejadian lebih kurang pukul 1.00 am. SP2 ada berjumpa dengan SP1 pada malam yang sama. SP2 S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 5 membuat laporan polis Trafik Johor Bharu (S)/21693/18 (eksibit P4) pada 8.9.20218. Rakaman percakapan SP2 juga diambil pada hari yang sama. 17. Semasa disoal balas SP2 menyatakan tidak pasti di mana kedua-dua motorsikal atau mangsa jatuh selepas kemalangan. SP2 juga bersetuju bahawa beliau tidak dapat mengemukakan apa-apa bukti menunjukkan kehadiran beliau di tempat kejadian pada masa yang material. Versi Defendan 18. SD1/defendan sendiri hadir memberi keterangan. Keterangan defendan ialah pada hari kejadian defendan sedang menunggang motorsikal JSN 2574 dari Stulang Laut hendak ke Permas Jaya dan apabila sampai di Jalan Ibrahim Sultan tiba-tiba sebuah motorsikal JSW 3453 dari arah bertentangan masuk ke laluannya. Defendan tidak sempat mengelak lalu berlaku pelanggaran dan defendan terjatuh di sebelah kiri. 19. Defendan membuat laporan polis Trafik Johor Bharu (S) 23014/18 (eksibit D18) pada 24.9.2018. Kandungan laporan polis D18 adalah sama seperti keterangannya di Mahkamah. 20. Defendan telah menandakan “X” di lorong A-B di atas rajah kasar sebagai tempat pelanggaran. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 6 21. Defendan mengaku ada menerima saman yang dikeluarkan oleh SP1 tetapi tidak membayarnya. Defendan menyatakan beliau enggan membayar saman tersebut kerana beliau tidak bersalah. 22. Semasa disoal balas defendan tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan peguamcara plaintif bahawa defendan yang memasuki laluan plaintif dan menyebabkan kemalangan ini. Defendan juga menafikan lewat membuat laporan polis kerana ingin mereka-reka ceritanya. BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN KES 23. Di dalam mana-mana kes kemalangan jalan raya yang bersandarkan kepada kecuaian sebagai kausa tindakan, beban pembuktian kecuaian adalah ke atas plaintif. Prinsip undang-undang matan ini dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam locus classicus Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 1 LNS 151; [1971] 2 MLJ 175 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: “In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence is the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself.”; see 15 Halsbury (3rd Edn.) p. 260.” 24. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ng Chui Sai v. Maimon Bt. Ali [1983] 1 MLJ 110 di mana Hashim Yeop A. Sani H (pada masa itu) telah menyatakan: “In an action for negligence the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it unless there are disclosed facts which raise S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 7 a presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been a breach of a specific or genuine duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to the plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail.” 25. Beban pembuktian yang diletakkan ke atas plaintif untuk membuktian kesnya adalah selari dengan peruntukan seksyen- seksyen 101 dan 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 (rujuk MGI Securities Sdn Bhd v. Teong Teck Leng & Ors [2000] 5 CLJ 163; [2000] 1 MLJ 354). ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH 26. Di dalam kes ini kedua-dua pihak memberikan versi yang bercanggah di antara satu sama lain tentang bagaimana kemalangan tersebut boleh berlaku. 27. Prinsip undang-undang adalah matan bahawa apabila terdapat dua versi yang bercanggah, apa yang Mahkamah perlu putuskan ialah versi mana yang lebih berkemungkinan dan bukannya siapakah yang memberikan keterangan yang benar atau siapa yang tidak bercakap benar. 28. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Tabarani Mohd Arshad v Chan Ten Yeu [1993] 3 CLJ 1888 di mana diputuskan: “When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and considered other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. This S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 8 approach provides a wide leverage for the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the testimony of the credible witnesses.” 29. Apa yang pasti, jika diteliti daripada keseluruhan keterangan SP1, siasatan SP1 bergantung sepenuhnya kepada keterangan saksi bebas iaitu SP2. Peguambela defendan berhujah bahawa keterangan SP2 hendaklah ditolak kerana SP2 merupakan saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai kerana: i. Tiada bukti SP2 berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan; ii. Tiada keperluan SP2 membuat laporan polis P4 menafikan terlibat di dalam kemalangan; iii. Terdapat percanggahan material di dalam keterangan SP2 di Mahkamah. 30. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No. 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1, 79 yang menggariskan panduan menilai kredibiliti seseorang saksi yang dipanggil memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. Augustine Paul H, (pada masa itu) menyatakan: “The Privy Council has stated that the real tests for either accepting or rejecting the evidence of a witness are how consistent the story is with itself, how it stands the test of cross-examination, and how far it fits in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case (see Bhojraj v Sitaram 1936 AIR PC 60). It must, however, be observed that being unshaken in cross-examination is not per se an all-sufficient acid test of credibility. The inherent probability or improbability of a fact in issue must be the prime consideration (see Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257). It has been held that if a witness demonstrably tells lies, his evidence must be S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 9 looked upon with suspicion and treated with caution, but to say that it should be entirely rejected would be to go too far (see Khoon Chye Hin v PP [1961] MLJ 105). It has also been held that discrepancies and contradictions there will always be in a case. In considering them, what the court has to decide is whether they are of such a nature as to discredit the witness entirely and render the whole of his evidence worthless and untrustworthy (see De Silva v PP [1964] MLJ 81). The Indian Supreme Court has pointed out that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments (see Ugar v State of Bihar 1965 AIR SC 277). It is useful to refer to PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 where Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Highness then was) said at p 19: ‘… In my opinion, discrepancies there will always be, because in the circumstances in which the events happened, every witness does not remember the same thing and he does not remember accurately every single thing that happened … The question is whether the existence of certain discrepancies is sufficient to destroy their credibility. There is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed in its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good and cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness and to reject the other.’ In the absence of any contradiction, however, and in the absence of any element of inherent improbability, the evidence of any witness, whether a police witness or not, who gives evidence on affirmation, should normally be accepted (see PP v Mohamed Ali [1962] MLJ 257).” 31. Setelah mendengar dan melihat SP2 memberi keterangan, Mahkamah mendapati SP2 merupakan seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai. Sungguhpun terdapat percanggahan di dalam keterangan S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 10 SP2, namun percanggahan tersebut tidaklah material sehingga keseluruhan keterangannya patut ditolak. 32. Keterangan SP2 ialah beliau terus pergi ke balai polis untuk membuat laporan polis selepas beredar dari lokasi kemalangan. SP2 juga memberitahu beliau berjumpa dengan SP1 di balai polis pada malam yang sama. Ini adalah konsisten dengan keterangan SP1 bahawa beliau menemui SP2 di balai polis selepas kembali dari lokasi kemalangan. 33. Sungguhpun SP2 tidak dapat mengemukakan apa-apa bukti menunjukkan kehadiran beliau di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan berlaku, namun fakta menunjukkan SP2 telah pergi ke balai polis dalam tempoh masa kurang daripada 2 jam selepas kemalangan juga relevan untuk dipertimbangkan. 34. Sekiranya SP2 tidak berada di tempat kejadian dan tidak menyaksikan kemalangan berlaku, adalah mustahil bagi SP2 untuk l tiba-tiba muncul di balai polis dalam tempoh kurang 2 jam daripada masa kemalangan berlaku dan dapat menyampaikan kepada SP1 tentang kejadian tersebut. Mahkamah yakin bahawa SP2 ada pengetahuan tersebut kerana beliau berada di tempat kejadian semasa kemalangan berlaku. 35. Defendan berhujah bahawa tiada keperluan untuk SP2 membuat laporan penafian penglibatan di dalam kemalangan tersebut kerana FIR di dalam kes ini (m/s 30 Ikatan D) tidak menyatakan motorkar SP2 terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 11 36. FIR di dalam kes ini dibuat pada 6.9.2018 jam lebih kurang 12.03 am. SP2 tiada pengetahuan mengenai kandungan FIR ini. Semasa SP2 datang ke balai pada malam kejadian, SP2 tidak membuat apa-apa laporan polis. SP1 hanya menemubual SP2 sahaja. Walaupun SP2 berkeras mengatakan beliau membuat laporan polis pada malam yang sama, laporan polis SP2 (P4) hanya dibuat pada 8.9.20218. 37. FIR hanyalah merupakan laporan awal yang merekodkan aduan tentang sesuatu kejadian jenayah bagi pihak polis memulakan siasatan dan di dalam kes ini FIR itu berkenaan kemalangan jalan raya. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Herchun Singh & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1969] 2 MLJ 209 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Ong Hock Thye HMP merujuk kepada komentar di dalam Sohoni’s kepada seksyen 154 Indian Penal Code, in pari materia dengan seksyen 107 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “The first information report is not an Encyclopaedia. It is not the beginning and ending of every case. It is only a complaint to set the affairs of law and order in motion. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. But it cannot be said that omissions in the first information report would always be of no significance. The report is not substantive evidence and omissions in it will not ipso facto lead to the case being thrown out. “ 38. Mahkamah berpendapat, ketiadaan maklumat penglibatan motorkar SP2 di dalam FIR tersebut tidak bermaksud SP2 tidak berada di tempat kejadian dan tidak melihat apa yang berlaku. Ia juga tidak bermaksud SP2 dihalang daripada membuat laporan polis P4 S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 12 mengenai kejadian ini ataupun dijadikan asas untuk mencurigai keterangan SP2. FIR hanyalah permulaan kepada siasatan dan semasa siasatanlah SP1 menemui SP2 dan memperoleh keterangan mengenai bagaimana kemalangan ini berlaku. 39. Keterangan SP1 ialah beliau menerima arahan daripada pegawai atasannya untuk menghubungi SP2 untuk membantu siasatan. SP1 ada menghubungi SP2 untuk membuat laporan polis namun SP2 hanya dapat datang ke balai pada 8.9.2018 kerana bekerja. SP2 membuat laporan polis P4 hanya dua hari lewat daripada Tarikh kejadian. 40. Pada pendapat Mahkamah tempoh dua hari lewat ini tidaklah terjumlah kepada kelewatan yang melampau. Tambah pula SP2 sebenarnya telah bertemu dengan SP1 pada malam kejadian. SP1 menyatakan keterangan SP2 pada malam kejadian adalah sama seperti keterangannya di dalam laporan polis P4. 41. Jika diteliti laporan polis P4, dilaporkan bahawa “… semasa kejadian motorsikal tersebut telah berpusing dan hampir mengenai motorkar saya, tetapi saya sempat mengelak ke tepi jalan.” Daripada penyataan ini, ianya menunjukkan motorkar SP2 sendiri hampir terlibat sama dalam kemalangan tersebut tetapi SP2 sempat mengelak. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, adalah munasabah untuk SP2 datang tampil ke balai polis selepas kemalangan untuk menjelaskan keadaan sebenar yang berlaku iaitu motorkar beliau tidak terlibat di dalam kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah tidak mengesyaki SP2 mempunyai apa-apa “ulterior motive” apabila membuat laporan polis P4 tersebut S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 13 dan memberi keterangan kepada SP1 seberapa segera selepas kemalangan. 42. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Hong Teng Yong v Khaw Kim Seng & Anor [2010] 9 MLJ 448, 453 di mana di dalam kes ini keterangan saksi bebas yang menyaksikan kejadian kemalangan jalan raya di antara perayu dan responden diterima oleh Mahkamah kerana saksi bebas tersebut tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan mana-mana pihak di dalam kejadian tersebut dan bukanlah pihak berkepentingan di dalam kes tersebut. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan: “[5] SD2 was an eye-witness who was called by the second respondent. The essence of her evidence was that after vehicle ADH 2102 was inexplicably driven on to the other side of the road, she saw the oncoming car of the second respondent swerve to its left on to the grass to avoid it and in the process hit the motorcycle which was also on the left. Since she was driving she told her son to take down the registration number of the encroaching car. [6] At the scene of accident she subsequently gave her name, contact number and the car registration number to the second respondent who was invited to contact her if she was required as his witness. There was no evidence to suggest that SD2 was an interested party to the suit. Neither was she known or related to any party. There was hence no sustainable reason for her to concoct a story favourable to the second respondent in particular.” 43. Sama situasinya seperti kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini. SP2 merupakan saksi bebas di dalam kes ini. SP2 tidak mempunyai apa- apa kaitan dengan mana-mana pihak di dalam kes ini. SP2 tidak S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 14 mempunyai apa-apa faedah untuk mereka-reka keterangannya di dalam laporan polis P4 dan seterusnya di Mahkamah. Peguambela defendan juga tidak pernah mencadangkan kepada SP2 bahawa SP2 merupakan pihak berkepentingan di dalalm kes ini semasa SP2 disoal balas olehnya. 44. Defendan juga berhujah bahawa keterangan SP2 telah dicemari dan dipengaruhi dengan keterangan SP1 kerana SP2 berada di dalam Mahkamah semasa SP1 memberi keterangan. 45. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mohamed Nor v Public Prosecutor [1939] MLJ 305 yang memutuskan: “In this case the magistrate refused to accept the evidence of a witness because the witness had remained in court and had not retired when the witnesses were told to so. In my opinion this is no ground for refusing to allow a witness to give evidence although it may reduced the weight to be attached to such evidence as may be given.” 46. Di dalam kes ini SP2 berada di Mahkamah dari mula SP1 memberi keterangan sehingga peringkat awal pemeriksaan balas. Hanya pada masa itu kehadiran SP2 di Mahkamah disedari oleh pihak-pihak dan beliau telah diminta untuk beredar. 47. SP2 tidak mendengar keseluruhan keterangan SP1 kerana pemeriksaan awal SP1 adalah berdasarkan penyataan saksi (WSSP1) ditambah dengan beberapa soalan tambahan. Semasa SP1 disoal balas dengan Panjang lebar oleh peguambela defendan Puan Noor Fauziah, SP2 sudah tiada di Mahkamah pada ketika itu. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 15 48. Mahkamah berpendapat dalam kes ini, tiada sebab untuk Mahkamah mencurigai keterangan SP2 hanya semata-mata beliau berada di Mahkamah ketika SP1 memberi keterangan. Mahkamah telah menimbang keterangan SP2 dan telah membandingkannya dengan keterangan-keterangan lain yang dikemukakan dan berpendapat Mahkamah versi SP2 mengenai kemalangan ini adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding versi defendan dan tidak bertentangan dengan keseluruhan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini. 49. Keterangan defendan ialah beliau bergerak dari bawah ke atas di lorong A-B. Defendan juga telah menandakan “X” yang berada di lorong A-B sebagai tempat pelanggaran. Defendan menyatakan terdapat kenderaan di hadapan dan belakangnya tetapi jarak kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut adalah jauh. Defendan juga menyatakan tiada kereta berada di hadapan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C. 50. Sekiranya tiada kereta di hadapan plaintif di lorong B-C dan terdapat kenderaan di hadapan dan belakang defendan (yang didakwa jaraknya jauh) dan defendan pula sedang menunggang di lorong A-B, maka Mahkamah berpendapat tiada sebab bagi plaintif untuk masuk ke laluan defendan secara tiba-tiba dan membahayakan nyawa semua pihak yang ada. Lebih berkemungkinan sebenarnnya defendan yang memasuki laluan plaintif dengan tujuan untuk memotong motorkar SP2 pada ketika itu dan berlaku pelanggaran dengan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 16 51. Lagipula sekiranya benar plaintif yang memasuki laluan defendan dan berlaku pelanggaran sudah pasti plaintif dan defendan akan dilanggar oleh motorkar SP2 yang berada di lorong A-B ketika itu. 52. Agak malang sekali pemeriksaan balas peguamcara plaintif terhadap defendan tidak efektif dan tidak membuahkan apa-apa hasil untuk menjejaskan kredibiliti defendan. Namun Mahkamah mengambil peringatan yang diberikan di dalam kes Muniandy & Ors v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 257 yang menyatakan bahawa: “It must, however, be observed that being unshaken in cross-examination is not per se an all-sufficient acid test of credibility. The inherent probability or improbability of a fact in issue must be the prime consideration.” 53. Mahkamah berpendapat pada peringkat ini, keterangan yang ada menunjukkan versi plaintif adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding dengan versi defendan sungguhpun pemeriksaan balas terhadap defendan tidak Berjaya menjejaskan kredibilitnya. 54. Selain itu, adalah menjadi undang-undang matan keterangan senyap di dalam kes kemalangan jalan raya seperti rajah kasar, gambar tempat kejadian, kesan kerosakan kenderaan boleh membantu Mahkamah mencapai keputusannya (rujuk Chan Hon Fah v Khoo Hoon Ann [1988] 1 CLJ 791). 55. Rajah kasar P2 yang dilukis oleh SP1 merupakan rajah kasar yang neutral. Tiada sebarang tandaan kesn pecahan, darah, kesan brek ataupun kedudukan kenderaan dilukis di dalam rajah kasar. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 17 56. SP1 memberi keterangan semasa sampai di lokasi hanya motorsikal JSN 2574 yang berada di lokasi kemalangan dan kedudukannya telah diubah dari tempat asal. Motorsikal JSN 2574 boleh dilihat pada gambar P1(a-d) iaitu di sebelah kiri jalan menghala dari bawah ke atas. 57. SP1 bersetuju semasa disoal balas bahawa gambar P1(a) – (e) menunjukkan ada tompok-tompok darah di sebelah kiri jalan lorong A-B dan juga terdapat kesan calar di lorong yang sama. Namun begitu SP1 tidak melukis tompok-tompok darah dan kesan calar tersebut pada rajah kasar kerana SP1 berpendapat tiada kaitan dengan kemalangan ini. Menurut SP1, keterangan saksi menunjukkan kemalangan berlaku di lorong B-C dan bukannya di lorong A-B. 58. Keterangan SP1 ialah beliau tidak memeriksa motorsikal plaintif JSW 3454 kerana motorsikal tersebut tiada di tempat kejadian semasa SP1 sampai dan tidak dibawa ke balai selepas itu. Manakala menurut SP1 kerosakan motorsikal defendan adalah di bahagian hadapan namun tiada butiran kerosakan disenaraikan. 59. Gambar-gambar motorsikal defendan di eksibit P1(c) dan (d) juga tidak menunjukkan dengan jelas apakah kerosakan pada motorsikal defendan. Apa yang pasti terdapat kesan calar pada bahagian hadapan tetapi tayar dan mudguard hadapan masih kekal. Mahkamah berpendapat kerosakan pada motorsikal defendan tidak menawarkan keterangan yang konklusif mengenai mekanisma kemalangan. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 18 60. Mengenai isu tompokan darah pada bahagian tepi kiri lorong A-B, SP1 memberitahu tompokan darah diberitahu oleh orang awam yang berada di tempat kejadian. Tiada apa-apa keterangan dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan tompokan darah tersebut merupakan tempat jatuh mangsa-mangsa di dalam kes ini iaitu sama ada plaintif mahupun defendan. Defendan di dalam keterangannya juga tidak menyatakan tempat beliau jatuh adalah di tempat di mana tompokan darah ditemui. Defendan hanya menyatakan beliau jatuh pada sebelah kiri sahaja. Keterangan SP2 pula ialah beliau tidak pasti di mana mangsa-mangsa jatuh selepas kemalangan. 61. Kesan calar yang ditemui pada lorong A-B juga tidak membuktikan kemalangan tersebut berlaku di lorong B-C seperti yang dihujahkan oleh defendan. Mahkamah berpendapat kesan calar di lorong A-B lebih konsisten dengan keterangan SP2 bahawa selepas kemalangan di lorong B-C, motorsikal defendan berpusing-pusing dan hampir mengenai motorkarnya yang berada di lorong A-B. 62. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Foong Nan v Sagadevan [1971] 2 MLJ 24 yang memutuskan: “In my view the position of the vehicles after the accident can afford absolutely no clue, in this case, to their respective positions on the road immediately before or at the moment of collision. The vehicles could not have instantly stopped dead upon impact, but the heavier vehicle must by its greater momentum have pushed the lighter one backwards.” 63. Di dalam kes ini, kemalangan melibatkan dua buah motorsikal yang bergerak dengan kelajuan yang tersendiri. Tambah pula keterangan S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 19 SP2 ialah motorsikal defendan dipandu dengan laju semasa memotong motorkarnya sejurus sebelum kemalangan. Kedua- duanya merupakan kenderaan ringan berbanding dengan motorkar. Oleh itu, adalah mustahil bagi kedua-dua motorsikal tersebut akan jatuh di tempat di mana kedua-dua motorsikal tersebut bertembung. Sudah pasti akibat impak pelanggaran kedua-dua motorsikal akan terpelanting ke arah yang lain. 64. Mahkamah boleh membuat inferen yang munasabah bahawa kesan calar pada lorong A-B adalah diakibatkan oleh motorsikal defendan telah berpusing-pusing dan jatuh di lorong A-B selepas berlanggar dengan motorsikal plaintif di lorong B-C sepertimana keterangan SP2 melalui P4 dan di Mahkamah. 65. Mahkamah berpendapat keseluruhan keterangan kes lebih menyokong versi plaintif berbanding versi defendan dan membuatkan versi plaintif lebih berkemungkinan daripada versi defendan. KESIMPULAN 66. Di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah memutuskan plaintif telah Berjaya membuktikan keterangannya terhadap defendan. 67. Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan plaintif di dalam kes JA-B53KJ- 75-07/2020 dengan kos dan tuntutan defendan dalam kes JA-B53KJ- 79-08/2021 ditolak dengan kos. S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA-B53KJ-75-07/2020 & JA-B53KJ-79-08/2021 Alasan Penghakiman 20 Bertarikh pada 1 Februari 2024 -------------------------------- LAILAWATI BINTI ALI Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 3 Johor Bahru JA – B53KJ – 75 – 07 /2020 Bagi pihak plaintif: Bagi pihak defendan: Subashini Balaskanda Noor Fauziah binti Kadir T/n Zaman & Assoc. T/n SK Lee JA – B5KJ – 79 – 08 / 2021 Bagi pihak plaintif: Bagi pihak defendan: Gajendran a/l Toreraju Sekar Palaniandy T/n Gajendran & Assoc. T/n Sekar Gill & C. Suren S/N 63XNWpc5EOsCDMhCkglg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

TA-A52NCvC-7-02/2023

PLAINTIF DATUK EH CHAN A/L TOM DEFENDAN 1. ) AMIRA SABRINA BINTI MOHD BADRUL HISHAM 2. ) MOHD BADRUL HISHAM BIN YUSOF 3. ) AZDY FAISAL BIN MD ZULKIFLY

1. Permohonan pihak Defendan Pertama untuk ketepikan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran yang telah dimasukkan oleh pihak Plaintif adalah ditolak. 2. Serahan writ saman kepada Defendan Pertama dan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran yang dimasukkan oleh Plaintif adalah teratur. 3. Defendan Pertama tiada pembelaan bermerit serta isu-isu untuk dibicarakan.

01/02/2024

Puan Norashima Bt Khalid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fd145718-be25-4149-a52d-98ae3de5748f&Inline=true

01/02/2024 16:42:28 TA-A52NCvC-7-02/2023 Kand. 31 S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFcU/SWSUGlLZiuPeV0jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal M-A52ncvc»7-02/2023 Kand. 31 a1/n2/2b2A 16:42-29 DALAM MANKAMAN SESVEN DI KUALA TERENGGANU BALM uggzg Iggguggggy uAnyL MAN uALAv§IA §AMAN no : TA-AEZMCVC-‘I-02fl’ANUN 2023 ANTARA DATUK EH CHAN NI. TOM I no K/P1620906-03-SW1 I ...puu»ru= am 1. AMIRA SABRINA BINI1 noun SADRUL HISHAM ( N0 KIP: 911009416296) 2. MOHD EADRUL msuwa am mac: 1 N0 K1 3. AIDV FAISAL am MD ZllI.KlFI.V . ooszo-II-5229) (No m:1:ns1o.u.5z13) WDEFENDAN-DEFEMDAN [1] [1] ALASAN PENGNAKMAN lm adalih riyuan yang dlkemukakan clan pthak penayu Delendan Plnamu yanu lwdlk bervuas hall mg». kevlflusan Mlhknmah yang d1bua| pads 14 Dnsembet 2023 yang man msmlak psrmmorun perayu Deleodsn Panama sepemmana Kamzungan 1s dengan kn: manyax RM30u0.00 kuplda Plaumil Nolrs permahnnan pmak psrayu Dshndan Panama sepemmana Kandungan 16 merlmhon pennlah Mahkamall ml menuml Aluran 13 Kaedah a Kaadafvkaedah Mznkamzh 2012 seDer1Ih9nku|. 1 Kebenaran mbeukan kepada pihak Ferayu Detenaarmevenuan unluk membual pelrnulmnzn ml 2. Penghakman lngkar Kehamran yang ulperulehl cleh Pnamm terhadap Defendan~De1endan yang benankh 29 Mel 2023 dvkewankan 3. Segala pertaksanaan Punghakwman Ingkir Kehaulran hurlarikh 29 Me: 2023 awuunw-nun .emngga pundengaran uniuk mengenepiuan Penghaklman Ingkar Kenammn dlpuluskan. A Dafendnn Panama memlallkan memorandum kehadrran dan Penyavaan Pembelaan dalam tampon 14 nun. Txada sebavang hukn dlkemukakan oran pmak perayu Defendan Pamml mm mmumumn mevuku mevnpunyai pambdiln yang bermeril Iemadap nnaam Im Mahkarnah wga memiuk kes Ea:1A|ll|lc on (14) BM vn Klmnms son Bhd an maria Mahkamah |e\aII memuluskan bahawa unluk sasnalu permohonln mcngnnnolkan Panghaklmnn lngkar Kehadwmn «cu dmerima, pemamm hsmaklah membuknkln banawa dia mempunyal pembellan burmuril yang msmarlukan perhvcaraan. Pamhelaun ylng mgm dlkamuknkun nlch plhak psuyu Dulunaan Panama adalah sam pemiklran nememndian ‘allarlhaughl apama meveka m-nyatakan bahawa masks mempunyai pembelaan barman! saman Panghlalurnln mam Knhadlrnn dlmnsukkan lamadap mueka Mallkamah knrpenflapal bahawa sekiranya pihak parnyu Dalandzn mum. bsmr-bnnar mgm manyangknl mnlulan p k Plaxnlxl, mereka senammya man memasukkan kehadlran flan pemhelian mmka deugan segeva flalam lumpoh yang leiah duempkin am uuak hnnya msmhlnknn Iluln ylng n u u mnnasabah hahawa benau uaak menenma wnz saman Izersehul am man Kid AR Bemaflardilamiaiznganv olch many lam 5. Pmak parayu Dufondan Panums nag: gagll mcnuvuukknn buhlwa meveka mempunyal Isu-Isu umuk dblnarakan da\am kcs m. 6 Mlhkamnh jugn bnrpenflupnl nanm ounmlan pmax Haunt]! adalih sangan 1eIas Ierhadap pmak penyn Defendan Penama ya-ug mana mslbalkan mnnnan Dayaran semula beriumlah RM200.0D0.00 yang men dlblyar aleh pmak Pnamm unluk mlmbell kenderuan mmk Delendan Panama, apnmll pmak perayu Defendan Perlama gags! umuk memundahmlllk ksmersan canaauc kn a|a| n-ma Ptainm sebnguvmana yang lalah aupersexupn. <2 U21 Punutup Budasarkan a\asan»aLasan m mas. Mahkamah telah msmlak pelmohenan pmak Perayu Defender: Panama sebagaimana Kandungan 16 dlngun kos sabunyak RM3oon.oc kapada um Plamln Tarikh. 21 nusemoerzuza [Nmasm nu Khahd) Hakvm Mahkamah Sesyen swu. Kualn Tevlnggsnu 13 sw GFcu1swsusILzmPavn:w mm smm ...m.mm be used w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 5 Kcs bagl parmmnan vu adalan kas dilam kausa. 6. Lam-lam pomlnwrnlfl mn yang dlanggap waynr aan sewn‘ munafaal cleh Mahkamah Alasamahsan perrnohonan pelayu Davanuan Panama -daban: 1 Penghakiman lngkar Kanaauan nanankn 29 MM 2023 |evsehul auahh ndak menurul peraluran kerana Iellh dlmasuklan tcmndnp navanaan Panama bardnlrkln auku penylmomnn um yang canat dan/avau Ivdak mematum kenendak Aluran 10 Kaedah 1, Kasdah-kaadah Mankaman 2012 keranz ndak memhukllkln no pol blrdllllr lkuan flwenma nlah Dliemian Penama sendm. 2 Defmdan Fenlma mempunyal pambalaln zmmam. levdapal Isa-Iw yang pedu uumcarakan cammap lunlman Plnmm sens Defeodan Panama mumpunyai peluang dan kenumgxinan besar unluk baqayn msnenlnng Iunnnan Flnmtmewlbut Kenas-kaflas kausa yang dlnuuk .-. Parakuan Kammaauan Kandungnn 7. :2. Pnnghakuman lngkar Kehadiran Kandungzn 13 c. Nous Pamvahman Kandungan vs a Afidaml Sokongan KIndungIn17. e Afvdavil Jawapan Plainlfl Kanflungin 18. 4. Hwahan Benuus Deleodun Kandungan 21. g Hnuahan Berlulis Hainm Kandungan 22. n Hujahan Berlulis Plainm Kandungan 2a. gklun lntuhulukunu m [3] Delendan Penama becsama Decenaan Keaua yang msrupskzn hip: kenadx Defandan Panama. tslah meniual saw urm Kenderaun blriunsmu Pouch: Cayenne: vs 5 yang dwdaflarkun a. alas name Delendan Panama kepad: Plamul dengan harga berjumlah mzouooo on [4] [5] [51 Plulnm Kelan befsmuju unmk membeh kenderaan Ievsebul selelah mampercuym reprnamasl yang mbuanolen Dolmdan Porlnmn dun Deunaun Kenna bahnwn konderuun lusehul aflalah aauam keadaan ba . behas davipeda segaxa nmang aengan mama-mans mshlusl kewangin nmupun pajakan/gadaian kepada maria-mana plhak lam. Selerusnya, Plalnm lelah membuzl pemhayaran sebanyak Ruzrxmoa no kepad: plhlk Dmenam-d-rendan flan saxamsnyn mamlnla pmak Dalendan Panama momhual pmdlh nullk kendevaan Ielsebul ks mas narnanyi. Nlmun pindnh mnlik hersehul gagal dflakukan keran: menuml Deienaln-oeieodan‘ kenduraln mubul mun dipaiakkan kapada sehuah inslnusn kewangan ‘Ah Long‘. Selanpulnya, apabib pihak Plamm mgun membuat lanomn nous barkanun porkam Inn. pm-x nevanuumananu-n man mougeiuaman oak he-nu:-4 RM200.D00 no kepada P\aInIil sehaga. [3] [9| hayaran ganllan. Walau nagamumapun, uek—oek Iersebul naax dlpll dlmnllkin. Apama Pluimw nnmakmmkln kepoda Dedendnn-aefnndan bevkenaan oex-oak lersebm yang max dnunalkan, cmannan Kedua Ielah msoawarkan salu hananah mi nya map: hananan tersshul dldillarkan an alas nama Dsiundan Kelign. Defnndun Kedua secerusnya bedanp unluk membual pinaan mmx narunm levsebnl he as llama Plsnm. Waluu bagmmanaptzn‘ hananah lersebul jug! luml gagal u Indahmllik nleh Defendan-defendan kn alas nama P1ain(i1 sahmgga ke han mu. Alas alasan nu, pmak Plalnm man menunm dlripsda Deiendam dalandan bayamn bllnk beryumlih RM200.|700D0 lersebul magauum flallm «mun ml Pads 29 Mar 2023. Ptamtmelah mernasukkan Penghakvnan lngkar Kahanirin lemidap pm-ayu Defendan Panama apabila nmak pmyu Dehndnn Panama gngil mmnsumn Irahadvm saiapm IA han peneumaan wnl saman uanpma pmak Plamm. [101 [0] Fans 22 Jun 2023. pihak perayu Deiendan Penama (elah mlmasukknn permohonan im bag: mcnganaptkan Pangrukiman lngkar Kehaduan yang Ielah dlmasukkan ulah pmak Plamm (emadapnya nupaun M-munm. Sebelah menemi kenss-kenas kausa sena hujahan kenuaaaua pmzk, Mahkamah memuxuskan hahawa pnrmohonun pthak pevayu Dafandzn Fanamn dwlollk dengan kn: sebanynk RM30(lD0u kepaua Plamm. Alan"-allnn llllnklmuh 1 Penghaklman lngkar Kahadiran yang halan dvnasukkan oleh plhak Ptamm Iemadap pmnk pemyu Defandzn Panama adalah |aralu1 (rsgular) berdaurkin xuuan-xuuan Mahkamah 2012. Mznkamah man mavwuk kas Lu Kan Kae momun ool cn wm (2020) MLJII 234 yang memumskan sspem nenkur (dengm izm), ‘An Inislulal Iuayunem As on: am has been entcmd oumwisu than in slrizt zomplilncu um. um rum ormm onnnman - mun nuom In-pvoprmy which la n unous Is to mum on pmcudlnys a nullity.’ nawam was m hadapan Mahkamah im. pmak perayu Deverman Panama um mampenikalkan alamal -mm. Wm Semen kepadanya map: mampenumxan Kad AR semamar Ildak dflanma olehnya dan dllundatanqanl olsh omng lam. Namun sebagalmana yang dmujuhkln olah peguam mmmir, Delandan Panama um mangakui menaflma Pengnamman Ingkar Kehadvan yang man dihamar men Plannm kepadanya ax alamal yang sama dengsn Kad AR Bummer yam Ma flfllndalanannl nleh arang Iain Dengan memwk Aluran m Kaedah 1 Kaadah-Kandah Mahkamah 2012. 111) “Tenukluk kepada plmntukan mm-mam mang- undang bermlrs flan Kaeduh-kaadah mi. suulu wm hendaklah dlsampavkan secava kemilri kepada sellap alfendan avau dengan menghamarkannya kepada swap aotenaan melalul pas benmav Akuan Tanma yang dialamalkan ke zlamalakhlmyz yang dikelahm dan seiakal yang dapal mlaisanakan, psvmbaan plnylmpainn yung pennma msslllah dibual hduk lawa| aan salu bman danpada unkn wril nu dikeluarkan,‘ Jelas juga bahawa Aluran my max menwtakan bahavra Kad AR aenmnar peflu dlsemhkan kapzia Defemian iendvn mam memadai dengln hanyi mennhunlarunnya ke I\ama| lerakhir uerenaan yang aukeramn Jususru‘ Mahkumah barpandlpll Fnngnakiman Ingxar Kmauan yang lelah dlmasukkan cleh plhak P\ainnf Iemadap pthak psrayu Detenaan Panama adalln uraxur. Samnwlnya pihuk peruyu Dularvdan Po-uma hanyl pad: 22 Jun 202: Iailu hampn tampon satu mnan sateluh Pengnakiman lngkar gmsuxkan temadlpnyu pm 29 Mei 2023. telah memasukkan pevmuhunln im ham mmgenepuan Penghalumm mgkar Kavmanan bersebm berdasarkan Kaedan 13 Kaedah 1 Kaeaankaenah Mankaman 2012 men yang danuklan. dapat dirumuskan bahawa pihak pelayu Dafendun Panama I-Iah mangambn banyak man unluk mumbual permohonan um um um Ilnsan yang munasabah dlberikan mas kalewalannya rmmasukkan kehadlran aalam kes im selaln daripada dakwlan yang monyalakan bahlwa bellau mu mlnarrna slrvun nersemn. Pmak perayu Defendan Panama llada uemhelasn Hug bermenl a-ram lindalun mi. Danpada lama hes adalah was hanawa pmak Felayu Demman Perlama ada4aI1 pem hemamar kmdelaan di man: pembayaran beriurnhh RM2D0,DOD.D0 Iellhpun dibum ml: pmlk Pmnm kepldanya uan Delendnn-delendan mm unluk lujuan pambellan ksnfleraan |ersehI.n. namun bemkhiv dengan keadaan kenfleraan xarwaun max dapal drplndihmnllk ke um name Ptammnhinggalah Imaakan ml dlamhll

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-42H-5-02/2023

PERAYU MOHD AZHARI BIN UMAR ALI RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Rayuan jenayah - rayuan ke atas hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen;Sabitan ke atas 2 pertuduhan kesalahan masing-masing di bawah seksyen 392 dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan;Rayuan ke atas hukuman ditolak kerana tidak wujud alasan yang bermerit. Faktor mitigasi telah pun diambil kira semasa menjatuhkan hukuman oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen.

01/02/2024

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ca0bcc92-bd62-46b5-a310-ee29f7ad4472&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. BA-42H-5-02/2023 ANTARA MOHD AZHARI BIN UMAR ALI … PERAYU [830218-11-5277] DAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya No. Kes: BB-62RS-3-04/2022) ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN MOHD AZHARI BIN UMAR ALI 01/02/2024 08:02:15 BA-42H-5-02/2023 Kand. 33 S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Kes ini merupakan rayuan oleh Mohd Azhari bin Umar Ali (“Perayu”) yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan hukuman oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Hakim Sesyen”) yang telah mensabitkan dan menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas Perayu bagi 2 pertuduhan kesalahan yang mana kedua-duanya di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan setelah Perayu mengaku bersalah ke atas kedua-dua pertuduhan tersebut. [2] Hakim Sesyen telah menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan ke atas Perayu selama tempoh 9 tahun bagi setiap kesalahan tersebut dan hukuman kedua-duanya berjalan serentak yang akan bermula setelah Perayu tamat menjalani hukuman bagi kes BA-42H-13-08/2022. Hakim Sesyen juga mengenakan hukuman 3 sebatan bagi setiap kesalahan tersebut. [3] Pada 18.10.2023, Mahkamah ini telah menolak rayuan tersebut dan mengekalkan keputusan hukuman yang telah diberikan oleh Hakim Sesyen berkenaan. [4] Perayu yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini telah merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia dengan memfailkan Notis Rayuan bertarikh 31.10.2023. S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Pertuduhan [5] Perayu telah dituduh di Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya, Selangor dengan 2 pertuduhan kesalahan yang mana kedua-duanya di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama “Bahawa kamu pada 16/04/2022 jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, di No 7 Jalan BK 5B/1A Bandar Kinrara, dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati melakukan rompak terhadap penama: Panjavarnam a/p Ramasamy, KPT: 610915-10-6558 dengan merompak menggunakan senjata parang: 1. (1) rantai leher emas yang merupakan harta dalam kawalan penama tersebut. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Kedua “Bahawa kamu pada 16/04/2022 jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, di No 7 Jalan BK 5B/1A Bandar Kinrara, dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah didapati melakukan rompak terhadap penama: Kantherine Shanta a/p James Kuttan, KPT: 810501-10-6052 dengan merompak menggunakan senjata parang: S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 1. (1) rantai leher emas yang merupakan harta dalam kawalan penama tersebut. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan.” [6] Seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine or to whipping.” [7] Manakala seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan hukuman tambahan dengan sebatan bagi kesalahan tersebut jika dilakukan secara bersenjata, seperti berikut: “If at the time of committing or attempting to commit robbery, the offender is armed with or uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, such offender shall be liable to be whipped, in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Code.” (Penekanan ditambah) S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Fakta Kes Ringkas [8] Fakta kes ringkas adalah seperti mana dalam ekshibit dokumentar Fakta Kes [ekshibit P1] yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan diakui oleh Perayu. [9] Pada 14.4.2022 jam lebih kurang 18.00 hrs, semasa Panjavarnam a/p Ramasamy (“Mangsa 1”) berada di rumah, sedang bersembang tengan menantunya, Kantherine Shanta a/p James Kuttan (“Mangsa 2”), telah didatangi seorang lelaki berbangsa melayu memakai jaket sweather berwarna hitam dan berseluar jeans hitam dengan menaiki motorsikal Yamaha LC No. VDY 289 warna merah/hitam yang telah turun meluru ke arah Mangsa 1 sambil menolak sehingga menyebabkan Mangsa 1 terjatuh. Kemudian lelaki berkenaan telah bertindak mengacukan sebilah parang (lebih kurang 10-11 inci) ke leher Mangsa 1 dan terus menarik rantai leher emas (lebih kurang 3.7 gram anggaran berjumlah lebih kurang RM1,000.00 lebih). [10] Selepas itu, lelaki melayu berkenaan terus meluru ke arah Mangsa 2 serta mengacukan juga parang kepadanya serta menarik rantai leher emas yang dipakai oleh Mangsa 2 tersebut (lebih kurang 4.7 gram anggaran berjumlah lebih kurang RM2,000.00 lebih). Kemudian berlakulah pergelutan antara Mangsa 2 dan lelaki melayu berkenaan. Lelaki melayu tersebut cuba melarikan diri menaiki kenderaan motorsikal miliknya tetapi telah ditahan oleh suami Mangsa 1 yang bernama Kariappa yang menyedari kejadian yang berlaku itu. Suami Mangsa 1 tersebut telah menghubungi pihak polis dan memaklumkan kejadian yang berlaku. Tidak lama kemudian, pihak polis telah tiba di lokasi kejadian dan menahan lelaki melayu itu serta merampas sebilah parang. S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [11] Berikutan dengan kejadian tersebut. Mangsa 1 telah membuat laporan polis iaitu Bandar Kinrara Report No. 3917/22 [ekshibit P2]. Manakala anggota polis, Kpl. Mohd Hafizullah bin Awang yang membuat tangkapan telah membuat laporan polis tangkapan lelaki melayu tersebut berserta rampasan 2 utas rantai leher emas iaitu Bandar Kinrara Polis Report No. 3919/22 [ekshibit P3]. Kpl. Mohd Hafizullah bin Awang juga telah membuat laporan polis tambahan berkenaan rampasan sebilah parang tertera tulisan “TRAMONTINA MADE IN BRAZIL” dan motorsikal Yamaha LC iaitu Bandar Kinrara Polis Report No. 3920/22 [ekshibit P4] dan Bandar Kinrara Polis Report No. 3924/22 [ekshibit P5]. [12] Mangsa 2 juga telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan kejadian tersebut seperti mana yang dilaporkan dalam Bandar Kinrara Polis Report No. 4048/22 [ekshibit P6]. [13] Perayu telah dituduh di Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya pada 22.4.2022 dan tiada jaminan dibenarkan kerana Perayu memang dalam tempoh tahanan reman bagi kes yang lain. Setelah beberapa kali kes ditetapkan bagi pengurusan kes (case management), akhirnya pada 8.2.2023 Perayu telah menukar pengakuannya dan mengaku bersalah ke atas kedua-dua pertuduhan tersebut. Setelah menerima pengakuan salah Perayu dan pengakuannya kepada dokumen-dokumen pendakwaan yang dikemukakan iaitu ekshibit P1 hingga ekshibit P16 serta setelah mempertimbangkan faktor-faktor mitigasi serta pemberatan, Hakim Sesyen yang bijaksana telah mensabitkan Perayu ke atas kedua-dua pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [14] Hakim Sesyen telah menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan ke atas Perayu selama tempoh 9 tahun bagi setiap kesalahan tersebut dan S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 hukuman kedua-duanya berjalan serentak yang akan bermula setelah Perayu tamat menjalani hukuman bagi kes BA-42H-13-08/2022. Hakim Sesyen juga mengenakan hukuman 3 sebatan bagi setiap kesalahan tersebut. Prinsip Undang-Undang Di Peringkat Rayuan [15] Mahkamah ini dalam mendengar rayuan ini berpandukan kepada prinsip undang-undang sedia ada di mana mahkamah di peringkat rayuan seharusnya mengambil pendirian untuk tidak mengganggu keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh mahkamah perbicaraan melainkan ternyata keputusan tersebut mempunyai salah arah dan tidak menurut undang-undang ini. [16] Di dalam kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. PP [1981] 1 MLJ 83 Raja Azlan Shah LP (menyampaikan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan) telah menjelaskan: “…Therefore sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court’s interference. For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion…” (Penekanan ditambah) [17] Seterusnya dalam kes Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP [2002] 3 CLJ 457, Haidar Mohd Noor HMP (menyampaikan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan) telah menyatakan di muka surat 494: “It is of the upmost importance to stress here that the appellate court will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence passed by the lower court is manifestly inadequate or excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed or that the court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence.” (Penekanan ditambah) [18] Mahkamah juga mengguna pakai prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Usman Jumasan v. PP [2016] 1 LNS 1457 melalui penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan yang disampaikan oleh YA Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, HMR (pada ketika itu) yang mana turut membicarakan isu yang sama dan diperturunkan seperti berikut: “[10] The basic principles governing the role of an appellate court in an appeal against sentence are well settled. In exercising its jurisdiction to review sentence an appellate court does not alter a sentence on the mere S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 ground that if it had been trying the case it might have passed a somewhat different sentence. It is only when a sentence appears to be wrong in law or is manifestly excessive or inadequate having regard to the facts and circumstances that an appellate court will interfere.” (Penekanan ditambah) [19] Berpandukan kepada prinsip-prinsip di atas, Mahkamah ini agak keberatan untuk mengganggu keputusan oleh Hakim Sesyen tersebut melainkan sekiranya terdapat kesilapan dalam menjatuhkan hukuman tersebut atau bercanggah dengan undang- undang sedia ada serta sekiranya hukuman yang dikenakan terlalu berlebihan atau teramat rendah (manifestly excessive or inadequate). Hujahan Perayu [20] Peguam Perayu dalam hujahan bertulisnya telah menghujahkan bahawa hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan terhadap Perayu adalah “manifestly excessive”. Menurutnya lagi, terdapat prinsip-prinsip dalam menjatuhkan hukuman telah gagal dipertimbangkan dan diambil kira oleh Hakim Sesyen. Adalah dihujahkan bahawa Hakim Sesyen telah mengambil faktor pemberatan melebihi faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu. [21] Peguam Perayu menghujahkan bahawa mahkamah perbicaraan perlu mengambil kira segala faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu seperti berikut: S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (a) Perayu pada masa kejadian berumur 39 tahun; (b) Perayu bukanlah penjenayah tegar; (c) Jenayah yang dilakukan adalah akibat tekanan kewangan kerana bergaji RM1500; (d) Perayu menyara bapa dan 6 adik beradik; dan (e) Perayu merupakan sole bread winner keluarganya. [22] Peguam Perayu juga menghujahkan bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan bukanlah penyelesaian kepada masalah jenayah. Menurut peguam Perayu lagi, hukuman pemenjaraan yang lama hanya merugikan negara kerana Kerajaan Malaysia terpaksa menanggung makan dan minum sepanjang tempoh pemenjaraan. Sepanjang Perayu menjalani hukuman penjara di Penjara Kajang, Perayu telah benar-benar kesal dan insaf di atas perbuatan yang dilakukan. Hujahan Responden [23] Secara umumnya, Responden menghujahkan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana tersebut adalah setimpal serta berpatutan dengan kehendak undang-undang, yang tidak sepatutnya diganggu oleh Mahkamah ini. [24] Pihak Responden menghujahkan bahawa alasan-alasan yang diberikan oleh Perayu dalam rayuan ini merupakan faktor kepentingan peribadi Perayu sendiri dan bukanlah merupakan satu kepentingan awam, S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 yang mana menurut Responden faktor kepentingan awam perlulah terlebih dahulu dipertimbangkan berbanding kepentingan peribadi. [25] Pihak Responden juga menghujahkan bahawa Hakim Sesyen telah mengambil kira bahawa Perayu sedang menjalani hukuman bagi kes yang lain iaitu BA-42H-13-08/2021 bagi kesalahan ‘gang robbery’ bersenjata di bawah seksyen 395 dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan. Oleh yang demikian, tiada sebarang kekhilafan oleh Hakim Sesyen dalam memerintahkan hukuman bagi kes ini bermula setelah Perayu tamat menjalani hukuman bagi kes yang terdahulu. [26] Pihak Responden turut menghujahkan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Sesyen tersebut adalah memadai dan setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan menurut trend hukuman yang diputuskan dalam kes-kes terdahulu. Tambahan pula dalam kes ini melibatkan 2 mangsa yang berbeza. Dapatan Mahkamah [27] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti Alasan Penghakiman Hakim Sesyen yang bijaksana tersebut khususnya dalam muka surat 15 hingga 20 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1 yang mana telah memberikan alasan-alasan kepada hukuman yang dikenakan. Budi bicara Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman [28] Hakim Sesyen yang bijaksana telah menggunakan budi bicaranya dalam menentukan hukuman berdasarkan fakta kes yang dikemukakan. Perayu dituduh dengan 2 pertuduhan kesalahan yang mana kedua- S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 duanya di bawah seksyen 392 Kanun Keseksaan dan dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan. Berdasarkan peruntukan-peruntukan kesalahan tersebut, pesalah boleh dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan maksimum 14 tahun dan boleh dikenakan sebatan. Kepentingan awam [29] Dalam kes ini, suatu hukuman berbentuk pemenjaraan yang panjang adalah perlu untuk menginsafkan Perayu untuk tidak melakukan kesalahan jenayah pada masa hadapan dan dapat kembali semula ke pangkuan masyarakat dan keluarga. Hukuman ini juga akan menjadi pengajaran kepada Perayu dan juga kepada masyarakat awam bahawa hukuman berat akan dikenakan ke atas kesalahan rompakan bersenjata. [30] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati bahawa mitigasi Perayu tidak dapat mengatasi faktor kepentingan awam. Hukuman yang dijatuhkan haruslah sepadan dengan jenis dan keseriusan sesuatu kesalahan tersebut. Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah ini haruslah menjatuhkan hukuman yang bukan sahaja mencegah Perayu daripada melakukan kesalahan yang sama di masa hadapan tetapi pada masa yang sama mencegah masyarakat daripada melakukan kesalahan seumpamanya. Hukuman yang setimpal [31] Hakim Sesyen juga telah menyatakan dalam Alasan Penghakimannya bahawa tempoh pemenjaraan selama 9 tahun dan 3 sebatan untuk setiap kes tersebut lebih bersifat punitif kepada Perayu yang bukanlah seorang pesalah kali pertama. Sebelum keputusan hukuman oleh Hakim Sesyen, Perayu juga telah didapati bersalah bagi S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 kesalahan di bawah seksyen 395 dibaca bersama seksyen 397 Kanun Keseksaan. Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dalam kes BA-42H-13-08/2021 di mana diputuskan di peringkat rayuan bahawa keputusan hukuman dipertingkatkan lagi (enhanced) daripada hukuman 3 tahun penjara dan 1 sebatan kepada hukuman 7 tahun penjara dan 3 sebatan. [32] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Sesyen ke atas Perayu tersebut adalah setimpal dan wajar dengan mengambil kira kesalahan lampau dan melibatkan 2 mangsa dalam kes ini. Itu pun Perayu masih lagi bernasib baik apabila Hakim Sesyen memutuskan bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan bagi kedua- dua pertuduhan kesalahan ke atas Perayu adalah berjalan serentak (concurrent). [33] Justeru, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa keputusan dan perintah yang diberikan oleh Hakim Sesyen tersebut pada menjalankan kuasa budibicara beliau adalah wajar dan munasabah serta berlandaskan undang-undang. Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa kesilapan atau salah arah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman tersebut serta hukuman tersebut bukanlah suatu yang ‘grossly excessive’. [34] Berpandukan kepada kes kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. PP (supra), Mahkamah ini tidak akan mengganggu keputusan hukuman yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut pada menjalankan kuasa budibicara kehakimannya semata-mata untuk Mahkamah ini berpandangan supaya dikenakan hukuman yang berbeza. S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kswLymK9tUajEO4p961Ecg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

B-01(A)-873-12/2022

PERAYU Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Bill of Demand under Section 38 Sales Tax Act- Whether Appellant is exempted from paying sales tax of the goods under the Sales Tax (Persons Exempted from Payment of Tax) Order 2018 [PU(A) 210/2018]- Schedule C, Exemption Order 2018.

31/01/2024

Dato' Dr. Choo Kah SingKorumYA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyYA Datuk Azimah binti OmarDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=804f0b2d-420d-449b-9c01-f701442ddb95&Inline=true

Page 1 of 28 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-01(A)-873-12/2022 ANTARA HONG LEONG YAMAHA MOTOR SDN BHD PERAYU DAN KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA RESPONDEN ```````````````````````````````````````````````` 31/01/2024 15:31:25 B-01(A)-873-12/2022 Kand. 42 S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 28 [Dalam Perkara Mengenai Permohonan Untuk Semakan Kehakiman BA-25-112-10/2019 Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam perkara suatu Keputusan Responden seperti yang dinyatakan melalui bil-bil tuntutan yang kesemuanya bertarikh 30.9.2019 di bawah Sekyen 38 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018; Dan Dalam perkara Sekyen 35 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 mengenai kuasa untuk mengecualikan dan membayar balik cukai jualan; Dan Dalam perkara Jadual C, Perintah Cukai Jualan (Orang Yang Dikecualikan Daripada Pembayaran Cukai) 2018; Dan Dalam perkara suatu permohonan untuk antara lain, suatu Perintah Certiorari; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Antara Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd Pemohon Dan Ketua Pengarah Kastam Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia Responden] ```````````````````````````````````````````````` S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 28 [Dalam Perkara Mengenai Permohonan Untuk Semakan Kehakiman BA-25-139-12/2019 Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam perkara suatu Keputusan Responden seperti yang dinyatakan melalui bil-bil tuntutan yang kesemuanya bertarikh 27.11.2019, 28.11.2019, 3.12.2019 dan 4.12.2019 masing-masing di bawah Sekyen 38 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018; Dan Dalam perkara Sekyen 35 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 mengenai kuasa untuk mengecualikan dan membayar balik cukai jualan; Dan Dalam perkara Jadual C, Perintah Cukai Jualan (Orang Yang Dikecualikan Daripada Pembayaran Cukai) 2018; Dan Dalam perkara suatu permohonan untuk antara lain, suatu Perintah Certiorari; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Antara Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd Pemohon Dan Ketua Pengarah Kastam Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia Responden] ```````````````````````````````````````````````` S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 28 [Dalam Perkara Mengenai Permohonan Untuk Semakan Kehakiman BA-25-5-01/2020 Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam perkara suatu Keputusan Responden seperti yang dinyatakan melalui 2 bil-bil tuntutan yang bertarikh 16.12.2019 di bawah Sekyen 38 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018; Dan Dalam perkara Sekyen 35 Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 mengenai kuasa untuk mengecualikan dan membayar balik cukai jualan; Dan Dalam perkara Jadual C, Perintah Cukai Jualan (Orang Yang Dikecualikan Daripada Pembayaran Cukai) 2018; Dan Dalam perkara suatu permohonan untuk antara lain, suatu Perintah Certiorari; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Antara Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd Pemohon Dan Ketua Pengarah Kastam Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia Responden] S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 28 CORAM S. NANTHA BALAN, HMR AZIMAH BINTI OMAR, HMR CHOO KAH SING, HMR GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Decision delivered on 30.1.2024) S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 28 Introduction [1] The appellant, Hong Leong Yamaha Motor Sdn Bhd, was the applicant in three judicial review applications at the High Court. The three judicial review applications were consolidated on 28.2.2020. On 24.9.2020, the High Court granted the appellant leave to proceed with the consolidated judicial review application. [2] The appellant in the consolidated judicial review application sought for an order of certiorari to quash the decisions of the Director General of Customs (“DG of Customs”) who had decided to impose sales tax (“the impugned sales tax”) on various motorcycle components (“the goods”) which were imported and purchased by the appellant to be used in its manufacturing of motorcycles below the engine capacity of 250 cubic centimeters (or 250cc) (“the appellant’s finished goods”). On 6.12.2022, after having heard the arguments of the substantive judicial review, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s application. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellant appealed before us. The Salient Facts [3] The three diagrams below depict the respective Bills of Demand issued by the DG of Customs and the respective taxable amounts which led to the appellant filing the three judicial review applications at the High Court to challenge the decisions of the DG of Customs. No. Date Bill of Demand Amount (RM) High Court Judicial Review 1 30.9.2019 13,351.77 S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 28 2 30.9.2019 134.03 BA-25-112-10/2019 (JR 112) 3 30.9.2019 8,327.99 4 30.9.2019 30,527.49 5 30.9.2019 620,463.10 6 30.9.2019 607,936.19 7 30.9.2019 548,660.67 8 30.9.2019 7,612,708.49 9 30.9.2019 9,593,966.29 10 30.9.2019 7,301,392.29 TOTAL: 26,337,468.31 No. Date Amount (RM) High Court Judicial Review 1 27.11.2019 31,366.87 BA-25-139-12-2019 (JR 139) 2 28.11.2019 19,174.06 3 28.11.2019 20,363.63 4 28.11.2019 5,240.04 5 28.11.2019 89,993.00 6 3.12.2019 10,924.72 7 3.12.2019 35,621.06 8 3.12.2019 9,487.80 9 3.12.2019 22,794.95 10 3.12.2019 15,501.61 11 4.12.2019 157,002.28 12 4.12.2019 273,238.73 13 4.12.2019 120,614.30 14 4.12.2019 620,438.75 15 4.12.2019 178,505.64 TOTAL: 1,610,267.44 No. Date Amount (RM) High Court Judicial Review 1 16.12.2019 2,963.51 S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 28 2 16.12.2019 8,103.92 BA-25-5-01/2020 (JR 5) TOTAL: 11,067.43 [4] The DG of Customs relied on s. 38 of the Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] (“STA 2018”) to issue the Bills of Demand. Section 38(1) of the STA 2018 states as follows: “38 Payment of sales tax, etc., short paid or erroneously refunded (1) Where – (a) the whole or any part of any sales tax due and payable, surcharge accrued, or penalty, fee or other money payable, under this Act has not been paid by a person; or (b) the whole or any part of any sales tax due and payable, surcharge accrued, or penalty, fee or other money payable, after having been paid, has been erroneously refunded to a person, the Director General shall demand from the person to pay the sales tax, surcharge, penalty, fee or other money, or the deficient sales tax, surcharge, penalty, fee or other money, or to repay the refund erroneously paid to him.” [5] The DG of Customs decided that there was sales tax due and payable by the appellant for the goods imported by the appellant during the period between September 2018 and June 2019. The DG of Customs opined that the Sales Tax (Persons Exempted from Payment of Tax) S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 28 Order 2018 [PU(A) 210/2018] (“the Exemption Order 2018”), which the appellant had relied on to be exempted from paying sales tax on the goods imported by the appellant, was not applicable. [6] In the exercise of his powers conferred in s. 35(1)(b) of the STA 2018, the Minister of Finance made the Exemption Order 2018. The Exemption Order 2018 has been in force since 1.9.2018. [7] Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Exemption Order 2018 state as follows: “2 Exemption from payment of sales tax (1) Subject to paragraph 3, the persons specified in column (2) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C are exempted from the payment of sales tax on the goods specified in column (3) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C subject to the conditions specified in column (4) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C. (2) The persons specified in column (5) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C shall produce to the proper officer of sales tax or the registered manufacturer, as the case maybe, as provided in sub-subparagraphs 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii), a certificate in the form as determined by the Director General and signed by the specified persons. 3 Extent of exemption S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 28 The exemption referred to in paragraph 2 shall be granted in full in respect of the goods specified in column (3) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C unless otherwise provided in the conditions specified in column (4) of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C.” [8] The relevant Schedule in the Exemption Order 2018 is Schedule C, particularly Item No. 1. It is instructive to note that Item No. 1 of Schedule C, particularly column (4) Conditions, was recently amended via the Sale Tax (Persons Exempted from Payment of Tax) (Amendment) Order 2022 [PU(A) 380/2022] (“the Exemption (Amended) Order 2022”) which came into force on 1.1.2023. [9] Before column (4) of Item No.1 of Schedule C was amended, the then column (4) of Item No. 1 of Schedule C read as follows: JADUAL C / SCHEDULE C (1) Item No. (2) Persons (3) Goods Exempted (4) Conditions (5) Certificate to be signed by 1. Any registered manufacturer Raw materials, components and packaging materials excluding petroleum (a) That the goods are approved by the Director General; (b) that the goods are imported or purchased from another registered manufacturer or a warehouse licensed under section 65 of licensed manufacturing warehouse under 65A of the Customs Act 1967; (c) that the goods shall be used solely in the manufacturing of finished goods [emphasis added] of the person mentioned in column (2); (d) that the person mentioned in column (2) shall pay the sales tax on any goods that cannot be accounted for; Registered Manufacturer S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 28 (e) any other conditions the Director General deem fit to impose. [10] The appellant contended that the goods under column (3) of Schedule C that it had imported ought to be exempted from payment of sales tax because they were used in the manufacturing of finished goods of the appellant company. The appellant further contended that para (c) of column (4) Conditions stated clearly that “the goods shall be used solely in the manufacturing of finished goods [emphasis added] of the person mentioned in column (2)”. It did not state the finished goods has to be finished taxable goods. When the appellant applied for the sales tax exemption certificate for the goods it had imported, the Customs authority issued Exemption Certificate to the appellant. However, the Exemption Certificate was issued subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions (“condition No. 3) stated as follows: “3. The raw materials, components and packaging materials shall be used solely in the manufacturing of finished taxable goods [emphasis added] of the registered manufacturer;” [11] The DG of Customs contended that the appellant’s finished goods, i.e., motorcycles below 250cc, were non-taxable finished goods, as such the condition No. 3 was not fulfilled. In this circumstance the DG of Customs submitted that the appellant’s goods under column (3) of Schedule C were not qualified to claim exemption of sales tax. [12] The position taken by the DG of Customs is that the exempted goods in column (3) of Schedule C were meant for goods intended to be S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 28 used solely in the manufacturing of finished taxable goods, and were not meant for manufacturing of non-taxable finished goods. The Decision of the High Court [13] Before the High Court, one of the issues raised for determination, which is the crux of the appeal before us, was as follows: “Whether the DG of Customs has any legal basis to impose additional condition by limiting the term “finished goods” under the Sales Tax (Person Exempted from Payment of Tax) Order 2018 [or the Exemption Order 2018] to only referred to taxable finished goods.” [14] The reasons for the decision of the learned High Court Judge are found in the following paragraphs of her Judgment (Reported as [2023] 1 LNS 111): “[27] The argument put forth by the applicant is that the word “taxable” before the words “finished goods” does not appear in the Exemption Order (item 1 Schedule C). It was therefore argued that the finished goods were not taxable. [28] Respectfully, this court cannot agree with this contention. In the considered view of this court, the Exemption Order must be read as a whole, including together with the Act from which it derived its powers from. Section 35 of the Act is the enabling provision of the Exemption Order, allowing the Minister to legislate the Exemption Order. S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 28 [29] In this regard, this court agrees with the argument by the learned Senior Federal Counsel who made reference to sections 2, 12 and 13 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act read together with section 12 of the Act, a ‘registered manufacturer’ is one who manufactures ‘taxable goods’ who is liable to be registered under section 13 of the same Act. [30] In the considered view of this court, the applicant was well aware that the Exemption Order stated finished taxable goods. In the even [sic] the goods were not taxable, there was no necessity for the applicant to register for tax exemption under the Act. [31] Moreover, item 1 Schedule C allows the Director General to impose other conditions as the Director General deem [sic] fit. Therefore [sic] this court is satisfied this ground is without merit.” The Findings of this Court [15] It can be distilled from paragraph 29 of the learned High Court Judge’s judgment that since the appellant was engaged in manufacture of goods (as defined in s. 2 of the STA 2018) and was liable to register with the DG of Customs as a registered manufacturer under ss. 12 and 13 of the STA 2018, therefore, the “finished goods” in para (c) of column (4) Condition in Schedule C must necessarily to mean to refer to finished taxable goods. S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 28 [16] Sections 12(1) and 13(1) of the STA 2018 state as follows: “12(1) The Minister may, by order published in the gazette, determine the total sale value of taxable goods for the purpose of registration of any manufacturer under this Part.” “13(1) Any manufacturer who is liable to be registered under section 12 shall apply to the Director General for registration as registered manufacturer in the prescribed form not later than the last day of the month following the month in which he is liable to be registered as referred to in paragraph 12(2)(a) or (b).” [17] We observe that there are two qualifications for a manufacturer to be liable to be registered as a registered manufacturer under the STA 2018. First, the manufactured goods must be taxable goods. Second, the total sale value of the taxable goods must have exceeded the amount of total sale value of taxable goods as determined by the Minister for such manufacturer to become liable to be registered. [18] The first qualification for a manufacturer to be liable to register as a registered manufacturer under the STA 2018 is indeed that the finished goods must be taxable goods in nature. However, in the present case, the counsel for the DG of Customs admitted that the appellant is a registered manufacturer under the STA 2018, and yet, that the appellant’s finished goods, i.e., motorcycles below 250cc, are non-taxable finished goods. S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 28 [19] The High Court’s reasoning vis-à-vis the fact that the appellant was a registered manufacturer, therefore, the finished goods in Item 1 of column 4 Conditions of Schedule C must be referring to finished taxable goods could not justify as to why the appellant was liable to register as a registered manufacturer when the appellant’s finished goods were non- taxable finished goods. On this score, we are of the view that the learned High Court Judge’s reasoning is flawed. [20] The appellant was registered under the STA 2018 because it had satisfied both the qualifications. It is possible for a registered manufacturer to manufacture both taxable finished goods and non-taxable finished goods. For this reason, it is legally comprehensible for the appellant to be registered as a registered manufacturer under the STA 2018, and to be also manufacturing non-taxable finished goods. Therefore, focusing on ss. 12 and 13 of the STA 2018 as the reason for the appellant to be liable to pay the sales tax was not justifiable. The mere fact that the appellant is a registered manufacturer could not satisfactorily determine the question whether the term in para (c) of column (4) Conditions – “…finished goods…” only referred to finished taxable goods. [21] Para (c) of column 4 Conditions of Schedule C of the Exemption Order 2018 did not state “finished taxable goods”, it clearly stated “finished goods”. [22] The learned High Court Judge presupposed the appellant to be fully aware that the “finished goods” referred to in the Exemption Order 2018 referred to “finished taxable goods”, otherwise, the appellant would not S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 28 have to register for tax exemption under the STA 2018. In our view, this presupposition is erroneous. [23] In the first place, the certification of sales tax exemption under the Exemption Order 2018 was not for the finished goods. The certification of the sales tax exemption was for exemption of the sales tax with respect to the “raw materials, components and packaging materials and manufacturing aids” which were imported and meant for the manufacture of the appellant’s finished goods. [24] All imported goods (be it finished goods, raw materials, components or packaging materials) are liable to payment of import tax, sales tax and/or any other taxes as prescribed by the law (see s. 8 of the STA 2018) unless they have been exempted. In this instant case, the appellant paid the import tax and sought exemption to pay the sales tax. Therefore, the certification for exemption of sales tax was meant for the imported goods which were for the manufacture of finished goods. The certification for exemption of sales tax, therefore, would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the finished goods must be finished taxable goods. [25] The learned High Court Judge in paragraph 31 of the judgment opined that “item 1 Schedule C” (presumably referring to para (e) of column (4) Condition) allowed the DG of Customs to impose other conditions as the DG of Customs deemed fit. As such, condition No. 3 was legally imposed by the DG of Customs in the Exemption Certificate. [26] The diagram below depicts the different wording between the Exemption Order 2018 and the condition No. 3 attached with the Exemption Certificate: S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 28 Exemption Order 2018 para (c) column (4) Condition Condition No. 3 that the goods shall be used solely in the manufacturing of finished goods [emphasis added] of the person mentioned in column (2) The raw materials, components and packaging materials shall be used solely in the manufacturing of finished taxable goods [emphasis added] of the registered manufacturer [27] The difference in the wording between the Exemption Order 2018 and the condition No. 3 is printed in italic. The critical part difference is use of the terms “finished goods” and “finished taxable goods” (highlighted in bold) which is the crux of the contention in the appellant’s appeal. [28] We are of the considered view that the learned High Court Judge erred in accepting that para (e) of column (4) Condition could empower the DG of Customs to have such vast power to change the wording in the Exemption Order 2018 by rewording them as in condition No. 3. [29] Para (e) of column (4) Conditions – states as follows: “(e) any other conditions the Director General deem [sic] fit to impose.” [30] We are of the considered view that although the DG of Customs was permitted to impose any conditions, the conditions imposed must be other than those conditions which have already been stated in column (4) Conditions. It stated clearly “any other conditions”. Hence, the DG of Custom has no power to add or remove word(s) in those conditions which S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 28 have already been stated in column (4) Conditions in Item No. 1 of Schedule C. Schedule C was a Gazette Order and has been passed through proper legislation. If there is any change, it has to be done through proper legislation too. [31] The DG of Customs could not impose an additional condition by limiting the meaning of the words “finished goods” to mean “finished taxable goods”. The former carries a very different connotation from the latter. “Finished goods” means finished goods, be it taxable or non- taxable. The insertion of the word “taxable” after the word “finished” and before the word “goods” brings a limited meaning to the original words of “finished goods”. Therefore, we could not agree with the learned High Court Judge that the power granted to the DG of Customs could extend to changing the original words, or adding word(s) into the original words, in Schedule C. This prohibition is more so when the modification would lead to a substantial change of the meaning. [32] If the Drafters intended the words “finished goods” to mean “finished taxable goods” in Item 1 of Schedule C, they could have done so like in other parts of the Schedules. The words “finished taxable goods” were used in Item 5 of Schedule C. The words “taxable goods” were used in Items 35 and 66 of Schedule A as illustration. It was held that “Parliament does nothing in vain, the Court must endeavour to give significance to every word of an enactment, and it is presumed that if a word or phrase appears in a statute, it was put there for a purpose and must not be disregarded” (see Foo Loke Ying & anor v Television Broadcasts Ltd & Ors [1985] CLJ (Rep) 122, p. 125, Supreme Court; see also Krishnadas A/L Achutan Nair & ors v Maniyam A/L Samykano [1997] 1 MLJ 94, p. 100-01, FC). S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 28 [33] Going back to the issue for determination before the High Court, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the DG of Customs had the power under para (e) of column 4 Condition of Schedule C to exercise his power to impose additional condition by limiting the term “finished goods” to only finished taxable goods, in other words, the counsel for the respondent had indirectly admitted that the word “finished goods” could also mean non-taxable finished goods, otherwise, why would the DG of Customs exercise his power to impose an “additional condition” by limiting the impugned term. [34] On 15.10.2018, the Ministry of Finance issued a letter (“the MoF’s letter”) to the then DG of Customs Y. Bhg Dato’ Sri Subromaniam Tholasy to inform that the then Minister of Finance’s decision in agreeing to approve exemption of sales tax to companies which held franchise for manufacturing vehicles locally for vehicle components that was imported or purchased from local registered manufacturer or licensed warehouse. The relevant part of the letter stated as follows: “2. Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa YB Menteri Kewangan selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 35(3)(a) Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 bersetuju meluluskan pengecualian cukai jualan kepada Syarikat pemegang francais kenderaan pemasangan tempatan atau mana-mana orang yang bertindak bagi pihak Syarikat pemegang francais tersebut ke atas komponen kenderaan yang diimport atau dibeli dari pengilang berdafatar tempatan atau Gudang berlesen di bawah Seksyen 65 atau Gudang Pengilangan Berlesen di bawah Seksyen 65A, Akta Kastam 1967, tertakluk kepada syarat berikut: S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 28 i) Syarikat yang diluluskan oleh MITI bagi permasangan kenderaan (Lampiran A), atau mana-mana orang yang bertindak bagi syarikat tersebut; ii) Kompenen kenderaan yang dimport atau dibeli secara tempatan, tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat di Lampiran B; iii) Komponen kenderaan dihantar ke kilang Syarikat pemasang kenderaan kontrak untuk digunakan secara langsung dalam proses pemasangan kenderaan; dan iv) Tempoh pengecuailian berkuatkuasa satu tahun mulai 1.9.2018 hingga 31.8.2019. 3. Berhubung pengecualian cukai jualan di perenggan 2, Menteri Kewangan di bawah Seksyen 35(3)(c) Akta Cukai Jualan 2018 memberi kuasa kepada Ketua Pengarah Kastam untuk membuat pembayaran balik cukai jualan yang telah dibayar bermula pada 1.9.2018 hingga 2 minggu selepas Tarikh surat kelulusan ini. 4. Surat Kemeterian Kewangan rujukan (C)0.225/38(4) bertarikh 26.9.2018 adalah DIBATALKAN.” [35] The appellant was one of those approved franchise holders in “Lampiran A” for the category of motorcycle. The appellant relied on this approval by the Ministry of Finance to seek exemption of payment of sales tax for the goods for the purpose of manufacture of its finished goods. The MoF’s letter did not limit or specify the finished goods must be finished taxable goods. [36] A right for exemption of paying sales tax for the goods imported was accorded by the Ministry of Finance for the period from 1.9.2018 to 31.8.2019. Therefore, this right could not be modified by the DG of Customs at his whim by qualifying the plain language used in the MoF’s S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 28 letter and the law. Notwithstanding that, even if there was a doubt or ambiguity, then such doubt or ambiguity “must be construed in favour of the tax payer”. In National Land Finance Co-operative Society Ltd. v Director General of Inland Revenue [1993] 4 CLJ 339, p. 344-45, the then Supreme Court held as follows: “There are ample authorities to show that Courts have refused to adopt a construction of a taxing Act which would impose liability when doubt exists. In Re Micklewait [1855] 11 Exch 452 it was held that a subject is not to be taxed without clear words. We realise that revenue from taxation is essential to enable Government to administer the country and that the Courts should help in the collection of taxes whilst remaining fair to tax payers. Nevertheless, we should remind ourselves of the principle of strict interpretation as stated by Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v I.R.C. (supra): …in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used… It has also been said by the Judicial Committee in Oriental Bank Corporation v Wright [1880] 5 AC 842, 856 “that the intention to impose a charge upon a subject must be shown by clear and unambiguous language”.” [37] The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Minister (the Ministry of Finance), DG of Customs and relevant Customs Officer had S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 28 deposed six affidavits to explain the reasons as to why the appellant was not entitled to tax exemption under Item 1 of Schedule C of the Exemption Order 2018. The counsel for the respondent also referred to and relied on paragraph 5(4) of the Exemption Order 2018 that the Minister is the determining body to decide whether the appellant was liable to the sales tax imposed or otherwise. We could not agree with the respondent’s counsel on the reliance of paragraph 5(4) of the Exemption Order 2018. Paragraph 5(4) of the Exemption Order 2018 states as follows: “(4) If any question arises as to whether any particular goods are or are not included in the class of goods subject to exemption, such question shall be decided by the Minister.” [38] The above paragraph refers to dispute over the class of goods subject to exemption in column (3) Goods Exempted of Schedule C, it does not deal with the meaning of “finished goods” in column 4 Conditions of Schedule C. The respondent’s counsel has misconstrued the application of the said paragraph. Insofar as the goods sought for exemption of sales tax under column 3 Goods Exemption of Schedule C was concerned there was no dispute over whether they were or were not included in the class of goods for exemption. Hence, the explanation and deposition in those affidavits attempting to explain the purpose and object of the Exemption Order 2018 that finished goods meant only finished taxable goods could not aid the Court to interpret the words “finished goods” in the manner as the DG of Customs intended them to be. [39] In Palm Oil Research and Development Board Malaysia & Anor v Premium Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd & anor appeal [2005] 3 MLJ 97, p. 108, the apex court decided that purposive approach to statutory S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 28 interpretation applies to all statutes including taxing statues after the Interpretation (Amendment) Act 1997 (Act A996) came into effect on 25.7.1997 which inserted s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948/1967 which states: “In the interpretation of a provision of An Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.” [40] Although the apex court has pronounced that purposive approach of statutory interpretation could extend to taxing law, when the impugned word(s) is clear and unambiguous, like in the present case – “finished goods”, then the Court is duty bound to apply the plain and literal meaning of the words used in the Exemption Order 2018. This Court need not rely on the purposive approach of interpretation such as in Palm Oil Research and Development Board Malaysia. In that case, the ultimate issue was whether or not the subsidiary legislation, i.e., the Palm Oil (Research Cess) Order 1979, which provided for the levying and collection of cess by the appellant from palm oil millers in respect of both crude palm oil and crude palm kernel oil was ultra vires the parent Act - Palm Oil Research and Development Act 1979. In our present case, there is no such conflict between the parent Act (STA 2018) and the subsidiary legislation (the Exemption Order 2018). [41] The Minister of Finance exercised his power under s. 35(3)(a) of STA 2018 to issue the MoF’s letter, and s.35(3)(a) of STA 2018 states as follows: S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 28 “(3) The Minister may, in any particular case and subject to such conditions as he deems fit – (a) Exempt any person or class of persons from payment of the whole or any part of the sales tax which may be charged and levied on any taxable goods manufactured or imported;” [42] From the MoF’s letter, the conditions, as the Minister deemed fit to impose, did not qualify the exemption of sales tax for imported goods must be for manufacture of finished taxable goods. In other words, the MoF’s letter could also cover exemption of sales tax for imported goods used for manufacture of non-taxable goods. The MoF’s letter was issued specifically for the manufacturers of the automobile industry. Perhaps this was an incentive given to a specified group by the Government to promote the economy of the automobile industry in 2018. [43] After having considered the plain language used in the Exemption Order 2018 and the exemption of sales tax accorded by the Minister in the MoF’s letter, this Court is convinced and satisfied that the words “finished goods” in Item No.1 para (c) in column 4 Condition of Schedule C could not be limited to only finished taxable goods. [44] As alluded earlier, if the respondent’s counsel concedes that the DG of Customs was exercising his power to impose additional condition (in condition No. 3 of the Exemption Certificate) by limiting the finished goods to finished taxable goods, this simply proffers two things. First, the meaning of the term “finished goods” must include non-taxable finished goods in the first place, otherwise, why would there be a need to impose S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 28 additional condition to qualify or limit the meaning of “finished goods” in the second place. Second, it is possible that the DG of Customs’ action could have prompted the legislature to amend the Exemption Order 2018, particularly Item 1 column 4 Conditions of Schedule C via the Exemption (Amended) Order 2022 (PU(A) 380/2022). The present paragraph (c) of column 4 Conditions of Schedule C reads as follows: (4) Conditions (a) …; (b) …; (c) that the goods shall be used in the manufacturing of finished goods of – (i) taxable goods; or (ii) both taxable and exempted goods of the person mentioned in column (2); (ca) …; (cb) …; (cc) …; (d) …; (e) …. [45] The present Item 1 of Schedule C of the Exemption Order 2018 is clear in that the manufacture of finished goods has to be finished taxable goods or finished taxable goods but have been exempted from sales tax. The latter finished goods will enjoy zero sales tax. In the event before the amendment to para (c) of column (4) Conditions of Schedule C, the words “finished goods” was meant to be finished taxable goods, then there is no reason for the legislature to make the amendment in 2022. S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 28 Summary [46] In the final analysis, this Court finds that first, we could not agree with the learned High Court Judge’s reasoning because the emphasis on ss. 2, 12 and 13 was incorrect and the approach adopted by her Ladyship in coming to her decision lacked analysis of the law in order to determine whether the words “finished goods” were limited to only finished taxable goods. [47] Secondly, the words “finished goods” in para (c) of column 4 Conditions of Item 1 of Schedule C could mean both non-taxable finished goods as well as finished taxable goods. The words were clear, unambiguous, unqualified and plain enough to be given a literal interpretation. It is not necessary to apply the purposive approach of statutory interpretation because there is no ambiguity of the meaning and the application of the law. [48] Thirdly, the ambiguity arose because of the DG of Customs’ act of qualifying the impugned words by limiting them to mean only finished taxable goods. This Court could not agree with the respondent’s counsel that para (e) of column 4 Conditions of Schedule C could empower the DG of Customs to impose “additional condition” (as per condition No. 3 in the Exemption Certificate). Any condition imposed has to be other than the conditions already stated in column 4 Conditions of Schedule C. The DG of Customs could not add or change the words in Schedule C, neither could the DG of Customs impose additional conditions over the conditions which have already been stated. If there is any change to the wording of Schedule C, it has to be done by proper legislation, such as via the Exemption (Amended) Order 2022 (PU(A) 380/2022). S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 27 of 28 [49] Fourthly, the MoF’s letter supports the appellant’s contention in that the MoF’s letter did not state that the manufacture goods have to be finished taxable goods. Although the Ministry later clarified (in a letter dated 8.5.2019) that it was for taxable finished goods, this could not change the fact that the words used in Schedule C were “finished goods”. [50] Finally, the amendment to the Exemption Order 2018 bolsters the contention that the meaning of the original wording in Schedule C column 4 Conditions was not limited to only finished taxable goods, otherwise, there was no necessity to amend the Schedule C in 2022. Conclusion [51] For the reasons as stated above, this Court, in a unanimous decision, allows the appellant’s appeal. This Court orders that the reliefs sought in the appellant’s Notice of Hearing of Application for Judicial Review, particularly paras (1)(a) and (b) be allowed. This Court further order that the Order of the High Court dated 6.12.2022 be set aside. This Court also order costs of RM20,000.00 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. -sgd- (CHOO KAH SING) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Date: 30.1.2024 S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 28 of 28 Counsel(s) for the appellant: S.Saravana Kumar (Yap Wen Hui with him) Messrs. Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership Counsel for the respondent: Liew Horng Bin (Senior Federal Counsel) (Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahman, SFC and Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin, SFC with him) Jabatan Peguam Negara, Putrajaya S/N LQtPgA1Cm0ScAfcBRC3blQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

MA-43-1-01/2024

PEMOHON MUHAMMAD RIDZWAN DAMIRI BIN NAJLI

Application for Revision - section 86(2) Child Act 2001 - child charged with offence of murder - certified suffering from mental illness - child initially detained at psychiatry ward - Magistrate made consequent order for child to be detained in Sg Udang Prison pending disposal of case after observing child is stable - Issue: whether Magistrate was correct in ordering child to be detained a Sg Udang Prison albeit separated from adults - Held: (a) Magistrate erred in making order for child to be detained at prison; (b) prison is not a place of detention appointed by Minister under the Child Act; (c) detention of child in prison is illegal; (d) ffailure to take into account interest of child as provided under the Act; (e) failure to comply with requirement of section 86(2) of the Act - Application allowed: order substituted with order to detain child at Hospital Permai until disposal of case.

31/01/2024

YA Tuan Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b0dc85d2-f2e0-4253-8f91-e3dcd2d3f91b&Inline=true

31/01/2024 08:18:42 MA-43-1-01/2024 Kand. 6 S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0oXcsODyU0KPkePc0tP5Gw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—a3—1—o1/2024 Kand. 5 um/2224 cs-13-:12 IN THE PDGH coum OF MALAVA A1 MELAKA cm INAL REVISION ND: MAJ:-1-01IZ024 BETWEEN AREAEWAH BINYI ZAKARIYA APPLICANT AND PUBLIC PROSEDUTOR RESPONDENT [In Thu criminal Ma mm Court :1 Layer Knroh. M-Iaka criminal on: No: MA-l445~fl7I1D23] Ealwun Publil: Pmucutor v MRD GROyNQ§ QE JUDGMENT MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT [1] ms .5 an application for revwslon ov an ardev made by me Magwslrale on 26 12 2023 roman dwectmg the detainee who us sw u.x=mmunm.mw5r,.. mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm a mmur, to he reminded at Ihe Sungai Udang Pnaan, Me1aka pending further nraeeeemgs In the case ms Appncatmn Is mada by way ava 1anar daled 29 12 202:1 (‘App|IcalIm‘) BACKGROUND [2] MRD (‘Detamee‘) was arrested on 17 1 21223 tonne suswclon 04 cnmrmlung ma onanca of murder under sumon sou o1 the Penal Code lor causmg the death at ms younger sibling, MHD a1 mar 1am11y name A1 the me me oflenoe was commrlled me Daalnee was 14 years M age vmilsx me vvctlm was 9 yaara old He was charged ul ma M:g1s(rale com 4, Aver Karon under one number MA—84-45-07/2023 [31 On 17 72023111. Mngmlrsle made In order under sectvon 342 (5) 01 Ina Cnmmal Procaauve Code (or ma Detamee to be damned lav observalmn a1 a psychlaluc hospnal He was detmnad at HoapnaIPerma1IorlI~e full panod aflhrue months 25 aHowad under mac pmvnsmn and by the end of man pound a Psychiatry Medwcal Repun aaxaa 11 10 2023 was saved by Iha attandnng Faycnyanm DrJohar1b1n Khanus (‘Repon‘) apphcaucn lur revlsxm lo the Hugh cam and secondly. such apphcafian may be made by new InPPV.Munn1BIn uanu JanisAnor[199s]JML1 1va;{1n9s]1 cL.IuI1mecoun hem - “Them an many ways m which me anerman 0/ me mgr: com page may be drawn to cases when) aocmans made nu ma subordmala mums may haw In be Iivlscd mraugn newspaper reports olcaus‘ through terms by members or (he publu: or by aggnaved names 0! by than /prawns, mmugn raquasls by n-agrstmles oquagas al the sessions com lor revision 0/ ms oocrsaons they had made, and lhmugh formal appocarions me me one filed by the brolnerollhs deceased ' [15] The Apphcallon vs merevore validly made and brought to the amencmn owns Conn [vs] II has been held by mdvcnal preoedentlhal nolwmhslandmg : emu vs charged for an oorenoe punishable wnn aeam he or she us enzmeu to specill care‘ protection‘ renammamn and saleguards nmvldefl under the An In Nguyln Daln Milan V. PP & OM07 Appuls[201l] uuu mo; um) cuu 1551;121:151 1 ms 15B.!lhe Court or Appeal held A u sm naxcsuuyunxwuvcnwssn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [17] "[421 A perean, who I: prayed ar presumed m be under mo ago ol 13 years, shall only be lived fvr an onence In a Court For Cm/dren excepl arrences pumsname mm death Evan .1 Hus person rs charged m an offence punishable mm death, he or she Is a/so enm/sd to the special care, prurectron, rehabrmhbn and salsguams pmwaea I.» m me cw Act [43] Therarors me two stage mvesuganon should as named out at the ssmsst m the cnmmel pmeeeamgs to delemwre whether he or she IS a cmld as defined to ensure mar rms cmld snafl be prawded mm the specral care‘ protecnon, rshahi/rtslion and safeguards mmugnour me cmmnar pmcsedings natwttnslandtng mar (ms person has been chargsdlaran onence punrshable wrth deem " Hewevev, Section 34 (3; of the Act pmmes mat where we child I: charged cor murder e« omer grave enme, me emu cannot be released an bend . 13) The Court For Cmldren before whom a cm/:1 ns brought shall inqmre mm me case and unless- (.; the charge is one of murder or other grave DIYVHGI (D) II is necessary m the best Interests of the child arrested (0 remove mm Irom assoaemm with any undesrnab/s psrsor-1,0! [13] (0) the Cow! For cnuaran has mason ru beneve me: me release :3! Me mud would agree: me ends I)! JMSDCB, the noun For Cmldrsn shall rslease the sink! on a bond, wnn orwnnom smeues. far such amount as MIL m mo apwon oltha Caun For cmmrun, seems me attendance of that cnua upon me heanng ol the charge‘ bmng executed by ms parent or guannan or other naspansmoe person.“ When a child is non released an bond undev section 34 um wmm awamng malthen (PB Gmld SPVEH be bmugm lo 3 plam of detention as pmmuea under Seulon as ov me Act n :5 neugary at mus junuure 10 QNB some anarman la the meanmq New 0! detention used VII Samar! 55 Section 2 G7 the Ad slalas Illa! I place M delemwn ws any place established or apoolnled under Section 58 and muaes a police s1at\on, pohoe can in look up separate or aplfl fmm Idufl uffundzrs Semen 53(2) slates (hi! a chm man ovdmanly be remanded m custody In - place of uenenuon established or appotnted under ms Act and swfualai m we same Slit! In whuch rs lllullld the Caufl Section 5811) prwvldes that the Munster may by nouficaman m me Gaxetle, esmbnsn or [191 [20] appamx such places o1 delermon as may be reqmred fvr me purposes of ms Act Therefore, where a mod Is darned ban, he or she can only M detained -I 1 place of detenlmn lppamlsd by me Mlnlstuv under the Act smoe a pnsm (aalnly I3 nota plaoeofdexenuon appmmad by me Mmiscer under Sealer! 58 oHheAc1.l|1edeIenl\un 07: child m prison pemmg incl 01 ms or my ::I:.e|slha1aVoveHIega\ ti for reason of menm mndllicn‘ n 15 um vracvcabla mu m. child to be held In a place of detention. seanon ea 11) (c) empowers Iha coun For cvmaxan In detain mm m a mental nospm . "11) // .2 omld havmg baen arrested and whale swamrrg m'a/ helm a cam Fnr Chrldmn »s not released undersedron 84‘ me Coun‘ For Children befure whom the cm/-1 rs bmugmsmslv cause mm to be de(amer.1 m a place ofn1s¢entran pmwded under (ms Ac! mm! he can be brought before the Court having/unsdumon um/ess we own For cmldrsn cemfiss ma! - (a) it is rmpraclrcsb/9 to do so: (DJ he is 0/ so unruly or daprsvsd a chalader that he cannot be safely so dezamed. or (c) by mum: at me mm a! ham: or 17! his mom! or bodily condlllon rt rs mam/tsab/e saw to delam mm (2; mm, ms circumstances rererrea In rn paragraph mm, ID) 01(5) , the Court Fai Ch//dren shall have me power to arderma cm m be detained - (5) m 5 pence stslron, pa/me cell or police /ock-up, separate or apart Imm aaurt aflenders, or (b) in a mum! hoaplml, as me case may rsquus (3) If an order Ior derentrorr /n a mental hasprtal rs made under subsection (2), Chapter XXXIII of the CrlrmIva/ Procedure C0116 shall apory wtlh such mourncamms as may be necessary ' [21] Now rt rs run a disputed that an the date the nfienoe was aueged lo ruve been oammmad me Dexarnu was 14 years old and merafura a “cmId' aooorumg |o Section 2 M the An am ml! me 15 sm naxcsunyunxvkuvcnwssm mm. smm n-uhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum vmm [22] [23] Deuarnee smiers (mm a senous mania! health oandllron known as scmzophrema which reqmres medical care and anenuen Thrs com had perused me Mimnas of Pmoeedmgs befora me Magrsmne on the I3 10202:, 21 1r2uz:an¢2e122o2a On 13 10 2023 Connie! car the Derarnee scugm ca move me Cmmlo apwy the requlremenls ol Secnon as ofthe Act and not dawn the Detainee m a prison «scurry The Magrsrraxe opined mar n was nut pnurcabh lur ma Datamae to be damned an me pence sraucn nar n a pmbalmn rmsrer and therefore he was ordered re be detained at the Fsychlalry Ward cf Hosmtal Me|aka In accordance mm secuun as 11) 1:) av me An A new menrran date was men ma on 21 H 2023 pandmg camprmn of me past-manem report [or the case On 21 112023019 Magrstrare was rmrmeu by came! for mu Detmnee mar me Devamee had shown some Impruvements amer reoamng memes: care -rm supamsbcn :1 me Psychmry ward, Hospital Mellka There was a need rm me Deumae to mmam an ma psychralry wurd so mar ms progress In reeewmg zreamrencwru not be mlarvupled The Magmrare [hen exlzndad me earner order Var me Dclalnee lo remam m we cuaody and care of Hospnal Melaka A newmermon dale on 2612 2023 was man fixed to also allow far we mmpleuun of me post manem report and sums: repon m ma use [241 On 25 12 M3 me Maquacma was sumflarly warmed by Couniel that there wai pmgmis In the Italtmenl of mo Deulnae and am In the Inlerell M the Deans: as I child, Ilia onmmuahon 0! his deqermnn at me psychiulry ward, Hospnaw Me\aka was des4rab4e The Minutes av Pmceedmgs show that me Magwsvale made an ohservamnn lrum me Baum mu ma Detainee I: name and «or that much he was ordered to be dellinefl at (he Sungiw Udang Pusan and that he be separated «mm -nun pnsaners Ennis cammmad by the Mag mag; [25] Nuw‘ had ma Magwsuan delved Inlv seaiana 2 55, 54 and as an me AC1: mu: lurlhev she womd have mm: as discussed eavhar, lhlta prison Is not a pllca o1 demnluon appamled by me Mlmslu wnn a mu: mare Inveslngamcn she wauk! have also learn! that pursuant to FL|(Ej 2661201! me Mnmsler had appmmed sekmah [26] [17] Tunas Bakfl Sunga: Leveh‘ Malska as a place of detennon wnn effect ham 1 January 2011 Se. 1 me Detainee was not . chfld oonnng wrthln any oi me anuamns Irsled wn Section 5611) of the An, he should be owe-ea Ia he detained at Sekulah Tunas Baku Sungal Levan, Melaka pendmg «unnar proceedings nu ma case Since he is amucted with a cemfied mental condimn‘ man he should nave Innead been maced In a mental hosmlal as require under sacuon 36(1) (:1) and cedalnly nm m any puson. whether or nouns pnaon can Cale! to ma separamun at children from auun onanaers In INS Court 3 vwew Ihe Magistrate IVSO TEN Into furlhev snar when she formed an opvuon an (ha lfala u? the Dslameds manuw cundnlon merely based on 3 supedIc:a\ ubservauon 01 the Detainee .n Court and on Counsel's svaxamanumm ma Bar that me Detamee was respondmg posmvely In meamax cave am altentncn wnemer m not me Detainee was an m be cakan out of me psyuruany ward or Hospital Mellka .a not a mails: to be decided merely based on I supe11\r:II\ abservatmn by the Com but based on an exam manna! assessment and opmmn [28] panicuxany were me mental sandman Is as sanous as Schlxophtema The Minutes 94 Procsedmgs snow that (her: wls a lalluru by m- Magistrate la nppracnalulhe purlIcularII\ed\ca\ conmucn am me mental, emaxiunax Ind pIrysI::a\nsk: on the onus: flhe s waned m a prison anwonmemeven wlseparamd from aauu uwemens Aurnmsdly, lhe Maguscrane was not alven ma benefit of mamng me man memcal report dated 23 12 2023 and the recommenaauons made. but a snow mt have been want for me Mawslv-Ila to annapate possmze risks to «many males: anannon (hal 15 required by mm mm the mental and emotmnal anxmy and stress on a chvld who is deulnsd m a pnson em/Irunmem. reversal ordefenarmlon no ms mental canamun me swim, at prison slafl ma omcms lo devnle sutflclsnl Iflurmun In ch\ld aemmees, negalwe mnuenee at am onenaers m a pnsm and even risk cl physmal abuse Vn ems Coon’: vxem mere was a iaflura by Ina Magistrate to we affea la the spwm 01 me Act as amp\y can on! m us Pleamme — [29] “RECOGN/ZING svsry cmrd rs cnfiflod to pmloction Ind nuisance In alrcireunrstancas wrmour rsgani to drscrrrclrorr al any kind, sucor as race, colour, sex, language‘ Ielrglon, social ongm ar prryslcal merrral ar smalmnal msaormres or any other status .' than a ma who is damned permrrrg lnal must he accordad wrm all pralecuon and Isanslance Is lcund In In: Carwennon ml the Rights of cum: 198910 wmch Malaysia rs a party smce17 2 1995 (cm; The cat: mucaxas mil me aezemrnrr cl a mud should only be used as a measure al a last resort The United Nauorrs Mlmrnum Slandam Rules lor lhe Admlnlslvalion M Juvenile Juslrce (‘The Belnng Rules‘) 1985 calls an member scales to ensure Ihal luvemles undev dewmarr pendmg mal shall be kept separate hum adults arra shall he delalnsd m a separate Inslmmcn or In a separate pan ofan msmulvnn also holding adults While In cusloayr Jwemles shall raoelve care, plmecllun and all necessary Indlvldual assistance — social, educanorral vacauonal, psymaloglml. medical and physlcal - ma! may may requrre m mm ol lhelv agar sex and personallly [4] [5] The Report concluded Ihat - 4:) me Decamea was suuenng Ham a mum Illness knwn as Scmzophrem: which Is cnaraczenzeu by psymam that Includes hallucmuuns and delusions‘ change: m bsnavmr and detenuramon In psycnosnual mnchnns, (b) at me lime me aflence was uomrmlled ma Delimee was of unsound mmd ana mcapibh 0! knowmg the nature ov ms act ur out ms nu ha oammmea was wrung und ugamsl me law, and (c) he Is In to stand max and capame or makmg ms delence at me me the vepurl was made When the bass came up var menmon agu an 131ozu23 Ceunse\ Vurme Detainee sougmlur an alder lhat me Detainee be plaued under the care aflhe psyduatry ward ail-1osp«a\ Melaka in that he could cormnue Io veoetve madlcal anenhan and care Thai apphcannn was anuwea on the hams mm ms Sungal Udang Pnsan mum nul calevior mmor remand prisoners When me ease up var menhan agam on 2x 11 zazame Magistrate allowed me [301 mu. n womd be the duty 0! a cam Io apply the An havmg m mmd me up-m -nu oluecmva of me law so mm ma em I! accorded wvih me pmeman and ‘us! treatment man he or she deserves Placmg a emu m pnson would only expose me cm In cnnunal onmanunanun wmeh will be demmamal to his emunonax and mom‘ gmmh Every oppunumty mama be gwen, whet: pemmea by\aw,1orlhe mm to he waned In an envwonmenl mu mu encourage healing at the mud. 5pm! and may and to be pnneexed mun men and harmim ucndmons and mmuenees ma: will nmy mm mm or her mm hardened dohnquems ma m/eMuaHy cnnunals [31] The Fedevil coun In the case cf Tan Sri Eric Chi: Eng Hock v. pp 12007) 1 CLJ se5;[zoa71 2 nu 101,-120071 1 AMI? as referred with approve! me decision m Ku Iznam bin Ku Adnan v. Public FmucIIIor[1B98) 2 CLJ 956; (1993) 5 ML./ no where n was nu: me: me ‘alyacr ole rsvrston »s In canlel upon comma! courts a mu ol palemal or supervrsovy julisdtctmn, m may to Carmel miscamage of/ustrce alfs/ng fvom mtscanuephorl :7! km irregularity cl procedure, neglect or pmper pracaunons u: 11 sm nuxcsunyunxwuvcntvssm mu. sum n-nhnrwm .. u... w my u. unmmuly em. dun-mm VII muue pm awamnf harshness or treatment, which has resulted m some IVIIWY (0 Inc dua rnnmlenance DI law and ONE! of In some undeserved nerdemp m mnirwduals The judge’: duly rs In sat/sly himself as In the conecmess, Iegnlny orpmpnery olany finding sunlonce or older, recorded 0! passed and as lo the rpgulanly al any pmeeedmge ol such mlenar mun ' [32] Having heavd me Aapncemon and c:refiuHy cansmenng me lams‘ (his cum findalhat m|sApphcal\on Is a m and pmpar use where Ihls cums powers at yewsmn snousd be exercsed m 1-voranne Detameelo oorrecla rmsapprehensson olthe Vaw and facts by me Magwsuane and the In|us1Ice and nardsmp caused on lhe Deaalnee Thus com cannel renews on us duty to ensure um jusuce Vs admimslemd m eonmmxy wnn me tenets 01 me llw, lfl (ms case the cmld A-:1 DECISION [331 In the exercise ul the powers ol revision 01 ms com, the order av the Magistrate dated 26122023 mac dvecled mm In be detained an the Sungal Udang Pnsun IS hereby set aswde [341 In accordance wan Ssdxon ssuuc) and mg) of the Act that veqmres a cum: mm a mental condmanlo be detained m a mental hospwlal, me Demnee ws hereby: ordered Ia be detained al Hciputnl Penna. may Bahm unm disposal ol ms case /¢w'\\~zm§,L MIOHD RADZI aIN'Aai:ui.'nAM|n JUDGE HIGH COURT MELAKA Dated (ms 31“ January 2024 PARTIES A1 ms HEARING: Fa the gggncam Encik Auk Zakn am Abdm Km Khabek Awang & Assacwales Amlorales A somus No 59-3, Thad F\uoL Block E Platinum Wank, No 2, Jalan Langkawl 53300, Selavak, Kua\a Lumvur For me Respg-den: Tuan Muhd Nabilsm Bin Mahd Rash Deputy Pubm: Prnsecutov Melaka State Legal Adviser's Ofioe Wxsma Persekuluan‘ UNI Pendakwaan Ansz, Jalan Busmess any Banflav MITC 75450 Aye! Kerun Melaka 2; sm naxcsDDyunKPkuPcnw5:'m m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm I51 Detamee la nsmmn In the care at Hosplw Mewaka until the next menuon dale on 26122023 On that date counsel Oor me Detainee seugnt In extend the ovderlor mm ta remam wn the care or Haspnal Mehlka so am he can oonnnue In recerve Dmper rmdxcal care and amenmn smce he ma shown some umpmvemems In ms mental common unmea afgvannng ma extension, the Magistrate having observed the Demamae‘s Impmvement ordered Inr mm to be rsminded II the Sungal Udlrlg FVVADH and that he bu separated from adult pnsonens The De1amee's mother who Is one Apphcanl here man made me Application seeking to move «ms com to exercise us rewsxnnary powers to set aside and substmne me Mag|slrane's Order with an order that me Detainee continue to be m the custody and care ai me Psycmalnc wam‘ Haspnal Melaka or allsmllwaly at Haspnal Parmal. Johor Ealvu -mm d\spusa\ at this case In eccomnoe wnn seam E6|2](b)o1|he Child Ad 2001 (Ann THE APPLICATION [81 In her Application me Appncann sets nu! ma voumnna nmn reasons In wshfy ma Iemng was and suhsmulion onne omer Yhey are - (a) that (he Deaamee vs a mmov wnn a senous manta! neann eundmcn who req-mes eonstam care and snenuun wvthln a supervised medical lacmy‘ (:2) a pllson Iaamy cannot pravide such medu;a\ supervision, (e) «have Is no odazuzne separauon o1 miner and adult remand detainees In pnscn and (his exposes me Deaamee w survnundmgs man may be coumer-pmaucuve In the Deaaunen uemmenl and pmgress (:1) the Magmraxe leH umo error when sna rauea to conswdev me DeIaInee‘s carmnuous need lor supervised ueatmem and anmmlslrallon ui meamnes wmnn a med\ca\ (acuity: 5 sm n.x..un,unm.pnnpss.. mm. smnw ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm wa muNG pm [91 (ey ma Maglstrzte wen Into error man she made the Order merely based an n supertucm ohseNa|mn onha Delamee cundmon In court, mm (0 me Magssuate leH mo errov when she failed Io apprecwate me requuemems 0! Section e612)oflhe Act In suppomngthe Appncauon, ma Aupllcanl submitted mm-scoun ma men media! report dated 26122023 swgned by Dr Nor Azwanl Che Vusnfl Psychiatry Spemallsl at me cnna and Adolescent Psycmalry unu Psychiatry and Mental Heann oepann-em. Haspnar Mekaka In mat report the specmhst wongly recommended lol me Detalnse lo be momlored wnlmuenmy m In: psycrualry ward malead a! prison ler ch: (allowing reasons - (a) me pauanx needsto be mannered smcuy «or any we mm sud‘! K chest pain, palpttahan, hypulensxan, mlesnrm ubwucllen or sewzure to clozapme, a type :71 medium adrmnutemd to those who don! ralnond W9“ (0 other annpsychnlncs and who lend to have Iggressncn‘ ({7} ma Dararnee was very sensmvalo rrrumpla meorcamns and he run dsvalaped apnsndes of low blood pvessuns max required urgent Imewermanr (c) them we concern mat any madrca4 nraatmam responses In pnmn lnr ma swdo adlacts M Cmnpme mzy be dmayefl ll'| absence 0! ready mecrmx swan and doctors, (d) the Dauarneers psycnonc syrrrmarrrs 8£DBL:aHyde\us1on can be cnggeroa Ind womanad rn strssslul sduahcnl and merama regular asaeumanls or psyaronc symptoms need In be done by named doctors I! lust woe my and (9) mar: rs a neod ior (he Deramaa in be mvowed In mwe rehabmlallon acuvma: by me Occuplllonnl Therupy Taim In lhe rruspnax ward dnlly Ia Vmprave his mgnmve mnman arm soaal skms no; The Respondent ma non opoosa rm Apphczhnn Gwen me status or ma Delamee as a rumor am Inkmg mm consruaranon ma mania! Health rssuee, the Respondent agreed Inalnwould be more conswstenl wnm secnon as of the Act for me Delamea to be phased under me custody and superwslan at a mental nospnal vnstead of a prison POWER OF REVISION [111 The power 01 revwswon by me mgr. cm are found m Semen 31 of me court of Judwcalure Ac! 1964 and semen 325 ufllwe CFC - .<:.o_unm_.lns:mmu.An :1. Ruvivion o1 crimwul wounding: nlluhovdiluln mm rm mgn Conn may emmu wuers M mvlwm m unwed av wmmal pmmamgs And mum m Iuhmdmlla nuunl m aemvdmee mm any lnw lot lhe ume mg m Imus mama to crvnmal procedure m :25. Puvan at Justus on nmion my A Judge may m any case the recmd L71 ma pmoeamngs M when has been clflsd for by mmsen av Much a|hemue mm: on m xnowiedae .n ms dvmemn :1-ems: any 01 me pawns mnvfevved by lemons an 315 316nnd3I7aHmsDade n sm naxcsunyunxvkuvcnwssm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (2; Na my mm mm xewun shall be rude m we plqudlne 94 me Deumee urflaii he nas had nn oppanumly m bung mam, euher pumauy urhy advocate In M: mm delawe My Nommg m (ms secnnn mu be damned m Iulmmxe 2 Judge «a cnrwerl aflnflma at auqunul mm on: wioonvwctmn” [11] Abdul Hamid CJ (as he then was) In the supreme coun case 0! Lin! Kwlf Wlh v. Public Pro.Iacular[19l7] 2 Mu 69,- [1907] cu R-a us‘ described the duly afl the High court In axelcwsmg us ravumnary powers as voIIuws:- "Duty nINiglI com Basmaliy, me duly has wvm me man Cam to :9: ms: the crlmmal law rs pmoeny aammrslemd by an trvlwornoufl n. um: fluly .5 m um, mmaelf .. m n.. camntvnrs my-My w pvnans!yullr1yfindmg,sonlancaaImmr, .mu.aw....a.»a.. m (M mmmy 9: any pmceedmgs aw. mrolmrmurv wm, Iurnullnco, . wnwciedpersonnass4.vupubasnb;edronIomvoAwlIvs[unsdmhma7aH:qh cm enlreranaquesmrvolfiegalxtyulomuwcmnmznurdlawnuncvmlflv u. nwvvrdmn or ..me..c., m. M... mm :0 call for and ,.m.. on. mm mm . VIIW m axtrcmmg m. m.a,...y pawn la mrnnl . mscnmsau 0111451199“ 9 sm n.x..uu,uum.p=mpss.. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [121 In me an quoted decwsmn m Public Prosocutor v. Kuluinynm mm] 1 MLJ 2s.-mu] 1 uvs m, Hashim Veep Sam J (as he then was) stated the IOIVOMHQ an the power: 0! a noun m a revxsnon — ‘The powsrs ofma Mm Com! m mvmon are nmpty pmvvdod under: 325 oflhe Cnnuna! Plocsduva Coda sulzrect on/y Io sub-5501) and M nmwv ma onpclolrevtstovlarypawgrs am. my. cum 5 up Donfevupun the W cm . ma .1 -p.».,m.1 m supamsnzy ,mmmn- m am In outrun! or prevent . mmcampgs of /when In . nvnwrv me mum quustron to be rxanstdersd A8 whelhersubaranlnauustvw his bun dam or Wm M; done and vmellrer any order made by me kawsl cm should be mleflered wrlh m the mm: DI/usbze - DELIEERATIONS av ‘runs COURT A ncananmau 1: [141 Although me last that nus Appucaman Is brought on ms ner-aw by I115 mmner I! VIM In msue raised by Fames, this Court wlll Just bnelly lunch on the manner hr the sake 07 cornweleness Fvslly, K has been held m Raslan am Ha/'1‘ my. v. PP[19c5] 1 ML! 215,- mu] cuu 94;[19u]1 LNS 94 and PF v. Mohd. snmri B/n Ibrihlln flilfl Z CLJ 5.78,‘ [1935] MLJU 138 mi! I person who Is not a party to me cnmmal pmoeedmgs can mnkem :0 sm naxcsuuyunxvkuvcnwssn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-45A-64-08/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN KASIM

Perbicaraan jenayah atas dua pertuduhan iaitu mengedar dan memiliki dadah- mengedar dadah seberat 62.35 gram jenis Methamphetamine si bawah S.39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952)- dan memiliki dadah seberat 2.25 gram jenis heroin dan monoacetylmorphines di abwah S12(2) ADB 1952-tempat kejadian di Taman Impian Emas Skudai-OKT memandu Perdana Hitam melarikan diri dari kenderaan polis- kejar-mengejar berlaku selama 3o minit- selepas kereta berjaya dihentikan-OKT cuba melarikan diri, bergelut serta bertindak agresif- dadah-dadah dijumpai di dalam bag yang disandang di badan OKT- Pendakwaan berjaya buktikan kes melebihi keraguan munasabah- pembelaan gagal mewujudkan keraguan- OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan- dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan bagi pertuduhan pertama dan tiga tahun penjara bagi pertuduhan kedua.

31/01/2024

YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=086d581b-5c52-450d-baee-9c3282b041b7&Inline=true

31/01/2024 12:08:03 JA-45A-64-08/2019 Kand. 96 S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G1htCFJcDUW67pwygrBBtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal .n—45A—s4—ua/2019 Kand. as 31/01/202; 12:02-nu DI MAHKAIAAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL TAKZIM PERBICARAAN JENAVAH N0: JAASA-64,65-05/2019 PENDAKWA RAVA LAWAN MUMAMAD SVAFIQ am KASIM ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pnnganalan [1] Terluduh man dlluduh mengedar dadeh sahaml a2.35 gram [ems Mathmnphelamina di bawah 5 3DB(I)(a) Akin Dndah Berbahayu 1952 (Ann) flan dlhawah 512(2) ADE karma mamilnki 2 55 grim Heroin clan Monoaeecylmmprunas [2] Fsrluduhamperluduhan lemadapnya auaran sepem berikul: pemmm. Panama 'BuMwn kamu pada n 1 am: [am new kumm; 7 Wmalam, berlamplmlleol plan Bum lmruln u. Ynmnn Inwun Emu shun aw mam Dmvah Johnv aanm, .1. G-nhm Neaemlahernaml mm, mm: nunnedlr am» B-nanny: mm Methamphetamine sabeul :2 35 gram, «man nu karnu mun mulakukan saw kanlahan fllbawah selsyen aesuxay Akta Dmah Marbahaya1952 din bolehdmukum dlhawnh pskryen assay we yang samn' x 5 Pmuduhan Keflun -am». kumu pa. :1 uzmusm wean kurnng 7 Dnmulam‘ benemnnl an upx Jnlln am lmptm a, Taman Imvlln Emu skm a. anl-m Duran Jnhnr mm, a. damn Newer! Jehw amw nmm, |elnn mmmu. am» nensamyn lam: Hermn an Mumaoeaymmmm uburzl 2 55 mm am dangan nu kumu nan» malakuknn um kasalahan mbawm seksyen 12(2) M11: Dadan Memanaya 1952 an men dmukum fllhnwah Iahsyen asmp Akta yang lam: [3] on akmr kes psndakwaan, says memuluskan bahama pihak pendakwaan beqaya membukvikan kes puma lacie alas kedua-due perluduhan ks alas Ierluduh dan hellau mpanggu unluk membela din. [4] memanggu dua (2) my Iw-m pembelnn yang mm D: akhlr kes Tenuduh ma un|uk memben kaxerangan harsumpah am pembelaam sayu menflapali Iefluduh gngax mengakls angglpln m bawah :37 (da] am mamsnya gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabeh Kemadap kes pandekwaan. Maka dipuluskan bahuwn pendakwaan Isiah benayn mambukmkan kas melampl keraguan munasabah. [51 Tarluduh lelah msaman dan dualuni hukuman penjara seumur mdup dan due belas (12; kali sebaxan hag! pertuduhan panama dan panjara Iiga (3) Iahun dan uga (:4) xan sebalan bag! panuduhan kedua. Hukuman pemeruaraan baqaran seremak nan lampohnya nennura dan Lankn anangkap(11.1.2a1a). [5] Tenuaun Aelah mayu ke Mahksmah Rayuan am kapulusan latsehul‘ maka benkul aI1a\ah alasan says. 2 vmyaam . . rwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Sr fl» 1 Ramaian ke|erangan baranu kes mnuxus kemna SP2 fidak dapal mengesahkan bahawa (erdapal serbuan keflua dlhual dx lukasi yang berbeza Dada han yang same dan dikalakan ads rzlmpasan dadah mbuat. . Fendakwaan gagar memanggu saksx Iain unluk msnyakmg kelerangan SP2 . SP2 adalah saksl yang man kredlbel Kerana gags! mengingali perkara pe ' semasa serbuan dxbuat. [31] Bag: Muan pembuknan mmkan tarhadap dadah. undarvg-undang naaxan mamep be-nawa aangan hanya mempunyal Aagaan mu Iowa:-n kn alas dladah |arsahul Mak mennukupl unluk membukhkan perm wkln (hhal Ibrnhlm Mohamnd v. PF 1201114 cu 1). [:2] Adalan juga berdasarkan nas k2s—Kes dnluan bahawa dua elemen yang dipedukan unluk memhuklukan penulxkan walah kawalan nzmal dan pengelahuan. Unluk memenum unsurfizwkal. ia mesu dilunjukkan bahawa Ierluduh berada berhamphan dengan dadah uan behau buleh mangendaHkannya seonanoxan xa adilah mlllknya. Bag: unsur nuanm avau mans ma pma, periu fllbuknkan bahawa Ienudun bemial ahu berhasval unluk buurusan dengan dadah Iersehu| (Intended m dsal mm me drugs) (rum Xe: up v/Abdul Rnhmnn Al¢II[2007] 5 nu 237 (F0), Churn Fun Lion v PP (1955) 22 MM 231 (He); Dalam em Kala lam, kapefluan unsur flz\kn\ flan menu! lersebul perm wujud dan amukuxan sebelum perm an aapambuman [331 D1 akhir kes pendskwaan‘ saya mendapafl bahawa terluduh rnempunyax kawa\an dan jagaan sena pengexanuan mengenaw dadah yang duumpal maka ianya admah dalam mmkan behau semasa anangkap. [34] Paua psrlngkal mu says menavimn kslarangan SP2 manganax median pad! nan semuan dmual saya dapali SP2 adalah saksl yang an G1n|cF1cDuwu7wm:vaaM 11 - m».w...an-m..mn.u-yunnsm.n.nv...num pm flmnm x-ea-her. konswslen dan liada sebab untuk maragui kehrangannys. Jika pun wujud ksgagman belwau mengingah beberipa purkara. pada nandapal saya wanya fidak rnemelaskan kvudxmliu spz flan uada kemnngklnan (in me absence 0/ any Inherent rmpmaammy) umuk memadikan keterangannya Ildak boleh dilerima (ruluk PP V oamk haii Nanny bin I-Iallldirs (No 2) 11917; 1 ML! 15). [35] Samada mencukupl unluk says menenma kelarangan panting nanya dun mmng saksx. ada\ah undang—undnng manlap bahawa kelenngan dmmbang darn bukan umuang (ewdance ls wsrghsd and noz counted] sabag-Imina dlperunlukkzn dalam 3.134 Akla Kelarangan 1950 Undang-umieng Idalah jalas hahawa “No paruculur number 0/ wnnsssas shall .n any case be raquud for the pmol of any lac! Temlamanya flka kehrangan saksx «smnm kommen din kredihel [36] Pada Iahap ini, «ads kenerangan alau mom yang mzmungkmkan SP2 max berwkap benar aan nada alasan unluk saya meragul ketetangannya. (mink PP v. MohamIdAII[1Ifl2]2l MLJ157 din Shah Irw-n Ton v. PP 1291.7) 1 LNS 377). [an Tmdakan tenuduh merempuh kendersan pasukan semuan, me\ankan din dan bergeml sebelum dnsngkap mga mempakan sam perbuatan yang relevan dan mvenan yang boleh diterima untuk menunjukkan kewumtian pengelahuan mengenai keberadaan dadah dalam hag sllang yang berada pads Iubuh heluau (nquk 5.: Akta Kuerangan dan kesakes Kmlmddtn bln Hassan v PP (ma) 6 ML! 145 flan PF v Tnn Klm Piorw (mo; 5 ML! 409), [38] O\eh ymg demuuan, says merumuskan bahawa bsudasman kapafla kelerarlgan yang dikemukakan flan dapalan lakva mamas‘ elemen pemilvkan dadah Iarssbm lelnh dwbuklikan seem afirmam. syn GwcF1cuuwu7wIvuvaa|w :2 - w\HI>euse4mvaWImenr1mn.H|yu11Ms m.n.m...num pm Tenuduh rerun mengedar dadah [as] Eagl elemzn pgngeaaran, memnndangkan elemsn pemmm lalah berjaya dlbukukan maxa says membual dlpavan bahawa salu kes plrma facre pengaflaran dmukukan hawah saxsyan «sum KTJ. dengan pemakaian anggapan bawah szksysn 37[da) ADE (nuuk kes Abdullan Ar-n) berdasarkan beral dadah Melhnmphelamme yang melabm: max mlmma 50 gram (3 37(da)(xv|)| [40] O\eh yang demikxan, (erluduh lalah mpanggn unluk membela diri dan behau memnm unluk member! kelerarlgan secara bersumpah. Ku Pumlulun [41] Pembelaan lelah mengemukakan kelerangan dan nga (3; orang saksl (ermasuk lenuduh. Meraka merupakan abang-abang kapada lenuduh. [42] Tenuduh menafikan dadah yang duumpai adalah milxknya Pada han Kejadnan, lermduh mengatakan hehau bersama mkarmya, samun pergl ke KFC Se|ia Yrupvka umuk beriumpa rakan Sahrul Terluduh memandu kereia milxk kakaknya. Sampai an lokasi, mereka di halangi dus (2) kereca mg merapan kereva lanuduh lam Sahml menjent “pemmpak" dan menyurun Iemmuh melankan din Oleh kefana lakul, lerwduh (elah melanggar keduadua kendevaan yang menghalangnya dan memecut ke arah Vebuh raya [43] Sampal ke Taman Vmpawan Emas, eniin Karen Ierluduh berasnp Iilu dia memberhermkan keretanya. Tenuduh dan Sahml karuar melankan din. Sampax .1. Ja\an sum Jmpnan s‘ terluduh mengacakan sale?! seorang pohs yang mengejar Sahru\ rnengalakzm dis (sahrul) lelah membuang sesuatu ke dalam sebuah rumah. Tenuduh benaya dnahan pans latapl Saturn! benaya melarikan din. sw GwcF1cuuw£7wwEmw u - wH\I>euse4mvafl{Imenr1n\n.H|yM1Ms m.m.v...num pm [44] Tenuduh mengalakan (Iada dadah dljumpai dalam bag suang yang ma pakax. Telapn polls man mengamhil dadah yang mbuang oleh sannn dan melefiakkannya ke da\am beg suang rnuiknya [45] Tarluduh juga mengaulkan ma lalah mam oleh Doha unluk mumhemahu mama: mman ablngnya. Samar: dipahsa‘ tarluduh memherixahu Iakaa. rumah zhangnya dun msraka man kn Sky Gardens Raswdsnu, rum-h sewn ablngnya flan aexaran dlperikse xaran auumaa. bebarana peke\ dadlh Pans xamumannya mamasukkan iuga dadah Iersehut ks dawn bog silnng larluduh. [45] met: yang dam n, lerluduh menglvakan damn Hakim begnyn adalnh nullk Sahrul um aaangnya [47] Tenuduh juga mengalakan bahawa versi penmelaan ml Iidak dnmaxlumkan kepada pegualll beliau kerana teduduh gusar keluarganya akan diganggu mi bagx menpelaskan mengapa wanya uuak mcauangkan kepada saksi pendakwaan. An u kn Pumbcla n [451 Pamaexaan lenuduh mammbulkan aam walak panama Sahrul yang mkalaken aaraua bersamanya. di dalam Pamana Mam samasa mereka dlhampm alan pasukan serbuan Fnkla ml hdak diumbulkan alau dulanya samasa wnenxsaan hula: camaaap spa. [49] Pemhelaan juga mewayaman 1.-ma lertuduh dan samul. berdua, telah keluar aan kerenanya dan melankan diri Semasa dikejar pasukan serbuan, Sahml dikalakan melemparkan stsuatu xa arah sanu mmah Sahm\ berjaya mebpaskan am dan nanya Ierluduh dnanykap. Dadah dlkalakan diambtl den barang yang dihuang Sahrul ladl. Fakla inn jugs «max dwkemukakan di permgkal kes pendakwsan atau dw cadangkan kapaaa SP2. syn GwcF1cuuw£7wyavamw 1. -umauammnuwxxx be used m mm has mn.u-y mm: dun-mm Va aF\uNG pm [50] Seiemsnya, Ierluduh didem can mpaksa unluk mambenkan maklumal mengenai abangnya. lslahuddm am «am (sum dan mereka dnkatakan was |e\ah pergi ke mmah abang «enuuun dw Sky Gardens Residence. Flhak polls iuga dikatakan le\’ah membual serbuan d1 rumah sewa soz dan rllenjumpal dadeh yang mans dikalakan juga telan dimasukkan ke dalam beg sllang lanuduh. spz hdak mengmgah fakla serbuan a. Sky Reswdenees Ietapl menafikan Ielah mendera Ienuduh, [51] 502 daklm kelarangnnnya mengesahkan rumah ylng ausemu dx Sky Garden Residence adalah mmah sswa nanau dan mangalakan dldah yang dxjumpai adalah mmk kawannya bemamu Man Clna Mun Gina um dalam vahanan dx pemara cnang:,s1ngapuna [521 Mona Adrb bin Kasml (sm) memhenkan kelerangan unluk mengesahkan bahawa salu Vaparan pans telah dlbual ulehnya mengenai aduan Ienuduh (slah moetierakan flan dnumbuk semasa dalam Iahanan. Dapaun di khirKn Pumboluln [531 Bemasarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, flka penflakwaan beqaya mambukukan kesnya melampam sebarung keragunn yang rnunasanan, Izrluduh hendaklah dxdapnu bersalah Gan dlsabrlkan. Namun Jlka senanknya, Mahkamah hendaklah mmepas den mamhahaskan |erIuduh |Rujuk ken Blllclllndrln V. PF [2005] 1 CLJ I5 dan Mahamld Rldhl bln yum; a. PP [1991] 1 cu Rap am [541 Mengenax anggapan penyedaran dmawan s.a7(ua), bsbsn akan berpindah kepada Ieduduh unluk menyangka\ anggapan lersebul aoas nnuangan kebamngkallan yang mana hebannya ada\ah Vebih beral dan menlmbulkan keraguan yang munasabah truwk Ines PP v. vwmjmsa] 1LNS116) syn GwcF1cnuw£7wwamw Is -maénamnmmwxu be used m mm n. nrW\ruU|Y mm: m.n.n wa .nuNG pm [55] Mangxkul kas Lilm Hung Boon v. PP [2012] 1 LNS 1455‘ Mahkaman Rzyuan memuluskan ‘Sn Ina nnpelllm rum to mum (ha opembn presunwltun M uifllakmg under 5. mm am. am on m. bulanu gvpmmu-nu, mu men omumuu gum n h\uhereviflenl\my burden an an apwuann. [56] Dengan pemakalan anggapan m bawah s 371da| ml juga, Mernen pagederln man duanggap maka |erluduh dnkalakan meugedar dadah Larsahut sanmgga mbukukan sebauknya (unm the commy u proved] Tenunun aengan ml perm mengamukakan kenerangan yang mencukupr unmx mengakas anggapan Iersebul mas rmbangnn keharnngKaI1an(ru;uk up can Klm v PP(1l9l)Z cu svs den Mohamud RldMvPF(19D1) 2 sea as) [571 Dalam pemhe\aan tertuduh, telah dmwahkan oleh peguam sepeni berikul sahagal huktl sanggahan (rebuttal evidence): 1 Kasalumhan kelarangan SP2 adalah wax kradlbei kerana gagal msngingah nndnkan sslbuln yang dmum an Sky Gaman Reswdence mrauaun mm barsemu bahawa salu laparan pans telah dwbual mengenau semuan lersshut. 2 Ranlalan kslerangan barang kes Isrpulus kerana SP2 yaw! menjelaskan keberadann dadah yang dnrampss semasa menahan Ienuduh dengan dadah yang dirampas di Sky Garden Residences. 3 Pendakwaan perin mdmanggll saksi Iain [Sanan Guganathan) unluk memharikan kelerangan jems dan heral dadah yang dia lenma dan swz bagi mengesahkan mncaian pengendalian bansrlg kes ndik Ierpulus [53] Sebugal man balas, psndakwann mengltalun men. benkul syn GwcF1cDuw67wryavEmw us - Muneuseamvew-WImenr1n\n.HIyu11Ms m.n.n.v...nunc pm Pembelaan lammuh adaiah nenafian semala-mat: din memhenkan vars: yang herialllan mengenai Iempal dadah uijinnpai 1:1. psfkalangan mmah ssarang perempuan Ema 7 yang ainaiing oleh Sharul) darn bahawa Ianya milik Mnn Cina, kawari iahangnyi my dijumpai ai rmah Sky Garden Residenua. Keisiangan SD3 lidak membantu keterangan snz aiaupun Iermduh malah bercanugah annain satu sama lain. Keierangan pembalaan iiaak mangubah keiaiangan kes pendakwaan bahawa dadah dijumpal dahm beg siiang anuhim iemxnm Kelemngan (afterthought) ‘rammuh gagai memhenkan maklumal laniutmengenai seorang pembeiaan saw pemikiran Ierkemudlin perempuan cina, rakannya Sahml dan Man cina maka ia sebenamya saw rekaari semalz—ma|a dan walak mereka sengaja diada—adakan Pembelaari gagal memmbulkan sebamng keraguan (emadap kes Pendakwaan [59] Befkafl isu winnunya dua (2) versi kelerangan yang berheza dihenkan uleh keduadua belah pihak. says berpendapal kelerangan SP2 cukup kredibel darn boleh dipemayai karana liada sabab umuk says Iidak mempalcayai keleiangannya flan hada mom urvtuk lenuduh nieniniimikan kemungklnan SP2 irlgln memevangkap mu mengenakan ieriuaim dalam pefluduhan ini. [ea] xeiaiangan innndun gagal manimbulkan karaguan munasabah bahawa dadah dlbuarlg oleri Sahrul den uuumnai ui rumah snz yanaiuga dlkatakan mink Man cina Wank Sahml ini lldak dilimbulkln semasa kes pendakwnln. Tantunya SP2 hnlah mangesahkurl nxa banar Ierluduh Iidak kemnangan semasa pusukan serbuan msngaiav maraka. Derigan SIN mnicmnuwmnnnaan n - wmlxeusedmvafltlhenrW\nnU|YM1Msdun-vinnlvunF\uNG win menimbulkan versl berlemanga hanyn pm mass pembevaan max membanlu menyakinkan saya unluk memparcayai kebenaran versi pembekaan. [an Dengan manlmburkan walak Sanrul alaupun Man cma naak menggangu naram kes pendakwaan da\am vemhuklian kas uamaaap lerluduh. Saya «pm: rvullkan dadah yang mrampas aaalah flan beg sandnnglanuduh yang mana larluduh mangalahui ksberaaaannya lanlas perbuavan ballau marempuh kanderaan plsulun dan me\ankan dun [s2] Menuduh pihak polls cuba menganiaya lerluduh dengan meweoakkan dadah dalam beg svlangnya adalah salu pengalaan yang serius. Fakla mi celah mcadangkan kepada SP2 namun beliau Iidak bersmuju flan menankannya. [as] Say: manew dan memperlimbangkan keseluruhan pembalaan (enuduh den berpendanaty versv pzmbelaan mak mm. dipercayai kerana ianya sen|aho\a?I dmmbulkan unluk melepeskan din Tamhahan pula‘ kegagalan Dembelaan menimbmkan kewuiudan Sahrvl dalam Demefiksain balas cemsdap SP2 memmhulkan (ands unya. Im meruadikan uwenpercayaan saya larhadap yam yang dikemukakln olah vembelaan. Walaupun Ierluduh memelaskan alassn bellau lidak memaklumkan fakla Ini kepada peguam (vakut keluarga digangguj, wanya bukan salu slisan yang kukuh acau munasabsh kemna penuduhan lerhaflap lerluduh adalah senus yang boleh ayamm hukuman man. Sekadar nsau keluarua dwancam man uiganggu udak cukup Inenyaklnkan says unluk mempercayal kehenarannya. [54] saya juga havpandapal liada kelarangan mum lam yang manyangxax bahawa dadah man duumpal dnlam beg sundang dllubuh umumm. Jlkivun aaa umuesan dvdlh an Sky Glmen Resldcncay Ian)/I «nah dlsvnat clan pegawli penyunnl yang berbeze kerlna. menglkul aw GwcF1cuuM7wyavamw 1» -umemmmlnwwm be used m yaw .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm hwahan pendakwaan. dadah yang lerhaflap «en-mun mpal herhezz dari yang diperluduh [55] Fangamalan saya dari segi dernenour dan kunsislenst kelevangan, says berpendapul kemangan saw pendakwaan Iebm mama: dan Duleh dlperuym bamandlng keiarangan |erIuduh flan my pembelaan. Keterangan saksw pembelaan udak membanlu memdakkan kelerangan kes par-uakwa-n auu msnyangkal merangan mm. yung lalah dikemuknkan oleh pmak pendakwaan [66] Saya selemsnya talah menllsw dangsn Ialm kes pembelaan din Isiah membual dapavan sa\aras dengan seksyen cazn KTJ. Says juga memyuk kepafla panauan Radhl an dalam kes Manama mam zkab sepeni benkul -u us a mail asuhlrshafl Drmdpin M Mlllysmn nnmmal hw mat me pan-I-1 human 07 am! has n-mgr-um ma Ivlal an the pmecmn to wave bvyond Iessmuahte amm me guHl nu ma amused var me meme mm mm he .s chamod mm \s no swrmlar amen nlaoed an we amused to mm ms Innmtnue H: pvuuIn5¢mnooan|m|\lpvuvevI gum To elm nn aequmal, nu duly us nwvely m an . reasonable dwb| m m. pmsecukon use. In me owls: M In: nmsenulmn use. In: Dmsecmmu may ulwuvu v-Iy on mum namlarv m-ummm In vuzvo ans 01 man or In euenlm .nunax...u al m. mm Wn-n mm ocwu ma pnmculnr burdun av mm as owns-a to me asthma! human. mm m the «mm In mm mm n-uunm-ans on It»: Izalanua av vrobabflmws Much frum the defiance Down 1:! View us heawerthan ma burden or can-g a Ieaiunilfle mm, M n I: eeluirfly Vugmedmn the human elm: prmecumn m pmve beyond renscnnble mm [67] Kesvmpulannya. saya bemendapal hahawa keletangan nun kes we-nbelaan ada\ah salu Denafvan darl iuga Iidak rnerwaklnkan (rm! wnvmcmg). Sehuhungan dengan nu, says bemendapal kesaluruhan kes pembelaan gsgar umuk mammhulkan keraguan yang munasabah sw GwcF1cDuw67wyavEmw 19 « wH\I>eusedmvaIWltnsnrW\nnH|YM1Ms m.m.y...mm pm Ierhadap kas nendakwaan dan sstarusnya gaga\ memalahkan anggaparl dmswah s.37(t1a) atas imhangan keharangkalian. Hukumnn [ea] oalam rayuan mmgasi peguam, belnau (elah berhujah flan memahon saya mempemmbengkan hukuman auemam peme-waan seumur hldup berikulan dengan pindaan yang barn umuac kepada s.39B. [aw] Selelah manaangar hujah dari kedua-dua belah k, says telah maruaxuhkan hukuman penjura seumur hidup dan eua hams (12) «an sebaian blgi perluduhan panama dan Bantam llgl (3) Karma aan uga (3) kn: sebllan hag: nenuduhan ksdua Hukumzn pememlraan baualln aaranuk nan lempnhnya bermula dun larvkh dnangkap (11 1.2915) Benankh: 19 Januan 2024 (NOOR HAVATI a ‘n NAJI MAT) Pesuruhjnya hakiman Mankaman Tlnggi Malaya Johor aamu Perwaknan a Bag! pnhak Fendakwaan: Puan Sm Nurliza mm. Mdmlih Twmbalan Pemlakwa Raya Fejahal Penwhai Undang-Undang Negen Jnhnr Am: 2, Eangunan new Jaafar Muhammad Kala Vskulldar, Iskandar Pulen Jnhor aw GwcF1cnuwc7wvuvamw In -»mm.mmwm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nF\uNG pm Nnrnifk Pondakwun rt] Barwldak alas maklumal kagillan dudah. pads jam 5.30 pe1ang, n.1.zuw, lnspeldor Shahrw Rllal bm Abdul Kadlr, spz bsrsama Ingguha sarhuan yang um Ialnh hargarak ks Jalan S911: Tmpxka 1/2:. Taman Sana Tmpika m lukasw bemaknlan mmran KFC sen. Tmpnu. Pamemmn amuac salami so mum sabamm kelmllln ulu kenderaan Pvoinn Psldanl wama mam (WLR case) (Pnrdnnn mum) «ma an hadnpan xrc lersahul [:1 spz dan pasukan semuan manand nga (3) bush kendavaan yang lain SP2 mengarahkan salah sa|u kenderaan serbuan unluk menghampln Perdana hilam lerssbul. Due (2) kenderaan serhuan bergerak pam, saw dw belaknng Fenian: hnam dan salu lag: dw hafllpan. Mammy: sabuah lagly yang dmauu SP2 darn dun (2) llgl lnggnla, bergerak manghamplrl sis! Pemana hllam SP2 keluar dan kereva dan me n pemandu Peruana Mam unluk kemar dari karma Namun pemnndu Perdlna hllam lallh berlmdak agrasw dun melangglr kmteraan mbum yang diparkv an nedlpannya. Parlunggarnn lemebul menyebabkan kamsaknn amanagxan haduyan humber Povdnna Mam saleiah hsriaya mambual ruang untuk um-r am pakir, psmandu Perdana mam memecul unluk memkan am. Dua (2) kanderaan serbuan lain manpeyar Pardana hilam yang mangnara ke arah Kempas, Pemanau Perdana hitam tsbh mclakukan pernanduun seaira zrg-zag dan keiar mengeyar beflerusan selama ream kurang 30 mum! sehmgga memasuki kc kauvasan Taman lrnpxan Emas. Tuba m sum lmpxan 5. SP2 malvhat Perdana nicam hemenh secara llbertibi Semasa pasukan serbuun menghamuiri Ferdana hilam, SP2 melmal saspek, seuranu leluki ksluar dun Perdana hitam dan mslankan am. Tangkapan beqaya dibual Dada yank so mexer din ksndaraan saspsk Sasvek juga cuha nmuk melepaskan am dan an gen dan berlaku pergelutan. Saspek bernndnk ; fisrmaezw Bag! nihak Tenuduh: Enc\k Md Hazza Mn Md. Khalid Telunn Hazzn Khnlid Suriya a Pannurs unit 01-02, Lave! 2 Susur Larkin Perdana I aaasa Johm Eahm Johor sw swcmuuwmumamw 2: - w\\\ be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm agresw sebeium benlya diraham Saspek ksmudvannya dtkenal pan: selzagaw Muhamad Shafiq hm Kasim (lsnuduh). [91 Pemam.-an pads badan Ienuduh dubualdan SP2 menjumplv saw (1) bag |Hnng ienama Coach am semalah dlperiksu, duumplv darl davam bag, saw (1) bungkuaan pmsnx mam yang dldalarnnya am; dua 12) pekzl plaslik Msmar znnsv dadah benluk knslzr bewama pulih drsylkl syabu Jug: duumpai dun (2) lug peket dudah disyakl syabu den heroin mm [I193 maapani dallm beg, salu pemsgang kad puma LV, kad penganalln Ianuduh. kad Legohand alas name Muhamad Shaflq bun Kaslm dan sum (1) aral pemmbung digILa\ berwama Mam Pamanxmn pada karma Pardana Mam manjumpai wan; tuna: camnur-nampur benurmah RMao.oo dan Mkeplng mavnwang Slngapura bemvlav so dollar [I0] Tenudun kemudnarmya dlserxhkan kepada Pegawnl Penyxasal, lnspeklar Flosvna mu Awang, SP7 besena bavang rampasln yang lelah dmual penandaan [11] SP7 menghaniar barang kes ke Jibalan Kvma dan hasu anafisa ahh mm , SP6 Puan Nur Hafiza Md Yusoi‘ mangesahkan dalam Laporin Kimia (P11) bahawa bararlg kes yang auampas adalah dadah berhahaya mm Matamphetamine sebelal 62 35 gram dan Hemm dan Mnmaoetyimorphines seberal 2.55 gram mp-mu DI akhlr kn Pundlkwun [121 D. penngkal akhir kas pendakwaan, sslu kes plrma facie sebagaimana dlperunmkkan dalam 5.130(1) Kanun Talacam Jenayah (Km perlu dlbukukan uleh pihak pendakwaan dam kecerangan buku yang boleh mpercayai dan xmdmex yang mm mm uuak tflsangkal akan mambc-lehkan sabltan dmual (nuuk use 14) KTJ dan kes Abdu/Iah Aran lum rpaazo) 9 cu 15:). vmyaam ‘ . H mm be used m may me mmuly MVMS dun-mm wa mum pwm 5 [13] Ungkapan "mfingemukakan kelsrangarl kukuh ylng membuklikan swap salu Ialdor ktsa/lhsn"dalam s 150(4) bemlaksud bahawa pinuk pendakwaan perm membuktikan sefiap alemen lvesalahan sama ad: dengan mengemukakan keterangln yang men dipevceysi, membual infemn lerhadap fakla man mengguna pakai anggapin undang-undang (hhal kes Abdul!-lh Ann :1: muka suraI165). [:4] K35 pnma lama wan kes ymg mennukupz unluk lerluduh dlpangwll unmx msniawab panuduhan kaaesnya dan kewangan yang diksmukakan menoukupw melamkan In dlsangkal alau makes me\aIu\ kumngan Ilm (mm kes Boluhandrln v PF [1005] 1 cu as). Dllam m Ong Chang mung mm PF(1!fl)l cu zoo, plndangln Wncanl Ng, J |eIah dlmjuk don msankan mah Mahkamnh Parsekutunn aaram kes Abdul!-h Am. mangsnaw apt! yang Lerjuwah sabaguv salu kes puma rum sewn: berikut -. pnmn «acne evsdenua ws evxaem mm W: sulfiuanho suamsn 2 Ian m we mum av any evmmcn m «M conlvary m V: ml mnchnwe Iwnmu com um llvura Ihoum be aamm. tvmlncs on nun Ind every ir\vmamn| A11 Ina uflmua Crsulme evidence u avwdlnoo -ma. ha: been Mend ma wmn nu none lhmugh ms vmuess ulevamanon Any ewdsnuu wmcn xi not safe «o be acled upon smma be rapolad‘ [15] aegicu jug: sehagamlana dipuluskan oleh Mahkamah Ruyuan dalam kes Loci Kow Chuf v. Public Proloculor (2003) 2 ML! 65. yang mengacakan seperli berikun -n memmre mum um (here .5 my ans exams. mm a judge snlmg alone undlvl an -mm cpc mm nnduflnkn al me don anm plméntllon can He must mam me vmriswhun madam: In mnmmxm mmnmn mm to sun m-men me rlnesmn an amid: to call upon me Accused m mm m. dufunw and hsalaclito remain snem‘ am \ pmpaream Carma mmon tiselalamyaflha evkienoe mnmmed m the pmsecmnn case’? In»: answav ws m me nawflve. my .. mm Zw. dun-mm VII .n_.m W 0131 N: wmu fame use was mm me. am‘ and lfvu accused wvulfl ha mum |o an eammnr " [16] Mahkamah Persskuluan dalam kn Maqommn Malian v. Public Pmsvcutor [21111] 1 CLJ 005 mg: memutuskan mengenaw pembuklian kes prima Iacie sepem berikuc: -[441 rm (as! M me and M cm pmnwmn-s case is ‘Dunn (sue use‘ band an . maxhuum mmuen cl evidence The evdenca m m bu scnnlmhad pmpcny and um uafiunctnmy‘ culxomy or swan‘-c\alIy u m v-Inuilun av lbs Imdmua results m mm: in I11: pmisumulfs case man a puma rm. case has not bean made uul me menu mm wt in be mfled merely In dearer damy such mums.’ [I7] Miki, dalam menerlluklrl pemhuklvan kas pnmn Incvs, ialu panilaian semi-a maksima perm dIbua| Ierhadap keseluluhln keleringan mm. yang dikemuknkan (ermasuk menflal kI1~:dibrhlI saksmaksv flan mehhat mleren yang bolah dlbual dari kderangnn bukli kas pendakwaan untuk membukukan selvap elemen kesalihan (nuuk kss pr v Mahd nadzi Abu Baku[2W5] 1 cu 457: Ku Pr/ml Fich [I8] Keterangan mum yang perlu dikemukakan unluk lwsalahan pengsdaran dadah berbahaya a. bawah s, 395 (1) (a) ADE afla¥ah bahawa dadah yang dvampas adslah dadah bemahaya sepem yang dlsenaralkan dalam Jadual Fenama ADB, Ia adalah dalnm pemlllkan temmuh apabila dmuktikan dadan adalah di bawah jagaan, xawalan dan pengelahuannya dan seterusnya, lenuduh mangedar dadan Iersebul. Pengedaran boxy. dwbukxikan dengan keaerangan langsung herdasarkan laisvan pengedaran m bawah seksyen 2 ADB atau anggapan m bawah sexsyen 37 (Ha). -5-L§§»§3§‘:$éviF)2%f.a“:Y5Z‘fi'£‘L'?.‘§7£n.«y..m.“.yZm...u.m..n_.m W Inupau Kuulahnn Dadah adamh yang Iarssnalai dr ./ar.1ua/ Penams den sapemmana yang dmefinssmsn dlbaweh ADE. [19] Jems dan beral dadah telah msahkan dan amuknkan dan keterangan SP6 dan Laporan Kma yang disediakan, P17 sehagawmana danam penumman waflu iems Memamphelamme seberal 32 35 mm dan Harem den Munnaoemmorpmnes seherat 2 55 gram. [Z0] Mengsnax hesnl anahsa SP5‘ says menuuk kepada kss Munusanty Vongadun m v PP[19l7] cu (mp; 221 and 9. chlndrun 1/Public Pmsnculur mos) z MLJ 301 dan msmeuk bahawa mahlumah mi “entitled ID accept I/V1 opimnn 11/ the charms! E! II: face value without me nscesstry for Mm lo ga mm amen: of Whil he did In Me laboratory unless 1! rs mhemnlly mcradfbfe ol the dolance calls swdsnce In rebuttal by another expert. Pendapfl mu juga Mail diikuli delam kas Tlrmlzl Mn Vuzob v pr (zoos) 5 ML] 177 dam selnrusnya dalam Mnlan pm uumr. v PP Rlyuan Jun-yin uwmn-2m o\eh Mahlumah Rayuan [21] Ranlalnn pargarakan barang kzs udak (arpums drmana dadah yang dlrampas olan spz lalah rahkan kspaaa sw, selanjulnya kepada spa unluk manansa Barang kes |eIah dxslmpan m star penylmpanan bareng kes samngga dlkemukakan ke mahkaman pads nan pemiravaan (nuuk kas Gum nnum-cnandm. I/FF (20004 cu 551 — " me chum olavidarme rs more Important for the perind from the lime olrscm/sly um]! um complarron ollhs analysis by me enema “| [22] Maka dengan nu, saya mendapati pihak pendakwaan Ie\ah heqaya membukilkan elemen Jams dan berm dadah sebagarmana da\am 7 fl%mss%z'a;¢ psrtuduhan (Mukan ‘uga dihual msnmkul kas shanrrnl Abdul Ghani v. PP [2014] 1 CL! 70 dan su My Pin v. PP new 1 LNS mo). [23] Wl¥au bagaimanapun. pada |anap In], peguam Iarluduh lelah bemmah mengalakan buhawa lemapal salu Jag: semuan susulan dlhual selepas mu m \okas4 yang lzerasvngan dan mxaukan Ierdapal dadah lam mga dlrampas. Cadangan falls m! lelah dlkamukakan kapada svz lelaw SP2 lidak mengmgnlmyn. Make, peguam mengatakan ada kemungbdnln bamng kes yang dilampas mi wan bercamnur -aux dengan dadah yang dlrampas di lnkusi kodua lersebul [24] Says dapau kexerangan SP2 konslslen walaupun mkalakan tevagak-ngak apabna dnanya mengenav serbuan kedua, namun Ianya rmmgkin Kerana beliau udak buleh mangmgalmya Sungguhpun begitu, barsng kss |elah msahkan berada dalam slmpanan SP2 seningga Iandaan mbuat seruasa di IPD Maka Ianfanan kenerangan bukli barang was Imak |eruuAus. Pemilfkan lulhadsp dadah [25] Berkan keperman membuklikan ramuan pemmkan, mhak pendakwaan padu mengemukakan kslerangan bahawa lenuduh mempun Walan alau Jagaan sens pengelahuan Ienlang dadah yang dwmpal (IIha| Res on.» Fun Loon V. FP[1D5€)MLJ2.?7). Mahkamah dalam kes Chlll Fnn Llanjuga |e|ah memuluskan hahawa “ H pelsnll IS mm m be m passessmn ola mmg ring has my power to flea/w/m It as my owns! lo the excrus/on :3! all ulnar psrsons.' [26] Maisud "cuslody"‘ “comm!” and ‘possess n' lelah dlbmcangkan dalam kzs Lcow Nghee Lim v Red [1955] 1 MLJ, yang mana drpelvk seperll benkut ‘Wé ’W’“”” -- wH\I>eusadmvafi{lhenrW\nnU|YM1Ms m.".m..n_.m W ‘cusloay mum havvnq an 01 uunrdianshv. quad: -n cuflndy an -n me we at me wstudlan and‘ by necmlary xmplicamrx he :5 faith; me at them an nenaw olsameom due. You cannot make can ovgwas unllss yuu kmwwhece meyave and have Ihemnns o4 -xudsma mncmx ova Ihem Gutlody mcruiurw nnpx . xnumag. nl In: xluencc Ind whueaboms Mme goods and paw! of wnlml over um. um lmolmlmg bu polullbn Camel unuu be nmved nu «mane n mun arise lmm me relav.-on alihe pwscm in ma goudl, Vnuplfirve aIMuemn1\Mry urn wntrnband. Pmnamyme mnsl napmn aenmmn of puswssmn \s— 'Thava1a1mn an person It: 3 Wing ov-rwmch he may at nu Dlunxlri aurora mun wnlnfl as me mzracxer at me unng adrnn. :4: me muse" at am persons.’ ms aennman duu not anwreis, Inn :1 due: lnn\yIh.Il we mun-ng ulmv wovd mdndu some element cl ans-«aga. A man mm mm ov Ihl nxmcnm of . mm and have some men M n. whemabcub below It: can snemse any wn|m\ me! n nu ma vosbessm Imvvixzra Imnies some kmrmodga am not necesamy mu m exact km.7MIdga.‘ [271 Mangenm pornbubman penganahuan, Mahklmah Fersekutuan dalam kes Plrinn bill Daniel: Y Public Prosecutor [1907] 1 CL] 717 merruuuskan bahfirl-1 Memen pangmahuan he\eh dlllhal dari mlersn Eiiu kesimpulan fakla Penken yang dirwuk nda¥ah sepem benkm: 'PmuYMknuw1sd§a Vs very ohm - mmuov nvmnoe me malzvml lmm mu m. nuisance ulknnwiadgn an an mm. vunus awn came an llwuuld n. suvnmam (or me prolsculom m prune «pm from wn-ch n mm pmpivly u. um:-ma ma Itw amused rm lb: nuwualy km1Med9e.' [251 Rmgkasnya. mun ‘pamHIkan' merujuk kepada keupayaln permliknyn unluk berumsan dengan dadah dengan mengecuafllun Iksas nrang Vain den mampunym pangeriahuln «emang dadnh yang dipersoilkan. s W [29] Dalnm kes im. pinak pendakwaan (elah mengamukakan lakva dan mferen berikul unmk membukfikan pemillkan Iamadap dadah: 1. Kelma serbuan duakukan dlmanl kanflarsan Iarluduh Ielah 9 [an] v sw GwcF1cuuw67w-wuvaam fl «wsmamm dnkepung olah dun kmflevaan pasukan map: lerluduh (elah berlmdak merempuh kanderaan pasukan dan mememl sshlngga beflakunya kejar mengejar. . Aksn kqar mengejar Inn nenaruumn so mmll sehingga Inba m Taman lmplan Ema: dimana terluduh nba-uba msmbementikan lemtsnya mm keluar mclankan dun . Fasukan serbusn laruakse mangeiananuduh sehingga 50 meter am Iempll kavamnya dibema an M-Ian, pergelulan iuga berlaku sebamm larluduh benaya drlahen . Beg sllang yang menglndungl dudah yang dirampus sading msanaang pad: |ubuh lemniuh. . Kad psngenilin dun lerluduh juga duumpai dalam bag landang Iersebul Turul duumpai. salu a¥at perumbang bownma hlllm. ,Perbuaun nammun «ask membsnkan keqasama, bemndak mervmpuh ksreta pasukan dun melankan am serta bergelul sebaium langkapan dibual. adalah relevan sebag buklr kebersalahan beliau. Pendakwaan mengguna pakaw anggapan venpedal-an a. hawah 5. 37(da){xvv) bevdasarkan jurmah bars! dadah yang male so glam . Rampasan jugs dIhua| lerhadap am penimbang dlgnal yang mana saw mfeven bahawa dadah hukan umuk kegunaan sendiri. Ranlalan keverangsn buktn harang kes tidak Iernutus ufla ponngka: ini, pmak pembexaan bemujah sepem berikm. m WW be used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-595-11/2017

PLAINTIF KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) MIKUNI (M) SDN BHD 2. ) YONG CHUN KHIONG 3. ) HJ ISMAIL BIN BAHARI 4. ) AMINUDDIN BIN IDRUS 5. ) MOHD NAJIB BIN AHMED @ AHMAD

CONTRACT: – Breach of contract – Supply of specific original goods – Counterfeit goods supplied – Measure of damages – Lifting the veil of incorporation – Whether directors of the company personally liable TORT: Fraudulent misrepresentation – Supply of specific original goods – Counterfeit goods supplied – Measure of damages – Lifting the veil of incorporation – Whether directors of the company personally liable

31/01/2024

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c688aaf0-6372-477d-bbe4-7c12cda3ba3d&Inline=true

31/01/2024 15:25:54 WA-22NCvC-595-11/2017 Kand. 288 S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8KqIxnJjfUe75HwSzaO6PQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-45A-65-08/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMAD SYAFIQ BIN KASIM

Perbicaraan jenayah atas dua pertuduhan iaitu mengedar dan memiliki dadah- mengedar dadah seberat 62.35 gram jenis Methamphetamine si bawah S.39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB 1952)- dan memiliki dadah seberat 2.25 gram jenis heroin dan monoacetylmorphines di abwah S12(2) ADB 1952-tempat kejadian di Taman Impian Emas Skudai-OKT memandu Perdana Hitam melarikan diri dari kenderaan polis- kejar-mengejar berlaku selama 3o minit- selepas kereta berjaya dihentikan-OKT cuba melarikan diri, bergelut serta bertindak agresif- dadah-dadah dijumpai di dalam bag yang disandang di badan OKT- Pendakwaan berjaya buktikan kes melebihi keraguan munasabah- pembelaan gagal mewujudkan keraguan- OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan- dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan 12 sebatan bagi pertuduhan pertama dan tiga tahun penjara bagi pertuduhan kedua.

31/01/2024

YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=029947cb-f5e4-4c3c-83f1-c7b3ba96c3a6&Inline=true

31/01/2024 12:14:16 JA-45A-65-08/2019 Kand. 16 S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N y0eZAuT1PEyD8cezupbDpg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal .n—45A—s5—ua/2019 Kand. 15 31/01/202; 12:1»:-15 DI MAHKAIAAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL TAKZIM PERBICARAAN JENAVAH N0: JAASA-64,65-05/2019 PENDAKWA RAVA LAWAN MUMAMAD SVAFIQ am KASIM ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pnnganalan [1] Terluduh man dlluduh mengedar dadeh sahaml a2.35 gram [ems Mathmnphelamina di bawah 5 3DB(I)(a) Akin Dndah Berbahayu 1952 (Ann) flan dlhawah 512(2) ADE karma mamilnki 2 55 grim Heroin clan Monoaeecylmmprunas [2] Fsrluduhamperluduhan lemadapnya auaran sepem berikul: pemmm. Panama 'BuMwn kamu pada n 1 am: [am new kumm; 7 Wmalam, berlamplmlleol plan Bum lmruln u. Ynmnn Inwun Emu shun aw mam Dmvah Johnv aanm, .1. G-nhm Neaemlahernaml mm, mm: nunnedlr am» B-nanny: mm Methamphetamine sabeul :2 35 gram, «man nu karnu mun mulakukan saw kanlahan fllbawah selsyen aesuxay Akta Dmah Marbahaya1952 din bolehdmukum dlhawnh pskryen assay we yang samn' x 5 u.w..aw . -‘“‘:"“s_ ':‘n£i‘."3u‘i.9£Mm.,u;..hqmy...mmmm..u.m..n_.Na W Pmuduhan Keflun -am». kumu pa. :1 uzmusm wean kurnng 7 Dnmulam‘ benemnnl an upx Jnlln am lmptm a, Taman Imvlln Emu skm a. anl-m Duran Jnhnr mm, a. damn Newer! Jehw amw nmm, |elnn mmmu. am» nensamyn lam: Hermn an Mumaoeaymmmm uburzl 2 55 mm am dangan nu kumu nan» malakuknn um kasalahan mbawm seksyen 12(2) M11: Dadan Memanaya 1952 an men dmukum fllhnwah Iahsyen asmp Akta yang lam: [3] on akmr kes psndakwaan, says memuluskan bahama pihak pendakwaan beqaya membukvikan kes puma lacie alas kedua-due perluduhan ks alas Ierluduh dan hellau mpanggu unluk membela din. [4] Tenuduh ma memanggu dua (2) my Iw-m pembelnn yang mm D: akhlr kes un|uk memben kaxerangan harsumpah am pembelaam sayu menflapali Iefluduh gngax mengakls angglpln m bawah :37 (da] am mamsnya gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabeh Kemadap kes pandekwaan. Maka dipuluskan bahuwn pendakwaan Isiah benayn mambukmkan kas melampl keraguan munasabah. [51 Tarluduh lelah msaman dan dualuni hukuman penjara seumur mdup dan due belas (12; kali sebaxan hag! pertuduhan panama dan panjara Iiga (3) Iahun dan uga (:4) xan sebalan bag! panuduhan kedua. Hukuman pemeruaraan baqaran seremak nan lampohnya nennura dan Lankn anangkap(11.1.2a1a). [5] Tenuaun Aelah mayu ke Mahksmah Rayuan am kapulusan latsehul‘ maka benkul aI1a\ah alasan says. 2 5, .M..nw . Mm..u.....,:m.w...m.mmm.a...m.w..n_.Na W 1 Ramaian ke|erangan baranu kes mnuxus kemna SP2 fidak dapal mengesahkan bahawa (erdapal serbuan keflua dlhual dx lukasi yang berbeza Dada han yang same dan dikalakan ads rzlmpasan dadah mbuat. . Fendakwaan gagar memanggu saksx Iain unluk msnyakmg kelerangan SP2 . SP2 adalah saksl yang man kredlbel Kerana gags! mengingali perkara pe ' semasa serbuan dxbuat. [31] Bag: Muan pembuknan mmkan tarhadap dadah. undarvg-undang naaxan mamep be-nawa aangan hanya mempunyal Aagaan mu Iowa:-n kn alas dladah |arsahul Mak mennukupl unluk membukhkan perm wkln (hhal Ibrnhlm Mohamnd v. PF 1201114 cu 1). [:2] Adalan juga berdasarkan nas k2s—Kes dnluan bahawa dua elemen yang dipedukan unluk memhuklukan penulxkan walah kawalan nzmal dan pengelahuan. Unluk memenum unsurfizwkal. ia mesu dilunjukkan bahawa Ierluduh berada berhamphan dengan dadah uan behau buleh mangendaHkannya seonanoxan xa adilah mlllknya. Bag: unsur nuanm avau mans ma pma, periu fllbuknkan bahawa Ienudun bemial ahu berhasval unluk buurusan dengan dadah Iersehu| (Intended m dsal mm me drugs) (rum Xe: up v/Abdul Rnhmnn Al¢II[2007] 5 nu 237 (F0), Churn Fun Lion v PP (1955) 22 MM 231 (He); Dalam em Kala lam, kapefluan unsur flz\kn\ flan menu! lersebul perm wujud dan amukuxan sebelum perm an aapambuman [331 D1 akhir kes pendskwaan‘ saya mendapafl bahawa terluduh rnempunyax kawa\an dan jagaan sena pengexanuan mengenaw dadah yang duumpal maka ianya admah dalam mmkan behau semasa anangkap. [34] Paua psrlngkal mu says menavimn kslarangan SP2 manganax median pad! nan semuan dmual saya dapali SP2 adalah saksl yang n n ya-zmmwz Damzupbnw uaassmmazfmx be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: m.u.n wa muNG pm x-ea-her. konswslen dan liada sebab untuk maragui kehrangannys. Jika pun wujud ksgagman belwau mengingah beberipa purkara. pada nandapal saya wanya fidak rnemelaskan kvudxmliu spz flan uada kemnngklnan (in me absence 0/ any Inherent rmpmaammy) umuk memadikan keterangannya Ildak boleh dilerima (ruluk PP V oamk haii Nanny bin I-Iallldirs (No 2) 11917; 1 ML! 15). [35] Samada mencukupl unluk says menenma kelarangan panting nanya dun mmng saksx. ada\ah undang—undnng manlap bahawa kelenngan dmmbang darn bukan umuang (ewdance ls wsrghsd and noz counted] sabag-Imina dlperunlukkzn dalam 3.134 Akla Kelarangan 1950 Undang-umieng Idalah jalas hahawa “No paruculur number 0/ wnnsssas shall .n any case be raquud for the pmol of any lac! Temlamanya flka kehrangan saksx «smnm kommen din kredihel [36] Pada Iahap ini, «ads kenerangan alau mom yang mzmungkmkan SP2 max berwkap benar aan nada alasan unluk saya meragul ketetangannya. (mink PP v. MohamIdAII[1Ifl2]2l MLJ157 din Shah Irw-n Ton v. PP 1291.7) 1 LNS 377). [an Tmdakan tenuduh merempuh kendersan pasukan semuan, me\ankan din dan bergeml sebelum dnsngkap mga mempakan sam perbuatan yang relevan dan mvenan yang boleh diterima untuk menunjukkan kewumtian pengelahuan mengenai keberadaan dadah dalam hag sllang yang berada pads Iubuh heluau (nquk 5.: Akta Kuerangan dan kesakes Kmlmddtn bln Hassan v PP (ma) 6 ML! 145 flan PF v Tnn Klm Piorw (mo; 5 ML! 409), [38] O\eh ymg demuuan, says merumuskan bahawa bsudasman kapafla kelerarlgan yang dikemukakan flan dapalan lakva mamas‘ elemen pemilvkan dadah Iarssbm lelnh dwbuklikan seem afirmam. .2 IN ya-zmmwz mmnw »m¢munai’mn.n....nmy..nnmnymn.m.m.v...n_.m W Tenuduh rerun mengedar dadah [as] Eagl elemzn pgngeaaran, memnndangkan elemsn pemmm lalah berjaya dlbukukan maxa says membual dlpavan bahawa salu kes plrma facre pengaflaran dmukukan hawah saxsyan «sum KTJ. dengan pemakaian anggapan bawah szksysn 37[da) ADE (nuuk kes Abdullan Ar-n) berdasarkan beral dadah Melhnmphelamme yang melabm: max mlmma 50 gram (3 37(da)(xv|)| [40] O\eh yang demikxan, (erluduh lalah mpanggn unluk membela diri dan behau memnm unluk member! kelerarlgan secara bersumpah. Ku Pumlulun [41] Pembelaan lelah mengemukakan kelerangan dan nga (3; orang saksl (ermasuk lenuduh. Meraka merupakan abang-abang kapada lenuduh. [42] Tenuduh menafikan dadah yang duumpai adalah milxknya Pada han Kejadnan, lermduh mengatakan hehau bersama mkarmya, samun pergl ke KFC Se|ia Yrupvka umuk beriumpa rakan Sahrul Terluduh memandu kereia milxk kakaknya. Sampai an lokasi, mereka di halangi dus (2) kereca mg merapan kereva lanuduh lam Sahml menjent “pemmpak" dan menyurun Iemmuh melankan din Oleh kefana lakul, lerwduh (elah melanggar keduadua kendevaan yang menghalangnya dan memecut ke arah Vebuh raya [43] Sampal ke Taman Vmpawan Emas, eniin Karen Ierluduh berasnp Iilu dia memberhermkan keretanya. Tenuduh dan Sahml karuar melankan din. Sampax .1. Ja\an sum Jmpnan s‘ terluduh mengacakan sale?! seorang pohs yang mengejar Sahru\ rnengalakzm dis (sahrul) lelah membuang sesuatu ke dalam sebuah rumah. Tenuduh benaya dnahan pans latapl Saturn! benaya melarikan din. IN yo-zmnvzybacazuptznw u -meéaawzlamowm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [44] Tenuduh mengalakan (Iada dadah dljumpai dalam bag suang yang ma pakax. Telapn polls man mengamhil dadah yang mbuang oleh sannn dan melefiakkannya ke da\am beg suang rnuiknya [45] Tarluduh juga mengaulkan ma lalah mam oleh Doha unluk mumhemahu mama: mman ablngnya. Samar: dipahsa‘ tarluduh memherixahu Iakaa. rumah zhangnya dun msraka man kn Sky Gardens Raswdsnu, rum-h sewn ablngnya flan aexaran dlperikse xaran auumaa. bebarana peke\ dadlh Pans xamumannya mamasukkan iuga dadah Iersehut ks dawn bog silnng larluduh. [45] met: yang dam n, lerluduh menglvakan damn Hakim begnyn adalnh nullk Sahrul um aaangnya [47] Tenuduh juga mengalakan bahawa versi penmelaan ml Iidak dnmaxlumkan kepada pegualll beliau kerana teduduh gusar keluarganya akan diganggu mi bagx menpelaskan mengapa wanya uuak mcauangkan kepada saksi pendakwaan. An u kn Pumbcla n [451 Pamaexaan lenuduh mammbulkan aam walak panama Sahrul yang mkalaken aaraua bersamanya. di dalam Pamana Mam samasa mereka dlhampm alan pasukan serbuan Fnkla ml hdak diumbulkan alau dulanya samasa wnenxsaan hula: camaaap spa. [49] Pemhelaan juga mewayaman 1.-ma lertuduh dan samul. berdua, telah keluar aan kerenanya dan melankan diri Semasa dikejar pasukan serbuan, Sahml dikalakan melemparkan stsuatu xa arah sanu mmah Sahm\ berjaya mebpaskan am dan nanya Ierluduh dnanykap. Dadah dlkalakan diambtl den barang yang dihuang Sahrul ladl. Fakla inn jugs «max dwkemukakan di permgkal kes pendakwsan atau dw cadangkan kapaaa SP2. IN yn-ZAunPEyDacazupbDW 1. -umauammnuwxxx be used m mm has mn.u-y mm: dun-mm Va aF\uNG pm [50] Seiemsnya, Ierluduh didem can mpaksa unluk mambenkan maklumal mengenai abangnya. lslahuddm am «am (sum dan mereka dnkatakan was |e\ah pergi ke mmah abang «enuuun dw Sky Gardens Residence. Flhak polls iuga dikatakan le\’ah membual serbuan d1 rumah sewa soz dan rllenjumpal dadeh yang mans dikalakan juga telan dimasukkan ke dalam beg sllang lanuduh. spz hdak mengmgah fakla serbuan a. Sky Reswdenees Ietapl menafikan Ielah mendera Ienuduh, [51] 502 daklm kelarangnnnya mengesahkan rumah ylng ausemu dx Sky Garden Residence adalah mmah sswa nanau dan mangalakan dldah yang dxjumpai adalah mmk kawannya bemamu Man Clna Mun Gina um dalam vahanan dx pemara cnang:,s1ngapuna [521 Mona Adrb bin Kasml (sm) memhenkan kelerangan unluk mengesahkan bahawa salu Vaparan pans telah dlbual ulehnya mengenai aduan Ienuduh (slah moetierakan flan dnumbuk semasa dalam Iahanan. Dapaun di khirKn Pumboluln [531 Bemasarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, flka penflakwaan beqaya mambukukan kesnya melampam sebarung keragunn yang rnunasanan, Izrluduh hendaklah dxdapnu bersalah Gan dlsabrlkan. Namun Jlka senanknya, Mahkamah hendaklah mmepas den mamhahaskan |erIuduh |Rujuk ken Blllclllndrln V. PF [2005] 1 CLJ I5 dan Mahamld Rldhl bln yum; a. PP [1991] 1 cu Rap am [541 Mengenax anggapan penyedaran dmawan s.a7(ua), bsbsn akan berpindah kepada Ieduduh unluk menyangka\ anggapan lersebul aoas nnuangan kebamngkallan yang mana hebannya ada\ah Vebih beral dan menlmbulkan keraguan yang munasabah truwk Ines PP v. vwmjmsa] 1LNS116) yn yo-ZAuY1PEyDacazupbDW Is -maénamnmmwxu be used m mm n. nrW\ruU|Y mm: m.n.n wa .nuNG pm [55] Mangxkul kas Lilm Hung Boon v. PP [2012] 1 LNS 1455‘ Mahkamah Rzyuan memuluskan ‘Sn Ina nnpelllm rum to mum (ha opembn presunwltun M (lifllakmg under 5. mm am. am on m. bulanu uvpmmu-nu, mu men omumuu pleas n Nnherevidevmany burden an an apwuam. [56] Dengan pemakalan anggapan m bawah s 371da| ml juga, Mernen pagederln man duanggap maka |erluduh dnkalakan meugedar dadah Larsahut samngga mbukukan sebauknya (unm the commy u proved] Tenumm dengan ml perm mengamukakan kenerangan yang mencukupr unmx mengakas anggapan Iersebul mas rmbangnn keharnngKaI1an(ru;uk up can Klm v PP(1l9l)Z cu svs den Mohamud RldMvPF(19D1) 2 sea as) [571 Dalam pemhe\aan tertuduh, telah dmwahkan oleh peguam sepeni berikul sahagal huktl sanggahan (rebuttal evidence): 1 Kasalumhan kelarangan SP2 adalah wax kradlbei kerana gagal msngingah nndnknn sslbuln yang mount an Sky eamn Reswdence vmaunun man barsemu bahawa salu laparan pans telah mbual mengenau semuan lersshut. 2 Ranlalan ksxerangan barang kes Isrpulus ken-ana SP2 gage! menjelaskan keberadann dadah yang dnrampss semasa menahan Ienuduh dengan dadah yang flirampas di Sky Garden Residences. 3 Pendakwaan perin memanggu saksi Iain [Sanan Guganathan) unluk memharikan kelerangan jems dan beral dadah yang dia lenma dan spz bagi mengesahkan mmaian pengendalian bansrlg kes ndik Ierpulus [53] Sebugal hum: balas, psndakwann mengnalun men. benkul IN yn-zmnviynarazupbnw Is -massmmnaawm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 1. Pembelaan lammuh ada\ah nenafian semala-mat: din memhenkan vars: yang heriaman mengenal Iemnal dadah dijumpax 1:1. psfkalangan mmah ssarang perempuan cma 7 yang dibafing oleh Sharul) uan bahawa Ianya millk Man cina. kawan ahangnya my dijumpax dx rmah Sky Garden Resu-xenaa. 2 Kelsrangan snz ndak membantu keterangan snz ataupun Iermduh malah bercanugah amam salu sama lam, 3. Kelerangan pembalaan uaak mangubah ketarangan kes pendakwaan bahawa dadah dijumpal dahm beg suang dnuhuh cemxnm 4. Kelemngan pembekaan sam pemikwran Ierkemudlan (afterthought) ‘rammuh gaga\ memhenkan maklumat lanjutmengenau seorang perempuan cma, rakannya Sahml dan Man Cma maka .a sebenamya saou rekaan serualz—mala dan walak mereka sengaja madaauakan 5. Pembelaan gagal merumbulkan sebamng keraguan (emadap kes Dendakwaan [59] Berkatt an wujudnya dua (2) versw keterangan yang berheza dnhenkan uleh keduadua belah pihak. says berpendapal kelerangan SP2 cukup kredibel darn boleh dipemayax karana liada sabab umuk says Iidak memparcayal kelerangannya flan hada mom urvtuk lenuduh menumhmkan kemungklnan SP2 ingln memevangkap mu mengenakan terluduh dalam pefluduhan ini. [ea] xexarangan «anudun gagal manlmbulkan karaguan munasabah bahawa dadah dubuarlg oleh Sahrul den uuumnai an rumah snz yanmuga dlkatakan mu-k Man Cma Wank samul lni lldak ammnulx-n semasa kes pendakwlln. Tamunya SP2 hnlah mangesahkun uka banar Ierluduh lndak kasamangan semasa pnsukan serbuan mangam maraka. Dangan IN yfl-ZAuY1PEyDIcazupI:DW n -masaamamwm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: flan-mm Va muNG pm menimbulkan versl berlemanga hanyn pm mass pembevaan max membanlu menyakinkan saya unluk memparcayai kebenaran versi pembekaan. [an Dengan manlmburkan walak Sanrul alaupun Man cma naak menggangu naram kes pendakwaan da\am vemhuklian kas uamaaap lerluduh. Saya «pm: rvullkan dadah yang mrampas aaalah flan beg sandnnglanuduh yang mana larluduh mangalahui ksberaaaannya lanlas perbuavan ballau marempuh kanderaan plsulun dan me\ankan dun [s2] Menuduh pihak polls cuba menganiaya lerluduh dengan meweoakkan dadah dalam beg svlangnya adalah salu pengalaan yang serius. Fakla mi celah mcadangkan kepada SP2 namun beliau Iidak bersmuju flan menankannya. [as] Say: manew dan memperlimbangkan keseluruhan pembalaan (enuduh den berpendanaty versv pzmbelaan mak mm. dipercayai kerana ianya sen|aho\a?I dmmbulkan unluk melepeskan din Tamhahan pula‘ kegagalan Dembelaan menimbmkan kewuiudan Sahrvl dalam Demefiksain balas cemsdap SP2 memmhulkan (ands unya. Im meruadikan uwenpercayaan saya larhadap yam yang dikemukakln olah vembelaan. Walaupun Ierluduh memelaskan alassn bellau lidak memaklumkan fakla Ini kepada peguam (vakut keluarga digangguj, wanya bukan salu slisan yang kukuh acau munasabsh kemna penuduhan lerhaflap lerluduh adalah senus yang boleh ayamm hukuman man. Sekadar nsau keluarua dwancam man uiganggu udak cukup Inenyaklnkan says unluk mempercayal kehenarannya. [54] saya juga havpandapal liada kelarangan mum lam yang manyangxax bahawa dadah man duumpal dnlam beg sundang dllubuh umumm. Jlkivun aaa umuesan dvdlh an Sky Glmen Resldcncay Ian)/I «nah dlsvnat clan pegawli penyunnl yang berbeze kerlna. menglkul IN yn-Zmnviybarazupbnw 1» -umemmmlnwwm be used m yaw .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm hwahan pendakwaan. dadah yang lerhaflap «en-mun mpal herhezz dari yang diperluduh [55] Fangamalan saya dari segi dernenour dan kunsislenst kelevangan, says berpendapul kemangan saw pendakwaan Iebm mama: dan Duleh dlperuym bamandlng keiarangan |erIuduh flan my pembelaan. Keterangan saksw pembelaan udak membanlu memdakkan kelerangan kes par-uakwa-n auu msnyangkal merangan mm. yung lalah dikemuknkan oleh pmak pendakwaan [66] Saya selemsnya talah menllsw dangsn Ialm kes pembelaan din Isiah membual dapavan sa\aras dengan seksyen cazn KTJ. Says juga memyuk kepafla panauan Radhl an dalam kes Manama mam zkab sepeni benkul -u us a mail asuhlrshafl Drmdpin M Mlllysmn nnmmal hw mat me pan-I-1 human 07 am! has n-mgr-um ma Ivlal an the pmecmn to wave bvyond Iessmuahte amm me guHl nu ma amused var me meme mm mm he .s chamod mm \s no swrmlar amen nlaoed an we amused to mm ms Innmtnue H: pvuuIn5¢mnooan|m|\lpvuvevI gum To elm nn aequmal, nu duly us nwvely m an . reasonable dwb| m m. pmsecukon use. In me owls: M In: nmsenulmn use. In: Dmsecmmu may ulwuvu v-Iy on mum namlarv m-ummm In vuzvo ans 01 man or In euenlm .nunax...u al m. mm Wn-n mm ocwu ma pnmculnr burdun av mm as owns-a to me asthma! human. mm m the «mm In mm mm n-uunm-ans on It»: Izalanua av vrobabflmws Much frum the defiance Down 1:! View us heawerthan ma burden or can-g a Ieaiunilfle mm, M n I: eeluirfly Vugmedmn the human elm: prmecumn m pmve beyond renscnnble mm [67] Kesvmpulannya. saya bemendapal hahawa keletangan nun kes we-nbelaan ada\ah salu Denafvan darl iuga Iidak rnerwaklnkan (rm! wnvmcmg). Sehuhungan dengan nu, says bemendapal kesaluruhan kes pembelaan gsgar umuk mammhulkan keraguan yang munasabah IN yn-uuttvzynarazuphnpv xg -manamimao WW be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Ierhadap kas nendakwaan dan sstarusnya gaga\ memalahkan anggaparl dmswah s.37(t1a) atas imhangan keharangkalian. Hukumnn [ea] oalam rayuan mmgasi peguam, belnau (elah berhujah flan memahon saya mempemmbengkan hukuman auemam peme-waan seumur hldup berikulan dengan pindaan yang barn umuac kepada s.39B. [aw] Selelah manaangar hujah dari kedua-dua belah k, says telah maruaxuhkan hukuman penjura seumur hidup dan eua hams (12) «an sebaian blgi perluduhan panama dan Bantam llgl (3) Karma aan uga (3) kn: sebllan hag: nenuduhan ksdua Hukumzn pememlraan baualln aaranuk nan lempnhnya bermula dun larvkh dnangkap (11 1.2915) Benankh: 19 Januan 2024 (NOOR HAVATI a ‘n NAJI MAT) Pesuruhjnya hakiman Mankaman Tlnggi Malaya Johor aamu Perwaknan a Bag! pnhak Fendakwaan: Puan Sm Nurliza mm. Mdmlih Twmbalan Pemlakwa Raya Fejahal Penwhai Undang-Undang Negen Jnhnr Am: 2, Eangunan new Jaafar Muhammad Kala Vskulldar, Iskandar Pulen Jnhor IN n-ZAuY1PEyDarAzupI:DW m - Ww\\\ be used w my ms mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nF\uNG pm Nnrnifk Pondakwun rt] Barwldak alas maklumal kagillan dudah. pads jam 5.30 pe1ang, n.1.zuw, lnspeldor Shahrw Rllal bm Abdul Kadlr, spz bsrsama Ingguha sarhuan yang um Ialnh hargarak ks Jalan S911: Tmpxka 1/2:. Taman Sana Tmpika m lukasw bemaknlan mmran KFC sen. Tmpnu. Pamemmn amuac salami so mum sabamm kelmllln ulu kenderaan Pvoinn Psldanl wama mam (WLR case) (Pnrdnnn mum) «ma an hadnpan xrc lersahul [:1 spz dan pasukan semuan manand nga (3) bush kendavaan yang lain SP2 mengarahkan salah sa|u kenderaan serbuan unluk menghampln Perdana hilam lerssbul. Due (2) kenderaan serhuan bergerak pam, saw dw belaknng Fenian: hnam dan salu lag: dw hafllpan. Mammy: sabuah lagly yang dmauu SP2 darn dun (2) llgl lnggnla, bergerak manghamplrl sis! Pemana hllam SP2 keluar dan kereva dan me n pemandu Perdana Mam unluk kemar dari karma Namun pemnndu Perdlna mlam mum berlmdak agmsw dun melangglr kmteraan mbum yang diparkv an nedlpannya. Parlunggarnn lemebul menyebabkan kamsaknn amanagxan haduyan humber Povdnna Mam saleiah hsriaya mambual ruang untuk um-r am pakir, psmandu Perdana mam memecul unluk memkan am. Dua (2) kanderaan serbuan lain manpeyar Pardana hilam yang mangnara ke arah Kempas, Pemanau Perdana hitam tsbh mclakukan pernanduun seaira zrg-zag dan keiar mengeyar beflerusan selama ream kurang 30 mum! sehmgga memasuki kc kauvasan Taman lrnpxan Emas. Tuba m sum lmpxan 5. SP2 malvhat Perdana nicam hemenh secara llbertibi Semasa pasukan serbuun menghamuiri Ferdana hilam, SP2 melmal saspek, seuranu leluki ksluar dun Perdana hitam dan mslankan am. Tangkapan beqaya dibual Dada yank so mexer din ksndaraan saspsk Sasvek juga cuha nmuk melepaskan am dan an gen dan berlaku pergelutan. Saspek bernndnk mmnw ‘ rwm be used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Bag! nihak Tenuduh: Enc\k Md Hazza Mn Md. Khalid Telunn Hazzn Khnlid Suriya a Pannurs unit 01-02, Lave! 2 Susur Larkin Perdana I aaasa Johm Eahm Johor IN yn-Zmnviynarazuphnvfi u - w\\\ be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm agresw sebeium benlya diraham Saspek ksmudvannya dtkenal pan: selzagaw Muhamad Shafiq hm Kasim (lsnuduh). [91 Pemam.-an pads badan Ienuduh dubualdan SP2 menjumplv saw (1) bag |Hnng ienama Coach am semalah dlperiksu, duumplv darl davam bag, saw (1) bungkuaan pmsnx mam yang dldalarnnya am; dua 12) pekzl plaslik Msmar znnsv dadah benluk knslzr bewama pulih drsylkl syabu Jug: duumpai dun (2) lug peket dudah disyakl syabu den heroin mm [I193 maapani dallm beg, salu pemsgang kad puma LV, kad penganalln Ianuduh. kad Legohand alas name Muhamad Shaflq bun Kaslm dan sum (1) aral pemmbung digILa\ berwama Mam Pamanxmn pada karma Pardana Mam manjumpai wan; tuna: camnur-nampur benurmah RMao.oo dan Mkeplng mavnwang Slngapura bemvlav so dollar [I0] Tenudun kemudnarmya dlserxhkan kepada Pegawnl Penyxasal, lnspeklar Flosvna mu Awang, SP7 besena bavang rampasln yang lelah dmual penandaan [11] SP7 menghaniar barang kes ke Jibalan Kvma dan hasu anafisa ahh mm , SP6 Puan Nur Hafiza Md Yusoi‘ mangesahkan dalam Laporin Kimia (P11) bahawa bararlg kes yang auampas adalah dadah berhahaya mm Matamphetamine sebelal 62 35 gram dan Hemm dan Mnmaoetyimorphines seberal 2.55 gram mp-mu DI akhlr kn Pundlkwun [121 D. penngkal akhir kas pendakwaan, sslu kes plrma facie sebagaimana dlperunmkkan dalam 5.130(1) Kanun Talacam Jenayah (Km perlu dlbukukan uleh pihak pendakwaan dam kecerangan buku yang boleh mpercayai dan xmdmex yang mm mm uuak tflsangkal akan mambc-lehkan sabltan dmual (nuuk use 14) KTJ dan kes Abdu/Iah Aran lum rpaazo) 9 cu 15:). I y lmzuphflw ‘ w“‘muwmm..m.mywm...u.m..n_.m W [13] Ungkapan "mfingemukakan kelsrangarl kukuh ylng membuklikan swap salu Ialdor ktsa/lhsn"dalam s 150(4) bemlaksud bahawa pinuk pendakwaan perm membuktikan sefiap alemen lvesalahan sama ad: dengan mengemukakan keterangln yang men dipevceysi, membual infemn lerhadap fakla man mengguna pakai anggapin undang-undang (hhal kes Abdul!-lh Ann :1: muka suraI165). [:4] K35 pnma lama wan kes ymg mennukupz unluk lerluduh dlpangwll unmx msniawab panuduhan kaaesnya dan kewangan yang diksmukakan menoukupw melamkan In dlsangkal alau makes me\aIu\ kumngan Ilm (mm kes Boluhandrln v PF [1005] 1 cu as). Dllam m Ong Chang mung mm PF(1!fl)l cu zoo, plndangln Wncanl Ng, J |eIah dlmjuk don msankan mah Mahkamnh Parsekutunn aaram kes Abdul!-h Am. mangsnaw apt! yang Lerjuwah sabaguv salu kes puma rum sewn: berikut -. pnmn «acne evsdenua ws evxaem mm W: sulfiuanho suamsn 2 Ian m we mum av any evmmcn m «M conlvary m V: ml mnchnwe Iwnmu com um llvura Ihoum be aamm. tvmlncs on nun Ind every ir\vmamn| A11 Ina uflmua Crsulme evidence u avwdlnoo -ma. ha: been Mend ma wmn nu none lhmugh ms vmuess ulevamanon Any ewdsnuu wmcn xi not safe «o be acled upon smma be rapolad‘ [15] aegicu jug: sehagamlana dipuluskan oleh Mahkamah Ruyuan dalam kes Loci Kow Chuf v. Public Proloculor (2003) 2 ML! 65. yang mengacakan seperli berikun -n memmre mum um (here .5 my ans exams. mm a judge snlmg alone undlvl an -mm cpc mm nnduflnkn al me don anm plméntllon can He must mam me vmriswhun madam: In mnmmxm mmnmn mm to sun m-men me rlnesmn an amid: to call upon me Accused m mm m. dufunw and hsalaclito remain snem‘ am \ pmpaream Carma mmon tiselalamyaflha evkienoe mnmmed m the pmsecmnn case’? In»: answav ws m me nawflve. mmnw 5 rwm be used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 0131 N: wmu fame use was mm me. am‘ and lfvu accused wvulfl ha mum |o an eammnr " [16] Mahkamah Persskuluan dalam kn Maqommn Malian v. Public Pmsvcutor [21111] 1 CLJ 005 mg: memutuskan mengenaw pembuklian kes prima Iacie sepem berikuc: -[441 rm (as! M me and M cm pmnwmn-s case is ‘Dunn (sue use‘ band an . maxhuum mmuen cl evidence The evdenca m m bu scnnlmhad pmpcny and um uafiunctnmy‘ culxomy or swan‘-c\alIy u m v-Inuilun av lbs Imdmua results m mm: in I11: pmisumulfs case man a puma rm. case has not bean made uul me menu mm wt in be mfled merely In dearer damy such mums.’ [I7] Miki, dalam menerlluklrl pemhuklvan kas pnmn Incvs, ialu panilaian semi-a maksima perm dIbua| Ierhadap keseluluhln keleringan mm. yang dikemuknkan (ermasuk menflal kI1~:dibrhlI saksmaksv flan mehhat mleren yang bolah dlbual dari kderangnn bukli kas pendakwaan untuk membukukan selvap elemen kesalihan (nuuk kss pr v Mahd nadzi Abu Baku[2W5] 1 cu 457: Ku Pr/ml Fich [I8] Keterangan mum yang perlu dikemukakan unluk lwsalahan pengsdaran dadah berbahaya a. bawah s, 395 (1) (a) ADE afla¥ah bahawa dadah yang dvampas adslah dadah bemahaya sepem yang dlsenaralkan dalam Jadual Fenama ADB, Ia adalah dalnm pemlllkan temmuh apabila dmuktikan dadan adalah di bawah jagaan, xawalan dan pengelahuannya dan seterusnya, lenuduh mangedar dadan Iersebul. Pengedaran boxy. dwbukxikan dengan keaerangan langsung herdasarkan laisvan pengedaran m bawah seksyen 2 ADB atau anggapan m bawah sexsyen 37 (Ha). Imzupbflw ‘ rwm be used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Inupau Kuulahnn Dadah adamh yang Iarssnalai dr ./ar.1ua/ Penams den sapemmana yang dmefinssmsn dlbaweh ADE. [19] Jems dan beral dadah telah msahkan dan amuknkan dan keterangan SP6 dan Laporan Kma yang disediakan, P17 sehagawmana danam penumman waflu iems Memamphelamme seberal 32 35 mm dan Harem den Munnaoemmorpmnes seherat 2 55 gram. [Z0] Mengsnax hesnl anahsa SP5‘ says menuuk kepada kss Munusanty Vongadun m v PP[19l7] cu (mp; 221 and 9. chlndrun 1/Public Pmsnculur mos) z MLJ 301 dan msmeuk bahawa mahlumah mi “entitled ID accept I/V1 opimnn 11/ the charms! E! II: face value without me nscesstry for Mm lo ga mm amen: of Whil he did In Me laboratory unless 1! rs mhemnlly mcradfbfe ol the dolance calls swdsnce In rebuttal by another expert. Pendapfl mu juga Mail diikuli delam kas Tlrmlzl Mn Vuzob v pr (zoos) 5 ML] 177 dam selnrusnya dalam Mnlan pm uumr. v PP Rlyuan Jun-yin uwmn-2m o\eh Mahlumah Rayuan [21] Ranlalnn pargarakan barang kzs udak (arpums drmana dadah yang dlrampas olan spz lalah rahkan kspaaa sw, selanjulnya kepada spa unluk manansa Barang kes |eIah dxslmpan m star penylmpanan bareng kes samngga dlkemukakan ke mahkaman pads nan pemiravaan (nuuk kas Gum nnum-cnandm. I/FF (20004 cu 551 — " me chum olavidarme rs more Important for the perind from the lime olrscm/sly um]! um complarron ollhs analysis by me enema “| [22] Maka dengan nu, saya mendapati pihak pendakwaan Ie\ah heqaya membukilkan elemen Jams dan berm dadah sebagarmana da\am 7 5, kazuphflw . -Mfilélfii wH\I>euse4mvafl{lhenrW\nnH|YM1Ms a...u.m..n_.m W psrtuduhan (Mukan ‘uga dihual msnmkul kas shanrrnl Abdul Ghani v. PP [2014] 1 CL! 70 dan su My Pin v. PP new 1 LNS mo). [23] Wl¥au bagaimanapun. pada |anap In], peguam Iarluduh lelah bemmah mengalakan buhawa lemapal salu Jag: semuan susulan dlhual selepas mu m \okas4 yang lzerasvngan dan mxaukan Ierdapal dadah lam mga dlrampas. Cadangan falls m! lelah dlkamukakan kapada svz lelaw SP2 lidak mengmgnlmyn. Make, peguam mengatakan ada kemungbdnln bamng kes yang dilampas mi wan bercamnur -aux dengan dadah yang dlrampas di lnkusi kodua lersebul [24] Says dapau kexerangan SP2 konslslen walaupun mkalakan tevagak-ngak apabna dnanya mengenav serbuan kedua, namun Ianya rmmgkin Kerana beliau udak buleh mangmgalmya Sungguhpun begitu, barsng kss |elah msahkan berada dalam slmpanan SP2 seningga Iandaan mbuat seruasa di IPD Maka Ianfanan kenerangan bukli barang was Imak |eruuAus. Pemilfkan lulhadsp dadah [25] Berkan keperman membuklikan ramuan pemmkan, mhak pendakwaan padu mengemukakan kslerangan bahawa lenuduh mempun Walan alau Jagaan sens pengelahuan Ienlang dadah yang dwmpal (IIha| Res on.» Fun Loon V. FP[1D5€)MLJ2.?7). Mahkamah dalam kes Chlll Fnn Llanjuga |e|ah memuluskan hahawa “ H pelsnll IS mm m be m passessmn ola mmg ring has my power to flea/w/m It as my owns! lo the excrus/on :3! all ulnar psrsons.' [26] Maisud "cuslody"‘ “comm!” and ‘possess n' lelah dlbmcangkan dalam kzs Lcow Nghee Lim v Red [1955] 1 MLJ, yang mana drpelvk seperll benkut 5, , P .M..aw . -J‘a££3?&h4m$JM.,.u;....um.»y...m.mywm...u.m..n_.NaW ‘cusloay mum havvnq an 01 uunrdianshv. quad: -n cuflndy an -n me we at me wstudlan and‘ by necmlary xmplicamrx he :5 faith; me at them an nenaw olsameom due. You cannot make can ovgwas unllss yuu kmwwhece meyave and have Ihemnns o4 -xudsma mncmx ova Ihem Gutlody mcruiurw nnpx . xnumag. nl In: xluencc Ind whueaboms Mme goods and paw! of wnlml over um. um lmolmlmg bu polullbn Camel unuu be nmved nu «mane n mun arise lmm me relav.-on alihe pwscm in ma goudl, Vnuplfirve aIMuemn1\Mry urn wntrnband. Pmnamyme mnsl napmn aenmmn of puswssmn \s— 'Thava1a1mn an person It: 3 Wing ov-rwmch he may at nu Dlunxlri aurora mun wnlnfl as me mzracxer at me unng adrnn. :4: me muse" at am persons.’ ms aennman duu not anwreis, Inn :1 due: lnn\yIh.Il we mun-ng ulmv wovd mdndu some element cl ans-«aga. A man mm mm ov Ihl nxmcnm of . mm and have some men M n. whemabcub below It: can snemse any wn|m\ me! n nu ma vosbessm Imvvixzra Imnies some kmrmodga am not necesamy mu m exact km.7MIdga.‘ [271 Mangenm pornbubman penganahuan, Mahklmah Fersekutuan dalam kes Plrinn bill Daniel: Y Public Prosecutor [1907] 1 CL] 717 merruuuskan bahfirl-1 Memen pangmahuan he\eh dlllhal dari mlersn Eiiu kesimpulan fakla Penken yang dirwuk nda¥ah sepem benkm: 'PmuYMknuw1sd§a Vs very ohm - mmuov nvmnoe me malzvml lmm mu m. nuisance ulknnwiadgn an an mm. vunus awn came an llwuuld n. suvnmam (or me prolsculom m prune «pm from wn-ch n mm pmpivly u. um:-ma ma Itw amused rm lb: nuwualy km1Med9e.' [251 Rmgkasnya. mun ‘pamHIkan' merujuk kepada keupayaln permliknyn unluk berumsan dengan dadah dengan mengecuafllun Iksas nrang Vain den mampunym pangeriahuln «emang dadnh yang dipersoilkan. S Imzu tau 5 «n”és’sV6'é$Jé5flE§!finn_Z...”E:m»,...nnnn.u.y.nn.a...n.n.mnunn W [29] Dalnm kes im. pinak pendakwaan (elah mengamukakan lakva dan mfeten berikul umuk membukfikan pemillkan Iamadap dadah: 1. Kama serbuan auakukan dnmanl kandarsan tarluduh Ielah dnkepung olah dun kmflevaan pasukan map: Ierluduh (elah berlmdak merempuh kanderaan pasukan dan mememl sshmgga benakunya kejar mengejar. 2. Aksn kqar mengejar Inn nenamumn so mmll sehingga Inba m Taman lmplan Ema: dimana terluduh nba-uba msmbememikan kemtunya mm kalunr malankan am 1 Fusukan serbuan larpakse mangeiananuduh sehingga 50 meter am Iempll kavmanya dibema an M-Ian, pergelulan jugs berlaku sebamm larluduh benaya drlahen 4. Beg sllang yang menglndungl dldah yang dirampus sading msanaang pad: |ubuh lemniuh. 5. Kad psngenilin dun lerluduh juga duumpai dalarn bag sandang Ierssbul Turul duumpai. salu ava: pemmbang bewnma hlllm. 6. Perbuaun nammun «ask membsnkan keqasama, bemndak mervmpuh ksreta pasukan dun melankan am sema bergelul sebaium larlgkapan dibusl. adalah relevan sebag buklr kebersalahan beliau. 7 Pendakwaan mengguna pakaw angqapan venpedal-an an hawah 5. 37(da){xvv) bevdasarkan jurmah hers! dadah yang male 50 gram 5. Rampasan jugs dmuat lerhadap am penimbang dlgnal yang mana saw mfeven bahawa dadah hukan umuk kegunaan sendiri. 9 Ranlalan keverangsn buktn harang kes tidak Iernutus [an] vana por\ngka1ini,pmak pembexaan bemujah sepem berikul. IN yn-zmmwz namzupbnw "’ mfismmalm‘ be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020

PLAINTIF BUMISETIA POWER SDN BHD DEFENDAN TAN CHIN SIEA

(1) This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 45 for summary judgement pursuant to Order 14 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 to be recorded for the sum of RM889,864.66 together with interest at 5% per annum on the sum of RM889,864.66 from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs. (2) Having considered the facts and submissions, I allowed the Plaintiff’s application with costs and now provide my reasons for allowing the said summary judgment application.(3) The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia having its registered and business address in Sandakan Sabah. (4) The Defendant is an individual having addresses in the State of Selangor.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Letter of guarantee and indemnity - particulars not pleaded - law on facts and evidence - doctrine of res judicata - judicial notice.

31/01/2024

YA Puan Indra Nehru Savandiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=50734171-81f1-4178-974e-6670219eb6bf&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22NCVC-130-05/2020 BETWEEN BUMISETIA POWER SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF [COMPANY NO.: 821359-X] AND TAN CHIN SIEA … DEFENDANT [NRIC NO.: 610105-10-6687] _________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The plaintiff appeals against its dismissal of the action. 2. No appeal is lodged regarding dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim. Plaintiff’s Case 3. Plaintiff, Bumisetia Power Sdn Bhd (now referred to as “Bumisetia”), claims against the defendant for the sum of RM7,192,889.70. 31/01/2024 10:47:15 BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020 Kand. 128 S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 4. The Defendant alleged by the plaintiff the sum mentioned above is payable by a Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity dated 15.09.2009 (page 1 – 7, Enclosure 32 (B1), (from now on referred to as the “the guarantee”) for money due and payable by Kombinasi Solar Sdn Bhd for works undertaken by Kombinasi under a subcontract dated 15.09.2009 (from now on to as the “2009 subcontract”). 5. The plaintiff has referred to salient express terms of the guarantee and indemnity as follows: “(a) the guarantee and indemnity shall secure such sums that are from time to time owing to the plaintiff by Kombinasi Solar (Clause 2); (b) the defendant agreed that it is not a condition to the guarantee and indemnity that the plaintiff had to initiate legal proceedings against Kombinasi Solar (Clause 3); S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (c) the guarantee and indemnity shall not be discharged or diminished because of any renewal, variation, determined or increased relation to any work given to Kombinasi Solar, the granting of time or any indulgence to Kombinasi Solar (Clause 4); and (d) the guarantee and indemnity shall be binding on the heirs, estate, and successors of the defendant (Clause 8).” Defendant’s Case 6. The defendant pleaded that Kombinasi Solar owes no money to the plaintiff under the 2009 subcontract. 7. The reason is the civil suit initiated in Sandakan High Court Civil Suit No. SDK-22NCVC-20-8/2017, whereby Kombinasi was suing the plaintiff. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 8. The defendant has filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff. 9. Parties have agreed on the issues to be tried as follows: “(a) Samada surat jaminan dan tanggungan tersebut adalah tertakluk kepada syarat bahawa adanya hutang di antara Kombinasi Solar kepada plaintif. (b) Samada Kombinasi Solar berhutang kepada plaintif menurut perjanjian bagi projek. Sekiranya jawapan adalah positif, berapakah jumlah keberhutangan tersebut? (c) Samada plaintif telah membuktikan jumlah RM7, 192,889.70 yang didakwa berhutang oleh Kombinasi Solar kepada plaintif.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Analysis and Findings of the Court 10. The plaintiff submits this Court to take judicial notice of the decision in the Sandakan Suit. 11. The Sandakan High Court dismissed Kombinasi Solar’s claim and allowed the plaintiff’s counterclaim against Kombinasi Solar, partly for RM889,864.66. 12. The plaintiff further submits there are pertinent findings of facts made by the learned Judicial Commissioner in the Sandakan Suit, which is extracted from the plaintiff’s submission as follows: “Issue (3A) Whether the plaintiff has failed to remit its share of the contributions for the joint venture and, if so, for what amount? [90] The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff did not contribute its share of the capital contribution for September 2013 to December 2013, amounting to S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 RM343,532.16 despite the reminders vide the 1st defendant’s letters to the plaintiff dated 11.11.2014 and 30.9.2015, respectively. See exhibit D3 (37) on page 371 of CBC and exhibit PB (382-383 of CBC). Therefore, issue 3A is answered in the affirmative, and the amount of capital contribution the plaintiff failed to contribute is RM343,532.16.” Issue (6A) Whether the plaintiff had diverted the proceeds in A/C No. 151-309-631-1 for its use amounting to RM1,994,999.98. [130] The plaintiff now contends that the sum of RM1,994,999,98 was used to set off the amount of RM1,095,135.32 unlawfully diverted by the 1st defendant from the UOB account to the Maybank account. The undisputed evidence shows that the S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 plaintiff had, on or about March 2014, diverted the contract proceeds under Phase 2B works amounting to RM1,994,999.98 and refused to share information about the plaintiff’s credit facilities used for the Phase 2B works. This prompted the 1st defendant to instruct MOE to pay the contract proceeds to the Maybank account. [131] As the plaintiff’s credit facilities with UOB have been fully settled and the plaintiff was not appointed as the sub-contractor for the Phase 2B works, the contract proceeds belong to the 1st defendant, who carried out Phase 2B works, as the plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate their contention or defence that the monies used to settle the outstanding credit facilities owing to UOB S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 bank, Issue (6A) is answered in the affirmative.” “Issue (6B) Whether it is an agreed term of the supplementary Agreement dated 28.01.2011 that the plaintiff shall account to the 1st defendant the payment received for the preliminaries undertaken by the 1st defendant before signing the Subcontract Agreement? [139] The wording in Clause 1 of the Supplementary Contract dated 28.1.2011 is plain and unambiguous. It is expressly stated in Clause 1 that the main contractor (1st defendant) shall retain and undertake the preliminaries stated in Schedule A. The subcontractor (plaintiff) shall forthwith account to the main contractor for all payments received for the said items S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 within 14 days from the date of the Supplementary Contract except the stated items undertaken by the subcontractor. Clause 1, in its plain and natural meaning, refers to the preliminaries already received by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff must account to the 1st defendant within 14 days from the date of the Supplementary Agreement dated 28.1.2011.” Issue (9) Whether the plaintiff failed to rectify or make good of any defect as required by D1. [191] Issue 9 is related to issue (1) above. In light of the finding of this Court in respect of issue (1) regarding the plaintiff’s failure to prove that the defect has been rectified by the plaintiff and the CMGD has been S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 issued, issue (9) is answered in the affirmative.” Issue (11) If yes, whether the plaintiff breached the term and caused D1 the loss or damage of RM1,994,999.80? Issue (12) Whether the plaintiff received the MOE and failed to release to D1 RM1,994,999.98 and received under Phase 2B and diverted it to his use. Issue (13) If yes, whether the failure cause a loss of RM1,994,999.98 to D1? [210] UOB bank has reassigned to the 1st defendant all its rights and interests in the remaining balance of all the unpaid contract proceeds. As UOB does not have any claim over the remaining contract S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 proceeds, the plaintiff’s failure or refusal to release the RM1,994,999.98 to the 1st defendant is a wrongful act and in breach of Clause 10.4.8 of the SA 2013. Having regard to the finding of this Court on the Issue (6A) and (10) above, this Court would answer Issues (11), (12) and (13) in the affirmative.” 13. The plaintiff invoked sections 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act 1950. 14. The Court of Appeal decision of Tony Pua Kiam Wee v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak [2018] 3 CLJ 522 was referred to support their argument. 15. By referring to the statute and case law, the plaintiff contends that there is no need to prove facts that can be taken judicial notice by this Court. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 16. The plaintiff also observed the defendant’s counsel's conduct in not cross-examining the plaintiff’s sole witness concerning the Sandakan Suit and its findings of facts. 17. The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s defence of never being indebted to the plaintiff fails as the Sandakan Suit decision was not favourable to the defendant. 18. Therefore, the plaintiff submits that the defendant is estopped from raising the same issue, repeatedly asserting that there are no monies due and owing by Kombinasi Solar to the plaintiff. 19. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] MLJ 331 as follows: “(2) The doctrine of estoppel is a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the circumstances. It is a doctrine of wide utility and has been resorted to in varying fact patterns to achieve justice. The maxim S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 ‘estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword’ does not limit the doctrine of estoppel to the defendant alone. Plaintiffs too may have recourse to it. Estoppel may assist a plaintiff in enforcing a cause of action by preventing a defendant from denying the existence of some fact which would destroy the cause of action.” 20. The guarantee and indemnity is deemed a continuing guarantee under Clause 2 of the guarantee and indemnity. Section 82 of the Contract Act 1950 is referred to. 21. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is precluded from rehearing and retrying issues that should be raised at the Sandakan Suit and not in this trial. 22. Plaintiff invoked the doctrine of res judicata. 23. Reference is made to the Supreme Court decision in Asia Commercial Finance (M) v Kawal Teliti Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 783. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 24. The plaintiff also submits that the defendant admitted that the sum of RM10,000.00 is due and not paid to the plaintiff. 25. This sum of RM10,000.00 arose as costs ordered by the Court of Appeal to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant concerning the legal suit for the reassignment of contract proceeds. 26. During the trial, the plaintiff, through its sole witness, adduced evidence that Kombinasi was indebted to Bumisetia for the sum of RM5,945,749.67. [refer to question 25 (WSPW1)] 27. The sum is as follows: (a) liquidated ascertained damages: RM3,607,217.53; (b) balance of diverted contract proceeds: RM1,994,999.98; (c) non-contribution of capital: RM343,532.16. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 28. The defendant objected to the following answers to the questions of WSPW1: (a) Q.11 on the sum of the alleged contribution of RM343,532.16; (b) Q.12 on the alleged LAD of RM3,607,217.53; (c) Q.13 on the alleged sum of RM1,994,999.98; (d) Q.13 on the allegation that Kombinasi had received the sums of RM2,435,291.65 and RM955,529.15 in respect of claims Nos. 13 and 14, respectively, for package 12; (e) Q.14 on the alleged demand; (f) Q.15 on the alleged making good of the alleged demand; (g) On the judgment of the Sandakan High Court. 29. The objections were raised on the following grounds: (a) all these were not pleaded. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (b) the defendant is prejudiced because being denied any chance to refute matters not pleaded. (c) taken by surprise to the introduction of matters not pleaded nor brought to the defendant's attention. 30. The defendant submits the plaintiff merely pleaded there was a letter of demand from its solicitors for the sum as claimed based on the letter of guarantee and indemnity [refer to pages 1-7 of Enclosure 21(A)]. 31. The plaintiff counters this by submitting that the defendant failed to plead the plaintiff’s counterclaim against Kombinasi Solar in the Sandakan Suit, in its defence in this trial. 32. And the plaintiff further states that its counterclaim against Kombinasi in the Sandakan suit is pleaded in reply to the defence filed by the defendant in this trial. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 33. The plaintiff also contends that the witness statement of WSPW1 and the documents referred to in the witness statement are evidence. 34. Order 18, rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, is considered wherein there is no need to plead evidence. Facts need to be pleaded. 35. The plaintiff points out that the defendant, in his written submission, has mentioned the witness statement and documents referred to in the witness statement are evidence. 36. The plaintiff adds that the defendant’s witness had testified in both the Sandakan Suit and the current trial before this Court. He maintained in his cross-examination that his testimony was on behalf of Kombinasi Solar. [refer to Notes of Evidence, page 150, lines 20-24]. 37. It is recorded that the defendant objected to facts not pleaded and evidence adduced as stated in paragraphs 28 and 29 mentioned above. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 38. Parties agreed that these objections raised will be addressed in their submissions after the trial, respectively. 39. I accept the defendant’s argument that particulars of the debt must be pleaded. 40. Plaintiff merely pleaded there was a letter of demand for the sum as claimed based on the letter of guarantee and indemnity [refer to pages 1-7 Enclosure 21 (A)]. 41. I note that in the statement of claim, there was no mention of non- contribution of capital, diversion of money, LAD, or the outcome of the Sandakan Suit. Nor was it raised in the issues to be tried. 42. The statement of claim is dated 12.5.2020. 43. The Sandakan Suit judgment was delivered on 3.9.2021. 44. Before this Court, there is no mention of the Sandakan Suit and its decision in the statement of claim. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 45. The defence was no debt due and owing by Kombinasi. The defendant had stated that Kombinasi was suing the plaintiff as particularised in paragraph (5) of the defence. 46. That is the case before this Court. 47. The plaintiff's argument that its counterclaim against Kombinasi in the Sandakan suit is pleaded in reply to the defence in this suit does not reflect the particulars tendered in evidence of WSPW1. 48. The particulars only relate to the sum of RM3,607,217.53 being LAD and the sum of RM10,000.00 in respect of its costs awarded to the plaintiff by the Court of Appeal in an appeal arising from Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons NO. 24NCC-284- 08/2015, United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd and Kombinasi. 49. It is a misconceived argument put forward by the plaintiff as the counterclaim by the plaintiff against Kombinasi in the Sandakan Suit is not the case to be decided before this Court. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 50. Principles on pleadings must contain particulars explained in the Court of Appeal decision in Cergas Tegas Sdn Bhd (IN LIQUIDATION) v SAP Holdings Bhd & Anor [2013] 8 CLJ 745 as follows: “[130] Pleadings must contain particulars in order to ensure that the parties are informed with reasonable certainty as to the matters which are alleged against them …” In disposing of a suit or matter involving a disputed question of fact, it is not proper for the court to displace the case made by a party in its pleadings and give effect to an entirely new case which the party had not made out in its own pleadings. The trial of a suit should be confined to the pleas on which the parties are at variance. If the parties agree to a factual position then it is hardly open to the court to come S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 to a finding different from such agreed facts. The only purpose in requiring pleadings and issues is to ascertain the real difference between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. [131] Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Majesty then was) in The Chartered Bank v Yong Chan [1974] 1 LNS 178; [1974] 1 MLJ 157 aptly said on p. 159: Now, the function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case which is to be made so that the opposing party may direct his evidence to the issue disclosed by them. See Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218, 238.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 51. In the Federal Court decision Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 944, was held: (i) It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded…. [29] It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that the parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded (see State Government of Perak v Muniandy [1985] 1 LNS 117; [1986] 1 MLJ 490; and Anuar Mat Amin v Abdullah Mohd Zain [1989] 1 LNS 74; [1989] 3 MLJ 313). In Blay v Pollard & Morris [1930] 1 KB 628, Scrutton LJ ruled that: “Cases must be decided on the issues on the record, and if it is desired to raise other issues there must be pleaded on the record by amendment.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [30] The Supreme Court in Lee Ah Chor v Southern Bank Bhd [1991] 1 CLJ 667; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 239; [1991] 1 MLJ 428, had also emphasized the importance of pleadings and ruled that where a vital issue was not raised in the pleadings it could not be allowed to be argued and to succeed on appeal (see also Ambank (M) Bhd v Luqman Kamil Mohammed Don [2012] 3 CLJ 551; [2012] MLJU 56 FC). 52. The Court of Appeal in Mega Meisa Sdn Bhd & 2 Others v Mustapha Dorani [2020] 1 LNS 1480 held: “A judgment should be based upon the issues which arise in the suit and if such a judgment does not dispose of the questions as presented by the parties it renders itself liable not only to grave criticism but also to a miscarriage of justice. It becomes worse and is unsustainable if it goes outside the issues. Such a judgment cannot be said to be in accordance with the S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 law and the rules of procedure. It is the duty of the courts to follow the rules of procedure and practice to ensure that justice is done. These rules are meant to be observed and respected.” 53. I accept that the principles explained in the abovementioned cases apply to the facts in this trial. 54. It is obvious that the facts adduced during the trial are not pleaded in the statement of claim. 55. In this instance, I refer to the Supreme Court decision in Superintendent of Land and Surveys, 4th Division and Another v Hamit bin Matusin and Others [1994] 3 CLJ 567 held: “The rule is that if a party is taken by surprise by evidence which departs from pleaded material facts, he must object then and there at the point of time when such evidence emerges in order for such evidence to be disregarded by the Court.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 56. In the present suit, the defendant promptly objected to the non- pleaded material facts related to the Sandakan Suit and evidence about it being tendered in this trial. 57. I observed that the plaintiff attempted in this suit to introduce the particulars of the claim, which is not pleaded, and evidence to support it through the testimony of WSPW1. 58. The defendant is prejudiced by the plaintiff's attempt to introduce the Sandakan Suit, which was decided on 3.9.2021. In contrast, the statement of claim in this current suit is dated 12.5.2020, arising from a letter of demand dated 18.5.2017. 59. No money is proven to be due and payable by Kombinasi to Bumisetia as of 18.5.2017. 60. I am disregarding all facts and evidence arising out of the non- pleaded facts in this trial. This resulted in the plaintiff failing to prove its claim. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 61. This ground alone is sufficient for dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. 62. For completeness, I address the issue of res judicata and judicial notice. 63. Assuming the plaintiff is allowed to raise the issues concerning non- contribution of capital, LAD, and diversion for RM1,994,998.94, then the principle of res judicata applies to this trial. 64. It can be recalled that the plaintiff chose to invoke the doctrine of res judicata in the form of issue estoppel. 65. The plaintiff has dealt with this in a detailed argument. 66. In this trial, the plaintiff vehemently argued that the defendant should not raise issues that ought to be presented in the Sandakan Suit. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 67. The defendant in this trial states that it is undisputed that these issues on the non-contribution of capital, LAD, and diversion of RM1,994,998.94 had been ventilated in the Sandakan Suit. 68. The defendant further argued that although the defendant in this case was not a party in the Sandakan Suit between Kombinasi and Bumisetia, the doctrine of res judicata still applies. 69. I accept the argument put forward by the defendant because the facts of this trial and the Sandakan Suit share common grounds in many aspects and, to some extent, the same issues. 70. In the Court of Appeal case of IBIG @ David Rampas & Anor v Terisah Bahan & Ors [2016] 8 CLJ 790, it was held: “For res judicata, the parties need not be the same. It had been so held in North West Water Ltd v Binnie & Partners (a firm) that: “Where issues had for all practical purposes been decided in a court of competent S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 jurisdiction, the court would not allow that the issue to be raised in separate proceedings between different parties arising out of identical facts and dependant on the same evidence, since not only was the party seeking to relitigate the issue prevented from doing so by issue estoppel but it would be an abuse of process of allowing the issue to be relitigated…” 71. In the Federal Court decision in Lin Web-Chih & Anor v Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 1 LNS1 1562 was held: [43] We must also add that in a challenge based on res judicata, the Court is entitled to examine and analyse the written judgments of the 1st 1997 suits and all other relevant records of appeal. As aptly stated by Lord Upjohn in the House of Lords’ case of Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd and Others (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 536 that: S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 “The broader principle of res judicata is founded on the twin principles so frequently expressed in Latin that they should be at an end to litigation and justice demands that the same party shall not be harassed twice for the same cause. It goes beyond the mere record; it is part of the law of evidence for, to see whether it applies, the facts and reasons given by the judge, his judgment, the pleadings, the evidence, and even the history of the matter may be taken into account … 72. The plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the same issues without amending the statement of claim. For apparent reasons, the plaintiff failed in the Sandakan Suit to a large extent. 73. The law does not permit me to reconsider these issues as the doctrine of res judicata applies. This is a glaring instance of an S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 attempt to re-litigate the RM10,000.00 cost issue, which has been dismissed in the Sandakan Suit. 74. The application of judicial notice put forward by the plaintiff is misplaced. 75. I agree with the defendant’s submission that this Court can take judicial notice of the existence of the Sandakan Suit. 76. However, I cannot base my findings of facts and law on the findings of facts and law that the learned Judicial Commissioner applied to decide the Sandakan Suit. There is an appeal lodged by both the plaintiff and defendant in Sandakan Suit to the Court of Appeal. 77. If I elect to do so, it is tantamount to err both in law and finding of facts. 78. All the more, in the Sandakan Suit, Kombinasi did not owe Bumisetia the sum of RM5,118,493.24 or RM7,192,889.70 as of 18.5.2017 or as of the date of judgment on 3.9.2021. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Conclusion 79. Based on the abovementioned analysis and findings of the Court, it is now decided that the plaintiff has failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed with costs. Dated : 31st January 2024 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam. Selangor Date of Decision: 30th November 2023 Counsels : For the Plaintiff: Chew Choon Leong, [Tetuan CL Chew & Co.] For the Defendant: Francis Wong & Maizatul Akmal Daud, [Tetuan Thean & Co.] S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020

PLAINTIF BUMISETIA POWER SDN BHD DEFENDAN TAN CHIN SIEA

(1) This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 45 for summary judgement pursuant to Order 14 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 to be recorded for the sum of RM889,864.66 together with interest at 5% per annum on the sum of RM889,864.66 from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs. (2) Having considered the facts and submissions, I allowed the Plaintiff’s application with costs and now provide my reasons for allowing the said summary judgment application.(3) The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia having its registered and business address in Sandakan Sabah. (4) The Defendant is an individual having addresses in the State of Selangor.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Letter of guarantee and indemnity - particulars not pleaded - law on facts and evidence - doctrine of res judicata - judicial notice.

31/01/2024

YA Puan Indra Nehru Savandiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=50734171-81f1-4178-974e-6670219eb6bf&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22NCVC-130-05/2020 BETWEEN BUMISETIA POWER SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF [COMPANY NO.: 821359-X] AND TAN CHIN SIEA … DEFENDANT [NRIC NO.: 610105-10-6687] _________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The plaintiff appeals against its dismissal of the action. 2. No appeal is lodged regarding dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim. Plaintiff’s Case 3. Plaintiff, Bumisetia Power Sdn Bhd (now referred to as “Bumisetia”), claims against the defendant for the sum of RM7,192,889.70. 31/01/2024 10:47:15 BA-22NCvC-130-05/2020 Kand. 128 S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 4. The Defendant alleged by the plaintiff the sum mentioned above is payable by a Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity dated 15.09.2009 (page 1 – 7, Enclosure 32 (B1), (from now on referred to as the “the guarantee”) for money due and payable by Kombinasi Solar Sdn Bhd for works undertaken by Kombinasi under a subcontract dated 15.09.2009 (from now on to as the “2009 subcontract”). 5. The plaintiff has referred to salient express terms of the guarantee and indemnity as follows: “(a) the guarantee and indemnity shall secure such sums that are from time to time owing to the plaintiff by Kombinasi Solar (Clause 2); (b) the defendant agreed that it is not a condition to the guarantee and indemnity that the plaintiff had to initiate legal proceedings against Kombinasi Solar (Clause 3); S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (c) the guarantee and indemnity shall not be discharged or diminished because of any renewal, variation, determined or increased relation to any work given to Kombinasi Solar, the granting of time or any indulgence to Kombinasi Solar (Clause 4); and (d) the guarantee and indemnity shall be binding on the heirs, estate, and successors of the defendant (Clause 8).” Defendant’s Case 6. The defendant pleaded that Kombinasi Solar owes no money to the plaintiff under the 2009 subcontract. 7. The reason is the civil suit initiated in Sandakan High Court Civil Suit No. SDK-22NCVC-20-8/2017, whereby Kombinasi was suing the plaintiff. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 8. The defendant has filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff. 9. Parties have agreed on the issues to be tried as follows: “(a) Samada surat jaminan dan tanggungan tersebut adalah tertakluk kepada syarat bahawa adanya hutang di antara Kombinasi Solar kepada plaintif. (b) Samada Kombinasi Solar berhutang kepada plaintif menurut perjanjian bagi projek. Sekiranya jawapan adalah positif, berapakah jumlah keberhutangan tersebut? (c) Samada plaintif telah membuktikan jumlah RM7, 192,889.70 yang didakwa berhutang oleh Kombinasi Solar kepada plaintif.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Analysis and Findings of the Court 10. The plaintiff submits this Court to take judicial notice of the decision in the Sandakan Suit. 11. The Sandakan High Court dismissed Kombinasi Solar’s claim and allowed the plaintiff’s counterclaim against Kombinasi Solar, partly for RM889,864.66. 12. The plaintiff further submits there are pertinent findings of facts made by the learned Judicial Commissioner in the Sandakan Suit, which is extracted from the plaintiff’s submission as follows: “Issue (3A) Whether the plaintiff has failed to remit its share of the contributions for the joint venture and, if so, for what amount? [90] The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff did not contribute its share of the capital contribution for September 2013 to December 2013, amounting to S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 RM343,532.16 despite the reminders vide the 1st defendant’s letters to the plaintiff dated 11.11.2014 and 30.9.2015, respectively. See exhibit D3 (37) on page 371 of CBC and exhibit PB (382-383 of CBC). Therefore, issue 3A is answered in the affirmative, and the amount of capital contribution the plaintiff failed to contribute is RM343,532.16.” Issue (6A) Whether the plaintiff had diverted the proceeds in A/C No. 151-309-631-1 for its use amounting to RM1,994,999.98. [130] The plaintiff now contends that the sum of RM1,994,999,98 was used to set off the amount of RM1,095,135.32 unlawfully diverted by the 1st defendant from the UOB account to the Maybank account. The undisputed evidence shows that the S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 plaintiff had, on or about March 2014, diverted the contract proceeds under Phase 2B works amounting to RM1,994,999.98 and refused to share information about the plaintiff’s credit facilities used for the Phase 2B works. This prompted the 1st defendant to instruct MOE to pay the contract proceeds to the Maybank account. [131] As the plaintiff’s credit facilities with UOB have been fully settled and the plaintiff was not appointed as the sub-contractor for the Phase 2B works, the contract proceeds belong to the 1st defendant, who carried out Phase 2B works, as the plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate their contention or defence that the monies used to settle the outstanding credit facilities owing to UOB S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 bank, Issue (6A) is answered in the affirmative.” “Issue (6B) Whether it is an agreed term of the supplementary Agreement dated 28.01.2011 that the plaintiff shall account to the 1st defendant the payment received for the preliminaries undertaken by the 1st defendant before signing the Subcontract Agreement? [139] The wording in Clause 1 of the Supplementary Contract dated 28.1.2011 is plain and unambiguous. It is expressly stated in Clause 1 that the main contractor (1st defendant) shall retain and undertake the preliminaries stated in Schedule A. The subcontractor (plaintiff) shall forthwith account to the main contractor for all payments received for the said items S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 within 14 days from the date of the Supplementary Contract except the stated items undertaken by the subcontractor. Clause 1, in its plain and natural meaning, refers to the preliminaries already received by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff must account to the 1st defendant within 14 days from the date of the Supplementary Agreement dated 28.1.2011.” Issue (9) Whether the plaintiff failed to rectify or make good of any defect as required by D1. [191] Issue 9 is related to issue (1) above. In light of the finding of this Court in respect of issue (1) regarding the plaintiff’s failure to prove that the defect has been rectified by the plaintiff and the CMGD has been S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 issued, issue (9) is answered in the affirmative.” Issue (11) If yes, whether the plaintiff breached the term and caused D1 the loss or damage of RM1,994,999.80? Issue (12) Whether the plaintiff received the MOE and failed to release to D1 RM1,994,999.98 and received under Phase 2B and diverted it to his use. Issue (13) If yes, whether the failure cause a loss of RM1,994,999.98 to D1? [210] UOB bank has reassigned to the 1st defendant all its rights and interests in the remaining balance of all the unpaid contract proceeds. As UOB does not have any claim over the remaining contract S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 proceeds, the plaintiff’s failure or refusal to release the RM1,994,999.98 to the 1st defendant is a wrongful act and in breach of Clause 10.4.8 of the SA 2013. Having regard to the finding of this Court on the Issue (6A) and (10) above, this Court would answer Issues (11), (12) and (13) in the affirmative.” 13. The plaintiff invoked sections 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act 1950. 14. The Court of Appeal decision of Tony Pua Kiam Wee v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak [2018] 3 CLJ 522 was referred to support their argument. 15. By referring to the statute and case law, the plaintiff contends that there is no need to prove facts that can be taken judicial notice by this Court. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 16. The plaintiff also observed the defendant’s counsel's conduct in not cross-examining the plaintiff’s sole witness concerning the Sandakan Suit and its findings of facts. 17. The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s defence of never being indebted to the plaintiff fails as the Sandakan Suit decision was not favourable to the defendant. 18. Therefore, the plaintiff submits that the defendant is estopped from raising the same issue, repeatedly asserting that there are no monies due and owing by Kombinasi Solar to the plaintiff. 19. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] MLJ 331 as follows: “(2) The doctrine of estoppel is a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the circumstances. It is a doctrine of wide utility and has been resorted to in varying fact patterns to achieve justice. The maxim S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 ‘estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword’ does not limit the doctrine of estoppel to the defendant alone. Plaintiffs too may have recourse to it. Estoppel may assist a plaintiff in enforcing a cause of action by preventing a defendant from denying the existence of some fact which would destroy the cause of action.” 20. The guarantee and indemnity is deemed a continuing guarantee under Clause 2 of the guarantee and indemnity. Section 82 of the Contract Act 1950 is referred to. 21. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is precluded from rehearing and retrying issues that should be raised at the Sandakan Suit and not in this trial. 22. Plaintiff invoked the doctrine of res judicata. 23. Reference is made to the Supreme Court decision in Asia Commercial Finance (M) v Kawal Teliti Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 783. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 24. The plaintiff also submits that the defendant admitted that the sum of RM10,000.00 is due and not paid to the plaintiff. 25. This sum of RM10,000.00 arose as costs ordered by the Court of Appeal to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant concerning the legal suit for the reassignment of contract proceeds. 26. During the trial, the plaintiff, through its sole witness, adduced evidence that Kombinasi was indebted to Bumisetia for the sum of RM5,945,749.67. [refer to question 25 (WSPW1)] 27. The sum is as follows: (a) liquidated ascertained damages: RM3,607,217.53; (b) balance of diverted contract proceeds: RM1,994,999.98; (c) non-contribution of capital: RM343,532.16. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 28. The defendant objected to the following answers to the questions of WSPW1: (a) Q.11 on the sum of the alleged contribution of RM343,532.16; (b) Q.12 on the alleged LAD of RM3,607,217.53; (c) Q.13 on the alleged sum of RM1,994,999.98; (d) Q.13 on the allegation that Kombinasi had received the sums of RM2,435,291.65 and RM955,529.15 in respect of claims Nos. 13 and 14, respectively, for package 12; (e) Q.14 on the alleged demand; (f) Q.15 on the alleged making good of the alleged demand; (g) On the judgment of the Sandakan High Court. 29. The objections were raised on the following grounds: (a) all these were not pleaded. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (b) the defendant is prejudiced because being denied any chance to refute matters not pleaded. (c) taken by surprise to the introduction of matters not pleaded nor brought to the defendant's attention. 30. The defendant submits the plaintiff merely pleaded there was a letter of demand from its solicitors for the sum as claimed based on the letter of guarantee and indemnity [refer to pages 1-7 of Enclosure 21(A)]. 31. The plaintiff counters this by submitting that the defendant failed to plead the plaintiff’s counterclaim against Kombinasi Solar in the Sandakan Suit, in its defence in this trial. 32. And the plaintiff further states that its counterclaim against Kombinasi in the Sandakan suit is pleaded in reply to the defence filed by the defendant in this trial. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 33. The plaintiff also contends that the witness statement of WSPW1 and the documents referred to in the witness statement are evidence. 34. Order 18, rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, is considered wherein there is no need to plead evidence. Facts need to be pleaded. 35. The plaintiff points out that the defendant, in his written submission, has mentioned the witness statement and documents referred to in the witness statement are evidence. 36. The plaintiff adds that the defendant’s witness had testified in both the Sandakan Suit and the current trial before this Court. He maintained in his cross-examination that his testimony was on behalf of Kombinasi Solar. [refer to Notes of Evidence, page 150, lines 20-24]. 37. It is recorded that the defendant objected to facts not pleaded and evidence adduced as stated in paragraphs 28 and 29 mentioned above. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 38. Parties agreed that these objections raised will be addressed in their submissions after the trial, respectively. 39. I accept the defendant’s argument that particulars of the debt must be pleaded. 40. Plaintiff merely pleaded there was a letter of demand for the sum as claimed based on the letter of guarantee and indemnity [refer to pages 1-7 Enclosure 21 (A)]. 41. I note that in the statement of claim, there was no mention of non- contribution of capital, diversion of money, LAD, or the outcome of the Sandakan Suit. Nor was it raised in the issues to be tried. 42. The statement of claim is dated 12.5.2020. 43. The Sandakan Suit judgment was delivered on 3.9.2021. 44. Before this Court, there is no mention of the Sandakan Suit and its decision in the statement of claim. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 45. The defence was no debt due and owing by Kombinasi. The defendant had stated that Kombinasi was suing the plaintiff as particularised in paragraph (5) of the defence. 46. That is the case before this Court. 47. The plaintiff's argument that its counterclaim against Kombinasi in the Sandakan suit is pleaded in reply to the defence in this suit does not reflect the particulars tendered in evidence of WSPW1. 48. The particulars only relate to the sum of RM3,607,217.53 being LAD and the sum of RM10,000.00 in respect of its costs awarded to the plaintiff by the Court of Appeal in an appeal arising from Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons NO. 24NCC-284- 08/2015, United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd and Kombinasi. 49. It is a misconceived argument put forward by the plaintiff as the counterclaim by the plaintiff against Kombinasi in the Sandakan Suit is not the case to be decided before this Court. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 50. Principles on pleadings must contain particulars explained in the Court of Appeal decision in Cergas Tegas Sdn Bhd (IN LIQUIDATION) v SAP Holdings Bhd & Anor [2013] 8 CLJ 745 as follows: “[130] Pleadings must contain particulars in order to ensure that the parties are informed with reasonable certainty as to the matters which are alleged against them …” In disposing of a suit or matter involving a disputed question of fact, it is not proper for the court to displace the case made by a party in its pleadings and give effect to an entirely new case which the party had not made out in its own pleadings. The trial of a suit should be confined to the pleas on which the parties are at variance. If the parties agree to a factual position then it is hardly open to the court to come S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 to a finding different from such agreed facts. The only purpose in requiring pleadings and issues is to ascertain the real difference between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. [131] Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Majesty then was) in The Chartered Bank v Yong Chan [1974] 1 LNS 178; [1974] 1 MLJ 157 aptly said on p. 159: Now, the function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case which is to be made so that the opposing party may direct his evidence to the issue disclosed by them. See Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218, 238.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 51. In the Federal Court decision Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 944, was held: (i) It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded…. [29] It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that the parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded (see State Government of Perak v Muniandy [1985] 1 LNS 117; [1986] 1 MLJ 490; and Anuar Mat Amin v Abdullah Mohd Zain [1989] 1 LNS 74; [1989] 3 MLJ 313). In Blay v Pollard & Morris [1930] 1 KB 628, Scrutton LJ ruled that: “Cases must be decided on the issues on the record, and if it is desired to raise other issues there must be pleaded on the record by amendment.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [30] The Supreme Court in Lee Ah Chor v Southern Bank Bhd [1991] 1 CLJ 667; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 239; [1991] 1 MLJ 428, had also emphasized the importance of pleadings and ruled that where a vital issue was not raised in the pleadings it could not be allowed to be argued and to succeed on appeal (see also Ambank (M) Bhd v Luqman Kamil Mohammed Don [2012] 3 CLJ 551; [2012] MLJU 56 FC). 52. The Court of Appeal in Mega Meisa Sdn Bhd & 2 Others v Mustapha Dorani [2020] 1 LNS 1480 held: “A judgment should be based upon the issues which arise in the suit and if such a judgment does not dispose of the questions as presented by the parties it renders itself liable not only to grave criticism but also to a miscarriage of justice. It becomes worse and is unsustainable if it goes outside the issues. Such a judgment cannot be said to be in accordance with the S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 law and the rules of procedure. It is the duty of the courts to follow the rules of procedure and practice to ensure that justice is done. These rules are meant to be observed and respected.” 53. I accept that the principles explained in the abovementioned cases apply to the facts in this trial. 54. It is obvious that the facts adduced during the trial are not pleaded in the statement of claim. 55. In this instance, I refer to the Supreme Court decision in Superintendent of Land and Surveys, 4th Division and Another v Hamit bin Matusin and Others [1994] 3 CLJ 567 held: “The rule is that if a party is taken by surprise by evidence which departs from pleaded material facts, he must object then and there at the point of time when such evidence emerges in order for such evidence to be disregarded by the Court.” S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 56. In the present suit, the defendant promptly objected to the non- pleaded material facts related to the Sandakan Suit and evidence about it being tendered in this trial. 57. I observed that the plaintiff attempted in this suit to introduce the particulars of the claim, which is not pleaded, and evidence to support it through the testimony of WSPW1. 58. The defendant is prejudiced by the plaintiff's attempt to introduce the Sandakan Suit, which was decided on 3.9.2021. In contrast, the statement of claim in this current suit is dated 12.5.2020, arising from a letter of demand dated 18.5.2017. 59. No money is proven to be due and payable by Kombinasi to Bumisetia as of 18.5.2017. 60. I am disregarding all facts and evidence arising out of the non- pleaded facts in this trial. This resulted in the plaintiff failing to prove its claim. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 61. This ground alone is sufficient for dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. 62. For completeness, I address the issue of res judicata and judicial notice. 63. Assuming the plaintiff is allowed to raise the issues concerning non- contribution of capital, LAD, and diversion for RM1,994,998.94, then the principle of res judicata applies to this trial. 64. It can be recalled that the plaintiff chose to invoke the doctrine of res judicata in the form of issue estoppel. 65. The plaintiff has dealt with this in a detailed argument. 66. In this trial, the plaintiff vehemently argued that the defendant should not raise issues that ought to be presented in the Sandakan Suit. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 67. The defendant in this trial states that it is undisputed that these issues on the non-contribution of capital, LAD, and diversion of RM1,994,998.94 had been ventilated in the Sandakan Suit. 68. The defendant further argued that although the defendant in this case was not a party in the Sandakan Suit between Kombinasi and Bumisetia, the doctrine of res judicata still applies. 69. I accept the argument put forward by the defendant because the facts of this trial and the Sandakan Suit share common grounds in many aspects and, to some extent, the same issues. 70. In the Court of Appeal case of IBIG @ David Rampas & Anor v Terisah Bahan & Ors [2016] 8 CLJ 790, it was held: “For res judicata, the parties need not be the same. It had been so held in North West Water Ltd v Binnie & Partners (a firm) that: “Where issues had for all practical purposes been decided in a court of competent S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 jurisdiction, the court would not allow that the issue to be raised in separate proceedings between different parties arising out of identical facts and dependant on the same evidence, since not only was the party seeking to relitigate the issue prevented from doing so by issue estoppel but it would be an abuse of process of allowing the issue to be relitigated…” 71. In the Federal Court decision in Lin Web-Chih & Anor v Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 1 LNS1 1562 was held: [43] We must also add that in a challenge based on res judicata, the Court is entitled to examine and analyse the written judgments of the 1st 1997 suits and all other relevant records of appeal. As aptly stated by Lord Upjohn in the House of Lords’ case of Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd and Others (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 536 that: S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 “The broader principle of res judicata is founded on the twin principles so frequently expressed in Latin that they should be at an end to litigation and justice demands that the same party shall not be harassed twice for the same cause. It goes beyond the mere record; it is part of the law of evidence for, to see whether it applies, the facts and reasons given by the judge, his judgment, the pleadings, the evidence, and even the history of the matter may be taken into account … 72. The plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the same issues without amending the statement of claim. For apparent reasons, the plaintiff failed in the Sandakan Suit to a large extent. 73. The law does not permit me to reconsider these issues as the doctrine of res judicata applies. This is a glaring instance of an S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 attempt to re-litigate the RM10,000.00 cost issue, which has been dismissed in the Sandakan Suit. 74. The application of judicial notice put forward by the plaintiff is misplaced. 75. I agree with the defendant’s submission that this Court can take judicial notice of the existence of the Sandakan Suit. 76. However, I cannot base my findings of facts and law on the findings of facts and law that the learned Judicial Commissioner applied to decide the Sandakan Suit. There is an appeal lodged by both the plaintiff and defendant in Sandakan Suit to the Court of Appeal. 77. If I elect to do so, it is tantamount to err both in law and finding of facts. 78. All the more, in the Sandakan Suit, Kombinasi did not owe Bumisetia the sum of RM5,118,493.24 or RM7,192,889.70 as of 18.5.2017 or as of the date of judgment on 3.9.2021. S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Conclusion 79. Based on the abovementioned analysis and findings of the Court, it is now decided that the plaintiff has failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed with costs. Dated : 31st January 2024 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam. Selangor Date of Decision: 30th November 2023 Counsels : For the Plaintiff: Chew Choon Leong, [Tetuan CL Chew & Co.] For the Defendant: Francis Wong & Maizatul Akmal Daud, [Tetuan Thean & Co.] S/N cUFzUPGBeEGXTmZwIZ62vw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22NCvC-352-08/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) MAJUTERA SDN BHD 2. ) NETWORK FACILITIES SDN BHD DEFENDAN KONSORTIUM JARINGAN SELANGOR SDN BHD

TATACARA SIVIL: Permohonan Interlokutori – Pembatalan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan – Kausa tindakan penamatan kontrak-kontrak kerja dan perjanjian-perjanjian pembiayaan secara unilateral dan tidak sah oleh Defendan − Sama ada tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah remeh, menyusahkan dan/atau penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah? – Sama ada Defendan layak dan telah menepati requirements bagi pembatalan tindakan? − Sama ada tuntutan yang difailkan di dua Mahkamah Tinggi adalah suatu “multiplicity proceedings”? – Sama ada risiko percanggahan dapatan oleh Mahkamah ini dan MTSA lain dapat disangkal atau tidak?

31/01/2024

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5f0204c4-0c20-4565-b23a-5d9f06af797b&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO.:BA-22NCvC-352-08/2023 ANTARA 1. MAJUTERA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 58787-H) 2. NETWORK FACILITIES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 933333-M) − PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN KONSORTIUM JARINGAN SELANGOR SDN BHD − DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Ini ialah permohonan interlokutori yang difailkan oleh Defendan untuk membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif. Notis Permohonan Defendan bertarikh 25-9-2023 (Lampiran 5) dan pembelaan bertarikh 10- 10-2023. [2] Defendan menyatakan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah remeh, menyusahkan dan/atau penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah dan harus dibatalkan dengan kos. 31/01/2024 00:56:55 BA-22NCvC-352-08/2023 Kand. 25 S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [3] Pada 30-11-2023, Mahkamah ini membenarkan permohonan sebagaimana dalam Lampiran 5 dan kos sebanyak RM5000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur) dibayar oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Defendan. [4] Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif ini ialah berkenaan dengan penamatan kontrak-kontrak kerja dan perjanjian-perjanjian pembiayaan secara unilateral dan tidak sah oleh Defendan. [5] Tindakan undang-undang oleh Plaintif-Plaintif ini telah melalui peringkat dan sedang melalui peringkat di Mahkamah iaitu – Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status 1. 4-4-2019 Saman Pemula No. BA- 24NCVC-462-04/2019 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “OS No. 462”). Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC4 (MTSA). Plaintif-Plaintif: Tetuan Lee & Koh, Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur. • Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan Saman Pemula bagi Permohonan Penzahiran Dokumen di bawah A. 24 k. 7A dan A. 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. • Dalam perkara Kontrak- Kontrak Kerja dan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status Defendan: Tetuan Weng & Co., Petaling Jaya. • pada 27-8-2019, MTSA membenarkan OS No. 462. • Defendan merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. • pada 9-3-2020, Mahkamah Rayuan (Koram: Abdul Karim Bin Abdul Jalil, HMR; Nor Bee Binti Ariffin, HMR; Ravinthran A/L Paramaguru, HMR) memutuskan – “... MAKA DIPERINTAHKAN DENGAN PERSETUJUAN bahawa: (a) Rayuan Perayu di sini dibenarkan; S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status (b) Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 27 haribulan Ogos 2019 diketepikan; (c) Notis Usul Perayu bertarikh 11 haribulan Oktober 2019 (Lampiran 9) ditarik balik; dan (d) Pihak-pihak menanggung kos masing-masing.” 2. 26-8-2019 Saman Pemula No. BA- 24NCVC-1216-08/2019 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “OS No. 1216”). Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC9 (MTSA). • Saman Pemula Plaintif- Plaintif menurut Seksyen-Seksyen 4, , 42, 50, 51 dan 52 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950, Aturan 29 kaedah 1 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah untuk S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status Plaintif-Plaintif: Tetuan Lee & Koh, Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur. Defendan: Tetuan Weng & Co., Petaling Jaya. memohon Perintah yang berikut: 1. deklarasi bahawa Defendan adalah tidak berhak untuk menamatkan Perlanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan yang dibuat antara Plaintif Pertama dan Defendan (“Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut”) secara sehala menurut Klausa 8.13 Perlanjian- Perlanjian Pembiayaan tersebut; 2. deklarasi bahawa penamatan Perjanjian- Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut oleh Defendan meIaui Surat-Surat Defendan bertarikh 9-4- 2019, 3-5-2019 dan 14- S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status 5-2019 adalah pelanggaran Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, dan ia adalah salah, tidak berhati perut dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang; 3. deklarasi bahawa Plaintif Kedua adalah penerima serah hak yang sah bagi kesemua hak, kepentingan dan liabiliti di dalam Menara-Menara tersebut dan segala faedah di bawah Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, menurut Surat Ikatan Penyerahhakkan (meIalui perpindahan) bertarikh 26.10.2018, tanpa keperluan untuk S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status memperoleh persetujuan terlebih dahulu daripada Defendan; 4. perintah injunksi sehingga pelupusan Prosiding Yang Diniatkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif, bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa oleh Defendan, dihalang daripada memberikan kesan kepada Surat- Surat Defendan dan/atau mana-mana surat dan/atau notis yang berkenaan untuk menamatkan S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut; 5. perintah injunksi sehingga pelupusan Prosiding Yang Diniatkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif, bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa o1eh Defendan, dihalang daripada menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut; 6. perintah injunksi berkekalan bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa o1eh Defendan, dihalang daripada memberikan kesan kepada Surat- Surat Defendan; 7. perintah injunksi berkekalan bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa o1eh Defendan, dihalang dartpada menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut; 8. Kos tindakan ini; S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status 9. Kos peguam cara pada dasar peguam cara- klien; dan 10. relif atau perintah Ianjut dan/atau seiainnya yang Mahkamah fikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat. 3. 18-2-202019 OS No. 1216 ditukar kepada writ saman No. BA- 22NCVC-149-05/2020 (selepas ini disebut “Suit No. 149”). (i) Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC9/Y.A Choo Kah Sing (MTSA). (ii) Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC1/Y.A S.M Komathy A/P Suppiah • Keputusan MTSA pada 18-2-2019 ialah – (a) Guaman ini diteruskan seolah-olah kausa atau perkara itu telah dimulakan melalui writ; (b) Perintah Injunksi yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah dibenarkan; (c) sekiranya tuntutan S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status (MTSA). (iii) Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC5/Y.A Faizah Jamaludin (MTSA). Plaintif-Plaintif: Tetuan Lee & Koh, Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur. Peguam cara terkini bagi Plaintif-Plaintif: Tetuan Shahrin Satheer Kamal & Co., Rawang, Selangor. Defendan: Tetuan Weng & Co., Petaling Jaya. Plaintif-Plaintif ditolak dan penamatan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut oleh Defendan dibenarkan, penamatan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut akan berkuatkuasa pada tarikh yang dinyatakan dalam keputusan Mahkamah dalam tindakan ini. • pada 19-10-2022, MTSA telah menolak notis permohonan Plaintif- Plaintif untuk meminda pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022. • Plaintif-Plaintif merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Bil. Tarikh, No. Kes, Mahkamah dan Peguam cara Status • pada 7-7-2023, Mahkamah Rayuan (Koram: S. Nantha Balan, HMR; Mariana Binti Haji Yahya, HMR dan Wong Kian Kheong, HMR) memutuskan – “... MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN DENGAN SEBULAT SUARA bahawa: (a) Rayuan ini dibatalkan dengan kos; dan (b) Kos sebanyak RM2,000.00 kepada Responden tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.”. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [6] Suit No. 149 telah sedia untuk dibicarakan di hadapan Y.A Dato’ Faizah binti Jamaludin pada 2, 3 dan 10 Mei 2024 di mana Plaintif-Plaintif (rujuk Senarai Saksi Plaintif-Plaintif) akan memanggil saksi mereka iaitu Noorul Azlin binti Hassan (Pengurus Akaun) dan Amy Azfar bin Helmi (Jurutera/Field Engineer). Manakala, Defendan akan memanggil seorang saksinya iaitu Ahmad Fahman bin Ismail Hadi Tang Ketua Pengawai Eksekutif, Konsortium Jaringan Selangor Sdn Bhd Pihak-Pihak: [7] Plaintif Pertama ialah sebuah syarikat yang berdaftar di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 2016, dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar di Kota Bahru dan alamat perniagaan di Lembah Keramat, Hulu Klang, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. [8] Plaintif Kedua ialah sebuah syarikat yang berdaftar di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 2016, dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar di Jalan Gombak, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur dan alamat perniagaan di Lembah Keramat, Hulu Klang, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. [9] Defendan ialah sebuah syarikat yang berdaftar di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 2016, dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar di Jalan Bukit Bintang, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur dan alamat perniagaan di Pusat Perdagangan Amcorp, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Latar Belakang Kes: [10] Mahkamah ini menggunapakai “Material background facts” yang dikemukakan oleh peguam cara terpelajar Defendan dalam hujahan bertulisnya di peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan. Mahkamah ini telah meneliti ringkasan fakta tersebut dan adalah serupa dengan fakta kes ini bermula dari OS 462, OS 1216 hingga ke Suit No. 149 dan Suit ini Suit No. 352, dinyatakan semula dalam bahasa asal − 2.1 The material background facts are succinctly summarised in the learned Judge’s grounds of judgment as follows (Enclosure 4, PDF pp 24 – 26): [3] In April 2019, the plaintiffs had filed a pre-action discovery action against the defendant by way of Originating Summons No. BA-24NCVC- 462-04/2019 (“OS 462”). [4] In August 2019, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant by way of Originating Summons No. BA-24NCVC-1216- 08/2019 (“OS 1216”). [5] The High Court made a Discovery Order against the defendant in OS 462. The defendant appealed against the Order. By consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal set aside the Discovery Order on 09.03.2020. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [6] Before the Consent Order was entered in OS 462, the High Court had on 18.02.2020 ordered that OS 1216 be converted to a writ action and that all affidavits by the parties in the OS stand as pleadings in the writ action. [7] Also, on 18.02.2020, Choo Kah Sing J directed the parties to file a Common Agreed Bundle of Documents, Case Summaries, Statements of Agreed Facts, Lists of Issues to be Tried and Lists of Witnesses (“PTCM Documents”) by 23.04.2020. The Court also fixed the matter for full trial on 25 to 27 August 2020. [8] Due to the Movement Control Order (“MCO”) implemented by the Government because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the parties were allowed to file the PTCM Documents by 27.05.2010 and a case management was fixed on 28.05.2020. [9] On 27.05.2020, the Court informed that parties that OS 1216 was reregistered into as a writ action (“Suit 149”) and that this suit had been transferred to High Court NCVC 1 before S.M. Komathy J. [10] On 17.07.2020, the plaintiffs filed an application in Enc. 24 seeking to retransfer this suit back to Choo Kah Sing J’s court. The application was dismissed on 17.12.2020. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [11] At a case management on 26.01.2021, the parties were directed to file the PTCM Documents by 15.06.2021. And in a further case management on 15.06.2021, this suit was fixed for full trial on 6 to 9 December 2021. [12] The parties filed the PTCM Documents on 14.06.2021. In October 2021, the parties filed 4 volumes of the Common Bundle of Documents. [13] At a case management before S.M. Komathy J on 25.10.2021, the Court re-fixed this suit for full trial on 13 to 17 June 2022. At a subsequent case management on 03.03.2022, the parties were informed that this suit had been transferred to from NCVC 1 to this Court, NCVC 5, and the trial was re-fixed on 14 to 17 June 2023. [14] After this suit had been transferred to this Court, at a case management before me on 17.05.2022, I directed the parties to file a statement of claim and defence setting out their pleadings for clarity and ease of reference during the trial. The parties were also directed to file their respective list of witnesses. [15] In June and July 2022, the parties filed the following documents: Statement of Claim, Defence and Counterclaim, Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, Reply to Defence to Counterclaim, plaintiffs and defendant’s List of Witnesses. The plaintiffs also filed an additional 5 volumes of Common S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Bundle of Documents on 25.07.2022. [16] On 12.08.2022, the plaintiffs filed this application in Enc. 67 to amend their statement of claim and their affidavit in support of the application (Enc. 68). An unsealed copy of Encs. 67 and 68 were served on the defendant on 16.08.202 — a day prior to the case management before this Court on 17.08.2022. 2.2 The foregoing material background facts were not disputed by the Appellants. 2.3 At the outset, it should be emphasised that after the Consent Order dated 09.03.2020, for a period of 2 years and 5 months, there were at least 8 separate case managements before 3 different courts and 3 different judges in respect of OS 1216 and/or Suit 149, where pre-trial case management directions were given and trial dates had been fixed. The Appellants did not at any material time inform the courts of any need or intention to amend their pleadings, despite the Appellants having ample opportunity to do so during the 8 case managements. More importantly, the Appellants did not provide any reason whatsoever for the delay in filing the Amendment Application. As will be seen below, these were material facts which were correctly and properly taken into account by the learned Judge in dismissing the Amendment Application. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Tindakan undang-undang melalui writ saman oleh Plaintif-Plaintif di hadapan Mahkamah ini (MTSA Sivil 12) Kes No.: BA-22NCvC-352-08- 2023 [11] Guaman No.: BA-22NCvC-352-08-2023 difailkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif lebih kurang sebulan selepas daripada tarikh keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan. [12] Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang mengekalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan tanpa apa-apa pindaan boleh dibuat oleh Plaintif- Plaintif kini sedia untuk dibicarakan di MTSA Sivil NCvC5. [13] Apakah relief yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Suit No. 149 dan Suit No. 352? Jadual perbandingan adalah seperti yang berikut: Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) (a) deklarasi menurut bahawa Defendan adalah tidak berhak untuk menamatkan Perjanjian- Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut secara sehala menurut Klausa 8.13 Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. (a) Ganti rugi berjumlah RM 15,204,792.00 yang perlu dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan/atau Plaintif Kedua dan/atau Plaintif-Plaintif secara bersesama sebagai jumlah Pendapatan Sewa Bulanan yang disembunyikan oleh S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) Defendan kepada Plaintif- Plaintif. (b) deklarasi bahawa penamatan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut oleh Defendan meIalui surat Defendan bertarikh 19-4- 2019 dan surat peguam cara Defendan bertarikh 3-5-2019 dan 14-5-2019, adalah Perjanjian- Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, dan ia adalah salah, tidak berhati perut dan tidak sah di sisi undang- undang. (b) Ganti rugi selanjutnya bagi jumlah Pendapatan Sewa Bulanan yang disembunyikan oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif- Plaintif yang akan ditaksirkan kemudiannya bermula dari tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini sehingga tarikh penghakiman. (c) deklarasi bahawa Plaintif Kedua adalah penerima serah hak yang sah bagi kesemua hak, kepentingan dan liabiliti di dalam Menara-Menara tersebut dan segala faedah di bawah Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, menurut Surat Ikatan Penyerahhakkan (meIalui (c) Ganti rugi bagi deposit sekuriti tambahan yang akan ditaksirkan bagi TELCO- TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan oleh Defendan ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah ini dan dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) perpindahan) bertarikh 26-10- 2018, tanpa keperluan untuk memperoleh persetujuan terlebih dahulu daripada Defendan. (d) Perintah injunksi sehingga pelupusan Prosiding Yang Diniatkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif, bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa oleh Defendan, dihalang daripada memberikan kesan kepada surat Defendan bertarikh 19-4-2019 dan surat peguam cara Defendan bertarikh 3-5-2019 dan 14-5-2019 dan/atau mana-mana surat dan/atau notis yang berkenaan untuk menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. (d) deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah melakukan pelanggaran kewajipan-kewajipan Defendan di bawah Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) (e) Perintah injunksi sehingga pelupusan Prosiding Yang Diniatkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif, bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa oleh Defendan, dihalang daripada menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, sama ada berdasarkan surat Defendan bertarikh 19-4- 2019 dan surat peguam cara Defendan bertarikh 3-5-2019 dan 14-5-2019 dan/atau mana-mana surat dan/atau notis yang berkenaan. (e) Perintah Pelaksanaan Spesifik terhadap Defendan di bawah Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. (f) Perintah injunksi berkekalan, bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen dan/atau sesiapa yang diberikuasa oleh Defendan, (f) Perintah untuk suatu akaun dan siasatan terhadap Defendan bagi segala jumlah yang diterima sebagai pendapatan sewa, deposit sekuriti dan/atau keuntungan S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) dihalang danpada memberikan kesan kepada surat Defendan bertarikh 19-4-2019 dan surat peguamcara Defendan bertarikh 3-5-2019 dan 14-5-2019 dan/atau mana-mana surat dan/atau notis yang berkenaan untuk menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. oleh Defendan daripada Telco- Telco berkenaan penggunaan Menara-Menara tersebut dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh tindakan ini (g) Perintah injunksi berkekalan bahawa Defendan sama ada dengan sendirinya atau pengarah, pengurus, pegawai, kakitangan, pekerja, ejen danlatau sesiapa yang diberikuasa oleh Defendan, dihalang dartpada menamatkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, sama ada berdasarkan surat Defendan bertarikh 19-4- 2019 dan surat peguam cara Defendan bertarikh 3-5-2019 dan 14-5-2019 dan/atau mana-mana surat dan/atau notis yang (g) Perintah untuk bayaran oleh Defendan kesemua jumlah yang didapati berhutang oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif- Plaintif berdasarkan akaun dan siasatan menurut perenggan (e) di atas dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh akaun dan siasatan terhadap Defendan selesai dilakukan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) berkenaan. (h) Kos tindakan in (h) seterusnya dan/atau sebagai alternatif, satu perintah pengesanan (“tracing order”) untuk segala jumlah yang dibayar oleh Telco-Telco berkenaan penggunaan Menara-Menara tersebut. (i) Kos peguam cara pada dasar peguamcara-klien. (i) Lain-lain relief yang berkenaan dengan perintah pengesanan (“tracing order”) di dalam perenggan (g) di atas. (j) Lain-lain relif atau perintah Ianjut danlatau selainnya yang Mahkamah fikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat. (j) Perintah bahawa caj elektrik yang berlebihan yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif Pertama dan/atau Plaintif Kedua ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah ini dan dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif- Plaintif. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Suit No. 149 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 7-6-2022) Suit No. 352 (sebagaimana pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 24-8-2023) (k) Ganti rugi Am dan Ganti rugi Teladan terhadap Defendan yang perlu dibayar kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. (l) Kos tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif. (m) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman yang dikira dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian penuh. (n) Lain-lain perintah yang difikir suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [14] Plaintif-Plaintif memplidkan bahawa memandangkan tempoh selama 5 tahun telah berlalu semenjak Plaintif-Plaintif memperoleh pengetahuan mengenai perlanggaran Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut oleh Defendan, Plaintif-Plaintif adalah menegaskan bahawa terdapat kemungkinan Plaintif-Plaintif akan terhalang oleh had masa untuk melakukan apa-apa tindakan ganti rugi terhadap Defendan dan maka tindakan baharu di hadapan Mahkamah ini terhadap Defendan adalah perlu bagi tujuan keadilan. Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk memperoleh jumlah sewa yang tidak diisytiharkan i.e. kerugian sebanyak RM15,204,792.00: [15] Plaintif-Plaintif memplidkan bahawa – (a) Defendan telah gagal melaksanakan kewajipan- kewajipannya di bawah Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut, sepertimana berikut: i. Defendan gagal memperoleh persetujuan bertulis daripada Plaintif Pertama sebelum menyewakan bahagian-bahagian menara-menara telekomunikasi tersebut kepada TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan. ii. Defendan gagal memberikan kepada Plaintif Pertama deposit sekuriti tambahan yang dikutip daripada TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 iii. Defendan gagal untuk menyerahkan, memberikan dan memindahkan pendapatan sewa bulanan tambahan yang dikutip daripada TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan kepada Plaintif Pertama. iv. Defendan telah dan masih enggan untuk mendedahkan perjanjian-perjanjian dan dokumen-dokumen lain yang berkenaan dengan TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan/atau Plaintif Kedua. v. setelah penamatan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut yang mana adalah salah dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang, Defendan gagal untuk menyerahkan, memberikan dan memindahkan pendapatan sewa bulanan tambahan yang dikutip daripada TELCO yang diisytiharkan kepada Plaintif Pertama. vi. Plaintif-Plaintif telah menanggung pembayaran elektrik yang berlebihan akibat tindakan Defendan dalam tidak diisytiharkan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif berkenaan dengan TELCO yang menyewa menara-menara telekomunikasi tersebut. vii. Defendan telah mengaut keuntungan secara tidak sah atau tidak adil. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 (b) Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa akibat daripada wujudnya TELCO yang disembunyikan dan/atau tidak diisytiharkan oleh Defendan, Plaintif-Plaintif telah menanggung kerugian sebanyak RM15,204,792.00 sejak dari tahun 2013 sehingga Ogos 2023 bagi Pendapatan Sewa Bulanan yang disembunyikan oleh Defendan yang perlu dibayar kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. Butir-butir secara terperinci berkenaan penggiraan jumlah RM15,204,792.00 akan dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini ketika perbicaraan kelak. (c) berdasarkan pengetahuan Plaintif-Plaintif bagi jumlah yang tertunggak oleh Defendan berdasarkan Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut (tidak termasuk jumlah-jumlah lain yang terhutang oleh Defendan kepada PlaintifPlaintif), Plaintif- Plaintif telah mendapati bahawa Defendan telah gagal membayar sejumlah RM15,204,792.00 dari tahun 2013 hingga Ogos 2023. (d) Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan tidak berhak untuk memegang jumlah RM15,204,792.00 tersebut secara tidak sah. Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan seharusnya mengangkat Perjanjian-Perjanjian yang telah ditandatangani secara sah oleh Plaintif Pertama dan Defendan. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Notis Permohonan Defendan untuk membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan (Lampiran 5) [16] Sebelum Defendan memfailkan pembelaannya iaitu pada 10-10- 2023, pada 25-9-2023 dalam notis permohonan Defendan vide Lampiran 5, Defendan memohon untuk membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(b) dan/atau 19 (1)(d) serta Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [17] Alasan permohonan pembatalan ini adalah, secara ringkasnya – (a) Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah remeh dan/atau menyusahkan; dan/atau (b) selanjutnya atau secara alternatif, tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. [18] Afidavit sokongan Defendan yang diikrarkan oleh Ketua Pengawai Eksekutif Defendan, menyatakan bahawa – • dalam Suit No. 149 itu, pindaan-pindaan yang dicadangkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada pernyataan tuntutan termasuk adalah mengenai – (i) tuduhan-tuduhan bahawa Defendan telah memungkiri Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan, iaitu − (a) Defendan gagal untuk mendapatkan kebenaran bertulis Plaintif S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Pertama sebelum menyewakan bahagian Menara- menara kepada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan; (b) Defendan gagal untuk menyampaikan kepada Plaintif Pertama deposit sekuriti tambahan yang telah dikutip daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan; (c) Defendan gagal untuk menyerahkan, menyampaikan dan memindahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama hasil sewa bulanan tambahan yang dikutip daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan; (d) Defendan enggan mendedahkan perjanjian-perjanjian dan dokumen-dokumen lain yang berkaitan dengan Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan kepada Plaintif Pertama dan/atau Plaintif Kedua; dan (e) Defendan gagal untuk menyerahkan, menyampaikan dan memindahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama hasil sewa bulanan tambahan yang dikutip daripada tidak diisytiharkan selepas penamatan Perjanjian-perjanjian Pembiayaan. (Defendan merujuk perenggan 51 Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Suit No. 149 yang Dicadangkan). (ii) tuduhan-tuduhan kerugian-kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif-Plaintif diakibatkan kemungkiran kontrak Defendan yang didakwa iaitu −(a) Hasil sewa bulanan yang dikutip oleh Defendan daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan tetapi sehingga kini masih belum diserahkan, dihantar dan dipindahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama; (b) Hasil sewa bulanan yang dikutip S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 oleh Defendan daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang diisytiharkan tetapi tidak diserahkan, dihantar dan dipindahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama sejak penamatan Perjanjian-perjanjian Pembiayaan; (c) Deposit sekuriti tambahan yang telah dikutip oleh Defendan daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan; (d) Penggunaan tenaga elektrik yang berlebihan disebabkan oleh penambahan Syarikat-syarikat Telco yang tidak diisytiharkan yang telah menduduki dan/atau menggunakan infrastruktur dan Menara-menara telekomunikasi, yang mengenakan bayaran kepada Plaintif Pertama. (Defendan merujuk perenggan- perenggan 52 – 55 Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Suit No. 149 yang Dicadangkan). (iii) Relif dan/atau remedi baharu dipohon adalah − (a) Deklarasi bahawa Defendan telah melakukan kemungkiran kewajipan Defendan di bawah Perjanjianperjanjian Pembiayaan; (b) Perintah untuk Pelaksanaan Spesifik terhadap Defendan di bawah Perjanjian-perjanjian Pembiayaan; (c) Perintah untuk akaun dan siasatan terhadap Defendan untuk semua jumlah yang diterima sebagai hasil sewa, deposit sekuriti dan/atau keuntungan yang diperoleh Defendan daripada Syarikat-syarikat Telco berkenaan dengan penggunaan Menara-menara; (d) Perintah pembayaran oleh Defendan semua jumlah yang didapati terhutang daripada Defendan kepada Plaintifplaintif berdasarkan S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 akaun dan siasatan; (e) Selanjutnya dan/atau sebagai alternatif, satu perintah pengesanan (tracing) untuk semua jumlah yang dibayar oleh Syarikat-syarikat Telco berkenaan dengan penggunaan Menara-menara; (f) Sebarang relief lain dan/atau lanjutan berkenaan dengan perintah pengesanan tersebut; (g) Perintah bahawa caj elektrik berlebihan yang ditanggung oleh Plaintif-Plaintif ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah dan dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif; (h) Ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teladan dan ganti rugi teruk untuk ditaksirkan; (i) Faedah. (Defendan merujuk perenggan- perenggan 56(f) – (n) Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Suit No. 149 yang Dicadangkan). • Pada 19-10-2022, Permohonan Pindaan telah ditolak oleh MTSA Sivil NCvC5. Pada 7-7-2023, Rayuan Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditolak. • Plaintif-Plaintif tidak memfailkan atau memohon kebenaran merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 7-7-2023 tersebut. Sebaliknya, Plaintif-Plaintif pada atau lebih kurang 24.08.2023 memfailkan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan (Suit No. 352) di Mahkamah ini. [19] Defendan menyatakan bahawa tindakan yang difailkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif di sini melibatkan pihak-pihak yang sama, perkara subjek yang sama, dan fakta latar belakang yang sama seperti Suit No. 149, yang masih belum selesai di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 [20] Atas nasihat peguam cara Defendan, Defendan menyatakan bahawa dalam Pengendorsan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Suit No. 352, sifat tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk kemungkiran kontrak dan relif dan/atau remedi yang dipohon (ganti rugi untuk kemungkiran kontrak, deklarasi, pelaksanaan spesifik, akaun dan siasatan, pengesanan dan faedah) adalah dalam semua aspek material sama dengan pindaan yang dicadangkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Suit No. 149 yang telah ditolak oleh MTSA dan juga Mahkamah Rayuan. [21] Defendan membuat perbandingan sepintas lalu perenggan- perenggan 51 hingga 55; dan 56(f) hingga (n) Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Suit No 149 yang Dicadangkan dan perenggan-perenggan 34 hingga 39 Pernyataan Tuntutan Suit No. 352. [22] Atas nasihat peguam cara Defendan, Defendan menyatakan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif sewajar mengambil tindakan untuk meminta kebenaran Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan, yang mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak Permohonan Pindaan tersebut. Permohonan Pindaan telah didengar, dan peluang penuh telah diberikan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif untuk berhujah di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan. [23] Oleh demikian, permulaan tindakan di sini berdasarkan fakta diplidkan yang sama, kausa tindakan yang dicadangkan yang sama dan relief dan/atau remedi yang sama yang dipohon dalam Permohonan Pindaan adalah merupakan satu percubaan untuk memintas tatacara rayuan yang diperlukan dan merupakan satu penyalahgunaan proses. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [24] Seterusnya dan/atau secara alternatif, atas nasihat peguam cara Defendan, Defendan mempercayai bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif adalah dihalang oleh res judicata dan/atau diestop daripada memplidkan dan/atau meneruskan dalam tindakan ini. Tuntutan kemungkiran kontrak yang sama dan relief dan/atau remedi yang sama seperti yang Plaintif- Plaintif cuba lakukan dalam Permohonan Pindaan dalam Suit No. 149, yang telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah-Mahkamah. [25] Defendan menyatakan dalam afidavit sokongannya – “Semua tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan di sini adalah tuntutan yang boleh dan sepatutnya dibangkitkan dalam Suit No. 149. Plaintif-Plaintif jelasnya sedar akan perkara ini, seperti yang terbukti daripada kelakuan mereka dalam memilih untuk memfailkan Permohonan Pindaan tersebut. Namun, Permohonan Pindaan telah ditolak, dan Plaintif-Plaintif tidak cuba memohon kebenaran untuk merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan. Adalah tidak wajar dan tidak adil bagi Plaintif-Plaintif untuk mempunyai “gigitan kedua ceri” (“second bite of the cherry”) kerana pindaan-pindaan dicadangkan kepada SOC Guaman 149 SOC telah dipertimbangkan dan ditolak, dan keputusan sedemikian mesti dianggap telah diterima oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Plaintif-Plaintif tidak seharusnya dibenarkan menggunakan tindakan ini untuk cuba memplidkan dan/atau membicarakan semula perkara-perkara dan/atau isu-isu yang telah dibangkitkan dan/atau ditolak dalam Guaman 149. Plaintif-Plaintif tidak seharusnya dibenarkan mencapai melalui Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan di sini apa yang ditolak dalam Permohonan Pindaan. Plaintif-Plaintif tidak seharusnya dibenarkan menggunakan tindakan di sini untuk cuba memintas keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam Permohonan Pindaan.”. [26] Selanjutnya, Defendan menyatakan dalam afidavit sokongannya – “Seterusnya dan/atau secara alternatif, saya dinasihatkan oleh peguam cara Defendan dan sesungguhnya mempercayai bahawa oleh sebab perkara-perkara yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan-perenggan 5.0 hingga 5.11 di atas, tindakan di sini yang difailkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif menimbulkan satu kepelbagaian prosiding (multiplicity of proceedings) dan merupakan satu penyalahgunaan proses. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 Seperti yang dinyatakan di atas, tindakan di sini yang difailkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif melibatkan pihak-pihak yang sama, perkara subjek yang sama, dan fakta latar belakang yang sama seperti Guaman 149. Plaintif-Plaintif telah membangkitkan dakwaan- dakwaan dan/atau isu-isu yang sama dalam tindakan di sini dan Guaman 149 sekarang, iaitu bahawa Defendan telah memungkiri dan/atau telah menamatkan Perjanjian Pembiayaan secara salah. Tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan tindakan di sini manakala Guaman 149 masih belum selesai di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam adalah prima facie satu kepelbagaian prosiding dan satu penyalahgunaan proses. Seterusnya dan/atau secara alternatif, saya dinasihatkan oleh peguamcara Defendan dan sesungguhnya mempercayai bahawa tuntutan-tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah remeh dan/atau menyusahkan. Adalah jelas bahawa tuntutan-tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah berdasarkan dakwaan-dakwaan kemungkiran kontrak Defendan dan Defendan tidak mendedahkan Syarikat- syarikat TELCO yang menyewa atau menggunakan Menara- Menara. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Ini merupakan perkara subjek permohonan Penzahiran Pra- Tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif dalam OS 462, di mana Plaintif-Plaintif berusaha untuk memaksa Defendan mendedahkan dokumen- dokumen atau maklumat-maklumat yang berkaitan dengan Syarikat-syarikat TELCO yang didakwa tidak diisytiharkan.”. [27] Perintah penzahiran Penzahiran Pra-Tindakan bertarikh 27-8-2019 yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi telah diketepikan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada 9-3-2020. Tiada rayuan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Perintah Penzahiran oleh Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut. Fakta material ini telah diketengahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dalam menolak Permohonan Pindaan. Dalam alasan penghakimannya bertarikh 28-12-2022, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana membuat pemerhatian berikut: [32] Another criterion in Hong Leong Finance v Low Thiam Hoe that the plaintiffs must satisfy is that the proposed amendments must disclose full particulars for the Court to ascertain if the plaintiffs have a real prospect of success in proving the proposed new claims and new reliefs sought. However, the plaintiffs’ deponent had effectively admitted in her affidavit in support that the new proposed claims were dependent on the plaintiffs obtaining the relevant documents from the defendant through their pre-action discovery application in OS 462. Since the plaintiffs’ application was ultimately unsuccessful with the setting aside of the High Court’s discovery order pursuant to the Consent Order recorded by the Court of Appeal, this Court is not satisfied that the plaintiffs have a real prospect of success in proving its proposed new claims.”. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 [28] Dalam erti kata lain, Defendan menyatakan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif tidak mempunyai prospek benar untuk berjaya membuktikan tuntutan- tuntutannya di sini [29] Keputusan Mahkamah ini pada 30-11-2023 adalah − “Pada 30-11-2023, saya telah membenarkan permohonan pembatalan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan oleh Defendan. [1] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti Notis Permohonan yang difailkan oleh Defendan, kertas kausa, afidavit dan hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak. Mahkamah juga telah menyemak laluan kes BA-22NCvC-149-05-2020. [2] Perbicaraan penuh bagi kes BA-22NCvC-149-05-2020 telah ditetapkan pada 2, 3 dan 10 Mei 2024 di hadapan Mahkamah NCvC 5 (YA Dato’ Faizah Jamaluddin). [3] Peguam cara yang mengendalikan kes Plaintif-Plaintif di hadapan Mahkamah ini dan Mahkamah NCvC5 adalah berbeza namun inti pati tindakan ialah mengenai 9 Perjanjian Pembiayaan dan Kontrak-kontrak Kerja antara pihak-pihak. [4] Mahkamah telah menyemak dan berpuas hati bahawa pihak-pihak yang sama, perkara subjek yang sama, dan fakta latar belakang yang sama antara Guaman ini dengan Guaman 149 yang masih belum selesai di MTSA NCvC5. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 [5] Relief dan/atau remedi yang dipohon (ganti rugi untuk kemungkiran kontrak, deklarasi, pelaksanaan spesifik, akaun dan siasatan, pengesanan dan faedah) adalah dalam semua aspek material sama dengan Lampiran 67 dalam Guaman 149 yang telah ditolak oleh YA MTSA NCvC5 dan keputusan YA MTSA NCvC5 disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan. [6] Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan sebagaimana dalam Lampiran 5 dan kos sebanyak RM5000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur) dibayar oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Defendan.”. Undang-undang mengenai pembatalan pliding [30] Bagi isu sama ada tuntutan Plaintif mempunyai kausa tindakan yang tidak munasabah, adalah tidak berasas, ia mengaibkan, remeh atau menyusahkan dan atau suatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah, Order 18 rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 memperuntukkan – Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18, r. 19) “19. (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that— (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.”. [31] Prinsip bagi sesuatu striking out application termaktub dalam kes Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Berhad [1993] 4 CLJ 7− “The principles upon which the court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) of the RHC are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v. Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it ‘obviously unsustainable’ (see AG of Duchy of Lancaster v. L & NW Rly Co 8). It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence (see Wenlock v. Moloney & Ors 9). The authorities further show that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O 33 r 3 (which is in pari materia with our O 33 r 2 of the RHC) (see Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v. Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7). The court must be satisfied that there is no S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable.” Penilaian dan Dapatan Mahkamah [32] Apabila Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutannya di mahkamah lain iaitu Mahkamah ini (NCvC12), alasan utama Plaintif-Plaintif ialah – “Plaintif-Plaintif memplidkan bahawa memandangkan tempoh selama 5 tahun telah berlalu semenjak Plaintif-Plaintif memperoleh pengetahuan mengenai perlanggaran Perjanjian- Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut oleh Defendan, Plaintif-Plaintif adalah menegaskan bahawa terdapat kemungkinan Plaintif- Plaintif akan terhalang oleh had masa untuk melakukan apa-apa tindakan ganti rugi terhadap Defendan dan maka tindakan baharu di hadapan Mahkamah ini terhadap Defendan adalah perlu bagi tujuan keadilan.”. [33] Untuk memastikan Plaintif-Plaintif “practice what one preaches”, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti afidavit jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif kepada permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 5. Mahkamah juga telah meneliti balasan Defendan dalam afidavit balasannya. Kini, Mahkamah ini merujuk kedua-dua afidavit sebagaimana yang berikut: S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan (7) sama ada Plaintif-Plaintif membuat rayuan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak melibatkan tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif di sini, oleh kerana Permohonan Pindaan tersebut telah dihujah oleh pihak-pihak dan percubaan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk meminda telahpun ditolak. Perenggan-perenggan 5.10 hingga 11.7 afidavit sokongan Defendan bagi Lampiran 5 diulang di mana Defendan menyatakan bahawa tindakan yang difailkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif di sini melibatkan pihak-pihak yang sama, perkara subjek yang sama, dan fakta latar belakang yang sama seperti Guaman 149, yang masih belum selesai di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. Pengendorsan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, sifat tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk kemungkiran kontrak dan relif dan/atau remedi yang dipohon (ganti rugi untuk kemungkiran kontrak, deklarasi, pelaksanaan spesifik, akaun dan siasatan, pengesanan dan faedah) adalah dalam semua aspek material sama dengan pindaan yang dicadangkan kepada SOC Guaman 149 dalam Permohonan (8) Suit 149 dan tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah dua perkara yang berbeza dan sifat dan karekter kedua-dua tindakan adalah berbeza. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan Pindaan, yang telah ditolak oleh mahkamah-mahkamah. (9)(a) Permohonan Pindaan tersebut hanya merupakan ‘percubaan’ untuk Plaintif-Plaintif meminda Suit 149 untuk memasukkan tuntutan ganti rugi dan tuntutan lain terhadap Defendan agar Plaintif-Plaintif tidak terhalang dengan kelewatan untuk membawa tindakan terhadap Defendan. (9)(b) Permohonan Defendan di sini hanya relevan di dalam keadaan jika Permohonan Pindaan tersebut dibenarkan, dan dalam keadaan ia dibenarkan, ia akan menimbulkan suatu keadaan yang di mana Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai tuntutan yang sama terhadap Defendan. Walau bagaimanapun, kedudukan Defendan di dalam Permohonan Pindaan tersebut telah diterima (7.2) Plaintif-Plaintif dalam perenggan (9)(a) dan (9)(b) Kandungan 8 dengan berkesan mengakui bahawa mereka telah berusaha untuk meminda Saman 149 untuk memasukkan tuntutan- tuntutan ganti rugi dan relif lain yang sama seperti yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dalam guaman di sini. (7.3) Bertentangan dengan penegasan Plaintif-Plaintif, mahkamah-mahkamah dalam Guaman 149 tidak menolak Permohonan Pindaan semata- mata atas alasan bahawa pindaan yang dicadangkan akan mengubah sifat guaman tersebut. (7.4) Tidak kira bagaimana Plaintif-Plaintif cuba menjelaskan keputusan mahkamah-mahkamah S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan oleh Mahkamah di dalam Suit 149 di mana Plaintif-Plaintif pada asalnya tidak memohon untuk tuntutan ganti rugi di dalam Suit 149 tersebut. dalam Guaman 149 dalam menolak Permohonan Pindaan, hakikatnya tetap bahawa Plaintif- Plaintif telah memilih (elected) dan mencuba, tetapi tidak berjaya, untuk membangkitkan dan/atau meneruskan tuntutan-tuntutan tersebut untuk ganti rugi dan relif lain dalam Guaman 149. [10] Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah mengambil pendirian yang salah dan mengelirukan. Dengan Permohonan Pindaan tersebut, Plaintif-Plaintif tidak memfailkan dua tuntutan yang sama terhadap Defendan dan Permohonan Pindaan tersebut tidak dibenarkan. Berdasarkan namanya sendiri, ia hanya merupakan ‘Permohonan’ semata-mata, dan dalam tidak merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam (7.5) Pada hakikatnya, Plaintif- Plaintif dalam perenggan- perenggan 20 dan 21 Afidavit mereka bagi menyokong Permohonan Pindaan telah dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa ia adalah wajar untuk memasukkan dalam Guaman 149 tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif bagi kerugian-kerugian yang didakwa dialami mengenai pendapatan sewa bulanan tambahan, caj bayaran elektrik bulanan dan deposit sekuriti tambahan untuk Menara-menara, dan bahawa penambahan tuntutan tersebut S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan Permohonan tersebut ianya hanya memuktamadkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan bahawa Permohonan Pindaan tersebut akan mengubah sifat dan karekter Suit 149. Dalam keadaan sebegitu, kaedah seterusnya adalah untuk Plaintif- Plaintif memulakan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini bagi menegakkan keadilan di antara pihak-pihak. adalah bertujuan untuk memastikan kesemua isu-isu dan relief-relief yang berpatutan dapat dibicarakan dan diputuskan Bersama-sama dalam Guaman 149 untuk menjimatkan masa dan kos. Dalam erti kata lain, adalah jelas bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif sendiri berpandangan bahawa tuntutan-tuntutan sedemikian sepatutnya dibicarakan dalam Guaman 149. Plaintif-plaintif sepatutnya diestop daripada cuba membicarakan semula atau memperkenalkan semula tuntutan-tuntutan yang sama dalam guaman di sini. (11)(a) Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif- Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan telah mengambil 2 pendirian yang berbeza di dalam pertikaian melibatkan Plaintif- Plaintif, di mana Defendan telah (7.6) Saya mengulangi dan sesungguhnya mempercayai bahawa kedudukan sebenar di sisi undang-undang adalah bahawa permulaan tindakan di sini berdasarkan fakta diplidkan yang sama, kausa tindakan yang dicadangkan yang sama dan relif S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan tersalah arah dalam permohonan Defendan di sini. Pendirian Pertama: bahawa pindaan untuk memasukkan relief- relief baharu mengubah sifat dan karekter Suit 149 tersebut. (11)(b) Pendirian Kedua: Permohonan Defendan di sini adalah mencuba untuk mengambil kedudukan yang berbeza dan remeh dengan menyatakan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif sepatutnya memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan bagi Permohonan Pindaan. Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif- Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan adalah tersalah arah dan keliru kerana kedudukan yang diambil oleh Defendan hanya benar jika melibatkan tuntutan yang telahpun difailkan, walau bagaimanapun Permohonan Pindaan tersebut dan/atau remedi yang sama yang dipohon dalam Permohonan Pindaan dalam Guaman 149 adalah merupakan satu percubaan untuk memintas prosedur rayuan yang diperlukan dan merupakan satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan hanya melibatkan cadangan tuntutan sahaja. (11)(c) Selepas Mahkamah Rayuan menolak Permohonan Pindaan tersebut, kedudukan undang-undang sebenar dan betul adalah Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai pilihan untuk merayu atau untuk memulakan tindakan baharu terhadap Defendan. (7.7) Dalam hal ini, cadangan Plaintif-Plaintif dalam perenggan (11)(c) bahawa, selepas Permohonan Pindaan ditolak oleh mahkamah-mahkamah, mereka mempunyai pilihan untuk sama ada merayu atau memulakan tindakan baharu, adalah salah anggap sepenuhnya, dan seterusnya menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif langsung tidak menghormati keputusan- keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam Permohonan Pindaan, serta penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah yang diniatkan dan disengajakan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan (12)(a) Tidak timbul isu kepelbagaian prosiding (multiplicity of proceedings) kerana kedua-dua tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam Suit 149 dan di sini mempunyai sifat dan karekter yang berbeza. (12)(b) Pendirian Defendan sebelum ini bahawa cadangan Permohonan Pindaan di dalam Suit 149 akan mengubah sifat dan karekter Suit 149 tersebut. Kini, Defendan mengambil pendirian yang bercanggah dengan mendakwa ia akan menimbulkan kepelbagaian prosiding (multiplicity of proceedings). (12)(c) Plaintif-Plaintif telah menerima keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan bahawa Permohonan Pindaan tersebut akan mengubah sifat dan karekter Suit 149. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan (12)(d) Oleh itu, kaedah yang betul digunakan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif di sini iaitu memulakan tindakan baharu terhadap Defendan bagi menuntut, antara lainnya ganti rugi. (13)(a) Tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif di sini adalah, antara lainnya melibatkan tuntutan ganti rugi terhadap Defendan, dan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam Suit 149 adalah melibatkan relief- relief injunksi dan deklarasi, iaitu relief-relief yang berbeza. (13)(b) Permohonan Penzahiran Pra-Tindakan Plaintif- Plaintif dalam OS 462 tersebut tidak melibatkan tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif di sini, yang di mana ianya telah diketepikan dengan persetujuan oleh pihak-pihak. (7.10) Bertentangan dengan penegasan Plaintif dalam perenggan (13)(b), permohonan Penzahiran Pra-Tindakan Plaintif- Plaintif dalam Guaman 462 jelasnya melibatkan perkara subjek yang sama seperti tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini. Plaintif- Plaintif sendiri menyatakan dalam perenggan 33(a) Afidavit S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan (13)(c) Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam Alasan Penghakiman untuk menolak Permohonan Pindaan tersebut telah menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Permohonan Pindaan tersebut akan mengubah sifat dan karekter Suit 149 tersebut. Oleh itu, Permohonan Defendan di sini adalah remeh dan dimulakan dengan niat jahat (“bad faith”) untuk menidakkan hak Plaintif- Plaintif. (13)(d) Dalam tidak merayu kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan melibatkan Permohonan Pindaan tersebut, ianya hanya menunjukkan bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dimuktamadkan dan hujahan Defendn di dalam Permohonan Pindaan tersebut diterima, iaitu Permohonan Pindaan tersebut akan mengubah Sokongan Guaman 462 bahawa “Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap Defendan bagi menuntut kerugian- kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif Pertama dan/atau Plaintif Kedua atas pendapatan sewa bulanan tambahan, caj bayaran elektrik bulanan yang berlebihan dan deposit sekuriti tambahan bagi penyewaan Menara-menara telekomunikasi tersebut”. (7.11) Plaintif-Plaintif, dalam menerima kemuktamadan keputusan mahkamah-mahkamah dalam Permohonan Pindaan, mestilah dianggap juga telah menerima penemuan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif tidak mempunyai prospek sebenar untuk berjaya membuktikan tuntutan-tuntutannya di sini. Ia tidak terbuka kepada Plaintif- Plaintif untuk memilih (pick and choose) bahagian-bahagian mana S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan sifat dan karekter Suit 149 tersebut. (13)(e) Plaintif-Plaintif telah mengemukakan kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap Defendan seperti mana yang dinyatakan di dalam pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini, dan kemungkiran Defendan dalam menamatkan Perjanjian- Perjanjian tersebut secara unilateral telah mengakibatkan kerugian terhadap Plaintif-Plaintif. keputusan mahkamah-mahkamah yang mereka ingin terima. (14) Permohonan Defendan untuk membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif hanya merupakan percubaan Defendan untuk menidakkan hak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Permohonan Defendan dibuat dengan niat jahat (“bad faith”) untuk mendapatkan keuntungan daripada Plaintif secara tidak sah. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 Afidavit Jawapan Plaintif-Plaintif Afidavit Balasan Defendan Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif- Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa tindakan yang dimulakan terhadap Defendan adalah suatu tindakan yang berasas, bermerit dan mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sah. Suatu perbicaraan di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah perlu bagi tujuan kepentingan keadilan bagi Plaintif-Plaintif yang amat terkesan. [34] Kronologi dan/atau susur galur tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif ini bermula dengan OS hingga ditukarkan kepada Writ Saman adalah mengenai apa yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa − (a) Defendan tidak pernah memaklumkan dan/atau mendedahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama jumlah sebenar sewa bulanan yang dibayar oleh Telekom Cellular Sdn Bhd (TCSB) kepada Defendan. (b) Defendan tidak pernah mengemukakan dan/atau mendedahkan sebarang dokumen yang dapat membuktikan dan/atau merekodkan jumlah pembayaran sewa bulanan sebenar yang diperoleh daripada TCSB. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 (c) Defendan tidak pernah memaklumkan dan/atau mendedahkan kepada Plaintif Pertama jumlah sebenar sewa bulanan yang dibayar TELCO-TELCO tersebut kepada Defendan. (d) Defendan tidak pernah mengemukakan dan/atau mendedahkan sebarang dokumen yang dapat membuktikan dan/atau merekodkan jumlah pembayaran sewa bulanan sebenar yang diperoleh daripada TELCO-TELCO tersebut. (e) Plaintif-Plaintif adalah berpendirian bahawa Defendan telah secara cuai dan/atau frod dan/atau misrepresentasi, gagal dan/atau enggan mendedahkan butiran-butiran mengenai jumlah bayaran yang diterima daripada TELCO-TELCO selain dengan cuai atau frod gagal mengiisytiharkan TELCO- TELCO yang menyewa di atas menara-menara tersebut. Defendan dengan itu telah melanggar terma-terma seperti yang terkandung di dalam Perjanjian-Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut. (f) pembongkaran terhadap TELCO-TELCO yang tidak diisytiharkan – fakta yang disembunyikan Defendan bagi mendapatkan keuntungan tidak sah. Pada sekitar Mac 2018, Plaintif Pertama telah menjalankan laporan penelitian terperinci melalui satu usaha wajar (“due diligence”) untuk memudahkan tatakerja SPA tersebut dan Deed of Assignment tersebut bagi penyerahan hak secara mutlak kepada Plaintif Kedua (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Laporan S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 Due Diligence tersebut”). Plaintif-Plaintif akan merujuk kepada laporan-laporan penelitian terperinci melalui satu usaha wajar (“due diligence”) tersebut semasa perbicaraan penuh di Mahkamah kelak. (g) tindakan undang-undang Plaintif-Plaintif setelah pembongkaran TELCO-TELCO tidak diisytiharkan oleh Defendan. (h) penamatan Kontrak-Kontrak Kerja tersebut dan Perjanjian- Perjanjian Pembiayaan tersebut secara unilateral dan tidak sah oleh Defendan. (i) tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk jumlah sewa yang tidak diisytiharkan di mana kerugian Plaintif-Plaintif ialah sebanyak RM15,204,792.00. [35] Mahkamah ini mendapati pertikaian mengenai tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif bermula dari tahun 2018 dan sejurus daripada mengetahui bahawa berlaku sesuatu yang tidak kena kerana tindak-tanduk Defendan, maka Plaintif-Plaintif menuntut keadilan diberikan kepadanya. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54 [36] Apabila tindakan undang-undang diambil terhadap Defendan, maka Mahkamah sebagai pihak yang memutuskan kausa tindakan ini perlu memberikan keadilan bukan sahaja kepada Plaintif-Plaintif tetapi juga kepada Defendan. Sebab itulah, daripada mode OS ditukar kepada writ saman agar kedua-dua pihak dapat membentangkan penegasan dan pendirian masing-masing. [37] Walau pun, tindakan undang-undang ini beralih dan bertukar dari satu MTSA ke satu MTSA, namun fakta material yang diplidkan oleh pihak-pihak kekal. [38] Usaha gigih Plaintif-Plaintif dan peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif- Plaintif terdahulu dan terkini menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif memohon agar Mahkamah “mendengar” dan memutuskan tuntutan dengan adil dan saksama serta suaimanfaat. [39] Keputusan MTSA khususnya Alasan Penghakiman oleh Y.A Dato’ Faizah Jamaludin dan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan sebagaimana yang dihuraikan oleh pihak-pihak telah saya teliti dengan berhati-hati. [40] Adakah Mahkamah ini boleh dan wajar untuk mengakaskan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan? Saya berpendapat adalah tidak wajar. Mahkamah ini tidak akan melitigasikan semula isu yang dibawa oleh Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan i.e. Permohonan Pindaan. [41] Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif sudah hampir ke destinasi perbicaraan penuh di MTSA Sivil NCvC5 di mana pliding sudah ditutup dan arahan PTCM sudah diberikan dengan jelas. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 55 [42] Pemfailan Suit No. 352 ini yang dibuat sebulan selepas keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan adalah suatu tindakan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif untuk memasukkan semula tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk jumlah sewa yang tidak diisytiharkan di mana kerugian Plaintif-Plaintif ialah sebanyak RM15,204,792.00 dan remedi/relief lain yang dipohon oleh Plaintif- Plaintif. [43] Defendan telah memasukkan pembelaannya dan jawapan kepada pembelaan juga sudah difailkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. Namun begitu, permohonan interlokutori oleh Defendan bukanlah untuk menidakkan dan/atau menafikan hak Plaintif-Plaintif kepada tuntutannya. [44] Lampiran 5 (permohonan Defendan untuk membatalkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif) hanya menamatkan “riwayat” tuntutan Suit No. 352 di Mahkamah ini. Manakala, tindakan guaman i.e Suit No. 149 diteruskan terhadap Defendan di MTSA Sivil NCvC5 untuk pihak-pihak membuktikan kes masing-masing. [45] Isu mengenai tidak memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan bukanlah punca mengapa Mahkamah ini membenarkan Lampiran 5. Keputusan Mahkamah ini berdasarkan bahawa pengendorsan Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dalam Suit No. 352 di Mahkamah ini adalah sifat tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk kemungkiran kontrak dan relif dan/atau remedi yang dipohon (ganti rugi untuk kemungkiran kontrak, deklarasi, pelaksanaan spesifik, akaun dan siasatan, pengesanan dan faedah) adalah dalam semua aspek material sama dengan Permohonan Pindaan dalam Suit No. 149. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 56 [46] Kerisauan dan/atau kegusaran Plaintif-Plaintif mengenai had masa 5 tahun sebagai sekatan kepada tuntutannya adalah sekadar dalihan untuk memfailkan suatu tuntutan baharu di Mahkamah ini. Adakah Suit 149 dibatalkan dan difailkan semula? Jawapannya, Tidak. Adakah Suit No. 352 ini hendak disatukan/digabungkan (consolidate) dengan Suit No. 149? Jawapannya, Tidak. Maka, apakah rasionalnya memfailkan suatu tindakan di Mahkamah ini? Jawapan kepada persoalan ini terkandung dalam afidavit dan penegasan Plaintif-Plaintif iaitu – (a) Suit 149 dan tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah dua perkara yang berbeza dan sifat dan karekter kedua-dua tindakan adalah berbeza. Dapatan Mahkamah: Suit 149 dan tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah mengenai kemungkiran dan perlanggaran kontrak kerja dan perjanjian pembiayaan oleh Defendan. Plaintif- Plaintif memplidkan bahawa akibat penamatan oleh Defendan, pelbagai kerugian dialaminya. Untuk menuntut semula kerugiannya maka Suit No. 352 difailkan agar Mahkamah ini membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif. Suit No. 149 yang mana tarikh perbicaraan telah ditetapkan adalah mengenai perkara yang sama dan serupa. Sama ada Defendan bertanggungan oleh MTSA Sivil NCvC5 akan diperoleh selepas 2 saksi Plaintif-Plaintif memberikan keterangan dan CEO Defendan memberikan keterangan. Mahkamah ini percaya keterangan saksi-saksi tersebut juga S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 57 akan dipanggil dalam tindakan di sini. Mahkamah ini menolak apa yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. (b) memasukkan tuntutan ganti rugi dan tuntutan lain terhadap Defendan agar Plaintif-Plaintif tidak terhalang dengan kelewatan untuk membawa tindakan terhadap Defendan. Dapatan Mahkamah: Kelakuan dan tindakan Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan Suit No. 352 di Mahkamah ini demi memastikan Plaintif-Plaintif memperoleh ganti rugi yang dikiranya dari mula Plaintif-Plaintif “menemui” kemungkiran dan/atau perlanggaran oleh Defendan. Penemuan mengenai “salah laku” oleh Defendan perlu dipampas dengan wang. Defendan tidak memfailkan pembatalan (striking out) dalam Suit No. 149, Defendan sudah bersedia ke gelanggang perbicaraan untuk mempertahankan dirinya mengenai dakwaan mengenai “salah laku” yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif. Mahkamah ini menolak apa yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif. (c) permohonan Defendan di sini hanya relevan di dalam keadaan jika Permohonan Pindaan tersebut dibenarkan, dan dalam keadaan ia dibenarkan, ia akan menimbulkan suatu keadaan yang di mana Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai tuntutan yang sama terhadap Defendan. Walau bagaimanapun, kedudukan Defendan di dalam Permohonan Pindaan tersebut telah diterima oleh Mahkamah di dalam Suit 149 di mana S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 58 Plaintif-Plaintif pada asalnya tidak memohon untuk tuntutan ganti rugi di dalam Suit 149 tersebut. Dapatan Mahkamah: Bagi “second limb” yang dinyatakan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah tidak teratur. Apabila Permohonan Pindaan ditolak oleh MTSA dan kemudiannya disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan maka, pernyataan tuntutan sedia ada (asal) kekal dan diteruskan untuk dibicarakan di MTSA Sivil NCvC5 itu. (d) Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Defendan adalah tersalah arah dan keliru kerana kedudukan yang diambil oleh Defendan hanya benar jika melibatkan tuntutan yang telahpun difailkan, walau bagaimanapun Permohonan Pindaan tersebut hanya melibatkan cadangan tuntutan sahaja. Dapatan Mahkamah: Mahkamah ini menolak nasihat undang- undang yang diberikan oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif kepada anakguam (Plaintif-Plaintif). Nasihat peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif kepada anakguam (Plaintif-Plaintif) sebenarnya yang tersalah arah dan keliru lagi mengelirukan. Permohonan Pindaan tersebut hanya melibatkan cadangan tuntutan sahaja dan apabila MTSA dan Mahkamah Rayuan menolak cadangan untuk meminda pernyataan tuntutan maka pernyataan tuntutan asal/sedia ada adalah terpakai. Tindakan pemfailan Suit No. 352 adalah cubaan Plaintif- S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 59 Plaintif untuk memastikan tuntutan ganti rugi kewangannya diberikan perhatian oleh Mahkamah. Suit No. 149 masih ada dan Suit No. 352 pula difailkan. Tiada usaha daripada Plaintif- Plaintif untuk menggabungkan 2 guaman ini agar hanya didengar dan diputuskan oleh seorang Hakim sahaja. (e) Selepas Mahkamah Rayuan menolak Permohonan Pindaan tersebut, kedudukan undang-undang sebenar dan betul adalah Plaintif-Plaintif mempunyai pilihan untuk merayu atau untuk memulakan tindakan baharu terhadap Defendan. Dapatan Mahkamah: Mahkamah mengulangi dapatannya sebagaimana dalam perenggan (d) di atas. (f) Tidak timbul isu kepelbagaian prosiding (multiplicity of proceedings) kerana kedua-dua tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam Suit 149 dan di sini mempunyai sifat dan karekter yang berbeza. Dapatan Mahkamah: Mahkamah mengulangi dapatannya sebagaimana dalam perenggan (d) di atas. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan Defendan bahawa wujud multiplicity of proceedings. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 60 [47] Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan dalam kes Lai Kim Loi v. Datuk Lai Fook Kim & Co. [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 61, Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur [Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo), Mohd. Yusoff Mohamed SCJ & Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ – “[7] The issues raised and the relief sought have been largely duplicated, substantial duplication of issues and relief sought in both actions amounts to multiplicity of actions. The petition is therefore vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the Court and ought to be struck out.”. [48] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, di mana Y.A Liza Chan Sow Keng memutuskan dalam kes Khong Yoon Loong & 161 Others v. Asia Plantation Capital Pte Ltd & Others [2023] 1 LNS 2322 “[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco Bhd v. Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held: “... the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations: (a) The plaintiff's right to choose whom it wants to sue and where; S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 61 (b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of an arbitration clause; and (c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes. (d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the case.”. [49] Akhir sekali dalam kes Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v. Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan – “[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings and risk of inconsistent findings. …”. [50] Mahkamah pasti tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif dalam Suit No. 149 di MTSA NCvC5 dan Suit No. 352 di hadapan Mahkamah ini yang akan berjalan secara berasingan adalah multiplicity of proceedings dan risiko percanggahan dapatan Mahkamah ini dan MTSA NCvC5 tidak dapat disangkal. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 62 Kesimpulan [51] Dalam hal keadaan dan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, keputusan Mahkamah ini adalah permohonan yang difailkan oleh Defendan terhadap keseluruhan tindakan Plaintif adalah teratur. Defendan layak dan telah menepati requirements bagi pembatalan tindakan. [52] Dengan ini, Mahkamah ini membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif terhadap Defendan. Bertarikh: 31 Januari 2024. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC12 Peguam cara: Bagi Pihak Plaintif-Plaintif: Muhammad Faiz Kamal bin Jaafar Tetuan Shahrin Satheer Kamal & Co., Rawang, Selangor. Bagi Pihak Defendan: Low Weng Tchung Tetuan Weng & Co., Petaling Jaya, Selangor. S/N xAQCXyAMZUWyOl2fBq95ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JH-63ES-3-01/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa RayaORANG KENA SAMANFELDA PALM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

SEKSYEN 18 (1) AKTA KUALITI ALAM SEKELILING 1974. SEKSYEN 16 (1) AKTA KUALITI ALAM SEKELILING 1974.ELEMEN: PREMIS DILESENKAN. PREMIS MELEPASKAN EFFLUEN. EFFLUEN DILEPASKAN MELANGGAR SYARAT LESEN.

31/01/2024

Tuan Hayda Faridzal bin Abu Hasan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=af426edf-e33d-4048-9fc5-58fa30d95777&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA TINGGI DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM PERBICARAAN KES SAMAN NO: JH63ES-3-01/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN FELDA PALM INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 359584-V) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. LATAR BELAKANG 1. Dalam kes ini, premis Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd., Kilang Sawit Air Tawar (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Orang Kena Saman/OKS) telah dituduh seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 18 Oktober 2018, jam lebih kurang 9.20 pagi hingga 12.30 petang bertempat di premis Felda Palm Industries, Kilang Sawit Air Tawar, Felda Air Tawar 2, di dalam Daerah Kota Tinggi, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, didapati telah melepaskan effluen dengan kandungannya melebihi had–had yang ditentukan di bawah Syarat No 3.3 di dalam Jadual 31/01/2024 13:14:41 JH-63ES-3-01/2021 Kand. 67 S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pematuhan Lesen No 002349 yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling1974 iaitu : (i) Kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30 °C yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 220 mg/l iaitu melebihi 100 mg/l yang ditetapkan; dan (ii) Kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) sebanyak 1020 mg/l melebihi had yang dibenarkan iaitu 400 mg/l. Dengan ini kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 16(1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974(Akta 127) dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 16(2) Akta yang sama. Hukuman Denda tidak lebih daripada dua puluh lima ribu ringgit atau penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih dari pada dua tahun atau kedua- duanya.” 2. Orang Kena Saman tidak mengaku bersalah terhadap pertuduhan dan pohon untuk dibicarakan. 3. Untuk membuktikan kes terhadap Orang Kena Saman, pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai 5 orang saksi di peringkat Pendakwaan. Kesemua saksi-saksi secara keseluruhannya telah memberikan gambaran apa yang berlaku dalam kes ini. Penilaian S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal terhadap keseluruhan kes Pendakwaan membolehkan Mahkamah membuat pertimbangan tentang keterangan saksi-saksi yang pada akhirnya sama ada ia dapat menimbulkan satu kes ‘prima facie’ terhadap Orang Kena Saman. 4. Saksi-saksi yang dipanggil oleh Pendakwaan adalah seperti berikut: i. Cik Nor Syafiqah Binti Tukiran – Pegawai Sains (SP1) ii. Encik Mohd Hafidz Bin Harun – Pengambil Sampel dan Penguji Sampel di tempat kejadian/Penghantar Sampel Ke Jabatan Kimia (SP2) iii. Encik Muhammad Hazwan Bin Hasan Basri – Penerima Sampel Daripada Jabatan Kimia (SP3) iv. Puan Rohaiza Binti Ahmad – Pegawai Perlesenan (SP4) v. Encik Safwan Bin Abdul Rahman – Pegawai Penyiasat/Jurugambar/Penghantar Sampel Ke Jabatan Kimia (SP5) S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5. Pada 3/12/2023, setelah mendengar keterangan-keterangan pada peringkat kes Pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan tidak berjaya membuktikan kes ‘prima facie’ terhadap Orang Kena Saman. Dengan itu, Orang Kena Saman dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan tanpa dipanggil membela diri dan barang kes dikembalikan atau dilupuskan setelah tamat tempoh rayuan. 6. Pihak Pendakwaan, selaku Perayu, tidak berpuas hati di atas keputusan tersebut dan telah memfailkan rayuan. B. RINGKASAN FAKTA KES 7. Pada 18 Oktober 2018 jam lebih kurang 8.30 pagi, SP5 bertolak dari pejabat Jabatan Alam Sekitar Cawangan Pengerang ke Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd., Kilang Sawit Air Tawar, Felda Air Tawar 2 di dalam Daerah Kota Tinggi, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim. Pemeriksaan diketuai oleh SP5 selaku Pegawai Penyiasat bersama SP2. 8. Pada jam lebih kurang 9.20 pagi, SP2 dan SP5 telah sampai ke lokasi Kilang Sawit Air Tawar yang disiasat. SP5 menyatakan telah menemui wakil premis iaitu Encik Norasnizar bin Talib (Juruanalisa Makmal) dan Encik Muhammad Alif Haikal bin Hassim (Pembantu Makmal). Premis juga didakwa sedang beroperasi dan terdapat pelepasan effluen di takat pelepasan akhir. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9. SP5 mengarahkan SP2 untuk menjalankan ujian in-situ terhadap effluen di takat pelepasan akhir. SP5 menyatakan bahawa SP5 menyaksikan SP2 menggunakan satu botol plastik 2000ml untuk membuat pengukuran suhu dan nilai pH efluen yang dilepaskan. Selepas itu SP5 mengarahkan SP2 membuat percontohan effluen di 'takat pelepasan akhir' sistem pengolahan effluen. Effluen yang dilepaskan seterusnya memasuki longkang dan mengalir terus ke sungai berdekatan iaitu Sungai Temon. 10. SP5 mengambil gambar serta menyaksikan kerja-kerja pengukuran suhu dan pH bersama wakil kilang sawit Air Tawar iaitu Encik Muhammad Alif Haikal bin Hassim dan beliau turut mengambil gambar kerja-kerja ujian mengukur suhu dan pH menggunakan telefon bimbit peribadi untuk tujuan rekod. SP5 mengambil gambar sebanyak 29 keping gambar dalam siasatan ini. 11. SP5 menyaksikan semasa persampelan efluen diambil di 'takat pelepasan akhir' yang dijalankan oleh SP2 dengan menggunakan botol plastik 2000ml. Sampel ditandakan sebagai 'A'. SP5 dan SP2 menyatakan ia diisi penuh dengan efluen untuk parameter BOD3 dan pepejal terampai (Suspended Solid). Sampel ditandakan sebagai 'B' (P6B) untuk Ammoniakal Nitrogen (AN) dan Total Nitrogen (TN). Sampel ditandakan sebagai 'C' menggunakan botol kaca 500ml untuk parameter minyak dan gris (Oil & Gris). Kerja-kerja persampelan disaksikan oleh SP5 dan wakil Kilang Sawit Air Tawar iaitu Encik Muhammad Alif Haikal bin Hassim. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12. SP5 dan SP2 menyatakan bahawa kaedah persampelan yang digunakan semasa siasatan ialah Doe Reference Method -Revised Standard Methods (1985) For Analysis of Rubber and Palm Oil Mill Effluent. Bilangan botol sampel yang digunakan ialah tiga (3) botol iaitu dua (2) botol plastik 2000 ml dan satu (1) botol kaca 500 ml. 13. SP5 mengambil gambar sampel-sampel yang telah siap diawet, dilabel, dimateri nombor siri 109267 bagi botol bertanda ‘A’, 109268 bagi botol bertanda ‘B’ dan 109269 bagi botol bertanda ‘C’. Ketiga-tiga botol sampel ditampal label dan nombor rujukan sampel ASPG/KKSAT/MHH/OKT18. SP5 dan wakil Kilang Sawit Air Tawar iaitu Encik Muhammad Alif Haikal bin Hassim menyaksikan semasa SP2 menyimpan sampel-sampel ke dalam kotak ais yang berisi ais dan termometer untuk mengukur suhu dalam kotak ais. Bacaan suhu dari termometer dalam kotak ais di lapangan didakwa adalah 2°C. 14. SP5 mengarahkan SP2 untuk membuat “Peta Lakar Pengambilan Sampel Effluen” lokasi pengambilan sampel dan SP5 menyemak “Peta Lakar Pengambilan Sampel Effluen” itu. SP5 dan SP2 menandatangani Peta Lakar Pengambilan Sampel Effluen tersebut. SP5 melengkapkan Borang Selongkar pengambilan sampel efluen tiga (3) botol yang ditanda ‘A’, ‘B’ dan ‘C’. Borang Selongkar ditandatangan oleh SP5 dan wakil premis iaitu Encik Muhammad Alif Haikal bin Hassim. 15. Pemeriksaan ke atas premis tamat lebih kurang jam 12.30 petang dan SP5 bersama-sama SP2 pergi ke Jabatan Kimia Negeri Johor menghantar sampel untuk dianalisis. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16. SP5 tiba di Jabatan Kimia Negeri Johor pada jam 2.00 petang, semasa di Jabatan Kimia Johor, SP5 mengambil gambar sampel dalam kotak ais dan termometer. SP5 menyatakan telah menyaksikan SP2 membuat pengukuran suhu dalam kotak ais iaitu 2°C. SP2 menyerahkan tiga (3) botol sampel efluen rasmi bertanda ‘A’, ‘B’ dan ‘C’ beserta borang Analisis Percontohan Rasmi dan juga borang Chain of Custody (COC) kepada SP1. 17. Selepas itu balik ke Jabatan Alam Sekitar Cawangan Pengerang, SP5 menerima Resit Rasmi penghantaran sampel, nombor makmal J(AS)00221/18 nombor rujukan sampel diberi ASPG/KKSAT/MHH/OKT18 dan borang Chain of Custody (COC) daripada SP2 untuk rekod fail. 18. Pada 15 November 2018 lebih kurang jam 11.45 pagi, SP5 bersama SP3 ke Jabatan Kimia Johor Bahru bagi mengambil sampel dan keputusan analisa kimia dengan nombor makmal J(AS)00221/18 nombor rujukan sampel diberi ASPG/KKSAT/MHH/OKT18 yang telah dihantar pada 18 Oktober 2018. SP5 menyaksikan Laporan Kimia Di Bawah Seksyen 399 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Nombor Makmal: J(AS)00221/18 bertarikh 13 November 2021 telah diterima oleh SP3 bersama tiga (3) botol sampel yang bertanda ‘A’, ‘B’ dan ‘C’ dimeterai dengan label keselamatan Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. SP5 juga menyaksikan borang Chain of Custody (COC) yang ditandatangani oleh SP3 dan SP1. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19. Pada jam lebih kurang 4.30 petang, sampai di pejabat Jabatan Alam Sekitar Cawangan Pengerang, SP5 mengarahkan SP3 menyerahkan tiga (3) botol sampel dan Laporan Kimia dengan rujukan No. Makmal: J(AS)00221/18 bertarikh 13 November 2018 beserta borang Chain of Custody (COC) yang telah ditandatangani kepada SP2. 20. Pada 15 November 2018 lebih kurang jam 5.00 petang, SP2 telah menyerahkan Laporan Kimia No. Makmal J(AS)00221/18 bertarikh 13 November 2018 kepada SP5. 21. Pada 18 November 2018 lebih kurang jam 9.30 pagi, SP5 telah membuat semakan pada Jadual Pematuhan Lesen No. 002349, yang dikeluarkan pada 26 Jun 2018 di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 (Pindaan) 1996. Pemegang Lesen adalah Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd dan Nama dan Alamat Premis Yang Ditetapkan ialah Kilang Sawit Air Tawar, Lot 3139, Mukim Johor Lama, Felda Air Tawar 2, 81900 Kota Tinggi , Johor Darul Takzim. 22. Keputusan analisa kimia dari Makmal Jabatan Kimia Johor Bahru melalui Laporan Kimia (P11) dengan rujukan No. Makmal J(AS)00221/18 bertarikh 13 November 2018 menunjukkan efluen mengandungi paras kepekatan melebihi had yang ditetapkan, premis tidak patuh syarat lesen 3.3 :- S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) Kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD), 3 hari, 30°C yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 220 mg/l iaitu melebihi had 100 mg/l yang ditetapkan; dan (ii) Kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) sebanyak 1020 mg/l melebihi had yang dibenarkan iaitu 400 mg/l. 23. Pada 29 September 2019 SP5 telah membuat semakan dengan Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia untuk mendapatkan maklumat Felda Palm Industries Sdn.Bhd adalah berdaftar dengan Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia. C. BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN 24. Adalah menjadi satu prinsip undang-undang bahawa Mahkamah perlu meneliti keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan di akhir kes Pendakwaan untuk menentukan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan. 25. Seksyen 173 (f) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan bahawa pihak Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan satu kes prima facie di akhir kes Pendakwaan seperti berikut: “Procedure in summary trials S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 173. The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials: (a) … … (f) (i) When the case for the prosecution is concluded the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. (ii) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal. …” 26. Definisi bagi perkataan prima facie telah banyak diterangkan, dibincangkan dan diputuskan oleh kes-kes di Mahkamah Tinggi hinggalah ke Mahkamah Persekutuan. Di dalam kes BALACHANDRAN v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan bahawa: “The standard of proof on the prosecution at the end of its case and at the end of the whole case has thus been statutorily spelt out in clear terms. The submission made must therefore be ratiocinated against the background of the meaning of the phrase “prima facie case”. … A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal.” 27. Prinsip di dalam kes BALACHANDRAN ini diikuti seterusnya di dalam kes AHMAD NAJIB BIN ARIS LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA (2009) 2 CLJ 800, di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan kedudukan undang-undang di akhir kes Pendakwaan seperti berikut: “In dealing with the question as to the position of the law at the end of the prosecution’s case and the steps to be taken by the trial Judge, useful reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Balachandran v. P.P. (2005)1 AMR 321 [(2005) 2 MLJ 301- Tag 2] where the following pronouncements were made: (a) In deciding whether a prima facie case has been established under the new section 180 CPC, a maximum evaluation of all the evidence adduced by the prosecution must be done and a prima facie case is one that is sufficient for the accused to answer, and the evidence adduced must be such that it can only be surmounted by evidence in rebuttal. (b) If the evidence is unrebutted, and the accused remains silent, he must be convicted. Therefore, the test to be applied at the end of the prosecution’s case is whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused if he chooses to remain silent, which if answered in the S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal affirmative, means that a prima facie case has been made out. (c) Whenever the accused has chosen to remain silent, there is no necessity to re-evaluate the evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable doubt in the absence of any further evidence.” 28. Di dalam kes LOOI KOW CHAI & ANOR V PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734, Mahkamah juga telah memutuskan bahawa: ‘’The correct test to be applied whether a prima facie case had been made out under S. 180 CPC was that as encapsulated in the judgment of Hashim Yeop Sani FJ in Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP. Therefore, a judge sitting alone under S.180 of the CPC must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and to ask himself the question “if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contain in the prosecution case?’’ if the answer was in the negative, then no prima facie case had been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal….” 29. Berdasarkan ini peruntukan dan kes yang dirujuk di atas, adalah jelas bahawa Mahkamah bertanggungjawab untuk membuat penilaian dan pertimbangan maksimum terhadap keterangan yang telah S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan di peringkat Pendakwaan sama ada ia dapat menimbulkan satu kes prima facie terhadap Orang Kena Saman. D. ELEMEN-ELEMEN PERTUDUHAN 30. Orang Kena Saman telah dipertuduhkan dengan 1 pertuduhan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 16 (1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 (AKAS) iaitu melepaskan affluen dengan kandungannya melebihi had-had yang ditentukan di bawah syarat lesen yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS. 31. Peruntukan Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS menyatakan: “Premis yang ditetapkan hendaklah dilesen” 32. Manakala peruntukan Seksyen 16 (1) AKAS menyatakan seperti berikut: “Pemegang sesuatu lesen hendaklah mematuhi had-had dan syarat-syarat lesen itu dalam setiap hal” S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33. Perkataan “effluen” dan “lesen” telah ditafsirkan di dalam Peraturan 2, Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Premis Yang Ditetapkan) (Minyak Kelapa Sawit Mentah) 1977 seperti berikut : “effluen” ertinya buangan cecair atau buangan air yang keluar disebabkan proses pengeluaran yang berlaku dipremis yang ditetapkan. “lesen” ertinya lesen mengenai premis yang ditetapkan sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh Seksyen 18, Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974. 34. Berdasarkan peruntukan-peruntukan di atas Mahkamah ini mendapati terdapat 3 elemen yang perlu dibuktikan dalam kes ini iaitu: i. Premis tersebut dilesenkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS ii. Premis tersebut telah melepaskan effluen. iii. Effluen yang dilepaskan melebihi had yang ditentukan di bawah syarat lesen yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35. Orang Kena Saman telah dituduh melepaskan effluen ke dalam alur air dengan kandungan melebihi had-had yang ditentukan di bawah Syarat No 3.3 di dalam Jadual Pematuhan Lesen No 002349 yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS bagi : (i) Kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 220 mg/l iaitu melebihi 100 mg/l yang ditetapkan; dan (ii) Kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) sebanyak 1020 mg/l melebihi had yang dibenarkan iaitu 400 mg/l. 36. SP4 telah sahkan premis yang diperiksa ini telah dilesenkan sehingga Jun 2019. Justeru itu, elemen pertama tidak dipertikaikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan mahupun pihak Pembelaan. 37. Bagi elemen kedua iaitu premis tersebut beroperasi dan telah melepaskan effluen semasa SP5 dan SP2 hadir di premis tersebut, Mahkamah ini juga mendapati tiada kesangsian atau keraguan terhadap perkara tersebut. Ini disebabkan sekiranya premis tersebut tutup atau tidak beroperasi pada hari tersebut, perjalanan kes ini akan berbeza disebabkan akan tiada pelepasan affluen dibuat semasa SP5 dan SP2 hadir di premis tersebut. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38. Persoalan utama adalah sama ada effluen yang dilepaskan melebihi had-had yang ditentukan di bawah syarat lesen yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS. 39. Semasa perbicaraan ini, Mahkamah ini telah didedahkan dengan dokumen Revised Standard Methods for Analysis of Rubber and Palm Oil Mill Effluent (RSM) dan Arahan Tetap Operasi Penguatkuasaan Jabatan Alam Sekitar (ATOP). Mahkamah maklum dengan status RSM dan ATOP di mana kedua-duanya adalah berupa arahan dalaman Jabatan Alam Sekitar. Arahan-arahan ini juga tidak digazettekan sama ada melalui Pemberitahuan Undang-undang (A) atau Pemberitahuan Undang-undang (B). 40. Namun melalui kedua-dua dokumen ini, Mahkamah dapat memahami prosedur-prosedur penyiasatan, persampelan dan sebagainya melibatkan effluen terutamanya premis memproses minyak kelapa sawit mentah. Terdapat arahan-arahan yang khusus sebagai contohnya tentang pengambilan dan pengendalian gambar foto seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam ATOP. Begitu juga dengan pengambilan dan pengendalian sampel telah disusun dengan jelas dan teratur. 41. Ketidakpatuhan terhadap arahan-arahan ini, meskipun tidak menyebabkan pelanggaran undang-undang ‘per se’, namun ia dilihat boleh menjejaskan aspek kredibiliti proses tersebut. Sekurang-kurang itulah pandangan Jabatan Alam Sekitar yang telah dinyatakan melalui kedua-dua dokumen tersebut. Isu-isu seperti pengendalian pengambilan gambar-gambar digital, kaedah pengambilan sampel-sampel, kaedah S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal penyimpanan sampel-sampel termasuk suhu, keadaan tanpa udara dan sebagainya turut dirujuk dan dijelaskan kepentingannya. 42. Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi tentang isu ini terutamanya keterangan SP5 dan SP2. Mahkamah juga telah memaklumkan pihak-pihak semasa pihak Pendakwaan menutup kes ini di peringkat Pendakwaan bahawa rantaian keterangan dan rantaian penjagaan eksibit perlu diteliti agar ia selaras dengan peruntukan undang-undang yang sedia ada seperti Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, Akta Keterangan dan AKAS sebelum rujukan dibuat seterusnya kepada arahan-arahan pentadbiran yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Alam Sekitar. 43. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada gambar-gambar yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan dalam kes ini iaitu P5 (1-31) dan P5A iaitu CD. Mahkamah ini maklum bahawa peranan gambar-gambar dalam sesuatu kes di Mahkamah adalah secara umumnya, untuk pengecaman iaitu pengecaman tempat, pengecaman identiti dan pengecaman aktiviti. Ini adalah peranan secara umum. 44. Dalam kes ini keterangan menunjukkan bahawa ada gambar- gambar telah diambil oleh SP5 semasa pihak Jabatan Alam Sekitar hadir ke premis yang diserbu. Justeru itu, tempat, identiti dan aktiviti boleh dijelaskan melalui gambar. Isunya akan berbeza sekiranya memang tiada gambar-gambar diambil oleh pihak Jabatan Alam Sekitar semasa hadir ke tempat kejadian. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45. Mahkamah ini mengambil maklum bahawa bagi gambar-gambar yang diambil melalui kamera digital, setelah gambar-gambar selesai diambil, ia akan dicetak sebelum dimuat turun dan di’burn’ ke dalam CD atau sebaliknya. Terdapat juga keadaan di mana gambar-gambar terus dicetak dan tidak di’burn’ ke dalam CD atas alasan-alasan tertentu seperti tiada CD dibekalkan kepada jabatan, kehabisan stok CD dan sebagainya. Ini adalah ‘judicial notice’ yang boleh Mahkamah ini ambil terhadap amalan pengendalian gambar-gambar daripada kamera digital dalam kes-kes Pendakwaan. 46. Namun P5 (1-31) dan P5A yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah ini didapati tidak dikendalikan sedemikian. Lebih tepat lagi P5 dan P5A ini adalah Laporan Imej Digital Siasatan Penguatkuasaan di mana gambar- gambar yang diambil telah dimasukkan atau ditempelkan kepada laporan ini. Sama ada pengeditan berlaku pada peringkat ini atau tidak, ia tidak dapat dipastikan secara jelas. Ini menjadikan gambar-gambar yang terdapat dalam Laporan Imej Digital Siasatan Penguatkuasaan ini dilihat sebagai ‘secondary evidence’. 47. Pada asasnya pengemukaan ‘secondary evidence’ boleh diterima dan tidak ditolak terus oleh Mahkamah. Ini kerana seksyen 65 Akta Keterangan telah menggariskan peruntukan yang membolehkan ‘secondary evidence’ diterima masuk semasa perbicaraan. Jadi, adakah peruntukan ini telah dipenuhi bagi P5 dan P5A untuk membolehkan ia dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini dan bersandar kepadanya? S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48. Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa perkara ini tidak dipenuhi melalui keterangan yang memuaskan oleh saksi-saksi yang ada. Terutamanya penjelasan mengapa gambar-gambar tersebut dimasukkan terus ke dalam Laporan Imej Digital Siasatan Penguatkuasaan tetapi tidak terlebih dahulu di’burn’ ke dalam CD atau dicetak secara langsung terlebih dahulu sebelum dimasukkan ke dalam laporan tersebut. Adakah tiada CD dibekalkan kepada jabatan atau jabatan kehabisan stok CD dan sebagainya? Sekiranya tiada CD, mengapa gambar-gambar tersebut tidak terus dicetak meskipun tidak di’burn’ ke dalam CD? Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tiada keterangan yang memuaskan oleh saksi-saksi yang ada mengenai perkara ini. Justeru itu, sukar untuk Mahkamah ini bersandar sepenuhnya terhadap kredibiliti P5 dan P5A terutamanya melibatkan gambar suhu termometer yang diambil. 49. Kes ini adalah kes pelanggaran syarat lesen di mana ia melibatkan dakwaan pelanggaran syarat lesen yang dikeluarkan kepada Orang Kena Saman di mana Orang Kena Saman didakwa melepaskan effluen melebihi had yang ditetapkan di bawah syarat lesen. SP4 telah sahkan premis yang diperiksa ini telah dilesenkan sehingga Jun 2019. SP4 juga telah secara ringkas memberi keterangan mengenai lesen premis tersebut bernombor 002349 (P12) yang mengandungi maklumat tempoh yang dilesenkan iaitu 1 Julai 2018 hingga 30 Jun 2019, jumlah bayaran yang dikenakan untuk pembaharuan lesen, tarikh bayaran dibuat dan nama SP4 sebagai pegawai yang bertugas pada ketika itu. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50. SP4 turut menyatakan had-had dan syarat-syarat yang dikenakan terhadap premis Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd, Kilang Sawit Air Tawar sepanjang tempoh yang dilesenkan terkandung dalam Jadual Pematuhan (P13) no. rujukan AS(B)J31/152/000/086Jld.4(SK07) bertarikh 26 Jun 2018. Namun apakah had-had dan syarat-syarat tersebut tidak dihurai lanjut oleh SP4 sedangkan pertuduhan terhadap Orang Kena Saman adalah melepaskan effluen melebihi had yang ditentukan di bawah syarat lesen yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS. 51. Mahkamah maklum bahawa Jabatan Alam Sekitar merupakan jabatan yang khusus bagi kes-kes melibatkan alam sekitar dan sepanjang perbicaraan ini berlangsung, Mahkamah ini mendapati terdapat aspek-aspek teknikal yang terlibat dalam pengambilan dan pengendalian sampel dari premis tersebut. Justeru pengambilan dan pengendalian sampel dari premis juga adalah isu yang material untuk diteliti dan dipertimbangkan dalam kes ini. 52. Salah satu keterangan yang telah dilihat oleh Mahkamah ini adalah Borang Sampel-sampel Air Buangan Daripada Premis Minyak Kelapa Sawit Mentah Untuk Analisa Percontohan Rasmi. Terdapat 2 bahagian untuk suhu sampel diisi. Namun, hanya 1 bahagian diisi iaitu di lapangan. Manakala di bahagian Jabatan Kimia Malaysia tidak diisi. Prosedur ini meskipun kelihatan remeh tetapi Mahkamah ini mendapati tujuannya adalah memastikan sampel dalam keadaan baik untuk analisa kimia. SP1 iaitu pegawai sains juga sahkan bahawa suhu sampel tidak diambil oleh SP1 sebelum sampel diterima. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53. Mahkamah ini tidak akan mempertikaikan dapatan SP1 selaku pegawai sains dalam kes ini. Ini kerana SP1 sebagai saksi pakar hanya boleh dipertikaikan oleh pihak Pembelaan dengan mengemukakan saksi pakar yang berlainan dengan dapatan SP1. 54. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes LOOI KOW CHAI & ANOR v PP (2003) 1 CLJ 734 seperti berikut: “Where the opinion of a chemist is confined only to the elementary nature and identity of a substance, the court is entitled to accept the opinion of that chemist on its face value, unless it is inherently incredible or the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence is given by the chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into the details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step” 55. Namun begitu, apabila isu suhu ini dibangkit semasa perbicaraan, pihak Pembelaan telah mencabar integriti sampel yang diambil sebagai tercemar iaitu sekiranya sampel tidak disimpan ataupun tidak diawet, menghampiri suhu 4°C, ia tidak akan menggambarkan keadaan sebenar sampel semasa. 56. SP5 memberi keterangan bahawa SP5 menyaksikan SP2 menyimpan sampel-sampel ke dalam kotak ais yang berisi ais dan S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal termometer untuk mengukur suhu dalam kotak ais. Bacaan suhu dari termometer dalam kotak ais di lapangan adalah 2°C. Apabila SP5 dan SP2 tiba di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Negeri Johor pada jam 2.00 petang, SP5 memberi keterangan bahawa SP5 menyaksikan SP2 mengukur bacaan suhu dalam bekas penyejuk, bacaan diperolehi ialah 20C dan SP5 mengambil gambar semasa SP2 membuat pengukuran suhu dalam bekas penyejuk sebelum sampel tersebut diserahkan kepada SP1. 57. Mahkamah ini telah meneliti isu pengendalian P5 (1-31) dan P5A yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah ini di mana gambar-gambar yang diambil telah dimasukkan atau ditempelkan kepada satu laporan. Sama ada pengeditan berlaku pada peringkat itu, ia tidak dapat dipastikan secara jelas. Justeru itu, sukar untuk Mahkamah ini bersandar sepenuhnya terhadap kredibiliti P5 dan P5A apatah lagi melibatkan gambar suhu termometer yang diambil. 58. SP1 memberikan keterangan bahawa SP1 telah menerima sampel-sampel beserta borang Analisis Percontohan Rasmi dan juga borang Chain of Custody (COC) daripada SP2 di Jabatan Kimia Johor. SP1 tidak memeriksa suhu sampel-sampel yang diterima. Namun memandangkan tiada keterangan bahawa sampel-sampel tersebut ditolak, maka Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa SP1 berpuas hati dengan keadaan fizikal sampel-sampel tersebut untuk diuji. 59. Meskipun dapatan SP1 tidak dipertikaikan oleh Mahkamah ini, isu sekiranya sampel tidak disimpan ataupun tidak diawet, menghampiri suhu 4°C, ia tidak akan menggambarkan keadaan sebenar sampel S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal semasa, telah diteliti dan dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini. Tiada keterangan yang menerangkan apakah yang dimaksudkan sampel- sampel tidak akan menggambarkan keadaan sebenar sampel semasa. Adakah ia bermaksud kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) akan mempunyai kepekatan yang lebih tinggi. Atau sebaliknya kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) akan mempunyai kepekatan yang lebih rendah. 60. Sekiranya sampel tidak disimpan ataupun tidak diawet, menghampiri suhu 4°C, akan menyebabkan kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) mempunyai kepekatan yang lebih tinggi, maka penyimpanan atau pengawetan sampel menghampiri suhu 4°C amat mustahak kerana terdapat kemungkinan semasa sampel diambil, kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) tidak melebihi had-had yang ditentukan di bawah Syarat No 3.3 di dalam Jadual Pematuhan Lesen No 002349 yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS. 61. Begitu juga sebaliknya, sekiranya sampel tidak disimpan ataupun tidak diawet, menghampiri suhu 4°C, akan menyebabkan kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) mempunyai kepekatan yang lebih rendah, maka penyimpanan atau pengawetan sampel menghampiri suhu 4°C boleh dihujahkan kurang mustahak kerana terdapat kemungkinan semasa sampel diambil, kepekatan Oksigen Biokimia yang diperlukan (BOD) 3 S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal hari, 30°C dan kepekatan Pepejal Terampai (SS) telah melebihi had-had yang ditentukan di bawah Syarat No 3.3 di dalam Jadual Pematuhan Lesen No 002349 yang dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 18 (1) AKAS. 62. Adalah menjadi tanggung jawab pihak Pendakwaan untuk memanggil saksi-saksi yang diperlukan bagi membuktikan kes Pendakwaan terhadap Orang Kena Saman. Meskipun pihak Pendakwaan tidak bertanggung jawab untuk memanggil semua saksi dalam kes ini, namun, saksi-saksi yang dipanggil hendaklah mengemukakan keterangan yang diperlukan bagi membantu Mahkamah ini memahami perjalanan dan naratif kes yang sedang dibicarakan. 63. Sepertimana yang telah disebut sebelum ini, Jabatan Alam Sekitar merupakan jabatan yang khusus bagi kes-kes melibatkan alam sekitar. Justeru itu, aspek-aspek teknikal yang terlibat dalam pengambilan dan pengendalian sampel dari premis tersebut perlu diterangkan kepada Mahkamah dengan jelas memandangkan Jabatan Alam Sekitar terlibat secara langsung dengan pengendalian kes-kes alam sekitar. 64. Namun sehingga pihak Pendakwaan menutup kes Pendakwaan, tiada keterangan yang menjelaskan apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan sampel-sampel tidak akan menggambarkan keadaan sebenar sampel semasa, sekiranya sampel tidak disimpan ataupun tidak diawet, menghampiri suhu 4°C. Adalah tidak wajar bagi Mahkamah membuat anggapan-anggapan atau menimbangkan kemungkinan-kemungkinan tersebut tanpa disokong oleh keterangan yang jelas. S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 65. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP V RADZI ABU BAKAR (2006) 1 CLJ 456, seperti berikut: “(2) After the amendments to ss.173(f) and 180 of the CPC , the statutory test has been altered. What is required of a subordinate court and the High Court under the amended sections is to call the defence when it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out at the close of the prosecution case. This is requires the court to undertake a maximum evalution of the prosecution evidence when deciding whether to call on accused to enter upon his or her defence .It involves an assessment of the credibility of the witnesss called by the prosecution and the drawing of inferences admitted by prosecuton evidence. Thus, if the prosecution‘s evidence admits of two or more inferences, one of which is in the acussed’s favour, then it is the duty of the court to draw the inference that is favourable to accused. (3) If the court , upon a maximum evalution of the evidence placed before it at the close of the prosecution case, comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has not been made out, it should acquit the accused. If, on the other hand ,the court after conducting a maximum evaluation of the evidence come to conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, it must call for the defence. If the accused then elects to remain silent, the court must proceed to convict him.It is not open to the court to then re-assess the evidence and to determine whether the prosecution S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of any evidence from the accused that costs a reasonable doubt on prosecution’s case renders the prima facie case on that is established beyond a reasonable doubt.” E. KESIMPULAN 66. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan di atas, pada penilaian maksima berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi Pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Orang Kena Saman, Oleh itu Mahkamah mengarahkan Orang Kena Saman dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. Sekian, terima kasih. Bertarikh 30 Januari 2024 Hayda Faridzal Bin Abu Hasan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Tinggi S/N 325Crz3jSECfxVj6MNlXdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-52-08/2021

PLAINTIF KENDEK PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN DIP CHAIN MANUFACTURING SDN. BHD.PIHAK TERKILANPerbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia (MyIPO)(KUALA LUMPUR) (G18864)

The issues to be decided therefore encompass three areas; patent infringement, patent invalidation, and the plaintiff’s locus standi. However, in this Judgement they will be dealt with in reverse order - Plaintiff’s claim allowed with costs and Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.

30/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b4c78d47-6df7-4558-a383-ffce5f20ef77&Inline=true

30/01/2024 09:18:34 WA-22IP-52-08/2021 Kand. 218 S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R43HtPdtWEWjg//OXyDvdw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24IP-7-06/2023

PEMOHON PALMGOLD LEISURE SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN 1. ) PALMGOLD CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PENDAFTAR CAP DAGANGAN MALAYSIA

Appeals against the decision of the 2nd Defendant, the Registrar of Trademarks (“Registrar”) made on 18.5.2023; dismissing the Plaintiff’s opposition to the 1st Defendant’s application to register certain trademarks; and; allowing the 1st Defendant’s application to register those trademarks - both Originating Summonses are dismissed.

30/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=398823c5-0b8e-440a-b895-58d9ba7357fd&Inline=true

30/01/2024 09:38:14 WA-24IP-7-06/2023 Kand. 39 S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xSOIOY4LCkS4lVjZunNX/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—2dIP—7—05/2023 Kand. 39 in/01/2024 ems-14 KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT 0 I GSIJ ONSN WA-2 741 BETWEEN PALMGOLD LEISURE SDN arm PLAINYIFF AND 1. FALMGOLD CORPORATION sou EHD z. REGISTRAR on TRADEMARKS, MALAYSIA DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT lnlroducflon 1 This Ongmaung Summons Na wAr24u>—1—na/202: 1-057‘) .5 une nllwu between lhe same names The ulher ws Ongmahng Summons Nu wA.24IP-we/2023 1“os—a'; Save mat lhe subjeu manner 0! 05.7 and es-a ws 3 d\Wevsn| uaaemam me lzclsand 155-105 0! both Orlglnahng summonses are essentially me same. cansequsnuy, ms names have agreed Ihal me decvsvon I mska on 0s 7 wm app\y |o 0s a 2 05-7 and os—a are app2a\s agams| |ha daemon av ma 2"" Defendant‘ me Reglshar or Tradamarks [‘RegislIar"| made on 15 5 2023 (‘Reg4strar‘s Decusvon“). mg I D’ u sw xso\av4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm up dwsrmssmg me Plalnllfls opposmon to me 15' Detenaanrs applicalvon to Iegwstar oerlavn usdamams: and an auowmg me 1- uetemanrs application m register Ihnse lvademarks However, havmq discontinued me Dngmalmg Sumnmnses agamst lhe Registrar‘ |hIS dam on V5 heiween the Plainhfi and me 1'“ Flamhfl nu Yrzdumarks and tho ullcm background facts On 21402019, me 1“ Dedendant lodged Auplvcallnn No rM2m9o3s7z4 and Apphcatmn Nu w2o19o3s72s (corlecwely, '1“ De!endanl's Trademark Applications") to the Regislrar to register lhelaflowmg as trademarks, an undev class 41 (colleclwely, '1“ Delendanfs Marks‘) Aggncamon N9 TM2Q]$;8724 Agghcauon No TM201903B‘/29 “PALMGOLD" ‘ ‘ J.‘ x‘, In 2:121. me Flainlifl lodged Appncauon Nn:TM2021D111128 and Appncamon No: TM2021D11M0(coIlec|we\y. “P\amlxfFs Trademark ApprhcaI\crIS') wilh the Rsgwslrar to regusxer lhe iunnwmg as «auemarxs, am under Class A1 (ca|lecIwely‘ ‘Plamllffs Marks‘) Panza!!! sw xso\av4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 29 an at. wham had used the Patmgotd Marks firsl tt IS wttn the Regtslrafs findmg that rt was the 1‘ Detendant who had first used the Patmguld Marks that the Ptamtrtf has Issue wrlh The P7am(tW‘s mam grievance with that findmg stems tram rts attegatmn that was ftrst raised m paragraph 7 ol the Ptamtttrs so that Tan Sn Danny Tan ts the Vottndev and creator or the ‘PALMGOLD’ mark and the Patmgotd Group of Compames. and ne had formed the brand name “PALMGDLD” when he moor-pmated the Plamltfl on ts 9.t9sc My ltrst observatten at mus stand IS that the Plainltff and Tan SH Denny Tan nave ctearty odmused the fuundei/creator at a trademark with tts oropnetor. tn lawlhey are not lhe same wmte the creator oi a tradamark may assert oupynghl awnersmp lo tt‘ common law awnershrp al a trademark ts not based on who had destgned and created the trademark, but who had ftrst used tt tn the course of trade. In paragmplt [37] uttrre Judgment at the Federal Oourl In Metunta sports sdu Bhd v Majlts sukan Nogara Mzlaysia (Pondaflar can Dagangln M aym, lmzurusind PaI1y)[2015]6 MLJ 465, Azihar FCJ said we agree wrlh me submrasrons arreemed caunser tar Inc dererrdant (0 ms oxtsnt wnusr me master at destgnev Dian tndrtalov as a trademark or games tdermfizrmay nil be me waynghlowner orregtsler-ed destgn awnsr, me person :5 no! aulorrlsltcally the trade mark owmr u... u will sw xsotuv4u:ks4\\ItZur.M>W -we smut In-rthnrwm be tr... M mm s. nrwtruflly mm: dun-mm VII nfluNG Wm! He may sn/we ms wuyngh! oi mdusmzl dawn mm but nu! msssanry ms trademark nghls Them rs 5 clear msmm Between me uealar oh mam and userala mark Yo put me pom! ammnuy, mmmnn law pvuulvelarslllp is no] nmaon wwo my «mac or m.»..1 ms Imdlmnlk at mun: mum" in numon Tm mmmon /sw ownommu la 1! mmemurk mum ma ulatmanl vsiabllsmllq ns snmlemenl la u not by shuwma ma! 1: .s Ihe aeataruilhe rd:IvMsr bulramer. by rsamn 1271!: use as a mademark ongoa«1smmem.useanm.sas- 32 As lor “use In me course of uaaen m Just Cranes Gmhfl a Co KG v Josl Cunn Sdn snn[2a1n]4 Mu 121, Azahar Mohamed .I [as ms Lomsmp men was] referred In Daimler AG v Sany Gmup Co Ltd [zone] All ER (n) 123 and me principles merem Io denve me maamng nlgenmne use, He said: ‘(a; Gwvmm use rs a quahtatvve am nola quammam cmodon (:2; Th: tax has to ba mnsrslnnt mm me smnamrmnum DIM: trademark, whrcn rs to guuranlan me »darmYy a( (M ongm mm good: or sen/mus to me wsrumsr or and usovs (3; rm: use has m be on me made! by the plupnelnr .2 an sumovuod am pm and not mil /mama! use by the undertaking comzemed nu ms us: has la be m mumlam m anal: a mum m an. nwknl fur me good: or Seances pmmsa by the mark page :2 M 1: sm xso\av4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 33 34. 35 1c» The ooun has In lake mo ccnsaderahan an the faclx and msunumnnes relevant to e§nD1rsIImg wlrsmev me nommomar muouauon ol the mad: has been real, and m pamnl/an men... mm use wuwd be v-awed as wananlod In me me mcmlaomrnmodtomlmta/H cymbals: shavvln me me.-mror ma mluvum good: or swan pcluttd by me mark And fins/W‘ I/) The nalura ulme goods m Issue am. a: me charaaensbc: ov me mantel camzmed and Ma sash and rreq-may orma use arms mark have m be taken mm accmml The Registrar‘: basis {or finding that 1! was me 1" narenoam (and not me PIa\nhf1 or Tan Sn Danny Tan) who had used me Palmguld Marks are: are sel am no pages M onne Registrar‘: Grounds Ifmd mac lhey award wan my own vmomge on me evldenue and m any event are run findings made m error Having perused aH :11 me ewoenoe, I find |ha|, as belween me P\amM1 and me Delervdanl,lJ1e ms: use or the word 'PaImgold" was when the word ’Palmguld" appeared \n the Veflemead 0! a Vener oaneo m 5.1990 that the V“ Devenuam senuo me Manager nmhen) Bank Bumluulra Maluysns Bemaa clKompleks N1Iarabangsa,.)a|an suuan Ismail‘ 50250 Kuala Lumpur about us cunem azzxmnl Tha| letter I: pan 0! Exhi Appfi" In one 1-‘ Delenuanrs SD. As lnrlhe (us! use alme Palmgmd logos, evidence olhrsl use ws me 'eroup Oorporale DnecIcry' 0! me Pmmgnld Gmup or Cumpan' 5' at Exmmn “AppA2" |o |he1"Delendam‘s 5D. In paragranh 8137 unne 1-I natenoanrs so, Dalc‘ Dickson ‘ran asserted man man Group me u uni am xso\uv4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W “Nana saw nmhnrwm .. o... w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum om as 37 Corporate Directory was "circa 1992 or 1993". Nenner Ihe Memnu ner Tan Sri Danny Tan have mspuxed or refined that. Nevenheless‘ even n ma Plaurmfl or Tan sn Danny Tan ware iolake lha nosman that that Gmuv Ccrnorale Dnecwry -s unrehable lo show am use as n \s undated, I a\Iema|Iva\y find that msu use onne Pamauld logo was wnen n laalured on me Ielvarhsad 0! a Vsfler 10 3.1993 (ha! me 1‘ Dafendanl sent «a Oversea Chmase Banking Corp Lm ovwmna Lee Rubber‘ Ground F\oonJa1an Melaka, 50100 Kuala Lumpur rsqueslmg (or statements of inwunl (or me curmnl acmunl That Ieuer us also pan of Exn-an 'App—6“ |o me 1“ oetenaanrs SD In conmsn, neilharlhe Plainm1novTan sn Danny Tan nave adduced any avndanm Inez ennev of them nave Dersnnally used Elmer me word “F'a\mgoId‘ or me Palmgom Vogu, and mnaccenanvy none that Dre-da|Mhe1" Derenaanrs use that x menlmned above Luke the Regwslvan x a\su fmd thal \he P\amM had not adduned any ewdenee eune usaaflha Pahngold word enne Palmgold I090 when me Plamuff was -neureomed on1B.9 mac. In Exnmn “App-8" to me w Deceneanrs so, the 1“ Defendmk aaeuoea ewdenca that me Plannlvff was Incorporated en Iha| dale as ‘Salamal Laju Expmss Sdn SM". and cnangee ils name In ‘Pink Topaz Sdn Blvd" on 1.12 was The further name-change «rem “Pink Topaz Sdn lane‘ to ‘Pzalmgold Lersura Sdn Bhd" (whvch was me fire! «me me ward 'PaImgoid' was used m Iha F\am(iR‘s name) was only an 5.9.19ee, wmch was mam: years aflar me an oevenaanc had men used the Palmgold word and me Palmgmd nege meuem sn xso\uv4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W «me an.‘ ...n.mn be mad m may he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm as An Exhibit ‘App-10' to the 1“ Delenoanrs sn lurtner shows that the directors ofthe W nelendant had passed a Board Resolution dated 7 3 I996 aporwng 01 that change ol name lrorn “Pink Topax sdn slid‘ to ‘Pa/mgold Leisure sdn Bhd" which, in ellecti was the 1" Delendarrt allavnng tne Plalntill to use the word “Palmgald‘ in its name This approval also shims|hat|he1“Delent1antw-as already using the word “P:lmgold‘ in its name before the Plalnlm was allowed to. in adoitron, the 1* Deleridant is the lirst entry on the Group corporate Directory ol the Palmgold Gmup t11Companies at Exniolt ‘Apu«2“ la the 1- uetendarirs SD‘ and is identified as ‘Marlagemenl Company’. The rest are oredorninanitly clubs, suggesting that they are all suosioianes t11the1"Deferldanl On that Group Cnrpmale Dlrecloryi the Pteiritill (then nerned "Pink Topaz son and"; IS listeo I6 lungs below the 1“ Defiendanti in brad<els under “Ke|ab Oriental’, e reoreetional club in Penang, suggesting even back then it was already a subsidiary at the 15* Detendant or at least a member ol the Palmgald Gmup af companies. However. the Plainmv did not adduoe any evidence ol that Kelao onenial using either the Palmgold word or the Palmgold logo. hgeisal as sin xSDlDY4lEkS4\\llZIiruN>W "Nab! s.ii.i In-vlhnrwlll be used M yaw he otwlrrnllly MIN: m.i.i. VII nFlt.ING Wflxl 42. 43 45. sm xElDY4lEkS4\\l|ZunN>W “None s.n.l nuvlhnrwm a. .l... m may he nflmnnllly mm: dnumlnnl VII mene Wm! Furlhar, VI paragraph 25 ml me I" Delenaenl-e SD‘ Dalo‘ Dlckion Ten salfl ml me Plelnme sole huslnsss ngnl now n. lhe aperallan ol a slol machlnes room lol me onenlel Club "I Melaka The pnolagmpns Mme onsnlel Club adduced as Exhlbl|'App-13'loIha 1" Deiendanfs so show xnal ll also eoes no: use eilher lne Palmgnld word nr lne Palmgeld logo. Nellner lne Plelnm nor Tan sn nanny Tin dlsnule one ward ulllnlalely, me Plalnull ma nnl adduce any evidence or me Plalnlln, be n wnen I| was ealleo ‘Sllamil Laju Expness son EM‘ or ‘PVIK Tnpaz son Bhd or ‘Palmgold Leliure son lane’ mwlng useo lne Palmgolo or lne Pelnlgela loge al any lime befora me 1-‘ Delandanfsfirsl use ellnem. As me Plalnllll has always bean under Tan srl Danny Txrrscomml, suraly such avlderlue would nave hsen adduced ll ll exnuea. In ExI1lbl|“App—B“ |u me I“ Dalarldanl‘s SD, me I" oelendenl alsu adduced evidence ol Tan Sn Danny Tan havlrlg acqulred shares In me 1“ oelenaanl only on 186.1994 and becurmng a olreclor only nn11.31§BS,lNhIz:h wesalseyeers allerlne 1”‘ Delenoanl nee oseo lne Palmszold Marks. I meveiore agree wllh lne 1“ nelenaanrs eenlenllen and me Raglslrafs finding me: me Plalnml had nol used me word Pnlmgolo or the PaVrvI9°\d logo and lnel, even ll N am, ll an nm do so uelore me I" Delenaenl use. :5 era As the documentary evidence pointed in me 1‘ Deiendanl having been the nrst user oflhe Felmgald Marks. lmtn it is the anrnnion law proprietor at these trademarks and entitled lo be registered their proprietor Yhn nln of tn. 1-‘ Dcfvndlnrl -mm vrcrn tar. sri nanny ten to Data‘ Dlnknovl TI" 47 By an Agreement aaled 25 2.2019 I‘Agreemenl"). Tan sri Denny Tan agreed, inter elie, Ia sell all M nis snares in me 11 Deiendanl to Data‘ Dickson Tan. The Flalnlifi‘ contends that. as a result at that Agreement. me 1“ Deiendant was no longer a pan M lire Palmwtd Group or companies and lied no right |o be essocialed wnn or to use tne Pelnigeld Marks Cnnsequenlly, |he Pluiritin contends tnat me 1“ Defendant’: Application was made in bad laitn to steal e rneicn an tne Plainlin ITan sri Danny Tan. Thus by not nonsldenrig lnese evidence and contentions or giving lnem suliieierit canslderalinn‘ lhe Registrar erred in law in making trie Registrars oea 48 Again, i do ml agree willi tnese cunlennnns Having inund mat the 15* Deiendanl is me cprnnmn law pmprielor 0! me Pelrngold Marks, tne Pelrngold Marks are assets mat belong tn the 1- Dsdandanl 49 Under tne Agraemenli Tan sri Danny Tan did indeed sell his snares in tne 1' Deiendent In Dam’ sun Tan. He did so in his capacity Is e snsrenulder enne P‘ Deieridanl when rie sold riis shares In lne 1“ Deiendant‘ all that passed lrom nim to Data‘ Dickson Ten were his snares Al III limes. lne common lew proprielersnip uf the Page :7 at :3 SN xSOlDY4lEkS4\\l|ZunM>W “Nair s.ii.i nnvthnrwm .. tr... M may i... nflmnnllly MVMI flnunvilnl VII nFiuNG WM! 50 5|. Palmguld Marks never passed, and new al an mes remamea part umue 1* Delsndanfs assets. vrresueclwa ovwho me 1*‘ Devenaanrs shareholders were. u also matters nmlhat Tan Sn Danny Tan hadlounded lhe Pawmgald Group of campamaa or what posilvons Tan Sn Danny Tan hehi m the 1* Defendant, Flamml or any 01 the other wmpames wnhm me Palmgold Graup Wha|ever g\owmg Inbules me Annual Rapans, the yellow booklet, me blue |>oak\eL me oowee lame book am: alher pamphemaha Ihal me Pnamm adduced pay (0 Tan Sn Danny Tan are wenevam A5 Tan Sn Danny Tan was never the common law pmpnelor M the Pavngnld Marks, he did nm take them Mlh mm when he exwlsd me 1'‘ Defendant as sharehddev In Public Bank and v New An Digital Print Sdn End 5 Anor [2019] 3 MLJ 421‘ Rnhana Vusuf FCJ venerated me well- established principle lhal \he assets of a company do not belong to Its sharehomers saw] ‘/1 rs a we DImc4pIeoImmpanyAaw winch rupmsantsan m-ponam racer ale separate rogar orrmymal ma shareholdws had no legal or eamlame nglvl in any aunts mm company (sea Law Kam Lay um V Bo/lax S67: and 5 Ga [20175] mm 225 1200514 AM» 525; m 1355!: an. wmpany do nu! mm In . snmnamu and htrvnv rm smna /espnndenl maid not rnhml sum ass-Is win t u<r was my arm :90 of ma fivsf resaomlsnt at even yr he nwned all me shares my me am resp0m1enI(SI:e Aoaur A111 om man A 57 0/5 vLadana R9090 Malay Estate San 52141190512 MLJ was; Page 11 m 2: sw xsmav4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W «ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: flan-mm VII mum v-vrm 52 53. 54. Having perused mu Agreement. 1 a\so nme that n dues not even mention the Palmgold Marks. ND! does VI menlmn than wilh the sake 0' shares VI (he 1“ Defendant from Tan Sn Danny Tan 10 Date‘ Dickson Tan. that «ha 1" Defendant would be axmng (he Palmpohi Group a! that the 1’ Delendanl would no longer be ab‘! 00 use the F'a|mgo\d Marks The Agreamenl was purs\y and ulIIma|e|y a sa\e M shares m camparues between ram: and son As al an nmes the 1* Delendam was me common law pmpnemr or me Pam-gold Marks‘ the Plarnmrs allagauon mama I“ Devanaanrs Yrademark Apphcahon Io regis|sv the Pa\mgu\d Marks was wan wrmrn me 1= netanaanrs nghls. and was nol male //do or the 1*‘ Defendant stealing a march on me P\ewmf1 andlor Tan Sn Danny Tan as me Plarnm contends After an. secnon 17(1) of me An! expressry pmv\das' ‘Any pelsun mo dalms Io be me bone fidu pmanslov D: a trademark may applyta me rsgvnralrun 5/Inc rraacmam ‘ Consequently, .r we Plalnlrfiand/or Tan Sn Danny Tan contends In paragraph 34 of Its Wmlen Submrsslons that n rs beyond dispute mallhe Pamugold Marks ‘have been broadly usam respectola wide range afgoods and sen/mes m Ma/aysra, in Asia regron and beyond mrernatronal. cavanng amongst uthers, )e/"sure, gaming and snlsflammenl busmess". men aH me mare the 1* Defendam should be allowed m vormauy regrscar mm as us Irademarks Pale I! of 1: am xso\av4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W “Nana saw ...m.mm a. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm v-mar Whether an I" Dchndunrl Yradumark Applies on ofltnds sections 2: or 24 :11 on An 55. The Plamml also ounlends that the 15' Defendant‘: Trademark Appllcahorls afiend seclions 23(l)(a), 23(5) and (b) and 24(2) and 14) 56 Secllorl 23 of me An concerns absolute gmunds lor relusal ol reglslrallarl Seclluns 23(1)(a)arld (b)and 23(5)(a) prams: 71: $IID[scl Io s4/bsectlan 42: en. Rlsglslrlsr shall mus. to ruglsfvv a lmduvlfirk Daswd an we rolmrng absolute grounds (or refusal of regrsmau la) slgrls whlnh am rlul upuals orbwlg Iupmsemad gmphrral/y and not cdpamt oi dlxbllymamng quad: u smm ur and unusnakwq M.-m mass or am wldevlakmwlr nu bademarks mm are devoid all any ms-unam wander’ 15; /7: sample" (0 me gmlmds m subsedrolls 41;, (3; and t‘)! rm Ragmrar shall mm. lo mgmer . lraflemuk mm 5.. any at live Inllawung lbsomla ground: for rsmsel Dlrsglurnllan (3; 4 ln. us: of ma trademark rs Ilksfy lo denerve or cause oarllusaarl m In: puolc aconlrary ta any vmften /aw’ 57. Seclion 24 of the Act concerns relallve grounds for refusal ol reglslranon seclmns 24(2) and 14) pruvlde p... 10 212! sm xSOlDY4lCkS4V\llZunN>W “Nair s.n.l lunhnrwm .. 5... M may he mm-y mm: dun-vlnnl VII .nunc mm Aggncanon No Tmzgzwmmzg an gm; ug IM2021D1I140 “PALMGOLD“ E1'.'£I1'.'l Far me purposavs 0! ms Judgment, me 1*‘ Delendanfs Marks and ms Plalnulfs Mam consvslmg at ms word Palmgnld and me Pmmgold logos man be ralerrad Io ooIlec|wc\y as ‘Palmgnld Marks’ After an wen lha parlias can hardly dispute lhat are Iden|\c3\ rsmmar On 4.6 2021, me P\a|nMl lodged ns Nulnces 01 opposmon (“Nolnaes M Opposmon") logalhar with us Grounds of Opposmon (‘Grounds 0! Opposmnn') |u oopuse me 1" Derfandam :. Tvadamark App|u:a|ion5 On as 202w, |he 1- Defendant submitted ins CaunlarsIaIemsn| |u the Noucas or Opp-omvon and Grounds 01 Oppasilmn (“co-mm.mamam'). ra suppnfl and «army Inexr respeclws slands in ms Grmmds av Oppasllmn and Counlsrstalemenl‘ n... g at 1: sw xsmav4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm -:2; m mgmm man rl/us: la mum; . lmdcmulv Vilma mm . m/mom or mnfusun on me pan aim: Withe- la] where me Itademsrk rs mmm mm in seam kaasmam and rs to be rsgvslsred hr goods or snmuos sum/at m 2». mm lmdarrwk. oi rm mm-mu mcmams umumo an samanrldtmariv mm m be ragmarud luv goods at swvvws menncar wrlh or svm:/Iv In the same! wdevuand 14; sanm m subsecbmv 45;, mo Reg/Sm! mu refuse ta regrsver a hidoman yv, or In the extent mm, At: uu m Malnysm rs pvvvsnlad— «,1 by vlmn L7/lnyrult otllwyranclmg an um-qdlluvudhndlmnrk or alhurmgvv usld m m. courw ounce mcludmg wide: the law afpasmvg an‘ or (D) by Wm Dian same: ugh! mm mm muse roferwd In Mr msmgmpll 1.; or m .wbuc1I-ma m m (:1 rno/umlrg my the law oicoflfllshlurrndunru/aosrgnx. 55. Imnicany, as at all lumen ma 1' Delandanl was lha cnmmnn Vaw prvpnoior 0! me Palmgmd Marks and mu mu Y“ Ddendanfs Trademark Appllcalinn |o vagwsler me Pam-gold Marks wn wen wmmn ma 1' Devenaanrs ngms. men M Is the Flam urs Trademark Apphcalnon Ihal attends mesa pmvmans cl mg Am These provisions men the Plamxm ralms an actually mmme agamsl me PVBVHNY5 Trademark Applirahon. mm nl 2; sm xsD\av4u:ks4MZunM>uu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Condusion 59 so 61 The Rsgwslrar and not make any srmr av waw m finding lhal the 1*‘ Delenuam was me am user 0! lhe Pamgold Marks II renews man she also um nm make any error 0! Vaw m reyachng me Pramws opposmon m me W oevenaaars Appllcalvan. and smephng ma 1“ Dafendan\’s Awncanon and anawmg ma reg\slra|inn :2! ma Pahngold Marks m ma 1* naramsanrs name Ammmgxy. bum Ongmallng Surmmnses are dlsmvssed, mm lhe Plamliff Vurlhar uldemd lo pay costs 04 RM5.DOD no for each 05 ka me 1-‘ Delendam. subject m aflocamv, As me Plannmfs Trademark Apphcalmns were nol m Issue m ewher 05-7 or 054:, I leave «ham to be deafl mm by Ina Registrar under (he pmvlsnons olme Acl Damd the 16"‘ day 0! January 2024 Axlln Sul-lnun din: I c Inlamr Ila Lumpur High coun counsel: Jasbser Slngh together wnn Jeysmm Naxdu (Messrs lashes: Nur & Lee) rm me Apphcam Avmash Kamalanaman (Messrs Em .5. Auoc/ales) (or me 1" Respondent. »ag.zzms sm xso\av4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W «ma saw ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 .a may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum pm Lugm secuun 23l1)(a), 23(5), 23(5)(a) 24(2L24(4)a1Ihe Trademarks Acl2D1Q Case - Merck KGaA v Leno Markelmg (M) Sdn and (Regslrar 0! Trade Mam, mlaresled party) [2013] 5 ML! 1 Hm Kuan Hoe v scams Des Pmduns Nasxla SA [2012] 5 MLJ 343 Masuma Spurls Sdn arm v Mams sum Negara Mmaysxa (Pendaflar Cap Dagangan Malaysxa. Interested Parlyj [2o151s MLJ 465 ms! Cranes GmbH 5 Co KG v Just Cranes sun Ehd [2u1u14 MLJ 191 Daimler AG v Sany Group Co Ltd {mus} An ER (D) 123 Pubhc Eank Ehd v New Ace Dugum Pnnl Sdn Bhd A Anor [2019] 3 ML! 421 as. n .v 2; sm xsu\av4u:ks4\\I:ZunM>W mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm to 1t 12 (t) The Plaznmv lndged a statutory Deotarenon In support 0! opposmon amrrned by a duector ollhe F\aInlIW. Kok vm San‘ an 1142022 together wttn Exmmts 1 to 6 tmnectwely, ‘PIEWVIWSSDIJV on The 1* Defendant Vndged an Applicants Stamlury Dedaralvon amnned bya dweclor onne F'Iamm1.D|cksan Tan veng Lnung (“DaIo‘ Dvckson Tan‘ ), an 10 6 2022 mgetha vntn Exmbxls App-1 lo App—t3 (aollectwety, ‘tn Defendanfs SD‘): on 692022 me 1* Detendant mrlher submmed as Apphcanfs Wnllen Submissions dated 6.9 2022 (“Apphcan|'s Submissions"), and on 610 2022 the Plalnhfl man its oppenenrs Written Suhmwssmns (‘Opposmon Submlssmns") The documents menlmned m paragraphs Ma above ‘w“mWelyV 1he MatenaIs') were me basis an which the Regwsfrar made the Registrar: Demsbon The parties have also appropna|e\y reprvducad mam here as exnmns to the amaavtts V1 support 0! cs- 7 and os»s. On 18 5 2023. lhe Regtslrar Issued lhe grounds luv me Registrafs Dectston (“Reglslrars Gmunds“) on t5 5 2023 and 16.6 2023. the Platnnfl med os—7 amt 0st; to appeal agaunst the Registmrs Decwslon pmsuant to seclmn 35(1o) or the Act. me a Al 13 sw xSD\DY4LEkS4\\ltZunM>W «we saw ...m.mn be n... m mm .. mtnmuuy sum. dun-mm VII nF\uNG v-mm Thu awroanh to an Irlbul nndor suction :5(Iu} onhe Ad 13 14. In Muck KGnA v L-no M-mung (M) san and (Rogmm of Track Marks. llmrulod pmy) [mu] 5 MLJ 1, me firs! qussuon on wmcn leave la avueal lo the Federal own was granted was ‘Whether the Hugh Cam m erwuwvg us powers undcrs ms; an and (7) ov me nane Mark: Ac! v97s (‘me TMA‘) .s ncnng m N: C-Ingmar ,unsducJ»cm or IPDIDalo]WIsdvc1ron7“ The Federal mm held that me High Courl was exerclsmg us appellalz mnsdlcllon. In paragraphs [75] lo [79] ov me Judgment, Raus Shani CJ expwamea why: ‘Nnmn alpmoudmgs btlow the M90: cm /751 [75] rn manna an awesrlmm the denxmn allhl Wm, undlr 5 22 ms Hrgn Court does not take eogmzzm or me maI(e( and delermme me mum: 5: me as: mstamx Orv mo contrary, rm pmwswls 0'5 25 mdncale that the appeal Io me High Com .5 5 rennnlmg am. angina! cause won me mgrsmr ms High Cam! :5 anwowamnm ...mm. 1». man: mm cm mum error: In ma Ngrmvav . dacman mu mm such mam nx mm m have new made al «rm mxtamx (R n-am. Cmandmrv} Sngnmcanfly under s my :1! ma nm the palms may not mnuduoe mane: malerrsls m addmonul gmtmds of ubjeclton. nuzpnmous/yramm the prmemngs belwe meregaslrar, an apnea! to m. Nryh Court wnhoul the mm‘: um. um mmm... xlmngly mm. mm m. laps:/D1761! m. H/gh Caun‘u n m..m.a.un arms aapounwroeomgs, when ms mle ome Hugh Cam! ,3 m dalsrmms Ms mnactnass 01 Ma p-«sans sm xso\av4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm I77} 173/ 1791 15. In Nul Kuan Hon v Soc ’Igrslrivs declstun band pnmmvy on ma maienals mu amum-is than avlllabh an-ma me rigrsvar me Ian men s 59 om»; rm confers upon me man Cowl (he same msaeltanavy powau as me rvgrswr m dstermnmg ms appear I! armmly acnmrant MM is uppellntu wflsdrdran As new man, . n n( me an hhwtn llluw: m. cm 4:! Appeal on heaving an appaa/Imm m. Hm Cnml, m ...m.. ma power: arme Mg» com, :1 am natdslracl rm lhs naluru am-e auneuamunsa»a-on mmsea. rum», /7! Ivoarm an awear {mm the daemon Mme regwtar, m. High Own uaraslny my paws av ms reylslrar pursuam In 3 67 .1 In. mu wnu/d n. lcl/ng wvlmn /1: npowalo mmam. Yhe Hrgn Cmn‘: nnrclu or me 3 67 Wwcrs u muacnlal to anammmm mm. me appeal» as to mnuvm!-1 pan of me fiwwan mnsmon tnmoary, Wong Hung my Knw An cmmg David, Macks/oerg) rn our mw, Ins malum aims Mglv cw»: rule undur 5 25 am.- rw: dons nnl am me Marucrsnmca of ongmuummm pm 4:-znwr.Iv7.V mxpvm IN mflmarlt ol spool/Ma wnnmm ‘ Du Produiu Nuflu SA [£01215 MLJ 343. L|n|on Alben JCA said: ‘#5) Tm rasmars ufsasrwr to a//ow the ooooshuon rm been made an hearing evidence, takmg mtu anumml ms rsspomienfs mark Hm necman calmed m subslunlral wegm Somvmd ma. Mark mm are 1 al p 25 pa Lard Franc ol mu; Barron Pc Ind app/wd m 5.1. m v Sm M 55 @ Sm: Yang Km .4. 0r:(trm1mu ax Kiting Ark Trsdmg) (200616 MLJ 445 at p 45: p.,.sm2s sm xsD\av4Lcxs4\\I:ZunM>W «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 16. 1:91 wuss ma mgmvarlvas gm creany wrong msdscrsoon ouqhr nut ro be mlerfeved wvth sarmsm V Reddaway (19271 AC «M at p 413 mu ‘ As the prowsmns of secmons 2315). (6) and 17; o1 the Trade Mavks Act 1975 have been repraoucaa 1n secnans 351101 and (1 1; a1 the AOL the approach wmch this Court wwil adopt is to determine the correctness of the Registrar’: deolsmn based pnmanly on the Materials and the Reglslmfs Gvuunds and curvecl any errors m the Regisltafs decision only :1 me Regwslrar has gone clearly wrong However, before I do so. (here IS one >ssue that the Defendant raxses Whlfih should be addressed firsl, and it 15 the issue of the PVEAHINFS mcus stand: In oppose the 1* netanaanrs Trademark Applications ms Issue at locus sramr would encompass me 1=1am1-rrs locus stand] to 101199 the Nutiua at Opposmon to the Registrar, and ‘N50 to file OS—7 and 0541 FIaimilf's laws srandi to mo 08-7 Ind 05-5 17 18 The Notmes o1 opposmon, me Grounds m Opposmon, ma Opposmon so. and me 0np(7smon‘s Subrmssmns were an ‘lodged by the Plaintiff, and me basis o1 the P1am1wrs opposmon 1o (he 1" De1anoan1‘s Trademark App:-canons 11o regxslerlhe 1“ Da1enoan1's Marks) was the P\avrmf1's Marks. In the Notices or Opposmon and ma Grounds of oozasuon, the Plalntrfi asserted that It was lhe creator and Dmnnstor of the Palmgotd Marks However, m the msrnws so and the Opposmon suhmissrons, me Flsxnlflf changed Hack and aanrmnguy asserted »...mu aw xso1av4Lcks4\\I1ZunM>W None 5.11.1 n-nhnrwm as 1;... m mm 1.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm 19. max (he cveamarand Dmnnemr Mme Palmgnld Marks ws ac1ua||yTan Sn Dam’ Tan Ghee Smg (‘Tan Sri Danny Tan“) In paragraph 7 of me Plalnliffs so‘ undev me heading ‘History oflhs Opponsnfs Palrflgold Marks"\he ueponam slales: v am: Ina! Tan Sn om Tun Chin smg (lnovulhv mmua as Tan sow‘) vs the Iwmdei and master of Ma PALMGOLD' mm ma brand name ofms ‘PALMGOLD was formed when Tan Sn tnmmomred me ommnem, Palmgold Lmsuru Sdn am: on 15.9. vase: The Registrar my nnled mus change In Irack m me Registrar‘: Grounds AI page 5 she sva|ed: ‘mu, m Opawrerws statutory Declavatron the Owonent mange Ms nrgunnrv! uamg Tun So! am‘ ran cm Sang (Tsar; u 1». human! and uwataramn mwsom mlrk mu... m. Dnsndnnml wu Vumlod wmn rsm mwrpaaladlm opp-mm, Palmvolfl Lemme Sdn am an 19 as we no Oflhovvsnralno wen! flmlrevanvlstalsd Ma! rsons ms prunwtar olthe 'PALMGOLD' al an natenal nmes (refer Paragraph 12 aim: Opwnamx Stammcv Dsclarahon dared :1 04 24:22; Hem would hire m address savevsr muss - Fhsl, TSDT Md lhn ODOOMM an M9 SIPGVBII level ammo: rl 1501 u m. pvopnvlor or me 'F'ALMGOLD' maria tms oavoirlm momadtrvgslvauldbo mmatad by TSDTNM1 rH7H7VPa/"'90V¢ Lslsurl Sdn and mu « the Oppwvarvl rs rapwsarvfmg rsm In this Wuceed/W‘ were am no relevant documents WEVE pmvflaed to suppwllhrsdarm me A a! as sm xsD\av4Lcks4\\I:ZunM>W «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 20 21 22 23 2-1. Gwen the P\am\iWs own assemon that me pmpneloraflhe Plarnmrs Marks I Palmgold Marks rs acmany Tan Sn Danny Tan, then me Registrar‘: observauan lha| the appns n proceedings to me 1*‘ Deiendanfs Trademark Apphcahons should have been mlllaled by Tan Sn Danny Tan Is wrrea In my wew, wha| was asserted m ma Fla-mrws SD shuum be accorded grea|er weigh! over what was nssened -n the Ouposlhon Gmunds as, nude! the S(a1u|orv Deuaralrons Act, 1960‘ me Plamms so rs a scanemern on cam whereas under me Act me Nance: oVOtueclions and the opnasmion Gmunds are rml. As me Mammrs sn posmvew assers that the propnelcr of ms P\aInW's Marks! F'a\mgald Maris rs ac1ual\yTan Sn Danny Tan am not me Halnufl. lhen Tan Sn Danny Tan (and mat the Plannhfl) was lhe proper pany who shomd have lodged me Names oropposmon |o me Rsg\sI:ar, and a\so filed 05-7 and os-a : nale ma secliuns 34(2) and 35(1) or the A51 pmraa thel me mgnslraunn or 2 trademark may be opposed by ‘any psrsan" I suu find mat Tan Sn Danny Tan srmuna have filed them Vn any event, as-7 and 05-5 should have been filed by Tan Sn Danny Tan and not lhe Flamuff. I aocarmngly and mat the Plamlm had no locus standr In me 0S—1 and 05-8. On that hasrs amne, 0s? and 05-3 are drsmrssed wuh costs r... 9 a! as aw xso\av4u:ks4\\I:Zur.M>W -ma sarm n-nhnrwm be used m mm s. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII muNG v-mm 25 For eampiedeness, i will nevertheless proceed to determine |he correctness of iiie Registrars decision. wrieniar lhl Rauislrlr wu come! In holding that Ihl 1-‘ naiuidarii was me firs: to use «in Falmqald Marks 25. The Regisirars Decision was based on her finding tnat, as between ine Plairitiiv and the 1*‘ Defendant ine 1“ Defendant was irie firs! user oi the Palnigoid Marks Thevefure. in determi rig trie aorrecmess oi irie Regisirars Decision. the firs1 step would be to ascertain wneiner inai iinding was in accord with iris Maienals 27 AI page 5 di ine Registiars Grounds. the Registrar round tnai ine 15' Deiendanrs Marks and me Piainiiirs Marks ware ideniicai and incapaoie 0! being distinguished. and were apulied in me same services Thus, II was pdssioie ihai ina piibiic woitid be coniused iriai ins services provided under ine 1" Deieridanrs Marks and irie Piainiirrs Marks wereimni inc same sums: and he mrinerccniused or deceived intd ininking Iha| me 1' Defendant’: Marks are a variation or me Piainiiirs Marks, and vice versa sne irieii said -rnvs it is uitciai la delemiine whu ma ri'p7iNu7 pmpnfimr ar ma ‘PALMGOLD“mark in amend prevsrilany miner carimsian among me Nlemberalihepublrc“ 2a rrie parlles tnaiiiseives iiad na quainis with inese findings, as iiiiistraied by ine iaci that me documentary evidence each adduced wi|h their respective slaiulory deciarations they siioniinsd to Ihe Registrar cdnsisted substantially oi trying to outdo each alher as to Faye ID in 1; SN xSDiDYAlEkS4\\l|ZunN>W ‘Nata Smni n-vihnrwm be used a vaiw he nflmnaiily MVMS dun-mm VII .navc WM!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-16-45-12/2022

PERAYU STM TRADING & ENTERPRISE SDN BHD RESPONDEN SARA HANIS BINTI SHAROM

This is an appeal by the appellant against part of the decision of the Labour Court, specifically the order for the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of RM being salary in lieu of three months’ notice, on the grounds of the immediate termination of the respondent with immediate effect on or about.

30/01/2024

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0ea8cb06-81fd-4c7f-ac0f-c11a5c16eaff&Inline=true

1 BA-16-45-12/2022 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-16-45-12/2022 ANTARA STM TRADING & ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 702155-P) …PERAYU DAN SARA HANIS BIN SHAROM (No. K/P: 980116-02-6058) …RESPONDEN [DALAM PERKARA JABATAN TENAGA KERJA SELANGOR KES SAMAN KETUA PENGARAH TENAGA KERJA NO.: KBR 11001/2022/0883 ANTARA SARA HANIS BIN SHAROM (No. K/P: 980116-02-6058) …PENGADU DAN STM TRADING & ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 702155-P) …DEFENDAN] 30/01/2024 11:04:15 BA-16-45-12/2022 Kand. 7 S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-16-45-12/2022 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the appellant against part of the decision of the Labour Court dated 16.12.2022, specifically the order for the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of RM6,300.00 being salary in lieu of three months’ notice, on the grounds of the immediate termination of the respondent with immediate effect on or about 22.8.2022. Brief Facts [2] The facts of this appeal is that, the appellant is primarily engaged in a retail business selling gold products and/or jewelleries. [3] Through the Letter of Appointment dated 12.3.2021, the appellant employed the respondent as the Account Assistant for a probationary period of six (6) months starting from 11.3.2021 with a monthly salary of RM2,100.00. [4] The respondent’s employment was confirmed vide a letter dated 1.10.2021. [5] On or about 9.8.2022, upon cross checking the gold stock at the appellant’s premises with the stock report, the appellant’s internal auditor informed the appellant’s human resources manager that there were two (2) missing bracelets: (i) one (1) bracelet measuring 10.44g worth RM3,087.60; and (ii) one (1) bracelet measuring 15.66g worth RM4,690.08. S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-16-45-12/2022 [6] Subsequently, the appellant’s audit department conducted an internal investigation as well as examined the CCTV recording at the appellant’s premises. [7] On or about 22.8.2022, both the appellant’s human resources managers together with the head of the audit department as well as the head of the cash sales department had a discussion with the respondent and another person in the CCTV recording with the aim to find answers for the missing bracelets. [8] During the discussion, the respondent did not admit nor deny to intentionally and/or maliciously and/or purposely misappropriating one (1) packet of gold stock from the plastic bag under the respondent’s care and/or control and/or possession as shown in the CCTV recording. [9] On or about 22.8.2022, the appellant made a police report against the respondent for the loss of the gold stock based on the CCTV recording. [10] On or about 22.8.222, the appellant terminated the respondent from her employment effective immediately because of the misconduct and/or criminal breach of trust and/or misappropriation and/or theft as shown in the CCTV recording. [11] The termination of the respondent from her employment by the appellant was reflected through a letter and/or notice dated 23.8.2022. [12] On or about 26.8.2022, the appellant also requested to the respondent to pay a total sum of RM7,777.68 for the loss of the gold stock through a letter and/or notice of demand. S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-16-45-12/2022 [13] The respondent subsequently filed a claim at the Labour Court pertaining to her termination with immediate effect. Law Pertaining to Appeals [14] The principles of law relating to appeals can be garned from caselaw. In the case of Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Ching & Ors [2004] 2 MLRA 1, the Federal Court held as follows: “[12] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention ie, to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Clearly, the phrase "insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence" merely related to such a process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal's restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to appellate intervention ie, that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.” [Emphasis added] S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-16-45-12/2022 [15] In the case of UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 2 MLRA 668, the Federal Court held as follows: “[26] Thus, the prime issue in respect of Questions 1 to 3 is whether the Court of Appeal had erred in interfering with the findings of facts of the trial judge. It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking, intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence. (See Chow Yee Wah & Anor v. Choo Ah Pat [1978] 1 MLRA 461; [1978] 2 MLJ 41; Watt or Thomas v. Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 2 MLRA 1; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781).” [Emphasis added] [16] In the case of Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case [2018] 1 MLRA 263, the Federal Court held as follows: “[94] The law is clear and well settled in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is “the plainly wrong test” principle; see the Federal Court in Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 2 MLRA 1, UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 2 MLRA 668, Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLRA 247). This court has said this before, and we adhere to it now. Having S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-16-45-12/2022 regard to the above principle, we find that in the present case, the Court of Appeal made no findings that the High Court had gone plainly wrong, let alone that on a reconsideration of the whole evidence the opposite conclusion should be reached. [95] In McGraddie v. McGraddie and Another [2013] 1 WLR 2477, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s conclusions on primary facts unless it was satisfied that the court was plainly wrong; that the reasons justifying that approach were not limited to the fact that the trial judge was in a privileged position to assess the credibility of witnesses’ evidence, but also included the fact that trial judges possessed expertise in determining issues of fact, that duplication of the trial judge’s efforts on appeal was undesirable. [96] In McGraddie, the Supreme Court referred to the judgment of the majority of the Canadian Supreme Court in Housen v. Nikolaisen [2002] 2 SCR 235, which explained why appellate courts are not in a favourable position to assess and determine factual matters: “appeals are telescopic in nature, focusing narrowly on particular issues as opposed to viewing the case as a whole”. [97] Recently in Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Ltd And Another [2014] 1 WLR 2600, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that in the absence of some other identifiable error, such as a material error of law or the making of a critical factual finding which had no basis in the evidence, an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ in the sense that it could not reasonably be S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-16-45-12/2022 explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reached; and that if the appellate court was not satisfied that the decision came within that category it was irrelevant that, with whatever degree of certainty, it considered that it would have reached a different conclusion from the trial judge.” [Emphasis added] [17] Founded on the above principles, this court will proceed to consider this appeal. Analysis [18] The facts before this court is that prior to the termination of the respondent’s employment, the appellant had conduced an internal or domestic inquiry. There was a case of missing gold stock on 9.8.2022. an internal inquiry was conducted including the CCTV recording. According to the appellant the respondent could be seen taking the gold stock which went missing. The respondent on the other hand argued that she was throwing away tissue paper into the waste paper basket. The CCTV recording was not played at the Labour Court as the Labour Court did not have the facilities. This was the main ground of appeal submitted by the appellants. [19] At the High Court, the CCTV was played in the court room. This court found no evidence to show that the respondent had indeed taken the missing gold stock. What was seen was the respondent throwing some tissue or something into the waste paper basket, in which case it is certainly not apparent to this court from the CCTV recording that the respondent had taken the missing gold. S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-16-45-12/2022 [20] Moreover, counsel for the appellant informed this court that there were 2 individuals (including the respondent) who were in the room as could be seen in the CCTV. Both these individuals were questioned. This court, nonetheless, saw a third person in the CCTV recording and pointed this out to counsel for the appellant who admitted she had not noticed the third person. [21] According to the respondent, the third person in the CCTV recording was her superior. [22] An internal inquiry was conducted on 22.8.2022 by the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent was terminated from her employment on 23.8.2022. [23] However, on further consideration of the facts before this court, it is evident that the respondent was not informed during the internal inquiry that the respondent could defend herself against the allegations made against her. Instead, the respondent was asked to admit to any wrongdoing. The respondent was not informed she was a suspect in the investigation into the missing gold stock. All these facts point to irregularities in the conduct of the internal inquiry. It would appear to this court that the appellant was attempting to obtain the respondent’s admission that the respondent had taken the gold stock. [24] Moreover, the composition of the internal inquiry panel raises the issue of bias or conflict of interest. One of the three panel members who was part of the investigation was the respondent’s superior. In the view of this court, this panel member could herself be a suspect in the case of the missing gold stock. Therefore, to have the respondent’s superior sit as a member of the internal inquiry, in the S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-16-45-12/2022 view of this court is not proper as the superior herself could be a suspect. This is further enhanced by the fact that the superior was in the room when the alleged theft occurred. The superior is, therefore, in the view of this court, someone who may be prejudiced or bias against the respondent as it was during the superior’s shift that the gold stock went missing. [25] Based on the abovementioned findings this court is satisfied the internal inquiry by the appellant against the respondent was not conducted fairly and properly before the respondent was terminated. [26] Therefore, for this reason, this court is satisfied that the Labour Court had not erred when it ordered the appellant to pay the respondent RM6,300.00 being salary in lieu of three months’ notice. Conclusion [27] For the aforesaid reasons this court finds no merit in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed with costs of RM500.00 to be paid to the respondent subject to allocator. Date: 30 January 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-16-45-12/2022 Counsel: For The appellant Lalitakumari a/p Thillaidasan Tetuan Kadir, Khoo & Aminah Advocates & Solicitors B-7-6-11, Setiawalk, Persiaran Wawasan, Pusat Bandar Puchong, 47160 Puchong, Selangor. litigation@kadirkhooaminah.com +6 011 1422 5155 / 03 8603 7730 For the Respondents: Sara Hanis Binti Sharom In Person S/N BsuoDv2Bf0ysD8EaXBbq/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-24C-13-09/2023

PEMOHON AMINDO PACKAGING INDUSTRIES SDN BHD RESPONDEN LAND SUCCESS ENGINEERING SDN BHD

CIPAA – Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision – Whether denial of natural justice – Whether the adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially – Whether the adjudicator has acted in excess of her jurisdiction.

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=62188c1e-fe73-410b-93c8-c5f51b4b4b3f&Inline=true

30/01/2024 15:57:39 PA-24C-13-09/2023 Kand. 40 S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—2ac-13»o9/2n23 Kand. 40 an/amuza 13:57:39 m the High Com 0! Malaya m Panang In me State 0! Penang, Maw/sxa ongmaung Summons No P c as/zozs Dalam perkara mengena: Kepulusan Aquaukaeu benankh ca Ogos 2023 dengan nombur nqukan AIAC/D/Am—45sa—2o2a o\eh Adjudikamr Ehuvzneswan Krishnamurlhy anlava Land Success Engineenng Sdn Ehd dan Ammdo Packagmg lndusmes Sdn Bhd dan Damn perkara mengenai Seksyen 2a dan parunlukan undang — undang di bawah Aklz Pemhayaran dan Adwdwkasx lndusm Pembmaan 2012 darn Da\am perkava mengenau Aluran 7‘ 22;‘ 69A den perunmkan kasdah — kaedah da\am Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Between Land Success Engineering Sdn Bhd . Plamllfl And Amindo Packagmg Industries Sdn Ehd Defendam Heam together wmn In ma Hugh ceun uf Ma\aya m Penang In the Sva|e or Penang, Malay a Summ n No P 34: /2023 On m Dalam perkaxa Seksyen 12. 15 dam 16 Am Pembayaran darn Afljudlkasl Vndusln Pemmnaan 2012‘ dan m Huwvvnwcnfifyhixlsmmu “Nana saw nmhnrwm a. H... a may a. nrwhuflly am. dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Dalam perkars Kepulusan Adwmkasx berlankh we 05 mm dengan Adwdxkasx Rujukan Nu AIACIDIADJ-45ss—2o2a yang di puluskan aleh Bhuvaneswan Knshnamurmy‘ dan Da\am perkara Aluran sen Kaedah - Kaedah Mankaman zmz. dan Dawn perkara Amran 7 dan 293 dan muran 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Between Ammdo Packagmg Vndusmes sun Bhd . Appncam And Land Success Engineering Sdn and ., Respundent Grounds L71 Be on Immducnon 1. There are [we vewaueu acflons belore me Namew my Orlgmallng Summom Na FAr24C—11«05I2D23 man by Land Sums“ Engmaenng Sdn am runa Succui‘}un an a ma ms ‘s an appirahon m eurmce ‘nniomnmlnl ap uliazn“) Ihe Admdlcatmv Declimn new 13 a 2fl23(‘id]|l¢IcIflon .1. - nvaewerea ny lha Adluduzilur Ehuvaneswan Knihnamunhy (‘.m1ju-ilumor‘) m an Amudxtzmmn No NACJD/ADJAEBBJUZSPidjunluflan plncoodlllfj me enrnmemsfll .ppw»ca«.m was made under suclmn 23 at me canwucuon lndushy Paymem and Mjudlcalwon AcA2D12(‘C|PAA')‘ and my Dngmnllnn Summons No FA—24C-13-‘Ufi/2021! Ned by Anundu Paumgmg tndusmes Sdn am: (‘Amado’) on 22 9 ma me ‘e an apmmm m ya asme me adludwcation domuun 4'-mun asldl .wnIe.nmr‘) me semrv] aside anmmmn was made under b9won15oVC\PAA sm Hawvvnwcnevymxlsmmu 2 “Nair smm nmhnrwm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmuny mm: dnuumnl _ nF\uNG W defence raised by Ammdu, Vs nm a gvound to set aeme me amudlcallon decwswon 41. The admdlcalor ::nm:\uded ms: the urns to complete me pmjen had been set at Verge. As Land Success was permllled to eennnue |o remain ac lhe pmjact sme and carry out as works. And Ihere was no subsequent oenificale ol nun — complelion wssued aner the rewsea commeuan date 01 so 11 2020 42. The deience rawsed by Ammdo wmn regard \ulI1e cemflcale at nun — compleuon at 29.5 2020 had been Iaken Into accoum by the adiudwcator ms appears at Fart P paraglaphs 10 and 11 oilhe adjudicalmn deusuon. wmcn reads. we The Reswllflerfl subrmls Ihmme am case wanna be msnnamsnea as .n we um case me PAM Conlracl 2006 was avvhcable and Clause 22 pm»: sam PAM eonlranl reqmres me so to wssue a Cemficals a! Non comm-an bevere up can be warm ‘H The Respondnm a um mm as me Cmumcl .n queslmn .s nol a PAM wlI|r-I<:| and (her: a no reqmremen| up Vssue a CNC helare LAD can be Vewed me xhererme me case ewunp Km not appucabqs In any men: we Responaem claws lha| cNc had been Immd an 2v a 2020 * The ad udwcato lmdmg on road and dra §_q§ Qawm by Land Success 4:. Ammdo alleges than the adjudxcalor had umlalerafly vpund |ha| Ammdo had accepled Land Success‘ claim nn road and drainage work Tne aueganen Vs umenable. Tne aapmueacor consxdered Amlndds Rejuinder, where Ammdu rawsed that me man and eramage work wmen was In vanalmn order rm 2 had been De ed m me mlenm paymenc clam: no 7. Noiwilhslanding me cenmcauon, Amlndu delved ma« me mad and dramage work was commeled by Land Success 44 In any event, eppanunny was aeeemea to Amlndo lo pu| toward as case Tne delenoe and eymenee ravssd by Amman were cnnswdered by the Adjudwcawv ms appears at Pan 5 paragraph 1: el me adjudication dectswcn, wmen veads w Road a. Dva\nana- Vntsmal Road K0ng\na|WoIk!Y a The Respondent m me Aepmmen Response claws man nem an my Vmemnl am was nol my name by me Cmxmam The Responasm smas max by way own 2 me mnslmcmn ov me ln|erna\ Road (Mam a 1 under Road a manage) was vanad m Hum mats and hencslha D\aIman\$hou\d am Hr.vwvvnPmEYyMxIsmmu “ “Nab: s.nn lunhnrwm be e... a mm s. snpnu-y mm: dnuamnl VI mum em um be wlmed \a mam mow. lar m|ema\ mad and Ihsmlnm mas Ihe Chlminl had been ovemam lar Item an h The Claumanl m mew Repiy slam: max vo 2 was leraddlhonal s\ab works and had nssn duly anpvvved bylhe so u The Rexmnflenl m mew ns.o.mer snanss Ihat ma asnmaauan Vor man s. Draulanze m we 1 mm to be sustamud The Rssponasm howevavstales lhe|\|\sw\lhuulp1a]uuu>s on ma aamsmau lhal addulm-131 floor slab was run sxssmaa The Reswnflem reflers to me Whakkpp wrwelsalmn M 15 3 2021 m Schedme 25 (wm»g\y marked as Swodule 32) 7: nssusmn That: \s no dispute mm regavd to hem a 1, as ascapma by um R¢spnnwen| The wnamaa mrwersanon does ml ‘and any anmance In ma delenmnalmn M0-us Issue The -ssus suns Addmnnal F\ncrS\ab has naan asan mm under voz havmnabove The cnamanra slam under Hem s < Is mervlom anawsa as Inna C\aImam's whole aaxm undev Ham a - Thea ud nzlofs nd g cgn ra on the Issue 0! me v >1 av me lermmauon ol 45 Land Sucoess dawms man the contract WES nc\ lelminaled. Whereas Armndc contends that the oantract was lerrmnmed, when me prqem swle was handled back «a Ammdu The disagreement an whether the connect had been lerminaled was raised by hull’! pames, and ¢el\ squarely under me adjudlcalofs junsmcnon 45. The adjudicator found that lhe oonlracl was no! pmpany (errmnmed by Ammdo The answer reached in rfipem uflhe |emuneman 0' contract. which differs fmm the names‘ subrnisswons, dues nu| render M an excess oflhe ad;udvcamfs;unsd\ct\an Nor can (he adjudicahnr be blamed Io have acled pafllafly. 47. The adjudicator then pmoseded In news on anomsr issue of whether Am do us emmau to claim from Land Success lo! ma sxpansas mowed In ng a Ihwd pafly to carry out the purportedly incomplete works The adjudicator and not gram ma sum claimed by Amindo The amudlcalar cannot be said |o have ac1ed m breach of na(ura\ ju ce or acted pamaHy nr ac1ed In excess 0! her junsmcuon, when she applied he! fmdmgs m raspesx ol the wmpmper Ie alien to same Am-nuns claim lor such expenses. 4.5 ms appears at Pan 5 paraglaph l3(e) av Ihe adjumcaman deuswen. wmch leads am Hawvvrwcnfivymxlsnxmu " «am. am.‘ nmhnrwm a. med w mm s. saw-y mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG v-ma! -e Declslon l Vlrld (hal M none: was wlverl |o lhe clarmarrl prlol lhe appalvllmam am. 3'” pally Io do me wens l have found aamav men are lenrrrharreh was ml cane aoaurdlnq In the eerrrlrselrral pmvlllunl rh clarrse 33 av lhe General carralllorn an Conllad ll rs under Ihls I:lause|h.n|1he Respondent would be enhliad la emplny an panyio cmvlplele walks allegedly ml eohe by me clarmanl The plumes plovlded by lhe Reipundsnl aa he: prove lrrsl lh. salfl wurks were deiedrvely done by lhe aeswlaehl ue omen wix glven la lhe clalmerrlanhwghlh. Raspolvflavll had by cnndudlsmlniled me eerrlrael ln seplamesrzuzr Furlhemwle lhe charges rrrerrrrea are In zuza whlch ls mom lharr a year aha a hall aherslre pessessrorr was taken nylhe Rewnndvnl I lherelere alsallew lhrs uounlutlalm bylhe nesperruem- The recllllcauon cosl lln cm A an alarm cl Rmwa 411 lor the as Thrs rs again anolner sllualron where Amindo rs purely unhappy wllh lhe findlng el lhe aalrldrealnr There ls no challenge as to lhe quesllan asked erwhelher Amlndo ls ehlllled to elslrn lor lrle ones to demolish and redo lhe purpnrled undone or delsctwe works ll ls rncarreel lor Arnlhdo |n allege lhal lhe aalrrrjrrsalur had acted ln breach el nalurel lusllce or panrally or in excess of her lrrrrsalcllen, when she aeclaea lhal lhe quolalicn (endeved were lnsumcrenl Io suppurl A dds clalrn. so The aalualealer leunu lhal only a lhlm — pany quolaflun claleu 13.5 202311 year and a mohlhs aller lhe pmjecl slle was handed back re Amlndn) was |erldered by Amlndol nul hol ah lhyolee nor recelpl The ‘quulaliuw would merely be an anlrelpalron and evaluallon lor lulure losses whlch does run lrrsllly actual loss suflsred al lhe malerlal llrrle when lhe claim was made sl. Tms appears a| l=sn s paragraph 10(9) or the adludicalvon declslon, whlch reads -wrlh regard no me eerrnrerelalrrr rhe Responderll has urlly amylase e quomlnn lrem a an puny || ls orrlslee lhe purvlaw ol lhls Mlrralcallerr lo Inllclpaie and eyalrrale lrmrre losses om-e Relpondarl| lalsallew lhe Rarrperraehrs wunher alarm aha llrld \h.n| rlre clarmahl ls ehllllea la mu armrrrms as clalmed rh Revlsed Flawless clarm s rrhaer llerrr 51 mm sm HuwvvnP\7nEryMxIsnlmu " “Nana Smul luvlhnrwm rs. UIQG In my rs. arlrlmllry MIMI dnuavlml vn nFluNfl WVM Ihm rm msuum nas been valsod wrrn regnm la rne amer wems under nsnr 5 and unererora auowme rema- The allegeg tenure at the ad uarcaror to con der Am gg s defence 52. II us no\ true that lhe adrudraator (arled |D consider Armrvdds defense‘ as alleged by Ammdo The aaruarcamr ma aoneraer Arninaosaerenpe arm lhe evrdencs, mcludmg the photographic evidence submilled by A tin rn consrdsnng Amlndds uerenee, ma aanmrcaror round rehance and suppmt (mm the cemficaliun by the Supermlendenl cmcer in ma uerlflicale M prograaa crarrn no, 7 53 Trris appears at Pan s paragraph 711:) unhe aaruarcanon aecrsrorr. wmcrr reads ‘In new pun. I.ur1mn|me so nas uumflad me work: m we 1 V 3 rn rerar as having paen mm mnrprerea m CanIfica1so¢Fmgre:: Payment Na 7‘ I sea In) reason to quesuon the same rn. Raxpnndcnfs |:\nm\ mar ma Floursbab Work: were nor cumpleled m apearaanae m specwrcarrans rs unsupsrannarea mm urrsuppaneu by any ewdenee we Ualmanls cuarrnerprvo «-3 an aflewed Mm no daduclmm “ ‘1es| re rt‘ mdueed p A 'ndn m these raoesdln s were n egg ga m the ad udncahnn prooee g 54 In Alnmdtfs allwdai/1| VI rep\y immled on 30 102023 (Enclosure 2|) and filed in the sellmg aside Ongrnalmg Summons, a \esl vepcfl Issued by we sort A Cuncvele Lab Sdn am: daled 410202: was exhumed. ‘rrna IBDOR was issued puvpunedly pursuem to an mspeclxon carried out on 27 9 2023. TN5 repon was drsragarded by me 707 the IGHOMVVQ reasons. 55. rrrsuy, Ihls repon was any prepared aner me adjudlcalinn pruaaearng had been compleled And aner |he adjumcahon decrsrprr had been handed down 01118 5.2023 Obviously‘ me report :5 not a documenl that was waned helore the adjudxcawr for mnsiderafion. II \s a document prepared afier the mug M the sewing aswde Ongmahng Summons on 22 92023 VI was not made as a grow suppurl ol the asrtlmg aswde Originating Summons m Amlndds afhdav in support aflvrned on 22.9.2023 (Endasure 2;. But on\y dlsdosed rarer m Amindds alfldavu In rep\y. 55 Secondly, there was no Iorrnan arm proper applrcanon made by Amman to adduce such “lresh evidence“ In these proceedings Neither was any explanalmn provened «or rrra de\ay m omarrurrg and producing rn nenyynporrarymxranrm. “ “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be LAIQ4 w my r... rmmnauly mm: dnuumrrl y.. .nuye war lnis rspon Peninenlly, Amlndo was represenled by Ilie same sclicilcrs in me adiudicaiian pmcsedlng and in these proceedings. 57 In any eueni, Ilie selling aside appliealion is subiecl to the Iiniiled grounds sel oul in seclion 15 ol CIPAA Even fllhe repon is considered il will nol aid Aniindo lo iuslily Inal Irie adiudicalion decision should be set aside because Iris adiudiealol nas acled H1 breach ol nalural Iuslicei pafllallyi or in excess cl her jurisdiction. Simply put me repon has no deleiniining erlecl over me selling aside appliealion. More so wlien Ine repon was uhlalrled niaie lnan 2 years aller me pmject sile was nanded back lo Amirldo The slay aoplicaliori 5a. Fremlssd on me above I lino Inal Amlndo has Iailed Io subslanliale any silualien which walianls Ilie adiudioalion deal on lo be sel aside pursuant Io seciian 15(b| [denial of naluial }usIlos]‘ seelion Isle) Illie adiudicalor has nol acled independeiilly or inipaniallyj or secllun lsldl [lne adiudicalor has acled in excess oi nis jurisdiclion] oi CIPAA I lnerelare dlsinissed Irie selling aside application 59. Tile slay applicalicn Vlfle Enclosure 9 ocnlalned Iwo prayersi i.e Ia) an Inielini slay M ins adludicaiisn decision oendinw me lull and final dlsposal ollne seling aside aPD|lca|lorI and Enclosure Ia: (D7 an oiderlorslay bl Ina adindieaiion duclxlon so Recall lnal on 279 2023, I lied granled an ad inlerirn slay ol the adiudicalion declsbon, pending llie disposal o1 lne selling aside application Prayer (a) above became redundanl since I nad disposed of me selling aside abpI‘icaIion.AI Ine heanrigi Arnindo irisisled on prayer (b) above I e lo: a slay onne adiudiealion decision Bu| I was conlused as Io wlial slay is Arnindo seeking » slay pending what‘) 51 The pre—reoui es Ior a losing pany lo seek a slay at an adiudicalion dec ion under seaion 16 at CIPAA are (al lnere is an ongoing selling aside apnlicalion [secliori 16(1)(a)], or (b) lnere is an ongoing civil suil uv albiiralion [seclion leIl)lb)], Herei Ineie is no civil suil or arbitration ooniinenoed by eiinei Amlrlda or Land success al Inis iunciure Hence, lne pie — reduisile in seclion I€(1j(bj ol CIPAA is riol lullilled A slay lnerelare carvIu| be souglil nor granied under seclian 16(1)(h)a1 CIPAA As rnenlioned eavlleri a slay under seclion 16(1)|a)aVClPAA liad beoonie academic. given lrial lne selling aside has been disposed ol ru HuwvvnP0nEYyMxIGnlLH-4 ‘5 “Nair s.n.i luvlhnrwlll as UIQG a may i... bflmruflly MIMI dnuavlml VI nFluNa Wm! 62 In wew Esteem Sdn and y Ema Puri Holdings Esn1sd[20|B] 2 MLJ 22, tne Federal cdun adopted a hberal apprdacn Io saouon 15 of CIPAA An approach that wouk! anow some degree of nexrmmy to say an admdvcatuon decrsron where lhere Vs dsar ermrr or ID meet me ‘uslma ov me inmvwdual ease Nevennexess, M was made dear that a soay 0! an adjudroauon decrsron ougm not be gwen readny. and caulmn must os exercised when domg so es The Federal Coun said (al page 4:3 — 49; “[521 We are m Agreement mm ma mlllnnhun dune aoos»/am mat a mom hbuml ruumrIgo(:16a?lh5 cum wuuld aflow me degree afflcxmamy In Iha mails to my mo award mm mm um um mars. or rnmul flu/‘uxllcn ollne mdmduor em 1: I: accepted that a say n! In: award nugm not bu aim mdny Ind s. ian rnusl be ucmud Mun doing Sn fiowvvsv la nurrm ma upplrcahan ors 15 or ma cum In the manner pmpused by the mgr. Court, and me CourIalAppuL wauld oe In mp vl olany um/Iy’ en The burden lies on Annndo In snow Mal there have been dearerrots. drcna¢ the Justice 01 me case warrants a stay dune adjudrcazion decxsxan Ammdn has (exiled to do so Ammdo has not shown the exis|ence a! any special crrcomsaances |hat wumd render such a slay necessary 65 The adjudwcalion decision must be respected and honoured al this ]unc1ure,Iegard|ess Many cw suucrarmrauon |hal may be med Beavmg m mmd tha\ CIPAA atuudlcallon proceedmgs are mended |o be ior qmck and umely paynrams. Tna enloreemem agghcanon as Pursuant 10 secucn 23 0| CIPAA. Land success apphed [or an order In enfaroe the adyudicauon decnsmn as w u re a judgmenl dune Hvgh Cam I aucwed ma cmcreernenc application. I sxercrsod my dlscveliun in do so srnce me relevant reqmlemems are met. Namely, (a) me adyudmacron dacman nu been made wn «aydur av and Success. me my apvVY'V‘fi ccr um. an Arnrndo, me oany agamsl wnorn the ad;udII:i|n7n deusmn was made, his tamed In oay nne admmcatad sum oy me shnmaled date, and my mere rs no pmmbllmn on me mun‘: dlscvemnaly power In gram leave (0 onrcrca the -Idguducauon dedsson sm Hawvvnnmevymxlsnxmu ‘S «no. Snr1n\nmhnrw\HI>e med w my r... nrW\nnU|:I mm: dnuumnl y.. mum om 57 I !ollow the Court a! Apnea! decisxon in /nal Krara Sun and v Puten Nusanlsra sun and [2019] 2 MLJ 362, [2019] 2 CLJ 229 al 235 Much sam 125] my Iha! ma awlrtantneods :9 do ya to samy lhe mm Court that mm It an ldludlcnlon decision mama-1 been ruudued In ms a;‘IPllI:anl'r favour. ma! mere hadbeerr non-payment ollhe Iqiadfcalodtum by m. dais spaaired m ma ad)uL1»calroII fiscrston and Ina! mu: rs no prvhibirion in m. gunk ofkhn man that was sought 125; By nus, we mean ms! the admrlmatuon seam has not been 59! am or srayed. ma! mere I: no wnllsn samsmsnl or me sumac! manor bclwun m. games, 9! Ina! man? /5 no final decmon rendered on me paynlcrvl dorm, whsmsr mm m mmam or by =3 cum ollaw um um. nuflirx ... .sm:.m.: as nunsrs or «m, the Urdu In onlizrw mm to n. ,....m: - nln as For the reasons above, \ dwsmissed Ammdrfs apphcallun m set asxde and may the amumcmion dec sxon Vaflowed Lend Success’ appl enloree me amudlcalwon declswn. as I ordered Ammdo to pay costs «a Land Success In me iollowing sums — ta) RM5,0fl0 m mspem ol the enooreemem apphoalwon‘ (b) RM5,000 In respea onne selling aside appncauon, am (:2) RMSDDO m respea oi me slay application Dated 12 December 2023 X Quay Chew Soon Judge Hwgh Cour! nl Malaya‘ Penang cm: nwism NCVC 1 oounsexs Llm Wum Vmq am Les Hue: mg (The Chamoelsol Vu snm Gag] (nr um success us K:1Jun(Mcuvs Waynu Slang, Km .4. ca; !arAmmda sm Hr.vwvvnPcnEYyMxIsmm~ " «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! sw HwvvnPcnGYyMxIsmLw« -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 2 in me setting aside originating summons. Aniindo nad iiied a notice at appllualian t1a|ed 24 9 man vide Enclosure 9 la seek tor a stay oi tne ad]udicaIion declslun (‘stay app: I(ion'). on 27.9 202:, I granted an ad interim stay or the adiudication decision‘ pending rne disposal oi me Sefllrlg aside application. 3 Both |he sriian:emeri| annltcalton and the setting aside application‘ as weii as me s|ay apphcslion, were neard rogerner on 1.12.2023 I decided as follows. tai I diarriiaaao mo ialilrvg unis ivnhcznmn uv Amindn (bi ldisniissed ms siay apntmanen av Arirrnde. and (ch 1 aimed Via amoioemam appi-cation ny Land Succus 4 Here are me grounds oi my decision Background (acts 5. Pursuant la a letter at award dated 13.11 2019, Arninda app ' ed Land success as tne main corilraclor in relation to a proJec1 lor reiniorceo concrete work, steel slrucmrat wnrk and In1ra—s|mc1ura| work at a canlracl sum o1 RM2 34 million 5. Land success nad rnade seven previous interim progressive claims And Amindo nad paid an cemiiec sums ior tne seven interim ce ales to Land success Progress claim No ts was subrriilled by Land success to Ammdn var work done as at 29.1 2uz1 in the sum RM437.477.19. This was not cenined by me Supennlendenl Offioer nor paid by Amindo 7. Notwithstanding, Land success conunued to carry am the works urim near completion around September 2021. Al the request 01 Amvldflt the proieci site was handed back to Arriindo around 17 9 2021 8 Land Suooess then re — assessed and valued its work done UD wilt‘ the handing ever at me preiect in Amman Arid submitled a revised progress claim no 510 Amlndu an 2 9 2022, (DI the sum nYRM652,§72 1D as ar 29.3 2022 Th kewise was not ceruired by the Sup sndent oiiicer nor paid by Arnindo. 9. Thus a paymsnl dIspu|e arose eeiweeri Land success and Aniindo. Land suocess carnmerioed tiie adiudreanen proceeding and ciainied tor IN ueuvvnecuerymxrcurm. 3 “Nana a.ii.i luvihnrwm be u... a may i... amimiirv MVMI dnuaviml vn .riuue v-mat me arspmea sum ol RM652,572 10 agams\ Arnrnoo based on me revised progress daim no a 10 on 18 a 2023 the admdlcalar rssuea me adwdwcahun deorsron. Tne adrudrcaxor delemuned mar Armnao re [0 pay Lena success me sum of RM425,622 so wrmrn 14 days, toge|hsr mm rnteresr and cosls The eeumg asrde app ca n 11. The Ihree limbs oi semen 15 of CIFAA rehed on by Amlndo In lhe selling aerpe applrcanon are: 151 demal or narurar ruenroa by live aorupreerpr [hmb (err my me adjudlcatm has nnla:1edvndeper\deM\y oc rnrpanrauy nrrnn Lcjl, and 1:) me epruprparor has sued rn excess or rrer junsdlwon {rune (4)) 12 It appears in me lhal the selling asrde aponearron 45 premised on Annnpee grouse: about the vrnamgs made by me aojuorcaror. Armndo Is anegrng |ha| me aoruprcarer has reached ervuneous ounemsrone Vn orner words Ammdn re merely unhanny with me menrs pr rne adpmrcaupn deusmn 13 However, an aarourcarprs orrrorng 04 «acre re nor revrewaoxe in a eemng esrae apphcauon Ammdds commaunls on me errors purpunedly oonrrnmed by me aorudroaror rs In essence en apnea! agarnsr the meme 0! me apruaroarron oe on Such canned be enrenarned by |he caurl m a ssllmg aerpe eppucarrorr An appurcarron ro set aerpe an adyudicallon oeorsron enounp nor be treated as a mu 7 bluwn appeal pr rehsanng or marfls by me gudge 14 me Cmmof Appeal m AOFM Engineering .9. Consmlclran San and V Esslar Vrsrtm Sdlv Bhd & another appeal [2016] I LNS 1522 hem. -[2v] rn the context oreeorrpn 15 p/crpm 24712 rr cannot b: m. llmcflon ul rm cam rp look me or nvllw rm mlnu or me can pr to oaama ma rem orrrre paae Tm rears Ira torn». eanrpmaror In men and dsads an Tm Com‘: rurrerron in simply to rm .1 me munner In won me eqruoamor conduriud mo hunting arm wbutnor ne Mdcommmed In lrrvralllwdmmg matprubasx Sum error pr/aw males 10 wnomorhc hadacronfndpmctdunl him!!! to ma Appouanr rn ma eprmm or (ms me, me eornprarnra pr rrre Apps!/an! were rrpmrrrq but epmptainre nfllrlunl llndlnfls oltne Idludlcalor which In our Vlcw clnmzk bu onronarnerr or us em HerwWnPv.:nGYyMxIsmmar ‘ “Nana s.n.r ...n.rwrr be p... m my r... nflmrraflly mm: dnuumrrl vu murm WM 424; me law as n exlxls /"law mnzclly limit: the Own‘: nmcuons wmcn ..p....w do 7191 Includt to rivhw ms curncmess n! the mudlcslon dtclslon Awon-lledby the )earrlad)I1Dl?sl me some lrltslvwlllon ls unlym very exoepnona! wcumslanms wmcll on far and law II! ouwecn rna prlma (acre wsw 0/1/19 Com must as to a/rnn (ha Id/ufllcatofs dacuvon uness me Iosmg new can show ma: ll had eon-nnsd wan thi mmsllalds llslsd n sacrum vs a! cum 2:712 - 15 u IS not me task of the com lo conslder whether lne adjudlcalnr had answered me lssues ccnecuy am lnslead, wnslner me adludlcalor had duly consldered me velevan ues Any error by an adludlca|or can only be remedled H1 an arbllrallorl or gallon No dsn/a/ ofnamIa/ us!/cs 16 Mere verblage mm a flndlng as ‘breach ol natural lustlee‘ cannol be pevmilled For Anundc lo succeed on denial ol natural lusuee, ll musl prove that male was a lundanlenlal procedural unvanness golng lo lne roeloilne decislon, such as where one party was heard and lne omer not 17 ‘Backdoor anemple‘ lo use allegalions ol nalural iusllce lo sel aslde an adludlcanon oeclslon snould nol be allowed. so long as lne pames were aooordsd an opponunny lo present men easel lnere eannol oe a complaln: o1 denlal ol natural lustloe lsee lne coon ol Appeal case of /reka Engrneenng and Carlstruchan son Bhd v PWC Corp sdn Bhd 3. anal apnea! [2019] MLJU 35) 18 Here, Amlndo had been accorded wnn lne ophurmnily In nla lls Adjudlcallon Response. wmcn ll dld Amlndo was also accorded wiln me opponumly lo me me Paymsnl Response. oul eleeled nol to do so In any event, me nun — nung cl lne Payment Response cesrs no ellecl. as I! ls deemed lhal lne enllre claim oy Land success ls belng dlspuled. 19. cll=AA provides lor lne fllllng ol lne Adyudlcallun clalnl oy lne unpam psny, lollewed by me Adludlcalion Response by the non — paylng carry, and laelly me Adludlcallorl Reply by me unpaid parly Here, Armndo nad subsequently reouesled lo We a Relolnder. ms was allowed and Ammdo Indeed med a Relulnder There was no procedural unlalmess suflered oy Amlndo W lne ad]udica|iun pmceedlng‘ as ample nppeflunlly was accorded lo Amlndo to present NS case 20. Amlnda alleges lnal ll was denled nalural wsluce oy lne arblhatuv Hawevsr, Amlrldo and no: snow lnal II was prevenled lrom lendenng evidence or maklng suhmlsslon on the lssues ralsed In lne adludlcalion 5 sm HawWnPv.:l'lGYyMxIGmm~ “None a.n.l nuvlhnrwlll s. o... a may s. snnnnn sun. dnuuvlml Vfl .nuno Wm! proceeding it seems in ins |hal what Aniinu oonipiaining oi Is purely ins iindings reached by iris aaiuaicaioi. and how sne weighed ine evidence neioia nei niai is nu| an issue ol proceauisi a ess. 21. There niusi be no wniu fl bemesn an appiiaaiion to sel aside an adiudicalmn decision ioi denial of naiuiai iusiiaa, which ni ges un prouedural unfairness And appeahng againsllhe decision, wnien involves a veview oflhe msms onne decls n Amindu ougiii not in be pemiiuieu In rely on ma principle oi naiwai justice In set aside ina aaiuaissuon decision, piainisaa on is cnaiisnge against me miuings M ins aaiuaicaior The idudlc has not soled In excess of I nsdiciion 22 WW?! regard to the mmplainl that the adiudicalor has aded in excess cMer1unsdicliori,Am do is velying an uis siniiiai grounds as Ihuse ieiiaa on in rsspeci oi VIS oonipiainis legardmg asniai or natural iusiioe Which is naming more irian niere dissaiislaciion WI|h iris oonciusions reached by me adiiiaicaior. 23 i am salisfied that uis adjudlcalor did not aai uulside the scope oi ner appointment and the dispulss raised belore riai The Issues mined by the adiudicaluv were well wllhln the disputes ralsed by (he pames In the saiuaicsiiun proceeding The ad ud»ca!arII§§ acled inasgsnuenily or impgrialgy 24. Neiiner had Ainindo snown how the auiimicaior nad acled paniaiiy. Am do aiinpiy raised its eompiainis aver ins findings made by iris adjudicator on a 'ana / or basis And swept aii aiiniiar conipiainis to be a purpcrled meacn oi naiurai iusiice and / DI the adjudicator acted pariiaiiy and I or me aaiiiiiicami acted in excess oi her iuiisiiiicuan i consider inai Amindu is raising these auegea breaches as a backdoor way |o set aside the auiudicaiiun decision, wnicn was noi in its lavcur Ainind Cu; 25. i move on to deal wiiri me cnaiiengas raised by Aminuu AI me slart ol me aaiuaieaiiori decision, me aiiiuaicaici had sei out me issues for deieimiriaiion 1; issues IN HwwVVnPDflGYyMXIGfllLRu “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be LAIQ4 M van; i... nflginnflly MVMI dnuumnl VII nF\uNG puns! Based on me Admdlcnlmn Clam: Aflpudnzamn Rzspanse, Reoly In Aammaanon Respnnse. Relmnaer and reply in Reminder, I ma mal Ina vouowma Vssues anse\n\h\sMA\x1Aca(Inn 1 Does the new-caxor havu junsdurllan «o decide «ms Adgudmahmw cram Has me mmract been vmoefly |emumsled7 Has urne oeen sex ar Iaraew Does mu 7 oanrmuon rarae a presurnmrorr Ina! work was nm ¢ona7 rs me malmam emmed re D5 van Vulwolk acme" Has one crarrnan: arm-argue rt: ouraen or WW4 and Wnvnd rne Quanmm ul II: r..rn and naa 01: moanaann Dmvud Ilx defence and counrererarrnr 25. Ammdo am not onanenge men mese oueauorrs posed by me aorumcacor are wrong. Rather‘ Amman ra purely onauengrng me cunclusians reaoned by me Adjudicalur. wma. not |he|es|ln hsappllsd oeororng whether or nu| an adjudlcauun de un augm to be set aame. 27. I am saflisfied Ihal the adJud\ca|nr had up oonsldered me uevences rarsea by Arnrnae by Iakmg Into earrsrderauerr me documenls presented more rrerr runrung rmo over 15 pages or me aaruaroauon aecrsren under Fan S4 or; acted wlmm henurxsmclxon by aeorarng on me rasues raised by both pamea prenuseo an the raons and me documents presented. and (In) acled rrnaamany (awards oom sides 25. Here is my exnmnatrorr nrsrruaaal of Arrundo‘s ceumemlarrrr for redmcallon coils ol sloien rterns (or rnecnarw;a< and meclncal works 29. Ammdds munlelclawm fur recvfinatwan oasis 01 stolen Items hr meorrarncal and e\ec1rica| works was my cunsideved by me aorumoator The Adiudxcatcr do not wIHy mlly rmo ou\ ner runsdraron m uenernuning defence. u was only aner vakrng rmo consroe n the argumems raised. man the aaruoroacer decided lhat mas Issue rs beyond me scope or me aaruareanon. an Trns appears at Pan 5 paragrapn 1a 11! me adjudica|mn dam on, men reads we Rsipondenls counneraarrn lorlusses due \u then a we Resvurvdlm cram. m an Adgudrcatmn Respunae mm due In mans ma: occurved on me me v-mule me Cmmam was rn amupalmn M Ihe sue, the Respondent has smverea rosses as n has nan in may ror remmeauon works srn HuwvvnP\7nEYyMxIsmm-4 ’ “None s.r1a\n.nmrwmne U... a may r... nrW\n|U|y -mm: dnuamnl VI murm war In ine ernouni ol lwllea.nao.uo and RM3fl.5D0 on me Respundeni has Iflducad lnlvolces lar reeimcaison work done in Schedule 19 a. 2n. n The RespoiIderl| has pivduced police reporls by me clurnrunrs Repmierllallve issnedule 17 RBOD7 end phmogizpm In suvnml ns claim iscnedule is s. scneeule 27; c we cluimenr nes siaied in men Reply la rne Auludnzuon Raupnnse Iliai lhls aelnr ls loo wmanmus in be delernuned under llm Aflludlcailan and mac M s. 2 works were ourslde lne sodoe nhlswurk: e ins Neeoamenl claims lnel ii nr lndlsvmable rner lne Claimant had iull l:nn|m|M|V1e srle wnen in. (MN: lmk plane and me cuuneni md luiled lo nmnerly seeursine ene WHICH caused me losses Irlwrvsd i, in me Cllim-ill‘: Reply |a ins Relomdu are C\alman|sIaies|ha1lIvmu V! e lapu oi lime nerween lne dares SHDNH in pichues In Saladule 27 iii 3 mi 5 H QJD21) and me duleo lne rnelis look pleoe 122 5 mi A s 6 20217 e Dsclslorl me ioeue cl wnelner ins cl. am VS Ilahle ior lne wsii lncwrad by lne Respondem ior Iachficallm c asses caused by ineiie an me slle srems irorn a dalm in negligence men is oulilds in. scope ul lnie adjudbcahuil ins neepondenl nus lo pursue me eleun elsewhere ' 31 Amlrldu did nm cnallenge lnel ine adpudlaaioi nad asked me wmng quesllon The adjudleelor had asked me ngniqueelmn oiwnelnermrndo is enililed to ils oounierclelrn ior losses due In lneii wnei ls onellenged by Arnindo is purely ine answer giyen oy ine adludlcslar The adludlcerdr neld ihal on we issue oi lneii and negligence, Amlndo would seek lls recourse In ine civil mime. lneiead oi via a caunierdlenrn in ine adludlcallorl proceeding 32. secilcn 2 oi CVFAA siaies that CIPAA only applies In oorlslmellon work as defined in secllon 4 oi CIPAA. Section 2 oi CIPAA reeds: ‘Thu An anwes lo every oonllmcimn eonrraa rnede ur willing releuno lo Callslmchorl work umed aux wholly or only wllhlrl lne Iemlmy cl Malayxla including a wnltmnnn mn|Iac|evll.eIadIn1l7 oylne Government.‘ 33 seciion 4 a1 CIPAA read 'oons|mc1lon walk“ nreuns me wnsiiummn. exienslnn, lnslellailon. vsvalr mslnlennnce. renewal. reimuvill renwemn ellerelron, dlulnarmlrlq, or dernnllrlon Dis srn HawWnP0nGryMxIsnlLHu ‘ “Nun: s.n.l nurlhnrwm r. u... e may r... unrn.l-r mini: dnuuvlml Vfl erluria Wm! rap any bufldmg, avaclnun, amiss, stmmuve‘ wafl. «ma orchlmney, whelher wnunma whnflyur plmy azma ar kmhw gmurvd men rm any man, hamourwmks. rarmay. cableways canar or aaraarmna. (c) nnydmrnnge rmgauan nrmeronn|rc|wom (db any areannaar, nracnanrsax, walerr gas, mu Dflltachamlcm av lelecommunlcauon work, av (9) any brI¢g9,~IIadun1rdamrluewowvraanmrorks,plpehrveriswarraqueflucl. wlvsr\,dnvn,sha1|‘ lunnsi urmchmahun wurk. and mchmes . on any wurk wmch Vorms an rnneuraw pan or, u! are pupa-awry In ov nemvorary tor Iha walk: dascnbad m varaamvhs (at k: may rnaua g slla clearance, son mvnshgatuzn and Impmvumenl, eanll-moving «cannon, rayrng nflmmdilmn. mu rexlumlmn and landsclvmflr ana ta» orocurernanr al mnslmawn maxeflals, equ-prnenn or workaar at nsaesarfly reumraa «or any works described m parauvapns (aHa157.' 34. The adrudrcaxor held mail me rssue cl stolen Kems lorlhe mechamcal and eleanncax works was not within me oumram, nor the defi n or sonsuuclmn work under sacucn 4 or CIPAA srnce me scope 0! works 01 Land suaoaas am not mamas macnamcal and atecmcal works, which was assrgnaa |a one KPH Erecnnaal Engmsenng sun Ehd The adwdlcalor dacrasa mat Amindds counterclaim on the stulen electnca\ work was a mane! omslde henunsd>c1ron 35. ‘ms, the adjuurcawr retused Io adwdicate on re, and cannnaa her junsmduon tome cansnrucnon work wi in me contract pursuam |a CVPAA Ammdds chauange on ms gmund rs a mere dlssauslacfinn wrcn me adpz ‘camr's nnaxng, which us. not a ground to set aside |he adrudrcanurr The ad uu 3011 2020 and non - ennuernem m LAD as. Ammdc claims max me oampxamn dale remained at 25 32020, and the oerlificale of non » commeuon raauaa on 29. .2021: remarna vahd. Trrs aajuaraacur huwever ueamea max Arnrnaa was not enhllsd to LAD because me ungmal comple n dale was rewsed in aun.2u2u. AmIndo's cnanenge on m s agam a mere drssacrsvacnran with me adrudrcators answer to me queshon 0! whether me unne nas been set at Vargs. SIN Hr.vwvvnP\7nEYyMxIsmm-4 “ “Nana Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e U... a may r... anmnauly -mm: dnunmnl VI nF\uNfl war 37 In answsrmg nms auwien, me adjudmalcr had eonsraere-1 the argunrene and me aeeurnenrs presemed lu her Amongst erhers, at Pan P av me aanmicahen daclswon lrom paragraphs 1 to 12, and Pan 5 paragraph 22 of «he ad;udu:aIIon dec n Aller dmng so‘ me adjudwcalm concmdea Ihanhe lime Inrcnmplenon enne project had been set at large The adjudxcator lound Iha| a csmficale 0! non - cumplelinn is reqwed co enhne Ammdo to rarse non — cnmmellon and rrnpose LAD agamsl Land sueeeaa. 35 Thus appears al Pan P paragraph 12 a! me adwdwcalwon demsmn, which reads: ~: Vsswe 37 Hasllme been sem large’) 12. Decmun Clause an m me General Cowman: at Cunlmcl1ExhIh\H caom slates mar hrhe connramervsrua tn camrdele me mm: by «he dale In me Form or Tender orwnmn any extended lame Imdev Clause 3\ and me so eenrnes m wmmg - Smca we extended mrnpueoen date was an 11 mo. rhe Conlvaclnaqmves mar me so cemflas In wvmng aher 3a<12n2n mal mu wnmd be chenzsama rm Rsspomenfs epnrenhon mat nu cm: was ml reemrea Is a\sa ml aucemable as me so has prewauxy as-rep a one on 29 a mu wmch his pm reheu on rmrre Rnpondwl Amzr me 3011 mm. me (Nalmznl had mu nm wmpueree ms mas and was afluwad \a vemam on sneuu 11 9 2021 ' 39 The aanmrearor laund supporl m me supennnenaenr othoers own Indlcahon «n me eenmeane ol pmgras payrnem rm 7 that the cprnplehen dale lorlha project had been lunher re ' d m 30.11.2020 Tnrs appears at Pan P paragraph 5 M Ihe adrumcahon decisrenr wmch reads: -5 nu so lhen proceeded co exrer-a me oempnahan Dare to 30.11 me me me Is apparem vrorh cemhcsu L11 Fmgress Payment No. 7 name an 2m Deeemnar me me so has then pmmedad up aeuma me LAD er Rwaesoo up our 91 days In cenmcare m Pvugwss Fiymem up 7, Much ra pam<:u\lnzed as bemu LAD up to me data no me cenmcare or Prcgmn Faymem No 7 - A0 C\aar\y, mess were rssues vaised m the aaruarcaricn pmce pre ed on the documents presented lherem. There us no ad 0! Junsdwcmon by «he adwdxcawr How me auruurearer anmysed the am Hewvvrwcnevymxlsnxmu ‘“ “Nana a.n.r mmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... nrwhrnflly mm: dnuumnl vu aF\uNG war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24C-13-09/2023

PEMOHON AMINDO PACKAGING INDUSTRIES SDN BHD RESPONDEN LAND SUCCESS ENGINEERING SDN BHD

CIPAA – Setting aside, stay and enforcement of adjudication decision – Whether denial of natural justice – Whether the adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially – Whether the adjudicator has acted in excess of her jurisdiction.

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=62188c1e-fe73-410b-93c8-c5f51b4b4b3f&Inline=true

30/01/2024 15:57:39 PA-24C-13-09/2023 Kand. 40 S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HowYYnPC0GTyMX1G0tLPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—2ac-13»o9/2n23 Kand. 40 an/amuza 13:57:39 m the High Com 0! Malaya m Panang In me State 0! Penang, Maw/sxa ongmaung Summons No P c as/zozs Dalam perkara mengena: Kepulusan Aquaukaeu benankh ca Ogos 2023 dengan nombur nqukan AIAC/D/Am—45sa—2o2a o\eh Adjudikamr Ehuvzneswan Krishnamurlhy anlava Land Success Engineenng Sdn Ehd dan Ammdo Packagmg lndusmes Sdn Bhd dan Damn perkara mengenai Seksyen 2a dan parunlukan undang — undang di bawah Aklz Pemhayaran dan Adwdwkasx lndusm Pembmaan 2012 darn Da\am perkava mengenau Aluran 7‘ 22;‘ 69A den perunmkan kasdah — kaedah da\am Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Between Land Success Engineering Sdn Bhd . Plamllfl And Amindo Packagmg Industries Sdn Ehd Defendam Heam together wmn In ma Hugh ceun uf Ma\aya m Penang In the Sva|e or Penang, Malay a Summ n No P 34: /2023 On m Dalam perkaxa Seksyen 12. 15 dam 16 Am Pembayaran darn Afljudlkasl Vndusln Pemmnaan 2012‘ dan m Huwvvnwcnfifyhixlsmmu “Nana saw nmhnrwm a. H... a may a. nrwhuflly am. dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Dalam perkars Kepulusan Adwmkasx berlankh we 05 mm dengan Adwdxkasx Rujukan Nu AIACIDIADJ-45ss—2o2a yang di puluskan aleh Bhuvaneswan Knshnamurmy‘ dan Da\am perkara Aluran sen Kaedah - Kaedah Mankaman zmz. dan Dawn perkara Amran 7 dan 293 dan muran 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Between Ammdo Packagmg Vndusmes sun Bhd . Appncam And Land Success Engineering Sdn and ., Respundent Grounds L71 Be on Immducnon 1. There are [we vewaueu acflons belore me Namew my Orlgmallng Summom Na FAr24C—11«05I2D23 man by Land Sums“ Engmaenng Sdn am runa Succui‘}un an a ma ms ‘s an appirahon m eurmce ‘nniomnmlnl ap uliazn“) Ihe Admdlcatmv Declimn new 13 a 2fl23(‘id]|l¢IcIflon .1. - nvaewerea ny lha Adluduzilur Ehuvaneswan Knihnamunhy (‘.m1ju-ilumor‘) m an Amudxtzmmn No NACJD/ADJAEBBJUZSPidjunluflan plncoodlllfj me enrnmemsfll .ppw»ca«.m was made under suclmn 23 at me canwucuon lndushy Paymem and Mjudlcalwon AcA2D12(‘C|PAA')‘ and my Dngmnllnn Summons No FA—24C-13-‘Ufi/2021! Ned by Anundu Paumgmg tndusmes Sdn am: (‘Amado’) on 22 9 ma me ‘e an apmmm m ya asme me adludwcation domuun 4'-mun asldl .wnIe.nmr‘) me semrv] aside anmmmn was made under b9won15oVC\PAA sm Hawvvnwcnevymxlsmmu 2 “Nair smm nmhnrwm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmuny mm: dnuumnl _ nF\uNG W defence raised by Ammdu, Vs nm a gvound to set aeme me amudlcallon decwswon 41. The admdlcalor ::nm:\uded ms: the urns to complete me pmjen had been set at Verge. As Land Success was permllled to eennnue |o remain ac lhe pmjact sme and carry out as works. And Ihere was no subsequent oenificale ol nun — complelion wssued aner the rewsea commeuan date 01 so 11 2020 42. The deience rawsed by Ammdo wmn regard \ulI1e cemflcale at nun — compleuon at 29.5 2020 had been Iaken Into accoum by the adiudwcator ms appears at Fart P paraglaphs 10 and 11 oilhe adjudicalmn deusuon. wmcn reads. we The Reswllflerfl subrmls Ihmme am case wanna be msnnamsnea as .n we um case me PAM Conlracl 2006 was avvhcable and Clause 22 pm»: sam PAM eonlranl reqmres me so to wssue a Cemficals a! Non comm-an bevere up can be warm ‘H The Respondnm a um mm as me Cmumcl .n queslmn .s nol a PAM wlI|r-I<:| and (her: a no reqmremen| up Vssue a CNC helare LAD can be Vewed me xhererme me case ewunp Km not appucabqs In any men: we Responaem claws lha| cNc had been Immd an 2v a 2020 * The ad udwcato lmdmg on road and dra §_q§ Qawm by Land Success 4:. Ammdo alleges than the adjudxcalor had umlalerafly vpund |ha| Ammdo had accepled Land Success‘ claim nn road and drainage work Tne aueganen Vs umenable. Tne aapmueacor consxdered Amlndds Rejuinder, where Ammdu rawsed that me man and eramage work wmen was In vanalmn order rm 2 had been De ed m me mlenm paymenc clam: no 7. Noiwilhslanding me cenmcauon, Amlndu delved ma« me mad and dramage work was commeled by Land Success 44 In any event, eppanunny was aeeemea to Amlndo lo pu| toward as case Tne delenoe and eymenee ravssd by Amman were cnnswdered by the Adjudwcawv ms appears at Pan 5 paragraph 1: el me adjudication dectswcn, wmen veads w Road a. Dva\nana- Vntsmal Road K0ng\na|WoIk!Y a The Respondent m me Aepmmen Response claws man nem an my Vmemnl am was nol my name by me Cmxmam The Responasm smas max by way own 2 me mnslmcmn ov me ln|erna\ Road (Mam a 1 under Road a manage) was vanad m Hum mats and hencslha D\aIman\$hou\d am Hr.vwvvnPmEYyMxIsmmu “ “Nab: s.nn lunhnrwm be e... a mm s. snpnu-y mm: dnuamnl VI mum em um be wlmed \a mam mow. lar m|ema\ mad and Ihsmlnm mas Ihe Chlminl had been ovemam lar Item an h The Claumanl m mew Repiy slam: max vo 2 was leraddlhonal s\ab works and had nssn duly anpvvved bylhe so u The Rexmnflenl m mew ns.o.mer snanss Ihat ma asnmaauan Vor man s. Draulanze m we 1 mm to be sustamud The Rssponasm howevavstales lhe|\|\sw\lhuulp1a]uuu>s on ma aamsmau lhal addulm-131 floor slab was run sxssmaa The Reswnflem reflers to me Whakkpp wrwelsalmn M 15 3 2021 m Schedme 25 (wm»g\y marked as Swodule 32) 7: nssusmn That: \s no dispute mm regavd to hem a 1, as ascapma by um R¢spnnwen| The wnamaa mrwersanon does ml ‘and any anmance In ma delenmnalmn M0-us Issue The -ssus suns Addmnnal F\ncrS\ab has naan asan mm under voz havmnabove The cnamanra slam under Hem s < Is mervlom anawsa as Inna C\aImam's whole aaxm undev Ham a - Thea ud nzlofs nd g cgn ra on the Issue 0! me v >1 av me lermmauon ol 45 Land Sucoess dawms man the contract WES nc\ lelminaled. Whereas Armndc contends that the oantract was lerrmnmed, when me prqem swle was handled back «a Ammdu The disagreement an whether the connect had been lerminaled was raised by hull’! pames, and ¢el\ squarely under me adjudlcalofs junsmcnon 45. The adjudicator found that lhe oonlracl was no! pmpany (errmnmed by Ammdo The answer reached in rfipem uflhe |emuneman 0' contract. which differs fmm the names‘ subrnisswons, dues nu| render M an excess oflhe ad;udvcamfs;unsd\ct\an Nor can (he adjudicahnr be blamed Io have acled pafllafly. 47. The adjudicator then pmoseded In news on anomsr issue of whether Am do us emmau to claim from Land Success lo! ma sxpansas mowed In ng a Ihwd pafly to carry out the purportedly incomplete works The adjudicator and not gram ma sum claimed by Amindo The amudlcalar cannot be said |o have ac1ed m breach of na(ura\ ju ce or acted pamaHy nr ac1ed In excess 0! her junsmcuon, when she applied he! fmdmgs m raspesx ol the wmpmper Ie alien to same Am-nuns claim lor such expenses. 4.5 ms appears at Pan 5 paraglaph l3(e) av Ihe adjumcaman deuswen. wmch leads am Hawvvrwcnfivymxlsnxmu " «am. am.‘ nmhnrwm a. med w mm s. saw-y mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG v-ma! -e Declslon l Vlrld (hal M none: was wlverl |o lhe clarmarrl prlol lhe appalvllmam am. 3'” pally Io do me wens l have found aamav men are lenrrrharreh was ml cane aoaurdlnq In the eerrrlrselrral pmvlllunl rh clarrse 33 av lhe General carralllorn an Conllad ll rs under Ihls I:lause|h.n|1he Respondent would be enhliad la emplny an panyio cmvlplele walks allegedly ml eohe by me clarmanl The plumes plovlded by lhe Reipundsnl aa he: prove lrrsl lh. salfl wurks were deiedrvely done by lhe aeswlaehl ue omen wix glven la lhe clalmerrlanhwghlh. Raspolvflavll had by cnndudlsmlniled me eerrlrael ln seplamesrzuzr Furlhemwle lhe charges rrrerrrrea are In zuza whlch ls mom lharr a year aha a hall aherslre pessessrorr was taken nylhe Rewnndvnl I lherelere alsallew lhrs uounlutlalm bylhe nesperruem- The recllllcauon cosl lln cm A an alarm cl Rmwa 411 lor the as Thrs rs again anolner sllualron where Amindo rs purely unhappy wllh lhe findlng el lhe aalrldrealnr There ls no challenge as to lhe quesllan asked erwhelher Amlndo ls ehlllled to elslrn lor lrle ones to demolish and redo lhe purpnrled undone or delsctwe works ll ls rncarreel lor Arnlhdo |n allege lhal lhe aalrrrjrrsalur had acted ln breach el nalurel lusllce or panrally or in excess of her lrrrrsalcllen, when she aeclaea lhal lhe quolalicn (endeved were lnsumcrenl Io suppurl A dds clalrn. so The aalualealer leunu lhal only a lhlm — pany quolaflun claleu 13.5 202311 year and a mohlhs aller lhe pmjecl slle was handed back re Amlndn) was |erldered by Amlndol nul hol ah lhyolee nor recelpl The ‘quulaliuw would merely be an anlrelpalron and evaluallon lor lulure losses whlch does run lrrsllly actual loss suflsred al lhe malerlal llrrle when lhe claim was made sl. Tms appears a| l=sn s paragraph 10(9) or the adludicalvon declslon, whlch reads -wrlh regard no me eerrnrerelalrrr rhe Responderll has urlly amylase e quomlnn lrem a an puny || ls orrlslee lhe purvlaw ol lhls Mlrralcallerr lo Inllclpaie and eyalrrale lrmrre losses om-e Relpondarl| lalsallew lhe Rarrperraehrs wunher alarm aha llrld \h.n| rlre clarmahl ls ehllllea la mu armrrrms as clalmed rh Revlsed Flawless clarm s rrhaer llerrr 51 mm sm HuwvvnP\7nEryMxIsnlmu " “Nana Smul luvlhnrwm rs. UIQG In my rs. arlrlmllry MIMI dnuavlml vn nFluNfl WVM Ihm rm msuum nas been valsod wrrn regnm la rne amer wems under nsnr 5 and unererora auowme rema- The allegeg tenure at the ad uarcaror to con der Am gg s defence 52. II us no\ true that lhe adrudraator (arled |D consider Armrvdds defense‘ as alleged by Ammdo The aaruarcamr ma aoneraer Arninaosaerenpe arm lhe evrdencs, mcludmg the photographic evidence submilled by A tin rn consrdsnng Amlndds uerenee, ma aanmrcaror round rehance and suppmt (mm the cemficaliun by the Supermlendenl cmcer in ma uerlflicale M prograaa crarrn no, 7 53 Trris appears at Pan s paragraph 711:) unhe aaruarcanon aecrsrorr. wmcrr reads ‘In new pun. I.ur1mn|me so nas uumflad me work: m we 1 V 3 rn rerar as having paen mm mnrprerea m CanIfica1so¢Fmgre:: Payment Na 7‘ I sea In) reason to quesuon the same rn. Raxpnndcnfs |:\nm\ mar ma Floursbab Work: were nor cumpleled m apearaanae m specwrcarrans rs unsupsrannarea mm urrsuppaneu by any ewdenee we Ualmanls cuarrnerprvo «-3 an aflewed Mm no daduclmm “ ‘1es| re rt‘ mdueed p A 'ndn m these raoesdln s were n egg ga m the ad udncahnn prooee g 54 In Alnmdtfs allwdai/1| VI rep\y immled on 30 102023 (Enclosure 2|) and filed in the sellmg aside Ongrnalmg Summons, a \esl vepcfl Issued by we sort A Cuncvele Lab Sdn am: daled 410202: was exhumed. ‘rrna IBDOR was issued puvpunedly pursuem to an mspeclxon carried out on 27 9 2023. TN5 repon was drsragarded by me 707 the IGHOMVVQ reasons. 55. rrrsuy, Ihls repon was any prepared aner me adjudlcalinn pruaaearng had been compleled And aner |he adjumcahon decrsrprr had been handed down 01118 5.2023 Obviously‘ me report :5 not a documenl that was waned helore the adjudxcawr for mnsiderafion. II \s a document prepared afier the mug M the sewing aswde Ongmahng Summons on 22 92023 VI was not made as a grow suppurl ol the asrtlmg aswde Originating Summons m Amlndds afhdav in support aflvrned on 22.9.2023 (Endasure 2;. But on\y dlsdosed rarer m Amindds alfldavu In rep\y. 55 Secondly, there was no Iorrnan arm proper applrcanon made by Amman to adduce such “lresh evidence“ In these proceedings Neither was any explanalmn provened «or rrra de\ay m omarrurrg and producing rn nenyynporrarymxranrm. “ “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be LAIQ4 w my r... rmmnauly mm: dnuumrrl y.. .nuye war lnis rspon Peninenlly, Amlndo was represenled by Ilie same sclicilcrs in me adiudicaiian pmcsedlng and in these proceedings. 57 In any eueni, Ilie selling aside appliealion is subiecl to the Iiniiled grounds sel oul in seclion 15 ol CIPAA Even fllhe repon is considered il will nol aid Aniindo lo iuslily Inal Irie adiudicalion decision should be set aside because Iris adiudiealol nas acled H1 breach ol nalural Iuslicei pafllallyi or in excess cl her jurisdiction. Simply put me repon has no deleiniining erlecl over me selling aside appliealion. More so wlien Ine repon was uhlalrled niaie lnan 2 years aller me pmject sile was nanded back lo Amirldo The slay aoplicaliori 5a. Fremlssd on me above I lino Inal Amlndo has Iailed Io subslanliale any silualien which walianls Ilie adiudioalion deal on lo be sel aside pursuant Io seciian 15(b| [denial of naluial }usIlos]‘ seelion Isle) Illie adiudicalor has nol acled independeiilly or inipaniallyj or secllun lsldl [lne adiudicalor has acled in excess oi nis jurisdiclion] oi CIPAA I lnerelare dlsinissed Irie selling aside application 59. Tile slay applicalicn Vlfle Enclosure 9 ocnlalned Iwo prayersi i.e Ia) an Inielini slay M ins adludicaiisn decision oendinw me lull and final dlsposal ollne seling aside aPD|lca|lorI and Enclosure Ia: (D7 an oiderlorslay bl Ina adindieaiion duclxlon so Recall lnal on 279 2023, I lied granled an ad inlerirn slay ol the adiudicalion declsbon, pending llie disposal o1 lne selling aside application Prayer (a) above became redundanl since I nad disposed of me selling aside abpI‘icaIion.AI Ine heanrigi Arnindo irisisled on prayer (b) above I e lo: a slay onne adiudiealion decision Bu| I was conlused as Io wlial slay is Arnindo seeking » slay pending what‘) 51 The pre—reoui es Ior a losing pany lo seek a slay at an adiudicalion dec ion under seaion 16 at CIPAA are (al lnere is an ongoing selling aside apnlicalion [secliori 16(1)(a)], or (b) lnere is an ongoing civil suil uv albiiralion [seclion leIl)lb)], Herei Ineie is no civil suil or arbitration ooniinenoed by eiinei Amlrlda or Land success al Inis iunciure Hence, lne pie — reduisile in seclion I€(1j(bj ol CIPAA is riol lullilled A slay lnerelare carvIu| be souglil nor granied under seclian 16(1)(h)a1 CIPAA As rnenlioned eavlleri a slay under seclion 16(1)|a)aVClPAA liad beoonie academic. given lrial lne selling aside has been disposed ol ru HuwvvnP0nEYyMxIGnlLH-4 ‘5 “Nair s.n.i luvlhnrwlll as UIQG a may i... bflmruflly MIMI dnuavlml VI nFluNa Wm! 62 In wew Esteem Sdn and y Ema Puri Holdings Esn1sd[20|B] 2 MLJ 22, tne Federal cdun adopted a hberal apprdacn Io saouon 15 of CIPAA An approach that wouk! anow some degree of nexrmmy to say an admdvcatuon decrsron where lhere Vs dsar ermrr or ID meet me ‘uslma ov me inmvwdual ease Nevennexess, M was made dear that a soay 0! an adjudroauon decrsron ougm not be gwen readny. and caulmn must os exercised when domg so es The Federal Coun said (al page 4:3 — 49; “[521 We are m Agreement mm ma mlllnnhun dune aoos»/am mat a mom hbuml ruumrIgo(:16a?lh5 cum wuuld aflow me degree afflcxmamy In Iha mails to my mo award mm mm um um mars. or rnmul flu/‘uxllcn ollne mdmduor em 1: I: accepted that a say n! In: award nugm not bu aim mdny Ind s. ian rnusl be ucmud Mun doing Sn fiowvvsv la nurrm ma upplrcahan ors 15 or ma cum In the manner pmpused by the mgr. Court, and me CourIalAppuL wauld oe In mp vl olany um/Iy’ en The burden lies on Annndo In snow Mal there have been dearerrots. drcna¢ the Justice 01 me case warrants a stay dune adjudrcazion decxsxan Ammdn has (exiled to do so Ammdo has not shown the exis|ence a! any special crrcomsaances |hat wumd render such a slay necessary 65 The adjudwcalion decision must be respected and honoured al this ]unc1ure,Iegard|ess Many cw suucrarmrauon |hal may be med Beavmg m mmd tha\ CIPAA atuudlcallon proceedmgs are mended |o be ior qmck and umely paynrams. Tna enloreemem agghcanon as Pursuant 10 secucn 23 0| CIPAA. Land success apphed [or an order In enfaroe the adyudicauon decnsmn as w u re a judgmenl dune Hvgh Cam I aucwed ma cmcreernenc application. I sxercrsod my dlscveliun in do so srnce me relevant reqmlemems are met. Namely, (a) me adyudmacron dacman nu been made wn «aydur av and Success. me my apvVY'V‘fi ccr um. an Arnrndo, me oany agamsl wnorn the ad;udII:i|n7n deusmn was made, his tamed In oay nne admmcatad sum oy me shnmaled date, and my mere rs no pmmbllmn on me mun‘: dlscvemnaly power In gram leave (0 onrcrca the -Idguducauon dedsson sm Hawvvnnmevymxlsnxmu ‘S «no. Snr1n\nmhnrw\HI>e med w my r... nrW\nnU|:I mm: dnuumnl y.. mum om 57 I !ollow the Court a! Apnea! decisxon in /nal Krara Sun and v Puten Nusanlsra sun and [2019] 2 MLJ 362, [2019] 2 CLJ 229 al 235 Much sam 125] my Iha! ma awlrtantneods :9 do ya to samy lhe mm Court that mm It an ldludlcnlon decision mama-1 been ruudued In ms a;‘IPllI:anl'r favour. ma! mere hadbeerr non-payment ollhe Iqiadfcalodtum by m. dais spaaired m ma ad)uL1»calroII fiscrston and Ina! mu: rs no prvhibirion in m. gunk ofkhn man that was sought 125; By nus, we mean ms! the admrlmatuon seam has not been 59! am or srayed. ma! mere I: no wnllsn samsmsnl or me sumac! manor bclwun m. games, 9! Ina! man? /5 no final decmon rendered on me paynlcrvl dorm, whsmsr mm m mmam or by =3 cum ollaw um um. nuflirx ... .sm:.m.: as nunsrs or «m, the Urdu In onlizrw mm to n. ,....m: - nln as For the reasons above, \ dwsmissed Ammdrfs apphcallun m set asxde and may the amumcmion dec sxon Vaflowed Lend Success’ appl enloree me amudlcalwon declswn. as I ordered Ammdo to pay costs «a Land Success In me iollowing sums — ta) RM5,0fl0 m mspem ol the enooreemem apphoalwon‘ (b) RM5,000 In respea onne selling aside appncauon, am (:2) RMSDDO m respea oi me slay application Dated 12 December 2023 X Quay Chew Soon Judge Hwgh Cour! nl Malaya‘ Penang cm: nwism NCVC 1 oounsexs Llm Wum Vmq am Les Hue: mg (The Chamoelsol Vu snm Gag] (nr um success us K:1Jun(Mcuvs Waynu Slang, Km .4. ca; !arAmmda sm Hr.vwvvnPcnEYyMxIsmm~ " «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! sw HwvvnPcnGYyMxIsmLw« -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 2 in me setting aside originating summons. Aniindo nad iiied a notice at appllualian t1a|ed 24 9 man vide Enclosure 9 la seek tor a stay oi tne ad]udicaIion declslun (‘stay app: I(ion'). on 27.9 202:, I granted an ad interim stay or the adiudication decision‘ pending rne disposal oi me Sefllrlg aside application. 3 Both |he sriian:emeri| annltcalton and the setting aside application‘ as weii as me s|ay apphcslion, were neard rogerner on 1.12.2023 I decided as follows. tai I diarriiaaao mo ialilrvg unis ivnhcznmn uv Amindn (bi ldisniissed ms siay apntmanen av Arirrnde. and (ch 1 aimed Via amoioemam appi-cation ny Land Succus 4 Here are me grounds oi my decision Background (acts 5. Pursuant la a letter at award dated 13.11 2019, Arninda app ' ed Land success as tne main corilraclor in relation to a proJec1 lor reiniorceo concrete work, steel slrucmrat wnrk and In1ra—s|mc1ura| work at a canlracl sum o1 RM2 34 million 5. Land success nad rnade seven previous interim progressive claims And Amindo nad paid an cemiiec sums ior tne seven interim ce ales to Land success Progress claim No ts was subrriilled by Land success to Ammdn var work done as at 29.1 2uz1 in the sum RM437.477.19. This was not cenined by me Supennlendenl Offioer nor paid by Amindo 7. Notwithstanding, Land success conunued to carry am the works urim near completion around September 2021. Al the request 01 Amvldflt the proieci site was handed back to Arriindo around 17 9 2021 8 Land Suooess then re — assessed and valued its work done UD wilt‘ the handing ever at me preiect in Amman Arid submitled a revised progress claim no 510 Amlndu an 2 9 2022, (DI the sum nYRM652,§72 1D as ar 29.3 2022 Th kewise was not ceruired by the Sup sndent oiiicer nor paid by Arnindo. 9. Thus a paymsnl dIspu|e arose eeiweeri Land success and Aniindo. Land suocess carnmerioed tiie adiudreanen proceeding and ciainied tor IN ueuvvnecuerymxrcurm. 3 “Nana a.ii.i luvihnrwm be u... a may i... amimiirv MVMI dnuaviml vn .riuue v-mat me arspmea sum ol RM652,572 10 agams\ Arnrnoo based on me revised progress daim no a 10 on 18 a 2023 the admdlcalar rssuea me adwdwcahun deorsron. Tne adrudrcaxor delemuned mar Armnao re [0 pay Lena success me sum of RM425,622 so wrmrn 14 days, toge|hsr mm rnteresr and cosls The eeumg asrde app ca n 11. The Ihree limbs oi semen 15 of CIFAA rehed on by Amlndo In lhe selling aerpe applrcanon are: 151 demal or narurar ruenroa by live aorupreerpr [hmb (err my me adjudlcatm has nnla:1edvndeper\deM\y oc rnrpanrauy nrrnn Lcjl, and 1:) me epruprparor has sued rn excess or rrer junsdlwon {rune (4)) 12 It appears in me lhal the selling asrde aponearron 45 premised on Annnpee grouse: about the vrnamgs made by me aojuorcaror. Armndo Is anegrng |ha| me aoruprcarer has reached ervuneous ounemsrone Vn orner words Ammdn re merely unhanny with me menrs pr rne adpmrcaupn deusmn 13 However, an aarourcarprs orrrorng 04 «acre re nor revrewaoxe in a eemng esrae apphcauon Ammdds commaunls on me errors purpunedly oonrrnmed by me aorudroaror rs In essence en apnea! agarnsr the meme 0! me apruaroarron oe on Such canned be enrenarned by |he caurl m a ssllmg aerpe eppucarrorr An appurcarron ro set aerpe an adyudicallon oeorsron enounp nor be treated as a mu 7 bluwn appeal pr rehsanng or marfls by me gudge 14 me Cmmof Appeal m AOFM Engineering .9. Consmlclran San and V Esslar Vrsrtm Sdlv Bhd & another appeal [2016] I LNS 1522 hem. -[2v] rn the context oreeorrpn 15 p/crpm 24712 rr cannot b: m. llmcflon ul rm cam rp look me or nvllw rm mlnu or me can pr to oaama ma rem orrrre paae Tm rears Ira torn». eanrpmaror In men and dsads an Tm Com‘: rurrerron in simply to rm .1 me munner In won me eqruoamor conduriud mo hunting arm wbutnor ne Mdcommmed In lrrvralllwdmmg matprubasx Sum error pr/aw males 10 wnomorhc hadacronfndpmctdunl him!!! to ma Appouanr rn ma eprmm or (ms me, me eornprarnra pr rrre Apps!/an! were rrpmrrrq but epmptainre nfllrlunl llndlnfls oltne Idludlcalor which In our Vlcw clnmzk bu onronarnerr or us em HerwWnPv.:nGYyMxIsmmar ‘ “Nana s.n.r ...n.rwrr be p... m my r... nflmrraflly mm: dnuumrrl vu murm WM 424; me law as n exlxls /"law mnzclly limit: the Own‘: nmcuons wmcn ..p....w do 7191 Includt to rivhw ms curncmess n! the mudlcslon dtclslon Awon-lledby the )earrlad)I1Dl?sl me some lrltslvwlllon ls unlym very exoepnona! wcumslanms wmcll on far and law II! ouwecn rna prlma (acre wsw 0/1/19 Com must as to a/rnn (ha Id/ufllcatofs dacuvon uness me Iosmg new can show ma: ll had eon-nnsd wan thi mmsllalds llslsd n sacrum vs a! cum 2:712 - 15 u IS not me task of the com lo conslder whether lne adjudlcalnr had answered me lssues ccnecuy am lnslead, wnslner me adludlcalor had duly consldered me velevan ues Any error by an adludlca|or can only be remedled H1 an arbllrallorl or gallon No dsn/a/ ofnamIa/ us!/cs 16 Mere verblage mm a flndlng as ‘breach ol natural lustlee‘ cannol be pevmilled For Anundc lo succeed on denial ol natural lusuee, ll musl prove that male was a lundanlenlal procedural unvanness golng lo lne roeloilne decislon, such as where one party was heard and lne omer not 17 ‘Backdoor anemple‘ lo use allegalions ol nalural iusllce lo sel aslde an adludlcanon oeclslon snould nol be allowed. so long as lne pames were aooordsd an opponunny lo present men easel lnere eannol oe a complaln: o1 denlal ol natural lustloe lsee lne coon ol Appeal case of /reka Engrneenng and Carlstruchan son Bhd v PWC Corp sdn Bhd 3. anal apnea! [2019] MLJU 35) 18 Here, Amlndo had been accorded wnn lne ophurmnily In nla lls Adjudlcallon Response. wmcn ll dld Amlndo was also accorded wiln me opponumly lo me me Paymsnl Response. oul eleeled nol to do so In any event, me nun — nung cl lne Payment Response cesrs no ellecl. as I! ls deemed lhal lne enllre claim oy Land success ls belng dlspuled. 19. cll=AA provides lor lne fllllng ol lne Adyudlcallun clalnl oy lne unpam psny, lollewed by me Adludlcalion Response by the non — paylng carry, and laelly me Adludlcallorl Reply by me unpaid parly Here, Armndo nad subsequently reouesled lo We a Relolnder. ms was allowed and Ammdo Indeed med a Relulnder There was no procedural unlalmess suflered oy Amlndo W lne ad]udica|iun pmceedlng‘ as ample nppeflunlly was accorded lo Amlndo to present NS case 20. Amlnda alleges lnal ll was denled nalural wsluce oy lne arblhatuv Hawevsr, Amlrldo and no: snow lnal II was prevenled lrom lendenng evidence or maklng suhmlsslon on the lssues ralsed In lne adludlcalion 5 sm HawWnPv.:l'lGYyMxIGmm~ “None a.n.l nuvlhnrwlll s. o... a may s. snnnnn sun. dnuuvlml Vfl .nuno Wm! proceeding it seems in ins |hal what Aniinu oonipiaining oi Is purely ins iindings reached by iris aaiuaicaioi. and how sne weighed ine evidence neioia nei niai is nu| an issue ol proceauisi a ess. 21. There niusi be no wniu fl bemesn an appiiaaiion to sel aside an adiudicalmn decision ioi denial of naiuiai iusiiaa, which ni ges un prouedural unfairness And appeahng againsllhe decision, wnien involves a veview oflhe msms onne decls n Amindu ougiii not in be pemiiuieu In rely on ma principle oi naiwai justice In set aside ina aaiuaissuon decision, piainisaa on is cnaiisnge against me miuings M ins aaiuaicaior The idudlc has not soled In excess of I nsdiciion 22 WW?! regard to the mmplainl that the adiudicalor has aded in excess cMer1unsdicliori,Am do is velying an uis siniiiai grounds as Ihuse ieiiaa on in rsspeci oi VIS oonipiainis legardmg asniai or natural iusiioe Which is naming more irian niere dissaiislaciion WI|h iris oonciusions reached by me adiiiaicaior. 23 i am salisfied that uis adjudlcalor did not aai uulside the scope oi ner appointment and the dispulss raised belore riai The Issues mined by the adiudicaluv were well wllhln the disputes ralsed by (he pames In the saiuaicsiiun proceeding The ad ud»ca!arII§§ acled inasgsnuenily or impgrialgy 24. Neiiner had Ainindo snown how the auiimicaior nad acled paniaiiy. Am do aiinpiy raised its eompiainis aver ins findings made by iris adjudicator on a 'ana / or basis And swept aii aiiniiar conipiainis to be a purpcrled meacn oi naiurai iusiice and / DI the adjudicator acted pariiaiiy and I or me aaiiiiiicami acted in excess oi her iuiisiiiicuan i consider inai Amindu is raising these auegea breaches as a backdoor way |o set aside the auiudicaiiun decision, wnicn was noi in its lavcur Ainind Cu; 25. i move on to deal wiiri me cnaiiengas raised by Aminuu AI me slart ol me aaiuaieaiiori decision, me aiiiuaicaici had sei out me issues for deieimiriaiion 1; issues IN HwwVVnPDflGYyMXIGfllLRu “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be LAIQ4 M van; i... nflginnflly MVMI dnuumnl VII nF\uNG puns! Based on me Admdlcnlmn Clam: Aflpudnzamn Rzspanse, Reoly In Aammaanon Respnnse. Relmnaer and reply in Reminder, I ma mal Ina vouowma Vssues anse\n\h\sMA\x1Aca(Inn 1 Does the new-caxor havu junsdurllan «o decide «ms Adgudmahmw cram Has me mmract been vmoefly |emumsled7 Has urne oeen sex ar Iaraew Does mu 7 oanrmuon rarae a presurnmrorr Ina! work was nm ¢ona7 rs me malmam emmed re D5 van Vulwolk acme" Has one crarrnan: arm-argue rt: ouraen or WW4 and Wnvnd rne Quanmm ul II: r..rn and naa 01: moanaann Dmvud Ilx defence and counrererarrnr 25. Ammdo am not onanenge men mese oueauorrs posed by me aorumcacor are wrong. Rather‘ Amman ra purely onauengrng me cunclusians reaoned by me Adjudicalur. wma. not |he|es|ln hsappllsd oeororng whether or nu| an adjudlcauun de un augm to be set aame. 27. I am saflisfied Ihal the adJud\ca|nr had up oonsldered me uevences rarsea by Arnrnae by Iakmg Into earrsrderauerr me documenls presented more rrerr runrung rmo over 15 pages or me aaruaroauon aecrsren under Fan S4 or; acted wlmm henurxsmclxon by aeorarng on me rasues raised by both pamea prenuseo an the raons and me documents presented. and (In) acled rrnaamany (awards oom sides 25. Here is my exnmnatrorr nrsrruaaal of Arrundo‘s ceumemlarrrr for redmcallon coils ol sloien rterns (or rnecnarw;a< and meclncal works 29. Ammdds munlelclawm fur recvfinatwan oasis 01 stolen Items hr meorrarncal and e\ec1rica| works was my cunsideved by me aorumoator The Adiudxcatcr do not wIHy mlly rmo ou\ ner runsdraron m uenernuning defence. u was only aner vakrng rmo consroe n the argumems raised. man the aaruoroacer decided lhat mas Issue rs beyond me scope or me aaruareanon. an Trns appears at Pan 5 paragrapn 1a 11! me adjudica|mn dam on, men reads we Rsipondenls counneraarrn lorlusses due \u then a we Resvurvdlm cram. m an Adgudrcatmn Respunae mm due In mans ma: occurved on me me v-mule me Cmmam was rn amupalmn M Ihe sue, the Respondent has smverea rosses as n has nan in may ror remmeauon works srn HuwvvnP\7nEYyMxIsmm-4 ’ “None s.r1a\n.nmrwmne U... a may r... nrW\n|U|y -mm: dnuamnl VI murm war In ine ernouni ol lwllea.nao.uo and RM3fl.5D0 on me Respundeni has Iflducad lnlvolces lar reeimcaison work done in Schedule 19 a. 2n. n The RespoiIderl| has pivduced police reporls by me clurnrunrs Repmierllallve issnedule 17 RBOD7 end phmogizpm In suvnml ns claim iscnedule is s. scneeule 27; c we cluimenr nes siaied in men Reply la rne Auludnzuon Raupnnse Iliai lhls aelnr ls loo wmanmus in be delernuned under llm Aflludlcailan and mac M s. 2 works were ourslde lne sodoe nhlswurk: e ins Neeoamenl claims lnel ii nr lndlsvmable rner lne Claimant had iull l:nn|m|M|V1e srle wnen in. (MN: lmk plane and me cuuneni md luiled lo nmnerly seeursine ene WHICH caused me losses Irlwrvsd i, in me Cllim-ill‘: Reply |a ins Relomdu are C\alman|sIaies|ha1lIvmu V! e lapu oi lime nerween lne dares SHDNH in pichues In Saladule 27 iii 3 mi 5 H QJD21) and me duleo lne rnelis look pleoe 122 5 mi A s 6 20217 e Dsclslorl me ioeue cl wnelner ins cl. am VS Ilahle ior lne wsii lncwrad by lne Respondem ior Iachficallm c asses caused by ineiie an me slle srems irorn a dalm in negligence men is oulilds in. scope ul lnie adjudbcahuil ins neepondenl nus lo pursue me eleun elsewhere ' 31 Amlrldu did nm cnallenge lnel ine adpudlaaioi nad asked me wmng quesllon The adjudleelor had asked me ngniqueelmn oiwnelnermrndo is enililed to ils oounierclelrn ior losses due In lneii wnei ls onellenged by Arnindo is purely ine answer giyen oy ine adludlcslar The adludlcerdr neld ihal on we issue oi lneii and negligence, Amlndo would seek lls recourse In ine civil mime. lneiead oi via a caunierdlenrn in ine adludlcallorl proceeding 32. secilcn 2 oi CVFAA siaies that CIPAA only applies In oorlslmellon work as defined in secllon 4 oi CIPAA. Section 2 oi CIPAA reeds: ‘Thu An anwes lo every oonllmcimn eonrraa rnede ur willing releuno lo Callslmchorl work umed aux wholly or only wllhlrl lne Iemlmy cl Malayxla including a wnltmnnn mn|Iac|evll.eIadIn1l7 oylne Government.‘ 33 seciion 4 a1 CIPAA read 'oons|mc1lon walk“ nreuns me wnsiiummn. exienslnn, lnslellailon. vsvalr mslnlennnce. renewal. reimuvill renwemn ellerelron, dlulnarmlrlq, or dernnllrlon Dis srn HawWnP0nGryMxIsnlLHu ‘ “Nun: s.n.l nurlhnrwm r. u... e may r... unrn.l-r mini: dnuuvlml Vfl erluria Wm! rap any bufldmg, avaclnun, amiss, stmmuve‘ wafl. «ma orchlmney, whelher wnunma whnflyur plmy azma ar kmhw gmurvd men rm any man, hamourwmks. rarmay. cableways canar or aaraarmna. (c) nnydmrnnge rmgauan nrmeronn|rc|wom (db any areannaar, nracnanrsax, walerr gas, mu Dflltachamlcm av lelecommunlcauon work, av (9) any brI¢g9,~IIadun1rdamrluewowvraanmrorks,plpehrveriswarraqueflucl. wlvsr\,dnvn,sha1|‘ lunnsi urmchmahun wurk. and mchmes . on any wurk wmch Vorms an rnneuraw pan or, u! are pupa-awry In ov nemvorary tor Iha walk: dascnbad m varaamvhs (at k: may rnaua g slla clearance, son mvnshgatuzn and Impmvumenl, eanll-moving «cannon, rayrng nflmmdilmn. mu rexlumlmn and landsclvmflr ana ta» orocurernanr al mnslmawn maxeflals, equ-prnenn or workaar at nsaesarfly reumraa «or any works described m parauvapns (aHa157.' 34. The adrudrcaxor held mail me rssue cl stolen Kems lorlhe mechamcal and eleanncax works was not within me oumram, nor the defi n or sonsuuclmn work under sacucn 4 or CIPAA srnce me scope 0! works 01 Land suaoaas am not mamas macnamcal and atecmcal works, which was assrgnaa |a one KPH Erecnnaal Engmsenng sun Ehd The adwdlcalor dacrasa mat Amindds counterclaim on the stulen electnca\ work was a mane! omslde henunsd>c1ron 35. ‘ms, the adjuurcawr retused Io adwdicate on re, and cannnaa her junsmduon tome cansnrucnon work wi in me contract pursuam |a CVPAA Ammdds chauange on ms gmund rs a mere dlssauslacfinn wrcn me adpz ‘camr's nnaxng, which us. not a ground to set aside |he adrudrcanurr The ad uu 3011 2020 and non - ennuernem m LAD as. Ammdc claims max me oampxamn dale remained at 25 32020, and the oerlificale of non » commeuon raauaa on 29. .2021: remarna vahd. Trrs aajuaraacur huwever ueamea max Arnrnaa was not enhllsd to LAD because me ungmal comple n dale was rewsed in aun.2u2u. AmIndo's cnanenge on m s agam a mere drssacrsvacnran with me adrudrcators answer to me queshon 0! whether me unne nas been set at Vargs. SIN Hr.vwvvnP\7nEYyMxIsmm-4 “ “Nana Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e U... a may r... anmnauly -mm: dnunmnl VI nF\uNfl war 37 In answsrmg nms auwien, me adjudmalcr had eonsraere-1 the argunrene and me aeeurnenrs presemed lu her Amongst erhers, at Pan P av me aanmicahen daclswon lrom paragraphs 1 to 12, and Pan 5 paragraph 22 of «he ad;udu:aIIon dec n Aller dmng so‘ me adjudwcalm concmdea Ihanhe lime Inrcnmplenon enne project had been set at large The adjudxcator lound Iha| a csmficale 0! non - cumplelinn is reqwed co enhne Ammdo to rarse non — cnmmellon and rrnpose LAD agamsl Land sueeeaa. 35 Thus appears al Pan P paragraph 12 a! me adwdwcalwon demsmn, which reads: ~: Vsswe 37 Hasllme been sem large’) 12. Decmun Clause an m me General Cowman: at Cunlmcl1ExhIh\H caom slates mar hrhe connramervsrua tn camrdele me mm: by «he dale In me Form or Tender orwnmn any extended lame Imdev Clause 3\ and me so eenrnes m wmmg - Smca we extended mrnpueoen date was an 11 mo. rhe Conlvaclnaqmves mar me so cemflas In wvmng aher 3a<12n2n mal mu wnmd be chenzsama rm Rsspomenfs epnrenhon mat nu cm: was ml reemrea Is a\sa ml aucemable as me so has prewauxy as-rep a one on 29 a mu wmch his pm reheu on rmrre Rnpondwl Amzr me 3011 mm. me (Nalmznl had mu nm wmpueree ms mas and was afluwad \a vemam on sneuu 11 9 2021 ' 39 The aanmrearor laund supporl m me supennnenaenr othoers own Indlcahon «n me eenmeane ol pmgras payrnem rm 7 that the cprnplehen dale lorlha project had been lunher re ' d m 30.11.2020 Tnrs appears at Pan P paragraph 5 M Ihe adrumcahon decisrenr wmch reads: -5 nu so lhen proceeded co exrer-a me oempnahan Dare to 30.11 me me me Is apparem vrorh cemhcsu L11 Fmgress Payment No. 7 name an 2m Deeemnar me me so has then pmmedad up aeuma me LAD er Rwaesoo up our 91 days In cenmcare m Pvugwss Fiymem up 7, Much ra pam<:u\lnzed as bemu LAD up to me data no me cenmcare or Prcgmn Faymem No 7 - A0 C\aar\y, mess were rssues vaised m the aaruarcaricn pmce pre ed on the documents presented lherem. There us no ad 0! Junsdwcmon by «he adwdxcawr How me auruurearer anmysed the am Hewvvrwcnevymxlsnxmu ‘“ “Nana a.n.r mmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... nrwhrnflly mm: dnuumnl vu aF\uNG war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-01(A)-75-02/2020

PERAYU 1. ) DATUK HAJI IDRIS BIN HAJI BUANG 2. ) DATUK SERI KAMARUDIN BIN AMBOK RESPONDEN 1. ) KETUA PENTADBIR PARLIMEN MALAYSIA , PARLIMEN MALAYSIA 2. ) Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia (Bahagian Pasca Perkhidmatan (PENCEN)) 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Amendments to pension entitlement of parliamentarians; Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2015; Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Amendment) Act 2015; retrospectivity of subsidiary legislation.

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin AdnanKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin GhazaliYA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=14e35225-9abf-4f5c-972f-5fbed0bba424&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Datuk Haji Idris Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Grounds of Judgment DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) 1 RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(A)-75-02/2020 ANTARA 1. DATUK HAJI IDRIS BIN HAJI BUJANG …PERAYU-PERAYU 2. DATUK SERI KAMARUDIN BIN AMBOK [Perayu-perayu membawa tindakan ini untuk diri mereka dan bagi pihak lain dan mewakili semua pihak dengan kepentingan dan bersama yang dinyatakan secara khusus dalam Jadual A] DAN 1. KETUA PENTADBIR PARLIMEN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA DALAM PERKARA MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: WA-24-46-08/2019 Dalam perkara mengenai seksyen 8, seksyen 2 dan seksyen 20 dalam Jadual Pertama, Akta Ahli-Ahli Parlimen (Upah) 1980; Dan Dalam perkara Akta Pindaan Ahli-Ahli Parlimen (Upah) 2015; Dan Dalam perkara artikel-artikel 5(1), 8, 132, 142 dan 160(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; 30/01/2024 10:33:34 W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Kand. 60 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 2 Dan Dalam perkara aturan 92 kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen 4, 16, 18, 21 dan 29 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen 41 dan 42 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950. ANTARA 1. DATUK HAJI IDRIS BIN HAJI BUJANG …PLAINTIF 2. DATUK SERI KAMARUDIN BIN AMBOK [Perayu-perayu membawa tindakan ini untuk diri mereka dan bagi pihak lain dan mewakili semua pihak dengan kepentingan dan bersama yang dinyatakan secara khusus dalam Jadual A] DAN 1. KETUA PENTADBIR PARLIMEN MALAYSIA …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 2. KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 3 CORAM LEE SWEE SENG JCA CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA AZIZUL AZMI BIN ADNAN JCA 5 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION [1] The appellants in this case, who were the plaintiffs at the court below, were former members of the upper house of Parliament. They retired from the Senate prior to the coming into force of the Members of Parliament 10 (Remuneration) (Amendment) Act 2015, by the terms of which salaries of the then-serving members of the Senate and House of Representatives were significantly increased. [2] The appellants argued that their pensions ought to be adjusted to account for the increased salaries of the members of the Senate. 15 Background [3] Section 3 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 provides for the salaries of members of the two Houses of Parliament. Section 8 of the Act in turn provides for the entitlement to pension, gratuity and other benefits, which is prescribed in the First Schedule to the Act. 20 [4] In 1981, the First Schedule was amended by the introduction of paragraph 19A to grant to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the power to amend the First Schedule. This power is expressed by paragraph 19B of the First Schedule to be exercisable by the Prime Minister or by any person authorised in writing by the Prime Minister. 25 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 4 [5] On 4 March 2015, in exercise of the powers under paragraph 19A, paragraph 20 of the First Schedule was amended by the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2015 (the “2015 Order”). Prior to this amendment, the pension of previous members of Parliament would be adjusted to take into account revisions in the salaries of currently serving 5 members. The original paragraph 20 read as follows: 20. Recomputation of pension and derivative pension. (1) Whenever the salaries of a Member are revised, the salary on which a pension granted under paragraph 2 or a derivative pension granted under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 is based shall be adjusted to the revised salary as appropriate and the pension or 10 derivative pension recomputed accordingly. (2) The recomputed pension under subparagraph (1) shall be payable with effect from the coming into force of the revised salaries. (3) In the case of a person who, before the coming into force of this Act, ceased to be a Member and he or his dependant is in receipt of a pension or derivative pension, 15 as the case may be, the grant of the pension or derivative pension shall be governed by the provisions of this Schedule and the salary on which a pension granted under paragraph 2 or a derivative pension granted under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 is based shall be adjusted to the salary of a Member as appropriate and the pension or derivative pension shall be recomputed accordingly and be payable with effect from the date 20 of the coming into force of this Act and thereafter such pension or derivative pension shall be recomputed and payable in accordance with subparagraphs (1) and (2) whenever there is a revision of salaries. (4) The provisions of subparagraph (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the pension payable under paragraph (b) of section 2 of the Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj 25 Pension Act 1971 [Act 22] as if it wore a pension under this Schedule and paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, as the case may be, shall apply. [6] The 2015 Order amended paragraph 20 such that there would no longer be any adjustment to pensions to account for increment in salaries of current members of Parliament. Instead, the pensioners and their entitled dependents 30 would receive an annual increment of two percent. The amended paragraph 20 reads as follows: S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 5 20. Recomputation of pension and derivative pension. (1) Any pension granted under paragraph 2 or derivative pension granted under paragraph 5 or 6 shall be adjusted each year with an increment of two percent and shall be payable from January of each year. (2) Subject to subparagraph (1) where a Member is granted a pension only upon 5 attaining the age of fifty years by reason of him becoming a Member for the first time on or after 1 July 1990 and has ceased to be a Member upon completing thirty six months of reckonable service but has not attained the age of fifty years on the date he ceased to be a Member, his pension shall be adjusted by an increment of two percent beginning from the second year he is granted the pension. 10 (3) The pension that has been adjusted under subparagraph (1) shall be payable from 1 January 2014. (4) A pension or derivative pension which is granted to— (a) a person who ceased to be a Member; or (b) the dependants of a deceased Member, 15 prior to 1 January 2014, shall first be adjusted in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act until 31 December 2013 as if the First Schedule has not been amended by this Order, before the readjustment of the pension or derivative pension is made in accordance with subparagraph (1). (5) Any pension or derivative pension which has been adjusted pursuant to 20 subparagraph (4) shall be recalculated in accordance with subparagraph (1) and shall be payable from 1 January 2014. (6) The provisions of subparagraph (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the pension payable under subparagraph 2(b) of the Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Pension Act 1971 [Act 22] as if it were a pension under this Schedule and paragraphs 5 and 6, 25 as the case may be, shall apply; [7] The amendment to paragraph 20 was effected via paragraph 2(i) of the 2015 Order. By paragraph 1(5) of the 2015 Order, paragraph 2(i) was expressed to take effect retrospectively, from 1 January 2014: Citation and commencement 30 1. (1) This order may be cited as the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2015. … S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 6 (5) Subparagraph 2(i) is deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 2014. [8] It will be observed that the 2015 Order was gazetted on 4 March 2015, but the amendment to paragraph 20 was expressed to take effect from 1 January 2014. This meant that any increases in the salary of current members of Parliament effected after 1 January 2014 would not, by the terms of the 2015 5 Order, result in an attendant increase in the pensions of retired members such as the appellants. As we shall see, this was precisely what had happened. The key and determinative question is whether subsidiary legislation like the 2015 Order was capable of taking effect retrospectively. [9] On 9 July 2015—some three months after the 2015 Order was gazetted—10 the principal Act was amended to significantly increase the salaries of currently serving members of Parliament. [10] Immediately prior to the introduction of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment) Act 2015 (the “2015 Amendment Act”), the monthly salaries of members of the Senate and House of Representatives were 15 RM4,112.79 and RM6,508.59 respectively. The 2015 Amendment Act increased these amounts to RM11,000 and RM16,000 respectively. This amendment was expressed to take effect retrospectively, from 1 January 2015. [11] For members of the Senate, the increment represented a 167.46% increase in salaries, whereas for members of the lower house, the percentage 20 increase was 145.83%. [12] As explained, the appellants did not, ex facie, enjoy any increment to their pensions, because the 2015 Order was expressed to take effect from 1 January 2014. This was when their pensions would be pegged to an annual two percent S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 7 increase. The increase in the salaries brought about by the 2015 Amendment Act only took effect after, on 1 January 2015. The appellants’ case [13] The following were the principal arguments raised in the appellants’ originating summons and in submissions before the High Court: 5 (a) it was claimed that the amendments to paragraph 20 of the First Schedule: (i) contravened articles 132, 147 and 160(2) of the Federal Constitution and were thus unconstitutional. These provisions of the Constitution, according to the appellants, protected their 10 rights to pension, and any amendment resulting in less favourable terms would therefore be unconstitutional; (ii) contravened the provisions of sections 8 and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, the legislative intent of such provisions as well as the original paragraphs 2 and 20 of the 15 First Schedule to the Act; and (iii) was intended solely to address the effects of inflation and as such did not equate to the right of the appellants to receive recomputed and revised pension payments; (b) the appellants further claimed that they had acquired vested rights for 20 their pension to be reckoned as a proportion of the current salaries of members of the Senate; and S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 8 (c) it was further claimed that the appellants were possessed of a legitimate expectation for their pensions to be revised whenever there was an attendant revision to the salaries of currently serving members of the Senate. [14] It will be observed that the issue regarding the retrospectivity of the 2015 5 Order was not raised before the High Court. At the High Court [15] The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims. The decision of the High Court may be summarised as follows: (a) the amendments effected by the 2015 Order to paragraph 20 of the 10 First Schedule to the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 was clear and unambiguous, and the court was bound to give effect to its terms, which was that, with effect from 1 January 2014, the pension of the appellants would be subject to a 2% annual increase; (b) the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act was also clear and 15 unambiguous, which was that the increase in salaries would apply only to serving members of Parliament with effect from 1 January 2015; (c) reliance may not be placed on the superseded provisions of paragraph 20 of the First Schedule, as these had been amended and ceased to be the law; 20 (d) the contention that the amendments to paragraph 20 introduced by the 2015 Order was unconstitutional was not made out because: S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 9 (i) the appellants’ pension payments were in no way reduced by amended paragraph 20, and hence there could not be said to be contravention of article 147(1) of the Federal Constitution, which provides for the protection of pension rights; and (ii) in any event, the appellants, as members of the Senate, were not 5 part of the public services within the meaning of the Federal Constitution and hence were not accorded the protection under article 147(1); and (e) the doctrine of legitimate expectation had no application in this case, because there was no entitlement or recognition at law that could be 10 said to give rise to any such legitimate expectation. [16] At the High Court, the appellants were directed to bear costs of RM5,000. The arguments before us [17] In the course of submissions before this court, it became apparent that the 2015 Order purported to take effect retrospectively. As explained above, the 15 issue of retrospectivity of subordinate legislation had not been argued before the court below. We directed counsel to address this, as well as other points, in further submissions. The initial hearing date was 27 October 2023, and we heard further arguments on 15 December 2023. [18] We were of the view that the issue of whether the 2015 Order could have 20 retrospective effect was entirely a question of law. As a general rule, points of law entitling the party raising them to judgment must be made at first instance, and if they are not then made, they cannot be raised at the appeal stage: Banbury v Bank of Montreal [1918] AC 626 (HL). The courts nonetheless have S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 10 an untrammelled discretion to allow a question of law to be raised for the first time on appeal, as an exception to this general rule. The court may allow a new point of law to be raised by the parties for the first time before it where the interests of justice so require: Pengusaha, Tempat Tahanan Perlindungan Kamunting, Taiping v Badrul Zaman bin PS Md Zakariah [2018] 12 MLJ 49 (FC). 5 The question of whether the interests of justice are met depends on the peculiar facts of each case: Luggage Distributors v Tan Hor Teng [1995] 3 CLJ 520 (CA). Two clear exceptions to the general rule are where the new point of law relates to illegality or jurisdiction: Mentari Sekitar v Heritage Property [2016] 3 CLJ 382 (CA), but the categories of cases are not closed: Luggage Distributors, ibid. A 10 party seeking to raise a new point of law in appeal must first seek leave of the Court of Appeal if that new point has not been set out in the memorandum of appeal: rule 18(2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994. [19] We considered that, given that the ramifications of the claim extended beyond just the appellants in the present case, it was in the interests of justice 15 that all legal points be completely canvassed before the court. We were also cognisant that, under rule 18(2), the court in determining the outcome of the appeal is not limited to the grounds of objection set out in the memorandum of appeal. Summary of findings 20 [20] The findings of this court are summarised below: (a) we discern no error on the part of the High Court in addressing the arguments canvassed before it; S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 11 (b) we nonetheless allow the appeal, on grounds that the 2015 Order did not have retrospective effect, for the reasons explained in the following paragraphs; (c) the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, on its proper construction, did not permit for subsidiary legislation made under it to 5 have retrospective effect. It must therefore follow that the 2015 Order could only take effect on the date of its gazette, which was on 4 March 2015; (d) the payment of pensions to parliamentarians are provided under the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, which on its proper 10 construction establishes that the pension of eligible parliamentarians is an entitlement and therefore (in our view) enforceable in a court of law. This differs from the position of a pensionable officer under the Pensions Act 1980; (e) accordingly, the appellants were possessed of the right to receive a 15 pension that was in proportion to the then-current salaries of serving parliamentarians. This was a clearly a pre-existing and accrued right. In our considered view, the 2015 Order could not have the effect of modifying retrospectively such right of the appellants, due to the proper operation of section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 20 and 1967; (f) by contrast, the 2015 Amendment Act did have retrospective effect (due to the powers of Parliament to legislate retrospectively), and thus when there was an increase in the salaries of current members of the Senate from RM4,112.79 to RM11,000, there was a concordant 25 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 12 increase in the pension entitlement of the appellants as at 1 January 2015. From 4 March 2015 (being the date the 2015 Order actually came into force), further increases in the pension of the appellants would be at a rate of 2% per annum, in accordance with the amended paragraph 20 of the First Schedule. 5 [21] The summary in the preceding paragraphs should be read as being subject to what follows. These grounds constitute the judgment of the court. ANALYSIS [22] We saw no error in the reasoning adopted by the High Court in addressing the arguments raised before it. We do not propose to address in detail the initial 10 grounds of appeal raised before us, except to state that the arguments advanced for the appellants were not made out. In particular, the appellants were not members of the public service, and hence the protection accorded under article 147(1) of the Federal Constitution did not apply. [23] The crisp issue before us was whether it was permissible for subsidiary 15 legislation to have retrospective effect. It is well established that the legislature can always promulgate laws that have retrospective effect, subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Do the same principles apply to delegated legislation? The applicable principles 20 [24] The search for the answer to the question must begin with section 20 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, which provides as follows: S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 13 Section 20. Subsidiary legislation may be retrospective. Notwithstanding the absence of any express provision in any Act or other written law, where such Act or other written law empowers any person to make subsidiary legislation, such subsidiary legislation may be made to operate retrospectively to any date which is not earlier than the commencement of the Act or other written law 5 under which it is made or, where different provisions of that law come into operation on different dates, the commencement of that law under which it is made: Provided that no person shall be made or shall become liable to any penalty in respect of any act done before the date on which the subsidiary legislation was published. 10 [25] The expression “subsidiary legislation” is defined in section 2 to include orders such as the 2015 Order. It can thus be seen that section 20 appears to provide that subsidiary legislation may be promulgated in such a manner as to give it retrospective effect, provided of course that the effective date of the subsidiary legislation cannot pre-date the commencement of its principal Act. 15 [26] The effect of amendments to laws must be construed in accordance with section 30(1) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, which among others preserves rights and privileges accrued under the repealed provisions. Section 30(1) provides as follows: Section 30. Matters not affected by repeal. 20 (1) The repeal of a written law in whole or in part shall not— (a) affect the previous operation of the repealed law or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed law; or 25 (c) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under the repealed law; or (d) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment, S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 14 and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing law had not been made. [27] Sections 20 and 30 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 were considered by the Court of Appeal in Syed Ibrahim bin Syed Mohd v Esso 5 Production Malaysia [2004] 2 MLJ 49. In that case, the plaintiff appellants were employees of Esso Production Malaysia Incorporated, the respondent defendant. The appellants were engaged in offshore petroleum-related activities under a contract between Esso and Petronas, but were denied certain entitlements due to them under Part XII of the Employment Act 1955, such as 10 rest day pay, annual leave and overtime. The appellants made a claim with the Department of Labour. After their claim was lodged but before it was determined, the Minister of Human Resources issued the Employment (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1997, which exempted Petronas and its contractors from compliance with the provisions of Part XII of the Employment Act 1955. The 15 Employment (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1997 was expressed to take effect retrospectively, from 1 October 1974. [28] The Court of Appeal found that the Employment (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1997 did not have the effect of defeating the accrued rights of the appellants in that case. 20 [29] The precise ratio decidendi of the case of Syed Ibrahim bin Syed Mohd v Esso Production Malaysia is somewhat elusive, as the passages of the judgment of the court appears to suggest two differently nuanced conclusions. [30] The first can be derived from the following paragraph of the judgment: [I]t is clear to us that a subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect would be 25 applicable to procedural matter and not to a right. As such to consider whether a S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 15 subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect is void or otherwise, a distinction should be made whether that subsidiary legislation affects a procedural matter or a right. If it affects a procedural matter then it would be effective on the date appointed but then a procedural matter could become a right as illustrated in the authorities above and once it becomes a right it could not be taken away 5 retrospectively. There is an exception to this rule in that where the parent Act by express provision or by implication provides for the making of the subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect as stated in Kerajaan Malaysia v. Wong Pot Heng & Anor. The High Court decision was reported in [1992] 2 MLJ 885, while the Federal Court decision was reported in [1997] 1 MLJ 437. 10 [31] The passage quoted above may be summed as follows: a piece of subsidiary legislation can always have retrospective effect if it only affects matters of procedure. Where however the subsidiary legislation affects rights (or where a matter of procedure becomes a right), then the subsidiary legislation can only have retrospective effect if the principal Act expressly or by necessary 15 implication so provides. Put another way, there must be an empowering provision in the parent Act before subsidiary legislation made under that Act can have retrospective effect. The passage quoted also suggests that, if the subsidiary legislation affecting rights purports to have retrospective effect but is not empowered by the enabling legislation to have retrospective effect, then the 20 subsidiary legislation is void to the extent that it purports to take effect prior to the date of its gazette. [32] Further in the judgment of the court, it was stated: In our view, the effect of s. 30(1) of the Interpretation Acts is not to have the Exemption Order be declared null and void but gives right which was filed before the 25 Exemption Order was promulgated (in this case the date of the gazette) would be proceeded upon as if the Exemption Order was never made. [33] This passage suggests a slightly different conclusion, which is that subsidiary legislation in question does not become null or void, but would simply be ineffective to defeat a prior accrued right. 30 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 16 [34] The Court of Appeal in Syed Ibrahim bin Syed Mohd v Esso Production Malaysia referred to the case of Wong Pot Heng v Kerajaan Malaysia [1992] 2 MLJ 885. [35] The first plaintiff in the latter case had been wrongfully dismissed from employment. He obtained a substantial award for backwages and termination 5 benefits from the Industrial Court. The second plaintiff obtained a judgment for a similarly substantial sum for wrongful termination of his contract of service. Their employer at the time was the Co-operative Central Bank Ltd (“CCB”), which subsequently suffered a financial collapse. As a result, Bank Negara Malaysia appointed receivers in respect of the assets of CCB. 10 [36] On 25 July 1991, the Essential (Protection of Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 were introduced, which amended subsidiary legislation previously issued under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979. These amendments were expressed to take effect retrospectively, from 23 July 1986. [37] As a result of these amendments, the receivers were empowered to repay 15 the depositors of CCB in priority to the debts of the plaintiffs in that case. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the Essential (Protection of Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 on grounds that they were ultra vires and void because they purported to take effect retrospectively. The plaintiffs contended that their debts ought to rank pari passu with those of the depositors. 20 [38] At first instance, the High Court was of the view that the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 did not confer upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the power to make emergency regulations taking retrospective effect, and that the provisions of the Essential (Protection of Depositors) (Amendment) Regulations S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 17 1991 which purported to take retrospective effect were “invalid to the extent that they were made to operate retrospectively”. [39] The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Federal Court (see Kerajaan Malaysia v Wong Pot Heng [1997] 1 MLJ 437). [40] Following the decision in Kerajaan Malaysia v Wong Pot Heng, section 20 5 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 was amended in 1997. The additional wording that was inserted by the 1997 amendment is underlined in the following table: Prior to amendment Post the Interpretation (Amendment) Act 1997 20 Subsidiary legislation may be retrospective Subsidiary legislation may be made to operate retrospectively to any date which is not earlier than the commencement of the Act or other written law under which it is made or, where different provisions of that law come into operation on different dates, the commencement of that law under which it is made: Provided that no person shall be made or shall become liable to any penalty in respect of any act done before the date on which the subsidiary legislation was published. 20 Subsidiary legislation may be retrospective Notwithstanding the absence of any express provision in any Act or other written law, where such Act or other written law empowers any person to make subsidiary legislation, such subsidiary legislation may be made to operate retrospectively to any date which is not earlier than the commencement of the Act or other written law under which it is made or, where different provisions of that law come into operation on different dates, the commencement of that law under which it is made: Provided that no person shall be made or shall become liable to any penalty in respect of any act done before the date on which the subsidiary legislation was published. [41] According to the Court of Appeal in Syed Ibrahim bin Syed Mohd v Esso 10 Production Malaysia, this amendment would not have changed the result in Kerajaan Malaysia v Wong Pot Heng or the principle that a principal Act must S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 18 still empower the making of retrospective subsidiary legislation, in order for such subsidiary legislation to have effect retrospectively. The Court of Appeal stated: The amendment was adding the words "Notwithstanding the absence of any express provision in any Act or other written law empowers any person to make subsidiary legislation, such..." to the original s. 20. The decision of Wong Pot Heng & Anor made 5 it clear that a person is empowered to make subsidiary legislation only when the parent Act provides the person with such power. For that subsidiary legislation to have retrospective effect the parent Act must also provide that person to make the subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect. This power could not be provided by s. 20 of the Interpretation Acts. It was contended in Wong Pot Heng & Anor even 10 though the Yang di-Pertuan Agong was not provided with the power to make subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect by the parent Act, he could do so by s. 20 of the Interpretation Acts which empowered him to do. This contention was rejected by the High Court and the Federal Court. The Federal Court went on to state that the Interpretation Acts are nothing more than interpreting words and phrases 15 of the statutes. They have no legislative power to provide a person to make a subsidiary legislation with retrospective effect. The power for a person to make a subsidiary legislation must be provided by the parent Act itself and not by the provisions of the Interpretation Acts. The full explanation is stated in the judgments we have cited earlier. Though s. 20 of the Interpretation Acts had been amended by 20 the addition of several words it would not change their character as Interpretation Acts. For that reason, the decision of Wong Pot Heng & Anor is still binding and the amendment to s. 20 had not changed the situation. In order to give the Exemption Order its retrospective effect, the Act must make provisions for it. There is no such provisions in the Act. 25 [42] The applicable principles may thus be summed up in the following manner. Parliament possesses plenary powers of legislation, and is competent to legislate with retrospective effect, subject to any restriction in the Federal Constitution (see Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187). [43] A piece of subsidiary legislation can always have retrospective effect if it 30 only affects matters of procedure. Where however the subsidiary legislation affects vested or accrued rights or privileges, then the subsidiary legislation can only have retrospective effect if the principal Act expressly or by necessary implication provides that the subsidiary legislation may take effect retrospectively. If the subsidiary legislation affecting rights or privileges purports 35 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 19 to have retrospective effect but is not empowered by the enabling legislation to have retrospective effect, then the subsidiary legislation is ineffective to defeat a pre-existing or accrued right or privilege, due to section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. In such a case, the subsidiary legislation would only take effect from the date of its gazette. 5 Is there a right to receive pension? [44] The respondents argue that there is no absolute right to any pension, and that it is paid gratuitously at the election of the state. If this is so, it follows that there will not exist any right in respect of pensions that may be enforceable in the courts. Furthermore, if the appellants are not possessed of any right to 10 pension, section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 would not operate to prevent the 2015 Order from taking retrospective effect. [45] Even though there exists authority for the proposition that members of the public service do not have an absolute right to pension, the appellants in this case are not members of the public service receiving pensions under the 15 Pensions Act 1980. Rather, the payment of pensions to parliamentarians are provided under the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, which on its proper construction establishes that pension is an entitlement and therefore (in our view) enforceable in a court of law. [46] The respondents cited the case of Haji Wan Othman v Government of the 20 Federation of Malaya [1965] 2 MLJ 31 in support of their arguments. The plaintiffs in that case were retired civil servants who had accepted the option of receiving a lump sum gratuity in return for a reduced pension at the rate of ¾ of their full pension. They argued that, after a lapse of 10 years following retirement, their pension should revert to the full amount. 25 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 20 [47] Suffian J refused the plaintiffs’ claim in that case, holding that pensions are not payable by reason of any contract between the government and its employees. Rather, the power to grant pensions is couched purely in permissive terms in the Pensions Ordinance 1951, which also expressly precludes any absolute right to pension. The relevant passages are instructive and bears 5 reproduction in extenso: There is no doubt that it is in Government's interest to pay pensions because they ensure devoted service and the retention of the service of experienced and skilled officers, but pensions are not payable by Government because of a contract with its employees; they are payable by virtue of the Pensions Ordinance, 1951, and its 10 predecessor from which it departs little if at all. The Ordinance does not say that when a public servant has worked so many years at such and such a salary he shall be entitled to receive so much pension a month from Government. Section 3(1) merely says that it shall be lawful for the relevant authority "to make regulations for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances to persons 15 who have been in the public service …" Section 4 says that these pensions, gratuities and allowances are charged on the general revenues of the Government. Pension regulation 5 says that every pensionable officer who has served not less than ten years may on his retirement be granted a pension and then it proceeds to give the formula for calculating the rate of the pension payable. 20 Not a word is said about the officer being entitled to anything, the whole tenor of the legislation being permissive, the relevant authority being merely authorised, not compelled, by the legislature to do this and that for the retired officer. It is undoubted that legally a member of the public service holds office during the pleasure of the Head of State, even before the enactment of clause (2A) of Article 25 132 of the Constitution, and he may therefore be retired or dismissed without compensation. Should there be any doubt about this, section 5 of the Ordinance in the most emphatic terms provides: "(1) No officer shall have an absolute right to compensation for past services 30 or to any pension, gratuity or other allowance under this Ordinance, nor shall anything in this Ordinance contained limit the right of the Federal Government or, as the case may be, of the Government of any State to dismiss any officer without compensation. (2) Where it is established to the satisfaction of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that 35 an officer has been guilty of negligence, irregularity, or misconduct, it shall be S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 21 lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to reduce or altogether to withhold the pension, gratuity or other allowance for which such officer would have become eligible but for the provisions of this section." In view of these very explicit provisions I do not see how I can declare that these pensioners who were paid a lump sum gratuity and have lived more than ten years 5 after their retirement are entitled to draw their full pension on the expiration of that ten year period until their death. … If I am right in my interpretation, pensioners would do well to consider pursuing their cause in Parliament rather than in the courts. Pensions are paid out of public money 10 and under the Constitution no public money may be expended without legislative authority and the only legislative authority in existence today does not permit the executive to pay a pensioner his full pension if he has ever taken a gratuity. Only Parliament may enlarge this authority. [48] The case went on appeal to the Federal Court (reported as Haji Wan 15 Othman v Government of the Federation of Malaya [1966] 2 MLJ 42), where Thomson LP in delivering the leading judgment declined to address the question of whether there existed a right to pension. He stated as follows: Now, I do not propose to examine the precise nature of the "rights", if any, which the pensions law confers upon those for whose benefit it was enacted and the question 20 of how far, if at all, these rights are a proper subject for determination by the courts. On the one hand there is much to be said for what would appear to have been the view of the trial judge that there are no such rights capable of being determined by the courts. Section 5 of the 1951 Ordinance contains this provision:– "No officer shall have an absolute right to compensation for past services or to 25 any pension, gratuity or other allowance under this Ordinance". That is substantially the same as section 30 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, and regarding that section Lord Hanworth said in the Court of Appeal in the case of Nixon v. Attorney-General, supra (at p. 592), that it "destroys the possibility of a claim of legal right". The same point was thus put by Viscount Dunedin in the House of Lords 30 (at p. 191):– "Section 30 of the Act of 1834 says there is to be no absolute right. My Lords, to get out of a provision that you are not to have an absolute right a positive provision that you are to have a right, is an argument which has only to be stated to be rejected." 35 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 22 On the other hand the analogy with the United Kingdom legislation can be carried too far. Our law does not contain anything which, on the face of it at any rate, corresponds with such provisions as the proviso to section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1866, or section 9 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, all of which make it clear in terms that the determination 5 of questions of the amount of pensions and gratuities is for the Treasury. I am, however, as I have said, reluctant to express any views on the point in the light of the discussion to which we have listened in the present case. It would be impossible to do so without expressing views that might have a bearing on the general question of how far the "rights" of public servants are justiciable under the 10 present Constitution, a question which could not be determined without going into the question of the distribution among the present constitutional organs of the powers which in Great Britain make up the prerogatives of the Crown. Moreover, that question may require consideration of the Irish Free State cases (Wigg Attorney- General [1927] AC 674 and In re Transferred Civil Servants (Ireland) Compensation 15 [1927] AC 674) and in the present proceedings neither side has attempted to derive any assistance from these cases. [49] We observe that the current Pensions Act 1980 adopts much the same formulae as its predecessor legislation. For instance, section 9, which is the principal operative provision creating a power to grant pensions, remains 20 permissive in nature, and does not create any obligation on the part of the state to pay pension: Section 9. Grant of pension, etc. (1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may grant a pension, gratuity or other benefit to a pensionable officer on— 25 (a) compulsory retirement under section 10; or (b) optional retirement under section 12 after completing a period of not less than ten years' reckonable service; or (c) retirement under section 11. [50] Section 3(1) follows the same language previously contained in section 5 30 of the Pension Ordinance 1951: S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 23 Section 3. Pension, etc. not an absolute right. (1) No officer shall have an absolute right to compensation for past service or to any pension, gratuity or other benefit under this Act. [51] However, the appellants in the present case do not receive their pensions under and by virtue of the Pensions Act 1980. The respondents, by the own 5 submissions, acknowledge that the appellants were not, during their tenure as senators, members of the public service. Instead, the appellants receive pension pursuant to the provisions of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980. Upon a proper construction of this Act, pension is an entitlement of eligible parliamentarians. 10 [52] Section 8 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 provides as follows: Section 8. Pensions and gratuities. A Member shall be entitled to such pension, gratuity and other benefits as are prescribed in the First Schedule. 15 [Emphasis added] [53] Now, if the First Schedule is examined, it appears to adopt the permissive “may” rather than the imperative “shall” in its operative provisions. For instance, paragraph 2 of the First Schedule provides as follows: 2. Pension for Members. 20 (1) A person who ceases to be a Member may be granted a pension if he has completed 36 months of reckonable service. [Emphasis added] [54] Despite this, we are of the view that, on a proper construction of the Act as a whole, pension remains a right of eligible parliamentarians. We have 25 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 24 referred to section 8, which provides that pension is an entitlement of the eligible members of Parliament. It is also not insignificant, in our view, that the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 does not contain any equivalent provision to section 3(1) of the Pensions Act 1980, which expressly precludes the existence of a right of a retired member of the public service to 5 pension. Furthermore, paragraph 19 of the First Schedule references pension and derivative pension as a “right or privilege”: 19. Regulations. (1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may make regulations for the better carrying out of this Schedule. 10 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (1)— (a) where a person or Member who before the coming into force of this Act had acquired any right or privilege in relation to pension or gratuity under the law repealed under section 13 and no provision exists in this Schedule to deal with this right or privilege, the regulations may provide for such right or privilege to 15 continue with such modification as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong deems fit; (b) where as a result of the implementation of the provisions of this Schedule a situation arises involving a determination whether a right or privilege in relation to a pension or derivative pension should, having regard to the principles underlying the provisions of this Schedule, accrue to a person who 20 had ceased to be a Member between the period 31 August 1957 and the date of the coming into force of this Act or to the dependants of such person, and justice and equity require it to be dealt with, the regulations may provide for the conferment of a right or privilege to such person upon such terms and conditions as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong deems fit. 25 [Emphasis added] [55] Thus, while the operative provisions granting pension (such as in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule) is expressed as being merely permissive, once pension has already been granted, that pension is referred to in the First Schedule as a right or privilege. 30 S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 25 [56] We are of the view therefore that the legal position relating to pension of members of the two houses of Parliament is as follows. The payment of pension under the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 remains a matter for the discretion of the state, exercisable through the powers granted under section 8 of the Act and paragraph 2 of the First Schedule. However, once 5 pension is granted, the eligible member of Parliament becomes possessed of a right to continue to receive the pension, on terms specified under the Act. This, in our considered view, is the only reasonable construction in light of the express words used in the Act. This right is one that may be enforced through a court of law. 10 Is the appellants’ right to pension saved by section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967? [57] It will be recalled that the Court of Appeal in Syed Ibrahim bin Syed Mohd v Esso Production Malaysia was of the view that the exemption order issued by the Minister of Human Resource could not have retrospective effect because 15 (among others) the rights of the plaintiffs in that case to benefits under Part XII of the Employment Act 1955 had already accrued, and were thus protected under section 30(1)(b) and (d) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. [58] Before us, it was advanced for the respondents that, because the right to the increased pension had not yet accrued or vested as at 1 January 2014 (being 20 the date on which amendment to paragraph 20 of the First Schedule was expressed to take effect under the 2015 Order), section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 did not operate to save such right from being extinguished by the retrospective amendment. The increase in the salaries of serving parliamentarians only took effect as at 1 January 2015, through the 2015 25 Amendment Act. S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 26 [59] We are in total agreement with Mr Liew for the respondents, that the right to receive a pension that was adjusted in accordance with the increase in salaries effected through the 2015 Amendment Act had not yet accrued as at 1 January 2014. For this reason, the unaccrued inchoate right to receive an increased pension was not saved by the section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 5 and 1967, the material portion of which reads as follows: (1) The repeal of a written law in whole or in part shall not— … (b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed law; or 10 [Emphasis added] [60] However, at the time the amendment to paragraph 20 was expressed to take effect, the appellants were possessed of the right to receive a pension that was in proportion to the then-current salaries of serving parliamentarians. This was a clearly a pre-existing and accrued right (even if the right to receive the 15 167.46% increase had not yet accrued). In our considered view, the 2015 Order could not have the effect of modifying retrospectively such right of the appellants, due to the proper operation of section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. Does the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 permit subsidiary 20 legislation to be take effect retrospectively? [61] We have concluded that the appellants were possessed of the right to receive a pension that was a proportion of the then-salaries of senators. This right was purported to have been modified retrospectively by the promulgation of the 2015 Order. Having carefully examined the Members of Parliament 25 (Remuneration) Act 1980, we were unable to conclude that the Act expressly or S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 27 by necessary implication provides for orders made under the Act to have retrospective effect. It must therefore follow that the 2015 Order could only take effect on the date of its gazette, which was on 4 March 2015. [62] Mr Liew for the respondents argued that the wording of paragraph 19A of the First Schedule itself empowers the making of retrospective amendments to 5 the First Schedule. Paragraph 19A provides as follows: 19A. Amendment of Schedule by order. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order amend this Schedule where it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do, and any amendment so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Schedule. 10 [63] We were unable to agree with this submission. Paragraph 19A simply delegates the power to amend the First Schedule to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, which may be effected by way of an order. Thus, the First Schedule can be amended by way of subsidiary legislation, without the need to amend the principal Act by way of an amendment Act. Once the order has been made to 15 amend the First Schedule, the amendments takes effect as though they had been enacted in the Schedule. This does not, whether expressly or by necessary implication, mean that such order can be made to have retrospective effect. Conclusion [64] Due to: 20 (a) the existence of the accrued right of the appellants to receive pension as a proportion of then-current salaries of existing parliamentarian; and S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 28 (b) the absence of provisions in the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 providing (whether expressly or by necessary implication) for orders made pursuant to paragraph 19A of the First Schedule to have retrospective effect, we are of the view that the 2015 Order did not have retrospective effect and 5 could only come into force on 4 March 2015, being the day on which the 2015 Order was gazetted. [65] By contrast, the 2015 Amendment Act did have retrospective effect (due to the powers of Parliament to legislate retrospectively), and thus when there was an increase in the salaries of current members of the Senate from 10 RM4,112.79 to RM11,000, there was a concordant increase in the pension entitlement of the appellants as at 1 January 2015. From 4 March 2015 (being the date the 2015 Order actually came into force), further increases in the pension of the appellants would be at a rate of 2% per annum, in accordance with the amended paragraph 20 of the First Schedule. 15 [66] The appeal is thus allowed accordingly. We set aside the order of the court below and direct that each party bear their own costs in this appeal. 30 January 2024 Azizul Azmi bin Adnan 20 Judge of the Court of Appeal S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal W-01(A)-75-02/2020 Datuk Haji Idris bin Haji Bujang v Ketua Pentadbir Parlimen Malaysia 29 For the appellants: Mr Krishna Dallumah, Mr Indran V. Kumaguru & Ms Nasuha Badrul Din—Messrs Krishna Dallumah & Indran For the respondents: En Rahazlan Affandi bin Abdul Rahim (Senior Federal Counsel), Mr Liew Horng Bin (Senior Federal Counsel) & Ms Nurul Muhaimin binti Mohd Azman (Federal Counsel)—Attorney General’s Chambers, Malaysia S/N JVLjFLaXEXL10LukJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22C-6-07/2021

PLAINTIF SURIA ACTIVE RESOURCES SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN 1. ) LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN WILAYAH PULAU PINANG ( PERDA) 2. ) KHALIQ MEHTAB BIN MOHD ISHAQ 3. ) MALCONSTRUKT SDN. BHD. 4. ) DATO' HAJI MOHD HANIFFA BIN SHAIK MOHAMED 5. ) DATO' MOHAMMAD NOR BIN SAAT

1. These are the pleaded causes of action against each Defendant. Against D1/PERDA—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D2—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. Against D3Co—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D4 and D5—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty.2. The Plaintiff applies under Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 to enter summary judgment against all the Defendants.3. Should summary judgment be entered?

30/01/2024

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4cf561b1-fa01-4620-8707-c377b54a615f&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL (PEMBINAAN) NO: PA-22C-6-07/2021 ANTARA SURIA ACTIVE RESOURCES SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 712809-V) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. PENANG REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PERDA) [yang juga dikenali sebagai “Lembaga Kemajuan Wilayah Pulau Pinang”] …DEFENDAN PERTAMA 2. KHALIQ MEHTAB BIN MOHD ISHAQ (NO. K/P: 760625-02-5577) …DEFENDAN KEDUA 3. MALCONSTRUKT SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 159751-T) …DEFENDAN KETIGA 4. DATO’ HAJI MOHD HANIFFA BIN SHAIK MOHAMED (NO. K/P: 560323-07-5003) …DEFENDAN KEEMPAT 5. DATO’ MOHAMMAD NOR BIN SAAT (NO. K/P: 630607-02-6001) …DEFENDAN KELIMA JUDGMENT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION) PRELUSION [1] The Plaintiff (P) filed an application to record summary judgment (SJ Application) against all the Defendants for approximately RM3.14 million 30/01/2024 10:05:10 PA-22C-6-07/2021 Kand. 182 S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 for construction works done as the Rescue Contractor for the 1st Defendant’s (D1/PERDA) mixed housing development project. [2] Should summary judgment be granted to P? THE LAW ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT [3] For reference, Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 is set out here— Order 14. Summary judgment Application by plaintiff for summary judgment (O. 14, r. 1) 1. (1) Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant. Judgment for plaintiff (O. 14, r. 3) 3. (1) Unless on the hearing of an application under rule 1 either the Court dismisses the application or the defendant satisfies the Court with respect to the claim, or the part of a claim, to which the application relates that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of that claim or part, the Court may give such judgment for the plaintiff against that defendant on S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 that claim or part as may be just having regard to the nature of the remedy or relief claimed. [4] From case law, there are principles that I am mindful to heed. The first is the principle that when the parties assert certain facts or issues or reasons that bear on the merits of a SJ Application, I am not bound to accept those assertions just because the parties made them. I must evaluate the cogency of the assertion, and consider whether the assertion is tenable, or plausible, or reasonable: Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400 (SC); [1992] 1 CLJ 627; [1992] 1 MLRA 190. [5] The second principle is that I must evaluate whether the facts or issues or reasons raised by the Defendants amount to a “fairly arguable defence” to the claim, such that I have a “reasonable doubt” against granting judgment summarily: Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 183 (SC); [1987] 1 CLJ 246; [1986] 1 MLRA 269. [6] The third principle is that when I am deliberating on the facts or issues or reasons raised by the Defendant, the question that I am to determine is—are they bona fide triable issues i.e. issues that require determination by trial?—Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281 (CA); [1995] 1 AMR 622; [2000] 1 CLJ 503; [1995] 1 MLRA 48. [7] The law on summary judgment is well established. The principle for the grant and the defeat of a SJ Application is well settled. A triable S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 issue defeats a SJ Application. In other words, the Defendants need to demonstrate that a trial is required for P to prove its claim against them. [8] Put differently, just from an analysis of the parties’ respective Pleadings and Affidavits, as well as the documentary evidence referred to—when the Court is not persuaded to by-pass a trial to enter judgment summarily against the Defendants, then the SJ Application must fail. [9] Another way of putting it is that it must be obvious to the Court that the Defendants have no defence on the merits, before summary judgment is granted. THE PARTIES AND THE PERTINENT PLEADED FACTS [10] P is a construction industry contractor. D1/PERDA is a statutory body whose purpose is to develop the state of Penang. The 2nd Defendant (D2) is D1/PERDA’s Chairman. The 3rd Defendant company (D3Co) is a construction company. The 4th and 5th Defendants (D4D5) are D3Co’s directors and shareholders. [11] D1/PERDA is the owner of the subject project. [12] D3Co is the main contractor for D1/PERDA’s project. [13] P was brought in as a Rescue Contractor to complete the construction works for the project. P’s CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] These are the pleaded causes of action against each Defendant. Against D1/PERDA—the cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D2—the cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. Against D3Co— the cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D4 and D5—the cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. TRIABLE ISSUES [15] From the Pleadings and the Affidavit evidence, I find that there are several triable issues— (1) Did D1/PERDA consent or agree to P completing D3Co’s works? Did PERDA consent to the Deed Of Assignment of works by D3Co to P? (2) Clause 47.2 of the Project Contract provides that D3Co cannot contract out the works without the written consent of the Supervising Officer under the construction contract. It is asserted that there is no such written consent. It goes to the liability of Defendants, particularly the liability of D1/PERDA and D3Co to P; (3) Did D1/PERDA consent or agree to the direct payment arrangement, where D1/PERDA pays into D3Co’s account, but the money is taken by P? (4) Did D1/PERDA, by conduct, accept P’s alleged appointment as the Rescue Contractor? Evidence needs to be led to include the evidence of both D1/PERDA’s and P’s participation in the site meetings and the rescue work; S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (5) Under the Deed Of Assignment, who—D1/PERDA or D3Co— is liable for the Variation Works? (6) The amount prayed for in P’s SJ Application differs from the amount claimed in P’s Statement Of Claim. And then there is the additional prayer (2) in P’s SJ Application. These differences or discrepancies need to be evidentially explained or justified in a trial, and not summarily presented in a summary proceeding. (7) There is also the issue of whether the P’s Quantum Assessment Report For Work Done is admissible. It is not appropriate to deal with this issue of its admissibility or veracity in a summary process. It should be done at Trial. (8) Do the individuals D2, D4 and D5 owe fiduciary duties to P? [16] I am of the view that these issues call for the process of a trial before they can be fairly and justly answered by this Court. [17] It is at a trial, after the process of Discovery (which includes the process of the production and inspection of documents), possible Interrogatories, and the process of Pre-Trial Case Management—that P’s claim and the Defendants’ defences can be determined fairly and justly. [18] Furthermore, from P’s Pleadings—particularly P’s Reply (to D1/PERDA’s Defence)—P itself wants to proceed to trial for their entire claim. In paragraph 9 of P’s Reply, P avers that: “kesemua bukti-bukti penglibatan, ambil alih serta penyiapan kerja-kerja baki Projek tersebut S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 oleh Plaintif bersama-sama dengan minit-minit mesyuarat akan dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan kelak”. [19] Then in paragraph 17 of P’s Reply, P avers further that: “Plaintif akan membawa masuk Perunding-Perunding Projek tersebut sebagai pihak/saksi di dalam guaman ini untuk membuktikan Plaintif yang telah mengambil alih dan menyiapkan baki kerja-kerja Projek tersebut”. [20] Both these paragraphs indicate that P intends to and is preparing to go to trial to prove its case. I am not making a ruling or a finding here that when P pleads their intention in this manner, P waives their procedural right to file this SJ Application. But filing this SJ Application— to prove its case through affidavit evidence—is somewhat incongruous with P’s declared intention to go to trial. BALANCE OF JUSTICE [21] Finally, I also consider the balance of justice. [22] If summary judgment is not granted, P has not lost ground in their claim. When they filed the suit, our legal system provided that P gets to prove its claim in a trial. The Order 14 procedure is an exception rather than the rule. Summary Judgment should only be entered when the claim is “plain and straightforward” and when the Court has no doubt that a trial is not needed for the Court to determine the issues of law and fact that arise and to pronounce judgment in the suit. S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [23] P still has the opportunity, in fact, the right, to prove its claim. As does the Defendants—the Defendants also have the opportunity and right to prove their defences to the claim. [24] If summary judgment is granted, however, the Defendants will be deprived of their day in Court. They would be deprived of the right to present their defence, with the procedural and substantive law safeguards accorded to them by the due process of a trial. CONCLUSION [25] For these reasons, I dismiss P’s SJ Application. As for costs, I order P to pay RM7K costs to D1/PERDA, RM7K to D2, and RM5K costs to D3Co, D4 and D5 together. Costs are subject to the allocatur. And costs are to be paid forthwith. In P’s pleadings, P itself wants to go to Trial for their entire claim—Ref Reply To D1’s Defence, E14, pp 3-4, paras 9 and 17—kesemua bukti penglibatan, ambil alih serta penyiapan kerja2 baki Projek tersebut oleh P bersama2 dengan minit2 mesyuarat akan dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan kelak + P akan membawa masuk Perunding2 Projek tersebut sebagai pihak/saksi di dalam guaman ini untuk membuktikan P yang telah mengambil alih dan menyiapkan baki kerja2 tersebut. E18 is dismissed. Dated: 30 January 2024 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Plaintiff: Vimalan A/L S. Visvalingam [Messrs. A.G. Roseli & Paul (Prai)] For the 1st, 2nd Defendants: Rusmin Alwani, Munirah [Messrs. Rusmin, Ida & Taryna (Georgetown)] For the 3rd, 4th, 5th Defendants: Nor Afiqin Syamin [Messrs. Muif Wahab & Associates (Gelugor)] Legislation referred to: 1. Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 Cases referred to: 1. Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400 (SC); [1992] 1 CLJ 627; [1992] 1 MLRA 190. 2. Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 183 (SC); [1987] 1 CLJ 246; [1986] 1 MLRA 269. 3. Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281 (CA); [1995] 1 AMR 622; [2000] 1 CLJ 503; [1995] 1 MLRA 48. S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22C-6-07/2021

PLAINTIF SURIA ACTIVE RESOURCES SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN 1. ) LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN WILAYAH PULAU PINANG ( PERDA) 2. ) KHALIQ MEHTAB BIN MOHD ISHAQ 3. ) MALCONSTRUKT SDN. BHD. 4. ) DATO' HAJI MOHD HANIFFA BIN SHAIK MOHAMED 5. ) DATO' MOHAMMAD NOR BIN SAAT

1. These are the pleaded causes of action against each Defendant. Against D1/PERDA—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D2—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. Against D3Co—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D4 and D5—the Plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty.2. The Plaintiff applies under Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 to enter summary judgment against all the Defendants.3. Should summary judgment be entered?

30/01/2024

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4cf561b1-fa01-4620-8707-c377b54a615f&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL (PEMBINAAN) NO: PA-22C-6-07/2021 ANTARA SURIA ACTIVE RESOURCES SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 712809-V) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. PENANG REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PERDA) [yang juga dikenali sebagai “Lembaga Kemajuan Wilayah Pulau Pinang”] …DEFENDAN PERTAMA 2. KHALIQ MEHTAB BIN MOHD ISHAQ (NO. K/P: 760625-02-5577) …DEFENDAN KEDUA 3. MALCONSTRUKT SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 159751-T) …DEFENDAN KETIGA 4. DATO’ HAJI MOHD HANIFFA BIN SHAIK MOHAMED (NO. K/P: 560323-07-5003) …DEFENDAN KEEMPAT 5. DATO’ MOHAMMAD NOR BIN SAAT (NO. K/P: 630607-02-6001) …DEFENDAN KELIMA JUDGMENT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION) PRELUSION [1] The Plaintiff (P) filed an application to record summary judgment (SJ Application) against all the Defendants for approximately RM3.14 million 30/01/2024 10:05:10 PA-22C-6-07/2021 Kand. 182 S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 for construction works done as the Rescue Contractor for the 1st Defendant’s (D1/PERDA) mixed housing development project. [2] Should summary judgment be granted to P? THE LAW ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT [3] For reference, Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 is set out here— Order 14. Summary judgment Application by plaintiff for summary judgment (O. 14, r. 1) 1. (1) Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant. Judgment for plaintiff (O. 14, r. 3) 3. (1) Unless on the hearing of an application under rule 1 either the Court dismisses the application or the defendant satisfies the Court with respect to the claim, or the part of a claim, to which the application relates that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of that claim or part, the Court may give such judgment for the plaintiff against that defendant on S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 that claim or part as may be just having regard to the nature of the remedy or relief claimed. [4] From case law, there are principles that I am mindful to heed. The first is the principle that when the parties assert certain facts or issues or reasons that bear on the merits of a SJ Application, I am not bound to accept those assertions just because the parties made them. I must evaluate the cogency of the assertion, and consider whether the assertion is tenable, or plausible, or reasonable: Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400 (SC); [1992] 1 CLJ 627; [1992] 1 MLRA 190. [5] The second principle is that I must evaluate whether the facts or issues or reasons raised by the Defendants amount to a “fairly arguable defence” to the claim, such that I have a “reasonable doubt” against granting judgment summarily: Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 183 (SC); [1987] 1 CLJ 246; [1986] 1 MLRA 269. [6] The third principle is that when I am deliberating on the facts or issues or reasons raised by the Defendant, the question that I am to determine is—are they bona fide triable issues i.e. issues that require determination by trial?—Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281 (CA); [1995] 1 AMR 622; [2000] 1 CLJ 503; [1995] 1 MLRA 48. [7] The law on summary judgment is well established. The principle for the grant and the defeat of a SJ Application is well settled. A triable S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 issue defeats a SJ Application. In other words, the Defendants need to demonstrate that a trial is required for P to prove its claim against them. [8] Put differently, just from an analysis of the parties’ respective Pleadings and Affidavits, as well as the documentary evidence referred to—when the Court is not persuaded to by-pass a trial to enter judgment summarily against the Defendants, then the SJ Application must fail. [9] Another way of putting it is that it must be obvious to the Court that the Defendants have no defence on the merits, before summary judgment is granted. THE PARTIES AND THE PERTINENT PLEADED FACTS [10] P is a construction industry contractor. D1/PERDA is a statutory body whose purpose is to develop the state of Penang. The 2nd Defendant (D2) is D1/PERDA’s Chairman. The 3rd Defendant company (D3Co) is a construction company. The 4th and 5th Defendants (D4D5) are D3Co’s directors and shareholders. [11] D1/PERDA is the owner of the subject project. [12] D3Co is the main contractor for D1/PERDA’s project. [13] P was brought in as a Rescue Contractor to complete the construction works for the project. P’s CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] These are the pleaded causes of action against each Defendant. Against D1/PERDA—the cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D2—the cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. Against D3Co— the cause of action is for breach of contract. Against D4 and D5—the cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. TRIABLE ISSUES [15] From the Pleadings and the Affidavit evidence, I find that there are several triable issues— (1) Did D1/PERDA consent or agree to P completing D3Co’s works? Did PERDA consent to the Deed Of Assignment of works by D3Co to P? (2) Clause 47.2 of the Project Contract provides that D3Co cannot contract out the works without the written consent of the Supervising Officer under the construction contract. It is asserted that there is no such written consent. It goes to the liability of Defendants, particularly the liability of D1/PERDA and D3Co to P; (3) Did D1/PERDA consent or agree to the direct payment arrangement, where D1/PERDA pays into D3Co’s account, but the money is taken by P? (4) Did D1/PERDA, by conduct, accept P’s alleged appointment as the Rescue Contractor? Evidence needs to be led to include the evidence of both D1/PERDA’s and P’s participation in the site meetings and the rescue work; S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (5) Under the Deed Of Assignment, who—D1/PERDA or D3Co— is liable for the Variation Works? (6) The amount prayed for in P’s SJ Application differs from the amount claimed in P’s Statement Of Claim. And then there is the additional prayer (2) in P’s SJ Application. These differences or discrepancies need to be evidentially explained or justified in a trial, and not summarily presented in a summary proceeding. (7) There is also the issue of whether the P’s Quantum Assessment Report For Work Done is admissible. It is not appropriate to deal with this issue of its admissibility or veracity in a summary process. It should be done at Trial. (8) Do the individuals D2, D4 and D5 owe fiduciary duties to P? [16] I am of the view that these issues call for the process of a trial before they can be fairly and justly answered by this Court. [17] It is at a trial, after the process of Discovery (which includes the process of the production and inspection of documents), possible Interrogatories, and the process of Pre-Trial Case Management—that P’s claim and the Defendants’ defences can be determined fairly and justly. [18] Furthermore, from P’s Pleadings—particularly P’s Reply (to D1/PERDA’s Defence)—P itself wants to proceed to trial for their entire claim. In paragraph 9 of P’s Reply, P avers that: “kesemua bukti-bukti penglibatan, ambil alih serta penyiapan kerja-kerja baki Projek tersebut S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 oleh Plaintif bersama-sama dengan minit-minit mesyuarat akan dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan kelak”. [19] Then in paragraph 17 of P’s Reply, P avers further that: “Plaintif akan membawa masuk Perunding-Perunding Projek tersebut sebagai pihak/saksi di dalam guaman ini untuk membuktikan Plaintif yang telah mengambil alih dan menyiapkan baki kerja-kerja Projek tersebut”. [20] Both these paragraphs indicate that P intends to and is preparing to go to trial to prove its case. I am not making a ruling or a finding here that when P pleads their intention in this manner, P waives their procedural right to file this SJ Application. But filing this SJ Application— to prove its case through affidavit evidence—is somewhat incongruous with P’s declared intention to go to trial. BALANCE OF JUSTICE [21] Finally, I also consider the balance of justice. [22] If summary judgment is not granted, P has not lost ground in their claim. When they filed the suit, our legal system provided that P gets to prove its claim in a trial. The Order 14 procedure is an exception rather than the rule. Summary Judgment should only be entered when the claim is “plain and straightforward” and when the Court has no doubt that a trial is not needed for the Court to determine the issues of law and fact that arise and to pronounce judgment in the suit. S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [23] P still has the opportunity, in fact, the right, to prove its claim. As does the Defendants—the Defendants also have the opportunity and right to prove their defences to the claim. [24] If summary judgment is granted, however, the Defendants will be deprived of their day in Court. They would be deprived of the right to present their defence, with the procedural and substantive law safeguards accorded to them by the due process of a trial. CONCLUSION [25] For these reasons, I dismiss P’s SJ Application. As for costs, I order P to pay RM7K costs to D1/PERDA, RM7K to D2, and RM5K costs to D3Co, D4 and D5 together. Costs are subject to the allocatur. And costs are to be paid forthwith. In P’s pleadings, P itself wants to go to Trial for their entire claim—Ref Reply To D1’s Defence, E14, pp 3-4, paras 9 and 17—kesemua bukti penglibatan, ambil alih serta penyiapan kerja2 baki Projek tersebut oleh P bersama2 dengan minit2 mesyuarat akan dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan kelak + P akan membawa masuk Perunding2 Projek tersebut sebagai pihak/saksi di dalam guaman ini untuk membuktikan P yang telah mengambil alih dan menyiapkan baki kerja2 tersebut. E18 is dismissed. Dated: 30 January 2024 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Plaintiff: Vimalan A/L S. Visvalingam [Messrs. A.G. Roseli & Paul (Prai)] For the 1st, 2nd Defendants: Rusmin Alwani, Munirah [Messrs. Rusmin, Ida & Taryna (Georgetown)] For the 3rd, 4th, 5th Defendants: Nor Afiqin Syamin [Messrs. Muif Wahab & Associates (Gelugor)] Legislation referred to: 1. Order 14 of the Rules Of Court 2012 Cases referred to: 1. Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400 (SC); [1992] 1 CLJ 627; [1992] 1 MLRA 190. 2. Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 183 (SC); [1987] 1 CLJ 246; [1986] 1 MLRA 269. 3. Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281 (CA); [1995] 1 AMR 622; [2000] 1 CLJ 503; [1995] 1 MLRA 48. S/N sWH1TAH6IEaHB8N3tUphXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24F-120-04/2022

PEMOHON A R T RESPONDEN G A N

Family law/ Civil Procedure - Objection raised by Defendant as Plaintiff's affidavit not translated to Bahasa Malaysia - Whether Plaintiff's affidavit filed in English only acceptable - Order 41 and 92 of Rules of Court 2012 - Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980Family law - Application to vary by Plaintiff wife - Whether Plaintiff had established material change in circumstances - Whether Defendant's conduct in continuously breaching Court Order amounted to material change in circumstances - Whether Defendant's contention of not understanding Consent Order tenable - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 83 and 96Family law - Application to vary by Defendant husband - Whether Defendant had established material change in circumstances - Whether living conditions of Child in Vietnam amounted to material change in circumstances - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 83 and 96

30/01/2024

YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bc4af487-e551-4919-80ab-3e185d7ca8ef&Inline=true

WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24F-120-04/2022 Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 3, 5, 10, 11 and 12 Akta Penjagaan Budak1961 DAN Dalam perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4, Kaedah–Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. DAN Dalam perkara kanak-kanak bernama MAT (No Passport Vietnam.: ***) BETWEEN ART ....PLAINTIFF AND GAN ...DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 30/01/2024 23:29:40 WA-24F-120-04/2022 Kand. 80 S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Introduction [1] Two applications to vary were heard and dealt with in these grounds of judgment (“these Applications”) – the first was filed by the Plaintiff Wife in enclosure 26, whilst the second was filed by the Defendant Husband in enclosure 33, both of which sought to vary the terms of the consent order recorded on 20 May 2022. [2] In the interest of privacy of the parties concerned, and sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and the child of the marriage have been anonymised in this judgment as ART, GAN, and MAT respectively. The factual background [3] The involved parties, the Plaintiff, a citizen of Vietnam, and Defendant, a Malaysian (collectively, “the Parties”), aged 34 and 47 respectively at the time of the hearing of these Applications, were married in May 2017, and were blessed with a son, born in August 2017 (“the Child”) whose birth was documented in a Vietnamese birth certificate. [4] The marriage began to unravel in 2019, prompting the Parties to live separately. The Plaintiff and Child resided in Vietnam, while the Defendant remained in Malaysia. [5] In January 2020, the Defendant had unilaterally relocated the Child from Vietnam to Malaysia without the Plaintiff’s consent. Despite the Plaintiff’s persistent requests for the Child’s return, the Defendant adamantly refused. The Plaintiff encountered difficulties returning to S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Malaysia but managed to do so in April 2022, only to find that the Defendant had vacated his residence. [6] Faced with these circumstances, the Plaintiff urgently filed an application for guardianship, custody, care, and control of the Child on an urgent, ex parte basis. Although the Plaintiff had obtained a court order in April 2022, challenges arose in serving the cause papers to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff diligently sought the Child, who had been taken to Kuala Terengganu by the Defendant, a development that was brought to the Court’s attention during case management in May 2022. [7] The Court then instructed the Defendant to attend Court and produce the Child, which he eventually did on 13 May 2022. Subsequently, through discussion facilitated by their solicitors, Messrs Ras & Co for the Plaintiff, and Messrs Yoon & Partners for the Defendant, an agreement was reached and its terms were documented in a consent order dated 20 May 2022 (“the Consent Order”) which provided for joint guardianship and custody to the Parties, with primary care and control granted to the Plaintiff. Parties had also agreed that the Plaintiff would reside with the Child in Vietnam. [8] However, implementing the Consent Order presented challenges, leaving the Plaintiff no choice but to file an application in June 2023 (“Enclosure 26”) to vary the terms of the Consent Order. In the same month, the Plaintiff filed an application seeking exemption from referring the marriage to a conciliatory body, pursuant to section S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 106(1)(vi) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act”). That application was allowed. [9] It is essential to highlight that the Defendant, having enlisted the services of new solicitors, Messrs Isaacs & Isaacs, in June 2023, filed an application in July of the same year to vary the terms of the Consent Order (“Enclosure 33”). By the conclusion of July 2023, the legal representation changed to Messrs Siva Nada & Associates, who assumed responsibility for the Defendant's case. In August 2023, the Defendant filed an application seeking to stay the implementation of the Consent Order. That application was subsequently dismissed. The issues [10] The central matter before this Court in these Applications was the determination of whether there was material change in circumstances to warrant a variation of the terms of the Consent Order, as sought by both the Plaintiff and Defendant. [11] The Court had to also deal with an additional challenge in the form of a preliminary objection raised by the Defendant, highlighting the fact that the Plaintiff’s affidavit in reply to the Defendant’s affidavit in support of Enclosure 33, was affirmed only in the English language. [12] The preliminary objection was dismissed. Enclosure 26 was allowed while Enclosure 33 was dismissed, for the following reasons. S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Contentions, findings, and evaluation [13] Since both the Plaintiff and Defendant had applied to vary the Consent Order, this Court had to determine if there was a material change in circumstances, as defined in section 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, which reads: Section 96 - Power for court to vary orders for custody or maintenance The court may at any time and from time to time vary, or may rescind, any order for the custody or maintenance of a child on the application of any interested person, where it is satisfied that the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact or where there has been any material change in the circumstances. [Emphasis added.] [14] The words "material change" has been emphasised in the case of Sivajothi K Suppiah v. Kunathasan Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ 318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184 to mean not simply any change, as the operative word is 'material'. [15] The phrase 'material change in circumstances' was explained by George Seah SCJ in the Supreme Court case of Gisela Gertrud Abe v. Tan Wee Kiat [1986] 2 CLJ 202; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 133; [1986] 2 MLJ 297, in the following passage: In our opinion, when an application is made to the court to vary an existing order for maintenance, the proper approach is to start from the original order and see what changes financial or otherwise, have taken place since that date including any changes which the court is required to have regard to under s. 78 of the Act as well as any increase or decrease in the means of either of the parties to the marriage and make adjustments roughly in proportion to the changes, if that is possible. S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 [Emphasis added.] [16] Further elaboration of 'material change in circumstances' may be found in Lim Hong Bee v. Mah Teck Oon [2010] 8 CLJ 473; [2010] MLJU 264, where it was stated by Suraya Othman J (as she then was) that ‘the change in question must be material and not any change. It means a change in a crucial and vital part. In considering whether there has been any “material change" within the meaning of this section, all the relevant circumstances must be taken into account.’ [17] Hence, in examining the question of material change in circumstances, the inquiry is not simply whether there has been any material change per se since the decree nisi. The change must be sufficiently material, so expecting the status quo to remain would not be justified. [18] It was also crucial to note that the question of whether there was a material change in circumstances is a question of fact, as decided in the High Court case of Anna Tay Siew Hong v. Joseph Ng Tiong Yong [1995] 3 CLJ 717; [1995] MLJU 257. Reference was made also to the case of Navarajan Subramaniam v. Rajeswary Muniandy [2019] 1 LNS 1014; [2019] MLJU 715, where it was stated by Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J, in the following passage: The legal definition of material change in circumstances is not cast in stone. It is ultimately dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No one case is like the other [Emphasis added.] S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 [19] Both Parties, therefore, had the legal burden to prove their assertion of material change of circumstances on a balance of probabilities as expounded in YCC v. LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207; and Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling [2010] 10 CLJ 371. Enclosure 26 Whether the Plaintiff had established material change in circumstances [20] In Enclosure 26, the central claim revolved around the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had consistently violated the terms of the Consent Order. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant, as a recurring pattern, deliberately separated the Child from her by absconding with the Child and actively preventing her from maintaining communication. According to the Plaintiff, these incidents consistently occurred during the Defendant's designated access times with the Child. [21] The case's historical record reveals a notable tendency on the part of the Defendant. Well before the establishment of the Consent Order, there was an incident where the Defendant absconded with the Child to Kuala Terengganu. He adamantly withheld the Child, prompting the Court to intervene by issuing an ultimatum, requiring the Defendant to appear in court under the threat of a warrant of arrest. [22] The essence of the Plaintiff's argument hinges on whether recurrent non-compliance with a court order holds sufficient weight to constitute a material change in circumstances. To address this pivotal question, S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 I sought guidance from the precedent set in the case of Navarajan Subramaniam v. Rajeswary Muniandy. In that case, Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J granted a variation application by the applicant husband, grounded in the respondent wife's denial of access. This precedent establishes that it is not unprecedented to infer that a spouse's failure to adhere to the terms of a court order, or in this instance, a consent order, may, under certain circumstances, qualify as a material change in circumstances. [23] The Defendant argued that he was unaware of the terms outlined in the Consent Order, asserting that he found them to be unfair and unreasonable. He even went so far as to accuse his former solicitors of neglecting to consult with him before consenting to the terms of the order. [24] At this juncture, it became imperative to emphasise that nothing could be further from the truth. The Defendant was duly represented by his former solicitors, and both Parties, along with their respective Counsel, meticulously documented the terms in my presence. Notably, the Defendant not only signed the Consent Order but also sought clarification on certain terms during the process. Therefore, the current assertion by the Defendant and his present Counsel, in disputing the Consent Order and blaming the previous solicitors, strongly suggests a deliberate distortion of facts on the part of the Defendant in the context of these proceedings. [25] The Defendant further denied that he had not complied with the Consent Order. In my view, this assertion was contradictory since the S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Defendant had earlier claimed unawareness of the terms of the Consent Order. If that was the case, it raised the logical query of how he could simultaneously affirm non-breach of its terms. Once again, this inconsistency strongly indicates a deliberate distortion of facts and underscores the Defendant's tendency to be exceedingly economical with the truth throughout these proceedings. [26] Nevertheless, the undisputed evidence clearly pointed to a consistent pattern of the Defendant attempting to distance the Child from the Plaintiff, both prior and subsequent to the Consent Order. The Defendant, on multiple occasions, had breached the terms of the Consent Order, for example, by unilaterally enrolling the Child in a Malaysian school without consulting the Plaintiff. Furthermore, whenever the opportunity arose, he sought to abscond with the Child, causing the Plaintiff significant hardship and inconvenience in her attempts to locate the Child. This recurrent behavior persisted despite the existence of the Consent Order, a fact substantiated by documentary evidence illustrating unanswered calls and messages from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, after the Defendant had absconded with the Child and the Plaintiff’s luggage! [27] Analogously, reference may be made to the case of Legasri Purana Chandran @Maniam v. Sreepathy Ganapathy Krishnan Iyer [2010] 1 LNS 293, where the High Court had granted an application for variation based on the wife’s recalcitrant behaviour, akin to the conduct exhibited by the Defendant. S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 [28] Considering all the factors, including the welfare of the Child, it was my view that Enclosure 26 must be allowed. Enclosure 33 Whether the Plaintiff’s affidavit in reply was defective [29] At the outset, in respect of Enclosure 33, the Defendant raised a preliminary objection asserting a defect in the Plaintiff's affidavit in reply. This objection stemmed from the fact that the affidavit was affirmed only in the English language. The Defendant relied on the case of Zainun bte Hj Dahlan lwn. Rakyat Merchant Bankers Bhd & Satu lagi [1997] 4 CLJ SUPP 279; [1998] 1 MLJ 532, in which Order 92 rule 1 of the previous Rules of the High Court 1980 (which is similar to Order 92 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012) was referred to. The provision reads: Order 92 – Miscellaneous Rule 1 – Language of documents (1) Subject to sub-rule 2, any document required for use in pursuance of these rules shall be in the national language and may be accompanied by a translation thereof in the English language except that the translation for the purpose of Order 11, rule 6(4) and rule 7(1) must be prepared in accordance with rule 6(5) of that Order: Provided that any document in the English language may be used as an exhibit, with or without a translation thereof in the national language. [Emphasis added.] S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 [30] Zainun bte Hj Dahlan lwn. Rakyat Merchant Bankers Bhd & Satu lagi was referred to and followed by the Court of Appeal in Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh [2023] CLJU 1844. Although the Defendant had not referred to the case of Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh, or brought it to the Court’s attention, I am mindful that it was held by the Court of Appeal that the High Court in that case was not in error in striking out an application made on the basis that it was crafted in the English language without any Bahasa Malaysia translation to it. Reference was made to Order 92 rule 1(4) of the Rules of Court 2012, which reads: Order 92 – Miscellaneous Rule 1 – Language of documents … (4) In cases of urgency, proceedings may be commenced or conducted partly in the English Language or wholly in the English language provided that- (a) a certificate of urgency explaining the urgency of the matter is filed by the solicitor; and (b) copies of all such documents in the national language shall be filed within two weeks or within such extended period as the Court may allow: [Emphasis added.] [31] However, it was crucial to note that in January 2024, the Federal Court in Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh [Civil Appeal No 02(i)-48-08/2023(N)] had disagreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal and had answered the following questions in the affirmative: S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 1. Whether petitions for judicial separation or divorce (Matrimonial Proceedings) filed pursuant to the provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) and the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 (DMPR) may be filed in the English language only? 2. If so, whether all other cause papers filed in the Matrimonial Proceedings may be filed in the English language only? [32] As such, the Defendant’s preliminary objection was devoid of merit and had to be dismissed. [33] It was opportune at this point to remind Counsel for the Defendant of the principle that the 'relation of the rules of practice to the work of justice is intended to be that of handmaid rather than mistress; and the Court ought not to be so far bound and tied by rules' (as articulated by Lord Collins MR in Re Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1). Consequently, raising technicalities devoid of relevance to the merits of Enclosure 33 was unwarranted. [34] Furthermore, the axiom that 'procedural skirmishes ought not to prevail, to defeat substantive justice' (in the words of Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA in Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 230) underscored the inability to entertain the Defendant’s preliminary objection. [35] In any event, Order 41 rule 4 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court empower this Court to look at the overall justice of the case before entertaining any objection pertaining to affidavits. The relevant provision reads: S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Order 41 – Affidavits Rule 4 – Use of defective affidavit An affidavit may, with the leave of the Court, be filed or used in evidence notwithstanding any irregularity in the form thereof. ***** Order 92 – Miscellaneous Rule 4 – Inherent powers of the Court For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. [Emphasis added.] [36] Unwilling to let procedural minutiae overshadow substantive justice, I proceeded to address the merits of Enclosure 33. Whether the Defendant had established material change in circumstances [37] In his pursuit of establishing material change in circumstances, the Defendant levied several allegations against the Plaintiff. His initial contention asserted that the Plaintiff's residence was untidy, dusty, and disorganised, with items scattered throughout. To substantiate this claim, he sought to persuade the court by presenting photographs as evidence. S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 [38] Subsequently, he accused the Plaintiff of neglecting the Child, citing the Child's development of atypical pneumonia. In an attempt to justify enrolling the Child in a school in Malaysia, he contended that the Child's inadequate education in Vietnam was evident from an inability to speak English and even to count. [39] I found the Defendant's contention devoid of merit for the following reasons. Firstly, regarding the issue of photographs, it's crucial to bear in mind that they were presented as exhibits attached to the affidavits. Consequently, the Court must exercise caution, recognising that photographic evidence, unless undisputed, can be selectively presented and taken out of context, potentially serving a self-serving purpose. The Plaintiff contested the accuracy of the photographs, providing an explanation that the disorder was a result of an ongoing shift. Notably, the Plaintiff currently resides in a three-storey house, where the ground floor functions as her shop, the first floor serves as her residence, and her parents inhabit the second floor. [40] Regarding the Child's pneumonia, there was no substantiated evidence linking its development to the living conditions in Vietnam. On the contrary, the Plaintiff argued that the Child contracted pneumonia while under the care of the Defendant. Consequently, the Defendant's assertion concerning the Child's health lacked any credible basis. [41] The Defendant's assertion that the Child's inability to speak English or to count rendered the Plaintiff unfit, was untenable. The incapacity to speak English has never been, and in this specific case, is not indicative of the Plaintiff being an inadequate mother. S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 [42] I must emphasise at this point that the entirety of the Defendant's submissions seemed to imply that the Plaintiff, raising the Child in Vietnam, was unfit for such responsibility. I view this contention critically, as it appears to be steeped in arrogance and xenophobia. It is essential to recognise that not all children have the privilege of being raised in opulence. However, such circumstances do not automatically render parents unfit, warranting the relinquishment of custody and guardianship rights. This Court is not positioned to pass judgment on how parents choose to raise their children, as long as the child's welfare is not compromised. In the present case, the Plaintiff, despite raising the Child in Vietnam, had not compromised the Child’s welfare. [43] It was also crucial to note that although the Parties had separated, the Child had continuously been with the Plaintiff. It was, therefore, undeniable that the Child continues to be dependent on the Plaintiff for his physical, emotional, and mental development. Hence, it would not be in the interest of the welfare of the Child to remove him from his current environment. There is a plethora of cases including K Shanta Kumari v. Vijayan [1985] 1 LNS 135, Gan Koo Kea v. Gan Shiow Lih [2003] 1 LNS 440 and Teh Eng Kim v. Yew Peng Siong [1977] 1 LNS 138; [1977] 1 MLJ 234, where it was explained that, when dealing with a very young child, it would be in the interest of his welfare to be with his mother. [44] In Teh Eng Kim v. Yew Peng Siong, the relationship between a young child and mother was explained by Raja Azlan Shah FCJ (as he then was) in the following passage: S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 The youngest child, Bernard, is of tender years. In my opinion, his place right now is with the mother. "No thing, and no person," said Sir John Romilly MR, in the case ofAustin v. Austin [1865] 35 Beav 259 263 "and no combination of them, can, in my opinion, with regard to a child of tender years, supply the place of a mother, and the welfare of the child is so intimately connected with its being under the care of the mother, that no extent of kindness on the part of any other person can supply that place.." This view has found judicial favour in many jurisdictions: in Australia, for example, in Kades v. Kades,(4) the High Court, in a joint judgment stated: "What is left is the strong presumption which is not one of law but is founded on experience and upon the nature of ordinary human relationships, that a young girl, should have the love, care and attention of the child's mother and that her upbringing should be the responsibility of her mother, if it is not possible to have the responsibility of both parents living together." In Canada, Muloch CJ in Re Orr [1973] 2 DLR 77 commented that, "In the case of a father and mother living apart and each claiming the custody of a child, the general rule is that the mother, other things being equal, is entitled to the custody and care of a child during what is called the period of nurture, namely, until it attains about seven years of age, the time during which it needs the care of the mother more than that of the father... [Emphasis added.] [45] It was my view, therefore, that the Defendant had failed to establish material change in circumstances. Conclusion [46] In the current proceedings, following a thorough examination and judicious consideration of all the evidence adduced — comprising both oral and documentary, along with submissions from both Parties, Enclosure 26 was allowed while Enclosure 33 was dismissed, with costs. Dated: 30 January 2024 S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge High Court, Kuala Lumpur Counsel: For the Plaintiff – Raspreet Kaur; Messrs Ras & Co For the Defendant – Sivanesan Nadarajah; Messrs Siva Nada & Associates Cases referred to: ➢ Anna Tay Siew Hong v. Joseph Ng Tiong Yong [1995] 3 CLJ 717; [1995] MLJU 257 ➢ Gan Koo Kea v. Gan Shiow Lih [2003] 1 LNS 440 ➢ Gisela Gertrud Abe v. Tan Wee Kiat [1986] 2 CLJ 202; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 133; [1986] 2 MLJ 297 ➢ K Shanta Kumari v. Vijayan [1985] 1 LNS 135 ➢ Legasri Purana Chandran @Maniam v. Sreepathy Ganapathy Krishnan Iyer [2010] 1 LNS 293 ➢ Lim Hong Bee v. Mah Teck Oon [2010] 8 CLJ 473; [2010] MLJU 264 S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-120-04/2022 30 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 ➢ Navarajan Subramaniam v. Rajeswary Muniandy [2019] 1 LNS 1014 ➢ Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling [2010] 10 CLJ 371 ➢ Re Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1 ➢ Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 230 ➢ Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh [2023] CLJU 1844 ➢ Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh [Civil Appeal No 02(i)-48-08/2023(N)] ➢ Sivajothi K Suppiah v. Kunathasan Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ 318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184 ➢ Teh Eng Kim v. Yew Peng Siong [1977] 1 LNS 138; [1977] 1 MLJ 234 ➢ YCC v. LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207 ➢ Zainun bte Hj Dahlan lwn. Rakyat Merchant Bankers Bhd & Satu lagi [1997] 4 CLJ SUPP 279; [1998] 1 MLJ 532 Legislation referred to: ➢ Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – sections 96, 106 ➢ Rules of Court 2012 – Order 41 rule 4, Order 92 rules 1, 4 ➢ Rules of the High Court 1980 – Order 92 rule 1 S/N h/RKvFHlGUmAqz4YXXyo7w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-24FC-314-07/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) GAN CHAW FONG 2. ) GAN CHAY CHIAN (kedua-duanya rakan kongsi Ling Chian Fong Enterprise) RESPONDEN SUBRAMANIAN A/L MUTHIAH

Order for Sale – Application for an Order for sale of a piece of land pursuant to Sections 256 and 257 of the National Land Code 1965.The burden lies on the Defendant to prove cause to the contrary.Issues:• whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to initiate the present proceedings;• whether the contents of the said agreement were explained to the Defendant and executed in the presence of a solicitor as required under Section 27 of the Moneylenders Act 1951;• whether the Form 16D Notice issued constitutes proper statutory notice; and • whether the agreement entered into by the Defendant and the late Gan Yong Hin violates Sections 17 and 17A of the Moneylenders Act 1951.- The Court find that the Plaintiffs have locus standi as have obtained a Court Order to vest on themselves with the rights pursuant to the said agreement as the new owner of the business entity under which they were operating the moneylending business as licensed moneylenders.- There is evidence before the Court to establish that the contents of the said agreement were explained to the Defendant and executed in the presence of a solicitor as required under Section 27 of the Moneylenders Act 1951.- The Form 16D Notice constitutes proper statutory notice and sufficient notice had been given to the Defendant via Form 16D.- Court held that the agreement entered into by the Defendant and the late Gan Yong Hin does not violate Sections 17 and 17A of the Moneylenders Act 1951. The interest charged under the agreement does not amount to compound interest and parties have agreed to interest in accordance with the Act. - The Court finds that the Defendant had failed to prove any cause to the contrary and accordingly ordered that the said land be sold by public auction to recover the sum owed to the Defendant.

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9a3d06e0-84b2-45bc-ae04-0a92119a957e&Inline=true

30/01/2024 08:09:58 PA-24FC-314-07/2023 Kand. 33 S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4AY9mrKEvEWuBAqSEZqVfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—2u'c—3u—n7/2023 Kand. 33 32/01/2014 29:09-52 mun MAHKAMAH YINGGI MALAVA DI PULAU PINANG SAMAN PEMULA NO. .1AF¢>:u.o112n2: Dalam perkara mengenau Gadaian mg bedankh pada 11/5/2015 mempunyal Perserahnn Na. O799SC2(]|fll715342 KB alas harlanah yang dlkenall sebagai Geran No. Hakrmlnk 2925, No. Lot 1509, Seksyen 5, Bandar Georgetown, Daerah nmor Lam, Nsgsn Fulau Pmang Eersama dengan premls yang dudirikan an alasnya. Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 256 um Seksyen 257 Kanun Tanah Negara1965 nan Dwain penkara mengenan Aluran as Kaadarvkaadah Mahkamah 2012 Amara 1. Gan Chaw Fang (No. K/P. 950527-07.5559) 2. Gan Chay chian (No. KIP: 92100107-5335) uanelunzs ikaaua-auanya rakan Kongsi Ling Chlan Fang Enterprise (No. Pendaiiaran 2oooowoa453(PGoo6719o-X) PLAIN'ri F4-‘ILAINTIF Dan Suhramanran all Mumiah (Nu. KIP: 560725-71610118170879) DEFENDAN GROUNDS or JUDGMENT Immdunlon [11 This IS the Piaimnvs application seeking an Order for me sale of s nropeny new under Geran No. Hakmilik 2925, No. Lot 1609, Seksyen 5, Bandar Geargemwn, Daerah 1’imor Lam, Negen Fulau Pmang mgamer with me premises ereded mean bearing the address o1No 41,Persiar:In 55., new Georgemwn, Pulau Fmang [heremafier ierenea in as ms -saia land“) under Sections 25: and 251 at an National Land Code 1955 and own 5: at an Runs of court 2012. sin 4AvImn<EvEwuBAqsEZqvVg van: 1 M15 Nab! Sum mm. WW he HSQG M mm u. miiimii-y MW; dun-mm VII mum mm l agree lhe: equitable principles snould no: be lnvaksd lee nealy lo: we purpose olconsrruing our Lend coca, mu sumly a chalgoc who shows me: lnere would be no need to sell nls lane if the charges pale up In lull wIvat[1)?97] 1 MLJ 77 a! Mrs due [mm hlmselfln anolhsr capacity, has shown good and slnllcienr cause why the land should nal be sold secnon 149 of ma Land Code olzvloucly contemplates znel there may be cases in wnnn charged /and should nel be sold. even though man; has been a default in payrnenr ol the pIIncIps/ sum or mlsrssl lnemcn secuved by me charge; and It seems to me lhala charger may 'snaw csuss'sl(Ire: in law or equny agamsl an applicallon for an aide! far sale, and that the nouns snould refuse to make an older in evevy case where ll would be url/us! to do so. By 'unjucl'l mean contrary rc lnose rules ol me comrrlun law and eqully wnlcn are in fume in the Federated Malay Srales. " [151 Based on the above, m Is new inoumbenl on me Court In asoeflaln Nth: De1endan| has eslahllshed cause lo the contrary IO deleal the Plalnnlrs appllcanon harem. Riul comomlom [17] The Plammv in essence eoneendsmanney are snmied to me ulcers scughl I: more is . char and binding agreement and ma! all premqumla oonan ans prscedem for making an appllcamn car an emerlar sale have been me\ [(8] It Is further oontendsd by the Plaintm mat lhe netenaant has varied in astannerr any muse tn the contrary [19] The Dzfendanl an 0!: other hand contends that the PVa\n|iN ts not entnted tuIhe0rdevfursa|e sought as may have eslabhshed cauaaa lo the wnlrary in Ihe follvwing respects and have raised me mowing Issues: a whethev the Plairmfls have /ocus stand: to rmtiate are present proceedmgst b. whether the carrtents of the stud agreememwere explatnau tn the Delendarrt and executed in the prsence of a saliatnr as reqmled under soctlnn 21 of the Morwylerrders Act 1951, c. wrtetrrar the Form 160 Noltae rssued consntutes proper atatutory nottce, and :1. whether we agraamant anrarea rnto by the Delendanl and the lalz Gan Vang Hrn vlulalzs Sacllom I1 and 11A of tho ulmroyicudorx Act1951. [20] The court will nvw deal and anatyae each outta atma Issues wrm a View 0! aatarmrrrtng .1 they aatatsuatt cause lo the contrary. m. n M 1: PI PI niifls Illvl locus miidi to in m the [21] Tha Deieneeni uenienas iiiai irie Piainiins hava no locus srnridi In commence inis aclion io ioieciese me said pmpeiiy wnien was eheigea in me me lather by vinue at a cnmrict which iney say is void. Fllflhalu iney dIspu|a ins cspeeiiy in wiiicri Ihe Piiiinmrs iniiieis iriese pmeeeeings es the ceiin Order dz|ad 5* July zuiw vasiee ins nghls ol irie lale iainer ie iiie axeculors of irie esieie blfl the cimeni appiiceiien is ineae in (he capacity as penneis ola business eniiiy. [22] From the evidence adduced, (here is nu disnule (hi! the original agreement was exeeiiiea between me lzla Gan Yong Hin (Hiding as Ling ciiien Fang Emerprise) and me oeienueni and upon me demise 01 Mi Gan Yong i-iin, me Pieiniiiis have uhlained a Cnurt order in Originating Summons No PA-24NCV[>477J15/2019 irieieinenei iereneu in as “os 477"; in iiesi absululeiy inrin men all rieiainge In Ling Chllrl Fang Enterprise which includs all accounts Interests, sscunlias‘ charges. claims, special rights, conlractsi accounts whether directly or oonlingzntly heid beneficially ur in the fidu iy cepeeiiy oi the i.-ice Gan Yong NW trading as Ling criisn Fong Emsrpnss. ii is ciesmiei based un me Coun Order, may have been vested wilh Ihe Hghw pursuant to the said agreement as Ihe new vwner 01 me business entily under wnien may were upsisiing irie moneylending business as licensed inoiieyiendeis I iiieieioie see no issue win them having eeniinensed lhese pieoeedings as iegisieied partners of Ling mien Fang Enterprise. r231 tn eddttten, I have Demsad tne satd rrtaneylendtng agreement and note tnat clause 12 lhsfaln expressty states tttat wtts egreentenr snett be brndtnq upon the successors tn We and permttted assigns d/tne Lender, tne nerrs, persenarrepressntatives. successors rrt me and permitted assigns at‘ me Bormwels’. As such, tne Ptaintttts betrlg ttte ttetrs as well as havmg tne rignts ofthe late Gan Yong Htn vested tn tttern vta |he court order have ctearty doaked tnent wtttt the necessary /nous stand; to commence this present men. [24] As such. naving collstdered the taste at the case as wet as me contentions :71 me names, I find tttat ttte uetendant has rated tn estahfish that tne Ptstnttws have no locus standrtu commence these prodeedtngs. Iuue No.2: Wlnlhnr the contents af thn utd agreement were elglalnod to uni Detendant and exoetmd In the prnnncn M I §o|I§I(ol 1; merge mgr ggtrgn 21 ohm Moneylnndon M31951 [25] me Datendant also mntends tnat ttte mnlanls at tne Sltd agreement New not explatned to ntnt and neittter was it axaculad tn tne presence at a eattcttnr It ts (he tzeiendants case lhal lhe teen was disbursed lo tna Defendant beibr! tne eatd agreement was started and ttters ts no explanattort gtven as to new the interest cateulatton wofks wntett ts contrary to sectton 17 urf the utoneylenam Act 1951 In regard tn tttts DOMDIBIVIL tt ts apt tnat ttte sxecuttdrt portion at the satd agreement are rerzrodueed as Iollaws: A . ivzirnwmummwam € 1): [2131 II ‘is pcrlinenl to nine Ihil smion 21 01 mo Monfllulduru Act IISI creates a mandamiy oniigaiian «oi the agreement to be aitaslad by ’an Advocate and soiimr olthe High own, an area: oflhe Judicial and Legal Saving, a Cammis.Iinn9riorOams, District Oficel, Jusfrce arme Peace or sum Pfllsan as may be appointed by the Minislel gsnamiiy for sum purpose’. [27] Having Derused the said moneyiendmg agrsemenL n is dated the 11" u1Mny 2016 and has been siamped on me12"' May 2n1a.A: seen aariier, the loan was disbursed nn13"‘ May 2016 In my view. ii is merdoie dearlhatthe said agreement was axamied between me Parties pnorlothe disbursement ufuie said loan. SIN anvamzvzwusaqszznvva nut as ms DI! s.n.i nnnhnrwm .. .4... M may i... nflmnnflly mi. dun-mm VII mum mm [25] with regards to the complam o1 nonatteenatron ov the sa1d agreement, I am ovtne v1ew tnat suan aoonrolairn re bsrefl otrnerne. It 1s to be noted Ihal at page 5 onne sard mnney1end1r1g agreement. 1| reflects tne signature 0! one Mr. Jamie Ng su Pmg‘ an Advocate and Sahalar who wrtnesaea tne exewnon of me ' agreement. Tnere 1s a1sa an attestatmn ac1<naw1edgenrent earnp1e<eg by Mr. Janue Ng Su P1ng to dec1are tnat he has exg1a:neg Ihe lemts onne agreement and the bmrvwer underslood tne nature and eoneaquenee cl tne said agreement Such £mes1aIIon clause my new demollshes Ihe onnlennon that lhe contents 01 the said agreement was nn| exp1a1lIet1 to the Defendanl. [29] As such, 1 find that there has been no breach 0! section 21 cf the Moneylenders Act I951 as contended by the Delermant. 1 am also or the mew that this wntenttun now appeals In as an artannnugrtt as 11 was never ratsed in the eamer ongmattng summons. [:0] runner and In any event, 1 find rnern In tne P1a1nLifl‘s :1>nLenI1an |ha| Ihls complaint at nan-atvestatron ought!/.1 be disregarded as rt was never raised rn tne amaavrts a! me Devenaant but on1y 1n tneirwrnten suhmtsskms. Iutulng nation {:1} There 1e no mepuue tnat the t=1arnti«naa uauea Form16D da|ad 26"‘ January 20231nlorm1ng outta oraam, tne amount unneid as we11Is previuing lham :0 days‘ nottee no remedy tne oreaen. The 1n 4Avirnn<EvEwuaItqsEzqvvg no )5 M15 -we 5.11.1 In-v1hnrw111 be used m van; ...a nr1g1ru11Iy mums dun-mm vta .r1uNG M1 ueienoenrs sollcitm subsequerilty reoiieo me ineir iener dated 1-‘ uercrr 2023 denying me cuntems ohhe said Fnrm 1r3D rialiee on me roiiom-no reasons: a The Noiiee 150 dated 2sr- January 2023 is rrreguiar and radundanl cor nenoonrpii.-rnee airne provision VI (he National Land code 1555‘ b. The interest imposed on the pnnciole sum in the Agreerrieni dated 15'” May 2015 is eorrirery lo ine pmvlsian in me Moneylenders Act an and uloneyionum (comroi And Liuensirll) R£§u|ations zoo: which render the said Agreement mm and Voldi c The sum orRM3,291.5o9.1:s uorriwled by the Piainirns in me said Nance incorrect. and d. There is no breach on the pan Mme Defendamwhidi requives rearficaiion. [:2] The oeiendani also now can|euds that me appmpriaia nmme should have been Vlde Fornr 16E. [33] The Piainiifl on the ulnar hand oamands that the use ol Farm 13D was me preoer iorrn and rnei sulfiuenl name had been given In me Defendant via the saw! Fonn16D.Tha PIHHIIM (UNIS? contends lhll even IV me wrong Farm was used. ll does not invamala (he slid darnand in we respect, the Plain|ilIs rerer In me oase or Jlcuh v Page 11 av rs Ovnr:-I-Chinnn Corporation [1574] 2 MLJ 151, where sumsn LP held as falkiws. ‘The plincipal sum secured by we charge was paysb(e by me chnrgor on demand wrthm mo meamrlg af snosaenon (1) of semen 255, Ihsrslors mo chsrgee 'may make me demand by a name In Form 155, and In [hat avanr, rl lhe sum in quesnon Is not para to n within one monzn or the date on wmon the notice rs served, may apply folmwrth fa! an aide: of sa»a wtlhou! oamg requned to serve a notice m Form 16D under subsechan (1) of semon 254' The onargee dni no! make we demand by a now» m Form 165 Ida not however rhlnk met this inwlid-stud the demand made here. The demand here was firs! made by the letter ol 2nd December, m1, of which [he second paragraph clearly said Ms! 1/ me excess aver me ovetdrafl was nor serr/ed on or before an December, 1971, ms onargee wm have "no altsmabvs md to recover ma overdraft rmm you.‘ From me context, me wnvd In Hair: musl In my judgment mean we enrme o-/erdlall Subsection (1) arsecnon 255 does not say the! mo charges shall make me demand lzya notice in Farm 155, so ma! 1! IS open to /1 [0 make me demand m any olhel way, Ihough I agree wtlh caunssl (ha! me charges cannot, for /nstanoe, do so By srmply ze/epnomng me chargnr Illha charges here had stmpry made as demand by me rem: oi 2nd December, 1971, (he demand might rn my Maw have been dafscln/9, but nere rt lo/kmed u up by serwng on the charger a notice In Form «an, wmen Hearty sol out as complamt and ran-ry warned Iha charger max, me mod to pay me money due, me charges would apply Iar an order olsala rn. ggulgl or nuhncrton 11 olsccllcn IN anyameyeynaaasezavva rate u :74 25 we we n-nhnrwm be used m yaw ms mm-y mm: flan-mm wa nfluNG wrm 255 would sum to indicaru lhal Hon shame: md made its dcmand by using Foml 1GEil Hood mu haw lallamd It ug by also sarvir_ng noricc 171 Form 16D lumrramimld nommusa Fomr 16E it would hi all right ifir used any Farm 1:0. rm mg al the lgslulan Is to sun that sulvi "ant noficu ‘s Iven to me ch: before file ch: ee I In rural: order ol sale and In my [udgmanl has the cllagee ms given the clraggr sulwci-m notion bclnn comim to court " [34] Based on the abavemenhoned case‘ I am olme vlew that were Is no nerd and lasl ru\e as m which Form augm |o be used. u .s clear ma: name in Form 160 may be used in cases were the pnnapax sum ls payame on demand and me dmecx onne legslaunn was to see that sumaem naude was gwen to me cnargm (the Dedemianlj before me cnargee (me Wawnlifls) applied for an lard! ol sale, and that the demand lor payment or prlnupal and inIeres1 may be made by elmerlorm or even ‘in any olner way‘. In any event. Form «so 15 lo be ulihsed as a name oldelaunwun lespecx we charge whereas Form 16E ls in be uunsea lor a demand ol a prmclpal sum. In mus case, as me demand was uleafly one wmen mchmed Interest outstanding. Fdnn «en was me apprdpriale lunn As such, me Delendanrs eonlerman max Iorm lsn was inegmar finds no lavour wun me [:5] runner, n has nol escaped my auerman that m me previous 05 443. ' 1 me Delandam had raised ma ISSUS ralaung lo are proper semaa dl Farm IBD. nu lssue was lalsad wrm regards Io me Page 15 ac 7.6 appropriateness at using such Form and as such, this conlenlinn now appears to be an aftenhuugr-t [as] As such, I cnnchme tnet Ihts issue on Forrn I6D does not amnunllo a cause as me contrary Inua No. 4: whether me agmment enur-d km: by me Defendant and at. late Gen Vang Hin vio|gg§ sections 11 and 17A of mu Mung:-nden Acl1 est [37] It IS unmsputed mat the Detemaartt and me Late Gan Vang H-n exeeuted me sate muneylandtng agreement aatea 11'" Mary 2U16lor tne Inart sum 0! RM! ta mmiur. based on the terms pruwdefl In schedule K at me Men-ylenu-rs Act 125: There ts also no utspme tnattne Imeresl rate desunbed ts 12% per annum rumor: is tne rlls narmtssme under the Mumylundln Act 1251. ms] clause 2 at true sate agreement pnwtaes me termuta our Iha catcutatren nf mtarusl and defauh inlerml. It re not dtsputed that the monthly payments was In be RM32,6fi6.70 per month tor 95 Inslilmenls wttn the met 96"‘ insmmanls ' g tne RM32,6dCl so. These rnontnty trutet-nerttx an trmtuswe oi the wares! sum pant wrncn comers up to Rm5_ooo.au mommy wrnen Is tntused we the repayment ol the principal sum I a RM16‘9B6,7D monthly. [39] The Defendant main carutemtorts is that the tmat amount M repayment tr-elusive ol Ihe mfemsl wntcn Dumas up ta RM a,t:ts.uco.oo reflects that In Delendarut ts paymg a sum of IN 4Ansnrv<EvEvmaAqsEzqwg mun M 25 -use s.n.t n-vthnrwm be as... m van; me nflmrrnflly sun. dun-mm VIZ mum we [21 Hlwng pemsed ma amaavns and heard Veamed Counsel wna me an or their wrinan suhmlssluns. \ had allowed the Plainmrs apnlicauan and granted ma orders sough|. \ wrll in ms judgmeni sen om the detailed facts and We reasons Ooraflowmg the apphcanon Background Fag [31 The De1enaanl .s the owner at me warm krmwn as Geran Na. Hakmxllk 2925, Na Ln! wane, Seksyan 5, Bandar George Town, Daerah 11mm Lam, Negen Fmau Plnang Ingelhar mm the prermses erected mereaa bearing the address M No 4:. Perslzran Besi, H800 Georgetown. Pmau Punting. [41 Upon ma Da«enaanrs request, me Isle Gan Yong Hin (Lhe ducenedl, a Human moneylenfler. lramng as Ling Oman Fang Enxemnu agreed Co Iena a sum of RMI,BDD,D00.U0 «-2 me Deramann and In agraemant puvsuam to scam. K M flu uaneynaaaan A51 ID51 and me uneaaynaauan (Control aaa Licunllnu) Ragalanoaa 200: was enlevud int: on ma May 2015 by the deoeasud and me uavenaam. [5] Acnarge on ma and was also executed by the Defendam m lavour oflha dsolasad The cnarge m Form1BAwas dahd Hlh May 2016 and me regxstralion mne chnrga was aweaed by me land afiee an 27m May 2015. The wean was dwsbulsad lo the oeteauam on I3|h Mly 20181539 Masus snen a. Assocwalzes‘ me: dated «am May zucs at Exmm “C‘ onne Amdavn in Rsplyana me admissmn ay me Palesanzs RMt.s:t5,ooo.oo as mterest lor me prlnclpal loan sum nf RML6 mtlllon wneretay ltte mterest sum lmoosed ls almost equal to tne onrnaoal sum oorroued by the Delendanl and amounts to a oomoound mterest lo naulng charge compound mterest and thus illegal pursuant to section 17 and 11A of me uonoylondm net 1951 [40] we Defendant turther submits that the 12% lnterest rile perarmum eugnt to be calculated on he balance unpatd amount oftha pnnclpal sum whlch would result to a reduced gradual payment lrom month to month. [41] On lne other trend, the Plalrlmfs submit that me lmpositiorl 01 such 12% lntereet rate per annum ls a lamlul imoosmon tn rnterest In accordance wttlr sestlon 17A at Ihl ulonoylenders MI1951 and not deatgned In a way In clmumvent tne maxmlum interest rate lmposluon by sestlona 11 and l1AoHnIMonIylclIdcnAcl1951. [42] In my vlew, vmllsl tne rnteresr to oe paid would amount to a sum ol RM1 536 mlllron whlch is close to tne prlllcipal loam amount sum 0! RM1 .6 mllllort, ltus was tnevilaoly due to me fact mat the Delertdant had agreed that tne repayment be done over a oened cl 5 years. M such, oorts «mg Ihal ttte erest rate charged was me agreed allowed by the law, the lnterest to be oald would he 96% ol me sald loanre. I2“/oxbyaars [43] In solaras tne allegntron eloompound lnterest, ills to be noted tnat compound Interest rs tne rmpasltlan el tnterest upon rnlerest whereby the mterest merged tor a parllcular monttt ls added to me rn 4Avirn»<EuEvvuaItqsEZ:lV'§ HF st at u we s.n.t ...nt.mn be tn... a mm a. oflmnallly mm: dun-mm vta .nuue wnxl Dnnc1pa\ sum ior that rnonm wn-ch sum ws men earned furward In me nux( rnomn wmcn wvlr men aflracl the same rate of Wales! and me pmeass us rep9a(ed for me subsequent monlhs The nature and n1\cu\al\on al oempaund males! was bes1 dumbed by Rsmlx Ali J (as His Lumsmp man was) m Re Woo voku San @ Woo voke Sam; -x p ocac Bank (M) and (mm) 5 MLJ 633 at pages 647 — 648 as vullcwsz "/:0] Tn: term: onne smdjuugmsnz deurfy allow me JC to claw for compound inlsvssr. as ‘monthly In!’ I: a banking term In! conumumi Inlsrust. Hrs Lomsmp Justroe Chang Min Ta! F1 in the Federal Caurl case uwnlayan Benkmg Bird v Foo See Mov (199112 ML./ 11 sxpunnsd the ram 'monlnIy resras Iallows. . the practice olbankers m debiting inlulssl to an avardrawn current account perindically and memby frlcuzasmg the capdal sum, which u we eflecl uflhe pmvfsion fur penbmcsl ‘rests’. pt] Page! on Banking (am Ed) at p 133[IIsWes it thus There .s no common /aw right m chalve even simple Interest on an uveman bu! the claim couldbs suppaned on me groundol universal cusmm nf bankers or an lhs bests oi implied agrasmsnl. Where we cuslomer nas acquiesced in the system under which the mlerssr rs charged, (he! also would [he clarm. Such aoqurescence mruusmy (he chalgmg compound males! at inrsrasr with periodical rests, so mg as ms ru/anon of banker and customer smsrs and me relanbnshfp -s not cnanged inla mu olmorlgags and mortgagor. Tns raking nla mortgage or a charge by way ollegal mmgsge to secure me IN 4Avim»<EvEwuaAqsEzqwg Page :2 M15 Nuns smm In-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nr1g\ruHIy mm; m.n.m VIZ mum puns! Imcmaw-g be/ante a/an account rs am, however, inmnsrstem w/lh me relation or hanker and customer so as In preclude compound mlerasl m) The rvrlemsf rale ‘on daily basis wan mommy resl's/’mpIy means me: me amounl or interest payable I! calculated based on the specified rate [re 3.5% pa on ms appncams BLR at any Porn! of runs) on the amount outstanding and such calculsuon rs made on daily lzasrs as every day) up to the penbd afmonlh. A! (He completion of one month psnoa, me amount :2! Intsmsl ca/maxed (for the past any month) wr(/ be capilalrsed and ummalely wm attract inleresl at me same rate for the next months The process goes on every subsequent moms In effect, /‘I Isjust «me campound mlerssl or mums: upon interest The JD also aryues (hats 11 mm Cn/iILawAcr195GprahibrIs me granting afuompourvd mIerasL The JD cued me provvsions on V1 to supponhfs c/arm. mm mspecz, Ins oouncannotagree mm me 10': submission on Mrs noml. ~ [44] As such, In my mnsnderad mew‘ the Plamml has quite deany not Lmposed compound Interest as mnlarmsd by the Dziendanl Thu Imam: Imposed was m can 12% per annum as allowed by an: lontyllndurs An 1951 Ind accented and agesd by the Defendant as perlhe said agreement [45] Wmlsi lha Delendanl has re1erred lo vanous aumnrmes like Golden Whul cmm Sdn Bhd v. Data’ sun T-oug Dln (No 2) [2023] u CLJ on and Sllvu co-mm sun and v ansauu Ru- nwalopmom an End (Fonnody Knum. Al Eu-pm:-I RI: sun IN 4AvImn<EvEwuaAqsEzqvrg mg 1.: nl u -m smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Ehd)[ZW5] 4 ML] 101 which have correcny errurrcraxeu mat in contravention ms-ct n 17 MM: Monlylundus Am 195: would vmd me ermre rrarrsactiorr, In my view, mere has been no cunlravenlmn at smiurrs 17 at I7A of mo Morrcyl-rrdurs MI 1951 m cm me panies here have agreed In rmeresx In accordance with lheAc( Cnnclullnn [as] Upon a carefm and judiuous oorrsiaerauorr aflhe factsoflms matter‘ I find that me Defendant has failed to pruve any name |e me conlmry. vrde me Plamws supp|emen!.a\ amaaw, ma oursranumg sum as at 17“ November 2023 slwd at RM3,575,833 s1 x MU amrurngly order that Ihe sara warm be son: by public aucmon |o recover Ihe sum of RM3.575.e33.e7. [471 In respect of costs, I wru alder me Devendarrz to pay me Plamllfl oasis o1RM3000.Uu sumac! Ia allocamr Due: 23"‘ January 2024 ANAND PONNUDURAI Judge mgrr cuun Georgetown Fmau Pirung IN anvirrmzvzvmaaqszzqvrg me u all! -rm! smm ...m.mm .. used m van; .. mrmury mm: dun-mm VIZ mum wrm M2. Hanis Nabila lrum Mussrs C P Aug A co. (Bunerworm) for ma P1ai11Ms. M1 Bani Prakash imm Messrs Ham Prakash & co (Batu Caves) hrthe Devendam Cues rohrred lo: Golden Wheel Crsdu Sdn Ehd v Data‘ s1ar1 Teorrg Din (No 2) 1212231 5 cu 1:18 Jacob v overseacninese Corporation (197412 ML] 151, Low Lee Lian vsan Hm Lee Bank 511111112971 1 ML] 77 Mashudan Kama! 5 as V. Bank Islam Malaysra Eamsd 120231 1 ms 1709 Re Woo Yoke San @ wao Yoke Sam, ex p was 131111111114) 5111112006) 5 ML] 535 SW97 Concepl Sdn 511.1 VflnsdaleRasaDeveVopmer1kSn1nEIu1{FormevLv Known As Ekspvdlsl R15 Sdn 1211.1; 1200514 ML./ 101 Summemay Deva/opmenl Sdn and v Ivory Ascent Sdn and 12172111 1 ms 1491 Leglslakluns Mama to: Rules nfcaurl 2012, Ovdev 53 Moneylem1aIsAc! 1951, Sections 17, 17A. and 27 Moneykandsrs {Control and Lraensfrlg) Ragurauons 2003 Nat/one! Land Code 1965. sections 255 and 257 sw 4AvIn1»<EvEvmaAqsEZ:M9 mus M15 .11.; s.1.1...m.m111.. 1;... 1: van; 1.. 11111.11” mm: dun-mm 1.. .r1uNG M1 Derendentlhal ne received ma lean dlsbursed an l3Ih May 2016 ax paragralzh s Amda n Replyl. [51 The (arms 01 paymenl in monlnly mslalmenla lelause 1 ol lna senadule KAgreemerll). me me ol lntevesl lmposed on ma loan amounl (semen 5 at me First Schedule or me Sdledule K Agreement). lale paymenl lnleresl and ma lights el the deceased to dispose ollne land by way orauenon VI lne evenllnallna Delsndarll iallad la pay me eulslanding loan emounl [clause 5 olma senedule KAgleemen|) are all elaany spell out In me agreement m Aller paying several lrlslalmerlls lmalllng RM23z,32e 70 and mereaner fa ing [0 pay further monlnly lnslalmenls, me deceased caused a Nolice ol Demand dated alum Maren 2017 to be lssued by ms solicitors. Messrs Allen laktsoclales, lathe Delerldanuo remedy the default ln payment lalllng wmcn lhe Plalnlllls shall delaln an order for sale of me land [51 Upon me death el me deceased on lam September zlm. ma Plammls nad men omained a Own Orde! daled 5m July we vla Origlnallng Summons No. PA-24NCvC—477-05/2015? lo vest aosolulely In mem all noldmos m respem olmadaeeasade noldlngs m Llng cman Fang Enletprise wnlen included all rlghlsl lrllarasl, eacunllae, cnarges, elalms, speelal ngrlls, eonlrms. awdunls wnelher direclry or cmtlngenlly neld berlaficlally or ln me nducmy eapaeny ol ma deoeued lradlrlg as Llrlg cnlan Fang Enlavprlse. [9] Pnov lo Ihls Originaung summons, me deceased rlad commerlned an aeplleallon and dmalned an mderldnna sale wflhe aald pmpany IN 4Avimn<EvEvmaIlasEzawg Page - nus -we s.n.l In-vlhnrwm be used m van; me nflglruflly am. dun-mm wa nFluNG Wm via sarnan Pamuia No PA-24Fc44:s.oa12a17 (nerarnaner rararrea in as '05 443“) in me Penang High Ccurl However, upon appeai in ma cairn or Aapeair ma cpuri at Appeal had aikwred me Derenaanvs appeai on ma ground irrar me Onqinalvlg surnmans was nai efiecfively served on me Defendanl Tne Caurl omppeai direcled the deceased Ioserve are Originating Summons and cause papers on me Derendanrs Solicitors who agreed In aooepl serviaa. [10] As diremed by me Court 01 Appeal‘ oupies 01 the Originating Summons and me Amdavrn amnnea by Gan Vang Hin on 22nd June 2011 were men again served an the ueiandanrs spirerrars. The application «or an Order var saie was again granted an 6th Apni 2021 by ine Periang High Conn. The Defendant med yet anamar aapeai ra are COLII1 ai Aapeai againsi me decision by ine Judiaal Commissioner on sin April 202:. The Courl ol Appear an 12m January 2022 granrad the Defendant‘: appeal on me grmmd this lime manna Form «an was noreiiecuveiy sewed an the neiendani [11] This Ongmalmg Summans rsmau by me Prarnrrirs again iar an order for sale allara new Farm ISD dated 2601 January 2023 was issued. However. unul today. there has been rm allempl by me neiendanr lo repay rna ninsianding iaan amount aria remedy rne breach. vaaasaus und SM: on; 256 one 257 NLC was [:2] u is (ma ma: pursuzm In s-cuom 255 and :51 of mu Nnllonnl Land God: 1235, the P\amIMs are enmled In drsposa or lhe said land by way 0! pubm: aucnon and not otherwise. [13] In mi; varspecl, rsfaranoa I: made to me cm 0! Mulluflun Knmnr non v. 3...: I m Mal-ysil aam-u [24:23] 1 LNs11uv when Iha ooun amapoal hnid as laI\orws' ‘[21]/n unmu M a -n Blnkl c and v n Bun Sun ma moum lggllclklnn (199412 BLJ 252-[1994] 2 ML] 221 in was mnsmm smphshce//y man. ‘if 75 the VIEW 119' [His com! me! In an SPDVICBHOH /0! an order 70! sale un«1srg_2@, ma com must make an otdev for sale, and such safe musfbe by wayola pub/rc aucnon and nolomerwise rn Keng Soon Fmance End V MK Rslnam Haldmgs Sdn and 5. Ana, Lord olrve speakmg of me powers ol the noun m an app/matron for sale of me charged property under & absen/ed (al p 4so)v sacuon 256m 0! the National Land Coasts mandatory The court “shall” orders sa/5 mum n 14- satrsfied oft»: sxrstence of ram to Iha cmlraly’. Granted that mass words have been cnnslluad In Malaysia as [unifying the wvmlrommg or an order where to make one would by contrary in some ruls oflaw or equity. (My many clnnol extend to enabling the court 10 Infuse ra/iefsrmply because rt feel: sorry/or the hammer orbscuuse n regards ms funds! as arrogant, boonsn on unmannelly " IN 4Awm»<EvEvmaAqsEZqv!g v... s ull5 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Further that 'm Gondola Molar Cledll Sdn Bhd v. Almurisl Holdings Sdn 5m1,Hanm Hasmm .96.] m delivering the [udgmsnl of ma Supreme com arse observed as follows. unaer§,_zm.-u, on an application 1.: court fur an order for sale by the charges, u rs mandalory on the calm‘ m mm 1». sale umass If rs satisfied of [he existence 0' cause to the contrary (Emphasis pm!/r'deI1)' The gspeus on! m demll ms powers ol me com. These are slalulorypcwers and the wall cannot ac! beyond mesa powsls Any wrnonea exercise ollhts pmml by granlmg a remedy /lol aumouzea nyme L: would be mm: virus the Ag rssulling m we sale at me charged pmperfy nerng rendered mm, and ms reg/mallow ol me me m the purchaser‘: name not being mast-asmos on the gmu/n1 me: me regisrrurron wus omamad by means olan msmTcIsm‘ or vood Inswmenl m Illajudgmanrol Edgar Joseph J: J {as he then was) in Umled Ma/aysln Banking Corp any v Sykl Pemmahan Luas Sdn Bhd (No.2). approved by Ina Supreme com in M 5 .1 Fmzen Food 1/. Stlarrd Sdn and - um Coda my sxprsss/y pmvide: /or the mamvw of sale which me calm ought (0 make unus:s._257— a sale by yum amen. Sa smms this requrvernent, [hits 25111 Lg -1095 not provtda forany other method afsa/s. In the race olmis express pruvision, it waum be a clear usmpanon of me legislative function, flan artist by my ovpnvaze neatyts allowed.‘ but runs [141 [15] Pursuinl to me above, m \s we mat me com shaH order a sale ov me saw and unless u is sausfiea mm lhere exwsls ‘cause to me cannery‘ A: in what oonslllules cause In me mnlrary. n 13 am that I refer lo the supreme cam (new Federal Oourl) use of Low Ln Lian v Ban Hm Lu Bank Bhd[1997] 1 Iau 11 were ‘cause In me oonlrary‘ was suocmaly explamed as Innaws: ‘In our mgmanp, ‘cause 10 ma oonmary wan/n s 255(3) may be aszamisnm only in was calogories of cases. Firs; itmix bnakun as smlod war: cnaggr why Is able to brim his case wimin an! or one exuggfigns in me indcrvasibiligg docm o housed in s :40 of the Code osrzblisn-s cans: to tho carmagz Thar section pvoviaas as Iol/ows. 340(1) The We or Interext al any person or body /0! me am. bsmg mgfslered as proprietor or any /and. or /n whose name any mass, charge or eassmsru Is for me «me Darng Iugrslemd. shall, subject (1: ma Io0owmg provfisions ufthis sacuon, be rnaslusm/e (2) The ma or mlevssr cf any such person or body shall not be indefeasfble — (2; m my case nffrsud or mlsrapnsenlalion to much the person omoay, wanyagsnfnflhe person orbody, was 5 plays! ww: or vaguuvu (I7) Wham regisuanon was ablsmad hy fnrgsry. or by means or an rnsumoienr or void instrument; at (a; whale me [Me ar interest was unlawfully acquired by the nerson or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any wrmen /aw. (.1) more me (ma 0! waves! or any person or body is dsfeaslbls Dy reason many nflns onounrmnces spec/fled rn sun (2) — (a) u sha/Ibe Imble to be set aside in the hands olany person nr body to whom in may subsequently be vansfemzd; and (D) My Inlamsl subuausnlly glamod lhervoul mu be liable to D: sel lsldfi /11 I09 hands olany person albody in whom it I: {or me time bamg vested: Pmvtrtsd um naming in ms subsection shall arrea any we or /nlsrssr aoqurea by any purcnaser In good mun and lo! valuable oonsmarauon, or by any person or body claiming mmugn or under such a pumnasor. (4) Nothing in (ms section snail pwjudrca nr prevent — (a) me exemrse In respect alany (am! or interest 4;! any power o/Manure or sale conlsrmd by rm‘: Ac! or any orner wrmen law In! ms urns being in (nice, or any power or mraanee ccnle/red by any such law: or (by (he determination uf any Mle aunmssz by oourabon ol/aw In olher words. a charger who is ably lo uomansmze ma: [he charge, the snroreernenz or wmch r: sought. rs dafaaslble upon an or more onne grounds specified undo! sumo (2; and (mu) above IN 4Av9mrv<EvEvmsAqsEZ:M§ rays: 1:05 -um my n-nhnrwm be used m yaw u. nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm y.. muuo vmm will be held to have oslaollsned cause to the conlmry Imdst s 256(3). The daemon of snmn J in Subchem Kmlr v cnai sau Klan (19531 MLJ 32, olthe lonnsr Feooml com in Pmlmarl Sinqh V Kim Kwang Choon 119551 2 MLJ 159 oIRs;a Az/an Shah J (as he man was) In Overseas Urmm Finance Ll-1 v L1!!! .100 Chang 1197112 MLJ 124 and rlvalofédgal Joseph .lr./ (as he (hell was) in Llnlred Malayan Banking Corp Bhrl v Syarlkal Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd (No 2)[19aa 3 M .‘!52(alFmlad on appeal) sulficlenlry i//usbale the propositlan now under discusslon Secondly, - chnmgr mlz show calm to lln conrrgx within 3 25: J of ma Code 1: dnmonsmllln that lln cl» has filled to mm my condition: gncodnnl for an mnklng of an nggimlon for In ardcr for nln. Fol axampls, falluru on ma port oflhe analyse lo prove me maxmq ole demand or son/lea upon we charge! of: notice ln Form 150 would consllrule cause to H1: conrrlry so (no, -mm the nollce demlnds sums nol /aMl.l(/y due rmm Ihs charges See Co-operative Central Esnk Ltd V Many Kulang Pmpellles Ehd [1gQ1[ 2M 2;: Hzwlmvur, m such 5 case, it would be open ro (he changes to subsequsnfly ssrve a notice or a proper notice (as lhs use may be) balm commencing pmcsedmgs -lmn as the cause snawn lo me contrary does no! ln substance amid the chargeaxs rlghl zo alzply for an anisv for sale Thlrdly, a clmgw may dvfuat an application lot in order for sale by domonslnllng ml Its gun: would no comnly lo some rule ollnw or equity. Thls princlple Imus ms ovlgins In the judgment ol Afrken ./ m Mumgappa enema v Lelcnumanan Clletllal /1939] ML} 295 an: 2921 Whale ne sald: rage mus

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CB-62ES-3-08/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) HEM PAN 2. ) MEAS LAN 3. ) SAIK PAK

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Mengaku salah – sabitan ke atas 2 pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 29(1) dan Seksyen 60(1) Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 - sama ada sabitan teratur. Ketiga-tiga tertuduh warga negara Kemboja.RAYUAN: Rayuan atas hukuman – sama ada hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan.HUKUMAN: Hukuman di bawah Seksyen 29(1) dan Seksyen 60(1) Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010 – sabitan ke atas 2 pertuduhan - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan setimpal dengan kesalahan – sama ada mitigasi tertuduh-tertuduh telah dipertimbangkan.

30/01/2024

Tuan Haji Jamaludin Bin Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6e06e764-202f-4591-9e83-21cc5633cf30&Inline=true

30/01/2024 16:04:20 CB-62ES-3-08/2023 Kand. 24 S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZOcGbi8gkUWegyHMVjPPMA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ca—62r;s—3—ua/2023 Kand. 24 22,01/22:4 ,b-04 2n DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TEMERLOH PAHANG DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR KES TANGKAF NO: ca.s2Es~:.aa/2o2:x ANVARA PENDAKWA RAVA DAN 1. HEM PAN [WARGANEGARA KEMEOJA) 2. MEAS LAN [WARGANEC-ARA KEMBOJA) 3. SAIK FAK (WARGANEGARA KEMBOJAJ KORUM: HAJI JAMALUDIN BIN HAJI MAT, HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN. TEMERLOH YARIKH SAEITAN DAN HUKUNIAN: 22 SEPTEMBER 2023 ALAsAu EENGHAKIMAN sw Zocsmayxuweg;mMv;PPMA % -ms Sum M... M“ be used m M, M nugvuhly mm; nnmmnnl VII muua Wm PERMULAAN 1 lm ada\ah myuan danpada xenga-nga Tenuduh yang merupakan warganegara Kembqa yang max hemuas nan (emadap kepulusan saya yang mbervkan pafla 2292023 m mana saya telah mensahnkan kehga—(iga Tenuduh mas 2 perluduhan sepem benkul ta) Perludullan panama dv bawah Seksyen sum Aku Pznmlllluuln Hldupln uar mo (AM: 115) dzn dlhukum pemara 2 lahun mu\a\ danpada lankh (angkapan (I27 Penufluhan kedua an bawah Seksyen 29(1) Akla Pemulihalaan Hldupun Liar zmo (Am 715) dan mkenaksn aenas Rmsumo glkz rzk hayar 12 [Man peluava dan dikenakan penjara 5 lahun mman danpada lankh langkapan Rayuzn ada\ah (emadap hukurnan sana.a Penman nememaraan hdak mxawakuvkan Dalam a\asan penghaklman mu, xeugamga Tenuduh akzn drvujuk sebagal kengauga on sehagavmana kedudukan mereka an Mahkamah sesyen m.»,a.,..; LANNEUIAMDWIVAJW ...m, SAElVlNDM1>1uIl.lAu)2VH)AY>UXll\|) Page z aw zu:smayxuwsgyHMvyPPMA -ma Sum ...m.. WW he used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIA mum pm My Hldupan Ma( merupakan khazznzh dan maruah sesebuah negara Jwka beriaku gangguan alau kepupusan mupan Han make Im akan men menyebahkan me, sesebuah negava |eIcalar (5) Jeral mempakan sqems a\al menangkap hldupan uar Jzrat mga boleh memmhulkan keoederaan den kemalian kepada mupan liar Sekvranya beriaku kecederaan ks alas muupan ha! tersebul. uovsh menda|angkan bahaya kepada manuswa yang jugs wen sebabkan Keeedaraan dan kemanarv kepada manusra (5) Kehga-uga on hdak mempunyal rekod saanan Valu. (7) Ada\ah mpor-on supaya Mahkamah dapal mamaumkan hukuman yang beval dan senmpar agar memam pengajaran kepada OKTVOKT dan ,uga masyarakac ma: (3) Hukuman yang berac H11 jugs flapat member: pengajaran kepada warga asmg yang memasuki Ma\ays\a agav cam dan senhasa memalum undangunuang Mflaysxa SAEITAN 15 Se|elzh mendengav pengakuan bersaxah xenga-uga on, pengakuan kehgadvga on ke alas Vakla kes flan pengesahan kehga—Ivga om ks alas examzmekmm Mahkamah menenma pengaxuan sa\ah xeugamga on ke a\as keaumua psnuaunan dan mansabmkan xenga-nga om‘ ke alas kedua—dua perluduhan cbézuxnwun .. wwotrwunzwu noun») ,..‘m..m.... sm...m.n men IN zocsmayxuwegyHMvyPPMA -ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm me mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm HUKUMAN 14 se«eIan mendengar rayuan on melahu peguzmbelanya‘ dan penghujahan pvhak pendakwaan. Mahkamah manjahmkan hukuman sapem benkut‘ Eagw Perludnhnn Peruma, kelvga-hga on mkenakan hukuman penjira 2 |ahurI mulaw darlpada Iankh (angkapan d1 bawih selxsyen 6fl(1)Aku Plmnllhlrnn Hidupan Li:r2|)10. Bag: Parludulun Kenna, kengamga on dxkenakan denda RM50.0fl0 pka lak hayav 1 namm penjari flan mxenakan peruara 5 mm mulax danpada «am langkapan m bawah seksyen 29(1) Akla Pernulihaman Hidupan Liar 2010‘ Eksnlbll FHA-F. F12A1»A§fl, P1JA-C PuA—c, P15 din P17A- c kepada pihak penuakwuu unmk flndakan I:-um. P15 dlkemhalikan kapzda pemilik melalui hnk pandakwaun. sw zL::smayv.uwsgyHMv;PPMA -ms Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG mm W wz ALASAN HUKUMAN SEDEMIKIAN DIPUIUSKAN KESALANAN szruus 15 16 17 saya menyedan nanawa kesalahan yang dllakukin olsh Ke|vga—1iga on aaavan suam kesmahan yang senus yang mana uka sabll kesalahan (a) bag kesalahan :11 bawah uksyon smug»), ksllga-lwga on bnleh dthukum dengan hukuman denda hdak wamn danpafla Rmsomo alau peruava selama lempoh max melemm 3 \ahun ilau kedua-duanya an bawan seksyen 50(1) Akla Femulihavaan I-nuupan Liar [pindI:n) 21:22 [ma Man 11:) manaka1a bagw kasaranan an bawih uksyon 25(1), kelrgar mg: on men flmukum dengan denda uuak kurang uanpafla RM5o,noo dan hdak Iebih aanpaaa RM1DD1C|0C| dan pemara selama lemnnh lvdak meleblhl 1 o |ahun a1 bawah seksyen 29(2) ma Fomullhlnln Hkiupzn Lilr (pindzan) 2022 [Am A1546] Penmlukan nukuman yang nerac yang memperunmkkan hukuman flenda mmlma antara RMSQDOO nmgga RM1uo,uou dan pemara baleh sampai 10 lahun menumukkan bahzwa kesalahan yang mlakukan uleh ke|iga—(1ga on ada\ah sualu kesmahan yang senus Dalam kes Aswan Muhamad Iwn. PP 5 saw Lngi ruyuan [2o12]t1 cm 72‘ a1 ha\aman ee‘ Mahkamah menyamkan mm, Mwm-«runucmlvc» nnan EH1/Vvlntnrwwuan s.muAv<n ram syn zL::smayv.uwsgyHMv;PPMA -ma 5.11.1 IHIVVDIY Mn 1. .15.. 1: mm 1.. 111111.11-y mm; flan-mm VII mum wrm 1-1;.-u my Jenayan yang dflnkukan uleh pevayu muupakan Jenayah yang se/ms Wag: heat a. min: 5 svsmm aaaxan nerpam mm rnanglmklln plvzyn lnlmah dvambfl maklum men Plvhman yang mmmannya (clan memmfla hukumnn mama mm: zn vzmm kepada so Iamm sen: mempemrI|ukkan hukuman rmmma mandalon hm: lamm m slmpmg um.» ammn lwkuman sebaxan aenaan mm Mm hukuman yang dvkenakan saelah mengamhflkua seam. rm Irma! keadaan kes hendakhh mum mencevmmkzn kahuna-k Fammen yang mewakrh selu/uh hpxun mlsyalikzl negate W map: hukuman yang sebahknya hanyz menungukkan klgagahn mahkamah unluk melaksamkin mm. (mugs: yang talan m mm men Pavflmen ' is Fnnsippnnsvp yang |eIpaka\ sem-sa memahmkan hukuman ada\ah mamap Du sum suka saya memellk heberapa kes sebzgal vujukan. 19 Dslam kes ran Sri Abdul Rahlm Molm Moor v. PP[2DD1]4 cue; [2001] :4 AMR 3253. [2001] 3 ML] Mankamah menyatakan 'u camel be guns n lhallhn mun mnmmncmm ulanyoauvl .5 be acme me appmpnace senlerwe m any cwulrm case In uemum me ivflmmala ssnlelvce a cam! should always be nmded Iryosnzm oonsldevallons The mum fo:emas| xx :1. pm: um-Aves! m man cnmexl the mleaesl av mac. smwd no fluubl like mlo mow the mIeves| M 012 mlzmav Bul n Isanen «mgunen ma! msmleve:1ul|usm:- mul|:\sz: woman In. mlevesl ov me cnmmumly m usessmg ientence Ina court should ballnue ms mhirusl :7! ma Mlendet mm me mtetesl M me mm. and strike a bahnce, mm, M mums smgamng mu hm mlnvail olme pubhc should be me unpemmsl canswd-ralIun' =.....,...,... lnwwumlwnaunnm ante} ;Amvu.um-awn «w()}.\nu1nlu mg: n sw zocsmayuwsgynuvywwn um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm 20 Dalam kes PP v. Loo Choon Fm [1975] 1 LNS 152 mallkamall meneaiskan . ‘One :4 me mam mnmlsralwom m me atseismenl av sentence .. M ovum: mu quesllmw olpuhhc vnlevesl On ma pmm : used only am. a passage ham II1e:udauvwen\alHdbery./un Rex V Kznneth Jahn sun 35 Cr App a Is: as Ynflws vn flemdma ma ivnmvmle Iznlenne . man should always be guwied by nerum wnudelalnns The firs! and lwemosl ‘s we nuhhc .mem¢ m uummal Vaw ‘s puhlmy enimced mu amy mu. An: object at pummnq cnme. hum m me nape <31 pmlerllmg u A wager senIeo¢e_ mm m was Iewas me pubh: mI.ems| m Mo wlys u may new mhers who man he xemmea In W cum: .. leenwlg In awe! easy money mun: suppmnm Ihzhlme nllamiev .s caughl and bmuam m pusnue ma punrshmenl MU be neglwmhle Such a semmme mzy also delev the pamcmav cumm «mm wmmmmg a cum: lgnm m mace mm in mm from a cnmlrm m an hangs! ma KEFENTINGAN AWAM 21 saya bersemu dengan penghwahan Pegawal Pendakwa xerpexajav bahawa kepenhngan awam mengnenuam pesalahr pesalan yang mehakukan kesalahan sepem ml dlkenakan hukuman yang beral sebagxl pengmaran kepada |erIuduh dan penngaxan kepzda bzka|—bakal pesaxan yang Vam supaya wax menjejakw Vangkih lertuduh 22 Pammen telzh menggamikan Am 75 dengan Akn ns bag: menambahbalk Derunlukan lama dan menmgxackan nukuman c...;,Wm. .m.(..».......m .1...» ;....m..w.u...N \2'uHM4M mm Page Is N zucsmajxuwenvfiuvwwmn um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm yang bmeh mxenakan wen Mahkamah, vru menumukkan hahawa Parlwmen memandang senus nemauan kesalahan sebeglnl 23. Pevkara mi dlsenluh oleh Mahkamah Tlnggx Shah Nam da\am kes PP v. Nguynn Tlu Huang (21:15) zcu 102, di hahman we‘ .1. mana Mahkamah menerangkan maksud kepenlmgan awam sepem henkul "Pulzlll: Inturul [to] n .5 therefore clear um me at the mmuu cnnudelihoni m xenlencmg may Is um nr nuhhc mlnran Em whal ws punk: mleresfi Slromfs Judruar Dmbmmly mm pubhc mleresl as ‘A mattsroluublu: argsnsril rnlamsl doe: normean lhal man u mrorasmvg us gratriymy cunostly or .3 rm 9/ rnfwmubun or .mum.m but mu m wh/ch a max: al oommumly have . pocurvraly mleresi or some moves: by mm mm! legal ngnls m ham/me: are alleoled‘ Sn whme ngms av mum“ can be saw! to be anenlen hue’ I no not Imnk ma! Ihere can he mum Avgumenl mu m wuuld be m D»: puhhc mlemsl In ensuve me pmIe:1mn m uarlam spaces on wwldlfle n .5 msc m mum wun 1115 mm a.1ncep| Mpubhn Interest am such mm: cl mum as ave anecnea can be glennea man. I Dlfllcmar An ma ha: been amended U1 New to w1lad|h5In)andM pubHc mums: In Ihe:nsvamcasem.IIAa;1Ism: \M|dNe cunsmauan Am 2am L'Ar:I 716) This Ad lamaneu the WWII: Ptesewauen Act 1272 rm 15-; one Mme mam arms m venhaung Am 75 mm Ad ms wax hsczuse me pumshmem car Difeu under Am 75 pmcma dwspvopmllonnlzw Vcmer xuniuuoes Io! rmences uxmmI|ed' EIA1tS)HAfiJ.1 w...m.w..W :1-I111) SAn’u:n»1-«uh-an \:'4mAIam mm Page \s sw mcsma1.uwegyHMvyPPMA «mu sum ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 24 Sebab-ssbab pmdaan dmual duelaskan oleh vs Msnlen sepemmana dlpetlk meh YA Hakxm flalam kes an alas di halaman we yana saya penk sepem benkul "finhnnzl Tn wan-amamary Dubalos manaamy m] In. polwcy reasons behmd me amendmenflo the sad Ad an be gamued mm the /elerence to ma amuan Famamamzly nebatas ur me Fenyani R-sml Pavlmvsn Dewan Rakyax (Mansard) dnlzfl 12 Jmy zmn Samnd ind mm Readmg mere Ihemen mm Hnnuuvalfla mmmaum Nalurar Resauvozs and Envlwnmurlt vs uaw Douglas Ugfiah Embix um m aanaaa M. yma dv anlau kelemihin Iklx yang same aaa admin «ma yang leflilu mm.» Immk mumbanlmis lenzyah bevkanan mdupln lwar Big! pandangan cling mm. dendn ml hlmlm dalevenl dengan Izm Ia dndipan mink Jehmnar flsrrgarv nub: knmersml .1.» estznk mdupan nay yang dmndungv em bawan am lstslbul Ssbagal aonloh‘ penahy mammum am: kuahllan membumm seeker haumau hit an nmn Ikt: ma ada aaavan nwusmo nhu Dewar: max mflebwm hm: lalun sama Hahn dmnmmxm dangan mlal kemevsml ylng man mlruangkau mzuoaooo m bawah ring umangalndam um kesalahan an dlndz mlmmum sabanyik yang sama mang- Rmmnonn nan makslmum wsumaou dam verlma mnmlllun mak mebblhl ma lamm Dmam mengamhflkwl kepevman penvegahan melaluu penam bersndil delerlenl darrgan mm rang undanq-uuflang HIV mih m-masukkzn elemen penjavz mnndimn hag: kusahhan an-man xennama hag! ma durvnlspauas Ndupan naryang sangan . c.a.m.am .w(..a..a.m.,. M...) AAIdIAN)AMNw<A/IMN xzvmn mm mm sw mcsmay.uwegyHMvyPPMA “Nuns am n-nhnrwm be used m mm was mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum v-vrm hlanczm Nukuman darn asma yang ditidirvukin dllim rang undangrunding um menunmkkln knvmtmau ma. In yang (mum d-Ilnm menlrvganl xktwlll pnayah mdupan lwav be arah msmbam unusmsgano negalayalvq mane! iebagal hm: xspaaa panyahmupan psmasansau harim Ndup-an hm nnulabangu 25 D. halaman 1n1,vA Hakwm manyambung mu He went lumml cm tn uy Duamplngnmakta Mu Kelakakanmemnmnpknn Vngl uuhl usra.aan dalam membasmu akwln mmyxn ramapannm din rneninkas pemnem Malays‘: lelngzx nab penysmaupan aan psmauangan haram mdupan hay lnlambnngua asm meruamm kewujuflan spsmssspsmss lerxehmxebagal wansan negala new genemsv yang akan davzng [131 Fvom a msuuanm av mm was um by the mg»: Nonourame M\m’s|e¢ amm, Ina pvavuaux Am nan proved madequale m ifldrznmg ms wssugs vegardm ms suussrvauon ul wmms on. M mu mam masons given was me mamlesl madequaay M ms pumshmenl Impuud lur uflannes undm (I1: c\dAc1m oumpansmu wllh ms oammsmavam aumeucvalus 07 we pvulecled specrss svwamma ssmsmsa u was a\so mt that were wzs a naczsswly m Impoti a pumsmsm al manaanary :mnnmnme«| (arm Is a means an delervvnoe «mm was sun oi cnml ms was «an neaessary m me Hgnlahhe negnlwe mane so In: namn m Dem; Vabefled as me mmvm |mzmamna\ wnams smugsznng u was also sen neoeuary In -nwrallw pvssatvahun n! such pmlened speczs om nuslemy The pohny masons macaw me menflm nl In ma AL1 we was cleav u was nu cuarsxavmzx ~|wm<\IMMuI~:va was SA)/lINLn:1ILKIlw‘4 x!V(uAImumn was.-us sm mcsma1xUwewHMVv>PMA “Nana Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm vu muwc Wm! mus. the vampancy wuh which (ms crime wix mu; cnmmlllad and lo alsu pvevenlme pmavesnwe extwmmn nlsuch ipemes oa such WVMWE pmhclad Iccurflmg lo (ha schadmei m 1MAcI M "19 mm mu mmm. be Ialhng m ms duly : a sum m&.Ige was um um om mal mu crlmes would nnl mevdy resufl m a ‘slip on the wnxl‘ am mm saved: pumshmem M keeping wmn me awn: and umecxwes nihmamenmy Imemmn m amenamg such Acl A mode alsenlnncqmalwauh lasuu m a delenence cu would be blended: wus lttela!ora;ux|1flI¢ my me mroumsunos: [151 Thu cam! us Mme: enwed In Lake |m1:cua\ name under . ss Evmsuae A:|195D('A«cl56‘)lmm um amnlas am ms was: m ganeval as m Ihe Iampancy cl such ullancs: \n ma mum Ax = malted Mam dwis as recent 2; the 2am Sultan Allan Shah law Lechnex hem an 9 oam. zuu manna mum speaker‘ Lard Cnmwxllh M Nullmg mu, a Jusuce of me Umled Kmgdnm Supveme Caun, m ms mu an Erwlmmnenm Law ». . Giana! Samely mad: menhon aiMa\1y:\a an hzmg Vusled as one vi me we 12 cmmlues m (M wand for megal wlldme smugghng ms abservalmn flue! l1D|mAgufWEH'L)H7VEl7VBfl9 ac the Hanoi: ms mm! a annu-1 In Oak: such miners Inlv account vn am-smg me adequacy or ienlenae paswea cm such In Menu: 26. Bsrdasarkan kepada nas—nas an alas. adalah Aelis bahawa Mahkamah perm mempemmbangkan kepenhngan awam mengalaslkepenlmgan penbam kebga-llga ownyemasa merualuhkan hukuman cunnzsxuxnzx ~..........»..m mun! u.m...m....... u« tum mm mm sw zocsmayuwsgynuvywwn mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sum EICARA HAKIM SEPENUHNVA 27 23 FERYIMBANGAN Saya June menysdan bahawa undang—undarIg member: bum mcara sepenuhnya kepada Mahkamah unmk menjamhkan hukuman yang dwasakan pahng sasum berdasarkan kepada lak|a kes masmg-masmg seuap kes mempunyal taxca yang herbeza dan hukuman juga max sememya sama hagi senap kes Sebab nulan undang-undang hanya menelapkan hukuman rrwuma dan maksxma, Sena manysmhkan Kepada Hakim alau Majlslrel unluk memhuat kepmusan apakah hukuman yang lerbank dikenakan ke axas pesalah lemehut Dalam menenlukan hukuman yang sesum. kepmusan Mahkamah lardahmu bcflemah mamam panduan mam max meng\ka| Iangan seseovang nakwm alau maustret umuk membual kepulusan yang berlamall sekiranya fevdapal keaflaan-keadaan yang sesual unluk bevhual aemman keputusan» MAHKAMAI-1 SEMASA MENJATUHKAM Huxuum 29 Da\am menjamhkan nuxuman ke aoaa kellgamga om, selam danpada «am: kspen|Ingan awam Gan (aktor-{aklor lam yang dmlqahkan cleh Pegawal Pendakwa terpelajar, saya wga Ielah mengambu kwz fakmrlaklov henkur Page at ..w..W. W W mm aw zL::smagxuwegyHMvyPPMA -ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm wa muNG pm PERYUDUHAN 5 Kenya-Mg: on le\ah amadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Temevluh dengan 2 penuaunan sepem henkut FERTUDUHAN FERTAMA Bahawa kamu secara aersamaaama flengan seurang Vagw yang maslh bebas pads 09 Ogus 2023, ‘am wanm kurang 6 on pagw, dl I-(man Rnzab Hanmau DIra;a AI-Swan Abdumah. Daerah Jevanm Mum um Tembehng, Negeri Pahang (e\ah dldapali menyvmpan enam (6) bahaglan aamng Psrang (Manouna emys) rantu mdupan Mar yang mhndungl m bawan Jadual Ferllml. Akva Femulilurun Hmupan Ir 2o1o [Aha 715} |anpa sualu lesen (Nah demwklzn‘ kamu \e\ah ruemkukan kesabhan m bamh selcsynn 60(1](h)Aku Pamulmamn Hadupan Liar zmn [Akla 115] flan bweh dx hukmn ax bawah Ieluyen am) An. Pemullharnn Hidupan Lint (pindzan) 2922 [Ak|a A1845] dan a. baca balsam: saksyon as Knnun Knukzun. HUKUMAN Apauua axsamxkan, coran muenua max me\emm rma purun nbu rmggul (RM 5o.nou D0)z1au dlpevuavakan se\ama (empoh (Idak me\eb\m uga (3) |amm alau Kedua-duanya we 2 am zu:smaykuwe§vHMVy>»=MA -ma Sum IHIVVDIY Mu be used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; flan-mm VII mum pm (a) Tidak belperi kemanusllan ma anmaz kepafla lakla kes‘ sekurangkurangnya 6 aka: Bamng Perang yang hdak bsmasa Ielan man dvburum dengan kqamnya men pembum yang max belperi kemanuslaan (I3) Fengzkuan salah bulunlah mm «mm mltlgasn pk: dad: pembelaan bermerh. Walaupun Kelvga-uga on membua| pengakuan sa\ah pada perIngka| awal‘ say: berpemizpal pengakuan salah keuga— uga on ml uaak lnfleh meruadl laktov miugasl yang hawk kerana pka dmhal xepaaa «am kes‘ sememangnya Kenya- uga om hdak mempunyal saharang pembelaan pun seklranya kes ml mmcarakan Da\am pmax FF v Tia Ah Leng poem] 5 MLJ 401‘ Mahkamah memuluskan bahawa ssbarang pengakuan saran awal ludak memamm sehavang mskaun dalam hukuman secara aummamk 12; me rule Im an accused raelsnn shank! he gm cream or awum oarpwunmg guflfy as u saves «me and cosls Vs umy . nenem Ma rm demands M pm: mxerest may nu ma mlcumslancas ov a parlwcmav case lav uulwexgm any =...«,,;_m .nw..w..m.m avian SAIIUIIIDIIIHWMWI »m.A..m.m mm N zocsmaykuwewHMVy>»=MA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm mmgalmg elem max mm have been nucrm: Ia zn mused s may D|ea' Dalam kes Bachik Abdul Rahman v Panchkwn Ray: [2004] 2 cu 572, an halaman saa hmgga 554, Mahkamah Rayuan meruelaskzn ‘rm Vaamad wage appears m have taken me vm. nun cvedfl should he mm m every use vmue a pEIW7I weeds may The Dnxnmn m kw ws mm n m genevillv awepted mm in -Iucusad pmun shuuld be given creml or .m»...m fm pmamg gmlly (see 5:41 Soo Km v PP (19751 2 ML! m W V $11/atman om Anmad[1EB3]1 ML! 74 PP V Ravvndran s um uses} 1 MU 45; run ducaunl mu m given ws ncrmalry . Mdlnman nl me sunlance W mm a Imm av when wnuld mhlmnsa haw bun mmea (tee Mohamed Abdullnh Any Swag Karrg v PF man 2 cums‘ [1937] cmnemzna‘ Pm Muhsrv Dm Mum}./am a mm mm} 3 cu can cmwpner Khoo Ewe chm; V »=pus9s1 am my Nawwev‘ um ‘s not 3 sum mln as I». omm may, In Me exercnu alnlsdnsclelmn veins: lo want any «man: m an nausea-ma ms: nu Zmdorv snamvv up-uses} «cum L». Sn)/SDI: V pp mas} 2 cu 155 [1925] cu (Rap) 6:3) 1!: lpplxcalmn m «mm M an accused depends on me 43:13 mm mrcumslinnes m each case (see Wong my Chuen pm V Wnaau a MLJ 321) Thus .3 mcnlyezwlalnud by cums JA n my» Nrmals: Domvzlly V M1557] 91 A Crlm n ssa 3| 9 554 =...m....; .wm.......mm 125002) suwnwnmmtulur sum-\rm AIM W :2 sm mcsma1xUwewHMVy>PMA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm A mull’: muse mwams me can m 3 nlea Mguulty u expecled |e act as an enmulmememmemzrsucn a plea The we Ml?! wmch (he noun .5 in D: uzmxmad \s max wevghl should be glvnn la n m 12»: ummxlamzs rm uvcumslanaas m Wm. a guflly pm: wm m name any wuighl ma mm The twenty cl Ihe Mleoae aummmed may ouwmgh we mmgalmg eneq 013 gmhy me: {see um HockSarIgEAnoIv PPIIBIDI 2 ML! 13. Pm OaLong SW69 4 as [man u MLJ 247: wnsm Dubhc unmask demands a delenem semenbe m M: cwcumsflnoei at a pamwlav cue, mm M: .n-«.1 al a gmlly plea must a\sn gm Wm”: Srm cu Yong v FFHW5] 1 sm 531, PP V emmm I/I Clvmden Mammy 2 cm am; A guflly [flea name! also he . powerful mmgnnng «am Why: eflecflvehj no uecme In me mug. .5 muaone lo me accmed me Pm Law ma Wm[1S8E]2 cu 105‘ mus; 2 cu (Rap) 253) w a phi at gumy u made too late m Ina ma! u may am cans to havemnlngahngeflecltsaee up y Dalo Nanakampaan So/amlarav [1999] 2 cu sea) The absence cl mmgaum lanals m lmuur an». avenue! hke. lav msllnue. m. axlslmve nlplevlnus mmcnmsmay am depnve me gm», phi m -I: mm were an Dvaqelura 5. no zutnmanc Me mal agmllymeaan us awn Innlles an accused lo a Vesser pumsnmenl (see PP V T15 An Lang [2000] 5 cu em Ba Ina: E; n miy, where mum aaeoanme Vmm ma geneul rm: I712 Ieawn Var N11 ueanna me may we: is a mm.;.u.._; lnclur must In lellenea m we gmunds L1MudgmMI1(:ee7arvLayL‘IvErv V ;=»{2ano| 4 Cu 432) - ;..m,...2. w.m:....,4.,.~...;‘ )2/lam: ‘..w...,...w... ,mwn......, I715: 15 sm mcsmamJ'NewHMVy>PMA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Dalam kes Am, saya berpendapal bahawa lakmr pengakuan keuyanga on bukamah lakmrmmgasi yang Kual dalam xea ‘enayah mdupan ha! ying Celah menyebabkzn negara kehvangan nyawa s ekm aamng Psrang yang mempakan khaunan negara yang mak boleh dvcan gann uan msngalamu ancaman kepupusan (c) mngaa Bisu (silentviclim) Hmupan llzr um mervpakan mangsa msu (srlenr v/clvm) an mana meleka mak mampu unluk menganmn nndakan undang—undang ke alas penyenayan-pemenayan nmupan Mar Meveka jugs mak mampu melawan kehka dllembak. dncederakan dan amunun oven pembururpemhuru mdupan Mar yang max berpen kemanusiaan nu Olsh yang demukvany adalah meruadw «anggungpwan semua rakyal Malaysia yang sayangkan khazanah negate yang hdak Iemllar umuk membanlu pmak berkuasa knususnya Jahawn PERHIUTAN unluk memhawa pemenayah~ peruenayah muupan Mar ml bag: pwhak mdupan Mar ks muka pengadllan dan dlkenakan hukuman yang sewnpal Mahkamah juga mempunyal peranan da\am membamu menegzkkzn keadnan hag! mangsa-mangsa bwsu Im dengzn mengenakan hukuman yang bnleh membevi pengajaran yang sehmpal ke alas pesalan-pesalah yang melakukan E m,m,.y rmmusuwuravlva nyms SAIWIr1nAm<uwIAm mm...“ MID mg: 2. N zocsmaykuwewHMVv>PMA Nuns my ...m.mn be used m yaw me nrW\ruU|:I mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm! kesa\aI1an :’ nan mernnen mesa; kepada masyarzkat supaya lrdak melakukzn kesawan.-an yang sama alau berdepan dengan hukuman yang panng berat Mmangnya‘ sebagalmana yang dllapurkan nleh Fegawaw Fendakwa kes penjenayah mdupan ha! semakxn berlambah darnalumketahurl Plhak Kerqaan Pevsekutuan can Kermaan Negev: la\ah mengamm Vangkah-Iangkah iegas nagi membendung Jena)/ah me¥Iha\kan mdupan Ilir lnl dengan memmda hukuman dalam perunlukan Imdang-Imdzng berkawiin dengan menalkkan wmxan denda din peruava Mahkamah rnesman member! keian kepada p.naaan— pindaan lersebul dan Mahkamah meslflah beram mengenakzn hukuman yang mans": wilhmn‘ lear m (av/our Jwka Mahkamah gagax memherlkan hukuman yang deterrent. usiha Pammen dan Dewar: Undangan Negen meluluskan hukuman yang beval ke mas pesaran-pesaxan pnzyah hldupan Ixar akan mengadw sla a darn hdak bermakn: z m,....0 W.~.......>.~.w ,....,.. iuwu W LIAN smvuwu mm :7.“ 2s N zocsmavxuwewfiuvwvmn um smm ...m.mn be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (a) sluun nmm Hukumzn saya Ielah membenkan mskaun xa alas hukuman penjara dengan hanya mengenakan n ukum a n pe rua H 2 (in u n saha.a hevbandmg denqan nukuman penjara makslmum 3 lanun yang dnperunlukkan da\am Seksyen snu) Am Pemullllanan Hidurun Llar (plnflun) 2n12 [Anna A1546]. Eagw Penuduhan Kedua, saya mengenakan hukuman denda paung nngan Rmsamo bemanamg hukuman aemsa malslma RMIOQUDCI yang amen mkanakan aan hukuman peruara 5 (shun sahqa bemanmng dengan hukuman mzkswma penjava 10 lahun yang mperunmkkan dahm Soksyon 29(2) Ana Pomulillaraan Hidupan Llar (plndzan) 2022 [Am Mus]. nrAH KDVMM PEMANGKIJ RAJA FAHANG :0 Suka saya memehk Kembafl man KDVMM Pemangxu Raya Pahing melahu kenya|aan mema benankh 10 Jun 2u22 di mana Bagmdz tzlah benkrar unluk melaksanakan ianggunmawab dan me\aKukan usaha terbawk bagi melmdungl speues Hanmau Ma\aya danpada ancaman kepupusan 31 Bagmfla .uga bemtah bahawa xera.aan negen perm membenkan keulamaan unluk menuhuhkan um! penguakuasaan hevkesan nag. menghapuskan ancaman pembuman havam flan plhak lerllhsl dalam keglatan (ersebul perlu dwangkap dan m hawa ke ¢.m..m... Muzuruamwzncw ,ma.wmw.u.w.s ..y.4.m Pzgelin sw zL::smayxuwegyHMvyPPMA -ma Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm vn mum pm muka pengadnan 32 Pzda havl mu, kaugauga on (elah mxangkap nan dlbawa ke muka pengaguan Saya berpendapzt zdzlah |anggungyawab Mahkamah pula un|uk memawhkan hukuman yang buleh rnenghapuskan ancaman pnayah Iudupz mengenakan hukuman yang pahng hers! . Iersebul dengan KESIMPULAN as D: akmr anshswsy saya berpendapat sahflan den hukuman yang (e\ah dualuhkan adalah mengvkul undangundang. wa.ar dan munasabah aena sehmpal dengan kasalahan yang dnlakukan aleh xengamga OKT 34. Sebelum saya mengakmn aIa5an penghakwman mu, suka saya memeflk ucapan YAA Tun Armn mn Zakana‘ maman Kelua Hakxm Negara semasa member: ucapan dw Majlls Pemhuknn Tahun Pemnnangan 2n17 dw Fusal Kunvensyen Fulvqaya paga 13 Januari zow barkaman dengzn hukuman bag: «sakes. mahbalkan ruaupan har yang saya pellk sepsm bsnkm 1311 The xaax av cngmzzlwe oi me Slgmficznue nl anmnmencan pmteclmn am the dean of educitmn Ind ssnmwny .n ms rcspsd ws name oul ny a Dnmpansun \ drew m my mangnmu xpesch at the Opemng ul xn. Legs! Vearcevemnny m we 1 raiafln m the dvspamy between isnlervces memo nut by um cums m mmmn m :mIIvonmema\ offences Van mxy mail! In: cams: 1 dvaw A man n Yumpal l<e\anlan who was canwaed lur being m mega! pasyessmn .11 a ma ngu, a pmlecled j__jj M. unuzvo .1.“ §urnwnuouwum£z1\yAh4Lzw1/ Pig: :7 N zucsmamJwewHMVv>PMA ma saw ...n.mn be used m mm .. mmuny mm: flan-mm wa muNG pm spemes, was ma . mam am mum in zoos, Mme a man oonvnaed «mm mm ul n tans 4:! may am and -em-mess Slum“ worm mm m zmu wal sentenced xe me yum wmpnsmmanl u \l\u.mz1es]usl new rmiplaced out vahle system was then as war! as how lmle exvcsule ind nwnvenes-I men: was amongst our m-Inlllvavas and wages‘ Win the -npmemnm cl uur envlmnmenlil courts‘ our Ilammv pvogvavlmcs and am nanonal shilegy wurkymups mes: amludes have hnpemvy‘ cnangm" PENUTUF 35 Says bemarap, dengan hukuman yang duahmkan m alas‘ Hes-kes nerkauan pnayan mdupzn liar dapal dmenllkan ssna mena flan [enayah hldupan Ila! my dapal muaanmas sepenuhnya dan khazanah negzra yang max lsmual nu (erpehhara Emamm pm I5hh..lanuari 2024. DIN am HA:lI MAT Mnhkaman Sesyen Temerloh, Pahang. ‘s... M Wm M... ‘u,mmr.mu9.y\rn.:.M mm. ,....n,. .3 ma- j. C AJE!)G9n2) WNXIMVQUDMIIMEV awn: SAIWAA.AM<VIU|lAIX1‘(Ur\YNl.1U)fl Pagezfl N zocsmajxuwewfiuvwwmn um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pihak-Pihak: Mohammadzahani inflrilfin, Pegawai Panaakwa, Jlblhn Perllndungan Hidupan Uar dun nnun Nagm. Semenanjung Malaysia. Kelign-Inga on mowakill am sen Ravmm hm SuI|Im|n,|umI.1:h:s: Kenlbala. £I<!L>)Cl.\L1 .».mmw.~....‘ ...,., SAD‘?/\>xDA?4LkA/IN1 :2.‘ H41 '\)IAl Va;-1&2‘! w zu:smaykuwe§:IHMVy>PMA -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm FERIUDUHAN KEDUA Bahawa kamu sscava bersama»sama pada n9 Ogns 2022. jam Vehm kurang e no pagu m Hman Rwzab Hanmau Dwraja AV-Swan Anauuan, Disrah Jeranlul, Mum um Temheling, Negen Pahang le\ah mdapani menywmpan nma puluh (so; was ‘eval menggunakan iah mlon O\eh demrkwan‘ kamu Ielzh melakukan ke§a\aI1an an hawah seksyen zsn J Aku Pomullhavnn Hidllmn Lm [pmaum 2n22 (ma A1646] flan Imleh an hukum an bawah saksyen 29(2) Akla yang sama dan m baca beusama ukayen 34 Klnun Kaseksnn HUKUMAN. Apama dlsabnkan, maenua max kumlg danpada rm puluh mm nnggn IRMSQGOD any flan hdak wenm danpada salu ralus nbu YIllggl|(RM1UD‘000DU) dan mperuarakan se\ama |empoh hdak me\eb\m sepmuh (10; tahun D1 alas kedua-dua penuduhan dl alas, kehga—IIga OKT mengaku bevsalah aan laham sllat dan am: pengakuarmya Mahkamzh kemuduznnya, melaluw Juvubahasa Kembofi menevangkin kepada kenga-uga on bahawa ma mereka mengaku salah‘ sakslszksl hdak akan mpanggll‘ dan mereka akan dwsabxlkan dengan penuu-man seneuan mereka mengakm fakla kes dan ekshrbweksmbll yang akan mkemukakan meh pmak pemzaxwaan sw zu:smayxuwegy«MvyPPMA -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm a Keuga-lvga on mengaku laham penerzngan Mahkamzh dan maslh mengaku salah kg atas kenga-(Iga penuduhan FAKTA KES 9 Sehzlah mendengar pengakuan bersalah xeuga-uga o><T yang dmual eanpa syaral, pmak pendakwaan selemsnya mengemukakan lzkla kes yang dmacakan melalul Jurubahasi Kembq: dan mam men kel\ga»(iga on dan di|enma Lfleh Mahkamah dan dilandakin sebagav eksmbll P3. Pengadu da\am kes Inn aaarah Pegawav Pengualkuasa Ja|7a|an PERHIUTAN berlugas u. Jahalan Perhndungan Hmupan Liar Dan Tamar: Negara IFERHILITAN) yang bernama Zama\ Abuim Dun Mal (K/P a3a31s—1s55¢ 1) Pada ma Ogns 2023, jam Iebm kuvang asuoms, pengadu bevsama smpal M) anggma Penguflkuasz PERHVLITAN |e|ah menjamnkan serbuan ke alas sebuah (apak perkhemahan yang dlhunl Me?! pencercbah warganegara asmg dw kawzsan I-(man Rxzab Hanmau Dllaji AV-Sukan Abduflan (Hulan Slmpsn Gunung Ali) G! GR 52344I,4BE402 Nzsfl pemenksaan lelah meruumpal enam 45; bahagxan spesles Bamng, Ilma pmuh (50) mas [Brat nvfcn. uga (3) bflah kapak. llga (3) bflah parang. Sam (1) dakumen passporl hemombar NDD4S513D. salu (I) |eIe4on mmbn panama WVD V15A, satu (1) Ielelnn himbi| mrvama Nukwa TA1174 sa|u(I)le\e1on mmbruenama Nnkxa 1280 W.;.,..m. ».mm.,....~....‘ mm s..‘.....W...‘.. m.u..wm Pages IN zocsmayxuwegy«MvyPPMA -ma smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Keuga — hga \e\ak< berkenaan gagax un|uk mengemukakan seharang dokumen bagl menylmpin bahagxan mdupan har flan max (ersebul apamla amuma Mel! pengadu Pengadu (slah menerangkan kesalahanyang ’ kukan mbawan Akta Pemuhhavaan Hldupan Liar [Ana 716] mndaan 2022 [Akta A1645] din mereka laham Barang kes man duampas dan Sam (1) sahnan Boring Senaval Benda Yang Dmla (FHLD1/2015) yang telah dnandalangam dwserahkan kepada meleka Buuran kenga —hga Ielakl yang cmahan yang ma «enumm bag: Kes Im auucaum seperlv benkut — Nama Hem Pan Passport Tvida Nama Mess Lan Passpurl NOD95I30 Mama Salk Fak Passpon Tlada Eenkulan rampasan nu, sam Vapuran pens lehh dibuax u» balax pnhs Jar.-sump no repol K TEMBEUNG/000456/23 dan JERANTUT/DDSDGS/‘Z3 Bamg kes yang dlvampas «em dlbawa halvk ke pe,aua| PERHYLITAN unluk lmdakan Iamm :...m.m L/NM m.m.‘ :1-nan: ;..mn..~..,... q-m.-mm.» Pageé IN zo=sma,mw9.y«m,ppm -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Swasalan telah dualznkzn men Pegawax Penylasau Jaba|an Aim: En Mohammad Falz Shaman hm mramm Lapovan Analms unan DNA hag: Pengecaman spun-.s JPHLATN (PHG) 15512023 yang IeVah auawankan uleh Penganahsxs Makma\ Ianu Nousyamnm mnm Rm dw Makmal Furenswk Hldupan Lwav Kebangsaan Jabalan Ferhndungan Hxdupan Lvar Dan Taman Negarz (PERHILITAN) mengesahkan bahawa huiupan har yang mm adalah Bamng Perang (Manauna ernys) mu sqems mdupan hat yang dmndungu mbawah Jadual Panama, Akla Pemulihaiaan Hldupan Lav 2010 [Akla 716] plndaan 2u2z [Akla A1646]. Kama - nga on lelah gagz¥ Im|uk mengemukakan lesen bag! menylmpan mdupan ha! (erseDu| semngg: km: olen yang denuklany keuga - (193 on man dldapau melakukan kesalahan ianu menylmpan lanpa Iesen enam (5) bahagwan Banmg Perang (Manmma emys) uanu se]ems mdupan har yang dmndungl dw bawah Jadual Panama Akla Pemulmaraan Hmupan Lwar zom [Akla ma] pmdaan 2:122 [Akta A1646] Laporan pakar Pengecaman Jeral JPHL&TN (FHG) 155/2023 yang le\ah dflalankarl alen Pakar Pengscaman Jabalan newan mengesankan bamwa jeval yang msna aualah llma puluh (50) ulas ]eral menggunakan [ah mlnn nan kesalahan dubawah Akta Pemunnaraan Hmupan may 2o1c [Akla 716] pmdaan 2022 [Am A1645} cuzis m an r—ww4v .... um no #1 x... x. .. .,.n..w... :z'»(nmu.1um Fair 7 «N zocsmayxuwegyHMvyPPMA -um Snr1n\nnnhnrw\HI>e used m yaw .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm EKSHIEIT-EKSHIBIT 10 5e|erusnya‘ plhak pendakwaan mengemukakan eksmbnr exsmm seperll benkul (a) Kuali Tembshng Report No 456/23 sebagaw ma (ta) Jevanlul Repnn No 5055 sehagal PAA (I2) Eorang Senarax Eenda Yang Dlswa sehagaw P5 (4) 2 kepmg pe¥an Iakar lempal kefldwan sebagax FSA flan Pea (e) 31 keplng gambar Iangkapan sebagax P7A1—P1A31 (1; ea keping gambav barang kes sebagm PBM-PEABE (g) 1 lzparan pengecaman jelal sebagaw P9 (In) 1 laporin anahsxs -man DNA unluk pengecaman spesles sebagau Pm (x) 6 bahagxan Banmg Perang sehaga\P11A—F (1) so ulasAEva| mervggunikan (ah mlon saDagaIF12A1-A50. (x) 3 man parang sehagal P13A£ up 3 man kapak sebaga\P14A-C (m) 1 gum plasnk belwama putih sebagal P15 (n; 1 dakumen paspnr! Na N00496130 atas mama Meas Lan sebagax P15 (:2) 3 mm Kebéon um-mu mama Vwn V1 5A, Nokna TMIM dan Nokua man sebagaw P11ArC (Ekshvbneksmbn telzh dnumukkan kepada semua OKT dan dlakmbenar) mm mm .. m.(.....,.".,..‘ mum) W.m..mW.M Krawum NM Fag:-E IN zocsmaykuwewHMVv>PMA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm RAVUAN MITIGASI M. Rayuan OKT1. (at 11') (ch (6) (9) U) (at W W (I! (k) Pohan hukuman dmngankan Mamuunyaw 3 omlg anak Menanggung urang lua Txaua kena Kamr mm maal Kamx (ak ulangx lagl Umur 57 lalmn Warganegara Kembma Masuk ada pasporl lapl dah mlang Sekamlg um paspon Sudan 5 lalwn masuk Malaysia 12 Rayuan OKT2 (87 that 15) Id) 19) (N Berumur 40 (ahun Kena max [slap aerxanwm, belum ads Inak. Wzvganegala Kembqa Ada uasnan (am visa «srah man 4 (shun Ieblh Masuk Malaysia Vebm kuvang 4 (ahun Iebm 13 Rayuan OKT3 (I) (D) A:a«nu¢11n ...wM......m....‘ mm w.~....~_..m.. .,».u..m 1/no Barumuv 54 vamm Kena udak |en|u me a IN zocsmam.rNewHMVv>PMA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (5) (<1) 19) (0 aerkahwm, 3 orang anak Warganegala Kembona. Paspon |e\ah mlang mesa balw semasa kena kflang <11 Sungax aunm‘ Se\angor Masuk Malaysia sudah 5 |ahun HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN PIHAK PENDAKWAAN 14 Pegawai Pendakwa‘ Enmk Mond zabam hm Annn mengemukakan pengmqahan pemberacan sepefll berlkul (1) 12) Penuduhan panama mehbalkan spesxes rmupan lwar aamng Perang yang tersenanaw dalam Jaduul Panama Alm Pamulnumn umupan Liar znm (Aklz may Perluduhan kedua ada\ah menylmpan Aeval sepem yang din)/atakin dalam Jadual Kemjuh Akla 11s Kaauaaua kesedahan Im marupakan b<esa\ahan ;enayan a\am aaknar yang mpanuang semis an Makaysva mahupun m mana—mana negiva ma: Adalih meruadl tangqungjawab semua umuk men]:-zga khazanah negara uu agar |ems berKeka\sn aan ma mendapal mamaat yang tema-k Dalam kes Im melrbalkan anon warganegara Kembofi Mereka sepamlnya mengenanm dan menghormau undang-undang Ma\ay5:a wauu msngambll/menylmpan hldupan dan jeral maupan Mar adalah sualu kesalahan yang senus W :4: am zL::smayxuwegy«MvyPPMA -ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIA mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22IP-29-06/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) ADLEESYA BEAUTY SDN BHD 2. ) ADLEESYA NETWORK SDN BHD DEFENDAN KHAIRUNISA NADIA BINTI KARIP (Berniaga di atas nama dan gaya NADEEN BEAUTY)

Plaintiffs filed this action against Nadia for Breach of director’s duty; Passing off; and Fraudulent registration of the Contested Trademarks in her name. Both application dismissed; Court make no order as to costs.

30/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3a473341-907a-4a94-8eb0-bb5f5dca8a2f&Inline=true

30/01/2024 09:29:59 WA-22IP-29-06/2023 Kand. 44 S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N QTNHOnqQlEqOsLtfXcqKLw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal vm—22n>—29—u6/2023 Kand. 44 32/01/2014 29:29-52 IN THE HIGH COURY or NIALAVA A7 KUALA LUMPUR CIVIL sun NO WA«22|P-ZIOGIZDZS BETWEEN 1. ADLEESVA SEAUTV snu sun 2. ADLEESVA NETWORK sou BHD PLAINTIFFS ANI7 KHAIRUNISA unnm amn KARIP (Yradinu in nu numu Ind am: of NADEEN BEAUTY) JUDGMENT (lnlenm injunction) x Introduction 1 Thvs ws 3 sad case n! a oaup\e mamed «or 14 years and wnh we cmfdren hawug vathev successfully run a beauty pmduc1s husmess Iugelhev «or over a decade‘ but wnn thew aslrangamenl and subseqwrn awce (no! .us| as a mamed eoupxe bu| also m busmess) are new mgorously hauling each 0019: over me use or trademarks regxslerad m the delendaru wile‘: name which me Puammrs (nuw fully oonuunea by me husband} allege belong to them vmn me mu man of em -71 then claim: and caunlmdaxms agamsc each omer now fixed m October 2a24, each are apmymg [or mjuncuans agamsl me other ms Judgmsm cumams the reasons (or my decision on non. zpplmalmns sw mNHoru<4\:\£~1osuvxcqKLw g -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm me I av 2-1 3. Slliunl team 2 The Pleimiws afloge man. lrom smunu 2009, me husband (‘Sya1a'j and me nmenaann (“Nadia”) commenced a beam pmame nusmess usmg me brand name "M\eesya' Adbesya is a combinamn 0! me names 0! mew firs| Iwo children, “Adam“ and 'A|sesya‘ wnh ma gmwmg popmanly at Ina! busmess under me Adleesyi brand neme. in 2:212, a huslnass named "Adleesya Eeauly Enterprise" (‘Adbesya Emerprise") was formed us run 11, Mlh Name ragwslemd as its sane pmpnewr. Nadia contends that sne mom had scanea and made man business a success. Hence, me: vs me reason why she was registered as me sole proprietor cl Adloesya Ennerpnse. 3 As ma: busmess canlinued to gum an 17.4.2017 syava and Nadia set up a oomnany to run :1 under. They moorpnvalad Adlassya Network Sdn and (‘Adlaasya Natwurk'| as the name ‘Adlaasya aseucy Sdn Bhd“ was apnarenuy nu| avaflabla 3| me «me On moorpormion, Ameesya Network had a pa -up capital of RMIDDDO 00, mm Sya1a noumng 30% and Name 20%. Bum were nsvanhaless dlraclors onne company with Adlsesyl Network my lawn war we Ameesya baauly pmducu business, mey allowed me busmess regmralmn er Adleesya Eaauly tn expire at me ene av man same year. 4. on 26.5.2017‘ Aaleasya Nelwnrk appned [tar and suooessvuny rsgvetered me uauemark ‘Adlaasya' under Trademark Regaueuen No.2D17DO557I am UYNHDrrl\}\EQOsLI1XcuKLw «we. s.n.‘ nmhnrwm be LAIQ4 w my a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max me 1 9110 a) D) c) d) am mwor-amiqomvxcuxlw mm. Snr1n\nnnhnrw\HI>e LAIQ4 .a may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Sualu perisyllhavan hahawz Deienaan adalah pemihk sah Cap Dagangan-Cap Dagangan yang dmyalakan dalam tunlutan d4 sim: Sualu m.-my un|uk menghalang dan melarang Plalnhfv Pvamm (sauna ada me\a|ui penggunaan dan Imdakan rnana..nana pengaran, pegsrwm. azen din/alau wakllnya) darlpada kelirupaan (nasswngmfi) Can Dagangan danlalau Cap dagangan yang Vain yang nammr menyerupal den rnengehrukan “WOMEN DESIREE" ‘WOMEN DESIREE TRIPLE ADVANCE“, ‘WOMEN DESIREE Essemuu. CREAM" den ‘WOMEN DESIREE AGELESS CREAM‘ (wmc) darn/a|au cup Dagangan parkalaan dan kuasan flan Cap Dasnnaancap Dagangan mvlik oevendan yang Va - Sualu ln|IAk5\ bagl manglwahng dan melarang P|airml— Plamlfl (sama ada me|a\uI manaanarva pengarahnya. Iennamanya Mohd Syafanzan hm sukamo (No KIP' Momma-5537;, paglwal ejen flan/ilsu wakvlnya) danpada kellrupaan (passing-om wama mevah hrnbayung din keemasan pada nemhungkusarl pmduk yang hamplr manyempai dan mengehnlkan semn sapem pembungkusan preauk Delendan: Penman bahawa hak milxk Can Daganganllap Dagangan lersahul dvkekalkan kepada Delandan, van 1: nun 9) H) I) sm mNHorr4\:\EqDsuvxr:uKLw mm. smm ...m.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Psriman unwk panghamaran avau pemusnahan selepas sunvnan semua perkara alau label ban:e|ak a|au herluhs pad: axau unluk produk kecarmkan yang penggunaannya akan memadl pelanggaran Imuksv yang dusehul an alas‘ Ponnlah Lmluk menurunkan semua vxdao dan gambar yang menggunakan Cap Dagangan-Cap Dagangin mmk Dehndan yang mempakan sualu kefimnaan massing» ofl)dan/atau spa-spa Cap Dagangan lam yang ke|Iha|an seakan-akan 5ama dan/alzu hamplv manyarupai Cap nagangancap Dagangan dam. Jadual 1 dan mum ll\edIa»rIIed\a sosIa\ yang dflmll danlatau dukendalnkan Nah F\avmfF|a|nl V; Inkum msngenai gunll mg! alau alas pmnan Dmnaan. sualu akaun keunlungan dun penmah bagx pembayavan semua ;um\ah wang ylng mdapah perlu dlbayar oxen P\arnM-P\aIn|\l kapada Deienaan. Ganh rugi bag: kshllangan nama baik dan mpulasl (gooawm and repulalwonl‘ Germ mg: teladan: Gann rugi «emu, v... u m m 14. K) m) a) sm mwor-auwiqoslnvxcuxlw mm. smm ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: mmn wa munc pm Faedah we nengnaknnan bagi pererlggan gm, n darn kj an [is bermula dan cankn penwauan guaman an s mngga ke nanxn penghakiman pada kadar 5% setahun sexaras denuan Seksyen 11 Ana Undang-Undang Swil I956 alau Dada kadar dan lampoh yang dvisakan sesual olsh Mahkamah yang Muhe nun Kos ates daser aw rugx: Faedah pasca penghekvman bagi perenggafl DUI), i) K) flan V) til atas pada kadal leih 5% Selahun bermma darl larikh penghakiman hmgga penyelesazan yang sama, Kus. dan Aua~apa rem lam yang dlfikvkan sesuav man Mahkamah yang Mulna ml. By its avblwcalxorl(“FIamnf1s'AppIu:aIion").the P\a|nlvNs are apnlylng lc( lhe fallovwmg mjunctvon against Nadxa nevenaan, Khavumsa Name mnu Kanp, dengan senairinya. dan/avau Dekenrpekenanya dan/alau pengkmdmalnengkhldmalnya danlalau e;en—e‘ennya den/atau per-gedarneng-Mamya‘ alau usngan ape iua cara yang lam airman; dan din saw mjunksu adalah dengan ml dnbenkan menghatangnya danpada menggunakan danlalau malakukan anaaya urusan. mharang lransaksi ‘ual bah dan/alau apa-apa lrznsaksl vaxeuunn D) cl pemiagaan yang memzaekan ploduk kecamikan ’WOMEN DESIREE AGELESS CREAM Devendan, Khanmmsa Nadia mm. sendvnnya. flan/atau pengkhvdmatpengkhidmatnya dan/alau epen-qennya Karin‘ dengan pekenamekarjanya dan/alau dan/atau pengedarpengedimya. am dengan ape we can yang Vain dmalang darn dan sam vruunksi adalah dangan Im mbenkan menghalangnya danpada rnenggunakan dan/atau memkukan spa-spa umsan. sehavang transaksx iual beh uanlanau ipa-apa lransaksx pemiagaan yang menbaxkan produk kecarmkan ‘WOMEN DESIREE ASELESS CREAM‘ semngga selepas pelupusan pemm permohonan dv sum. Kcs alas dlsar langgung rug! hendaklah dlbayar oven Mama kapaaa plaimimamun Pmak max diheri kehehasan unluk memohon, den Rellhehl lanjul alau lain aebagavmana Mahkamah Muhl mi an-ggap sasua: 15 In mm, by her apphcahon (“Defsndanrs Anpllcalnrfl. News Va. clmmmg the lmlowmg muncnms and mlenrn rem agamsl me F'\amm15. sm mworuailwiqoslnvxcuxlw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! uauunno (5; Eahawa sualu pennlah atau Imunksu (erhadap Plalrml» mamur danlalau pekanapekananya flan/avau pengkhidmabpsngkhvdmatnya flan/alau epenqennya dan/slau pengedar—pengedar P\am|iV-P|ain|W dihalang dan d\berhen|ikan darlpada menggunakan dan/atau meiakukan apa»apa umsan, sebirang kansnksn ma! bah dan/ateu apa-apa Irinsaksv pemuagaan yang menhankan produk yang menggunakan Cap-Cap Dagangan mink Delendan‘ ‘WOMEN assumes“ can/amu "women usssaze ESSENTIAL anew‘ dan/alau ‘WOMEN nasuzse mwu: ADVANCE‘ flan/alau Vogo ‘wD‘ sehmflaa Dsrmahonan mv dllupuskan sepenuhnya‘ (b) Bahtwa sualu perinlah alau wmunksi \erhadap Plumm- Pkamhf flan/atau Dakerjapakenanya dan/a|au pengkhldmat-nengkmdmalnya dan/alau ejen—e;ennya flan/alsu pengedarpertgedar Plamlll-Plalnm duhalang flan diberhermkan danpada menggunaknn dan/axau mdakukan apa~apE urusan. sebarang Iranslksl .uaI beh den/alau apa~apa wansaksx pemlagaan yang malnbalkan produk yang menggunakan can-cap Dagangan mihk Deflndan, “WOMEN DESVREE“ flan/alau “women DESIREE ESSENTIAL CREAM“ dan/a\au “WOMEN DESIREE TRVPLE ADVANCE‘ dan/alau Iago ‘WD' sehmgga undakan um dlpuluskan mnara muklamad, lc) Kos hndakan Ini uuamkan sehagi kus da\am kausa‘ Gan sm mworuailwiqoslnvxcuxlw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 15 17 am mworrluliqosmxcuxlw “Nair Sum! In-vlhnrwm be LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnllly ml. dun-mm VII nFluNG mm (d) Apa-ape rallf lam yang dldapan adll dan sualmanfaal eleh Mahkamah Yang Mulla ml. me Plaimlfls had many apphefl lar me Plamma Applimtlon |o be head and granlad €x~pane Learned counsel for the Plalnms nsvmhaless candldly (and nghfly so as an olncer ul lna com) alaned lma cum at me oulsel er Ihe ax-pans hearlrlg or me plemlilrs Appllcallon |ha( lhls acllon was in realllya dlspule belwserl a llnenl aalrangad couple, who were indeed sllll mamed when «ma Icllorl was mad In June 2a23 hu| amclally dweraed soon Elflef In mat cimumslance, l dlreclad me Plalnulls‘ Application In be heard mfsl panes Wflh Nadla new nlmg me nelendanra Applleallon. ll made sense |n hear om» appllcallons logelner An-lynll nml deelslon By Kul Gould Frlncls Noel mm 11 Mohd Nour hln Ahdullnh [ms] 1 ML) 19:, me lhree quashorls asked m en epplieellon tor an lnlerlm lrulmcllon are ll) Whamar Ihara are Dana /We smous lssues in he med. (H) wnalnar me balance al corlvanlanm lles ln Iavoul al glanhng m rel ' 9 ma mlenm lnluncunnl lm) Whemer damages V3 an adaquale remedy‘ and v... 15 4:! In nemer mere re boria n 15. sues be ined In my View, mere are obviously bone rrde serious issues to be tried The oonrpeirng naneiwes as in wno nghuully owns ine Con|es|ed Trademarks IS obviously one of lhe main issues is be decided. and can only he decided ei lhe Ivial Aneirrer 15 who owns ine copyright in me designs and packaging la the PIeirriii1s' products A «turd is whether ihe Defendant’: business and HS 'wuMEN basins: AGELESS CREAM‘ passes ufl luv the Plainhfls and «he Fiainims‘ praducls Afnurlh VS wneiherme Dedendeni had breached havdulias |o ine Plainiriis wmie still a director o1|hem.The are jusi some :2! ibern wnicn Xhls Court expects to decide aiier me full \ria| M |he action. Th; hgigng gr gglwemence I9 20 srn mworvvliliiqoslivxnuklw “Nair s.n.i nuvihnrwm .. u... m my r... nflninnflly MVMI dnuumnl VII .nune Wm! Having weighed me respecwe avgumams oi ine names, in my view ine balance of oonveruenoe lies In no: granung either apphcalion ior imunciion, ior several reasons. Firsiiy, neilher appllcilibn expresses lhal me injunnwe reiiei each seeks is rnienm. unlll lhedispcsal onrre aclinn Thus, Il'I reemy, what may are each seeking is pernranem uuunaive rehef desoiie me decision on iiebimy sun being a iong way on. Neriner apphcaflun cerrre anywhere close to Juslfiylng |hII order being made vurnunn 21 22 23. em UYNHDrv<\}\EQOslI1Xcl1Klw “Nair s.n.l ...m.mll .. l... M may he mm-y ml. flan-vlnnl y.. nFluNG we Sewrldly. each parly ls eseemlally applymg |u slap me omer lmm sellmg lhelr own nmaucts, me pracl-cal efied ol which would be to slap cenylng oulhuslness alwgemev llelther awllcahon ls warned. me pany lmlmcled wlll be severely handlcappea and weakened agalnsl me other mmly, on me balance .21 mnvemenoe. the names should both be allowed as may curlemly in lo corlllnue an wV|h melr rawemlve businesses umll lhe dlsposal cf lhis salon. Jusl sa max may can conlmue la eam a lwlng separately‘ wlm cusmdy M men five children are helrlg shaled between mam, allowing eliher one lo lmunci and stop me business M Ihe olher may precanously aflec| |hal siluallon and me walleye cl lhe chlldrerl, and deslray wnelever lmle hamluny and goodwlll ls Iefl between Syafa enu Nadia Thefive young ones was me one plvolal renwn Ihal prevented «me Court lmm allawing bum applicalians. Laslty, lhe declslorls (ha! me parties rely an m whlch an lnlarlm lnlunalm was lssuea are ollmle esslslance as muse dsc Ions were based on me lens ol each case, and in ma axemls: at me cuurrs alecrellan ln Slruchlr-I C:lm:rIII 5dn Ehd v wluu Tick Huldlnal End [1997] 1 cu zoo, Mahadev SharlkarJCA said. ‘Exomsas aummlalmsaelmn BIB nouudlaalpvansaerll because my a.e aniyalmvarlly forms laclsofmepamcularlzss - me n ma am 24. It is We law that no mlsnm rmuneuen wvll Issue where damages are an avpropnale remedy 25 As poimed out earner, me P\aIn|Ifls and me Delendanls are seeking damages and/or an aeeoum of prams agamsl me omer Gwen me weumsoarrees mermuned above in my view in «us case damages are an appmpflale remedy. Conclusion 26 wmr my finding on me ha\am:e of Donvemence and damages being a smm:ren«reme.1y,:mnr pames have failed ln sausfylhls Caurl man rr Is enwsa |o me rmurrminrr sought 27 cnrrsequermy. mm me msrmi«s' Appllcallnn and me nerenaanrs Appllcallnn are msmrssed 2a wmr the d\sm4ssa\ o! both me mamnfis Aunhcanan and me neIem1anrs Avnlrcanen, I make rm nvder as In ousxs Daled me W day 0! January 2024 J 4! uucam suoner Ku Lump:-rnrgrr Coun sw uTNHoru<\:\EqomvxmKLw ,, 0 g we saw ...m.rmr re used m mm ms m1mrr.uIy mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG wrm 9* " “V counsel: Farrandy Iskandar Norshalvd lugemer wdh Arisha Nur Snahera (Messls An'Ff& Assccralesl lor the Plamlms Shamn Hanm Ingamav wan Ama Shehnaz (MsssIs Hanm L Ismau) lnr me Deiendann case : Keel Gerald Prams Noel John v Mohd Noor hln Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ ma swcmral Concrete Sdn and v wmg Tusk Holflmgs End [1997] 1 CLJ 300 sm mworrzuwiqoslnvxcuxlw fl mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! Fur 1° W" 5 on u 7 2:119 may incmpuraled (he 1* Plamhfl. Amaesya Beauty Sdn Ehd (-Ameesya seaum, agaxn wr|h syava haldvng 30% and Nadia 20% 0! as shares, mm both agam appcnnled as Ameasya Beaulys only dvrectors. 5 By lhvs «me, wanna sold under the ‘Adleesya brand name Included “WOMEN DESIREE ESSENTIAL CREAM'1naw known as ‘WOMEN DESIREE TRIPLE ADVANCE CREAM) The products :21 me busmess were sold and marketed physicany. onhne and through social medxa omlets The Plainmls auega that me eopyngm m me anwurk lor me packaging (0 these pmaucca avae belong to them‘ which Nama mspmes and clean: in hersmf 7 In me 2020, Nadia submnled appx nns In regxsler Mews trademarks m Classes 3‘ 15 and as (ocHec1Ively‘ cmnasced Trademarks’). The menus and slams ov me Comesled Trademarks are sel mu m ma Tame below Nu. wanna? Auuxfuan nun»... Dale 1 mzozuozzazs 35 osmzazo maze-ea‘ !\ / mznzouzmz :5 usmzom xagmayaa‘ ‘\ I an nYNHor-auwiqoslnvxcqxlw _ ,, fl -an. Smn\:unhnrwH\I>eusedmvamlnsnr1g\ruHIyM1Msdun-mnlwanF\uNGpuns! " M '10 mznzoozzazw x , mzozuomzs \ :5 05 w mo FNMSVOMV 1 mm lbweclmrlfi WDIENDEKWREE i ‘ Esm..c..w 5 1 :5 oswzuan ,mm.. mm , um..w..m (obncumd 6 ‘ nmzmmeza 3 osmzozo Fmwsmnal‘ wousuuésmasmvu W ADVAMCE (DDR1 7 7 V V VMZOZDOZZEEZ 3 05 VD2020 ‘ PIWVIUWE‘ V Rnluul ; {0i>|ec1mMx W<>».*.§._r>.:s.-RE: 1 W ‘ 1 1 tM2t71nu2s7a3‘1s muzozu u-my OpD<1:1mv1 1 . T} rmuzoozzazs J5 asmznzn Flaw-:mru1‘ a 1 Remsm 1 ‘ 1a».-cm) 1 1 1 1 7n ' Fus11IonMWDon neckagmg 1vM2u2uo2c7:n 1s Huznza newm s1N nTNHor-aimiqomvxcqxlw um 5.11.1 In-v1hnrw111 be used m mm .. nrW1n.11|y mm: dun-mm VI] .r1uNG wm1 Mr 5 m In 2 osuwz? Puwllmnll Ralusal mo.-mm I1 Shzpaand mnhguviwn rwlzvzuimswe Mnsaaaama I 3 1' U I-II: L 5 On 11.03.2023‘ whne s|i|I a dweclor ullhe pwamuus but most likely -n ma lace ol hsr iracmred rewauonsmp wmn Syala bo|h as a mama soupla and m me businass, Naa-a Ivwslerad Nadeen Beauly. (hat trades smely in a pmdud krmwn as “WOMEN DESREE AGELESS CREAM’ On 31.3 2023‘ she man resigned as a aurecmr ov me Plamuus. and subsequently rslvnqmshed her shareholding m Ihe Plainhfls to syala, g-mg mm 30!: and ovemdmg cunlrul aver (ham. 9 On 13.5.2023, lhe Plaunmls mad «ms aclinn agamslNad\a1nr' 0) Bveach of mrmors du|y: on Passmg an; and (In) Fnudulenl regmralion at me Canleslad Trademarks m her name 10 Nadia and sync; dtvurced ananms acnon was filad, am Iha children hava been divided between mam, meamng some am ng mm syava and sum: of mam are lwmg wwlh Mama sm mwor-amiqoslnvxcuxlw R «W. saw ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm me 6 av In 11. Furlhev. a rnemauon between Mama and sync‘; was unzbre la reszflve mew disputes worse, VI does ne| apyeavlo have resulted m any sonenmg ov their mans. Sadly. at lha Case Management 01 |heIr -muncuon apphcauons. their Counsel wwslfully Informed «ms own that my man resulve lo conlmue dun-woule agamsl the other and get 100% M what they each want 12 The relusf ma P\ai IVS. ifls ummalaly seek In «ms acnon agmns| Name: a) Sua|u pensyllhlran oanawx plainm kadua, Adlaesya Beauty sun Ehd adalah pamink sah cap aagar-gan—-:ap dagangan daiam LAMPIRAN A pemyaiaan tun|ulan an m’. smakal mana yang sarna maanarkan dx bawah nan-a defendan, Knamuusa Nadna bmlu Kanp‘ b) Suaiu perisynnaran bahawa punnm kadul. Mleasya saauxy Sdn Ehd adalah pemmk ssh hak mm: [copyngm] dalam karyu sum dan/alau lulu!-In 'p1oducl pscksgmg“ hagi pmduk ‘WOMEN DESIREE ESSENUAL CREAM", yang mm dxkennlx sabagai ‘women DESIREE TRIPLE ADVANCE CREAM“, (“karya sum uarsebur‘). c] Sualu mjunksl uniuk menghalang dan malarang deflandan, Khanmmxa Nadia mm. Kunp (same ada memm pengglmaan dan undakan mans-mans psngarah, pegawaw. cyan danlalau wakvlnya) daripada rnenganmpaan [passing-ON] Cap Dagangan den/alau ape-apa Cup nagangan lam yang hamplr manyerupax sm UYNHDrv<\}\EQOsL|1XcuKLw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! v... nun d) 9) sm mworrzuwiqoslnvxcuxlw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm dan mengehrukan women aesuzs TRVPLE ADVANCE‘ sebagal ‘WOMEN DESIREE AGELESS CREAM‘ (wmc) darn/alau Cap Dagangan psrkalaan dan krasan 'WD' mu sehalvknya w:\au apa pun‘ Sualu Iruunksv bagi menghmang dan rnelerang delerman‘ Khavnmlsa Nada bimi Karla (ms\a\m penggunaan dsn (mdakan mana—mana pengararu pegawal, ejan dan/atau daripada mengalnmpaan [passmg~OW) Cap Dagangan flan/man wakwlnya) ipa—spa Cap Dagangan um yang harupir menyerubax dan rnengehrukan same dengan senaran Cap Dagangan dx perenggan 6 dan LAMMRAN A pemyalaan Iunmlan m svm Sualu mwnksl unluk menghalarvg Lian mewarang delendan‘ Khavrunlsa Nadva mu Karin (same ada melarm penggunaan dan Imdakan mane-mane pengarah. pegawai. e;en dan/atzu wakilnya) daripadn mengewupaan [passing-Ofl] wanna merah Vembayung dan keemasan pada pembungkusan pmduk yang hamplr menyervpax den mengelvrukan sama sepam pemhunykusan Droduk Adleesya Nevlwurk dan Adleesya Beauty. Perinlah bahawa hak rmhk cap dagangancap dagangan den hak cmla xermun diserahhakkan [assigned] nleh uevendan. Khavumsa Nadxa bum Kanp kepada plainlll kedua‘ Adleesya Beamy Sdn and muons 9) h) :1 k) U sm mwor-amiqoslnvxcuxlw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Penman unluk pengnamaran alau pemusnahan selepas sumnah semua perkala alau Iabe\ beroelak a\au benulis pada alau unluk pmduk kecanmn yang penggunaannya akan msruadn pmanggaran vruunksl my dlsebul an ala Penman umuk menurunkan semua video dan yambar yang menfifiunakan cap dagangan yang mengewupa [nassas-om dan/alau apa—apa Cap Dagangan «ain yang keIma(an seakanakan sama dan/atau hampw msnyerunav cap Dagangan-can Daganaan dalam nerenggan 6 dx atas darn Lampuan A can samua mana- medwa sosia\ yang uummku danlatau dlksndahkan olah uevendan, Knawmsa Nadya bmh Kenn: lnkuin mengennl gimh mgx alau alas mlihan Mleesya Network dan Aaleesya Beauty suatu akaun kaunlungan flan pm-can Dagl pembayaran samua mmran wang yang maapau nerlu dlbayar cleh dalendan‘ Khaimmsa Mama mm. Karin kepada Adleasya Neiwork den Nfleesya Beauty, Garmruqu bagx kannangan name bavk flan repmasv [goodwvll am reDula|iun]. Germ rum (eladan. cam rugi (emk: vatehnzn m) Feecen ere penghakiman hag! perenggan u. n, k) dan n a. ates bermma dan tankh pemfailan guaman dx swv hlngga ke |arikh penghakiman pada new 5% selahun se1aras denyan seksyen 11 Akla Undang-undang saw 1955 aiau pea: kadar dan lemmh yang mrasakan seeue. olah Mahkamah Vang Mulia Im; n) K05 atas daser germ mg: a) Faedah passe penghaklman bagi pelenggan 0.1). k)‘ u. m) den 71) an alas pads kadar we 5% setahun bermula |ankh den tarikh pengnemmen mngge panymesalan yeng sema, den p) Rem-rem selaruutnyl eveu yang lam haw F'lImM—P\:mM yang Mahkamah yang Mulna nu oerpenaepen sesuan uen new 13 Nam: mspuxec all 0! me PlamWs' claims Igamsl her wun e vengeance As I sawd earhar, she alleges me: ene Is me ecmex person benmu the success of the uneasy. beeue, pmaucce busmsss em that syeve was not invowad when Iha busmess commenced and m N: success sne a\so cwenns |o ee me cmalnr al me arlwnrk and daswgns [or me pmducls‘ packaging and Conleued Yrademarks She also Iilages that Syafa enu me F\a|nhfl5 knew of end were fuuy agreeable to [he Cunlaslad Yraaamarks lasing registered m her name, as evidenced m a lunar da|ad s 1 2022 (ha! Syafa s>gned Because :1! en lrus‘ Name coun\en:\a\ms against me Flamlifls [or em mwor-auwiqoelnvxcuxlw fl “Nana em nmhnrwm e. med m my e. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-ms! ”=I= 1“ "'1"

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-25-39-06/2023

PEMOHON BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA MENARA RIVERVIEW RESPONDEN 1. ) JABATAN PESURUHJAYA BANGUNAN PULAU PINANG 2. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG

Judicial review – Preliminary issued raised by respondents that the actual decision maker was not named as a party – Subsequent application to amend the parties named in the cause papers – Whether circumvention of preliminary issue – Leave order granted and perfected – Whether court functus officio – Whether amendment may be made under Order 20 rule 5 and Order 53 rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether out of time – Whether good reason to extend time.

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0b351a84-0cca-490c-b734-4365d32d1dc3&Inline=true

30/01/2024 16:04:58 PA-25-39-06/2023 Kand. 37 S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hBo1C8oMDEm3NENl0y0dww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA-25-39-06/2023 Kand. 37 an/amuza mm as In the High cam oi Malaya m Penang \n ma State 0! Penangy Ma\ays\a Agghca n «or mm: Rawaw No PA 39 512023 Dalam perkara mengenal sua|u permohanan unluk Fennlah Cemorin dlbawah Nuran 53 Kaedah . Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, darn Dalam nerkara Akia Pangumsan suaca 2013 dan Pevaturan — Pevaluran Penguvusan suana (Fsnyenggarsn dan Psngumaan; 2015. dsn Dalam perkara mangenax sualu bangunan yang m kenah sehagax Menara Rwerwew. nan Dalam perkara m hawah Amyan 53 dan Amran 92 Kasdah 4. Kaedah - Kasdsh Mahkamah 2012: dan Da\anI Derkara an bawah seksyen as mu». (2) Ha" (M Ma Penguiusan Slrala 2013, dan Da\am pevkava mengenzw Mesyuaral Jawalankuasa Pesururusya Eangunan an. 2/2023 yang an adakan pads 27/2/2023‘ dan nalam perkara menganan sum Makmman Perlarmkan Ejen Fengurusan men Fesuvumaya Eangunan. Mains Bandaraya Pulau Pmang henankh 15/3/2023: semen Eadan Pengumsan Eersama Menara Rwervlew am Mau1caaMDEm:wEN\|7mmw «ma. sm-1 nmhnrwm .. U... a may he mm-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Apnhcam And 1 Jahalan Pesumhyaya Eangunan Pmau Finang 2 Majlis Bamiaraya Fmau Pmang .. Raspnndenls Gmunds or Decvsxan 1. 0:112 s 2023, me Apphcanl filed an appllcallan 1or leave |(: apply for umvcwal revxew under Order 53 rule 311) or me Rules av com 2012 l‘ROC') On 14.7 2023, I gave weave vor lhe1ud>c1aI review applicalmn. 2 On 20 9 202:, the Applvcam «led an application vide Enc\asura14lo amend me ]ufl1cIaI review cause papers. Yhe Anpflcam sought leave lo! we lulluwmg 1.; 1.: nmund 1». nams M me 1-4 Rsspendnnl «mm Jibalan Pesuruhpaya Eangunzn pm... p1....1.;' tn Vesummaya Bangunan, Kiwasan Fnmidbnmn Mame Earvdamya Pmzu fining‘ ind (o) lo r. vein: 2» Respondent 1Ma,1.s Eandaray: Puhu wmrrgr is . parly to 1». wdwcul v-vmw Druceemnvs here!" 3 on 4.12.2023, I ms-vuseea Endcsuve 14. Here am one grounds o1 my decision. Egn § leadlm ug |u Enclosure 14 The Proceedings ug la me Leave Order 4 1n the ind nan revwew eppncauon harem, me Applrcam named me ‘Jabilan Pesururqava Bangunan Pulau Pmar1g' as me 1-' Respondent and |I1e‘Maflvs Bandaraya Pulau Fmang‘ as me 2"‘ Respnndenl. 5. Amongsl me raheis sougm tor 1n |he judIcIa\ review applxcanon herein are me YnHowm9' -2 bahawa 5:11. otktausx a. mmnkan ore» Mahkamah yang mm. 1111 mmwa kaputuian Muyuaval J. zlnnkunsn Pesummaya Bangunan an 221:2: bemsnkh 21/2/21123 untuk panarmkan .,... pangurusnn baham 11 Menu: Rwzmew ('Kep11lusan Mesvuam tavsnoufj aamn max ssh dam sea! undang . Imflzng dun rm. mempurl r kesan undanq - unuing sm nau1cauMDEm3NENu7yoaww “Nana 5.1.1 luvwhnrwm .. v... m M, r... nr1g\ruHIy MIMI dnuamnl vn mum pom! 2m Every onsmarrng summons mu be m Farm 5 or 5 mrcnmr is upwfibnnlz [:21 Order we 4 arm R00 2012 dcfina pkndmg us Inflow: . -rrrrramp am not m:/ude a name nfapphcal/on or a pm/rmmary ad’ [vs] nanny ma Ina pmvmons abavu, mm mm the um Apulmahon creariy am rror (31/under any pr those was mormonod abovc 114) mu; um arm. wsw 1IvaApal«c.mtc-nnot my an order 20 Me 5 aims ROE am forms amendment era Nance oVApphcatron fur Lanw /ormmcml rlvnw flied um1srD 5: elm: ROE 2:712 - (M19! 53 ru/g Tgllhg Rule§ a! com 2012 an Order 53 rule 7 0! me ROG veads ‘Amendmsnlto 5s,r 7; 1 u r m Jufigz mny aapwme uillmnnlln be Inwnn1ad,and may flow Iurlhav mfidavws m ha und rr may nul mm Iww mnflnu ansma out at any amuavrr or any other pany to ma appkcalnonr and mm mo appmrr: mm. up lmlnd III: .m.rrr.m or use mrrrrer amms, he must Vmmadmely give none: 54 ms rrrrrnmprr and .11 any pmpum rlmlndmnnl :11 mp nnmmml to every amer party‘ 31 In Amarrggul Prrgur (supra), me Hrgn com held (ha! Ordev 53 rule 7 cl me ROC nnly anws amenamems lo me sranemem filed pursuam to Order 53 rule am oi the R00‘ and nor mher cause papers. The Hrgrr court am 1151 Fmlhen rr :5 to be mated mar m Apphcanls Luv: Apulvcatmn was made mmsr o. 53 rule 3 pr me woo 2012 but me me: Order 5: allly pmwdas for amundmlnl am.r.rrr.r.r rm: rrar ur. Dlhsrcuusu When. [21] Based on the above‘ wuss Order 5: or me Rec 2012 only mm the armndmem (arlhe sishsmervl and naHIIuApplm.slmn Iorlcaw iouudaaal review lam on». mw rm: rm: munnnd no pmm m Maw me Apmrcaruz Amendmervl 4flD'Ics4mn - 32 In me prermses, omer 53 rme 7 crime ROG rs only apnnoame |o me przysrlu amend the 'Pemyalaan Manurm Aluran 53 Kaedah 312) Kaedah - Kaedah Mahkamah 2012' II dues rrm apply nu me other cause papers 33 Furvrermpre, lhe com! 715 scrpmaneu In Order 53 Rule 7(1) M me ROC must be me! were an amendment to me Statement waum be u sm rrEu1CapMDEm3NEN\|7y0aww “Nana s.r.r nmhnrwm .. p... In vufiy r... mrnury MINI flnuamnl VI mum pom! allowed. In Delrk Hanemes sdn and v Keme Pengavah Ham! Darem Negeri [2022] 4 cu 112 al 123 -124,me Hxgn ceun new -1351 n we presenl case, upon ptmsal olma applncanls slahmunl, I um a( me wuw ma! 1». stalzment n nm open m amendmenl 17115 e Duauw mnd ma: 1»- mndmon undclo 5:: mm. ROG has nclbezn fulffisd 1:7; Ba:pdmvmewon1mgsn(O 53! we/mnoc, Vamatmemnaademd mew met me zaurl mly oniy Illavr ma umndmonl to tho Imamonl u n 1. rooming nut mamas ansmg out euny I/fidavns gun. Dame: [35] n we present case, we rssua oi s 33m 0! me ITA rs rm! . rmw maflsr arming nu! nun. nupennen: s enmm rne applncaru had Vullknawudgs n. :n. mum orlhc audrl Ind mm. mwrrg me asavssmevll mm me money pm n; the Jahcr sen; Govommenl was not avowed by m. rauwndsnr .s expense: undar s am; dune rm Hawevsr vrv mug me[m1rda/ review apphuimn ma npeneenn ned not ennusnged nns Luvs e/ ma msamvdsmh dscmm mu Had mstuad cneaenged we decwon based on s um; or m. rm - 34 Here, almough me prennnnery ISSUE penammg to me menmy nv me ecnuax decxsxcn maker 01 me nnnngned decismn was raised In one Respondents’ amuevn amnnad on 24 5.2023, n Is not a ‘new mailer“ But a mailer already knuwn lo we Apphcanl an an manensn tunes‘ as aeknmnedged by me Appllcanl In ns affldavn -n repry amnned on 24.102023 (Endosure my -6 Pemohnn end. sglmp muss nnnenex sedar balvawa pmak yang membual kapulusan {oecwslnn makary bcvknnun Keoulusan Vang Dr cahar lusebtll udalah Pesummaya Eangunan, Mann Elnduayn Fulau Pmnrvg - 35. Tnus, me can Ion przscnhed under me provisions 0! Older 53 nne my onne ROG la nmny an imendmenl dune S|a\em2n| ws nul met Amendment olLsave oger as. Manner Order 20 nne 5 cl |he ROG not Order 5: nne 7 dune ROC apphes Ia amendment 0! me Leave Order dated 14 7 2oz: (Enclosure to) when gave weave «d we Appncanc m ennnnende me Judxcxal renew nppnennon herein agamsx me ‘Jabalsn Peswumaya Eangunzn Fulau FInang‘.asIhe1“Respcnden| And me ’Ma;I\s Bandaraya Pmau Plnang“ as me 2" Respondent It Is nm In mspme man me Leave Order has been drawn up nnd perfected 37. The only pnmsmns in me R0!) «or amendment av nmgmems I orders are in Order 20 Rme H enne Roe, which reads 12 em nauwcaemuznuzwzmlrymww «wn. s.nn nmhnrwm be n... n M, .. nnnnnn mm: dnuamnl VI mum pans‘ wnandrnennarlmgrnanund m\‘lnu:(O 2:: r My 11. clencal mlslakes ln ludimenl on orders‘ or arms anilng nnerann vrern any iccldunmshn urnmnssmu. mflyaunyllme becmvucled naynne Courlhya rnolnbe ofianpkcalnun vlllhoulan aW>0aI' as. once an order has been drawn up and perlecned, nne courn becomes lurlclus amend vls-é-vls nnan order The cuurl lnas no power la annend ur vary me sarne, unless such arnandrnenl a made under me slrp rune lo eorrecn eleneal errors or no reaecn wnan was acmally plunmlrloed by me omm. (See me cpnm of Appeal ease or Lembail Semsrak sun and V Global Up/me Hotels and Resorts sun and .4 omer appeals [mm] 1 ms me). 39. The Applicant nas ne| alluded to any clencal mnslake lrn me Leave order In lacl, me Leave order does relleen when nad been pronounced by me on 14 7 2023. Namely, nnal leave he granned |o me Appllcanl no emnrnenee nne ludlclal revlew appllcsllorl nerenn agalns| nne ’Jabalan Pesumhjaya Bangnman Pnnlann Prnangx aa nne n-K Reapondenl And nne ‘Mallls Earldamya Fulau Pnnangx as me 2” Respnnden| Furlhe relnels as sen am in me ‘Permohonsn Kehanaran (Ex - Pane) unnuk Semakan Kernaxnrnan: 40. ln nna pramlses, nne coun ns lnnrncnnns omclo vIs15—vns me Leave Order. l nnerelpre nave nu pnmer lo amend nna aarna Delay llllng Enclosure 14 M In Samsiah Lernan V Kelua Polls lvegara and olnars [2015] 1 ms 513. me applncann nor ludlcnal revnew sought no amend me S|a|emenl ‘by replacing all me Respundenls named ln nna applrealnon lor ludlclal rsvlew wnnn nne Dnsuplnnary Buard" The appllcalwn was made aflev nne Annarney Generals cnarnpers raised a Drellmlnary oluedlcn lnan lne acnual decnsnarn rnaxer n.e nne Police Dnscnplnnary apard. was nu| named as a parny no me ludneial revlew pracsedlngs. rna mgn connrn dnsrnnssed nrne applrealnon lor amendmenn as me same was filed oucsnde nne penned prescribed underorder 53 mle alsl elme Rules plnne mgn cannn 1980 (Dan manena wnln order 53 Rule 3(5) of nne Rec) 42. The Hrgrn calm sand: 7221 ll re merefore elear man nne mm: ls; months nrne rrarna lmbosed by Omar 53 rule are; ollllu Ron: 21712 rarpnrrgrng an appllcallon lorleave lo we ludrear rewsw carmnl bi trvllod as men peaanrry at sllllllus er womlrlg rr goes U7 me 13 em naulcaaMDErn:lNENl|7mmw “Nana sen-l luvlhnrwm be met! a vsfly r... annn.nn-r MIMI flnunvlml vn mane wan wnsmdnon or m. mun mu Normrnsram/mg ma acme, m. Mun M: the genera/power to sxlerrdoubnng: III: lrme mm under Urdu! 5.2 min :15; mm... m gaodreasovu lo do to sea 01115151 rm: am Howsvsr, them mm be good Indsanslntlmyslmunds mm below mo cmmbdulu new exercise In dvscmlron unrammrynm, mm was In mum appncarm mad: farms mun m exemse us diacrwtmn m exlcndar-lmdpu me me The allidavlt rsnmsm rm Mndm support aims Apulrcarvlk appncmn In mm 1Em:vo:me 9). and not alluaa :9 any rlusaru 17! any coganr reason: 10 uplam mu doluy m filmy ms apulrcalron /n Muhd Vsmml hm Amt Gham (wow-1 Me In no known In my »dumIy sum as Saruvanarv afl Baraknsnnarv) v Ketuu Pengsrah Pandaflarin Megan 5 MM [supra/. r was held that ma appumr : lxpl-natvon am not aalrsiadomy mum Iormr Us/ly rt wns I/sa onasrvsd ma! rt rs lmmll-n-I mm.’ ma dulny am not ncculon lny pufudicn :0 me nspwru-nr or . rm:-1 party. 7»: submkcflon ol no pluflxfllcl mm was mmron not . nlllhcmrr -xprnmnon ror dcruy m Illlrw for/umclllruvicvr /n anysverm as / sand, mm wu rm npuhcatran m entsnd I/me la mo 2». appbclbnll m lm-miholurs the own 123; Ammg the Applvcant 2.: am a pally gr 5 stage mu hnulanon ma uzwsd ma film rs. pmruvldal to ma mrw nukmg body whrrh m that an M rm Dttnplnnary Emma as r mu have rm ma a/mpnwng rr [mm reiymv an a mum that u would nllvuwvsv ma hasn snmlod lo ~ 43 The Appflcantdld Include a prayervm extension 01 me to amend the manual rewew cause papers. However, me my reason gwan by me Apphcam to suppon me appncauon luv exrensron M me Is Is lullwvs ‘9 Says deugan scwngguhnyx menynlnknn bahawa kebewalan «ram nwmlnflkan Non: Pelmehonin rm ad: ran max ar sennnmkan dv mm prhak Pemohon man dlngnn kadarsegera memiatlkzn pelmnhunsn Isglzmk sahma may Rewandnn duvnmln membangknlkln Vsu zwalan alas p. mm rnhnk -max’ 44. I no nol consraermis a cogem reason to warram Ihe cums exams! ur msclsiion ro extend lime m favour or the Aopllcanl. More so having regard (0 the Apphcanfs own acknowleugmen| that they were al an material Ivmes aware Ihal me aclual deci on maker Is me ‘Pesummaya Bangunan, Maw: aamsnaya Pmau Fmang 45 In mrs regard‘ the oouwrng chronology Is useful. Ne Dale Evan: , _ r 15 3 2023 lmpugned decnshn «rs: cogrmvunuavad in me Auohmnl 2 12 a ma Appflcauen lor wdwual .-rm film try me Apprmr against Jnmmn Vesmumaya Barvgunan mm Pwusug‘ and Menus r _ Bxmlmyn Pulau mm 3 15 5 mm r..r date In me gudwcsal rmw pmclodmgs In rmlewe me Impugnm ammrr .5 pvescnbw undsvcvdav 53 rub mm me Roe \ 1» sm hEu1CauMDEm3NEN\|7ynaww “Nana sm-w ...m.mm .. HIGH m vufiy .. mrn.u., mum: dnuamnl VI mum Mr 4 «I1 2.323 um um ublmn u 5 2432023 . 'A0flE‘M Jawlnln nesponuew ammea a 2 2023 _ Endosuru 12 mm . rvsdunl rmn um.c.m.s 5 2a 5 2.12: Aupnmnn icramendmenl Vm. Emflosuve 1.: Ned. as Them .5 a de\ay or move man «me. monms belwesn m the (me Prescribed under may 53 Me 316) 0! the R00 to me me iumman vewew pmoeedlngs |a challenge me impugned decisxan and 1... Ihe Nmg av Encmurs 14 47 The Importance Msemng om cogent reasaryscowanann an exienswon 0! time n Juduial .eV.ew proceedings was stressed ... Delik Hanamss (supra) where «he Hvgh coun new (at page H9 -123) 'I20]FunnenHm.1mauIoe apar.c»...na.m».a lo .mVn. forovexplam me my in mlkmg .... :p...c..V.. .. m. snbdficmm u/IN: wml1Sas won. K... man: s Arror V Kern: Pwgarall mm. Alum s.x....s A»or[2I7131 : cu ms 12.213: 3 MLRA 525, 12.71314 MLJ151, 1201314 AM)? 211319 207] [21] an... WIII .. IMCVWUIO ..........v. ............ me: me mac... n..... as natico .r..»»n...V.« pram ram... lo V. gram -1 iv ‘Wws! um-rs nn sxlsnsmn oflfme whrch was one/fiedln the ipfiifcanls nulrca o1!PP"€Atron, me quamorv .. .. .....s.m...V .... 5...... .-. Vm... mere . anygoodand .......... nsawlv mm by ...V .p.V.c... .0 .....-V m. ............... ... ... .....V /23: 17.. names». «V.meu..n.....x (harm: amendmsnlubvlvcalron wrll no. cause mm... 1.. m. ..spo....a... ».......V.. r.... ../m. VIEW am. .nm..g.. n nuy be ..y....:m.x noprvludvcn mo... flown, marbytmnn nulgoodlrmugh AV.»...nrym .Vppon arm». a pmpomlon an be found ». M: can o!MaIvd lsmar! Am! 5...... V x..... Psnvarnh Pendaflamv Nsgars 12.2111 5 cm 45.2 R011] 1 MLRH1247.I2l712[1 M11 707 wmm Anal: A1. .1 ;.. SIVI m... wig] ....a u /Mews [1 vi Hnvvna consndered m. sxplanahon for the delay. / find ma appmnr. ..xp1a...:.o.. mu ». ma... V... .. hm . ..V.y.. ...a r... lawyer needed um. .. ma. M menu ..«a M: am....V.. gcmng r..V. .0 ...... war. has ........u. ... rm! .....«.m«V In ..mV... tor the delay 1.. my covmdowd ow... 4 rs .............. mm. m. delay due: ... occlsmn any pains... .. ma respondent cu .mp...y m. ............... .r.... ,...,V.:.... cnusld .. ....z . .....«.cm e.-p«....m=.. re. my m rm fur .ua.:,.« raw-w rJ9'Ie mm ........1 sdmur 4...... counsel u... the appymm ...g «ma ... ...mr.a.:»«y axplam Ins meson In! m. Ippmxrmately Ill ..........v 4..., .. nukmg u... auomm On mm wound alarm Ma appllcaucn /oreyrsrmon arm. mm V. .. .1.........4 co...ea.....w me noun r... no .Vnm.a.o.. .. A... we .ppV....... I... ...V. V. Abdul .z.n..... .... Almmlnh Mumr 4. Dr: V 9.... 9...»... Knala Lumpw 5 4...: (2005! s MLJ m4 leave; 6 cu sos mV.. Hsmod Embang ./D‘ 1.; Ha Lordmvn m... was) an that me sour! may ........ .1. /unsdydmn ....y MPDH oflwafun’ camp!»-nus mm M: maerum ..;.;V.......... on"... .9. ....a.. o 53 . 2 cm. mo [:45 Jim n.V.m:.... V .5 sm nammnmuzmanzmlrmnww «w... 5.... IIJVVDIVWW .. V... In my .. ..«....u-V mum: V....... VI mum pm... Ma/sysun Exlmvnamms Coanmu Whether the apphcallon lor an umir ul csmomn has menlt amok rs mm.m 1291 n u to o. mind me: the mm apphcalron lor m»¢..: mvlcw and been gramtd for on spasm: pnyau payed m the Mava spphcanun Ind am maven: Manny .: me subxtanlrve flag: pa] nvsvulnrz n r: my new mu my lrmndmonl to 5. ma. tn mu luv: Ippllcaflnrv mun n. ma. within the com. zllowod :4: apply for :.m y.. mthm mm mm from rm mm mm amp" pq Aumomy m suwun :2! such a pwposmm can 5. lolmd In the Count of Appeal can 0! Omar Sulvnmw Abu Hanan V Mahkamah Perusallun Mallysvs .1 Am)! [2014] :4 Cu 120, [mm] 4 MLRA :1 1201412 MEL}? 559 am 725 you; when n was ma (5) As 2 genmr mu, mm: are mmded m mam nan 7 mnpum. m mam nmw appmmn provmldtm upphcullan rs Iued mm. mm and the wlvpn n minis: m nonsmulronal challenge: mm m rvflaaed m . rnmlbqr at duusvons Fur axunlple me Federal Com! m mm": L/mun a( Bank Employee: v Du-clur emmr of mag Union: a Anor 1241131 7 cu 957. [2l7v3]BML./ 15 condonada 42 my: dlllym mg mm omsatmg m Form 1V1Elrmw Fawn no; man was reqmufl m o. and wvmm 14 ms upaa ablammg my. Howeven whom 2: News to my an appncumn 'brjIldrcra/ mm am or rm 5 flnmr -upmm u mm: by me cum: wnm me uullsnge rs purely rulared m admwflmhw law mafienges mama bu axlnulnm m:1mn and/or dvcmon ollnbwlal at Iuflocindm ma mmn arm Fvacrur Court m Ahmad mm Mohd ./am V Pwlgar-ah Kabudaynun a Kesemm Jolvovs Ors[20H7I5 cuass./2m3)aMLJ145 Mme the dccumn nf 0‘RedIy V. Matkman (V9321 3 All 5;: H24 HL, was approved. V‘/Mn n nmlns m mnsmulrcnal miltsnges by way at wm at/ummal mwsw or am amnngnummmmrmm nmefucrorrtnodsntsxut Jndoklvllykpnnapfies do nazaapvy ms .. reflazl-am . rmmberolcasss 132, m. cm nIApnes! mmrwa the! lawn to sask . mm far mm a! Iheludlclnl ruvrnwts my umus an applfcehon lo amendls mm mm m. Mme mam: pemad or n for sum: Jamal! ar erceplronal mum the com! allow: 1». lxlarmon ofdme undsro 52y 1m arm. koc M ya out wsw /lflmg 1.: seek a prayer Iorlnw m In: ongmntrny Ubahcmon m the nature cl Farm vow wm be mm mien me apvkzard has rm In npgnumm Lo mm: the orrgmalmg prvcvss rom.mn.m wrlhm the Wye month: 1.» extzrvdodj penod specvfied m a 5: r 34:; calm: Ruin: 4:! Com 2m arforsama mama! arexmphonal reason the cow! rsplvpvld In mm o 5.':r am wmcn run: .5 mum rm com mzy, uyorl an ipullcarlon, «mm ma Dml Snmfied m mle aw Md mt eonwm that were rs a quad mason Inrdumg sun as sm naa1cauMDEm3NENu7yoamu «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIGH m M», .. mm., mm: flnuamnl VI mum pom! 13:1 fined an the mm, .4 rs mar ma! ma leave appmmm and /mew ruvnvt -pphcltmn mly my M .m.»a..1 on 390:! grounds. pmma 2». .-npummn 1» amnnd I: ma. -man. mm: mm. um. rm... Iwr lane :34; m ms pmssnl cum m. upplrcntmn m amend rs euro/mm by arms: (on months xrrra m. 4.1. mm ndusmn Thu-fora ms macs»: has In showgood gmamis and ablam an umvsmn alums hum this court m m. lbssnca olarvy unsyvr for mmm aflrme, Ihvs Honomabm Cour! rs not serxsd wrm junsdtctron to anlanlm ma augmzntmn In nmlrld - No n aclxon me Allome Generals Chambers 48. The Appllcanl harps on meiacnhal me Mlomey Geneva\'s Chambers and no| raise any Issue penaimng «:2 me ‘m\s«idenIWiczImn” onhe smuax dacismn maker at me leave stage. 45. Huwevar, nommg shown he read me ma non - objecuon by me Anamey Generafs Chamber: The Respondents are canaimy not bound by me stand taken by the Altorney eenerars Chambers a| me ex pane weave stage 50. The Federal Cmlrl in Kyal Resor! sun and v Pentadbrr Tanah Kemamarl 5 Anar[2015] 3 cu as: an 597 - :95 Sam me: In mepresemcass me Ivrsl rowan-ism ,5 Psnladmr Tanah, :<.m.m..._ and I». swam! rust-an-1mt:: . mnwnrvy mm as Mam Trmor Sdrv Blvd rm flrtl Mspondcnl I5 rs!-vlvsonled by Ina Stat: Llglmflvrsornl Yarsngganu, mm the wound rtsooc-mam vs rtpruienlsd hy . prwala Iawyur II VI nut nsuutpd max rvemverafmem was present In cowl .1 me many orme applncaoon Vorlaavu Eaxmus m. .pp.u.m mlmsul, .,. ulcer Imm me Anomey General‘: chamber: was mm: m mm at the hearing var lava Hrs pmsenca in mm? was based an M9 notrcv gwwv by me apps/fisnl undsr o. 5: r 342; mm: RHC man wmm riqmrls mt ‘rm Ipptlcflntmusl gwe notrce aims hsarmg onhe apphcanon Vol leave no! ram man mm days mm. m hearing data to the Attorney Ganara/3 Cnambevs zrvd mm al mo same um. mug: in man Chnmlzurs Lame: olllve slaremenl and ammw 11291 Thu pawns oi the am: from m. Aitumly Gummy‘: Chamber: mmuqllmn m. pmaeomrw am no! man my he was rapresenlmg the hm Ivrpofldsnlpantcu/arw mm mu Application /mm». wnx nude ex nuns ms mane wu deafiyexplamcd by Abdul Ka¢vrSularman 4 m Clmw Hung Ln Iwn vs Meme" Sumbel Manama Ma/aysra 5 Sam my 1199815 cu mu, nswsys MLJ 63 m m. fuliawmg nus-I70 counsel rm ms sap/man! apptarwd In be confusad about m. pwmm DI L». Attumny Gnnun! u Anumey Gunsml Imdsr o 53 7 1(3) mm Ma! arms Attorney General as m» raw advmr to Ann Gov-mmanl oi Mafiaysla undel an 14512;on»e Fedem! Consmuhon A: line Arron-ay Gonarxhmner o 5: y :7 sm haa1canMDEm3NENu7yoaww «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIGH m M», .. mm., mm: flnuamnl VI mum pom! nan, ms npplvcanl must grve mince no the Anomsy Ganaral on ms men for law to apply for mu nniors alzamnmrv And mandamus my me apwneannn must at um um: nnma naago mpnas 471 n». .I1nIam:rvI and mum m the Niamey General’: Chambers asteqmrod by! 1(2) To acmavr Inns purpose rm «lwlvnnnl had thus sawed ms svatsmenl ma amdavnrt m alldsbon arlm Attumuy General Sum um. ms nu! smvrca on mm as the my awmsr or as mum: ruprvssnlmg AM hm Rosparmnnl Harm: ./nmme tospoly for an anierunder o 5: an the me has been gunlofl, III: Jpuhclnl was Mu: Dblugadln saw: on the MI Respondenl V 5:: parsm drmcw mvomdmllus pnumamg -norm elm: Dngmmvng mmm under 2(VJam1Iha oocumvnls reqmrsd Amderl zm lllmugh mm: from m. Allamny General‘: Chambsr Thus n wan apparent that as regards mns I-nnlnce of ongvmmng moaan the .pannwnn Ivan (av/ed to serve the mpne: ol me stalemem and mum: An wppon or nod -uwnunnmn for m an the (rut Respondem urmwr M: v as reqmmd by Oman 52 ms. Jm oHIva RHC majrm nosvmm I: mu: deer that me oflmer from me Attorney Ganarurlr Chimbels whu . .m.a mun .1 nm Vsnva slave ma not Miraasnn ms M1 mspandemn nor ma tscond respondonl Tllsrulou mm mu ms: arm semnd rupondcnts c rmorbo mm and Isbuppnd hum raising m. pnllmlnnry obfinlon: n nnn. mm gum: nnlnng mm subitml/vt appmuon allot law had bun gruliud Tn: quutlon mn.n»mnn.y mu wlivod mm nglus In rllse the pmlllnlrmy ob/ocvons do“ no: In: §gn;\ gnonn In summary, my findmgs are men nan Emzlvsure u n: an aflzrlhougm filed solely Io mmumvenl mu pn.n.m.nn.ny Iuua van-d by on. Respunoems penmnmg In (he Mpnscanfs Vaflum In nama line um: Gasman maknv an on. nmnugned decsnnn as . pany no mm nnnancnan nsnw pvvseedmgi, nun Tm nvavwms A71 om 2o HA2 5 nYll1e Roc me ml awlncabno no In Applncarvrs apnhcatnun Io amanfl an. ,nnana.n vewzw cause papensn which me an a wm an pnuanng. no) The pmmsmnl M om 5: NW: 7 A71 in ace apgny only to an appnncannon to amend um Slatement filed purwzm In em 5: mla :42» at me ROG! um: um Ia other must papers in any emu, me candmun nannnn. exams; unanmenm unflev Omen 5: ml: 1 mm ROC is non mun (d) M: mu ns Vurnclux omuu mu-m nnn. Luvs omen, which has been dmwn up and pedensd. ms pmgusod amananmn In on. Leave Dram ns mm mm: umlar me slnp run; (5) were wt nnoldmate dmay nn. nnn. mg m Enchmm :4 Any avunncannonn In ammd the nnnamn rvvnew muss papevl uughl 10 have bun nude mm nn. axptry nl Ihe Inme presumed nnmen omen 53 rule 316)oIIha ROG Na na sm rnEu1CauMDEm3NEN\|7ynaww “Nana smun ngvnmrwm .. n... In vufiy n... mnnnnny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Mn mm reaion my the way he: om gwun by m. Aoplcam m wxrum the murfs exerase Mus flnsaeflcn w gram an exlensmn an-me, arm (9) The nun . o|I|¢cJAon by um. Allumly Guuvzl . Chamhlrs m on Luiva Ovder bemi mmea on-s nmeswplhn R spundenlsirom msmg me pluhmmary we venmmw lame Apv\u:an\‘sV|n\uve \a name menclualdecrsson makal m m. Imuugnm ducmun n: a pany\ame1n;umc|n>revxew pmceedmas. 52. For me reasons above, I dlsmxssed Enclosure :4 x ardeved me Apphuanl to pay Lns|s nl RM5,ooo |o the Respundenis Da|ed 12 Decemher 2023 4? Quay Chew Soon Judge Hugh Conn of Malaya. nenany . I Dlwsmn NCVC 1 cmmsexs cmmg Tn: m and my my Wen tum» mar, my 5 Comfiany) In IM Apmwn cmm... Shaw mew: um Kean Saw a. co) Im live moonaems we sm mmu.MumNzmnmm. «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! sw nao1cauMDEm3NEN\Dynaw« «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm bahawa salu povmtzrv Cvmuvan a. keluavkln alnh Mxhkamxh ynng Mulm wm denaun uuuan rne-neamkan (‘ween kaseluvuhan kaputuian pcnannkin e,en pengumsen bnhalu a. new Seksyen asmm ma s-enguruun Strata 2m: [‘ps1I.Ilm|un e..n vzmgurus-In men. zerseeur) melalu-sural mabdumarv yang an Vwkan am. Pesumruaya Bangunan. Merv. Bnmlamyn Pumu Pmarw berlankh 15/3/2023 Lkenunusen Respondafl venarna lnrubufr bnhnwi clan venvumsan uanam my ex Varmk Nah Resvandsn Panama can /man Rlsnumzn Kedun av hnwnh semen 56(1)(mAkm Penvumsen Svala 2013 (wpdm yang dmyalakan dr plvanggxn 3 an xlzl) e. bnlilkin ms nembenalan Ken-mean wespunaen Penarna wisbm 5 On 14.7 2023, I gramed me Apphcznl leave |o make me appunanon tor ‘udimal revrew sgamsl the ‘Jabalan Fesuruhjaya Bangunan Pulau Finang‘, as me «-4 Responder“. And me ‘Majlis Eandaraya Fulau Flnang‘. aslhe 2M Respcndanl. The order M Dunn dated 14.7 2023 granung weave has smce been urawn up and perlecled (Enc|usuve 10) (“Leave omr). Prelrmmam l§Sue a by [he Rsgyndenls 7. The judicial review cause papers were my served on the Respondents on 26 7 2023 a we an amavn amrmea on 24.5.2023 (Enuasure izlflled wn response to me Juuwcwal revwew apphcaliun nereun the Respondents raxsed e prelimxnary wssus max me adual daemon maker mas rm made a may lo mese judlmal rewew proceedings. Instead, the Applicanl wrongly named me ‘Jsbstan Fesuruhjaya Bangunan Pmau Pmang’ and me ’Ma]Iis Bandaraya Pmau Huang‘ as me Respundenls. 9 The Resnondenls mmenu as «sums {a} The iumod man-v 54 me wanna! mvww eppneemn hnrmn names la a decnsxon made puvsuan| Io see:-en esmm no me Stun Managam-m Am 2a11H‘SMA2fll3').In EDDOIM . manage-nenn auenumne svaua eenerne known .e MIMI: Rlvemew‘ Flmpugnld dIcis|nn') my Seclmn 4 er me sw. zma reaas ’AppamImanl er Comm\$s1L7rmvolBuI\dmgx‘ depuues and omen wffiozrs 4(1)The sme Aulh-1n|y may‘ .n resnecl M e my aulhamy area at any clhalana. avpmnl an nfllonrln a. known u an Cnmmluicmvof auumnge and sum number or Deputy Cmmvussromls oi Eufldmgs um mner mneers as may be neaessmy ver me puvpns: at aarmnmenng um uvrylng um me pmvllmns no mu Acl 3 sm naa1caeMDEm:wEN\|mnmu “Nana s.n.r lunhnrwm be mad e vsfly r... nrW\n|U|y MIMI flnuamnl vn mum WM M M L2) (3; Subpecl up any guard! av splmal aneeupn at me sme Amhmlly much x: ml ncnnsnslznlwnh tho pnwmm uflms AL1. «nu Cwnmllllomr eneu nan thug: 04 me ndmmmlallon at this An ene may penem sum duh: ii are nnpogea and may exams» sum pawm us are oanianvd upon mm mm. Am many omerwnllgn Vaw’ Thus‘ puvwanl up “man : ol the sun zman ms omen: appcumud by the stale Aulhemy uz admmmer Ind any um me pI!7vIs\ou: M the sum 2m: Var the man aullmuly area m we Mam! Blndnmyn ppm Huang ws me ‘Pasurumiyi Eangunan‘ Mann: Bandaray: Pulau P1|:ng' Semen 8E11)s7HhI sm zma wads ‘lppnlnlnllm :11 mlnaqinu mm by Dnmmlulannr as m wnem — qe, . xmmmn unde( Daflfinph 19L2|(b1oa=-rs ur my anev due mqmly has bun umed pm by me Cammuwmur urn person appomled by him bum pn . mrnmnml made no me cpmnnesmemy a purchaser or a nrepnehuv ur lny mne« pevsan ov may hnvlng in waves! m a perm, Mulslevod or mnewnse. me cannnueemen V: sihsliad Innl ma mamlsnanoe ano mnnagemenl an a buldmg M lam mnaea far subdvvxsnon we nxvnek mnnysubdmded umnmng or ‘and ma mmman pmperly .s no: umsd ml salvsiacmmy by llte dvvnmplv, mm management may mlnngemenl cameraman av subsmury management wvpovanovn. ax me use may be‘ me Commlallnmv my epppunn, by Mm-n npmuupn, one av mom pnllanslnnclns managing agnnl up mamuln em mung: me bunumg 01 um nnenaee fur xubdmsmn mm penaxe ov any subdwrded mmmng uvland um «nu cummun pmpeny Var e pence up be specified Dy me Comm<si\om7v' "us, me power to awomt e manigemam men: for e svala meme us vamad xpecmeem .n and In Do axe-men epeemeeny by me Cammwisbrwr oifiufldmgs (Pewmhmyn apnpunenporxnm local aulhomy me run 15 mass by me mnmpn pa mnepemem egenr arm -cpmnn.eenn.er vsspec\h4s\y Vn iaumn 2 mm: sm zuuammn pvmndes u) ‘managamunl IgIn|' means 3 person wne .5 appolnhd by me covnmlsclovuur undsr 5l1:1mn as my “cumlmulnnef means me Commlulunu on Building: pnulnled nndev iubnmwnn am. nna mdudes eny Depuly Commlnlmnr ind mhar amen appomted undur xubssclmu m ) up enema we pawn: av pmpnn nne dukes Imposod on me Comlmumnlv 4 sm nau1capMDEm3NENu7ymww «mm. Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e p... n wavy me pnpn.u., mum: dnuamnl VI mum pom! m The mu schema knwwn -5 mm... Rwervlew‘ ‘s located wulmn IM loci! aumemy ma oa Ihe Mauls Eindaraya Pulau Pwunu my Thualuva mu wmpugnnd duzllmn .; 2. decxslm Mada by the amber knnwn as me Pusuruhpya Bangunan, mm; Bandlmyn mm Pmang“ m exercnse oi me man vested m hum under sowon as no m. sm 2013 m mm wnvdl. me new decmun m.uke¢ M me vmpugned daemon 1: m. Paiuvuhjaya Eingmun Mam: Bnrmnmyn rum Pmang up In rmpugnid dficmun .. not adeusxon m Mama aanamya Fuhu Pmang [Inc 7» Rupnndnnn. um: Inca! aulhmnylarlhe am. «mm (Maud) unflerlhe Lona! emmmemm ms Aum. Mam! Elnflnvaya rum Pmang wghl ml Io have been mud: ; pm, as ma ‘udtcm mew apphcalmn hnrum 1.; smxany, me wmpugnui oeemon ‘5 MI 2 awsm :71 mn Jungian Puumhpyi a...g.m.n mu... Fmirvg’ um 1-« Resvmdenfl Inilaan, me Jabavzn Pesurumaya Bangunan. Maw: Bandnmyn Pmau Pmarw (arm 091 ‘Jabalan Pesuvumuyu Bangunan Puhu pmang-y u mmxy a depnrlmenl mm. Ina Mums Bandamyn mu... rm; wsporvswble Var luulmg In: Puumhjlyn Elngmun Mnws Enndnvaya rum Flning m the aammmmuen 01 ms prvvmons -71 um sum 2m 3 H1! ml 3 Vega! ermly M a aemsm mam eumonxy. be m unamm swa 2m: uvulhevwxse m A: mu Ina Awhunl nu mngxy ....m we Jnhnlan Pesummaya Eangunan mu... Pmang aia panym m. Mm.‘ mmw -comm harem And mlnbulefl Ins mama dsasxon to u Fmng oVEnclosug1A|g 5; 5 mvgnl me gvel nag xssue 10. The Imporlance nl cwing lhe ac|ua\ decwsmn maker 55 s parly «o a wmmax revwew appncauon was stressed by the High Com m Visa Lelchumy Raju & 2 Ors v Memen‘ Pendufikan Malaysia .; Am)! [2021] 1 ms 1754. Where me wrong party \s cm as the respenaenp we pudlcwal rewew apphcahon may he stuck out or msmussed H The mgr» coun sawd -pa] . the Apphcanls mun corutlly lav-my m. plfly mpomm for :9.- dncumn m we sxercrse av me publvc may or mum wm:II n. alllgpd mm ldvcrsnlyl mm mm 1291 In Me case M Ambvya 3/p Srewwvaxan V Kalua Puvgnmh Vrmgvesen mum 5 Or: /201119 wwsvz (201217 on 1711 12121211 ML! 22 .1 mo Rohana Yu:uIJ (now my run: as Vollcrws. sm haa1canMDEm3NENu7yoaww «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIGH m M», .. mm., mm: flnuamnl VI mum pom! 7121 Thus smce ma mm muanam Ind mm: Ru;-andsnl are nu! me dectsmn maker: or me mlpuyrved aeawn, warms! rumw cumin! 1.. lgmnsl [ham 7.; am n amemnuy, men; n no aammn by Ina Fnsl and spam Raspmmnnl mu rs Debra MI: com! In nswaw on mm ground 3/ona, ms Application 009711 In Dnsmlck nut‘ /30] Further m the case ar sanman on Lumen V Kama Pubs Ncgmx s on Izavs] umnu 1:49 /20:51 7 Mu us at my the Com it was 159 held as roam’ -1251 Gwen ma /ac! ma: the wrong mm-s nm bun arm, ma Ipplkallnn In! luv: mull an ulsu an live ground: lhal .4 amounts 1» an appacaoan mu rs ‘ilwolous ana Vsxahous‘ In 3-: Ivmdmg I rely on the one mind By M: Rewondtnlk o/Asmaalnan oifiank Omar: PInm:uMrMl/nysua V Malayan canmmar Bank: Aasocialron [1990] 3 ML! 22s which new The gwdvrlgpnrmplasoughllobamaimu appllcanlxnmsflsnawpfirnnfacre mat ma appncanan 1: no: Vrwolaux oi vexanous ana that Imru u am. substance m me grmmds supaorlmg me aapnmon on ma evidence In Mrs ens: m. npnellnnls Md ynma «me an arguable case forms gmnloi ma rshulllnuy saugm [26] Rlfunmce rs aim ma. ta Illa case ma av Easy or Long 0/; lndan ma Cnnshudrm A Trxdmg] V Tmns Raslmvws Corp San snazzomiuuu 555‘ 1200211 cu 405 wmcn nam Also, a pemmn may be descrvoed as nwm v/hem n It nbvmusly Imwslurnalzlo. . Mm: m. pvmmn u 7:: Marcela. or where ma wmng parlyr: bung wad ormlhaulmuru -m1 umu-lmud 4:1; mm on hm: ground atone‘ nus court mm :9 «mm M1 pmslnl .Ip9Ncalmrv' 12. In Ammga .9/p Srsenevasan v Kama Psngmn /mlglesen Malaysia 5 Ora [2012] 7 cu 17c, ma man Own heldIha(Ordsr15 nne 6 of me was ov Iha H\gh com 1930 wuu\d no| lend any assistance in an app am who nas med ma wmng pany as respondanl In a Judlclifl review awllcalmn. 13. The High ccun said(a(page176 -177) -1111 n wax submmadby gm Tammy Thovnu ma: Mn ma aupncanan mad wmngpsrliea u ouuhibe savsdby mus mo 15 7 son». mac UrIdvr0 vsr s, no cause ar manershalvbe demand because oimls/cinder olparlws mu 11.. war! mus! 5017 aamnnn. rssup aflachng ma umner psvvy Howmr, mm aonlarwon carmal nun: good bccausu AM Fudcrll Cam! In Mm Agama Islam Salangor V Bang Boon Chuen 4. Or: (200915 cu 4475 has huIdI7Ial0.1.§ .. :12; .1... net Apply to Jppficnlion mm unou a. 5.1, basing on [M murm ‘gcmulll Spdrnnlzuslm dsmgnnf Accovdmg In the Fedem Cocmm mm can 5 am nauwcaumuzmzwzmrymww «mm. sanuw ...n.mm .. HIGH a M», .. nrigmlflly mum: dnuamnl VI mum perm 0 rs r mun» cannm be Vnvoktd Ia avemde soecvfic Wowsron n. an o 5: spvlvcalron I12] Thus slnct mo Hrstluaomltnl and r». we rupurmm In not rn. dccuiun mama 0! en. rmnumlod docfslon. udlclal nvl-w cannot If: Ignlmtmlm Tnpulnflw-nutty. llvlmrsrrodocvsion by M: firstlrvdslccnd rupnrvdtnts mu 1; btfolv ml cum! to nvllw on IN: ground alunn, mr: apvhcslrorv mm In be struck and “ 14 I agree wnh me Responderns lhz-1| me prehmmary issue rarsed by lhem agamsl me pmrcral revrew apphcahon harem rs a vans: and bone fide Issue. and no| jus| a mere Iechmcallly n was only aner me Respundems raissd ma Drshminary rssua by way cllhe amdavn amrnrea and mad an 24 a.2o23(EneIosure12).InauneApmrcan«nIearne app Icauonlu amend me ruuraran review cause papers vme Endosure 14 same four weeks Valer 15 Endusure 14 Is cseany an anennaugm rmenaea to mrr:umvan| me prennunary Issue mrsea by me Responaenrs perlainmg to me Applieanrs rarmre to raenmy and one \he ac|ua\ aecrsren maker M «he impugned declsmn as a pan‘! (0 nnese ]udIcIa\ revrew pmoeearngs am had insueaa named me wrong pames as me Respondents. The app:-canon nae Endosure 14 is merelore not made huna Me 15, In Amanggul Prrgul v Hus/an Alias s. omers [2021] 1 ms 1391, an appurcanon was med by me appncam rn a Judicial revxew proceedmgs to menu me ‘Permohonan Semakan s<enaxrrnan' aflev me Attorney eenaravs Chambers had rarsea an omeenrpn on the appncanrs oanure la name me proper party 17 In msrnissrng nne apphcaliun, me Hrgn Conn 52m‘ 722: :1 15 me subrmssmn olmo Ioamod Fc that m mnndmsnl annflcahan n an allermougm rnrs rs bscauss ms anremwnr apprmaoon was onry filed on 12 H mu uller me AGE rarsed an abreufon at me neanng pr me Leave Aapbcairmv (End 1; la! rn. Appmnrs fnrlwa pp n.nre me pmazrparry rn rne have Aprweawn R31 Iagrus wrlll me !¢:man1FC rnar tn. »=»p:rn.nrs pmpom lmnvdmlrvl rs an ans-vw to have a second one or the ma/‘‘/ sspanauy anemzvmg Inn beam or me mmrupns pane AGE omechan: [241 In ma ca5ao(Da1o'Tarr Hdng Chew V Tan mm nara on-[2al77]4 MLRN :41‘ (me: mm :54 ar 212, ADdulMa/ll: rsnaw {as be men was)hvh1lhal— 1541 In rvlylnflgmorrl me rawnasoa -lmimlmmls pm me Slatnmlm pr Cmrm was rvommg mare man a lacncal manoeuvre wmclv can be canslruod as an r srn naercaenpznsnznrrmenw «we. s.n.r nmhnrwm p. U... a may he nrW\n|U|y MIMI flnuamnl VI mum Wm! acme nllhe pmass onn. wml rmnan rarnnng Vera: 5 ora v rarnan Syn m Hung Yradmg Sdrl sad; rnn propoud arnanarnana :9 me aarernen: av dam! wuuld have ma 9/lecluirvuwymg muluilzoncsuvons Ind ldmusaoru In-I rn. mmi: nm rm. n ma Statement amgraaa Fac1:'arrd would use under me axemaa alsnumlg llvn ‘Agreed /nun: to sa Ynsd'!nsNecIua! or usereu 2: rs am my jlmgmcnl rnn me Dmnased arrrernmenra in ma statement a( slam may be vanslnzed as an alumni to luv: a aennna me at my pmvvmul clvnny asuucvally aner havmg ma bsnefil or hurling rn. submrsxronx or Inn raarnaa mums»! (av ma aeremarua aerara Abdul Wahab Falan 4 par Vrvllvlurunnlcnse men nrrgo(msLsav€Apolacalmrlwasongmaflyfixad an m 11 am BMW: M: 4 waa vnuzted due to me exrenaran or we Corvd/Nona! Mowmsrvl Control on:ar Tna AGO nna sent a letter dated 27 m 2:720 to (he Anpmnra Sohclmr to warm on ma Ase-s narnenan AGC mun filud rra Dlzpctmns lgnmst me App/raanrs Leave Apnoea:-on for ;m1¢:ml revieworvg 1121720 125; Eusedarl rne above, n rs c/aarmar ma Applkanflpmpnufllm-Nam-nt re . larval rnanoanm no circumvent the AGE’: objecllun “ 16. The Appllcanlcomendsthallhey were atarl rnacanamrnaa aware man the az:lua\ deaslon maker of ma impugned aauuan us me Pesururnaya Eangunsn‘ Mams Bandaraya Pulau Pmang And that “(here was no amblguily concerning me m|ended names‘ m we judwcwal revrew avnllcahon harem. 19. am raaury, :1 me Aapncanx makes me posllion mau may have named one correct parIy1\es)m4ha;ud\cIalrev>ew appucanon nerexn, may should stand by men ongma\ cauae papers‘ ragarmaaa M me arannnnary wssue raised ay |ha Respondents. Am mere should be no need for mern to me me aapnaauon to amend wde Endosure 14. 20. Vnsieaa, me Apphzzam oumands that Enclosure :4 Is maa ‘ex aaunaann mama’ Basically ';usI in case‘ mere ws hasxs as me Respondents‘ prenrmnary Issue man ma acnuax declswon maker was not made a pany |a ma ]udIcIa\ review apphcanan. And max me ‘Jahalan Pesumruaya Bangunan Fmau Fmang' and me ‘Mam: Eandaraya Pmau FInang' were wrongw names as me Respondents ms|ead, 21 The Applicant canno| be permilled «a hedge mew beds‘ Eaaannauy, byflhng me appncanon to amend me Enclosure 14, max me Appllcam Is Crylng u: say As . ‘We nave named me correct name: Du! w wa are wrong, men we warn to amend our cause papers so Ihat me pmper pany I: named‘. a arw raaa1caaMDEm:4NENu7ymnnu «wn. sarm nmhnrwm a. met! a vuny .. anmun mm: dnuumnl VI mum am 22. In Sumna Development (M) Sdn Bhd v Ma///s Pemalvdamn Purarr Prnang 4 Ancr [2014] 9 on me, an appllcalinn lo anrenrs me name 07 nearrng and ma omer 53 Me 3(2) statement was made by me rrpprrcanr lor ruareral revrew allev leave nad been gvamed and as a consequence 01 a prellmmary ubjecuon rareee try me reepmaenu aunng rne subs|an|we nearrng mar rne applicant had nor Idem ed rne pmper demslen Ior pumoses of leave The apphcanl merem also made rne apprrcarran to amend rn an abundance av camrun 23. The Hrgn coun sand (at page 418) 1271/n wew aims preunrrnary ab/sworn tamed by M1 rrnr rupmraenr: counsel during me heanng an 25 November zava, rneruamr rewsw promarrrge w-im aflmumtd as mums»! for ma uumenr mdrrzalsd mu! na wished re nuke an anwvcalmn re amand Iu:1IId»¢u7 nwaw cauu papers HI 5-Md rner ne was not eomerrrg to me rarerrmnraryoeeeuarr and that the amnumnnm Ming dun! ernemr Ibundlnu amrrurrn Theresflsn me appman: procaodsd lo we Illa Ippllcalton Iuamlrvfl mu Jtnlzmenluursusnl In o 53 r am aune Rrrrer oi cm 2012 andme rvahca alhcanng alappltcatron [Farm 1107 fur/udrcuhevizw The spuhcutrcn In amend rener 31; was mad an 9 nmmoer 201:, wmcll rs mar: lllan tlvru mmvms (mm me me men me rm rarpanrrenrs decvsmn dated 14 May 24713 was‘ zommumcalrd to rn. me ruxpmmini - 24 In dlsmlssmg me applrearren to amend. rne Hrgn cuun srresseu rne rrnoenanee olcIear\y<uenl\fy1ng are actual de ‘ en maker as well nne decislun suughl. The H>gh Cowl new (al page 421 427;: ml Wm: rr waonenl for pmnnl Pdwosn vs me: me enauevm ny me «ppm»: musk bl lnkan agumsl me grocer decman maker and agarm we pmperaeemon. 1491 Injudmalmvrewpmcapdmgs, rr n amrrnary wwemrwe and axromavclhal ma rnrprrgnrra duworv DD pmp-ny muntmpd .Ind sramnauny slated rn the apmrcerron Ioflsave H rnarumcrar rwmw appwarron rs Iakall arms’ In wvwvv nulhmvly or Ina wrung daemon men nrvanan», rne [udtcril nrmw bseomds mompelcnl [55] As Hard, unarln me rem aparrearron, Ins appmnr wasawara arm. nsr rssoandanls dcusrnn .1. u H May 2011 and calm‘! have amended me appfimalton for /eare and rearfivd llvn smwznfl pmpdtw plandld rn. aecmbn wmcn should be challenged am that watnol Dorm - Encvosure 14 rs rnrscongwea 25 Enclosure 14 Is Ned prrrsrranr In order 53 nrle 7 and Order 20 rule 5(3) 0! me ROC. sm nae1canMDEm3NEN\I7yoaww “Nana s.n.r mnmrwm r. r... e vufiy r... rnrrnrrr mum: flnuamnl VI .r\uNa Mr Qrdgr 2:7 rule 5 arms Ru/ss olccun 2g12 ; mgggmgq/g 25 Order 20 mls am or me R00 tends‘ am.mmmmuu pleading mm ham (0 my 5; 511}Sub;acIloOvdsr15 rub: a, GA, um aanmhe canmm prvvmon| mm; mm, the Court may ax any slag: av Iv» pmcnadwvns mlaw me plmnlmlo amuld ms writ N any party to amend ms pludlrlq‘ on suw mm ii In coals or ulherwnn u may be ‘ml and m such a mannev, « any, as wl may man‘ 27 The provxswons ol Order 20 vule 5 oflhe ROC usew make wear out an Is appucable m wm or pleadmg only. 23. Heve‘ wha| ma Appucam seeks xo amend ave nedhev a wri| nov pleadmg wv|mn me pwew of Order 20 Rule 5 91 me RUC Instead‘ they ave- m um Permohenan (Ex 7 Pump uuluk Kehannun smm... Kehakxman |Enc\uxuva n, my mum Menenmiahkzn Pamyalazm [Endnsum 2;, (cp Psmyauan MInuvu|A|urEn 53 Kaedah am Kawan 7 Kinds’: Mahkznun 7D1J1Enc\owIn :y. m) Null: Fanflengnmn Femwnunan bag! Samzkzn Klhakmun (Endusme 5;, and (=) Pennvah unmk Kabenalan Imluk Samikan Kehiknman (Enuosure my 29 The Issue wnemer me prowsions av Order zu ml: 5 0! me noc apphes m ;ud\c|a\ mew proceedings was considered m Amanggul Fwgu! (supra). In ssmg me apnllcahon m amend me 'P2vmuhnnzn Semakan Kshaklman‘ filed pursuant m Order 20 rule 5 at the R00, me Hugh cam new -m Upon yzmsal Marvel 2:: me 5 allhc Rec zavz n elnltypmvmes rm ma gmm pawn! Mm: mm! 1.; amend my and plssdmgs wan luv: u: the man I1 1; Ralumnce rs a/so man: to cm: a ml: 1 -m1 om; 1 Me 2 arm Rec 24112 wmch :11!-1: as lollowsx Fomlolwnuo er 1; 1 Evsrywnl:0:IibsInFoIm2 Forms Dlangmatmg summons 40 z r. 2) m sm nau1cauMDEm3NENu7yoaww «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIGH m M, .. mm., mm: dnuamnl VI mum pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

J-05(M)-511-10/2019

PERAYU Md Masud Rana RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Criminal appeal – Section 302 of the Penal Code – Section 34 of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 – Parliament’s intention – Official Statement of the Dewan Rakyat – Appeal allowed – 35 years of imprisonment and 12 strokes of whipping

30/01/2024

YA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=714ddb3a-71f3-4399-a9a5-d4e96717c819&Inline=true

Masud Rana v Pendakwa Raya final_goj.pdf 30/01/2024 10:16:43 J-05(M)-511-10/2019 Kand. 85 S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N OttNcfNxmUOppdTpZxfIGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal J—u5(M)~511—1vJ/2u19 Kand. 55 22,01/22:4 ,:-u an m mE com" or APPEAL or MALAvs|A (APPELLAIE JURISDIEIION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO as M 511 n/2019 BETWEEN MD MAsun RAMA (No. PIP: 70354444) APPELLANT AND PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDENT un The Hwgh cam 01 Ma\aya In Jahor Baum, Malayswa Cnmlnzd sun Na JA-45B»1U»D5/2017 Be|ween MD MASUD RANA W0. P/P P0854444) . APPELLANT AND FENDAKWA RAVA REsPoNuErm sw onncvmmuovnutvlxvwsn -ms Sum M... M“ be used M wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII muna Wm comm VAZEER ALAM MVDIN MEERA, JCA rusnmn nmun. JCA AZMI ARIFFIN. JCA JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] TN: vs an appeal by me Appeuam agamsl lhe convltmon by (he learned Hwgh Court Judge (“Lucry who lound me Appeflam guI||y cl murder and sentence mm In death by hangmg [21 on me hearmg dale allms Appeal‘ me Appellanvs counsel mlormed us mama AppeHan| warned Io wnhdraw ms apnea! agamsl me mnmmn and only pmceed mm appeax agaIns| the sentence The Deputy mm Prosecutor (‘DPPW has no ubpaclwan [31 The Appellant m the presem appeal was charged unaer sechon 302 no me Penal Cude The charge agamsl me Appeflanl vezds ‘Eahawa kamu pace 2: msemnar zma GI antara am we nag: hmgga 5 40 vag\ma\ama1No 9, Ja\an Bmadau zs, Taman Pmen Wangsa‘ mu Tvam m damn daerzh Johor Bahru m d2\am Negen Johar Dam! Tzkznm‘ \e\ah memkukan kesmshan memburmh dengan menyebsbksn kemsnan ke ms Carma new Ponce we Passport EB 5547222) dan dengan m. knmu lehh melakukan salu keszdahan ynng men dmukum m bawah saksyerv 302 Kanun Kasaksaan “ N anmammuuvnntrolxnsn mm Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm §g||glgg§ Fgr Tug Anggllgng Vqaya Sandran an Tangavellu .2. Kxrlhana Darshaywe Tetuan Vuaya Sandran 5. Assomates Na 33‘ 1slFlum. Jalan Lambak aanoo Kluang Jana! Sn av Fur Resgondenl TPR Mom! Amnl bun Johan Jaba|an Peguam Negara 45‘ Persxaran Peraana, Presmu 52100 Futralaya Wflayah Persekuluzn Fullajzya N Lznncvmmuuwalpl-xnsn mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [4] ln lne Hlgh Court‘ me Appellanl ma nol plead gull|y to me charge and elannee om lnal ms FROSECUTlON'S CASE [5] The pmsecllllun called 14 wllnesses. and brlefly, lne evldence lea bylhe prosecution as nanalee by me mm H1 her grmmfls of ludgmenl ls as lellews [s] on 23.12 2015 al around 1 no a m.. Erlclk Syed Knannll Anlmar bin Varan (“sl>l1') recelved a lalepnene call lrenl lne Aupellanl lnlennlng sl>ll H1 a DFYWQ lone lhal he was leellng pressured, wanled lo lnll nnnsell and max nls Mme was up SF11 sunsequenlly med Io mn|ac|Irle Appellant sevelal lnnes am mere was ne answer [71 Lalen SFI1 wenl le lne Appellanrs rerued room a| No 9, Jalarl Beladau 25, Taman men wangsa, Ulu Tlmm Upon nls amllal, lne mom was locked lmm lne msldee huwever sml managed in uperl lne door lrenl lne umslds llslng a kllchsrl we SF11 lnen saw me App2Han| wllh s woman (‘he Deceased“) lylrlg lace down on me mallress wlln a lol el bland and the mom m a mess sum lnen eonlaclee lne ambulance and me Dullce lo came in me scene [3] Belween 7,30 a m. and 7.35 a ml Erlolk Abdul Khallfl hlrl Abdul Rank ('SP12") arrlved atlhe scene a1terSPM mnuucted mm SPI2 saw me Deceased on me maltress ln lne loom There was ne ene else In lne mom o|her man me Appellanl and me Deceased sl>l2 neam me Aapellanl greanlna §ollly WV Pam N ullnmwnuuvnntvlxnsn nae Sum Mn... wn be used m mm we annnnn Mlms nnmmnnl vla atllwa wrul [9] sum comaccea me neares| puluoe sceuen co Vodge a vepon Lans Capval Mohamed Nur Ashral hm Menu Dan (‘SP5’) renewed me veporl and lodged Pelangl lndah Rapon/008935/16 nu] ASP Akup Anak Janggu (-sun, me Cmei Pause at me Tainan Pelzngw Palloe Slallun wem to me scene a| appvuxwmamly am a m lugemer mm Cunval Muhd Lally hm Rem, Lans cewex Kneuun Adha, Supbon Lens Cnpra|Mah:1 Rum! and Laws copra! Muhamad upon me: amval amve snap muse, SP7 me| spa and smz oeroue spv was taken by sum to me roam wheve me Inmdem happened [11] SP7 men saw me Deoeaseu m me room and SP7 contacted me pohce stahon In mlnrm me uwesugeung omeer we-) and me vmensm team to come to me seene A1 abuut 2 am am , me we (‘5F1A“)and me Iarensvc «eem wee by me ASP The Na Sak A'sP4“> amved to oomiud lurlher mvesugauons on me Deeeasea and me room [121 The App2Hanl who was asswsled by SP7 and two slzlmn persennex wem dawn nu the gruund Now and was eunenaeree M7 the ambmance as me Appellam was Injured m we snomecn [131 The shuv house where the meenn occurred belongs to Puan Eng Val Kan 1'ss=s“> sme 1992 whvch was hauled to Enmk Aramugam AIL Muluveh ('SF9"} sme 2003 There are (we more (0 me premvses svs ws me «enem my me shop house who mmaHy rented me shun house my ms busmess ec supwying labour to me laclcnes spa confirmed men we uvner floor onhe shov house was used for ms workers m Mean and me! (here were 5 rooms However, when |he Vsuones dosed dawn, svs uunzea me gmund flour lar e semen busmess and me upper fluar was N ememmuepnuvmnee we Sum M... M“ be used m mm we uvwmulv MW; nnmmnnl vn mum wrm rented om, mdudmg |o me Appenam The Appenam was tasked |o couecu vema\s «mm all tenams and gwe me remaxs In spy Room 3, 5 and s were vacam wnh no uanams. [141 5:29 cdnmmed ma« at 2 an a m when he was on me ground «dome me shop house he heard laud muses lvum me uppev «am of me shop house Later. at around 9 45 am m 745 a. spa wen| up tu me firs! "car and saw lwo men‘ swn and SFI2, m «ram onhe Aapellanrs room spa saw me AppeHaM and a women m me sad room but spa did no| go mlo me mum Instead spa went duwnslavs «d we |as1 shop huuse and sat on me stuns by me mad side. [151 me cmensm team led Dy spa named em and mspecddn on me Deceased and mud A stab wounds on me smmacn M me Deceased and lacerauun on me neeeaeeds Vet! vdox A krme staxned wnh Mood was Iaund near me maltress A machele Inarangl was also lound appnmmauexy (WU feel lmm me mamess The Deceased was Cunda Lwezyl Ponce (Passport ND 55 5547222) a Fmpma nanonal [151 The pa(ho\og\s|, Dr Rohayu bmu Syahar Mnan ('sP13') conducted a poslmorlem on me Deceased on 2312 we 313 45 p m Based on me deeumpesmon e1 me eomse, 5:1: confirmed man me approxwmate ume av dea|h ollha nedeased is less man 2: meme, man is balween 3 45 n m on 22 12 we and me ume onhe postmortem [171 \n summary, SF13‘s puslmorlem report may cuncluded me «audwmg N ulmawxmuuvnntvlxnsn we Sum mm... mm be used m mm ea nflmrufllv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm r The Deceased suslamed mulume mum mjunes on me nead, (M50 and nnras There were a\so supemclal snarn vwnes which were nul canal bul consrscenr wnn davansa wounds n. cnop wdund suslamed by Deceased were due 10 sham ebleu wun smgle edge Made, n cnap wdunds |U the nead nad severed rne skull and curresvondlng mead vessexs Siah wound In me abdomen nad severed (he mararandonnnan anery and vem wnrcn were mlenur rnesennery anery, rnvenor vena cava and ngm renax Vem cdnrarnanon Mhom enan and scan wounds were movmuatihla wun Ma [13] Based on me nndrngs u¢F20,SP1CHoundlhe eause M death dune daeeasad |u be «rum rnumme sham rnrunas. [15] SP’M‘s rnvesngauan av me rented mom oceupred by me Appeflanl and me Deeeased snared mallheve were no srgns av rnnusrdn by anmner person orlhat me Apnallam and the Deceased were auaeked by anmher person mar resuned m dearn, The Appeflanl was vuured an rne wen srde do nrs stomach wmch vesuhed In pan cl ms boM4e\s protruding sP13 aannrrned mat me vuury suslamed by me Aupellanl was not sendus [zul SW4‘: rrwesugaudn concluded unax ma Appeuarn Is me only susped In Ims rnurder Na one e\se mner man me AppeH2m was mvulved m me Incident n unmemxrnuuvnntnl-rnsn use Sum Mn... wm be used m mm we anmnaulv Mtms nnmmnnl vn muna wrm Findings ol me LHCJ at me sum or Pmsecutiorfs Case [211 Al me duse av nna W0secIAIun‘s case‘ ma LCHJ he\d mat me pmseeuuen had sueeeesmny Drover! a Dnma lame case agamsl \he Appeuam (L7! me charge 0! murder under seamen 302 of me Penal Code, Thus, one AppeHan| ms aonsequenuy ordered to enter ms defence ms DEFENCES CASE [221 The Appeuann chose «.3 take 51am and give ewaence undev Dam The aenenoe pm by lhe Aupallam was mun me Aupaflam and me Deceased une AnDeHan\'s gnnnena) had met on 22 12 2016 and drank llquev mgelher [231 wmm drmkmg‘ (here had been a law healed arguments betwsen (hem as me Deceased aemenaee to cneck Appeuanrs meme phone and luv me Appeflanl |a dwovce ms wwe [u] we Deoaasau then went to me «one: ann wan yecmnnng, ma Appellant sew (ha| the Deceased had a krme m her hens and preceeuea «a sub Appeuem m the s1om2Ich The Appenam managed to avoid being s1ahbed agan and a phys\ca\ ngnn ensued mu due «:2 me extreme pan l<7s| his Donscmusness Uvon regawmng cunscmusnsss. «ne ApneHan| called spu [251 The 2~= defense wnness was Dr Abdm Ham. on A Eaba 1“5D2“) who was me aoemr mat Webared we mean! repen UDD22) «er me Appeuenrs wary at HospIla\ Sultan Vsmafl, Johor Bahru Based on VDDZZ. n was svaled mat me mmax exammauon 0! me Appeluams mjury was N amamnuupnevmnee wee Sum Mn... wm be usad e mm we mwvuulv MIN; nnmmnnl vn mune Wm “alleged slabwuund lruury‘ wllh prolruslon bowel and peflorahurl oloowel As a result ol me mlwry, an emergency suvgery was conduded on me Avbellarll as mere ‘N81! Mu plmclures |o me bawel awmxlmalely 1 em and a 5 cm raspeelwely. [26] snz was DI me ylew mal a pelsnn vmu had such an mlury as me Appellanl could lead ls aealn ll me mlwy was rlo| treated snz alss lesllneu lnal me Appellanl was respenswe arm me Appellanl was menlally able |o tmnk clearly whlle suslamlng me lnlury [271 During resxamlnalisn. SD2 lurmer slated mannare ls a pusslbllfly \|'la( me Appellanrs mavemenl was Ilmnad due |o the pa-n he lell Findings a! me l.H<;l at me and cl nelenees Case [251 Al lhe end erlne delence's slage, me LHCJ releelea lhe delence or sell aelenee and pvovocatlon Valsed by me Appellant‘ hence laurld mal me App2Hzn| had lallea to mlse a reasonable duum in me Dmsecmlun case lm murder As a rasllll, me Aunellam was ovnvlcled slmlmenlmlar secllon 302 0! (he Penal Code and senlencea lo death by hanglng TNE PRESENT APPEAL [291 As merlhnned alzeyel me Anpeal laelore us IS only agalnsl me senlenee Therefore‘ we have asked me Appellanrs ssllnsel and also me ow ls make a mmgallun appeal relalee |a me senlence [an] The Appellanrs counsel submlned belore us (ha! lne Aunellanl prayed my me deam penafly In be changed H: a term av lmprlsonmerlt ll N ulmmumuuvnntvlxnsn we Sum M... M“ be used m mm we nlwlrulllv Mvlls nnmmnnl vla AFVLING Wm was hlghhghled m me Appellaars mmgallag Submlsslon laal slnoe bum me Deceased and me Appellant was lnjuved m me lncldem, a llgmer sarllenoe should be granted to me Agpallam In lms Appeal [311 The Appellant alsa dunner veques| ml the lmprlsmlmerll term lo um «um me dale ul me anesl [32] On me omer hand, me DPP sunmluecl lhal me «learn senlence gamed by me LHCJ should be amrmea Bu| me DPP also leaves to me dlscrellurl of mis COAAI1 :1 ms Cuun Wishes Io sentence the Apaellaal to lmnrlsuaman: oun ANALVSIS AND FINDINGS [:31 Prevlously. me punlshmem far murder under sectlorl 302 ov the Penal code was me «each penally only Through secllon 34 ol (he Ahohlmrl oi Mandatory Death Penally A::1Z023(“A::I saw sedlon anz al me Penal Cude was amended by lnsemng aflerlhe words‘ mum death" me wards “or lmnllsonmsrlllur a lam ol rlul less man «my years Im not exceedlrlg «any years and ll not senlenced I0 dealh, shall also be purllshed wml whlpplrlg ol not less man twelve slmxes ml ms amendmenl comes mo eflecl an 04 01 2023 lhruugh |he F u Gazelle (B) 229 aaleu so as 2023 Therelorel (hls amendmenl aPDHes (0 me Appeal bemre us [35] For ollenses under section 302 01 me Penal Cede, Acl 346 has glverl me dlsorellonafy power to lms coun la uelermlne me punlshmerll that should be glverl us me accused, wmcrl ls ellhev me aeala penally at N ulmmumuuvnntvlxnsn ma Sum M... MU as used m mm a. nlwlrulllv mm; “mm. vn .;l.aa wnxl a pnson semenee ol no| Vess man 30 years wmcn can be ex|ended up to an vea.s and whlppmg um Wes: man 12 washes [351 m «ms suuauon, we ave 0! me opvuon that we can sum conswdev me applicable legal pHnz:\p\es m aemamg wnemer me aeam penauv should ha mwhsed ur Lflherwwss The wnlmducllun am.-,1 me dues no| m any way prevent us lram refemng co me basws ol lhe exsung sentenmng Dnncume [:71 we awsu reler nu ma 0ffic\a\ Slalemsnl m we nawan Rakyat {Fmeenm Pamamem, Second Term Fm Meehng) on 03 04.2023, which s1a|ed man Pamamenrs mlermon m amend me exwshng waw by mmducmg Am 8461a abuhsh me death penaky \s an Inmal s|ep m lranslcrmlng me wslloe system cnme m Ma\aysIa In addmonv me basic principle behmd every sen(em:m9 wn Ma\ays\a ws me rehabuluauon ol pnsaners so max mey can re|urn |c somecv and become mdwnduals who serve me family‘ cummumly and eeumry afler campxecmg |heIr semenee The Cmm also neaus |u take ‘ms mo aocmm|. CONCLUSION [33] m concmslun, alter exammmg me mes av mmgauon tram me Appeuam and me submvsswon by own lur a deterrence sentence‘ we mud n apnrvpnale car we Auneuam m lhls ApDaa\ to he semenced to wmpnsonmentlor s |eIm M35 years «mm the da|e Manes! em 12 shakes olwmppmg Daled 23 January 2024 (HASH! MZAH] e Ccurl A an, Mmayswa N unmcmxmuuvnntvlxnsn we Sam M... wm be used m mm we mwmulv mm; nnmmnnl wa mum Wm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10